User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Members of WP's "inner-circle"

So there are people who not only have found that there is CFD, but actually know what it is supposed to do (unlike about 99% of all internet users visiting Wikipedia), and these people make comments like this: "....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today." "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places" One could think Wikipedia's inner circle contains some overly uneducated, dehumanizing and unethical people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Who said that? Link?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I found the page via the search box. Looks like a CFD from 2007? And the users were Cool Cat and Haddiscoe respectively. 37.230.16.36, why do you bring this up now? Ross HillTalk to me! 04:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The respective users were already quoted by in a topic above this one, when having read all of my points, one should know...

Neither of whom could remotely be considered "inner circle".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

They have actively contributed deleting an article who is important reflecting the truth and what has happenen in history, building up about 25% of the voices judging to delete both the categories "slave-holder" and a similar one.

Interesting. Who do you regard as "inner circle" and why do those two fail to even remotely get there? 217.28.0.65 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

See above response, I consider those belonging to the "remote" inner circle whose voice is deciding to delete categories that should not be ommited, neither to the community nor humanity as a whole. (and whose deletion is a clear case of blatant racism and approval of oppression)--37.230.25.235 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

They aren't inner circle primarily for 2 reasons. First, neither has made any edits since 2007 (so the inner circle has moved substantially to the left since they stopped editing) and 2nd because neither is an admin. In order to be a part of the "inner circle" one must be an admin. Which of course they say is no big deal...but it is a profoundly big deal....well to them anyway. The problem is once they get it, the only way it can be removed is if they die or stop editing. They are admins forever...like royalty. Even cases of blatant abuse are brushed off or justified. So if you meet one make sure you take a knee and kiss the ring. :-) 138.162.8.59 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to editing as an IP again, eh Kumioko? Resolute 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh its you! Don't you have an editor to block or an AFD to delete or something? Besides harrassing everyone and accusing them of being Kumioko. Why don't you go Resolutely find something to do! There's no reason to have an account on here anyway as long as abusive admins like you are allowed to harrass logged in editors, abuse the tools and generally act like an ass without any ramifications. No wonder the edit rate in the project is dropping when the admins on this site are allowed to do whatever they want. Everyone knows your a great writer and everyone knows your a complete jerk. You just got the tools back when they were still no big deal. You and I both know you would never pass now. But that statement will probably get me blocked instead of you since I am not an admin it would be against policy to say something negative to an admin. Only admins can do that here. And a look at the comments in your edit history over the last couple months reflect that Resolute. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.104.158 (talk)

Is Commons getting above itself

Hello Jimmy, it has been a while, and I'm glad to see you are still with us; none of us are getting any younger are we? - Seems we are doomed to grow old together - in the same city too I hear; never mind, there are worse things in life. Anyway, I'm digressing: I've recently had a run-in on my first attempt at editing at Commons (although I didn't actually realise I was editing at Commons). Whatever, to cut a long story short, you might like to take a look a this [1] not everyone is quite as resiliant and tough as me.  Giano  19:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the impressive thing is that the community there seems solidly on your side.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is impressive isn't it? - very humbling. Funnily enough, you and I were at nearby tables in the same restaurant once last year; I nearly wandered over to slap you on the back and say "Hi, c'est moi", but then I thought the sound of very expensive dental work crumbling on a fork is never attractive or welcome - so I restrained myself. Have a nice 2014 Jimmy.  Giano  21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think I have expensive dental work, you haven't looked at too many closeups. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But your American, you all have beautiful teeth, it's only us poor, old Europeans that have characterful, but often startling black and gold grins.  Giano  08:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• This explains everything that is wrong with Commons. The nomination read, and I quote, "The resolution really sucks! This graphics editor is capable of far better work than this mediocre crap. Please overwrite with a version that shows your true skills" That isn't even a valid reason for deletion. Now, here on the en-wiki the discussion would have been speedily closed after a flurry of snow. But over there, the editors saw fit to derail the discussion and turn it into about whether the picture could ever be used on an article (a redundant question in and of itself, of course it wouldn't). The discussion was then closed as delete. Forget false consensus, there was an obvious no consensus, with 11 keep and 17 delete votes. Secondly, the nominator blatantly and obviously supervoted. I don't know what the hell is going on over there at Commons, but it's obviously not good. Note that this is not a commentary on the picture itself. The picture can be found on Wikipediocracy at http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/01/26/wikipedia-the-new-ministry-of-truth/ for those who haven't seen it. KonveyorBelt 01:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that when one uploads a photograph to Wikipedia, Commons can take it and delete it here. Yes, we have the 'keeplocal' template, but many uploaders are unaware of it, and Commons has in the past tried to have the template abolished, so it's a risky, vague science. At present, uploading to Wikipedia, is rather like giving a much loved friend a Christmas present only to find it's been given away to the neighbours who have trashed it and given you the finger at the same time. Of course, we all know that when we sign away all rights, we should cease to care, but human nature is not like that. The simplest solution is to have a definitive template that prevents an image being uploaded to Commons, until that happens, I won't be uploading any more images to Wikipedia.  Giano  09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think you deserve an apology from Commons. At the same time, some issues are merely technical. It is not Common's decision that all possible media to be hosted in Commons. It was a decision by WMF for making available all of them for all projects. I don't like the way it (the image is hosted and managed by Commons and all related requests and discussions should carry out there) is hidden from laymen. See [2]. Jee 11:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Given that photos have to be CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL'd to be usable on Wikipedia, it'd be impossible to prevent it from being uploaded to Commons (Well, we could delete everything and start over under a new licence, but I suspect that's a non-starter). If keeplocals aren't being respected, ask someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles to undelete it here. WilyD 11:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is possible to keep the same file here and in Commons, even under same name. So I didn't get what you mean. BTW, "keep local" is not a solution for the problem; it is the right attitude. Jee 11:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Uh, reading the whole conversation gives the context. If someone (Giano, say) wants an image kept locally so it can monitored/whatever here, but it's moved to Commons and deleted here, that's a problem with a solution. If someone wants to licence an image so it can't be uploaded to Commons, that's a problem with no solution. So one needs to distinguish what's meant. WilyD 13:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see more pictures "kept local" because they would not be used outside of here. For Commons to insist that they take charge of everything is silly when nobody else would use them anyway. The joke picture of Jimmy in 1984 would not be used on, say, the Chinese Wikipedia. KonveyorBelt 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Keep Local template does not stop Commons taking the picture; it just stops them deleting it here after they've taken it. In the past there have been attempts to abolish the Keep Local.  Giano  17:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Konveyor Belt When you upload a picture, you are agreeing that "...that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purpose." Not sure why you're not getting this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Legally ok" does not equal to "ethically ok"; if it did we would not have or need the "keep local" template. --John (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but expecting people to adhere to the latter distinction is basically hopeless. Either an image is free for anyone to use for any purpose (subject to their own local laws) or it isn't. I don't think the WMF is about to introduce more narrowly-scoped licenses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course it is legally okay for Commons to use it. That still doesn't mean that they need to. KonveyorBelt 17:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion of over the last several months about the Commons, their function and their policy and there seems to be a lot of valid arguments about the way they do things and their content. Which makes me wonder, why do we need to use commons. It should be easy enough to make a bot that pulls the images we want and need into Wikipedia and then we can just cut ties. We can do our thing and they can do theirs. As far as I know and am concerned, the usage of commons is not required and if this community decides we don't want to use it, for whatever reason, then we can implement that change locally as we did with the Visual Editor changes. There is just no reason to continue to fight with them about policy and content issues IMO. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Commons is this great monster that looms over us. We don't need it, and we don't have to have it. Without us, the uploaders, there is no Commons, no Foundation and no Wikipedia. Most of us are here to support Wikipedia and couldn't care less about this other project. If we want to upload images purely to Wikipedia, there is no legal reason why we can't - just that the Foundation says we can't - the Foundation should remember who exactly is keeping it in business - us.  Giano  20:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I share many of the concerns expressed here about Commons, but mostly it is about a relatively few admins over there and the inability for Commoners to govern themselves in a reasonable way. Somehow, I don't think the solution is just to cut ties with them, though it might be possible, it would be a major hassle (reclaiming all our pix!). There must be a more civilized way of just keeping them in business and re-organizing the governance. My only suggestion would be to have the Board do a study commission on all the problems, declare "reset" if required, and just reorganize the governance (admins, bureaucrats, rules, and other institutions, etc.) to start all over. "Reset" or "moral bankruptcy" probably aren't the right terms to use - neither is exigency, but there is a word for the effective bankruptcy of a non-profit. In any case, it would take some doing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a morale reset is practical any more than doing it here (because this project has a lot of the same problems). I also admit it wouldn't be a trivial thing and that it would be a shame to break ties. It was a shame that VE didn't work too, but we had to do what was right for the project, not what's right for Commons. We have enough of our own problems to deal with here (as do they there) we don't need to compound them by compuonding them together. Maybe we should do an RFC to see what the community thinks should be done. Maybe nothing, maybe something, but we can at least see where everyone stands. Wikipedia by far is Commons biggest customer so if this community puts a little pressure on them, they might straighten up....then we can focus on our own problems again. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• There doesn't need to be a great re-think or even anything retrospective. We just start uploading to Wikipedia and state that images must stay here. It's easy enough to do: I did a trial earlier today File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg. If the Foundation (and it is the Foundation, not Wikipedia making these rules) decide to throw our work back in our faces, then we know what they think of us - don't we?  Giano  21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• While I'm generally sympathetic to people who have had trouble with difficult editors at commons, I don't think this approach is going to fly. A "license" that purports to be a free license, save for forbidding upload to commons, isn't really a free license. That isn't to say that we shouldn't look for solutions, but just that this particular one is not likely to succeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well we won't know until we have tried to fly it. Most of us are here to build and enrich Wikipedia, that has to be the ultimate goal - anything that furthers that goal has to be tried. At the end of the day, this is the important place.  Giano  22:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you tagged it with a non-free license is itself a prohibition on a Commons transfer, since they only accept non-free media; the "don't send me to Commons" banner seems superfluous. I'd even say it's likely someone will send it to Files for Deletion on WP:NFCC #1 grounds. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say. The image deletionists will look at that and think "easily replaceable, doesn't pass NFCC". Resolute 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged this for speedy deletion, as not having an acceptable license. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A fairly obvious POINT violation, but the tag is valid enough. KonveyorBelt 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Intentionally uploading a file perfectly well knowing it to have a nonconforming / unacceptable license was at least arguably a violation of WP:POINT. What exactly am I disrupting by tagging such a file for the speedy deletion that current policy mandates? Especially when I notify the uploader, and those who were discussing it, promptly. Note I only tagged it, i didn't delete it. If anyone thinks this improper, remove the tag and decline the speedy, i won't replace it. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the CSD is any more or less pointy than the upload itself was. Resolute 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Image use policy is pretty clear about deprecating non-free Creative Commons licenses. Clearly a license for "Wikipedia only" is more restrictive than CC-by-NC, and so far as I know, we're not accepting CC-by-NC except where Fair Use would apply - am I wrong? Basically, picture the following scenario: suppose a commercial company wanted to release a modified mirror of Wikipedia (say, a 'child-safe' Wikipedia where communication is strictly limited and supervised and certain content is censored, or a complete tourist-ad-sponsored translation of the en.wikipedia into Catalan). Would that company be able to copy the database and put it on the Web as is, with only such modifications as they want to do on their own initiative? Well, not if they have to track down and figure out every "no commons Wikipedia only" nonstandard license tag or be in violation. So I can kind of see the point about ruling this out right at the start. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The complaints above about how the "Whambo" deletion proves that Commons is badly run are ironic indeed. After all, aren't several of those who argued for that deletion among the crowd that was saying Commons is badly run here before? The bottom line is that Wikipedia, keeping so much content in one place with so little effective mirroring to other sites, has become a valuable resource. Complete with a resource curse, a continual squabble for dominion and deletion of opposing points of view or promotion of content when there is a potential for financial gain. The only meaningful solution to this is redundancy - more backups, so that it remains easy to find any deleted file off-site, making control of the resource less valuable. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's confirmation bias at its finest, really. People who want to hate Commons will hate Commons just as the people who want to hate Wikipedia will hate it. Myself, I have uploaded hundreds of images to Commons that are used on thousands of articles in dozens of languages. Never had a problem. Rarely had an unacceptable wait time when I identified a copyvio, rarely had a conflict. Resolute 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia should have mirrors of content. It's just that we as people on Wikipedia should have at least some control over such mirrors, rather than a separate bureaucracy that is confusing to new users. KonveyorBelt 23:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nay, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Commons gets a lot of its content from people who put up content on Flickr under a free license, which is verified by bot, even though later on they change the license to proprietary. I'd like to see someone do Commons the same favor. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no sensible or valid reason why an editor cannot upload his/her own work and state that they wish it to remain only on Wikipedia. The WMF may wish it otherwise, but their whims do not necessarily have to take precedence over the wishes of those creating the work.  Giano  00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the whims of Wikipedia to insist that any material that can be uploaded on a free license be done so to allow use by downstream re-users does take precedence over the the wishes of an individual editor. The options you are then presented with fall into three categories: 1. You can accept and upload on those terms. 2. You can choose not to donate images at all. 3. You can try and convince the community to change the image use policies. Resolute 01:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But there is an interesting side point that your three categories don't cover. We can allow people to upload under free licensing terms *and* we can not be jackasses to them if they change their minds. We can and should warn them that the original donation is legally irrevocable, but we can also be humane about not continuing to host something that someone regrets donating - for whatever reason, good or bad. The sometimes-seen stance of "fuck you, you signed a waiver" is just not in keeping with our values.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well funnily enough Resolute quite a lot of people want to change the polices. I just want people to be able to choose for themselves individually per image, but if you want a dictatorial blanket policy - then so be it - we can work towards one  Giano  01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You might as well try to change the policy allow yourself to retain full copyright over your individual text edits as well for all the good it will do. Call it "dictatorial" all you want, your proposal is the antithesis of Wikipedia's mission. Resolute 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission, at least in theory, is to build an encyclopedia. Creative Commons has a different mission. Plenty of © material (blog entries, etc.) incorporates CC images, so presumably a CC encyclopedia article could include "wikipedia only licensed" images. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is to be an open source encyclopedia that is freely re-usable. That includes both text and images. We allow fair use images insofar as they are required to be a complete encyclopedia, but the goal is free. You are correct that Commons has a separate mission, but it remains one that is closely linked to Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's overall mandate. That is beside the point, however, as my argument was that it is unlikely that either the community or the WMF will favour moving to a more restrictive image license on Wikipedia that harms the reusability of our content because a couple of people are butthurt about Commons. The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind. Resolute 03:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the point of Fair Use claims is that they are the same no matter who you are. If Wikipedia hosts a file with a restrictive license or no license under Fair Use, with a Fair Use rationale, and another site copies that image, they copy the rationale, and they should have the same right to display that image (at least if based in the U.S.) as Wikipedia. But if Wikipedia says go ahead and host this file that is only accessible by Wikipedia, without a Fair Use rationale, and another site copies it, then they don't have the same right to display it. Wnt (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can easily understand the difficulty that Giano faced here. He contributed a media here, believing he has enough rights to do so and later found that it is not his work. So he want it get deleted. Meanwhile it was moved to Commons, our centralized repository, and some people there refused to believe his words of claim. I am not supporting that unfortunate incident; but it will happen even if there is no Commons at all. See, that work was being transferred to de, fr, and many other wikis. Then Giano has to approach all of them and make requests for deletions. Chances that the image being used off-wiki too.

Limiting to an English Wikipedia only license will solve that issue. But then Wikipedia become less useful as many other projects where images can serve only to describe the article. No one (a student, researcher, etc.) can use those images for their assignments or research works.

Another limitation is the lack of supply of enough quality contents. I'm not talking about third party uploads from sites like Flickr. But we have many sister wikis and German and French wikis are roughly the second and third suppliers of media files. How we get connected to those contents? My contributions are negligible; but if no Commons, I had to upload all of my 514 works to Malayalam Wikipedia which is my home wiki and little chances that it will be available for other Wikipedia(s). Jee 02:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have had exposure to the culture at Commons, and had my share of bad experiences there too (as I have had here). Where I choose to participate is my affair and mine alone, and my activity level at Commons has dwindled since same. Whilst it's certainly against the spirit of cooperation that underlies the collaborative nature of the various WMF projects, it's regrettable and understandable that push has come to shove, and users on one project want "divorce" from another because of their collective bad experiences.

  Such problems are usually caused by people (often but not always admins) who are psychopaths sociopaths, or who do not possess or fail to properly use their diplomatic skills, or by people who choose overly-strict interpretations of rules and then carry them out officiously (and often brusquely) whilst refusing to back off or apologise even when they are manifestly wrong.

  We cannot force cooperation, nor can we legally stop Commons from usurping our content. However, there are practical and technical means I employ to "localise" the media. First, I add a {{do not move to commons}} and {{keeplocal}} tag; a {{nobots}} tag helps to slow the transfers from happening. Although it's not very productive use of watchlisting, it helps to watch the media and systematically to be aware of any transfer tags that any drive-by editor might have placed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • But {{do not move to commons}} is intended only for legal reasons; not for author's interests. So others can neglect it (happened in my case too); if no legal reason prevent it being hosted in Commons. {{nobots}} also don't work as those bots don't edit the file page; they add the "eligible files" to a gallery so that a user can manually move them to Commons. You're right you can have on an eye on the "file usage" and remove it form those "maintenance galleries" whenever you found that your file being included. :) Jee 07:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Section break

What many are failing to realise is that legally Commons is meaningless. Under international law, the publisher of copyright is responsible for it, and the law requires individuals to be responsible - in this case the members of the WMF. If they are ever sued, standing in any court in any country and saying "Well, User: Fred the Fox in LaLa Land said he owned the copyright" will not get them very far - in fact it will probably loose them any money they have, Far better for them and us, to keep things tidy on Wikipedia alone, where they can be easily yanked in and suppressed if there's a problem.  Giano  07:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We are trying our best to improve the quality standards of Commons; but all our efforts went vain as they fall in to deaf ears:

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg

User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy.23Commons:Village_pump.2FCopyright.23File:Trabalhos.jpg

User_talk:LVilla_(WMF)#Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy.23Commons:Village_pump.2FCopyright.23File:Trabalhos.jpg

Template_talk:Personality_rights#Template_as_is_is_alienating_for_image_use

Template_talk:Consent#Full_consent.3F

It seems WMF prefer to wash their hands by hiding behind this disclaimer. :( Jee 08:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that saying "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikimedia Commons in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." doesn't carry much weight in many legal systems - I'm not sure it does in any. A publisher (that's the members of WMF) is 100% responsible for what it chooses to publish. Commons is a very high risk Utopia.  Giano  08:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Then we have to delete tons of contents from Commons. But I prefer it than hosting useless unverifiable contents. (Unfortunately I will be away for 3 days; so can't participate in this discussion, any further.) Jee 08:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano I understand why you are angry and agree some folk on Commons lack the gene for common sense and social understanding. However, it is not a homogeneous community and "don't upload/transfer to Commons" is not an appropriate reaction. What you are writing about legal liability is complete rubbish. Both Wikipedia and Commons are "free content" projects. Many people are under the impression that Wikipedia is just a "Free to read" encyclopaedia, hence the "can I donate to just Wikipedia" question. The fact that our content is free means we have no control over who gets it and uses it. That's the point. And we would be grateful for that freedom should it ever become necessary to fork. -- Colin°^Talk 09:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are rather missing the point, and I can assure you that what I am writing on the legal side is far from complete rubbish. The members of the WMF are personally responsible for what is published on Commons. It's enshrined in all legal systems and constitutions that no man can set himself above and beyond the law - of if you like: national law does not have an in-or-out option for its citizens. Disclaimers are pretty worthless. Uploading to Wikipedia only would be a far safer option as it gives complete control when things go wrong. Were I a liable member of the WMF, I would certainly want that option - if only for my own pocket.  Giano  09:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Giano, you broke copyright by uploading a picture you didn't take and claiming it was yours and slapping a CC licence on it. Getting these things right in the first place is your responsibility, not the WMF and not the Commons admins. You were treated badly initially when you tried to fix your mistake, but it is your mistake. Now you seem to be trying to make WMF personally responsible for your cockup. And you are trying to tar the whole of Commons for the actions of one person, despite huge evidence that Commons agrees this one person was stupid. As for your comments on copyright law and liability, please desist from spouting this nonsense. Give citations for your extraordinary beliefs or stop spreading misinformation. -- Colin°^Talk 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Giano, I'm not familiar with the Internet laws of any single country; but at least in Germany where several suits against unlawful re-users of my photos are currently in progress, you cannot generally say "a publisher (...) is 100% responsible for what it chooses to publish". There is a certain law on telemedia (de:Telemediengesetz) and its § 10 clearly limits the responsibility of the owner of a website for anything contributed by users (other than by the owner themselves, or the redaction). That means, for example, that if I find a copyright violation of my photographic work in a webforum, I may prompt the owner to immediately remove the copyvio, but it will be pretty useless to sue them for a monetary compensation. --A.Savin (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The law is the same in the UK. Perhaps unsurprisingly as we're both members of the EU. As you say, the WMF only begins to become responsible if it fails to remove something a copyright owner objects to. Similar situation with libel as it happens. But suing the WMF for not removing copyrighted material would be an exercise in futility, as the claimant would have to demonstrate some pecuniary advantage accruing to the WMF as a result of a breach of copyright or financial penalty suffered by the copyright holder, neither of which is likely. Eric Corbett 20:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano, you say that if all Commons media were instead on en.wp it could be "yanked back in". Why would that be easier on enwp than on Commons? We on Commons have procedures for deleting things, just as enwp do, and WMF can office action on Commons, just as they can on enwp. There would be nothing gained by taking everything from Commons and putting it on enwp.

As an aside, I will say you were badly treated by Jcb, who can at times be a complete idiot. Just like some enwp admins, some wikisource admins, some zhwikicupcakes admins... any social group, which Wikimedia surely is, will have idiots. And sometimes people will get badly treated by them. It's not an excuse, but it is reality, and while we can try to ameliorate it, we can never entirely avoid it. The problem image has been deleted, but please understand that if the file has been there for years and years, someone coming along and trying to get it speedied is a bit curious. And if it has been there for years, the extra few days a DR takes is unlikely to be a problem. I encourage all sides to take a step back and breathe. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What you could do, of course, is detool the abuser of tools on Commons. Of course, that would probably start quite a chain of dominos falling, would it not. Best not risk that, eh? (By the way, Mattbuck, I've neither forgotten nor forgiven the abusive way you went after my Commons uploads, back in the day before I wised up and started using the { { keep local } } template...) Carrite (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• It would be easier to 'yank back in' because the image would only be permissive on Wikipedia, an image uploaded 'Wikipedia Only' would only be here. Once an image has been uploaded to Commons it belongs to the world and has flown the nest.  Giano  12:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  At the cost of undermining the whole "free encyclopaedia" thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• (EC)If you know this admin lacks the communication skills and judgement to handle a situation like this sensitively, why is he allowed to keep the tools on commons? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  People who do good work occasionally make mistakes. Hell, you blocked me once! -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Similarly in the US there is a law saying that sites hosting user-supplied content are not considered publishers of that content, and are not liable for possible defamation included in such content, nor for any of several other grounds of action. Giano, I am confident that the WMF legal team was involved in writing or approving he disclaimer you find of such little value. In any case actions for copyright infringement or other legal issues would be no harder at Wikipedia than at commons or any other WMF project. I don't see what would be gained, in a legal sense, by limiting images to en-Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• @DES while I am pointing the risks of Commons, if you can read through all the verbage above, you will see that what I am saying is that editors should have the choice of being able to upload to Wikipedia alone if they wish to. Those that want to play with Commons and its risks should be allowed to do so; I cannot see what is wrong with people being allowed a choice.  Giano  12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that all the content we have on Wikipedia was licensed under the explicit promise we wouldn't do that. We'd have to delete everything and start over, which probably wouldn't go over well. WilyD 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes that was clear enough, Giano, but that wasn't the point you were making just above so it wasn't what I responded to. The answer is that Wikipedia and the WMF generally have made a policy choice to privilege the rights of reusers over those of uploaders. Insofar as possible, the goal is to allow any person at any time to reuse content from Wikipedia (and other WMF projects) in any way. One can argue that this is a poor choice, and it could be changed, although it is sufficiently long-standing and fundamental that I don't expect it to be changed. In order to allow reusers to fork or mirror all or part of Wikipedia easily, or to use its content freely, it is highly undesirable if not unworkable for images to be under a wide variety of licenses, some of which permit reuse and some of which do not. You received what I agree was quite improper treatment at commons, largely from a particular commons admin.That was unfortunate, and commons governance should quite possibly be changed to allow some sort of appeal in such cases, and to have enforced WP:AGF on the admin. But then such ill-advised actions have happened on en WP also. This incident is not, IMO a reason to change the whole free-licensing model. Users do have a choice: They can upload with a license acceptable to Wikipedia, or they can not upload. Or they can start a proposal to change the list of acceptable licenses. DES ^(talk) 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have put that absurd admin at Commons to the back of my mind; I shall be dealing with him later - it confirmes a log held belief, but if they wish to keep such admins that's something they need to address. However, it has highlighted problems and anomalies of which I was not really aware. We don't just have to accept something because it has always been so. Nothing I'm proposing needs to be retrospective. The oly difference is that uploaders have a choice or limiting their images to Wikipedia only; it would only apply to modern images that are still within copyright. We'd also get a lot more image donations, I've often contacted website owners who are happy to have an image used illustrating a page, but when told they have to sign away all rights, decline. How is that helping Wikipedia?  Giano  13:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  It's a question of whether we would prefer lots of images but to not be able to reuse them, or fewer but freer images. I go for the latter personally. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is that really what is at issue here? I am having a difficult time understanding what Giano issue really is. I get that he stumbled and bumbled his way over on Commons and got met by an unfriendly admin for his efforts. However, the image was deleted and deleted for the right reason. The admin in question was verbally censured by numerous other users for the reception he gave. Whether further sanction is warranted should be addressed over there. How we go from obnoxious admin to a bizarre notion that things should be hosted exclusively on WP vice Commons is where I get lost. WP exclusive content is anathema to the entire ethos and goals of this and every related WMF project. Moreover it solves nothing Giano has raised an issue. The risks being discussed are inherent in any "free and open" project. Nevertheless, from what I can see on Commons there are efforts to mitigate that risk where possible and at least educate users to those risk in amore open and meaningful way. 131.137.245.208 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well however you care to trivialise it there's an awful lot of people who seem very concerned and interested in my 'bumbling.' There are also a lot of people who do not wish to have their work uploaded to Commons, and there is no satisfactory reason given why they should. There is not one single valid reason why images cannot be uploaded purely to Wikipedia, other than some people at Commons wouldn't like it. Saying one would rather Wikipedia had fewer pictures illustrating its articles than permitting these proposed sole uploads, seems to me that certain people have lost sight of the greater good of the project in favour of the worship of Commons.  Giano  14:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You have a point, Giano. Some years ago I argued for a somewhat more limited image license, one that would not permit highly modified derivative images (as opposed to simple rescaling). Some photographers (particularly professionals) would be more willing to contribute images if they did not have to worry about the possibility of their images being used in collages or other drastic modifications, and some museums and educational institutions have as a license condition that charts and similar images may only be reused if they "do not distort or misrepresent the underlying data", which would be satisfied by a no-derivs clause, but not by any of our currently acceptable licenses. Those suggestion got no traction at all, and were shot down as "not fully free, and so out of the question". I think re-examining our policies on this might not be a bad idea, but I would oppose permitting "en Wikipedia only" to be a valid choice. Even our fair use images do not have that restriction. DES ^(talk) 14:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you have found that some people are just resistant to change in any form, which is odd for a project where one imagines most of the editors to be young. I would support any form of licensing which attracted more high quality images, but I do seriously think that limiting their re-use will have to be the ultimate bait. Giano  14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Or perhaps people here believe in freely sharable content and are resistant to what they perceive as being negative change? Resolute 15:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• but hardly negative to the project which is deprived of thousands of images because commons is placed before Wikipedia.  Giano  15:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is deprived of thousands of images because it does not allow for fair use where free equivalents could be found. That has very little to do with the issue of one Commons admin vs. your ego. Resolute 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I always know that when Wikipedia admins start to get personal that I am making headway. Thank you Resolut; this must be very difficult for you. 15:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And I always know you are losing a debate when you start dodging the salient point. Once again, Wikipedia is deprived of thousands of images because it does not allow for fair use where free equivalents could be found. If you want to propose a change to our image use policies to allow for Wikipedia-only licenses to the detriment of all other reusers, the village pump is ready and waiting. Resolute 15:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh dear we are getting tetchy [3] Resolute; I will endevour to find a cure for dyslexia just to sooth your fraying nerves. Now calm now down dear.  Giano  15:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Now you're getting personal. I must be making headway. Resolute 15:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the effort to be legal has been been polluted with the effort to get people to give away their IP for unlimited commercial use by everybody has de-focused any coherent effort in this area. A part of this has been to reject all of the normal forms of (limited) permission to use, and only accept permissions that grant permenent permission of all uses by anybody. The (rejected-by-wikipedia) normal type permissions would give an immense amount of protection while enabling uses but the WWF blunder (plus the go-too-far Barney Fifes enabled by their vague wording) has prevented the norm types of legally safe routes to be the norm. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it would be perfectly legal to use content released under more restrictive licenses, and anyone who says that not doing so is required to avoid copyright problems is confused or being disingenuous. However Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content is a pillar and has been since a very early period of Wikipedia development. It says, in part: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." What North8000 and Giano propose would require modifying or abolishing that core policy, as I see it. DES ^(talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think you will find it will come eventually, with or without me, sooner or later, and from the WMF itself. This resistance to change is concerning because things that don't adapt and change usually expire. Wikipedia is no longer the small beast it was when these core policies were engraved in stone, and neither are those who engraved those policies the people bearing the ultimate responsibility today. Commons is now a wild beast with too many 'free' images to control and properly monitor, and a simple disclaimer will prove to be worthless; couple this with the fact that Wikipedia and its dedicated editors are divested of and no longer responsible for their own images, it's a problem in the making.  Giano  17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(Added later) DESiege, actually, while tweaking the policy should be open to question, stopping overreaching from it would also help. Nowhere in there does it say that all permission short of infinite must be rejected. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't North8000 but it does say "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." and "anyone can...distribute" seems to me to preclude a "Wikipedia only" license, and "anyone can...modify" seems to argue strongly against a no-derivatives license. It also says Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives... and ...all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. I think those would need to be altered a fair amount to allow the kind of changes that Giano is suggesting, or even something like a CC-by-ND-NC which sounds like what you have in mind, unless I misunderstand you. I have thought that allowing somewhat more license restrictions might be a good thing. At this point, however, it would require both a community acceptance of such a change, perhaps in a site-wide RFC, and a modification of the relevant WFM board resolution, as I understand it. Maybe Giano is correct and all this will happen, but I don't see it any time soon. In any case I don't really see any of the above being a sensible response to Giano's original issue, which was simply a very poor misinterpretation of already existing policies and practices. I could see a somewhat more restrictive license option as possibly being a plus in some cases -- I don't see a "Wikipedia only" option as being anything but a negative. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, DESiegel how about this I had obtained permission to use an image of a celebrity/performer who is also sort of a social activist. I was explaining that the required licenses allow basically unlimited use (provided that there is attribution). She asked, as an example whether it permission for the American Nazi Party to use the photo as a cover of their magazine, or for people to put the image on coffee cups and T-shits and sell them. I asked the former question at the image talk page, and they said "yes". End of ability to use the image. So I think that some type of permission that doesn't go quite that far would be a better idea. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that isn't really true, because there is a whole nebulous layer of personality rights and even other vague conceptions which further muddy how free a free image really is. I haven't really heard evidence that the verdicts of such cases can be predicted, but an image of a celebrity would quite certainly carry the Commons:Template:personality rights warning on it, letting anyone unpopular with shallow pockets know that the free image could be quite expensive for them. Wnt (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, North8000 that kind of thing can be a problem, and is one of the costs of running an open-source project: anyone can make use of the work in any way. That said, quite aside from any [[personality rights] issues -- that is an area I don't know much about -- such groups can be discouraged from using an image in a few ways. 1) the SA (share alike) aspect of a license means that a re-user must grant to others the same rights, which commercial reusers may be reluctant to do 2) the attribution requirement allows the licensor to specify HOW attribution is made -- in particular a link to a particular website can be required, which a group such as the American Nazis would be rather reluctant to do i would think (if the site contained views very different from theirs), and 3) if the image is under the GFDL but not CC (which i think is still allowed for images, a reuser must include the full text of the license, which is several pages long. On a website this isn't a real problem, but on a teeshirt or a mug would be a significant issue. Not a perfect solution, but it means that such risks are mostly more theoretical than real. DES ^(talk) 15:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of good information and insights there DESiegel. Even for me who is only a semi-dummy on this, I'm not sure where to start to utilize that to try to get releases/licenses. Can you tell me specifically what license that is? Long term it may be helpful to communicate those ideas/thoughts to others somewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that discussion of Commons policy would be more useful on Commons than on someone's talk page on a different wiki, even if that someone is the founder of WMF? Most of the relevant parties are unlikely to find the discussion here, whereas you could easily invite Jimmy Wales into a discussion there if his participation is needed. - Jmabel | Talk 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, Giano's arguments are pushing for a change in Wikipedia policy rather than Commons. Commons cannot control what licensing terms we allow here. It would still be better handled at a VP if there is an actual proposal to be made, of course. Resolute 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll share my "good" Commons story for what its worth. Recently, I guess out of boredom, I googled my user name for the first time, and was plain shocked (I literally had no idea that this is what would come up) at the number of places my poor amature images are used by bloggers, news organizations, web businesses, brochures, newsletters. etc. (obviously, these were the publications that honored the attribution license) but, I don't know, it seemed like a "nice" thing that people were actually communicating using my images. And "via Wikimedia" seems like a bonus, for Wikimedia any way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have to say, this page on Commons makes me really happy. Might've happened anyways, I don't know, but I certainly feel vindicated for the effort I put into it. WilyD 08:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole complaint/proposal makes about as much sense as someone who, after being treated rudely by a bus driver for not having anything smaller than a £20 note for his fare, proposes the government should build a new train line past his house so he doesn't have to take the bus ever again. -- Colin°^Talk 19:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Start reading at the top Colin, you'll soon be able to grasp it - word of mouth/email can be so unreliable.  Giano  19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read from the top and I think Colin's analogy is quite applicable. You think because you were treated badly that the whole world must now change to deal with your hurt feelings. Problem is the things you want to change have nothing to do with why your feelings are hurt. The silly part is you are blaming Commons for the entirety of the Free Culture Movement and WMF policy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I also have read from the top, following the link here from the Village Pump on Commons. -- Colin°^Talk 07:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, your from Commons - I wondered where these people were coming from!  Giano  07:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Ah, your from Commons" That's really funny Gianno. That explains it. Them be weirdos there. I suggest you stop ranting like a fool and take a break. -- Colin°^Talk 11:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks. Also if you had properly explained the reason for speedy deletion instead of just "copyright and provacy issues" your image would have probably been speedy deleted. Jcb was insofar correct to deny a speedy deletion but he should have converted this into a regular DR instead. You also had the option to start a regular DR as requested by Jcb but you chose to editwar with him. So both of you were of equal fault. Please stop crying and learn from this experience (Jcb should review his behaviour as well).--Denniss (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite clear that Commons has now replaced IRC as Wikipedia's ruling body. it's quite hard to launch DRs when one is blocked without warning, and the Admins concerned lie - it all seems vaguely familiar from here in the early noughties. However, we seem to be going nowhere at present, but in the many years that I have survived on Wikipedia, I have learnt one thing - if there's a problem coming, Wikipedians will stand idly by and watch it, and I will be there to say: "I told you so."  Giano  10:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a hint, I would have converted the speedy into a regular DR but if you would have continued to add a speedy tag without proper explanation I would have blocked you as well. --Denniss (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh you are an Admin there? then yes, I expect you would have blocked me without warning or even being aware that I was editing Commons and then lied about it. Now I have better things to do than argue with people from Commons. For now, I'll leave you to carry on there in your own inimitable ways. [4].  Giano  10:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop whining, especially if you are not even acknowledging your own faults. You should have started a regular DR to de-escalate the situation but you chose confrontation instead. I have already stated Jcb was at fault as well as he could have started the DR himself to de-escalate the situation. BTW if a user is edit-warring and has been warned in the revert comments there's no need for a further block warning on the user talk page. --Denniss (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Is "please stop whining" the best you can offer to Giano? His account on Commons was 6 days old. He was warned in an edit summary and blocked with a block summary of "Abuse of tags after multiple warnings". Multiple??? And how was he supposed to know the difference between "Speedy" and "normal DR"? Is there something inherently obvious in those terms that a user registered for 6 days can be assumed to understand? If so, how? - by osmosis? Just who was best placed to open a DR at that point? Please have another think. --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, sums up the mentality at Commons perfectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano isn't a child. He knows about edit warring, and he knows that speedy tags, once removed, should not be replaced. He most certainly has a not-insignificant share of blame for his experience. Resolute 20:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano, take a break. You are ranting like a fool. I've been a Wikipedian nearly as long as you. This "us and them" mentality is not helpful.

Nice signature! Very concise and to the point... Carrite (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would people please stop responding to these Commons people on my behalf - appreciated as it is. They know very well that this is not about me being blocked there, but about the serious problems I discovered on my short stay there. Responding to them is rather like blowing a smoke screen around; they are obviously very rattled and worried - as I would be in there shoes. I think we should let Jimmmy's page regain it's customary tranquility now.  Giano  20:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would you please stop referring to "these Commons people". I'm the first to admit there is a problem culture at Commons and there are a number of people who are, shall we say, disagreeable [many of whom have bans on Wikipedia] and who are either admins or highly vocal, active and influential. (And the same complaint could be said about parts of Wikipedia, not least the inhabitants of Jimbo's talk page.) But, there are lots of good people on Commons too. And plenty people at Commons would also call themselves Wikipedians. Anyone who knows anything about psychology knows that forming an "us and them" attitude is a disaster when it comes to understanding and resolution. And nobody ever solved problems by ranting. There's nothing intrinsic about Commons that causes the issues Giano faced. Quite the opposite. In Giano's preferred world, he'd end up with his photo copied to all the dozens of Wikipedias independently and have to request deletion separately on them all and in foreign languages. How daft is that? Giano hasn't "discovered" a serious problem any more than the rude bus driver in my comment above indicates that all bus travel is broken and should be replaced by trains. Commons is not "rattled and worried" by Giano, far from it, and all that discussions like this do is confirm prejudices and polarise opinions. How does that help anyone? -- Colin°^Talk 18:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• Once you get past the single abusive admin and the drubbing that admin took from the Commons Community, is there any substance to Giano's diatribe? What exactly are the issues he found at Commons? Is there a reason that Commoners should be afraid of him? Is this a case that thar be dragons and he is St George? 131.137.245.208 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back

Can someone point me (and others) to the latest discussions about what we might do that day? The last I heard, there was pretty strong support for changing the home page to an all-NPOV special day with educational information about the issues of the NSA, surveillance, etc. And then there was a complicated poll that someone was complaining about, etc. I just would like to know the current state and whether we are ready for (and whether we need) a straight up vote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A highly-relevant POTD has been reviewed and scheduled for Template:POTD/2014-02-21.
A semi-relevant FA has been scheduled for TFA on Feb 20, while I have not been able to identify a highly-relevant FA or FL that has not previously been at TFA/TFL. notable re-runs: FA Freedom for the Thought We Hate and FL Bibliography of George Orwell
At least 8 highly-relevant new articles of sufficient size have been nominated at WP:DYKN, but are not yet reviewed and scheduled. USA Freedom Act & FISA Improvements Act, Klayman v. Obama & ACLU v. Clapper, Mass surveillance in East Germany & Mass surveillance in North Korea, Amash-Conyers Amendment & Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act

As for me personally, I have no talent for generating consensus for scheduling and have disconnected from that process, focusing my time in the content creation trenches over at WikiProject Mass surveillance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's "semi-relevant" in the sense of "not at all relevant". Afroyim v. Rusk was said to be relevant because it was said to be about the Fifth Amendment, but actually it has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment (you will hunt in vain in the article for anything about the Fifth Amendment). It's a citizenship case, not a free speech or a surveillance case. Bencherlite^Talk 15:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, 14th amendment or 4th amendment, Afroyim v. Rusk is a landmark human rights case-- it's relevant, but only semi. I'd favor a free speech FA like Freedom for the Thought We Hate, even it if it is a re-run. But that's a decision for higher authorities than me. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So the argument about "relevance" has become simply this: "The Day We Fight Back is about one aspect of human rights - this is a TFA about some other aspect of human rights - therefore it is relevant". I disagree, but there's little point in going on about it because it's not running on 11th Feb anyway (it got no support for that when nominated at TFAR). Nor have you found any support for the notion of re-running any TFA, least of all Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, which was TFA just over 4 months ago (and not even from the principal author of that article). Bencherlite^Talk 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Freedom for the Thought That We Hate on that date, I was the principal author, but yes it did already run recently. So I'll respectfully defer to the wise judgment of Bencherlite about that. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The latest discussions can be found here (feel free to add more if I missed any):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/RFC
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/Archive_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/Archive_1

The RFC on whether this should happen never started. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I would very much support a last minute !vote on this. (Or a "straight up vote" for that matter) Ross HillTalk to me! 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the most useful thing at this point would be for some neutral parties to comment on the DYK hooks. The event won't dominate every all the DYKs for February 11 by any means, but it's been very productive at getting some new articles and an even larger number of drafts started abut these important issues. My feeling is that it's less important to support the day's protest per se than to continue getting people involved at WP:WikiProject Mass Surveillance and other related WikiProjects, and above all building the articles. To be honest, a Google News search offers only about 11 results dated more than a few days after the initial announcement, so I don't feel like the activists are going to win the media game this time - it may be that the protest will be seen as a key event by historians, and I think it's important, but I'm not expecting to wake up in a different world on the 12th. To make a difference we need to grow and train our own network of genuine human intelligence (using those last two words not as a military jargon but with their English meaning). Wnt (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The RFC on whether this should happen never started.

Actually, it did, but HectorMoffet (who'd been one of the idea's main advocates) removed it almost immediately. —David Levy 16:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It's almost as if those wanting to use the main page for political advocacy on 11th Feb knew that any such proposal would resoundingly fail if brought to general attention and decided that discretion would be the better part of valour. It's obviously far too late to do anything now, after so much time has been wasted by a handful of supporters in not coming to a decision about what to propose (either in general or in specifics) or how to propose it. Bencherlite^Talk 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo...a last minute effort was made by User:Jehochman, myself and others to pin down a potential featured article but we don't have any that are theme related or that could have been brought up to that level in a timely manner. Though some theme related articles may very well be quite excellent, it still takes at least 30 days to push an article through to featured level. What other ideas did you have in mind?--MONGO 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fuck (film) is eligible (there's currently a discussion about its suitability, as you probably know). That's about censorship, not about surveillance, so maybe misses the point by too far (it would certainly get some attention though). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a confusing message to the point of being a non-message. Ok so, we don't have ANY past featured articles that are on this general theme? Is there something we could intensively fast-track by bringing a lot of attention to it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, I'm warming up to the idea of that article on the mainpage... How about three features on top of one another: Fuck / Ewe / National Security Agency??? Humor-impaired persons: this is a joke. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a GA that has spent about a week at FAC. IFF it's good to go or requires only cosmetic polishing, perhaps extensive effort could get it to FA in time. But if it needs restructuring, the "lack of stability" alone would prohibit us from calling it a FA within the next few days. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has issues related to close-paraphrasing. Well, I found one instance, which might or might not indicate there could be others in the article. It will need to be checked throughout for this. I left a note about it at the FAC. — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked Moonriddengirl for help with what to do about the article Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: These are WP:GAs, not WP:FAs yet, but some other quality articles I've contributed about freedom of speech include: Beyond the First Amendment, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege", and Freedom of Expression. Of those, probably Freedom of Expression would be the most relevant. I suppose I could nominate it to FAC right now, but I don't think that would be nearly enough time for that particular process to run its course. Unless I guess perhaps some experienced editors could help me out, but even so, there's already an article scheduled for February 11, 2014, and we really don't have much time. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

While anything is possible and many of those articles are excellent we are very time limited here and I prefer to have any article that gets the FA star be a full FA and not one that has had a rushed vetting process just so it can be mainpaged. The Fourth Admendment article you have commented on could be fast tracked though I suppose, but it's a lengthy piece and not an absolutely relevant one.--MONGO 12:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady's Prejudgment of consensus and scheduling against procedure

Orlady has attempted to schedule a Feb 11 (or later) nomination for Feb 6, despite clear flagging that the nomination was to be held for Feb 11 or later, as per our usual practice (see the Olympics). Orlady justified their action by pre-judging the outcome of our on-going discussion here, saying "we are not going to treat 11 February as a special occasion on the topic of mass survaillance. Your hook is currently scheduled to run on 6 February". diff. This is behavior that needs addressing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Following a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, there is no consensus to treat "The Day We Fight Back" as a special occasion, which is not a "usual practice" (or even one with precedent) in the context of protests.

I don't know why you believe that a discussion on Jimbo's talk page overrides the DYK discussion or regard this as a suitable forum in which to report a perceived infraction.

I see that you removed the DYK item from the set. And for good measure, you moved the article back to the draft namespace and inserted a bogus tag "to keep [it] off mainpage for a few days". And you're accusing someone else of attempting an "end-run around consensus"?

These actions seem particularity bizarre when one considers that Orlady is the editor who proposed that February 11 be treated as a special occasion (in the discussion that failed to achieve consensus) and you're the editor who terminated an already-belated RfC on whether to participate in the protest. —David Levy 07:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep-- there's an on-going discussion, and I'm deeply offended that any one editor would prejudge the outcome. I don't claim a consensus exists for a special day on Feb 11. What's unacceptable is a tiny retinue of editors, editors I can count on one hand, who are just an isolated clique, making broad declarations pre-judging site-wide consensus and flouting WP:OWN? Those make me see red. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep-- there's an on-going discussion,

On Jimbo's talk page. Not to be confused with the lengthy DYK discussion that's already concluded or the RfC that you unilaterally removed.

and I'm deeply offended that any one editor would prejudge the outcome.

Orlady explicitly cited discussion at WT:DYK. Again, I don't know why you believe that a discussion on Jimbo's talk page overrides that.

I don't claim a consensus exists for a special day on Feb 11.

Then why do you feel entitled to flag nominations to be held until that date or later (which isn't a normal part of the process)?

What's unacceptable is a tiny retinue of editors, editors I can count on one hand, who are just an isolated clique,

An isolated clique? Like the editors who watch Jimbo's talk page? (I'm including myself, of course.)

making broad declarations pre-judging site-wide consensus

Site-wide consensus? Do you understand what a user talk page is? I'm not sure, as you referred to "high level discussions" occurring here.

and flouting WP:OWN?

You just moved an article back to the draft namespace and inserted a bogus tag "to keep [it] off mainpage for a few days" (after yanking its hook from DYK). And you're accusing others of "flouting WP:OWN?"?

Those make me see red.

I can tell. You don't normally behave like this.

Incidentally, as you didn't bother to inform Orlady of this report, I've done so. —David Levy 07:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving articles into the draft namespace is inappropriate, so I have reverted that change. As it stands, the article will never appear at DYK because the nomination has been closed as "promoted" and the hook (but not the credits) has been removed from the prep area, so no-one at DYK will know that the hook has not in fact run. I just wish that instead of complaining that people are prejudging site-wide consensus, HectorMoffet would note that (a) consensus at WT:DYK is against this; (b) the latest discussion at the Village Pump is against any action on 11th Feb; (c) he himself marked WP:Surveillance awareness day as {{historical}} and {{rejected}} precisely because there was no consensus for doing anything to mark it; (d) that was over a week ago and nobody has done anything to try and demonstrate that there is in fact a site-wide consensus for action on 11th Feb! Bencherlite^Talk 08:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As with the "lengthy discussion", the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal had been for an extraordinary (like, extraordinarily bad) home page with all the usual rules thrown out the window. That does not mean that material about this day which passes the usual DYK or FA rules (including editor requests to hold hooks) should be rejected. Wnt (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As noted below, you evidently forgot about (and subsequently overlooked) part of the DYK discussion. You also seem to have forgotten about the discussion of less extreme ideas at Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day.

Your impression that DYK hooks are routinely held for any day of the nominator's choosing (including that of an organized protest) is erroneous. —David Levy 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

An isolated clique? Like the editors who watch Jimbo's talk page? (I'm including myself, of course.)

 Yes Agreed! Everyone will know what we do on Feb 11-- so almost everyone should know what we plan to do by Feb 10 (at the latest). This is a decision for multiple dozens or hundreds of editors, or more! -- it's not a decision for 3-5 editors, wherever they congregate.. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you terminate the RfC and hang your hat on a discussion occurring on Jimbo's talk page? —David Levy 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To quote from the masterpiece that is Game of Thrones
Spice King: "The discussion is over Xaro Xhoan Daxos. The Thirteen have spoken."
Xaro: "I am one of the Thirteen and I am still speaking. "
Jimbo may not have the vocal resonance of Xaro, but you get my point. A consensus for a special day has not been reached and a consensus may never be reached. Or maybe a consensus will be reached after all. But pre-judgements of what consensus will bring unfortunately reek of the foul stink of WP:OWN. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see very little debate at T:TDYK. (Note that the "lengthy discussion" linked above rejected a different proposal to re-run old DYKs, which I also opposed, but is not a blanket ban on this topic!) A few editors at [5] seem to have decided that some events deserve to have timed hooks held for them, but this one doesn't -- I guess that funneling copyright royalties into the corrupt morass that is the IOC is just so plainly a worthy cause that Wikipedia has to accommodate it, but that isn't a privilege allowed to editors covering anything else. Wnt (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that the "lengthy discussion" linked above rejected a different proposal to re-run old DYKs, which I also opposed, but is not a blanket ban on this topic!

One of the subsections (introduced by Orlady, as noted above) is titled "Proposal: Treat this like a 'special occasion'". You supported said proposal, so it's curious that you've now overlooked it. Discussion of the broader idea to tie DYK into the February 11 protest occurred throughout the parent section.

A few editors at [6] seem to have decided that some events deserve to have timed hooks held for them, but this one doesn't -- I guess that funneling copyright royalties into the corrupt morass that is the IOC is just so plainly a worthy cause that Wikipedia has to accommodate it, but that isn't a privilege allowed to editors covering anything else.

DYK's purpose isn't to support "worthy causes". It's to highlight/encourage the encyclopedia's expansion. Occasionally, hooks' appearances are purposely scheduled to coincide with well established, widely recognized events (such as holidays and major competitions). Again, DYK has never made special arrangements for a protest (and there isn't consensus to start now). —David Levy 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Supporters of this have had weeks to discuss and get aproval from the community at large. They have no one to blame but themselves that they have never attempted to have a centralized discussion on the basic question "Is this something Wikipedia should actively participate in." To late to push something through and when casting blame look in the mirror first.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Day we fight back" or "Surveillance Awareness Day" proposal was discussed last month at WT:DYK: archive of WT:DYK discussion. In the initial discussion, opinion was almost entirely against the ideas being proposed. As noted here, I made an alternative proposal, suggesting that the occasion could be treated according to DYK's standard protocols for special occasions (such as holidays, anniversaries, or events like the Olympics). My proposal received some support, but there were also some strong expressions of opposition. The discussion died out after 23 January, and got archived (that's why User:Wnt saw little debate at DYK). Since then, some interesting surveillance-related hook nominations were submitted at T:TDYK, and they deserve to get the 8 hours of main page exposure that DYK provides. The mechanics of managing special-occasion requests at DYK can be problematic (keeping up with the need to upload a new nicely balanced set of 7 hooks every 8 hours can be chaotic enough, without also worrying about overlooking a hook for some saint's day or obscure national holiday that's been waiting for a particular date). However, I would support holding the approved hooks for 11 February if I were convinced that 11 February was a "real" special occasion to take note of. I don't spend my life on Internet message boards and I don't frequent this page (and I have no knowledge of Game of Thrones), so my understanding of reality may not coincide with yours, but I've not seen evidence elsewhere that the day is going to be very widely recognized. Furthermore, recent postings on WT:DYK had stated that the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal had failed and those hooks need not be held for 11 February, and nobody had disagreed (discussion as it existed when I moved User:HectorMoffet's East German surveillance hook into the prep area, as well as several hours later when I responded to his request that I put the hook on hold). It's interesting that HectorMoffet did not take my advice to take his request to WT:DYK, but instead took it upon himself to pull "his" hook from the prep area (gumming up some of the DYK mechanics in the process), removed "his" article from article space, and came here to complain about me. As I see it, there was merit in the idea of emphasizing surveillance awareness on 11 February, but the idea was doomed by the POV-pushing of its proponents, coupled with an apparent attitude (expressed through those actions and others) that the idea should be exempt from the normal protocols of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some bad proposals were made, and moving a page back to Draft: space is the process I would like to see substituted for deletions, and after such a reform I would view such a move as the sort of thing to oppose vehemently at AfD. That said, we still have the fundamental philosophical problem of "very widely recognized" by who? It is a gateway to POV. For example, right now there is a holding area for "22 February (Investiture of new cardinals appointed by Pope Francis)". Now that's fair enough, it's widely recognized, can't argue that. But does everyone in the world agree the appointment of a new cardinal in Rome is more notable than a political event supported by 100 organizations advocating an end to global surveillance? How do you evaluate that? Or even putting this event aside for a moment -- what are you going to decide when the Mormons are appointing their church functionaries, the Unitarians, the UCC, etc.? Does Wikipedia, like Russia, take an official view of what is a Recognized World Religion and what isn't? I say the only possible answer there that is not very, very offensive is to say no, we don't. We leave the POV to the choice of every individual editors, each and every one of which is free to propose a DYK and decide on an individual basis whether it is worth scheduling it for a day in the near future or not. There simply is no other acceptable solution. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: The article that HectorMoffet moved to draft space was not a substandard article that might otherwise have been a candidate for deletion. Rather, it was a perfectly good article, and it had been approved for inclusion in DYK on the main page. His moving it to draft space was an assertion of article ownership -- in effect, saying "if Wikipedia won't feature my work on the main page they way I want it to be featured, I am not going to let Wikipedia have the benefit of my work." That's not the way this place works. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That said, we still have the fundamental philosophical problem of "very widely recognized" by who?

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

It is a gateway to POV.

Permitting editors to flood the main page with material intended to support political causes would be such a gateway.

But does everyone in the world agree the appointment of a new cardinal in Rome is more notable than a political event supported by 100 organizations advocating an end to global surveillance?

No, of course not. And The Day We Fight Back is a notable subject with an article here. But it isn't an event with established cultural significance. It's a planned protest. As a community, we don't purposely schedule main page content (or otherwise modify encyclopedic material) to engage in advocacy. —David Levy 17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Except the Olympics, and the Vatican, and other organizations you support, that is. Please note that there is no WP:Established cultural significance, nor any reason why someone would pick that particular criterion. Also note as I've said before that WP:Advocacy speaks of politics and sports in the same breath - if it is wrong to "advocate" TDWFB by creating DYKs about it, then it is wrong to do it for the Olympics. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between writing about a widely recognized event and participating in an organized political protest. —David Levy 18:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure I know the difference. It's the same reason why an article about a neighborhood in the U.S. goes without a second thought, while an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan gets deleted with a few pejorative comments about it being a "wide place in the road", without regard to population. The difference is money. We're all supposed to whore after money night and day; it gives dignity and meaning to employment, and therefore to life; it distinguishes the noble and the celebrity from the nobody. And of course, the NSA is money (with all that insider stock information, how can't it be?) and it is dangerous to be on the outs with money. But on Wikipedia, we don't actually have to do that - we can respect a partisan organization equally whether it is housed in a cathedral or a hastily built website, and feel free to offer research support to all without prejudice. And when prejudice is unavoidable, we could (in utter violation of every de facto precept and tenet of capitalism) leave the power in the hands of those doing the work, rather than saying "thank you for your contributions, but when it comes to showing what our site supports (like not boycotting the Olympics while boycotting anti-NSA protest) your efforts are now the property of the Few In Charge". And I think that democratic, individualist response is exactly what we can and should do. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure I know the difference. It's the same reason why an article about a neighborhood in the U.S. goes without a second thought, while an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan gets deleted with a few pejorative comments about it being a "wide place in the road", without regard to population.

Please provide links to the relevant discussion(s). If your description is accurate, this sounds like a problem in need of attention.

The difference is money. We're all supposed to whore after money night and day; it gives dignity and meaning to employment, and therefore to life; it distinguishes the noble and the celebrity from the nobody. And of course, the NSA is money (with all that insider stock information, how can't it be?) and it is dangerous to be on the outs with money.

I really am trying to understand the above comments' relevance, but I'm not seeing it.

But on Wikipedia, we don't actually have to do that - we can respect a partisan organization equally whether it is housed in a cathedral or a hastily built website, and feel free to offer research support to all without prejudice.

And we have an article about "The Day We Fight Back", which received a DYK hook.

And when prejudice is unavoidable,

It's much easier for Wikipedia to avoid participating in an organized political protest than it is for us to take part.

we could (in utter violation of every de facto precept and tenet of capitalism) leave the power in the hands of those doing the work, rather than saying "thank you for your contributions, but when it comes to showing what our site supports (like not boycotting the Olympics while boycotting anti-NSA protest) your efforts are now the property of the Few In Charge".

Once again, this comes down to you not recognizing the difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism.

Running main page items about the Olympics during the Olympics is a means of delivering timely content, not "showing what our site supports".

Setting aside the matter of cultural significance, if it were feasible to write multiple articles about "The Day We Fight Back" and create a DYK hook for each (to run on the day of the event), that would be a materially different situation. What we actually have is an attempt to flood DYK with articles whose subjects merely relate to the political cause behind the event — for the express purpose of supporting the protest and influencing its outcome. —David Levy 21:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Those Olympics related articles aren't about the present competition either. And when a person is interested in finding out and telling the honest truth, there is no difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism. Wikipedia started as an activist cause and, despite unjustifiable obstacles, remains one, provided that we can avoid getting bogged down in frustration and focus simply on what we can do. Obstructionism is limitless, but so is our creativity. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Those Olympics related articles aren't about the present competition either.

Indeed. Please ask yourself why it's possible to run DYK hooks about past Olympic events but not past "The Day We Fight Back" events.

And when a person is interested in finding out and telling the honest truth, there is no difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism.

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

Again, the motive behind efforts to run special items on February 11 is to participate in the protest (not to write about it, but to become part of it).

Wikipedia started as an activist cause and, despite unjustifiable obstacles, remains one, provided that we can avoid getting bogged down in frustration and focus simply on what we can do.

Yes, Wikipedia's mission is inherently non-neutral. This is a discussion about its encyclopedic content. It's impossible to eliminate all bias, but we do our best.

Obstructionism is limitless, but so is our creativity.

I'm sorry if you regard opposition to the idea of Wikipedia participating in the protest as obstructionism. My goal, like yours, is to do what I believe is best for Wikipedia.

That includes examining the problem that you mentioned earlier (with the deletion of an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan as an example), so please provide the discussion link(s). —David Levy 23:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been a few related events in the past such as Stop Watching Us which are indeed candidates for the February 11 DYK push. And TDWFB is most directly targeted at passing USA Freedom Act and stopping FISA Improvements Act, both candidates also. I don't recall all the village threads - here's one of them [7] but not the worst I remember, which was some AfD .. somewhere. Wnt (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, those articles relate to the political cause behind the event, not the event itself. And that isn't the only issue, as I've tried to make clear.

I can't comment on other discussions, but the one to which you linked doesn't match your description. I see from your comment that you regarded the proposal as an example of "contempt people show toward Indian and Pakistani locals", but it was based upon the articles' poor quality (and the idea that readers would be better served if pointed to broader articles for the time being), not a belief that certain cities are unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. —David Levy 00:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

See WP:DEADLINE to start. I think it's wonderful that there's a POTD and some DYKs available, but contorting everything else because Jimmy thinks it's a good idea is frankly a bad idea. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the single focus of this. If it's actually going to be NPOV, there has to be mention of the snooping conducted routinely by Google, recent concerns about voice data from the iPhone, and other, commercial uses of snooping and surveillance. If all it's going to be is some sort of self-congratulatory rant against the NSA, it's quite frankly a sham and political activism. Intothatdarkness 14:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Racism Articles

They same people who have deleted categories like "Slave-owner" Category:Slaveholders making statements like this:

"....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today." "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places"

have been notoriously been pushing the POV and try to villainize an unarmed, black boy being shot to death in all articles connected to the incident http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.25.235 (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Links please?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Slave owners and Category:Slaveholders. While the latter had a discussion with the quotes I cited, until yesterday, but quite frankly, this discussion is gone since I mentioned it, exactly, ...yesterday... --37.230.25.235 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is not gone. It was and is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 28#Category:Slaveholders. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I was unclear. I'm not that interested in the Category deletion debate - we discussed that recently and while there were some terrible comments there (quoted above), it's an old, dead and gone issue. The current claim is that the same users have been POV pushing on "all articles" connected to Trayvon Martin. That's a pretty bold claim and would require links to back it up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that if a member of the mainstream media (or, really, any member of civil society) were to trawl through the archives of Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the result would be intensely embarrassing and shameful for Wikipedia. Regardless of one's view of the legal aspects of the situation, the volume and intensity of not-so-subtly-racist venom directed at a deceased teenager and the concerted effort by a number of editors to posthumously vilify that teenager are as repulsive as anything I've encountered on this site. That said, I don't see the overlap with the deleted categories which the original poster alleges. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have information, as you proclaim that you do, that specific editors have acted in a vile, racist manner, than I suggest you lay forth your evidence, with links. I see no links, other than to the talk page of the article. Personally, I consider using vague allegations, lacking names or evidence, to be the more cowardly course than to lay your cards on the table. I suggest that you either refrain from such claims or act in a forthright manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you mention it, one of the most egregious offenders "retired" when his behavior came under scrutiny in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. As for the others, I don't think it's worthwhile to navigate Wikipedia's drawn-out and dysfunctional "dispute resolution" processes to deal with a few racist trolls who are, after all, best off ignored or shunned. Thanks for the advice, though. I will endeavor to live up to the high standards of integrity and forthrightness that you set for us all. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There were some cringe-worthy comments made from all sides on the Trayvon Martin talk page, not just one side, from what I observed. That was in addition to the edit warring on the article itself. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, which is why I object to the characterization. Such rewriting of history is very reminiscent of an editor with whom MastCell has been linked in the past, and I hate to see people keeping in bad company. MastCell, I take your words in the spirit in which they are offered, and in return hope you will make positive contributions to the encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Keeping bad company is one of the few pleasures left on Wikipedia, so you'll have to excuse my choice of associates. By the way, since you're obviously angry with me about something, it's probably healthier to drop the childish, passive-aggressive insinuations and just come out and say it. It will probably make you feel better, and it might even lessen the overall level of repressed hostility which permeates this project under the banner of WP:CIVILity. Anyway, this thread has now been derailed from its original topic into weird personal grudges, as is standard on Jimbo's talkpage, so I don't have much to add. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia made me do it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzeZhCt5PVA--37.230.25.235 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Example of criticism - Report about Wikipedia being "a menace to society" published across the world

http://www.t-online.de/computer/internet/id_67681618/manipulationen-in-wikipedia-dauerbeschuss-von-pr-agenturen.html

(Translation kudos to Google Translator...)

Wikipedia manipulation is "a problem for democracy"

Copy of the article removed as a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is worth highlighting a few statements under Fair Use. As translated by Google:

Malte Landwehr, a specialist at manipulating Wikipedia articles PR consultant, told monitor as the procedure is this: "There are many professional providers who work on such a level with so much effort that the Wikipedia there really no chance has to reveal it. "

On one hand, desired information would be specifically enhanced in articles, on the other hand removes unwanted information. Landwehr've worked on several projects, where was doing, he said in an interview. These manipulations would not be in the open and have permanent existence...

Even the Wikipedia authors confirm that the attacks of PR agencies are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Dirk Franke, honorary author, PR Hunter and one of 250 administrators at Wikipedia told by very advanced manipulation at Wikipedia. Since going to tricky the weighting and the tone changed for individual paragraphs and, for example, in the criticism-paragraph also adds a critique of the critique. "This is an eternal cat-and-mouse game for years drags on," he said.

The big problem of the online encyclopedia: In the Wikipedia there is always less honorary active authors like Dirk Franke and more and more paid writers like Malte Landwehr who work for PR agencies and have even managed to administrator privileges on Wikipedia. "I have several PR agencies in Germany known to have at least one user with administrator privileges," he says...

Now to be sure, if Wikipedia can motivate some good people to do development, it can fight back against stuff like this. For example, we could have a built-in feature with an article that hunts through the history for references that have been removed, linking to the relevant diffs. (I've actually thought about writing such a thing myself in Javascript, but it would be better for a program to have access to save its interim data files so that they can be reused by other readers, and to be widely and easily accessible by editors who never heard of it) Wnt (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Create lists to gauge scope of problems: I think if there are just a few wp:COI problems, then people could be warned of concerns, and focus instead on large, continual writing of paid-advocacy pages. Perhaps we should create some lists to check for excesses, such as:
                 • "wp:List of corporate articles created by admins"
  For admins who have created just a few, or a dozen, corporate pages, then perhaps a discussion could recommend curtailing the activities, but for admins who have created several corporate adverts articles, then perhaps a User/RfC would be needed to assess the impact on an admin's neutrality. Already, people have echoed how "admin abuse" is likely to be abuse to admins, and so there is a sentiment that admins should be allowed to do almost anything. Keeping some lists could help to gauge the extent of the problems. -Wikid77 14:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Planned mass disruption of Wikipedia

I strongly welcome such projects as described here. Half of the following discussion is so laden with sarcasm that I fear the real point is being lost. Happy to host a serious discussion but any serious discussion has to start with a recognition that Wikipedia has a problem with systemic bias caused by a lack of diversity of participation of various kinds, including a lack of people who know anything about feminist thought.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don't really know where to post this, but should we allow a fringe group's planned disruption, since their goal appears to be making sure Wikipedia reflects their political ideology? — Confession0791 talk 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC) If you think that a "Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon on Art and Feminism" is "disruption" by a "fringe group"... please find another website to participate in, because we have enough problems with rampant sexism and systematic patriarchal bias here already without you worsening it with your particular regressive 2¢. — Scott • talk 17:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Ping: SarahStierch. Ross HillTalk to me! 17:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC) I don't think you understand what "mass disruption" means, Confession0791. That said, "It's aesthetically very masculine in its design"? Really? I'd be very curious to know the intended context behind that statement. Resolute 17:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)Did you read the entire article? They plan to "write feminist thinking" into the articles. Not very objective, is it? Also, anything supported by "Bitch Magazine" is bound to be radical. — Confession0791 talk 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Agreed. I would argue that Wikipedia is one of the most neutral websites around when it comes to design- black text, blue links, white background. Ross HillTalk to me! 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Hysteria aside, we should just go on about the editing business as usual. Vandalism can be easily stopped, and NPOV problems can be discussed. KonveyorBelt 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Anyone interested in creating content to fill gaps should be welcomed. Of course, a close eye should be kept on any activities related to it in case there is POV-pushing. In fairness, the talk about "writing feminist thinking" into articles was from an event last year.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Am I the only person who thinks an invasion of militant women is quite funny? It will be even funnier if they start editing the many articles written by our resident females - I think I shall go and warn a few of them.  Giano  18:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC) I see little humor in dismissing people who write from a feminist point-of-view as "militant", honestly. Is this the Wikipedia or a Rush Limbaugh chatroom? Tarc (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) While I approve of them coming to liberate we poor downtrodden lady editors, they're not going to attract many men writing "feminist thinking into Wikipedia articles about technology." are they? I fear they'll have wasted journey and go home empty handed and disappointed. In their own interests, we should point them towards flower arranging, table setting and fashion, and suggest they leave technology to our rugged and rather handsome menfolk (like dear Mr Wales). It quite reminds me of when I was marching alongside Miss Pankhurst, mind you she never managed to find a husband either. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC) I don't mean to be snide about this, but how would you know if there was a "mass disruption"? Seems that there is already a good volume of disruption and vandalism taking place all the time as it is. I don't see how any organized campaign could make itself heard over the background noise. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) For the record, tracking this back from the goofy "Campus Reform" site listed, to "Bitch Magazine", to a better source, I finally reach Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism, which was held on February 1. If it caused any disruption, I hadn't noticed. Looks like these folks still have a lot of redlinks to work on, so let's hope for more "mass disruptions" sooner rather than later! Wnt (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-English redirects to English Wikipedia maintenance pages on English Wikipedia

I was wondering if you have an opinion on this issue? This came up in a discussion about the foreign-language redirect Spezial:Beobachtungsliste which is currently listed for deletion -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see the benefit, and at least one person is actively using it. I see no harm. So I would vote to keep.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Flow

Hello. Please consider to ask the flow team to enable flow on you talk page. It could be nice to see the extension on a heavly used talk page. Christian75 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Flow problems related to browsers or LiquidThreads features: At this early stage of "prototyping" for the wp:Flow features, some browsers might not be able to edit a talk-page, and people who often reply to 2 or 3 threads at once are likely to be hindered in their limited time to debug a "son-of-VE" product, with a whole new set of problems. Already, at WT:Flow, some comparisons have been made to wp:LiquidThreads, and it will be easier instead for hundreds of people to discuss issues on this page without hindrance from questionable new "user-interfere" (user-interface) changes. I was shocked to see the "add-thread box" at the top half of an edit-section operation, rather than see the current text displayed for editing, as normal people have done for decades. Perhaps we need another essay, "WP:No original freak-jerk" to remind people how WYSIWTF interfaces are still What-The-F**k distractions from trying to write the 'pedia. Sorry, but someone had to say it. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Status of bugfixes in wp:Flow: There are numerous design changes being discussed at WT:Flow, to handle many major problems:

• Replying to 1 comment might generate empty replies to all comments on a page.
• The format is another "scatter-talk" layout, with large double-spaced text, where 12 short replies will span 5 pages, as 5 Page-Down to scroll and see every reply. Consider setting TextSize as zoomed 3 times smaller to use Flow.
• The history log of replies has seemed to omit, or conceal, some updates.
• The wp:Notifications interface, to inform other users of new replies, is being reworked.

To test the entry (or re-edit) of messages, see: "WT:Flow/Developer test page" to try adding messages into a Flow talk-page. -Wikid77 23:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is an awesome idea. If you liked Visual Editor, you'll simply adore Flow. It has a cooler logo, after all. Carrite (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not impossible to get things right. For example, the code editor for Lua modules was, for a long time, something I tried to avoid whenever possible, but it has gradually improved until, in this most recent version, it really is a pleasure to use with top-of-the-line find and replace utilities. The developers of things like this just have to avoid being hasty and provoking a backlash from users who don't want to change. Wnt (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think the Flow experiment is best suited to where it is right now, i.e. not heavily trafficked and politically sensitive pages like this one. If there were a way to stop Flow appearing in my watchlist so much, I'd be happier. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WMF's new lobbying firm, Thompson Coburn

I see that the Wikimedia Foundation's old lobbying firm Dow Lohnes has merged with the Wikimedia Foundation's ace law firm and cease-and-desist shoppe, Cooley LLP. I also see that the WMF is following Burger and Salomon over to the lobbying firm of Thompson Coburn, to "monitor copyright legislation". Woo wee, that sounds like good work, if you can get it! Anyway, I went to check out what Wikipedia had to say about this newest recipient of WMF donors' money, and lo and behold (!) the article says that it "appears to be written like an advertisement" and that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". Jimbo, why does the WMF have such a difficult time finding competent professional vendors who obey the Bright Line Rule? Here are the users to which you might write a sternly-worded note: User:TEdit597, User:38.114.66.232 (really close to the Belleville, IL office), User:63.77.47.130 (that's a Thompson Coburn-assigned IP address), and the granddaddy of them all, User:ThompsonCoburnmktg. That last user is already blocked, but they haven't received that hand-wringing scolding from the Founder of Wikipedia that we all yearn for. Let 'em have it, Jimbo! Please let us know when you contact the folks at Thompson Coburn to inform them of your Bright Line Rule and how simple and ethical it is for them to follow. - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, a few interesting diffs in there. Is this firm the replacement for Michael Godwin, or is that something else? Wnt (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(For further reading perhaps [8][9] is of interest. Anyone up to do a BLP of Michael Lazaroff?) Wnt (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, will you please post a copy here of the cease and desist letter that the WMF sends to Thompson Coburn? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, come on now, trolling checker-mater, you know it's only the productive editors who are hired by WMF who get the sack for COI editing, not the "information professionals." It's only the little people that get squished by multimillion dollar corporations... Carrite (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I count at least two self-declared paid editors engaged in this parody of a conversation. Neither has made, as best as I can determine, any disclosure that is visible to any reader of their pages as to what articles they have edited for pay and how much they have gotten. Be that as it may, I applaud their little hypocritical exercise, and I hope that it continues until or unless the WMF decides to ban paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's weird -- I never knew that User:Wnt was a self-declared paid editor! - Checking the checkers (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. He means User:Carrite and User:Cla68. (Carrite says he has offered on oDesk to write three judiciously chosen articles for benefit something having to do with animals, I think it was, which marginally qualifies; Cla68 has some less specific notice visible on his user page) Wnt (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wnt. I thought you were "pure", so I'm glad to see that there is no tarnish on your edit history! I'd like to respond to what seemed to be the main point of Coretheapple's, though. He seems to say that because Thompson Coburn didn't disclose their COI editing, anyone who criticizes that should disclose any and all of their own COI editing. Here's the difference, though. The Wikimedia Foundation is using tax-exempt donation dollars to fund the business of Thompson Coburn, which has been doing COI editing on the project that funds them. As far as we know, Carrite and Cla68 haven't been paid with WMF-donor dollars to spruce up articles about vendors to the WMF. So, the conversation here really isn't a "parody". The core hypocrisy of the WMF purchasing the services of a firm that itself violates the sole founder of Wikipedia's clear and simple ethical rule against self-interested editing stands on its own, regardless of who wishes to comment further on that hypocrisy. - Checking the checkers (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to tell you that the idea that WMF paid someone in "donor dollars" as you put it doesn't exactly push my "horror" button, as a threshold issue, unless the WMF has violated its tax exempt purpose. Do you think it has? I don't see it. If it has, you should feel free to notify the IRS and it will yank the WMF's 501C3 exemption in a New York minute. But I don't see that happening. Now, having paid somebody in "donor dollars," you now have found that this firm has done some nasty self-editing. Well, as you know, I think that's pretty bad. But honestly, getting back to my point, here we have two self-declared COi editors, meaning you and Cla68, taking up this issue. I have to say, having no allegiance to the WMF whatever (and finding its attitude on this subject rather chickens--t) that I have no problem with you two gents raising the issue here. More power to you. But is it hypocritical? Yes. I mean, you do agree that it is, don't you? As for hypocrisy on the part of the WMF, I don't really see it. Now if they hired you or some other paid editor, then yes I think it would be a hypocritical act on their part. I tend to doubt that they have their vendors under such scrutiny that they hare aware of this kind of thing, though I guess it's always possible. Again, I don't feel so cozy with them that I feel the need to defend them. I am happy to see them excoriated, as a matter of fact. I think it keeps alive the issue of paid editing, so thank you for that. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Was he really talking about me? Jesh, I didn't take it that way. As I say on my page, quite clearly and in English, "I've never accepted money for editing at Wikipedia, but I do have an ad up now on oDesk and I will eventually do a total of three (3) "paid" jobs..." I'll let you know when that changes. I don't think my friend Core was actually talking about me though. Were you? Carrite (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I was actually talking about Cla68, who has a big fat notice on his user page (and nothing else that I can see by way of notice) and our old friend Mr. 2001 a/k/a checking the checkers, who had a heart-to-heart with me on the subject a day or so ago. Checking the checkers knows this; he's a mischievous "old soul" as it were. But I like him. Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've also come to like Mr. 2001 after a protracted adversarial relationship. It's really pretty unfortunate that he was banned in the first place. I suppose he provides the classic object lesson that banning things doesn't make them go away, it just makes them harder to identify. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And more tenacious, one might argue! - Checking the checkers (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Feminist takeover

Does this project have a discussion page anywhere? I came across the subject Grace Arents, a Richmond, Virginia heiress and philanthropist who established a convalescent home for the city's sick children and then what has become the Lewis Ginter Botanical Gardens. I've asked at WP:refund for the deleted article to be restored so it can be expanded. She's quite notable and is an interesting subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Click again. It was a quickie; I'm on the run. I added one quick ref but I'm almost embarrassed to leave it like this; unfortunately I have to. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  She's definitely notable I think. I've done some tidying up behind you, so hopefully Candleabracadabra can now expand the article. Eric Corbett 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate it, Eric. In the meantime, I got the tag for my Prius, so we've all done at least one good thing today. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks gentlemen. I was hoping our visitors would do it. I guess there isn't a page or on Wiki organization of their efforts? I'm always trying to get out of doing work. Have a great weekend. Thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Public domain

Where do I ask about copyright questions? Are WPA funded painting at U.S. post office in the public domain? I've seen at least one image at Wikipedia commons. I did some work creating articles on the artist who did some of them and it would be nice to have images of their work. Is there a general discussion board for people working on articles? A place to get input and ideas? I find the individual WikiProjects can be useful but are sometimes not very active and often insular. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Firing my own cannon (from the Post office in Charlotte Amalie in the US Virgin Islands)

Start at WP:Copyright questions. I have to say that in the past I've had some strange experiences there and have tended to avoid it. It seemed to be a place where you could go to have somebody imagine a reason that a work wasn't in the public domain. I'm not kidding, I once had a 3 week discussion there why a 300 year old painting couldn't be copyrighted.

Commons now has a special copyright tag for WPA works saying that the are pd. There are possibly some tricky areas - there's a whole list of 1930s agencies that people tend to call the WPA. For Post Offices you probably want the one called Section of Painting and Sculpture which was part of the US Treasury and is as pd as pd gets. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, thoughts and clarification. You are absolutely right. Although the paintings get lumped in with WPA projects they were done under the Treasury Dept. known as The Section. Helpful to know that they should in fact be Public Domain. Have a great weekend. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Pubdog

This editor has been working through National Register of Historic Places properties for years. He recently completed those listed in Virginia. Pretty awesome! Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Pub is a great editor - one of my top 5 for sure. To give a better description, he has written articles on sites on the National Register of Historic Places to (almost) complete the lists in Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, Delaware (?) and now Virginia. That must be well over 10,000 articles.

I'm guessing there are a few editors here scratching their heads on what your last 3 sections are doing here. Much of the time they come here to bitch about something. It's far from my place to say there might be a better place for this. Keep on truckin' Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought it would be nice to let Jimmy and anyone watching his page know about Pubdog's great work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It was nice, and I shouldn't have mixed that in with the usual BS that goes on on this page (see e.g. 2 sections down). Sorry. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned at AE

At WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Momento I've briefly mentioned your editorial actions at Prem Rawat and brought up a discussion which occurred on your talkpage. Just a courtesy note. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian

Jimbo, that's a lovely interview you had with Carole Cadwalladr at The Guardian. I notice, though, that something you knew from here on your Talk page some weeks ago, [redacted per WP:BLPTALK], but she had the actual evidence to back herself up. Here's the exchange:

CC: But there are problems, aren't there, with commerce entering Wikipedia? One example of this was mentioned in the comments beneath an article about the People's Operator which claimed the Wikipedia entry for the People's Operator was written by its marketing consultant.

Jimbo: No, it wasn't. I'd rather not talk about him.

CC: But, when I looked at the Wikipedia entry for the People's Operator and looked at the history of the article, and then Googled the name of the person who had written the initial entry and looked him up on LinkedIn, it stated he was a marketing consultant for the People's Operator.

Jimbo: I'll have to look that up. That's very interesting...

Two questions for you here, Jimbo.

1. When you said, "I'd rather not talk about him", who did you mean? The guy who commented beneath an article about The People's Operator, or the content executive Dale Marshall?
2. Why would you deny that The People's Operator was written by a marketing consultant, when on January 21, User:50.153.112.1 clearly notified you here on your Talk page about this very situation -- that a UK-based marketing consultant created the article, and then how Dale Marshall enhanced it while being paid by The People's Operator? You had all of the facts spoon-fed to you, but when talking to Ms. Cadwalladr, you decided to say, "No, it wasn't", then when caught in your misstatement, you said, "I'll have to look that up", as if it were the first time you'd heard about it. Clearly you saw the evidence that User:50.153.112.1 presented, because you responded to it on the very same day.

It seems to me that you're regularly caught telling [redacted per WP:BLPTALK] about various things. Shouldn't the sole founder of a great encyclopedia like Wikipedia be more honest?

I'll close on a high note: it doesn't appear that Carole Cadwalladr was authored by any single-purpose or conflict-of-interest accounts. Yay! - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the question of whether Jimmy got caught in an untruth, I've always found it amusing when editors using scrutiny-evading sockpuppet accounts try to chastise others for lacking honesty. Resolute 20:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Who exactly are you accusing of sockpuppetry, Resolute? I'll have you know I've been editing Wikipedia with this account for over a year. If you're saying I'm a sockpuppet, please bring on the investigation. Until then, you should redact your snide accusation. - Checking the checkers (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I was basing my comments off the discussions on your talk page. Certainly you appeared under this ID a year ago, but this obviously is not your first account either. Resolute 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Come on, Checking the Checkers, you're not being totally candid here. It's perfectly obvious you're Mr. 2001 from a few weeks ago. Please. Don't insult what's left of our intelligence. Coretheapple (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolute, I really think you should amend the above comment: "basing on", not off. As for Checking the checkers, I welcome the oversight from critical but conscientious people. This is not one of them, and you wish, sometimes, that CU was allowed for fishing expeditions. "It seems to me that you're regularly caught telling untruths"--thanks, Mrs. Checker, but it seems to me that maybe you need to get off your lazy couch and do something real, like maybe write an article or something. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A new article like this, maybe? - Checking the checkers (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is also a BLP violation by accusing this figure of lying in the interview. I will be removing this in a moment, in the same manner we are expected to remove such BLP violations on any page, including talk pages. I will leave this up momentarily for editors to see this notification of my pending action.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark, this isn't a BLP violation, because if you look up WP:BLP, it says that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." The above claim that Jimmy Wales was caught in a falsehood is painstakingly sourced with relevant quotes and diffs. You will be adding gasoline to the fire, should you delete this. Wales is a big boy -- he can delete it himself if he wishes. - Checking the checkers (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

From WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed

...

Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.

I think you're wikilawyering by claiming that that can be deleted under BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of lying fall under BLP violations. There is actually no proof. I am deleting per BLP guidelines. Adding it back means that the burden of proof must be met.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You have just had two long-time editors tell you that you are wrong about this being a BLP violation, and yet you are prepared to overrule the majority and delete? Looks like you're just trying to stir up trouble and cause even more attention to be drawn to this, Mark. You've heard of the Streisand Effect, no doubt? - Checking the checkers (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)