User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Should the Wikimedia Foundation have joined this letter?

Apple, Google, Microsoft, and others launch campaign for NSA reform. I'm seeking your opinions about whether this is the sort of thing that the Foundation should join in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps, they may be gathering information about editors, though that wouldn' seem problematic unless there is related data not available to normal editors in which they might be interested.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:KS8-001.jpg

Slide mentioning Wikipedia HectorMoffet (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, unless a direct connection to Wikipedia can be demonstrated (such as if the NSA were known to be using WMF servers for monitoring individuals). There are many noble causes and it would be best for the WMF to not get engaged unless the issue is directly related to Wikipedia's future (such as WP:SOPA). The community is too diverse to strongly support a mission statement regarding surveillance. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, we were mentioned in slides leaked by Snowden.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly the general principles of opposing censorship (including opposing criminal action against ISPs who fail to spy on their customers when ordered) are desirable. But the letter from these corporations also serves their own interests. It has been estimated that by 2016 the spying could cost the U.S. information industry $180 billion,^[1] and these interests are therefore quite legitimate. Nonetheless, their acceptance of some surveillance in #1 and #3, their call in #4 for the free flow of lawful information across borders, coupled with the call for an "improved" mutual legal assistance treaty in #5, seems to hint at the unhealthy acceptance of an international sovereignty striking an average on censorship and surveillance policy (such as the TPP), rather than pure, unyielding support for freedom of expression. And, of course, they are very careful to speak only of government surveillance, not industry surveillance under Graduated response/Copyright Alert System for example. Given Wikipedia's past stand against SOPA, this seems a notable omission (especially when considering cable TV providers involved in the CAS have special status from monopoly cable franchise permissions, making them in my consideration extensions of the government). If concern of those writing this letter is not to lose out to companies in some other country that offers more freedom or more privacy, our perspective differs from theirs in that we want the goal accomplished only by having more freedom and more privacy in some countries, not mandating less in others. And our goal in opposing surveillance is to actually keep our information unmonitored, not just to make it so governments have to sign agreements to pay these companies for access to it. Wnt (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• I am inclined, for two reasons, to say no. Foremost, I believe it erodes our neutrality stance; immediately leading to a reduction of institutional credibility. Equally perilous, it implies we can negotiate in good faith with a debased foe whose clandestine ways has created a master class of lairs. At best we'd emerge as a gullible dunce; at worst: puppets of debauchery—mouthpieces of propaganda in dutiful servitude. You may as well join the Bilderberg Group for we will no longer be seen as a pristine sovereign. For preemptive damage control, I would suggest wearing a reflective dunce cap of the highest visibility as a hedge against emerging in the worst case.—John Cline (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Well it would have been quite a signal, to have such a big non-profit amongst those major for-profits. But looking at the letter, especially section 4 and 5 have me slightly concerned and probably would have made this support problematic. No, it's probably better to help and support EFF with some of those topics. What could be done perhaps, is have both parties throw each other an endorsement shoutout. So you could have EFF and friends publish a letter with their ideas, and then have something like 'EFF/friends have different principals from the big 8, but applauds their enthusiasm and their work, striving to create a more open government' and the big 8 could have done something similar in their letter. That way you still show allegiance, without getting yourself into too much murky water. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a question: WMF is already part of a coalition for "digital due process" with seven of the companies (but not Yahoo) at http://www.digitaldueprocess.org/ . (They have a much broader list of backers, running the gamut from traditional villains like ALEC and the Business Software Alliance to heroes like the ACLU, the EFF, and the Center for Democracy and Technology) That site's last news release was in April. Question is, what went wrong with that coalition that these companies have stepped away from it and are making this statement on their own? Is there something WMF could have done, or could do, to revive the broader alliance for this purpose? Wnt (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I largely agree with what others have said. The specific wording of the letter they ultimately issued doesn't perfectly reflect our views (and this isn't a surprise since we weren't part of the group that authored it). I support us being part of a future coalition to make a statement. I'd suggest the American Library Association as a partner-- librarians are wholesome, respected, and tend to share Wikipedian values. HectorMoffet (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel ready to give a definitive opinion on this, but I think there are two serious red herrings in the objections above that ought to be thrown back into the water without further consideration:

• A direct connection to Wikipedia needs to be demonstrated, such the NSA using WMF servers to monitor individuals. We know that this is possible in principle. If there was a petition to the police about the high level of burglaries in my neighbourhood, I think I'd be entitled to sign it regardless of whether I had been burgled myself.
• It erodes our neutrality stance. I don't really know what this is supposed to mean. However, WMF has a responsibility to protect the interests of project contributors. When and how it should exercise that responsibility may not be straightforward, but the idea that it ought to be indifferent as a matter of principle to those interests for the sake of appearances or in pursuit of some vague ideal seems more than a little absurd to me.

However, I partly agree with Wnt, in that I'd find it slightly puzzling for WMF to take a platform along with such a narrow group of organisations (all large commercial information carriers based in the US). Surely, on these issues, WMF should act, if it is to act at all, in co-operation with other Internet non-profits and civil liberties organisations. Formerip (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. Neljack (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have asked several times in the past on this talk page whether Wikipedia was allowing government access to its records, etc. The new issue is far more encompassing -- including gathering of vast amounts of raw metadata. It is not the issue of reasonable garnering of salient facts using a small seine which is the issue -- it is the use of such a massive seine that an apparent possibility of violations of civil rights occurs, or is fairly certain to occur. IMO, the WMF should address this specific issue -- that of whether the amount of information gathered is so far in excess of what is reasonable that civil liberties may be abridged. It makes no difference if those who also worry about liberties are "big commercial companies" or not -- and I suggest that the WMF draft its own terse comments reflecting that proper concern. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO its extremely likely that the NSA does gather data from Wikipedia but it probably doesn't use the servers. All they have to do is download the full database and that would get them a lot of data. Plus if they were tracking the internet traffic they would be able to see where things are going to and coming from, they wouldn't need to have direct access to Wikipedia servers. With that said, the data they could collect from here is of such low value it would be almost worthless I mean what could they use it for, how many porn images are in commons? Or how many biographies of Brazilian soccer players we have? I agree that the NSA's activity is alarming but I don't think Wikipedia has anything to be worried about. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

They could use the data to track the activity of anyone they were already interested in and knew the WP identity of from having read their emails. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Open and anonymous internet is critical to the free dissemination of ideas, on and off Wikipedia. Were a government to come to the WMF and ask for the data they took, we would have no hesitation in soundly rejecting such a request. However the WMF foundation was not so asked. That browsing history was taken without cause, warrant, or permission of any party. Should we hold off on condemning this because we were *not* asked permission? No. We should condemn it immediately, soundly, and unequivocally. I share many users' concern that the WMF stays neutral, but were we given the choice to allow a government access to private data, we would certainly not give it. We should therefore not stay silent when it was taken without permission. A monitored internet is an existential threat to Wikipedia. Allowing government agents information on who was reading what undermines a critical element of the project. The WMF is therefore justified in responding. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• This specific one? NO In general? YES The biggest problem with the long-term viability of WMF projects is the dwindling number of editors. Having governments targeting WMF projects will certainly have a chilling effect on participation and so this affects the long-term viability of our projects. The WMF, The Board of Trustees and the Advisory Board have a duty to ensure the long-term viability of our projects regardless of what individual projects want. This is their purpose in life and their responsibility. None of the people that have volunteered for these projects want to see their hard work lost or the projects to disappear for whatever reason or combination of reasons. We want our work to be here for the long-term and we expect the Foundation to do whatever is necessary to ensure that our many hours of volunteering isn't for nought. 64.40.54.29 (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How spying could affect WMF

I agree with 108.45 by and large that there's no need for spying when the database is public and traffic intercepted elsewhere can be mapped to it to identify readers and editors, but there is one exception: admins and ArbCom. There may be some private communications there that are interesting enough for the NSA to spy on. It would be well worth looking very closely at how to lock down those communications as tightly as possible - or better yet, figure out how to do more out in the open, where at least the NSA doesn't have an advantage over the rest of us. I've long been in favor of that.

The other issue is to look at where all this spying comes out in real action. We shouldn't buy into the illusion that all the spying goes to people who sit around polishing their servers "just in case" - we know that it has real effects, in coming up with plans to "neutralize" Wikileaks, perhaps (though disputed) in some arrangement to incriminate Julian Assange. I think such predictable applications are only the tip of the iceberg, though. Consider, for example, the case of Justin Carter, a kid who was railroaded into jail over some comedic comments during a video game.^[2][3] And he wasn't the only one.^[4] These cases were fomented at the federal level by a Joint Terrorism Task Force.^[5] Supposedly the threat by Carter was called in by some unnamed Canadian woman ... from the beginning I'd have bet she was working for CSIS in an Echelon-like arrangement, and now today I'm seeing that indeed online gaming was infested with federal agents of all stripes, FBI, NSA and CIA together with UK agents. I think that in order for them to show they had some work to do for their pay, this kid was thrown in jail for five months based solely on misrepresentations and lack of personal funds.

So for Wikipedia to become relevant and speak in a united voice, we need to nail these spies at one of two points: either where they spy on ArbCom, if they were careless somehow, or else by finding who in the great wide world of Wikipedia they're actually screwing at the far end and putting in jail on some bogus charge to make themselves look important. We should all be able to agree on action if either turns up. Wnt (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes. I think the foundation should join such a project. It has a noble cause, and as an info site, wikipeidans should naturally want transparency and honesty. Instead we have information gathering concentrated for a few individuals at the top. thats not right and is dangerous to the prospect of information sharing if this is allowed to continue. Pass a Method talk 15:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think if Wikipedia needs to be anti-anything right now, it should be anti-TPP. The NSA has been in the media recently because of Snowden, but TPP has more of a time limit on it.

The SOPA protest worked, but that was a one-time thing that may not work so well for TPP unless as many big companies cooperate, and even then, the SOPA protest worked mostly because it was unexpected. Is there something feasible Wikipedia can do about TPP? Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What is TPP, exactly? -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 01:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership. See Trans-Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions for specific concerns. --BDD (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, absolutely. The pendulum needs to swing back the other way. What we have here is extremism gone mad. Jusdafax 04:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, not a politically active partisan. The SOPA protest was shameful. As one of the more active administrators here, I don't volunteer my time to forward anyone's political agenda. When Wikipedia decides they want to do more of that, then you'll do it without me. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with these sentiments. The Foundation should not be taking a political position when it's goal, as far as I can see, is to be a neutral source of free information that transcends nationality. What does that have to do with the opposition of spying? To echo another comment further up, all (almost all?) information on the wiki is publicly available in the logs/page history, so how does the risk of spying actually affect the project? It sounds to me like these are the personal opinions of the individuals that run an organization, rather than the view of the organization itself. While you can object to the NSA and their practices, it really has nothing to do with the Foundation. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment While I'm sympathetic to what some commenters say about Wikipedia not getting involved in political disputes (which this is), it seems to me that Wikipedia could stand to benefit by associating with the other Internet companies in joining in this stance. It's the right thing to do, for one. Secondly, it's likely to generate positive publicity. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree 100%. It's the right thing to do. petrarchan47tc 03:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- Yes. Since Wikipedia is a target of the NSA, I believe it is important for the WMF to take all action to protect its readers' privacy (as well as the privacy of all editors) -A1candidate (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem today is not NSA reform, the problem is the Great Firewall. Does the NSA spy on the 80k active-editor wikipedians, and more importantly, on our 500M readers? Yes. Is that good? Nope. But who is specifically at risk, of some off-wiki consequences for their on-wiki activities? People reading articles about practical nuke technology, people reading articles about jihad, and people reading articles about strong crypto. The NSA prolly passes info to the FBI, concerning people reading about pedophilia, and to the DEA for people reading about drugs. But the folks at the NSA prolly don't pass info to the TORTURE DIVISION of the secret police, concerning which members of the citizenry are reading up on drug-legalization protests, let alone democracy-legalization protests. There is little risk of a chilling effect on readers, let alone editors, in the current decade, due to *NSA* spying. Contrast the story of Nixon and his Watergate in the past millenium (not to mention J. Edgar Hoover), with the allegations about Obama and the IRS and the Tea Party (not to mention drone strikes). There is a risk here, but it is not yet a risk to *wikipedia* per se. Give it another decade.

  That said, there *is* a risk, right now, today, for wikipedia's readership, and to a lesser extent editorship. China and the google-toolbar are more of a worry than the NSA, today. We say that we'll never sell-out your reading habits. We say that registering for an account shields your IP address. But that is redacted false. We *know* that the major governments of the world, including the NSA but also *other* even-less-savory powers, spy on our readers. Ditto for hypercorps that have access to the consumer endpoint-devices. We *know* that our 'secure' account registration, and our 'secure' interactions during arhbcohm drahmahz, are anything but. It is in fact quite technologically possible to make wikipedia anonymous, and secure against spying from all manner of adversaries, whether governmental or corporate... but to do so, we would have to accept open proxies, anonymizing proxies, and all manner of untraceable sockpuppetry. Wikipedia is simply not ready to be a source of true privacy. We should stop pretending we are.

  As for google and facebook and buddies, their cry for NSA "reforms" is sooooo transparently self-serving. They are in the *business* of spying on citizens, just like the NSA; they are begging the feds to regulate their competition, that is all. WMF should *not* join in such 'letters'. We should be thinking of how to build technology, and build a wikiCulture, which prevents spying by both large governments, and also by large corporations, on the reading habits and editing habits of wikipedians. Without giving up on preventing socks, and spam, and visigoths, and other problems. That work will take many years. Until then, we should incrementally work towards that long-term goal. Does that mean we should pragmatically accept allies who may not share our long-term goals, just as FDR gave billions to Stalin? Maybe. But only if we cannot help it... the Cold War was a very stiff price to pay, for getting help on the Eastern Front of the European theatre. Don't lend WMF's moral sanction to the immoral. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Lots of great points! The biggest difference between the US and China is that the US government is something Wikipedia can sway (and have successfully swayed in the past). Americans really care what Wikipedia has to say. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Good comment! There is a continuum between NSA and private spying.[6] There is also collaboration and conflict between tech companies and China. Wikipedia's main role is to document myriad factual details, so all these political notions should begin with an inclusionist sensibility. We shouldn't throw away opportunities at AfD that would be hard to win by political resolve and blind faith alone.

Question: is Wikipedia an American organization that should only involve itself in American issues for its self-preservation, or an international movement that serves its members? I prefer the latter, but how will we find out if Chinese Wikipedians are tortured? What meaningful promise of help can we offer? Wnt (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

File:KS8-001.jpg

This slide clearly shows that Wikipedia is targeted by the NSA. While I agree that we should remain politically neutral, there seems to be a few principles that the Wikimedia Foundation strongly stands for, such as the dissemination of free information and opposition against censorship. All sorts of state monitoring or surveilance of Wikipedia should be strongly opposed by WMF in order to protect its readers' privacy (as well as the privacy of editors), especially those reading or editing certain articles that may "damage national security" -A1candidate (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

BARF its a long time since I've seen such nonsense as some of the posts above. That the NSA and other security agencies tracks what people are posting is bad enough, but mostly they don't give a crap about whether you've read all the Harry Potter books, or Das Capital, or whether you listen to One Direction, or Black Flag. OTOH we have private companies that are incredibly interested in such stuff they are all the companies that are listed in graphic above. And why are they gathering information about you? Well in order to sell your interests to others so that they may better manipulate your opinions and buying habits, and they do this on a daily bases. Now tell me which ones are actually worse? John lilburne (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the Foundation should join the industry coalition against the further erosion of the plain language of the Fourth Amendment. EllenCT (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should not take political positions. Activism should be done through other means. Everyking (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If our readers in Afghanistan or Yemen are rationally afraid to read some Wikipedia articles, our mission is jeopardized. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Money contribution

I do not wish to contribute to Wikipedia. Please remove these messages! It is wrong to badger and threaten people with these. Wikipedia is not a charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.68.56 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think all you have to do is click the X in the banner once, and it goes away until next year. Maybe you have to do that twice a year (if anybody has better info on this, please let us know!) If the banner threatens you in any way, this is probably the best page to give information on why that is, or how it's threatening to you. The perceived threat will then be removed.

Wikipedia is a non-profit and I believe that its purpose "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of the world's knowledge in their own language" (roughly) would qualify to most people as being charitable. There are people and corporations that try to use that charitable/nonprofit status for their own ends (see above), but please bear with us on that - many of us are trying to take steps to remove or minimize that problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually - The Wikipedia Foundation IS a non-profit charity, as noted above. Do you see annoying ads running along the left side of your screen? or worse... popup screens? No? That in itself is an even greater reason to give :-)

@SmallBones, maybe on your computer, but when I'm logged out I get the banner all year long. Closing it works for a few days at best. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ypnypn, that is very strange to the point of being almost impossible. Even for logged out users, the banner appears very very rarely - I believe 5 times per year per cookie. Can you give more technical details so I can ask the fundraising team to look into it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales: Hmmm. The banner appears in my computer almost everytime I visit Wikipedia without logging in. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My problem was probably that the computer I used had trouble keeping its cookies. Still, this would affect most public computers, such as in libraries. And the banner appears about 1/2 to 1/3 of the time. (Firefox, FWIW) -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ypnypn: @Hahc21: We are actually running banners as part of our big December fundraising drive in the US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand. These appear only to logged out users, but they do not have the same cookie restriction to limit the number of appearances as those we had earlier in the year. This is just until we reach our goal, and I'm pleased to say we are well over halfway there. Meanwhile you can of course close the banner with the X in the top right corner, which if your browser accepts cookies will hide all banners for several months. We are also looking into better ways to deal with the few browsers configured to not accept cookies or to clear them regularly. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, these ads are waaay obnoxious, and most of us don't realize it. The problem is, if I'm a) keeping scripts disabled (99% of the time) or b) logged in (99% of the time) [or had a cookie, 10% of the time] then I won't even see the gigantic garish bold-faced banner with yellow highlighting and accompanying crass donation form with payment options. The thing that bothers me the most, looking at it, is that as far as I'm concerned you're advertising PayPal and Amazon on every page of this nonprofit web site! I mean, for example, suppose a recent proposal to accept Bitcoins gets approved. I would bet money (well, at least imaginary virtual codes I make up that I try to get my friends to say are valuable) that the price of Bitcoins would show an actual, measurable increase the moment that their name shows up on that form, inculcating it into the heads of the masses that that is a standard payment option. It might be billions of dollars worth of real imaginary money that appears that day! Anyway, I say nuts to this. Set up a very small, very discreet banner for fundraising that appears as part of the basic no-javascript code so we're all in on it together, not just the outsiders. You can make it bigger if there's an emergency but make it bigger for all and sundry so we know, and instead of putting the names of companies on the form put the financial information to know how much trouble WMF is really having. Wnt (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested, there's a huge amount of information out there (perhaps Peter Coombe can give you links) about the A/B testing that the fundraising team have done. These choices were not made casually but are the results of extensive testing. There are several variables to measure and they all interact in complex ways, so I think it's a bit naive to come up with a simple idea like "set up a tiny banner and run it longer" or "put financial information on the form" and expect that it will work. One of the things we have learned is that putting the payment options in the form significantly increases the money raised per page view. One thing we have learned is that putting financial information there is not an effective strategy. I'm very interested in very specific problems that tech can help to solve (the point about library computers brought up above is worth considering) but I think we should continue to advise and support the fundraising team on the general principles (i.e. annoy people as little as possible, raise money as quickly as possible, and balance the tension between the two wisely, seeking every opportunity to do both at the same time) but trust that they are being quite smart about how they go about the details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can find many of our test results at meta:Fundraising 2013. Once this drive is over we're hoping to release a lot more, and also some more detail on previous ones. I do wish we could have a small discreet banner, but unfortunately history has proved that just won't raise enough money. Jimbo is right that putting financial info in the banner has generally not been very successful (although we do include it in the Frequently Asked Questions page for those people who are looking for it). Plus testing shows that people really do like to see the payment methods available, for example many donors already have accounts with PayPal so appreciate the convenience. It's not just PayPal and Amazon, we offer different methods in other countries where they are more popular. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit the information looks fairly persuasive - through some combination of having the donation amounts and putting the Paypal and Amazon names out there I think you're getting a CPM of somewhere between $3 and $5, versus an industry average of something like $0.24 if you had something like "drink Coke" in the space and received compensation in cash rather than donor hits. Though I haven't done advertising and that may not be a valid comparison because some people aren't getting multiple impressions? To be paranoid though... are you sure one of these companies didn't know you were doing an A/B test and decide to invest a thousand bucks to make you just think it works so much better to have that data up there?

Fundamentally, I worry about the philosophy here. Is the goal really to put natural selection at the helm, do whatever it takes to get as many donations as possible right now? I have JN466 telling me on my talk page you don't even need the money, and while I seldom see eye to eye with him I have to say, I've seen some chapter proposals receiving funding that I can readily imagine living without. I would worry that if you end up with donor fatigue while getting too accustomed to a maximal operating budget, you could be left in an abruptly untenable position should anything go wrong. (For example, if Google ever decides to stop rating the site highly, or attempts to launch some new Knol to replace it that builds off our present content) So while I understand that maybe the campaign can't be made completely unobtrusive, I just think those company names are a bridge too far. Wnt (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, you're talking about efficiency/efficacy, as measured by A-B testing, but the original poster 86 was talking about morality. "It is wrong to badger and threaten people..." What are the keys to the advert? First, it is badger-y. It flash-slides into view, with a bright off-yellow background color. At least they didn't use the blink-tag! Furthermore, it shows up day after day, week after week... and then does it all again, year after year, just like PBS. Second, it contains a clear threat: pay up, or we shut off the server-farm. How much money does a rack of servers cost, if you can get all the tech-skills free, and all the lawyer work pro bono? Btw, you get the same exact basic threat ("we're just a poor non-profit running a top ten website on a shoestring please give today for future upgrades think of the childrenz") in the HTTP 503 *error* messages that happen when the server-farm is overloaded... or when somebody at WMF makes a sysadmin goof. That is begging for charity. 86 thinks wikipedia should not be a charity. The question of how quietly and efficiently the charity runs their begging-operations, and how few days of the year they spam the readers in said efforts, has no bearing. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia principles contravening generally accepted legal principles

One of the most fundamental legal rights and principles in any democracy around the world is built up to the universally valid principle that a person remains to be seen as innocent as long as the prosecution has proven the opposite.

In the sometimes slightly outlandish world of Wikipedia, the exact opposite is the case and the whole project does not even hesitate or shy away from explicitly including the exact opposite in the rules, stating that accused users would have to prove their innocence to the ruling "sovereigns".

So my question, how come this could happen, in the first place - ignoring genuine and prime legal principles to the extreme - and how can Wikipedia still unashamedly claim to be democratic and righteous, whatsoever, while it is rather blatantly ignoring basic human rights?--37.230.24.142 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to where Wikipedia "claim to be democratic and righteous"? 50.143.130.130 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --37.230.24.142 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

By long established policy, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia has never claimed to be "democratic" and it is a website operated by a private nonprofit group, not an elected government. Anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, as long as they do so in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. The Wikipedia community is understanding of good faith errors by new editors, but does not accept ongoing failure to comply with policies and guidelines, and this community reserves the right to block or ban disruptive contributors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

...do so in full compliance with our policies and guidelines with pillar five... .     :-)       Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're highly praised policies and guidelines would do justice to all the legal and universally valid principles out there - as they are written in the constitution - I would agree. The reality looks a bit different, namely that certain parts of the Wikipedia policies are actually in breach of customarily and constitutionally guaranteed rights. And this can be easily proven by pointing out Wikipedia's reversion of the so-called "presumption of innocence".--37.230.24.142 (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Countries and private entities are apples and oranges. Countries are given the power to deprive individuals of their liberties—to take money from them, to send them to war, to imprison or execute them—and thus any good constitution holds the government to very high standards when it wishes to exert its power. Wikipedia, however, cannot tax you, or conscript you, or sentence you to prison, so we need not be held to as high standards. Think of us as being like a restaurant: We can kick you out whenever we'd like, for whatever reason we'd like (unless, I suppose, said reason were a civil rights violation). The hypothetical restaurant can be widely known for its wonderful customer service, but, still, if they think you've been stealing silverware they can ban you without having to prove your guilt. These rights you talk about are not "universally" or "customarily" guaranteed; these are rights that are granted by sovereign states to their citizens, and pretty much by no one else. Wikipedia chooses to adhere to certain democratic principles, and not to adhere to certain other ones. There are no human rights violations here; if you find yourself called upon to serve in the Wikipedia Armed Forces, that'll be another matter. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia be a "private entity" when it is ruling and influencing the opinion of millions of people on a daily basis? --37.230.24.142 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia ruling the opinion of millions of people on a daily basis? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps "swaying" not "ruling": There is a known psychological effect, from the repeated influence of text (as with propaganda), and the current "Wikipedia generation" (and others) have been subjected to vast amounts of non-wp:civil comments and treatment. I have suggested the WMF hire a team of psychologists (perhaps just 3) to help define policies to reduce cyberbullying and increase the focus on protections from incivility. In the real world, bullies are often quickly thwarted by swift (perhaps physical) intervention from other people, but on the web, it is very difficult to stop them without a dedicated force of people actively responding to their threats in rapid order. We have link wp:Trolling to explain some issues, but more needs to be done. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought 37.230 meant readers rather than editors (millions of people), at least I did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible for a private entity to have vast influence and even power, and still not be subject to the same rules and restrictions as a government, much less the criminal processes of a government. Historically, newspapers often had very wide influence. Later, major television networks had in effect the power to define perceived reality to a significant degree. Now, perhaps Wikipedia has such influence, or soemthing like it. That does mean we should try to be careful. It does not mean that we are a government, and should be bound by the rules that apply only to governments. Moreover, the "assumed innocent until proven guilty" rule even in a governmental context is limited to criminal procedure. In areas like tax policy, a government will often make assumptions about the status or liability of a person which the person must disprove to avoid. Moreover, not all democratic governments follow this rule. under the Code Napoleon and its modern versions, the government can under some circumstances force an individual to prove his or her innocence, once some evidence of criminality has been presented, as I understand the matter. So do not assert as "universal" what is in fact nothing of the sort. DES ^(talk) 16:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Further ignored legal principles

When a judge in real life renders a judgement, his very first duty is to supply precise evidence and submit any concrete proof along with his verdict. Within the Wikipedia system, administrators can feel free to take arbitrary assumptions and aren't obliged to give any evidence, whatsoever. You don't have to be a legal practitioner to see that this collides with common sense.37.230.24.142 (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not true. All admin actions must be able to stand up to community scrutiny ES&L 12:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What community? The vast majority of Wikipedians never take a part in the community discussions and a few dozens who do have no right yo call themselves "the community".69.181.40.174 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Magna Carta from 1215: It takes groups a long time to organize a civilized governance. I always remember how many centuries of oppression before the Magna Carta was signed (15 June 1215), which has been well-taught as a first step in U.S. schools to explain concepts of liberty and human rights. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you, 37.230, but Wikipedia is not a court of law. Resolute 15:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. We cannot take away your 'right to a fair trial' on Wikipedia - because you don't have one in the first place. We don't conduct trials. We create and edit an encyclopaedia. And anyone we see as acting in a manner we think contrary to that aim, we exclude from the process. Because we can - as a private entity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not beholden to Magna Carta in any case. Anytime we want to, we can make whatever changes to it we like.Formerip (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Even in an actual count of law, many rulings do not come with written opinions and "precise evidence" and "concrete proof" from the judge, although it may be already in the record from other sources. But Wikipedia is not a court of law. We can't lock people up, fine them, or execute them. The worst we can do is forbid them to edit this private web site, and anyone is free to start an alternative online encyclopedia at any time, and re-use all our content for the purpose. Moreover, administrators are taken to task all the time on WP:ANI and other fora. Often the community supports the admin, and often they should. But sometiems they don't. There are cases in progress even now before the Arbitration Committee considering whether admins have acted improperly. In the past some such cases have resulted in editors being removed from the position of admin. Any admin is expected to give a civil and responsive explanation of any admin action on request, and failure to do so may itself be grounds for action against that admin. DES ^(talk) 16:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Corporations, unions, governments, and Wikipedia are all different things. Nonetheless, a recent Signpost points out that Wikis seem subject to the Iron law of oligarchy. This concerns the concentration of power and therefore is quite relevant to the conversation here. However difficult the 'iron law' is to break, it is possible to oppose it with a very strong sense of individual rights. After all, somehow new organizations come into existence which reset the iron law, when no one has any authority over their entry. Though this is not and should not be a court, we could institute a few basic reforms, for example a "trial by jury" (i.e. delegating difficult decisions to a set of randomly chosen editors rather than those in power or those most eager to nominate themselves) and bolstering freedom of speech by rolling back restrictions on userpage 'social media' content and inaugurating wider-ranging forums. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• We could institute such reforms, Wnt - but why would any of it actually work towards improving encyclopaedic content? Please provide examples - with evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but how do you collect evidence without the right to make a change in the first place? An experiment is instituted only if it increases the centralized power, and then its result is a foregone conclusion (Pending Changes). I did not mean to suggest subverting a universal law of organizations would be easy. Wnt (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Make that a 'supposed universal law of organizations'. And a dubious one at that. Anyway, you've yet to explain why turning Wikipedia into a forum-cum-FaceBook clone would improve the encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where FaceBook comes into it. Could you elaborate?

AFAICS, implementing some sort of "jury" principle into WP processes would be straightforward if the community wanted it. Just as we can't throw people into prison, we also can't compel them to jury service, so our pool would be those users who are willing. But that's arguably an improvement compared to those users who are keen to exercise authority. We have various functions - any manner of close, any ArbCom case - where it would be doable and not present any obvious disadvantage to set up a system that selected a given number of deciders at random. That's it, the whole proposal.

It is, of course, impossible to prove in advance that this would improve things. But I think Wnt is correct that our current desire to rely on users in authority could be a net disbenefit to the project. I'd cite the recent Tea Party ArbCom case, which I think no-one would defend as well-handled. The thing in that case was that ArbCom did not appear to find in necessary to explain its decision-making. For all I know, they made wonderful decisions. But it seems to me a serious problem that we breed decision-makers who are more interested in exercising authority than in following process or in being accountable (what's more, our processes don't actually require accountability). I don't think a jury system could guarantee to cure this, but I also don't think it could be worse. Formerip (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia already utilizes a jury system. Its called ANI. Resolute 14:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The kind of jury made up of a group of people who select themselves to come together and pass judgment is better known as a "mob". Wnt (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI doesn't resemble a jury at all. If you are on a jury you (a) don't have any standing position of authority and (b) don't have the freedom to involve yourself or not involve yourself in any decision that comes along - you get questions allocated to you. Formerip (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, but lets face it. For the most part, the only people likely to volunteer to sit a jury are the same people likely to opine at ANI. Resolute 17:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that depends a little on how you set it up. But, in any case, I'm thinking of a jury system not as a replacement for open discussion, but as a means of selecting closers. What we have at the moment is a system where decision-makers mainly self-select to resolve specific questions, which has an obvious flaw if you're looking to generate confidence that the decisions are taken impartially. And, although it's not central to the issue, I think you would get a wider range of closers that way. For a number of reasons, I pretty much never close a discussion (on the few occasions I have, it has usually been an obvious SNOW close), and I definitely wouldn't run for ArbCom, but I probably would let myself be on a list of jurors. I doubt that I'm a unique case. Formerip (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't do compulsion, but in lieu of that we can spam. It's the ugly part of the process, but in order to get a representative jury we have to set up a verifiably random mechanism to pick out random recent edits, and then we post a notice to the user's page that he's been selected to weigh in on XXXX, and that as a juror his opinion will carry extra weight as an impartial observer. I think that a certain proportion, not high but not zero, will be moved by such an appeal to participate to some extent, particularly if we have made it so that the cases are clearly explained (i.e. in an ArbCom case the jury might not need to come in until the "evidence" phase has concluded, apart from responses to any questions they might have) Wnt (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing comments by a ban-evading IP. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Resolute, ANI is not a jury system. ANI is a bunch of anonymous usually involved users bullies who are acting as witnesses, jurors, persecutes and executioners at the same time. ANI is more like a lynch mob, not as a jury system, and in some situations a person who's being lynched has no ability to say a single word in his defense. You don't agree with me? Okay, let me quote someone else: "Well, the bright side is that this isn't any sort of indictment of anything you said or did, and whoever thinks it is is deluding themselves. What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up. It's like World of Warcraft, sometimes there's just too many orcs and not enough humans." It was said by a very experienced user, who knows at first hand what ANI is about. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Law has no standing. ANI's primary purpose is supposed to be an "immediate incident response system" - and to provide temporary relief from an in-progress/recently-occured situation that is contrary to the goals and policies of the project. It's supposed to be short-term protection. That's still a necessity. It's secondary purpose is "hey people who in theory represent a sample of the community, something has happened that we need some kind of community discussion on, and that we need to come to consensus as to a) if I'm right that something is wrong, and b) what direction we need to take". In this second role, we are all self-appointed and informal as opposed to ArbCom which is formal and elected ... we're the "tribal elders" as opposed to the "band chiefs". While still not 100% representative, there certainly are a cross-section of nationalities, faiths, genders, and "roles" who participate. Do they make perfect decisions? No. Can those decisions still be appealed? Yes. ES&L 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Do you believe that someone with such beautiful power seeking record will listen to your appeal? You're dead wrong. An honest, normal person cannot survive the arbcom. He would be either removed or leave on his own, or simply stop participating in the discussions as Xeno did. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Personally, I would find it offensive to ascribe motive to someone's behaviours. To one person, it may look like "power-seeking", whereas to someone else it might look like extreme desire to help the project, and yet to another it might be misguided attempts to do something - you're placing a value-judgement when you have zero abolity to read their mind ES&L 19:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Helping the project should be at least started with adding the content not seeking power. Somebody with such edit count should not be even an admin. Let me quote Casliber: "The committee is not homogeneous. One of the reasons I ran again was a need for someone who actually writes content to be on the damn committee. I've tried pointing out percentages etc. elsewhere. I'm tired and this is fucked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)" (my bolding). 69.181.40.174 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Wnt that PRNG-based solicitation of opinion is an ideal system. The ancient greeks used to pick their leaders the same way, albeit trusting in the will of the gods -- he who plucks the one short straw from the obscured set of 99 long straws was chosen by Athena for this task! This is somewhat distasteful, as Wnt says, because we must *spam* the readership to achieve such a result. However, it is the only way I've come up with to guarantee impartiality of closers. As a bonus, I predict that an anon who is randomly selected for jury duty, from amongst the 500M readers[7] we get every month, will be far more likely to stay and become an editor, than one who is not so selected. Double-win, methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That would 'guarantee' nothing. Given that participation if picked would still be optional, you would still end up with a self-selected jury. You would also prevent IPs from participating at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would be possible to completely eliminate all forms of self-selection. But I think you could pretty much guarantee participants who would be more likely to be disinterested in the question and more likely to be motivated by the good of the project than egotism. Formerip (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Poll 13,330 users to get 400 votes

Using the rule-of-thumb to expect 3% of people to volunteer, then notify about 13,330 users (3%=~400) to reply to a wiki-voter poll to decide a major issue, such as long-term topic bans (by independent vote, without seeing the ongoing tally as pile-on votes). However, there would also need to be "rules of evidence" to back any claims and wording to not beg the question by spin-wording such as "More hateful racist comments by User:<name>" where the evidence would need to back claims of racist actions rather than condemn a user beforehand. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually think its pretty impressive if 3% of active users voted in the ArbCom election, given what a nebulous and time-consuming process it is. The fact that most users don't participate in that is really another indication that the process is conceptually flawed (it's based on the idea of a mandate which doesn't really exist in practice). What it isn't is any sort of guide at all to how many people would participate in an alternative process, nor how many would be a good number. Formerip (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Provenance of Parveen Chopra

Jimbo, could you take a quick look at the content of Parveen Chopra? Do you feel that it is up to Wikipedia standards for notability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and conflict of interest? The account that created the biography is User:South Asian Comm. (Chopra is, according to Wikipedia, a South Asian and was a Commissioner in Nassau County, NY.) In February and March 2009, the user was repeatedly warned and admonished about the creation of articles about Dr. Parveen Chopra and Parveen Chopra. The account could be said to have been "single purpose". Nonetheless, in mid-March 2009, he was able to get the biography to stick. In November 2009, an IP address from Long Island, NY added an immense amount of personal information to the biography. The IP address was also single purpose. In August 2010, another New York-based IP address added a paragraph promoting a Liberty Bell award that Chopra won. It just feels to me that this seldom-viewed biography was inserted into Wikipedia for the purposes of self-promotion, and that for three or four years, nobody has substantially done anything about it. Could you please comment? - 2001:558:1400:10:8950:6465:CD74:E8B4 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you are right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your confirmation of my suspicion. It's a real shame, because I understand from Ryan Faulkner (former Wikimedia Foundation employee) that someone named Parveen Chopra was a substantial financial contributor to the Wikimedia Foundation. One would have thought he'd have observed more caution in promoting such a biography, if that is in fact what happened. (Or, it could be that the WMF donor is a different Parveen Chopra. There are perhaps 15 people with that name on LinkedIn alone.) - 2001:558:1400:10:8950:6465:CD74:E8B4 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how I "confirmed your suspicion" - I know nothing about this other than what you told me, plus a glance at the article shows it is pretty weak in terms of promotional language, sourcing, etc. I don't know what you mean about Ryan Faulkner (nor who he is actually nor what his job role was at the Foundation) and you haven't even told me what role you think he played in the process - i.e. how did Ryan "promote such a biography"? If you are asking if the Wikimedia Foundation takes the position that it is ok for donors to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, that's a pretty ridiculous question and the answer is a resounding NO.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be cock-up rather than conspiracy. I don't see any moves by the WMF to support the article due to a conflict of interest. Rather more likely is that it is a random article in the deep depths of the wiki that is so little read that nobody cared to deal with it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't even understand what the alleged "cock-up" is supposed to be. What does the WMF have to do with it at all is what is unclear to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, bad style. In the phrase, "One would have thought he'd", the "he" refers to Parveen Chopra, not to Ryan Faulkner. I was merely speculating that if the same Parveen Chopra who gave a huge donation to the Wikimedia Foundation then turned around and wrote his own self-promotional biography on Wikipedia, that would reflect poorly on Chopra (not the WMF). If anyone at the WMF even knew about the biography, I would be surprised. It looks like the biography is headed for the scrap bin now, anyway, thanks to my diligent observation. Jimbo, if you want the list of large donors to WMF that Mr. Faulkner published publicly, just search for 'Wikimedia Foundation secret donor list' or some similar combination of words. There are about 250 names and organizations on the list. It would be cool if the Wikimedia Foundation would issue a research grant to someone to analyze the provenance of the Wikipedia biographies of those donors, and compare against a cohort group of similarly famous non-donors. Maybe donors are less likely to have had a conflict of interest in the creation or maintenance of their Wikipedia biographies. Or perhaps more likely. We can't know without a study. - 2001:558:1400:10:8950:6465:CD74:E8B4 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. 2001. Nice to see you back. Hope you've been well. This is indeed a simply awful bit of self-promotion. However, I am glad that you agree that it is pretty bad and might perhaps be the subject of a conflict of interest. That is a recurrent problem, you know. Why, just today the employee of a company who authored an article on his employer beat me into submission with a very convincing (and accurate) argument that our current COI rules do not prohibit subjects of articles from creating and editing articles about themselves, and then carrying the banner of their employer into AfD. Yes sir, that's the way it is, he told me, and if I don't like it I can take a hike. Bright Line Rule? What Bright Line Rule? Bad situation, I think you'll agree. Time to prohibit subjects of articles, and their employees and paid hirelings, from editing articles about themselves. Right? Coretheapple (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've requested speedy deletion of the article. The "Foundation donor" innuendo is bogus, but Mr. 2001 has, once again, demonstrated the need for a tough COI and paid editing policy. The page is semiprotected so he cannot discuss this subject for the next 24 hrs., but I recommend him to create a user account (or use one of his old ones) and contribute to the project. I recommend vandal-fighting! Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the 100001st article of this kind in Wikipedia. Good that it got remarked and deleted now. There's little else to say besides WP:OSE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are many, many others. Anyway, it's good that Mr. 2001 brought it to our attention. I'd like to see him create an account and get back in the game if he can (which I doubt). Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this how you wanted Wikipedia to be?

The BP article consists of 57% criticism compared with, for example, 3% for Nazi Party, 12% for Pol Pot and 21% for Joseph Stalin. Is this what you expect in an encyclopedia? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you have an RfC pending on the talk page of the article. It isn't going quite the way you want it to, but that is no reason to engage in forum shopping, which is explicitly prohibited by policy, or the kind of cherry-picking canvassing that you've been engaged in. You really have to stop doing that kind of thing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, try to mention links to noticeboards or RfCs in a neutral tone, without judgmental phrases ("isn't going quite the way you want it to"); you have confused your wp:CANVASing here against Martin Hogbin as insult-shopping with wildly misguided claims of WP:Forum shopping, which requires posting to a 2nd forum noticeboard (hello?), as in the word "forum" in the phrase "forum shopping". Otherwise, what 'noticeboard' would allow the user (Jimbo) to delete any message as if being on a personal talk-page? Bingo. I think even you could understand, despite your hostile comments, how posting to this page is never (as in "not ever") a case of wp:forum shopping to multiple noticeboards. So, perhaps cut the insult-shopping, insult-trashing, insult-bashing, insult-piling, insult-thumping, well perhaps just by a slight amount. Perhaps? -Wikid77 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We'll leave that up to the closing administrator in that discussion if his canvassing succeeds in tilting the vote there, but the general feeling here, even among people who otherwise agree with him, is pretty clear that yes, this is canvasssing and no, this isn't a proper way of influencing the RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have voted with Margin Hogbin on the RFC that the article has become a dumping-ground for anti-BP statements. That is, I agree with him as to the content judgment. However, I agree with Coretheapple on process. The RFC is the proper means for seeking consensus. If Martin and I are in the minority, we should accept our minority status rather than engaging in forum shopping. Martin: What are you expecting from Jimbo Wales? For him to blank or delete the article that we don't like? We are in the minority. Accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved in content disputes before and been happy to accept the majority decision but the BP page is a just an extreme example of a much broader problem of anti-business, anti-oil sentiment in WP. I have no connection with the oil industry and I am not particularly pro-business but I do know what an encyclopdia is, and how an encyclopedic article should look, Microsoft for example. WP seems to be becoming a medium for putting right what some people see as great wrongs, using the principle, 'If I can find it in a newspaper somewhere I can whack it into WP'. This is extremely damaging to the credibility and authority of WP and I thought this might be of concern to Jimbo Wales. I also saw this as a way of bringing the problem to the attention of a wider audience, particularly those with some kind if vision as to how an online encyclopedia should look. There is undoubtedly a place for whistle blowing and campaigning but this is not it.

Maybe I am wrong and Jimmbo and the community want WP to be a media-based voice of popular opinion but if this is the case it will undoubtedly lose the credibility and faith of the public. 10:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(Also, to a few folks, "criticism" = historical account. Example of BP criticism: In March 2005, the Texas City Refinery, one of the largest refineries owned then by BP, exploded causing 15 deaths, injuring 180 people and forcing thousands of nearby residents to remain sheltered in their homes. There is no criticism section at the BP article, which many are saying actually reads as if it's been whitewashed.) petrarchan47tc 00:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple and Petrarchan47, all I am trying to do is to get the widest possible community response to this issue, which I see as seriously damaging to the integrity and authority of Wikipedia. You are both welcome to help me get as many people to look at this dispute as possible. I have not specially selected people that I think will agree with me but have used neutral methods to try to get more people here. If the opinion of the whole WP community goes against me I will lose all faith in WP. I do no suppose that you or anyone else cares about that but I want to make sure that I get the view of the whole WP community rather than a that just a few. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin wrote: "I have not specially selected people that I think will agree with me but have used neutral methods to try to get more people here." I agree that the RFC was a neutral means. What was the objective of posting here? Was it to get more attention to the RFC (but the RFC process takes care of itself), or to get the attention of Jimbo or the WMF, or what? Is the BP article one that is so essential to the integrity of Wikipedia that WMF must be asked to override "community consensus" (of the English Wikipedia) or to intervene in the failure to establish "community consensus"? This is a content dispute, and can be handled by the usual means for a content dispute, such as the current RFC. Is there a reason why this issue is comparable to paid advocacy editing and requires Jimbo Wales or the WMF to intervene, bypassing consensus? Is it just that you don't like the outcome of the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you mention it, this problem is similar to paid advocacy, only worse. I see a bias in WP against the oil and gas industry in general, BP happens to be the worst and most obvious case. No one has yet shown me an article where paid advocacy has caused serious damage to the integrity of WP. In the other hand BP shows serious damage. The problem is caused by unpaid (I presume) advocates of POV which sees only one side of an industry; the bad side. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's bull, and your extremely POV language makes it clear that you're engaged in canvassing on this page. Your attempt to skew the consensus is transparent and is counterproductive, if you manage to tilt the playing field to get your desired result it will be noted by the closing administrator. Here's an analogy: I am involved in an ongoing administrative noticeboard discussion in which a COI editor is involved. (I'm being deliberately murky here.) If I raised the issue concerning that COI and article here and said "is this the kind of Wikipedia you want it to be?" I'd be just as guilty of trying to skew the consensus as you are here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not normally considered canvassing to make Jimbo aware of an issue on which one would like his opinion, whether there's an RFC ongoing or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is, especially in the highly prejudicial way in which he is formulating the issue. As Robert suggested, what is Martin desiring here, that Jimbo place the article under quarantine or personally rewrite it? This is no different than forum-shopping to AN/I or the neutrality noticeboard. This is a content dispute with an active RfC and does not belong here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, stop wp:CANVASing here against Martin Hogbin. Try to word links to noticeboards in a neutral tone. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't think that Martin needs a wikilawyer to encourage him to promulgate drama here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know what Martin desires from his post here (if anything other than discovering Jimbo's opinion), you'd have to ask Martin; for I have no idea. If you want to ask the RFC closer to disregard anything at the RFC that has resulted from Martin's post here, that's entirely reasonable. I am merely telling you that, by longstanding convention and specifically at Jimbo's request, it's not normally considered canvassing to make Jimbo aware of an issue on which one would like his opinion, whether there's an RFC ongoing or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin, could you elaborate on the methodology by which you derived your criticism percentages? MastCell ^Talk 02:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, it was a fairly crude method in which I cut text from the article and pasted into a text editor which gave me a word count. To get the total I just pasted the whole article (excluding the lead and eveythig after and including 'See also') into the editor. To get the criticism, sections marked 'criticism' or similar were included in their entirety. Integrated criticism was selected by sentence. For comparison I did not cherry pick as suggested above but chose articles on subjects that, in almost everyone's opinion, deserved serious criticism. The Nazi Party article was the first that I looked at and may be something of an anomaly. Pol Pot is rather more typical. The closest to BP that I could find was another large oil company Exxon. I give some more detail of my investigations here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

This kind of patent nonsense is why I think that what you're doing here is just flat-out canvassing. The way Wikipedia works is that we reflect the weight of the sourcing. We don't hold articles up to each other and say, "this one seems less unfavorable than the other." Implying that Stalin, Pol Pot and Nazi articles are more "positive" than other articles because they lack "criticism" sections is simply daft. A factual description of the Nazi Party ideology or the blood-soaked careers of Stalin and Pol Pot is just that, factual, neither positive nor negative. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I agree with Petrarchan47 in that factual sentences should not be counted toward criticism even if the factual material describes a disaster as in her example of the Texas City Refinery explosion. You have thus skewed your results. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is some systemic bias at work here; the USSR has (historically speaking) tons of positive government-published material about it, whereas a large corporation will generally have financial reporting that is a mix of positive and negative (plus in general too statistically mind-numbing to count as encyclopedic except when summarized as a chart)... plus tons of negative publicity about disasters, layoffs, et cetera. When 1000 people are hired over the span of three years, that ain't news, except as a footnote in the financial reporting, but when those same 1000 get fired in the span of three days, all the papers buzz with the scandal. New facility built? Ho hum. New facility explodes? Story! It is not objectively fair, but our pragmatic definition of Reliable Sources, which is the key to pillar two, revolves around what the media and the publishers see fit to report. Hence, we have systemic bias. But what alternative mechanism is there? How do we keep NPOV, if not by religiously following what the sources say? We have to stick to the Reliable Sources, or wikipedia will just be a WP:POLLing system where people vote on which version of WP:The_Truth will be in the article. Sad, really. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather poor place to look for systemic bias, if what you're seeking here is either pro-dictator or anti-corporate bias. The Nazi, Stalin and Pol Pot pages are in their entirety from sources unrelated to the subject. On the contrary, the BP article was actually written in large part by the BP public relations staff, with the BP-authored text cut-and-pasted into the article. That horrid situation was reversed a few months ago, and now we have an article that actually reflects reality and not the spin that BP desired, though it is a work in progress and much more needs to be done, as has been mentioned above. To give an example of how totally useless the article used to be, for many months it stated, incorrectly, that alternative energy was a "main business segment" when it was not. This error persisted despite the presence of a BP Wiki PR person who "saw nothing" (Sergeant Schultz style) and let this pro-BP error misinform Wikipedia readers, at the same time that he was micromanaging the article on the talk page to be sure that it met BP specifications. So yes, we have had institutional bias in the BP article, but it's quite the opposite of what you suggest. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the article is still too friendly to BP, since editors continue to insist Wikipedia in general is plagued by paid editors working for corporate interests, and some even insist that the "assume good faith" policy should be waived if the "bad faith" accusation that one is levelling happens to be accusing another editor of being a PR flack for some some corporate interest.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps Martin needs to include a few more samples of articles in the comparison, as the choices made are skewing the results. I'd suggest adding Charles Manson for one. You see, the table of comparisons are misleading - BP is unfortunately known for a number of high-profile cock-ups while producing a much-needed commodity. Microsoft on the other hand is known for revolutionizing how we interact with computers, and turning them from something in the realm of business and academia into something every person owns - but yes, with some cock-ups along the way. Exxon's history in oil is different ... they're not known as being so lackadaisical (or unlucky) in their safety processes, even though they have a couple of biggies. So, maybe BP is the Charles Manson of oil companies ... known more for the sheer quantity of negatives? ES&L 11:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, casting whole sections as negative, Charles Manson comes out at 31%, a long way behind BP at 57%.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a comment from left field. That BP piece is a terrible, overlong, unreadable mess of an article. Somebody needs to rewrite it from scratch. It's absurdly over-detailed and pretty obviously a coatrack of corporate culpability. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that Martin has one more notch on the ledger thanks to his canvassing here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Concur with Carrite. I just read it for the first time aswell and "unreadable mess" and "obviously a coatrack" are accurate descriptions. DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite for a change, and with DeCausa. However, I have a question. Why not say something to that effect in response to the RFC, which is the neutral means for obtaining community comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

They can certainly do so. But since their doing so would be a direct result of improper canvassing, I'm not sure there would be much point. The reason there's a rule against canvassing is to prevent people from "stacking the deck" as is being attempted here. (and pretty openly, given the melodramatic language that he utilized) Since the RfC was going solidly against him before he commenced his canvassing, with every single previously uninvolved editor saying "no," I think that he's done a really fine job of mucking things up completely. His "get out the vote" campaign can result in 500 "yes" votes and I don't think it would amount to a hill of beans in the end. Coretheapple (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An RFC on that piece of crap article would be good money chasing bad. That piece needs the Holy Hand Grenade of Brother Maynard™ and a complete do-over by somebody that knows how to write. Carrite (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we can turn it over to the previous author, BP Corporate Communications. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To paraphrase: "the only alternative to the current mess is to turn over to BP." That's ridiculous. Whilst Coretheapple is probably right that if I were to comment in the RfC it would be struck as a product of canvassing - and I won't bother. Nevertheless, the OP has a lot less to be embarrassed about than those editors that think that the current state of the article is worth preserving. That shambolic garbage is getting 2k hits a day. Sheesh. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not hyperbole. The previous principal authors of the article were BP Corporate Communications. It received widespread publicity, and was a serious black eye for Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

BP wrote approximately 44% of the article. petrarchan47tc 06:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So? Why is that relevant? Two wrongs don't make a right is such a cliche but I can't think of anything more apposite. DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This was in response to the claim that the article is poorly written. It may be viewed as further evidence that PR departments aren't necessarily beneficial to Wikipedia, and don't always make articles more accurate or readable. PR activity might create a war-zone that ends up in a lot of wasted time on the talk page that could instead be used to create a good article. petrarchan47tc 20:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not even true. There is a BP paid editor who fully declared his interest and who only edits the talk page. He was commended by Jimmy Wales for his openness. All edits to the article have been made by non-COI editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

But if the Edward Snowden article reads like it was written by Snowden's PR team, that's just fine. No matter how dubious in terms of factual accuracy a statement by Snowden or Snowden sympathizer may be, it's give 'em the soapbox yet again. Let's not pretend that a subject like Snowden isn't more popular around here than BP (or Monsanto etc etc). This is what's ultimately driving the lean of these articles.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You think that's fine, you have another think coming, my friend. That and a refresher course in WP:AGF. Coretheapple (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO it exhibits a moderate degree of anti-BP bias which could be remedied by a few tweaks addressing the method that was (inadvertently or otherwise) used to bias the article. Which is to use of lower threshold for inclusion for negative material than neutral or positive. This is a company with a 100+ years of history and on the scale of a medium sized country but even the kinds of petitions on negatives that me and two people can put together have made it into the article. The tweak would be to take the relatively small stuff out. But this points to the bigger fix needed. There is a gaping hole in wp:NPOV which enables (ironically) wp:npov to be used to POV articles. The wp:weight/wp:undue section, and it's reliance on "amount of coverage" in sources is flawed. The first problem is that as a practical matter, that standard is impossible to objectively/actually be applied. Second, even in it's vague influences, it needs better calibration to include things like significance and degree of relevance. Without those fixes, if there is a "witch hunt" majority present at an article, they can use that to avoid any effort at objectiveness and where there is "pro-subject" majority present, it's vagueness and unusability, allows them to prevent the policy from being applied. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Martin Hogbin wrote: "If the opinion of the whole WP community goes against me I will lose all faith in WP." Right. So in other words, if everyone thinks you're wrong, then you're right and everyone else is wrong. I've known a couple of people in real life who took that line, and it didn't bring either them or the people around them any joy. Martin, I'll grant you that instances of one person being right and everyone else being wrong do happen, but the larger the sample of people being polled, the less likely it is. Has it occurred to you, even with a few others supporting your contention, that you might actually be wrong? If I found myself in a position similar to yours, I'd certainly give it some thought, anyway. Groupthink is common enough on Wikipedia, and sometimes the majority does get it wrong, but well-publicized discussions usually draw in various independent-minded editors who don't hesitate to make cogent, compelling arguments that run contrary to the prevailing opinion. I'm not seeing that here, and I think that's telling. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing?

I cannot see how my post here can be considered canvassing, which I understand to be contacting only editors who you think will support your side of a dispute. There no reason to suppose that I would find editors who would support my case here (apart from perhaps Jimbo who I hoped would not like his idea turned into a media-based complaints forum). Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to get the maximum response to the RfC from as wide a sections of the WP community as possible. If anyone here knows the correct way to do that I would welcome their help and advice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It was explained to you multiple times, here by Robert McClenon, who is quite vigorously in favor of your position, and on their user pages and yours by Buster7 and JytDog, that your coming here on a content dispute and your various emails were inappropriate and that the RfC process provides the maximum response that you are seeking. As Robert points out above, your position is in the minority, despite your efforts, and you need to accept that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to complicate things further, I'm quite vigorously opposed to Martin's opinion but I don't see his posting to Jimbo's page to be a problem. I could imagine doing it if I felt really, really strongly that a terrible miscarriage of justice was happening somewhere else on Wikipedia. I get the sense Martin feels that way about the BP article, although for the life of me I can't imagine why. Rivertorch (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

email

Saludos! I know we are getting close to the holidays and all, but I havent received any response to my email yet. Did you receive it?Thelmadatter (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

ACE 2013

Hi Jimbo, I'm glad to inform you 28bytes, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, Roger Davies, AGK, NativeForeigner, LFaraone and Floquenbeam have been elected to en.wiki's arbcom for a two-years term, while Beeblebrox has been elected for a one-years term. Ciao! --Vituzzu (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A positive outcome, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I echo my friend Jim on this and wish the new Arbs the best in a very difficult job. Don't be afraid to let the community see what you are doing by entering the debate in public. That would go a long way towards diffusing suspicion and hostility. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope that the newly-seated Arbitrators pay close attention to the vote tallies which garnered them their seats. Five of the nine successful candidates drew support of less than 67% in the voting; in other words, more than 1 in 3 of the editors who expressed an opinion felt that these candidates couldn't or shouldn't be trusted with the responsibilities of a sitting Arbitrator. Two more candidates fell between 67% and 70% support: generally taken as the bare minimum threshold for granting adminship.

Whether fairly or not, the community is clearly divided in its judgement. All Arbitrators, new and old, should approach their responsibilities with care and humility, and remember that the real process of assessing their competence and earning the community's trust doesn't end with the election, but begins when they take their seats. Communicate calmly, concisely, and without rancor. Don't be afraid to show your work, but do step back and read what you've written before you hit save. Recognize that there will be some editors who are just never satisfied, but don't pass up the opportunity to extract useful meaning from criticism. Most of the time, even editors who might disagree with us are still here for the same reason: to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There were some I didn't vote for, but how do you know that means I "felt that these candidates couldn't or shouldn't be trusted with the responsibilities of a sitting Arbitrator"? You don't, do you? As for "Two more candidates fell between 67% and 70% support: generally taken as the bare minimum threshold for granting adminship", you don't appear to understand the difference between a simple yes/no vote like RFA and a multi-seat election - you pretty much inevitably get lower percentage supports in the latter. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that the percentages of the arbs who were elected are pretty much in line with previous elections. The community appears to be no more divided in its judgment now than it has in the past. Whatever point TOAT was trying to make there fell pretty much flat. The latter few sentences are fair comment, however. Resolute 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Boing!, I know the difference between the plain meaning of 'Abstain' and 'Oppose'. The percent 'Support' in the tally accounts only for votes for and against ('Support' and 'Oppose'), not voters who avoided expressing an opinion ('Abstain', or the ones you "didn't vote for"). Moreover, in WP:ACE2013 there were 923 valid ballots cast, but only 5859 'Support' votes. Approaching the analysis from a slightly different direction, we know that at most 651 voters (5859 supports divided by 9 seats) could have cast 'Support' votes for a full slate of 9 candidates. At an absolute minimum, 272 voters (923 minus 651) – 29.5% – did not find a full slate they could support.

Since some voters will have actually cast ballots with more or fewer than exactly 9 'Support' votes, the fraction of voters who did not 'Support' a full nine-candidate slate is actually likely to be much greater. In making their ballot choices, by and large the voters didn't run out of seats to fill, they ran out of supportable candidates. The average voter only supported 6.3 candidates, but we seated 9.

Resolute, I'd say that you would have to go back to at least WP:ACE2010 to see a similar proportion or number of below-70% (or below-67%) candidates seated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee said:

...you don't appear to understand the difference between a simple yes/no vote like RFA and a multi-seat election - you pretty much inevitably get lower percentage supports in the latter.

I'll bite, why?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I just think its a little amusing that all, or at least most, of the people selected either currently are or have in the past, been in Arbcom. Several have basically become career Wiki Arbitrators. So really, the end result is probably just going to be more of the same. I hope I am wrong and there are some indications that things may change slightly, but I am not really holding out hope for any meaningful change from Arbcom. The Arb process is still too long and messy, AE is still an abusive blockparty, lazy broadly construed wording in the Arbcom sanctions still leads to abuse by admins who's intentions and interpretations of the sanctions frequently don't line up with the Arbcom's intent. Then there is Arbcom failing to do anything about any of it and a general mentality of backpatting by them and Jimbo and there is no desire to change any of it for the better. Just like RFA it seems. Another year of badly written sanctions and poor decisions are likely on the horizon. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are saying that most of those elected have already been arbitrators. Actually, seven of the nine successful candidates will be new to the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well it's nothing to do with knowing the difference between the plain meaning of 'Abstain' and 'Oppose' . In an RFA it's a simple yes/no with one candidate, and that's the only decision needed - preference relative to other candidates isn't there, and just "good enough" is sufficient. However, with a multi-seat election, voters are also comparing candidates, and in addition to "good enough" they also have to decide "better than other candidates". In, say, two RFAs, a voter could vote for both if they think both are good enough. But if those two are up against each other in a multi-seat election, they will also compare them and some voters will vote against one or will abstain in order to maximise the chances of the other - even if they think both are good enough. As another example, think of the last nine successful RFA candidates and think of their pass percentages (the actual values aren't important - so no need to go and look). Now imagine all nine of those were together in one multi-seat election with a total of 21 candidates and only 9 seats available. Do you think all nine would be elected with the same pass percentages as they got in their individual RFAs? Not a chance (well, there is a chance, but it's very low). In short, in such an election many voters will ration their votes in the hope of getting their favourites and will not vote for some people they would have voted for in individual RFAs, but in separate RFA-type elections there is no need to do that. So in a multi-seat election the pass percentage will be lower - even for the actual same candidates. And it will get lower just by adding more candidates - even though the existing candidates don't change. And so it is meaningless to compare the two types of election and simply not true to suggest that the same pass percentage in each one means the same thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  More on my comparison between nine individual RFAs and a multi-seat election - statistically, some voters who abstain on some candidates in a multi-seat election simply wouldn't turn up at their individual RFAs. And so the "abstain" count in a multi-seat election includes the equivalent of "neutral" voters at an individual RFA *and* some of those who simply didn't turn up. In a multi-seat election if you only want to vote for one candidate, you *have to* abstain on the others and add yourself to the count of voters who didn't support - with individual RFAs, you can simply ignore as many as you like and not register in any of the counts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, I also explained it here in the run-up to the election (in response to a proposal by TenOfAllTrades, in fact). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  And we cannot assume that "The average voter only supported 6.3 candidates" means they ran out of candidates they thought were good enough - in multi-seat elections voters often vote for fewer than the maximum in order to improve the chances of their favourites. (In general, it's unwise to make assumptions about the reasons for people's votes purely from the numbers - there are many variations on tactics used in multi-seat elections, and the best we can do is recognise the variations that are statistically likely to happen). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  I think it is, in general, even less wise to presume that (a large number of) people are deliberately misstating their opinions of the candidates for the purposes of strategic or tactical voting. There is a reason why we offer voters three possible choices for each candidate instead of two, and I think you're being rather reckless to dismiss the distinction between an 'Abstain' and an 'Oppose'. An 'Oppose' vote says that a voter actively doesn't want a candidate to be seated on the committee; it's not merely a 'not my top pick, shrug'. Besides, shouldn't it be concerning that we have a shallow enough candidate pool that the average voter only has enough 'favorites' to fill two-thirds of the seats? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Responded at your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  TenOfAllTrades, people simply *do* vote tactically and it's no use pretending they don't - it's a very well-known and widespread phenomenon (Oh, and I think "deliberately misstating their opinions of the candidates" is really not a fair description of simply supporting your top nine in a nine-seat election and opposing the rest). Anyway, I've carried on the discussion at my talk page in response to Sphilbrick, as it is indeed getting too tangential for here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

new arbitrator?

jimbo don't you think that the wikipeia community looks rather silly when somebody (see the edit summary) like (see the ANI post) that (see the opinion of the WMF employee) gets elected to the arbcom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.32.27 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Lets reverse the election results since someone unwilling to put their regular username to their comment is unhappy. Resolute 18:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't intend to comment here, after Sir Jimmy Of The Commons deleted an earlier comment, against WP Policy, but this pisses me off me more than 'special rules for special people'. A small portion of active editors (less than 1000) voted in the Arbcom Election and it took a ridiculously long time to tally votes. With such a low number, why not pre-register for votes, (others can still vote later but give the pre-reg option, if 'verification' will take this long) and when registered we have a single use key/token & our votes aren't connected to anyone's later ability to inspect our digital orifices. In addition, require a minimum # of votes passed to see someone elected. If that isn't met, then end the pseudo democracy promo, have WMF take control until a reasonable number of editors cast a vote (for however long that continues). At the moment, the idea that a vote by 900+ editors = democracy = a sad joke. AnonNep (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

AnonNep - the vote was suitably advertised on the watchlist, on AN, Arbcom/N, the signpost, ect. In addition, it has happened every year around this time for nearly half a decade, and the vote lasted for over 2 weeks. If you have a problem with a small portion of active editors voting, then I encourage you to suggest ways we can encourage more folks not to be apathetic to the vote. As far as your other suggestions, we have an annual RFC to determine how the vote will work, this years was at WP:ACE2013/RFC. I encourage you to participate in the next one. Keep your eyes pealed for it around October. It, also, will be advertised on AN, Arbcom/N, and your watchlist.--v/r - TP 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, of course it was advertised, I'm not suggesting it wasn't, but the numbers speak for themselves. As a result of that advertising, a small number of editors bothered to vote. New Arbcom are now locked in for all (but one) two year terms. They represent a miniscule of total active editors. That's the problem. AnonNep (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is motivating editors to vote. It's not a problem that 1000 editors voted, the real problem is that more editors didn't. You can't fix "I don't care".--v/r - TP 19:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There's even a bigger problem with democracy or even with common sense. Only four new arbitrators were elected, which means that most members of the arbcom are acting as jurors, persecutes, executioners and appellant judges at the same time over and over and over again with no end in sight. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, seven "new" arbitrators were elected, constituting about half of the 15-member Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are expecting, AnonNep. There is pretty much nothing else on Wiki(p/m)edia that sees input from 900 editors. Voting in Arbcom elections, like everything else on Wikipedia, is voluntary. You'll never be able to force higher participaton. Resolute 20:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolute, I'm not suggesting 'forcing' higher participation but not accepting participation that is so low as a reasonable result. In other words, if the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit' goes back to WMF staff supervision until interest is such that elections are representative and sustainable then so be it. Why play the charade of so-called 'democracy'? AnonNep (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're made my argument: Of course 'motivating editors' is a problem because it doesn't matter which way or another if they vote or not. Arbcom requiring a minimum number of editors to vote, or, it's role falls back to WP, wouldn't be such a bad thing. At the moment its lip service to some idea of democracy. BTW, 'I encourage you to suggest ways we' implies that you are part of an established 'in' group and I'm not a member of. Is there a special handshake for the 'we' group? I though we were all editors' here? AnonNep (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're relatively new, so may be unaware that a WMF take-over is a non-starter for many reasons, including legal, so let's take that off the table. What other solutions do you propose? Typically admins get the bit with 100 or so supports. 900 is quite a few. I'm not yet convinced you have even identified a problem, but if so, what solution?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is easy to never come in contact with Arbcom, so it probabely does not matter to that many. Of the tens of thousands of editors, how many over the years have been involved in an Arbcom matter 50, 100, 200, 300? (I guess we can add the 700 admins to "care" about arbcom, but they might also never be involved there). It is somewhat remarkable that "oppose" and "neutral" get more votes then "support", but it just suggests how irrelevant these arbitrators or arbitrations are to most. That is probabely a good thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are many reasons why the turn out was so low, not the least of them IMO is the communities growing concern/discontentment with the Arbcom and the process of Arbitration. It takes too long and the end result more often than not punishes all parties involved giving the impression that Arbcom is only setting an example. These days when an Arb filing is "approved" an increasing number of editors just leave because they know that is going to happen anyway. Because they don't accept a case unless there is guilt. Then if you do stay,you have to deal with constant harassment and nitpicking by admins who associate anything that want to the "broadly construed" language. More often than not the accused gets submitted to AE by the opposite party in the disagreement that started the Arb filing in the first place which essentially leads to an I have to get them before they get me mentality. In the end, the arbitration process and the arbitration committee are, along with the RFA process, Visual editor and the gradual degrading of the editing environment, a primary reason for the decline of Wikipedia. If Jimbo and the WMF want to stem the tide of editors leaving, they need to start at the top and work their way down. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

S Philbrick: Oh, shucks, silly little 'new' me! I'm not suggesting a WMF takeover, I'm suggesting there needs to be a minimum number of verified votes for a legitimate Arbcom election based on total active users, and, if it doesn't meet the mark, then it runs again until it does (assuming WMF as caretaker). (Then again, if active participation, in what passes for Wikipedia 'democracy', continues to run at such miniscule levels then maybe WMF should end the experiment and take over. It couldn't be worse than a pretense at representation.) AnonNep (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

S Philbrick is saying that even your suggestion isn't possible. Wikimedia would lose its "Service Provider" status and become a "Content Provider" which would have serious legal repercussions. They simply don't have the budget to be a "Content Provider". Being a service provider offers WMF certain protections against libel and copyright lawsuits. Right now, WMF can be reactive and wait for problems to be identified. They required to make a modest attempt to be proactive. However, if they became a content provider, they are immediately liable for everyone on Wikipedia. Just not feasible for a project like this. No, the WMF is never going to be more hands on than it is now. This is our problem and we have to deal with it.--v/r - TP 21:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

More at this blog post by legal counsel--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said have WMF take control I thought you meant that the WMF should take control. Instead you meant...well, I don't know what else you might have meant. As for being new, that wasn't an insult; sorry you took it that way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why the references to "democracy"? Maybe WP:NOTDEMOCRACY needs more prominence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I could have accepted Wikipedia not being democracy, but the thing is that not only Wikipedia isn't democracy, but it arbitration process and so called community banning look more like North Korea's practices. When somebody is discussed for such a harsh punishment as the community ban, at the very least this somebody should be given an opportunity to defend himself/herself, should he not? Many people have been denied this basic human right here on Wikipedia. Where else, but on Wikipedia trials like that are allowed? I did find another place with such practices. It was described in 1984 by George Orwell: "A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic." "vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture", what a great description of the community bans proceeding! 69.181.40.174 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not North Korea. Jang Song Taek would've been happy to be "Community banned". Godwin's Law, my friend.--v/r - TP 22:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In case of anonymous users you might be right, but in case of named persons the dirty art of character assassination could be worse than the physical killing. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, how about when I said have WMF take control I mean't exactly that: not a legalese suggestion, not an end of discussion disruption, but just what I wrote. If Arbcom elections show such minimal engagement of editors, such pathetic numbers, a total pretense of representative democracy, then pass control to WMF until minimal engagement is achieved. What is more concerning is TParis's contribution: 'nothing can be done' which suggests that Arbcom numbers can decline from 900s, to 600s, to 300s, to 100 or 20 people but nothing would be done because 'Wikimedia would lose its "Service Provider" status and become a "Content Provider" which would have serious legal repercussions'. Does anyone really believe that WMF won't act until the 'cheese stands alone'? AnonNep (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen other Wikipedia's of other languages? Wikipedia uses volunteer editors as much as possible. The Stewards and Meta wikipedia have to take over for other languages who cannot support an Arbcom. If Wikipedia lost it's service provider status, the project would be completely over. It couldn't be sustained financially, independently, or realistically. So yes, they will indefinitely stay hands off. At most, they will offer kind words of encouragement like Sue Gardner and Philippe often do. But you will never ever ever see WMF get involved in content without being legally obligated because of a copyright of libel claim. You're talking about millions of dollars, boards, and big business. It doesn't change just because editors don't get along or not enough editors !voted. The realistic circumstance, if we only have 20 voters, is that Jimbo will resume his original role in Arbcom by appointing Arbitrators.--v/r - TP 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So, to you, its a pretense of a vote, a joke, that could involve less and less editors, and there will only be an end to it when 'Jimbo will resume his original role in Arbcom by appointing Arbitrators'? Why is any less of a pretense now? Where are the guidelines that set out when that number is hit? Does WMF decide what that number is? Who does? Or aren't editors allowed to know? AnonNep (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, which is it? When I suggested you meant for the WMF to take control, you objected. When I pointed out that's what you said, you now claim you mean it. You act like 900 is a problem, but other than merely assertion, you haven't explained why. As Alanscottwalker suggested, if you add the active admins to everyone ever involved in a case, you still probably don't have 900, so that may be a decent number. If it drops significantly, it might become a problem, but it will be a community problem, not a WMF problem. Why are you so insistent on a non-feasible solution to a problem you've dreamed up?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't write my words for me (I did try to make this point earlier, perhaps, in trying to be polite, I was too subtle?). Let me restate, once again, I objected to the low level of participation in the recent Arbcom elections and expressed my view that if participation continues to be low, as a percentage of editors, I'd prefer to see if taken over by WMF (that it would even be preferable to see it taken over if participation remains so low). The 'ohmagawd! ohmagawd!' WMF has too much work, its a legal issue, they're scared of spiders, they went on vacation in 2006, arguments are all well and good (if you're of a certain view) but my position was, 'if Arbcom elections are a mess who steps in other than WMF?'. Rather than me suggesting 'non-feasible' solutions, to problems I've 'dreamed up', I'm grounded in pragmatism. The answer to 'what happens next?' shouldn't be 'Shhh! Shhh!'. AnonNep (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

When you're talking 900 voters for Arbcom, you're talking an easily manipulated election for anyone who knows how to 'do the numbers'. Its less than co-ordinating votes for some US High School elections. If this is where en:WP is, what happens next? Any PR company, with a brain will start embedding accounts, to see they have adequate edit counts, for the next Arbcom, if they haven't already. What then? Where does it go? Who steps in & picks up the pieces? Why can't this question be even asked? AnonNep (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The most important protection is to reduce ArbCom's power. They must not be allowed to become de facto policymakers, and though taking on the role of a judge, they should defer actual verdicts to a jury system. Wnt (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there aren't all that many Wikipedians around that make more than 100 edits a month (in fact it's likely that the number is smaller, since many active editors also have (perfectly legitimate) alternate accounts). The subset of those who ever come into contact with Arbcom or care much about it is probably much smaller still. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that Arbcom and the Admins who domain over AE have too much power. I have stated multiple times in the past that I stronly beleive this is one of the main reasons for Wikipedias decline. Volunteer editors don't want to be subjected to an iron fist, so they leave and go elsewhere like Wikia or find lives in the real world.

There are several reasons why the numbers of editors with over 100 edits are low including: a large percentage of those are admins who also do log entries that aren't counted in that table, those who are very active tend to attract more attention and either become admins or get run off due to hounding, More bots are doing more things so there are less minor edits and another critical reason is we block about 4% of the entire internets IP's. This includes schools, libraries and even entire government organizations (the entire US navy IP range was blocked for over a year). If we want to increase the number of edits being made we have to also accept there will be an associated increase in vandalism. Its just a fact of life. Blocking every IP, protecting all the articles and even making it so that you have to create an account to edit will help reduce vandalism but we also must expect a significant associated drop in meaningful and useful edits. That is way there are so few with over 100. I myself routinely did 8000 - 10, 000 edits a month and sometimes more. But I stopped because I got tired of being told my contributions and dedication to the project weren't wanted or needed and that I couldn't be trusted. So now I only comment in discussions occassionally and generally then only as an IP. So if people really want to increase editing, they need to start addressing the problems with Arbcom, RFA and abusive admins. In the end though we are just kidding ourselves thinking anything will be done. Jimbo probably hasn't even read this thread and probably just thinks were a bunch of disgruntled editors. He is blind to the real goings on in the project and at this point I don't think he really cares anymore....which I find to be a shame. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013#novel_proposal I suggest that the community well ought to discuss precisely what it thinks are the proper criteria for any future committee members, as that would likely affect the choices for any electoral changes. Collect (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I sure as heck would have opposed @Beeblebrox were I aware when these elections were (and looked instead to someone running on a transparency platform which they showed consistency with by disclosing their legal name). If only it was just a matter of not being "civil" in this individual's case. Instead I get informed about stuff like the WMF privacy policy where there's hardly anything to have a difference of opinion over. I am supposed to routinely wade through the enormous number of new posts on WP:AN? Maybe if one of the people who jumped in when I was protesting to tell me that Beeblebrox's oversighting behaviour is by definition not reviewable by the community because oversighting is not reviewable had added "by the way, the body in charge here is ArbCom [which I knew], and ArbCom gets elected every late November/early December [which I didn't know]" then I would have been on the look-out for the opportunity to have some input into who is basically my boss on Wikipedia. Sure, most editors never encounter this "boss" but those of us who do should be routinely advised of when and how those people acquired their powers. I remember telling an ArbCom member that I was interested in running for ArbCom myself just in order to get an issue thrown into the "campaign" and simply being told I was not eligible.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Incivility by itself would not have been such a big problem, but being uncivil, getting blocked and run to complain to the WMF about bad meta admins,it is really something.69.181.40.174 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Brian, I call "nonsense" to your claim that anyone told you that you were not eligible to run for Arbcom. There is not a single arbitrator on the committee at present, or in the past, who would have told you that, because you most certainly were eligible to stand as a candidate. Arbcom is absolutely not your "boss" on Wikipedia; its scope is very narrow, and it has nothing to do with routine editorial activities. The notice inviting candidacies was on the watchlist from the day candidacies opened until the day they closed. The notice inviting votes was there from the time the polls opened until they closed. There was also a notice on several noticeboards. You also could have watchlisted the redlink for the election (the key pages are always named according to the same pattern) - in fact, why don't you redlink next year's election now? And please leave feedback about your difficulty in finding out about the election in the appropriate forum. Risker (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Risker: Even if they didn't tell them flat out they are ineligible, in the current atmosphere a non admin is never going to get elected to Arbcom. So since he is not an Admin, he wouldn't be "eligible" and running would just be a waste of time. I also call fowl that they do not interfere in routine activities. There are several sanctions (the Tea party one is a good example) where the broadly constued wording could easily snare an editor. Especially if you aren't an admin it won't be long until you end up getting a warning or a block. The Arbcom never seems to follows up on the cases to see the disasters they create. If they did they would see the problems they are creatign to fix the problems, particularly with using the overly vague broadly construed (meaning an admin has unlimited discretion to do as the wish) wording. Personally I thougth there was ample notification but if an editor doesn't log on frequently and doesn't pay attention to the multitude of spam banners that are thrust upon the community I coudl see where it could be missed. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a gulf of difference between "eligible" and "guaranteed to succeed", as every candidate in the current election was well aware. There are no guarantees of the results, ever. Last year, two incumbents succeeded and two did not: so being an incumbent doesn't guarantee success. Lots of administrators did not succeed, so being an administrator does not guarantee success. I honestly can't say why the community has yet to select a non-administrator; there have been several good candidates over the years, although as a group they do tend to have a lower profile. No, Bdell was certainly eligible to run. But there was no guarantee he would win a seat. Risker (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, your just sugarcoating it. Your right that no one is guaranteed a seat but and yes, by the rules he could run, but lets be realistic, even most admins can't get elected so the chances that a non admin are going to get a seat are so low its a statistical anomaly. I for one honestly have no doubt that an Arb told them they are ineligible just based on the non admin status. Its just not realistic and the ones who might be able to pass are smart enough to stay away. Its the same problem with RFA, its so broken that people don't even want to attempt it. So if they can't get access to the tools because the RFA process is broken they surely are not going to become an Arb. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So, 138.162.8.58, what your saying is that because 900 people chose of their own free will how they wanted to vote and didn't elect a non-administrator that you must know best and want to supervote them? A vote is a vote. No one controls it. If the community decides not to elect non-administrators, then they won't get elected. That doesn't make them ineligible. You're inventing a problem just so you can rail against Wikipedia. It's not a club that decides non-admins do not get to 'win'. It's a clear and fair vote. The community has decided this year not to elect a non-admins. Whether the status of admin played a role in their choice, you'd have to ask each voter. But you don't get to blame anyone that your preferred choice wasn't picked by the community. A bunch of voters not knowing how each other voted and of their own free will made a choice. We're sticking with it. Everyone has a fair shot, everyone in the Arbcom vote is equal as far as the vote is concerned. It's the voters that you have to convince. So focus your efforts toward them, write an essay.--v/r - TP 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, calm down, no thats not it at all. What I am saying is that the notion that a non admin will ever be elected to Arbcom is a joke and a misnomer. Your not kidding me or anyone else trying to prove otherwise. I was also happy with most of those that got selected and most of those that didn't shouldn't have...with a couple exceptions. What I am saying though is that this place will never promote a non admin to Arbcom. Never...but it should. As for the 900 voters I would be willing to bet that a large amount of them were admins. Probably around 300-400. The reason that editors won't vote for a non admin is that there is this myth in the community that editors who aren't admins can't be trusted. That's why we had to split out all these Admin functions like Rollback, filemover and template editor rather than give them the tools they need to do the job. Because we don't trust our editors. You don't have to beleive me, its a fact and evident throughout the project. There is this incorrect notion that being an admin grants you some divine knowledge about the universe or something. The fact is there are a lot of admins I don't trust to edit let alone be admins (but we're stuck with them...forever) and there are a lot of non admins I think would do great as an admin or Arb. Most of which won't run BTW for a variety of reasons. So in the end the gulf between editors and admins continues and Arbcom will probably continue to be a drain on resources with no tangible return. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, we are making it easier for non-admins to have previously admin-only tools because we don't trust non-admins? That doesn't quite make sense. LFaraone 00:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No the only reason why these tools are being split off is because 1) there is too much work for too few admins, 2) because too many of the admins lack the technical skills required to do many of the changes that need to be done and 3) because by doing this you reduce the number of people who have the title and powers of "admin". Its all the same tired arguments, we can't possibly give them the tools, that would give them access to the block button. If we trusted our editors giving them the tools would be and should be no big deal. But since we don't we have to design these work arounds just because there is no trust. Just to clarify, I am an advocate for modularizing the tools so more people can participate but that is because I recognize there is no trust left in this project and the only way to get enough people the tools they need is to break them up. This promoting 1 or 2 admins a month while desysopping 5-10 isn't going to work for long. Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Two comments here. 1) To @Risker re "nonsense" that "anyone told you that you were not eligible to run for Arbcom", on August 26 I inquired about what it would take to get on WP:AUSC, which is an "Audit Subcommittee... composed of three arbitrators selected by the Arbitration Committee and three community members appointed by the Committee..." You didn't tell me that I was ineligible for appointment as one of the three "community members" because I was not an admin and leave open the possibility that I could become one of the three arbitrators, you implicitly ruled out becoming an arbitrator as well by telling me flatly "You cannot stand for the AUSC..." Now maybe there is a technicality in there such that what I was told can be ultimately rendered consistent with my standing for ArbCom. My point was that telling people what they can't do in terms of having input seems to be a higher priority than telling people what they can do.
2) 138.162.8.58 mentions "the gulf between editors and admins". This summer I noticed ArbCom was telling people seeking to provide input to a case to first consult a page that declared "Wikipedia is a cluocracy.... Passing an RfA indicates a user has Clue.... non-admins do not have Clue." It took me complaining about it to get ArbCom to un-endorse "non-admins do not have Clue." Take a look at "Admin views on their power to block long term productive content builders" here which features a photo of someone using machinery at a landfill captioned "An admin using admin tools and a retinue of admin wannabees tidy the remnants [generated by] content builders". Yet what usually happens to ordinary "content builders" who get "boss"ed by the many admins with this attitude? Get put back in their place by ArbCom is what. ArbCom rarely desysops, and if they do, when I've seen it it's been for something that violates the internal code like failing to keep a secret.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The caption meant what it said, "An admin using admin tools and a retinue of admin wannabees tidy the remnants of content builders", and not "An admin using admin tools and a retinue of admin wannabees tidy the remnants [generated by] content builders". --Epipelagic (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bdell, I think you might be confusing Arbcom and AUSC. AUSC is a separate committee, made up partially of (already-in-office) arbitrators and partially of (not-arbitrator) community members. Standing for AUSC is not the the same as standing for Arbcom, and being appointed to AUSC would not make someone an arbitrator. If I recall correctly (and I very well might not, I'm dredging this up from the bottom of my brain), the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't allow non-administrators to be appointed to AUSC because the AUSC-appointment process is just that, an appointment by Arbcom, rather than a community consensus-reaching, which is what the WMF requires for people to get access to advanced toolsets. If I'm remembering that correctly, it would be 100% accurate to say that a non-administrator is not eligible to stand for AUSC, but is eligible to stand for election to Arbcom (because the WMF legal eagles have determined that being voted onto arbcom is the equivalent of community consensus as far as the right to handle advanced tools). I don't think you were given misinformation so much as you conflated two somewhat-related positions that have different qualification criteria. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's true that arbitrators cannot serve on AUSC unless they are also admins then, yes, what I was told did not rule out my standing for ArbCom and taking on arbitrator responsibilities that exclude monitoring of Oversighters. This is actually a relevant question to this thread. Beeblebrox tells another editor "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" in an edit summary. Later, this gets Oversighted (or at least hidden from anyone who isn't an admin) since, after all, do the voters in this election need such information about the candidates? Of course not! Who oversighted this? Beeblebrox himself? Who knows? While the rest of us have our usernames signed to our edits, oversighters enjoy true anonymity and aren't subject to community review anyway should the community happen to figure out who did it! Oversighters answer only to AUSC and, subject to getting what, a half dozen people (also on ArbCom) to agree with him, can appoint himself and his friends to oversee his own anonymous, unchallengeable (by anyone else) oversighting. All that we need now is for our constitutional monarch Jimbo to give the nod tomorrow and it all becomes official.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify here that @Beeblebrox is not the worst offender in my books for keeping Wikipedia's secret world secret. There are some up there in the ArbCom/AUSC/Oversighting complex who are yet more in favour of private deliberations, oversighting (erasing) public logs, and engaging in other actions without community transparency.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin arbitrators can serve on AUSC. However, non-arbitrator non-admins cannot, because being on AUSC as a non-arbitrator is an appointment, not a community election. The WMF statement confirming that non-admin arbitrators would be able to be given access to the CheckUser and Oversight tools can be found here. Re the other concern, you can see the entry in the deletion log that corresponds to the same period as that edit, see [8]. The content was revision deleted, not suppressed (or removed using the Oversight extension). LFaraone 03:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"You cannot stand for the AUSC" was therefore not accurate, since I could, in theory at least, serve as a non-admin arbitrator. Anyway, looks like Beeblebrox should give Risker another Barnstar, this time the Eraser Barnstar.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why some are so insistent that a non admin arb is possible. Its not even if the rules don't specifically disqualify an individual from doing it the culture here won't allow it. So continuing to labor over the delusion of a non admin arbitrator having the ability of doing X, y or z is mute. Even if they did they would still be a second class citizen because they didn't get access to the tools through the traditional means. Frankly I don't think most if any admins or Arbs would want a non admin on the committee anyway. Kumioko (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sue Gardner gets $25K from John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

The Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner should be proud to receive a $25,000 grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. What an achievement! Also quite an achievement is how between December 2006 and October 2011, User:Robertsonadams was able to work virtually undisturbed, adding thousands of bytes of content to the Wikipedia article about the Knight Foundation. Robertsonadams was the number-one contributor to Wikipedia's article about the Foundation, but at least Robertsonadams disclosed on his User page that he is "communications associate for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation." Special mention to Ericcade, who may or may not be creative director of the Knight Foundation. The good news is that it looks like Knight Foundation is heeding your Bright Line Rule ever since it was formally stated in early 2012. Gardner will also get another $25,000 that she can donate to "a startup of her choice in support of innovation and entrepreneurship in news and information". Maybe she'll consider Wikipediocracy?

P.S. Don't forget to make a comment today about User:Wifione, as you were notified about it two weeks ago, and you promised to discuss it today. - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I'd say that Mr. Adams has definitely been editing in a manner that is inappropriate, though I'm not clear what the state of play was in COI when he began his edits seven years ago. It's good to see that these edits stopped in 2011. Like I said, ugh. Not good. So, time for a policy prohibiting paid editing, right-o? Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find the COI guideline from any point in recent history. When Adams was making his final edit to Wikipedia, the guideline read as follows:

• Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia.
• If... you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes) ...then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased).

The COI back then also said that the Reward Board was an exception. It still is, right? Coretheapple, don't you think the Reward Board's closure should be the first step toward stamping out paid editing? - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that cash rewards should be prohibited, at a minimum. Abolish the board itself? Maybe. Hadn't thought about that. It might be a good idea. Do you think there's a problem with noncash rewards, like barnstars and so on? Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars provide an incentive that could put the goals of the editor before the goals of Wikipedia, so like cash, they should not be tied to specific editorial requests. - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I think that a discussion of the functionality of the Reward Board is worth having. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Mr. 2001, do you think she should give the money back or something? I don't really see the connection between the award and the editing that you describe. Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The money should not be returned, but that is a splendid straw man argument. I am sorry that you are unable to see the connection between the Knight Foundation that awarded cash to a WMF employee, having also paid a Knight employee to edit Wikipedia with a conflict of interest, which is frowned upon (recently, very vocally by Gardner herself) by WMF guidelines. It might be like a wealthy foundation awarding a PETA executive a cash prize, while also providing a fox-fur coat to one of its own employees as a year-end bonus. Perhaps someone else can help you connect the dots. - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that connecting the dots in the way you suggest would be rather unfair to Ms. Gardner. Surely you're not suggesting a quid pro quo? I don't see it, but hey, different strokes for different folks. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I never suggested anything unfair to Gardner, and I didn't even remotely suggest a quid pro quo. I have to wonder why you would even go there. - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up? What's your point? Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a tip. If you you're always the only one not able to see "the point", then maybe you have the deficiency. Over on Wikipediocracy, everyone who has seen how the Knight Foundation article was built up has also instantly gotten "the point". - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take that under advisement. Glad to have you back with the company. Take care. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, it's always good to see a man with strong ethics contribute to this page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, somebody's gotta do it. - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Always glad to see another editor who sees the danger in paid editing. Welcome aboard! Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'll help you out here, Core, since you're being trolled and clearly are not doing so well. Mr. 2001. There is no such thing as a bright line rule as part of Wikipedia's community-determined organizational law. There is no prohibition against COI editing. As I understand it, the COI was declared in this case on the talk page, which is what we seek. If a company wants to give Sue Gardner money, more power to them. The end. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I can't argue with any of that. I know, I was feeding a troll, my bad. But he keeps coming here and, in my defense, I'm not the only one throwing popcorn at this particular pigeon. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think that Mr. Wales should be the one to respond to Mr. 2001. Sort of like paid editing: his problem. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Wifione

There was a discussion about this here a while back that got a bit heated. I'd like to restart that conversation primarily by asking people to post a neutral summary of what is known and not known. I'd appreciate Wifione commenting here as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Any neutral summary of what is known and not known should probably begin with this 2010 complaint, so that parties could become familiar with what was contentious about Wifione's editing. - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wifione has hidden content on his Talk page. Wifione has modified the IIPM article to indicate that Careers 360 (critical of the IIPM) is "poor in quality and shady new yellow journal that keeps doing illogical and brazenly false stories about IIPM", while simultaneously underscoring the IIPM's position that "it is an academically independent and autonomous body". Wifione removed information about how an IIPM legal suit against its critics at Careers 360 was dismissed by the Dehradun High Court. Wifione also removed sourced information that "Berkeley Haas school has asked IIPM to stop using the Berkeley logo on its websites and marketing material, and has asked IIPM to correct the language in the ads to clarify that participants will not get any credits from Berkeley." Wifione spent considerable time writing about a competitor to IIPM, but devoting approximately half of the content to a fraud controversy suffered by the competitor and the school. Wifione similarly worked to discredit another IIPM competitor. I hope this presents a neutral summary of how Wifione's editing seems to repeatedly take a pro-IIPM and an anti-IIPM-competitor viewpoint. - 2001:558:1400:10:4106:61B2:CFD:FA47 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lest it be objected that these links are old, here are some more recent examples. On 24 January 2013 Wifione removed commendatory reference to Amity University with the comment "removed fluff piece references". On 21 February 2013, he removed "It has been alleged that IIPM engages in misleading advertising practices". As recently as August 2013 he removed information about a police case with the comment ("get multiple high quality sources for this exceptional claim"). The source was Times of India, which said: "In past few days several students have raised their voice against the institute's management in the city. They also sat on protest outside the institute demanding refund of fees, said reports." And in November 2013 he added disparaging information to the page about Amity University, a competitor to IIPM. - 2001:558:1400:10:4106:61B2:CFD:FA47 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing useless discussion which is off-topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The wagons were circled a week or so ago. I don't think you're on the inside this time, Jimbo. Wifione isn't worried about what you know or think, so he'll probably not comment. The horses are long gone from the barn. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify that in case it seems like snark: a few rounds ago (weeks or months, I don't keep track), you (Jimmy) scolded an admin who admitted to doing some paid editing. He was vindicated on WP:AN, and there were no consequences for violating your edicts. You're absolutely correct about the need to counter paid editing with policies, but (AGF) you don't seem to understand that your "simple solutions" simply aren't going to fly with the people who actually manage Wikipedia. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I'll concur that those of us who want to curb paid editing in a meaningful way are in the minority. Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC) How do you draw that conclusion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC) From participating in numerous paid editing discussions and seeing each policy proposal shot down in flames. I'm in that minority, by the way. Just recognizing reality. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I think the majority is concerned. My point is that it's a vanishingly small minority (especially of admins) that are buying into the bright line rule that Jimbo insists is already working. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) There's been no consensus for any policy proposal. When the !votes come in, they are overwhelmingly opposed. I have not sensed any overwhelming concern, but rather the opposite. See [9] Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC) By that logic, there are a minority of editors who think RfA reform is needed, because proposals for change are shot down. I've made proposals for reform that have not been enacted, but I do not conclude from that experience that a minority of editors feel some changes are needed. My guess is that there are a minority of editors who fully embrace your preferred solution while there may be a larger number of editors who want to curb paid editing in a meaningful way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I'd be more optimistic if the opposition wasn't so intense. Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not so sure about that, Corethe. You may be right. Specific proposals have been made to do with banning and restricting paid editors and these proposals have been shot down. But Philbrick may also be right. Analogy: not everyone who favours the legalisation of recreational drugs does so because they believe that the authorities should take absolutely no action. Formerip (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Google aaaaaaaa

Google aaaaaaaa (eight a's) and Jimmy Wales will appear on the sidebar of the search results. Too lazy? Click here. 66.87.64.239 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It works. But not five, six, seven or nine a's. And eight of no other letter produces a photo of anyone on the right side. Only eight a's, and only Jimbo. Can anyone explain that? Neutron (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Create links in the comments sections of high-ranking webpages that have the search term as the anchor link and a page associated with the your target as the URL (e.g. <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_wales>aaaaaaaa</href>). It makes Google think lots of people refer to Jimbo as "aaaaaaaa". You really shouldn't be impressed, though. Formerip (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

See Google bomb, miserable failure, nigritude ultramarine, etc. Jehochman ^Talk 02:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, I was not really impressed, and today I am even more unimpressed, because it doesn't work now. Neutron (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Existential spying threats: the German porn scheme

According to [10][11], German computer users have been hit up with claims that they are liable for 250 euros for visiting an internet streaming site. The Guardian reported that Heise.de had called this a "computer scam", with people being redirected without their knowledge to an infringing site not associated with Redtube. What is particularly appalling about the case is that it involved streamed content which was definitely never stored by the user, removing any aspect of the claim that he should be somehow more knowledgeable about what it is before creating an archive.

While some of the anti-porn people here might welcome such news, the fact is that there's no reason why this would remain limited to pornography. The idea that the end-user is supposed to somehow be able to figure out whether a site he visits holds a license to content is impossible for me to fathom, and it is made even more absurd when he doesn't even know which site he is really being directed to. Not even paying the Chinese government to let you access the Internet via the Great Firewall would be enough, because the content might only be licensed for viewing by someone in some other country than your own, a distinction the site you visit might without your knowledge be ignoring!

Wikipedia's involvement is that, for all I know, legal firms from anywhere in the world might already be targeting people from vulnerable countries (I don't know if there are others trying to criminalize mere readers, can anyone advise?), by finding or creating Wikipedia references to "infringing" content (even if the site is actually known to the rights holder) and then tracking those downloads and trying to coerce money out of visitors.

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if under such circumstances it may be reasonable - or even legally necessary to prevent contributory liability! - to disable German access to Wikipedia "until such time as the legal issue is resolved, or the Urmann law firm is rendered bankrupt and defunct." Wnt (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't take no wooden nickels, and definitely don't pay 250 euros to just anybody who sends you a legal notice. BTW, the sky is not falling. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the Die Welt article, 30% of those targeted had paid immediately. This has been called a "trial balloon" for other actions. We should not ignore it. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how Wikipedia or Wikimedia is implicated by this situation in any way, much less why it would be a remotely sensible response to "disable German access to Wikipedia."

Any attempt by anyone to redirect users from any Wikimedia site to another site without their consent, or any other sort of malware installation, should be reported immediately to the appropriate noticeboard on that project and to the Office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that's an exaggerated response ... so long as events like this remain astronomically rare. But if they were not ... then it might not be so excessive after all. It might be better to do it sooner than strictly necessary, in the name of, say, counterterrorism.

RedTube is like YouTube - or Wikipedia - full of user content. Some of that content is not strictly, well, legitimate in terms of copyright laws. The reader thinks that the site might have weeded out some of the more egregious violations. And when he is mistaken... is he linking to some site that is going to try to charge him a huge fine for simply making the connection? There is no way to spot that with a malware detector - at the time the people downloaded the videos from RedTube, they didn't get a known virus. I suppose there's a chance some program could detect the specific redirection described (I don't know) but it is not necessary in Wikipedia. A firm taking such action can simply change the link to content they think is infringing to point at their own site, and if it looks like it's a copy of the content, who will know? Wnt (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I hear the really deep web takes Bitcoins, without one even knowing, of course.. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Appointments 2013

My annual appointments of the members of ArbCom will happen tomorrow. I have already reviewed various information about the election results and there will be no surprises.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Terrific! I for one am excited to see if this new batch of Arb's will be better than the last batch and help to return to the Arb committee to respectibility. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Its nothing personal Brad. Individually I respect most of the members of Arbcom (yourself included) but as a group they have made what I consider to be some really bad decisions over the past year and stretched their credibility to the breaking point. Sometimes people do good work as individuals but not as a group, I think this was one of those cases. For what its worth I thought along the same lines as your decisions in all but one case. So your not really the problem IMO. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And I think it would be worth noting that I, and likely others, would have more respect and openness to the aforementioned two opinions from IPs if they had logged into their accounts prior to making them, as hiding behind the shield of anonymity often causes one to exaggerate unnecessarily rather than parse carefully. Go Phightins! 22:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you're curious, the two IPs above belong to User:KumiokoCleanStart and User:Mbz1 (they've openly admitted as much). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blanked the comment from the banned Wikipedian. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bright Line Rule not adopted by WMF staff?

Jimbo, I believe that your Bright Line Rule is sometimes difficult for people to get accustomed to, although you have said that it should be "easy" to follow. You've maintained this position since at least the first half of 2012. Has your message not been transmitted yet to the Wikimedia Foundation staff? I ask because Visual Editor is a product being co-developed by the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia. Yet, several WMF employees and affiliates are directly editing the article about that product. For example, here is the WMF staff member serving as the community liaison to answer questions and report problems with the transition to Visual Editor, directly editing the article. And here is the Treasurer of Wikimedia Australia, directly adding a reference link that could have easily been proposed on the article's Talk page. (By the way, his wife is also a WMF chapter official with Wikimedia Indonesia, and she seems to not understand your Bright Line Rule on her User page, saying: "naturally I will edit about Wikimedia Indonesia and it's (sic) effort".) And here is Victor Grigas, the paid "storyteller" for the Wikimedia Foundation trying to squeeze his own promotional video into the article. Why wasn't the inclusion of the video first discussed on the Talk page? This is supposed to be "easy". If you expect the Bright Line Rule to be adopted by politicians, industrial companies, and public relations firms, don't you think that you should emphasize to the WMF staff that they also need to be leading by example? The next time you visit the WMF headquarters, I think you should gather the staff for an "all hands" meeting of about 10 or 15 minutes, to convey to them the importance of the Bright Line Rule. - 2001:558:1400:10:4106:61B2:CFD:FA47 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Transitioning your powers

Jimmy, back in December 2012, you said: "I'm planning in January to submit to the community for a full project-wide vote a new charter further transitioning my powers." You followed up in February 2013 that you were "running behind" but "looking forward to doing a lot of on-wiki work". We're getting close to the one-year anniversary of your first announcement. Has this project stalled, or have you intentionally abandoned it? - 2001:558:1400:10:4106:61B2:CFD:FA47 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He said something similar about reforming WP:RFA and were still waiting on that one too. I wouldn't count on seeing anything at this point. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Per Mark's comment above, this cunning "anonymous" comment seems to be "KumiokoCleanstart" again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC))

I was not trying to be cunning. I just don't see any point in logging in anymore. The only reason I bothered to login now was because the page was protected. Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the author, it is a valid question. I for one was intrigued by Jimmy's announcement and have been wondering for a long time what became of it. For what it's worth, Jimmy, if you have changed your mind I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that. People come to different conclusions about things and change or even cancel projects all the time. I've certainly done it myself any number of times. But it would be great if you could update us on what the story is. At the time it seemed to be potentially quite important, and I'm sure a fair few of the people who read your talk page are also interested to know. — Scott • talk 10:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Appointments

Having determined that they met all the criteria for appointment, including having already identified to the Foundation, and in accordance with our longstanding traditions and their performance in the election campaign, I hereby appoint as follows:

1. 28bytes, a new arbitrator and a bureaucrat
2. GorillaWarfare, a new arbitrator and current oversighter
3. Seraphimblade, a new arbitrator who has done a lot of work at arbitration enforcement
4. Roger Davies, a returning arbitrator, back for his third consecutive term
5. AGK, a returning arbitrator, back for his second consecutive term
6. NativeForeigner, a new arbitrator and current checkuser
7. Lfaraone, a new arbitrator and current checkuser and oversighter
8. Floquenbeam, a new arbitrator and longtime administrator
9. Beeblebrox, a new arbitrator and current oversighter.

All of these arbitrators will serve two-year terms, except Beeblebrox who will serve a one-year term.

Continuing their terms are:

1. Carcharoth
2. David Fuchs
3. Newyorkbrad
4. Salvio giuliano
5. Timotheus canens
6. Worm That Turned

Arbitrators whose terms are ending as of December 31 are:

1. Courcelles
2. Kirill Lokshin
3. Risker
4. SilkTork

I have fairly wide-ranging traditional powers to make policy by fiat, to hear appeals from the ArbCom, and to dismiss ArbCom and call for new elections. For those powers to be lost entirely from our constitutional arrangements would be unwise. As I wrote last year, "it is increasingly clear to me that we need those powers to be usable, which means transitioning them into a community-based model of constitutional change. One good example of this is the ongoing admin-appointment situation... a problem which I think most people agree needs to be solved, but for which our usual processes have proven ineffective for change. Some have asked me to simply use my reserve powers to appoint a bunch of admins - but I've declined on the view that this would cause a useless fight. Much better will be for us to put my traditional powers on a community-based footing so that we, as a community, can get out of 'corner solutions' that aren't working for us."

Subject to a majority vote in the community to approve the change (though in theory I suppose I could do it unilaterally) I am hereby expressing my desire to weaken my power to make policy by fiat. New policy will require me first to seek majority approval of both ArbCom (who will be asked solely to determine whether they think the issue is important enough to warrant a community vote) and the Community (who will have the final say) before making new policy. Therefore, this new arrangement is designed to handle only relatively rare issues, and not invite a general approach of majority vote instead of our generally very successful consensus approach which only sometimes fails to reach any conclusion at all on important matters, leaving serious holes in our progress. There will be no change to our existing consensus-based route to policy change.

It is my intention that once this is accomplished, we use the new constitutional arrangements to address some major issues regarding the falling size of the admin corp. If my proposal is rejected, then we fall back to the existing arrangement in which my powers are preserved as they have been. This is not what I urge, as I think the new approach is much more workable in terms of our ability to actually make real reforms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)