User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

"I actually hate it here"

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some editing is taking place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere, but lovely and congenial atmosphere is shrinking while poisoning atmosphere is growing. Wikipedia is still loosing editors, and you could make a difference.71.202.123.2 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear that there is any directional shift at all. Certainly people have been coming to this page for about a decade lamenting the loss of the good old days. A common human affliction. At the same time, it is always worth looking at specific problems and trying to draw principled general conclusions. But usually when anon ips show up to authoritatively state that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, things get pretty thin when specific examples are requested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're an admin, you've got to expect to be tossed into all of the acrimonious debates, wrestle the evil-doing bad guys to the ground with all the force of our guidelines and policies, deal with spammers and other miscreants - and all of the other political nonsense that goes along with it. If, on the other hand, you want to improve the article about Red squirrels (which is the first article I ever edited back in January 2006!) - you'll have a peaceful, fun existence and get the warm fuzzy feeling that you've improved the world by helping to create the largest repository of human knowledge known to mankind. 99% (at least) of articles here are great places to work - but (sadly) the admins are not needed in those place - so their stress levels are high and they see only the worst. We should back our admins - understand their stress - thank them when we can and sympathise when wiki-PTSD strikes and takes one down. SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. in general. However if you look at the what appears to be 'the straw that broke' here it was a copy-edit, editing dispute over, get this, Ancient history. This being a wiki, one can surly get fed-up with negotiating such things -- but in the end, it's a wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help matters that we're down to only about 600-700 allegedly active admins for an increasing workload of articles, IP vandals, disputes, ANI, etc., etc., etc., more rules on admin behavior, and then the fear (as we saw with the Kafziel case) that doing the right thing will get you drawn and quartered at arbcom if you happen to cross a persistent user with a personal fiefdom out for blood when poked at. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What's remarkable, ColonelHenry, is looking at Wikipedia's history...I saw some RFAs where editors were moved on to admin status after editing for six months! And some after just three months! And some of those admins are still at work today. But 8 years ago, Wikipedia was growing and there was a press to increase the admin corps and a lot of people who were judged capable were drafted. Now, the prospect of going through an RFA is daunting, years of varied experience in all areas of editing is expected AND you can't have made any major mistakes and have baggage. It's become ultra selective and I understand why...but unless things change, the numbers will just keep decreasing as there is always attrition. Liz 03:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with natural attrition, but I consider it entropy...like the heat death of the universe.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• ...but Oppose votes in RfAs are acts of choice — vigorous and uncoerced. --Ori.livneh (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Many Wikipedia hostilities reflect the real world: (edit conflict) I have come to appreciate "Jimbo's Wikipedia" as not just the "sum of all human knowledge" but also "some of the hostile ways in which knowledge is squelched" and perhaps the 2nd issue is just as important in what Jimbo has emphasized for the world. The "enemy at the gates" is not just amassing along the borders of the Ukraine. The problem is not just high-priced books and journals, but also people actively trying to suppress other information, as when told not to edit their company page, then some of them reduce the competitors' pages. Beyond the history of "book burning" or "Fahrenheit 451" I have met quite a few wp:TfDs ("Template for Da burning") as well. Someone even told me that wp:edit-conflicts which derail quick edits were a minor issue, rather than the primary reason it is difficult to get a classroom of 20 students to all expand the same new article. Wikipedia is being thwarted by invented limitations, at many levels, including the underlying MediaWiki software. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's worth considering that Wikipedia isn't in a vacuum here. See http://www.vice.com/read/how-corporate-lobbyists-use-the-internet-to-destroy-democracy (an article which specifically references Wikipedia) which alleges that Westbourne Communications ...engages in aggressive rebuttal campaigns, which involves creating a feeling among opponents that everything they say will be picked apart. This is an “exhausting but crucial” part of successful lobbying... If this is true, I don't think by any means this company is unusual among PR firms in doing so. Wikipedia rules have made it so that people are called out on the carpet for merely speculating when someone might be doing such a thing, but I suspect many of us cross paths with this sort of thing often. The article talks about it being used against activists, but what we too easily forget is that Wikipedia's goal of providing impartial knowledge to all is one of the most activist causes there is. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the bad people are certainly driving the good people away. The underlying problem is that what worked when Wikipedia new doesn't work now......what enabled building it when it was new back then now enables destructive sociopaths, mob violence, and a random and destructive system of "policing". North8000 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that Wikipedia started with a lot of people building content but not much accumulated content. Now it receives a huge amount of traffic to these cumulative resources and is in a position to control a large amount of content, and various factions are fighting over that power. The key here is to shatter that power, to make it so that a lot more people have the right to make content (including the ability to search that content) accessible in a global encyclopedic framework. Wnt (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Sociopaths," "mob violence"? No, it's just anonymous people working without pay. When it stops becoming interesting it becomes drudgery and I can understand why that person lost interest. Coretheapple (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If that person would have just lost interest he would not have said "I actually hate it here". There's a huge difference between "losing interest" and "hating" the place. Besides that person's retirement is only one example of many.71.202.123.2 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

He's welcome to explain what he meant. Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Two related thoughts made are worth repeating. I read the opening posts the other day, and walked away thinking about them, which led me to some of the thoughts expressed by user:North8000. It is well-known in the busines community that the set of skills needed for a start-up are not the same as the set of skills appropriate to manage a mature company. I wasn't here during the startup phase, but I've read enough of the hisotory to see the differences. Some long for a return to those days, but that isn't going to happen. We have to recognize that we are moving into middle age, and act accordingly. User:Wnt also makes an important point: in the early days, it was all about building content. While we are still building content, we have so much content, that we need ever increasing resources dealing with maintenance issues, which frankly, aren't as exciting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that some of the most important fundamental changes are:

• Wikipedia has become much much much more influential. So much much much more is to be gained or lost (and is at stake) by what it is an article and how it is written. So instead of the dominant kumbaya mission of "let's build an encyclopedia" dominating the psyche, POV interests and other interests have become much stronger and more prevalent.
• The vagueness, and lack of carefulness of the rules, structures, and positions which is just what we needed when we were a "commune" has now turned against us. The "system" has become weapons of warfare and of random harm to editors. And even where it is not mis-used it is not up to the task. Can you imagine a system where the same person is allowed to be the police, judge, jury and executioner, they get the job for life, and the criteria for getting it is "got in back when it was easy"?
• With (as it matures) the dominance of the "lets build something cool" slipping from 90% to 60%, much of the other 40% has been a lot of other things. For example, another place to play/participate in an on-line warfare game.

North8000 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making a very sound analysis. I think that the only way one can derive any satisfaction from volunteering for Wikipedia is to find a backwater where subjects that are not a subject of editorial battling, but are important and neglected, require attention. The idea is less to "build an encyclopedia" in the abstract sense, as after all the encyclopedia belongs to a third party, and one may not like what the third party is doing. But if one feels that the article on Extinct hummingbirds is neglected, and one feels strongly about extinct hummingbirds, then one can improve such articles without feeling a sense that one's time is being wasted. But I can understand why people trying to become involved in administrative stuff become frustrated. I monitor this page because I'm interested in the scourge of paid editing, and it has been a very frustrating experience that has not increased my satisfaction or made me feel better about Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement: the more prominent the subject, the more acute the editorial fisticuffs, and the more "important" the subject, the greater the chance that one's sandcastle on the beach will be wiped out by an incoming wave. So, if somebody is bored and wants a challenge, there's a new monograph: John K. Derden, The World's Largest Prison: The Story of Camp Lawton. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2012) about Camp Lawton (prisoner of war camp), a Confederate prisoner of war camp located in the defunct town of Lawtonville, Georgia. There are your red links, go to town... Carrite (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've found that subjects of importance sometimes don't have Wikipedia articles, when the sources are offline and/or when the subjects are not especially fashionable or recent, and/or when they concern members of minority groups that are not active on Wikipedia. For example, I was absolutely astonished to find that the single biggest road accident in U.S. history, an incident that helped result in abolition of a guest workers program, did not have a Wikipedia article. The reason was that the victims were Mexican migrant workers. Nobody cared then, or now. Yet there are umpteen articles on video games and minor musical artists. We reflect the prejudices and obsessions of society. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Even for recent events, there's a real cultural bias. I've got a redlink on my user page for a Mexican band called Reyna De Monterrey that had 10 members wiped out in a traffic accident in 2013. Compare and contrast to the treatment accorded The Exploding Hearts, who are appropriately covered on WP. (While I'm name-dropping red links that maybe little birds will see, here's another subject of a recent biography that needs a WP piece: Mira Lloyd Dock; per: Rimby, Mira Lloyd Dock and the Progressive Era Conservation Movement. Penn State University Press, 2012.) Carrite (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a weak spot. Take a look at Bracero program. There is an article, for sure, but it needs a lot of work. This is an area in which there isn't a lot of screaming among editors, just a great deal of content that needs work or creation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Our culture here on Wikipedia is in a very sorry state, one that developed out of years of letting the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots. As a project, I think we need to do something to signal to the community, outside observers, and potential (or former) contributors that those days are over, and we need to back it up with some serious and visible changes in how we do business. We need some brainstorming about ways to get this community out of the doldrums so it can realize its potential. Everyking (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the odd thing, though, re "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots". It seems that people mean entirely different things by that.

Because I see a fair amount of "Some of the admins here are horriblly cruel and arrogant, and they bully unoffending good editors terribly" and I see a fair amount "Some of the editors here are horrible and hurtful bullies, and the admins don't do anything". It's not likely that both problems are of approximately equal magnitude.

So when I see something like "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots" I literally don't know if the person is complaining about admins or editors. If we all pretty much agreed that one or the other was the real problem, we could take effective steps to fixing it.

But we don't agree. That means the problem is not obvious. If the problem is not obvious that's an indicator that it's not that real. Not proof, but an indicator.

Like this: if most everyone is in agreement that "The main proximate problem facing this community is crime" then you probably really do have a crime problem. If most everyone is in agreement that "The main proximate problem facing this community is police brutality" then you probably really do have a police problem. If it's half of each then you probably have normal life and people just engaging in free-floating complaining, which of course people do.

I've been here about ten years and haven't avoided contention, and it sure hasn't been my experience that "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots". There's politics though, for sure. Hopefully you didn't sign up expecting a politics-free zone. That'll only happen when the robots arrive (if then). Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to hate on admins or arbitrators because that is an easily defined group. It also leads to hilarious arguments such as how our "content creators" are little more than innocent flowers getting trampled by the evil admins. Problem is, some of Wikipedia's biggest assholes and bullies are also content creators, and are themselves a very large part of this apparent cultural problem. So, as you say, it becomes impossible to really argue that one group or another is the problem because the issue isn't confined to one group or another, no matter how badly certain agitators wish to claim otherwise. Resolute 16:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Everyking there have been discussions about this for a long time and I have had a number of off-wiki talks with people about some of the good points you raise here. How do you think we can improve the situation and make Wikipedia culture be civil? --Pine^✉ 06:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My main suggestion would be that we declare a general amnesty for banned and indefinitely blocked users, as well as users who have been blocked for extended periods of time (with a few exceptions for some especially notorious individuals). There must be thousands of these people who have been booted off the site over the years, often because they fell into a petty feud or simply wound up on the losing side of some dispute, and I think we could do ourselves a tremendous favor by offering them all the chance to come back. It would be a dramatic signal to everyone that we have changed our ways, that the place isn't still run by gangs of bullies, and all the returning editors could do immeasurable good in improving content. Another change I would suggest would be limiting all bans and blocks to a maximum of six months. Everyking (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hostile admins must guard vast oceans of pages with slower software: At this point, it is almost too late to consider improvements suggested years ago, and that leaves the admins to guard 10 million pages (articles & talk-pages) hacked by pranksters, vandals and corporate product adverts, encased by slower compu-encrypted https-secure software. WP could have switched to a system of trusted users, with long-term accomplishments, with trust points perhaps earned by fixing hundreds of pages as requested. Such trusted users could have been immune to wp:wikihounding at wp:ANI, but instead all users must live in fear of a gang of accusers, or quit to get-a-life that week. Meanwhile, hoards of newcomers hack and slant low-protected pages, and the frantic admins must threaten and block thousands of people, with no system to judge user-trust levels.
  Meanwhile, the MediaWiki software gets ever slower, with compu-encrypted https pages using glitzy collapse-delayed menus, as thousands more pages need rapid updates to stay current, but the WMF grand solution is wp:VisualEditor to reduce updates as cumbersome, tedious keystoke entries, where the slightest wp:edit-conflicts will lose all keystrokes, rather than auto-merge changes to adjacent lines. Meanwhile, the admins learn of the growing infestation of unfixed vandalism, in outdated pages abandoned by people caught in the cross-fire of friends, or newcomers, soured by unfair blocks with no trust granted.
  Instead, the fading hope is to run even more Bot programs to auto-cleanse pages for hidden vandalism, as numerous editors sink to merely replacing simple disambiguation links to a specific article, while the hack edits remain in the nearby text and pages age even more outdated. Many major articles have not been improved much in over 3 years.
  So we see thousands of new editors try, but quit early, leaving the power users to rapid-update thousands of pages for minor changes. And the developers give us page contents mixed in 2 fonts, as Frankenfonts to disguise the aging Frankenwiki of mangled text. The future is very bleak and relies on increased automation to assist the dwindling core of active editors. -Wikid77 07:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  I do not see how a less egalitarian system or a faster software could solve the cultural problems of general mistrust and divisiveness. Is "the growing infestation of unfixed vandalism" realy a thing? I notice a lot less vandalism while casually browsing Wikipedia than ten years ago. —Kusma (t·c) 08:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Allow me to chime in "In Defense of Bullies." Since Wikipedia is open for any schmoe to jump in and edit anonymously, without any registration or real life identification to make banning for COI even possible, there is always going to be conflict over content. It's a fact of life — involved, aggressive, opinionated people are going to attempt to power through their views, chasing off the meek in the process. There absolutely must be "countervailing power" on the part of WP's editorial cadres and administrative corps. It takes superior firepower to beat back the worst offenders, and that sounds, looks, and smells like "bullying" to anyone looking at things from a distance. So, yeah, I may not agree with everything that someone like Andy the Grump does or says fighting for NPOV content, for example, or I may not agree with Orange Mike's fairly extreme position on user names and obvious Paid COI content — but this hockey team needs enforcers like that so that serious people can do work. (Not to say that either of those fine gents aren't serious people, they both also do fine content work, but you get what I'm saying...) Now, if we as a community wanted to build the thing over from the ground up, with identification upon registration, sign-in-to-edit via password, and locking out users who violate content or behavior rules — hey, that's an option. It would take WMF fiat to initiate that and might entirely kill the project, but it's technically possible. But for our imperfect world, with our flawed decision to allow "anyone" to edit, we need our own set of bullies. True fact. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Some fixes in the policies, and structures for admins, admin type roles and arbcom would 70% fix the problem. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, for a while I was an admin who did the really nasty work around here. I've devoted myself to two articles on Wikipedia for the last year and 3 months (nothing to do with toxicity, the content of what I'm studying is extremely gripping) and not had any problems. Producing decent content doesn't automatically entail being a fuckwit to everyone around you, and the talkpage contains some perfectly reasonable discourse; people have disagreed with a few things I've put up and vice versa, and yet there's never been a tense moment in improving either article. Looks like everything there is in reasonable order. Then again, maybe people are so sick of my perseverating that no one else wants to work with me... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The big question is about Wikipedia's dwindling number of editors. Sure, there are tons of new editors editing Wikipedia for the first time - hell, they're editing and creating new accounts as we speak. Just look at the logs. But at least 80% of them leave after the first day, some after they're hit with a bunch of warnings on their talk page telling them "You can't do this" or "Neutral Point of View" or "Your article is not notable, so it has been put up for speedy deletion". Many of them are driven away at the Wikitext they need to learn just to edit an article. "Easy to edit?" Sure, definitely. But is it actually easy to edit? I never figured out tables, and I still can't. Will VisualEditor help retain some of the newbies coming on (and possibly call back some that have left)? Probably. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But VisualEditor could drastically affect the way Wikipedia works. All of a sudden it becomes harder to get messages to users, as it's easy for them to simply ignore HTML comments (<!-- -->) and turn articles into ashes. It could also confuse newcomers when they're told to "substitute" a template when the "Add a Template" feature mentions nothing about substitution. We should tread carefully on these grounds.

Indeed, while a wiki aims towards a peaceful, harmonious atmosphere to function, that's about as realistic as a child begging his parents for vegetables after he sampled some of McDonalds human feedlot food. There are a lot of good, friendly, and happy editors here that I've met, but there are lots of grumpy ones here as well. Happy ones that hesitate behind rollback and grumpy ones that template the regulars because they're sick of people not using the preview button and turning the entire article into bold text. Is Wikipedia's "friendly" atmosphere in jeopardy? Seems like it to me. However, as Wikipedia has grown to a size even I cannot imagine, trying to maintain a friendly atmosphere is next to impossible. If you and a small group of friends, totalling maybe about 10 people, got together and sat down over a cup of coffee, it's easy to maintain peace between all of you. However, if you bring in an army of people, it seems almost natural for everyone to break apart, form their own groups, and then (inevitably, as the group gets larger), fight each other. Civility is a must for Wikipedia, but it seems to be dwindling as grumpy editors drive away friendly ones. Both newbies and experienced editors can become grumpy, and it's easy to do so seeing how large Wikipedia is (and how much work there is to be done!).

Wikipedia is suffering from growing pains, but I can see the potential this place has. I've mentioned Wikipedia so many times in countless school assignments, and it's because I like helping out in a large project. It makes me feel like I'm part of something big. Having Wikipedia fall into a deep dark hole and never resurface will turn me into a laughing stock - and possibly put me out of a hobby I enjoy. K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does well in unique viewers and article count. I too wonder if this place will eventually mostly be run by bots, COI editors, and a few grumpy regulars. We must make a future better than that. WikiProject Editor Retention is interested in this problem and a lot of WMF employees are also. WMF has done some good work with projects like Teahouse and guided tours. I would like to see WMF put active editor growth at the top of its list of priorities. Some projects that are underway are Snuggle, Flow, VisualEditor, recruiting IP editors, and growing the education program. There is also a discussion happening about updating the English Wikipedia adoption program. I will ask WMF to comment on this thread for more information about active editor population projections and the major editor engagement projects. However, we editors also need to work on this problem by making English Wikipedia a friendly and engaging place for good-faith editors. --Pine^✉ 05:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The idea that the English Wikipedia can be made a friendly and engaging place for good-faith editors is ridiculous, and no way possible while Wikipedia in under the heel of the current absurd and surreal admin system. Here hundreds of individual admins appointed for life have the freedom, like vigilantes, to emerge from the woodwork and arbitrarily demolish content builders at whim. Until Wikipedia can be brought under some measure of transparent central control and accountability, and until some measure of natural justice is seen to be in operation, Wikipedia will continue spiralling down it's present course. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. Let me say also that we have run off so many editors, and disillusioned so many others, that we lack the reliable pool of committed, long-term content editors that we really need and certainly should have by now. The turnover rate around here is astounding and depressing. People don't want to work in this abusive atmosphere, and a large portion of those who are willing to endure it get blocked anyway. We treat people like trash, force them out, and then wonder why there are so few others lining up to volunteer for the same treatment. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it really about content-creators now? With > 4 million articles, maintenance is a bigger issue than creation, even though knowledge, like the universe, continues to expand. "Content creator" and "admin" are not mutually-exclusive but I think that there are a lot of non-admins who do little but police and, really, we need them in that role because of the sheer number of policy breaches: POV, non-RS, promotional, outright vandalism, BLP etc. I for one probably spend most of my time reverting people nowadays - it isn't a lot of fun and most of it falls into the category of needs to be done rather than can be done. I've probably driven away as many people as your average admin without ever having use of a block button but I can't in all honesty say that I'm either ashamed or proud of it: it just is what it is. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pine. Re: " I too wonder if this place will eventually mostly be run by bots, COI editors, and a few grumpy regulars." — What do you mean eventually?!? :-). Carrite (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite: There are still a few nice, open-arm editors that are out there, but if this keeps up, soon they just might leave for a nicer, friendlier place. Which would devastate Wikipedia. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You can count me among the "grumpy editors". However, although I am on the way out, it is not because of good/bad/indifferent admins but rather a cumulative series of events. I suspect that is the case for many others who have put in a few years here before calling time. There is too much rubbish content that has little chance of improvement, too few decent contributors, and too many new contributors who not merely lack clue (which is fixable) but have no great desire to gain it (which usually isn't). It ceases to be fun when it becomes clear that the regulars are basically a tiny group of people fighting - yes, fighting - with millions.

Sure, there are pleasant backwaters but one reason why they are backwaters is because they are often not articles that attract a great deal of attention - been there, done that. Articles that attract a significant number of viewers etc are, almost by definition, the core content of any encyclopedia; everything else is filling in the gaps and "handy when you need it" stuff. Don't blame the admins, though, because they really are not the root of the problems. The flaw in this project now is probably the same thing that was its USP originally: the ability for anyone to edit it. I've no idea what the solution may be, sorry, but there is little doubt in my mind that the India-related stuff, at least, is a lost cause - even the few admins that have a familiarity with that are walking away. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think an important aspect we need to emphasize and evaluate when looking for administrators is how well a nominee deals with the multiple perspectives present on almost every controversial topic. Instead of increasing the overall number of administrators, we need to find facilitators who can moderate solutions on these pages; potential admins should be well-informed of their position as a moderator and should have a strong background in such negotiations. Otherwise, we run the risk of driving away quality article contributors who are not necessarily fit to be admins. Solving this problem is key to editor retention on Wikipedia. Seattle (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That might work if editors were willing to consider that opinions of others as valid, but they don't. We have too many editors with an meta:MPOV here who think that their version is the neutral version. We've attracted more of these over recent years, those who want Wikipedia to reflect their version of neutral, than editors genuinely interested in simply reporting what the sources say given the weight that they sources say them. They do this by arguing that sources that don't support their POV are not reliable sources. Dispute resolution, for these editors, isn't about collaboration, they want to be vindicated.--v/r - TP 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's always distressing when a friend posts a resignation announcement, even if you've been around long enough to know that nearly all of those assertions turn out to be "premature". The problem there isn't "retention of editors"; it's "retention of my particular friends".

The research shows that the actual editor retention problem isn't with us old hands. The rate of old-timers quitting these days (really truly quitting, not just saying we will and then posting a retraction after a few days of people telling us how wonderful we are) is about the same as it's been for years. The major causes for individuals voluntarily leaving or dramatically cutting back are the same as they always were: real-world work and family obligations. One of the most serious drains on editor retention is someone finishing school, getting a good job, getting married, and having kids.

The real decline—what's different now compared to 2006—is with a desirable group of inexperienced newbies. A lot more of them used to stick around past the first day's edits. One significant cause of people not coming back for a second or third day is aggressive reversions, rather than collaboratively building on what someone did (for example, reverting an addition because the formatting was wrong, rather than fixing the formatting). Huggle didn't exist back when I thought that {{Cancer}} and Category:Cancer had the same result. Someone just cleaned up my mess, without reverting everything I'd done in that edit and without yelling at me, much less blocking me. I believe that editor's quiet, collaborative approach is why I'm still here today. My experience doesn't seem to have been very unusual back then, but I don't believe that as many of our new editors encounter that approach now.

Anyway, if you'd like to know what the research says about what's really going on with editor retention, you can start here: http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Although nothing is really surprising, it's nice to see common knowledge quantified like that. WilyD 09:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait. That article is saying that the primary reason that editor retention is declining is because too many people WP:BITE the newbies? Well...makes sense to me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems easy enough until you get into things like Indian castes, where you get semi-coherent attacks on you everywhere you turn. New users aren't as innocent as people make them out to be, in my experience; no matter how new you are and how much you may be genuinely attempting to edit in good faith, I give no respect to anyone who tells me I'm a genocidal freak who deserves to be fucked with a knife. For all the bitching about how mean we are to new users, it should be pretty simple to tell specific people what to do differently, and I have yet to see that in all but the most extreme cases. Either people are too lazy to do so, or experienced editors biting new users isn't the main source of the problem; if the latter isn't the case, I want some evidence. As a great song once said, "I don't care what you say, let's see Exhibit A". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh the irony!

At AFC I have just reviewed and declined a submission about a company that advocates abusing Wikipedia for "reputation repair" - WT:Articles for creation/Recover Reputation. The draft does not pass WP:CORP. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It gets even more ironic. See How NOT to Fix Your Online Reputation: 5 Tips, Steven W. Giovinco, with the 1st tip being "Don't write your own reviews". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't see much of an irony here. His video opposes doing things that usually break the rules. But Wikipedia, being run in a particularly callow, self-destructive and moronic manner, actually allows COI editors to create articles through the Articles for Creation process. This one didn't go through, but because it was not notable. If it met our weak notability guidelines there would be no reason to deny the AfC under the cockamamie rules practiced here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Though this is by no means the worst case, I still wish people would learn better than to cyberbully contributors here. Like it or not, the AfC process is being presented as the legitimate way for a company to propose an article on itself. Picking them out to humiliate them because of their particular trade is kind of like picking through the contributions for editors with advanced degrees in mathematics and naming and shaming them whenever their table columns don't add up to 100%. It does do a positive good to enlist people associated with companies to propose useful content about themselves, when (as in this case) we have safeguards to ensure that the ensuring article meets encyclopedic standards. This company may be able to put up a better presentation in the future that has sufficient independent secondary sources, especially if they have enough PR pull to be able to arrange articles to be published in "neutral" media like so many big companies seem to. It might well be that our policy is too lenient, but if so change it, instead of harassing contributors, even commercial contributors, who have followed the rules. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hint taken - I have removed my review comment. I'm not so sure that being welcoming to intentional bright-line violators is a "Good Idea^TM" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not. It is, in fact, an open sore. However, it is permitted by policy, and some people derive an income from writing articles for companies, for payment, for submission to the AfC process. Dealing with such persons and their selfish agendas has been a significant administrative burden for Wikipedia, and a major time and energy suck (re "change the policy if you don't like it"). Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I did a little bit of work on the article on Reputation management a while back. It often has a seedy element, but there are also legitimate practices. We do have articles on reputation management firms Reputation.com, Brand.com, BrandYourself, and Reputation911. I'm going to do a quick skim to see if some of them need cleanup. CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding, which may be a few years out of date by now, is that Reputation.com/ReputationDefender has a very firm internal policy against editing Wikipedia directly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt they do much work here, given that most of their clients are small businesses and individuals frustrated by forum posts, court records and online reviews that top search results. They charge $1-$3k a year, which is not very much (a corporate general PR budget is usually $8-$20k a month).

The talk page Talk:Reputation.com has a lot of borderline BLP violations. One section called "Rep.com a tool for people who have a problem accepting the truth?" is just a rant and others are emphasizing it as a scam based on obviously non-reliable sources. Ironically, it's the kind of trolling they (depending on your viewpoint) are intended to address and I think we would also want remove or redact it, which an admin may want to consider doing... CorporateM (Talk) 02:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

When people pushed for WP:BLP to be made a policy, one of the concessions they seemed eager to make was that it was not a "biographies of living corporations" policy. Also, the use of unreliable sources is permitted on the talk page, because the talk page is a main place where people determine which sources are reliable. While an apparently unsourced allegation about flooding with positive reviews makes me nervous, and here verges on mere soapboxing (which can be removed under policy), it is still a lead for article improvement in that editors should be able to find out whether this company does or does not do such things and improve the article likewise. I can't guarantee an editor in the wrong jurisdication couldn't get into personal trouble this way, but as a matter of policy I cannot approve of muzzling discussion that may be relevant to article development on talk pages to fit a preconception of decorum. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note: when in doubt, dive. If you look at the implications of some of these patents, you should see plenty to be seriously concerned about. We indeed do need to take seriously the need for people to join together to stop the increase of economic inequality and the consequential erosion of civil liberties in the economic arena. If you want a wealthy class to control all the jobs and give them out only to the people who have never in their lives uttered a bad word against them (as determined by machine) then by all means, do nothing. But otherwise, we need nothing short of an economic constitution that defends the right of all people to have real resources, so that all the gates of employment and publicity are not manned by the robots of a single master. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Naturally (like with the company's business model itself) it's a blurry line between muzzling discussions and turning Wikipedia into a forum. Much of the soapboxing has a breadcrumb of truth in reliable sources, but then there's stuff like this:

This company is a complete scam, and everyone knows it. And apparently Wiki is taking "donations" to allow their BS to continue. Apparently they dont have enough "donations" to convince google to remove all traces of their fraud from the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.125.131 (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is representative of a more general problem regarding the quality and thoughtfulness of discussions everywhere on Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 18:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you accept that it's OK for you to repost the text of the comment here in order to say that it is wrong, then it should be sufficient at the talk page to reply and point out that this is an unsourced assertion, without the need for admin intervention. Either it's material needing removal or redaction or it isn't; and we should have a high bar for that. Wnt (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...(Re: Medical pseudoscience on Wikipedia)

... for this. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

See here -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A day late and a dollar short, I guess. But thanks for the link—as always, I was dying to know what Wnt had to say on the subject. :P MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, I know you haven't always agreed with all of my decision-making on Wikipedia, but in the unlikely chance that you may read this, given your busy schedule, if you happen to have a .gif of me clapping, please add it to the ones seen here. Kudos. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I might be deluded by confirmation bias, I believe I have noticed a recent increase in submissions on ALTMED topics to AFC. Perhaps they are pushing back after Jimbo's response. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

At least some people who emailed me from the alternative medicine advocacy side of things seemed to misunderstand me to being saying that I think we should delete articles on those topics. Obviously, I don't. Indeed in many cases one of the best public services we can give is to have NPOV coverage of these topics, including that they are not consistent with scientific knowledge.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well put. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Lessons learned for autofixing cites

I have been hand-editing dozens of semi-major pages, to fix the cite-parameter errors and copy-edit text, while discussions continue about the types of wp:autofixing cites, to use in the wp:CS1 Lua-based templates. I still think autofixing is the best long-term solution to handle most of the common typos in cites. However, there have been some revelations:

• Numerous pages with cite errors have been "semi-major" articles viewed 100x-3,000x per day, read far more times than first imagined.
• Hundreds of cite errors are caused by Bots, when unable to correct duplicate parameters (replaced as "DUPLICATE_last1=" or such) and inserting invalid "unused_data=" to contain extra text in a cite.
• Autofixing of cites would not correct hundreds of cases, such as the invalid parameters inserted by Bots which find duplicate parameter names.

Hence, the main priority (now) has been to hand-fix the hundreds of semi-major articles, while noting them as examples where autofixing could have been effective. To my shock (or "horror"), I discovered how thousands of pages with cite errors were not minor, rare pages viewed only a few times per day, but instead, numerous pages were viewed 50-100x or more per day, with many read 1,000-4,000 times per day. I think I had 2 major misconceptions:

• Thinking of cites in "average pages" where, instead, only the higher-view pages typically have enough cites to incur cite typos.
• Excessive optimism that "surely people fix major pages during a year?" (no), where the reality is that many pages read 100x or 1,000x per day are left unfixed all year.

At first, I was saddened to realize "almost no one corrects semi-major pages" but instead, the good news is:
                    "Because almost no one edits the semi-major pages,
                     then once fixed, those pages stay fixed for months/years."
The problem had been, with the mindset to look for cite errors and count how many months/years they sat unfixed, I had overlooked the impact of the opposite effect: Once a semi-major article has been fixed (copy-edited) for better quality, then it often remains clean for several months or years. If copy-edit backlog drives focused mainly on the high-pageview articles, then the core, wp:VITAL pages could be fixed and remain clean for months/years into the future. The main problem has been an "inverse 90/10 Rule" where people have spread their fix-it efforts across the ocean of all pages, where instead, if some people focused primarily on the top 10% (as fixing 440,000 semi-major pages), then the bulk of high-view pages would appear clean for years, while the lesser pages (viewed 20x-500x less) could then be improved as next in priority. Many people have been "sweeping and polishing" the dark corners, while numerous high-traffic areas with glaring problems were overlooked. -Wikid77 20:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting insights, Wikid77. Maybe you should share your ideas to WP:Village pump where more people would see them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is just an informal note, for discussion. When Jimbo has time, he has offered some advice as in the past, to beware "too small a sample" or use the "12-month-trailing average" when trying to generalize the trends about WP pages. In this case I checked a whole year of data, but I should have scanned hundreds of pages and realized how numerous pages with wp:CS1 cite errors are read 100x or more times per day. -Wikid77 20:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bots edit-warring to insert invalid cite parameters

It has taken me a while to confirm a pattern, but some of the cite-fixit Bots are actively edit-warring about the cite parameters, where perhaps the control settings can be selected to misjudge valid parameters and re-edit them to store invalid "DUPLICATE_title=" after a person fixes the "title=", depending on "archiveurl=" settings or other related parameters (see User:Citation_bot in history: view history). By comparison, the tactics of wp:autofixing cites do not "edit" the page, but merely alter the display of cite data, and could not possibly edit-war with people changing cite templates. This is a real nightmare, because it is difficult to reduce the cite backlog when cite-Bots are actively edit-warring over the hundreds of previously hand-fixed cites. Update: The bot incorrectly inserting "DUPLICATE_title=" was reported at User_talk:Citation_bot on 31 March. -Wikid77 20:11, 29 March; 14:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Examples of million-view cite messages

Although many high-view pages have contained some cite error messages over the past year, one article was viewed over 5 million times with a cite error message:
Template:Nb10• Once Upon a Time (TV series) – had 6.7 million pageviews in 2013
That TV series had the error "Unknown parameter |subjects= ignored" near footnote 35-41, displayed all year in the References section, viewed 10,000 to 50,000 times per day, but the page was updated over 2,500 times during the period. That page exemplifies the problem: a page can be viewed 5 million times, while updated 2,500 times, but a red-error message does not cause readers to fix the error, so don't show it. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How hard would it be to produce a list of these in an automated way, updated once a day or once a week? "Most popular pages with cite error messages" - so people who are good at this sort of thing can focus their efforts on fixing them?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the cite-gnome users are fixing pages now ASAP (~100/day), and I requested "wt:CS1#Need help fixing unsupported parameters" to focus on major pages, such as in top wp:5000. More below. -Wikid77 11:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a great idea, Jimbo. Invertzoo (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I might be really good at fixing, manually, a situation like that b/c I could never look at any article, no matter how big or small, and click-away knowing I'd left one single red cite error message in the References section. But I don't want to get involved in any kind of official operation or anything, especially if admins are involved! In fact, I really hesitated about posting this here but finally did, b/c I couldn't imagine leaving a page in that condition and not try to fix it. But I don't want to be involved with anything that goes near articles where there are lots of really aggressive editors and admins swirling about, especially the ones who think they own the article(S) or that being uncivil consists of defending yourself against their abuses of bureaucratic process. JDanek007^Talk 08:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a job for Wikipedia:Database reports.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hand-fixing cite backlog within 30 days: I had forgotten how hand-editing can be faster than upgrading mega-templates which require many weeks/months to reformat the 2.2 million related pages (due to the "wp:Page reformat crisis"), so even though it might require a whole month of hand-fixing cites, the backlog of unknown/misspelled cite parameters should be cleared by the end of April 2014. See category:
  Template:Nb10• Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters (pages: 0)
  I recently fixed cite errors in "Pluto" and "New York City" plus many semi-major pages. Once the backlog from last year is smaller, it will be easier for cite-gnome users to spot major pages in the category, to have those cite errors corrected sooner. -Wikid77 11:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This Arbcom is very slow

One of the Wikipediocracy threads that probably should be at least touched upon here relates to this: Arbcom is multiple weeks late with decisions on their Austrian Economics and Gun Control cases. A fairly straightforward topic ban modification request by Cirt has been ridiculously slow. It doesn't seem their workload is any higher than previous Arbcoms — probably the opposite. What is going on here? Is this impression about Arbcom's slowness to resolve their caseload wrong? If it is not, how do we fix it? (And no, this is not a matter for some random Arbcom talk page because that institution is notoriously cloistered and opaque). Carrite (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter? The Pedia races, or limps, along, regardless. Is there a "right" amount of time? Sure, a tentative (or at least provisional) resolution of whatever conduct issue is delayed. That might matter to some few but does it matter significantly to many? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• One of the Wikipediocracy threads that probably should be at least touched upon here...

You mean there are others? Let that conversation stay on that website...it serves a purpose when it stays over there.

A discussion on this subject has occurred on ARBCOM talk pages (several times) and arbitrators and clerks have responded. Decisions on ARBCOM cases are rarely posted at the scheduled time, at least the ones I've read over. I don't see how a conversation about ARBCOM on this talk page will cause them to to move any faster. When you're talking about reaching a consensus decision that could result in topic bans or blocks, I don't think putting pressure on the participants will result in an outcome that is more fair. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the question isn't about forcing a rush to judgment but rather is there something fundamentally wrong with the system that causes the process to be so long. The answer according to some is... who cares if it takes too long? Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My perspective is that the process was inordinately long to begin with and now it is "inordinately long and six weeks overdue beyond that." Of course, maybe it's all for the best if they take two cases every January and issue their decisions in December... I can't discount that possibility. Still: things have slowed and deadlines been disregarded and that is a pain in the ass for involved parties. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, one of recently successful electees ran on a platform of not being around much. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the electorate got what it asked for. (Although something Douglas Adams wrote about lizards springs to mind. And no, it wasn't about lizards being sluggish in cold weather like other reptiles.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, THAT is quite good. I clearly need to buy four books... Carrite (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Might interest you, Jimbo

I've only gotten thru about 3 chapters so far, but somehow I thought "Jimbo might be interested in this" as I read it. Michael Lewis's new book Flash Boys. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The new April 1 guidelines

Let's all have fun today  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: I've taken the liberty of removing the "information page" header and replacing it with the humor (or humour) one, just to make sure nobody mistakes your little joke for the real guidelines. Wouldn't be so funny then, eh? ansh666 02:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And I see that Jehochman has made a slight change here :) I'll let the Admins short this out, I will just focus on the contents of the page. Count Iblis (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tomorrow or at the end of this day, we should elect who gets the "short tempered Admin" reward. Count Iblis (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, watch out particularly for those April Fool Ninjas. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Avoid all contact with them. Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales! Thank you for your contributions. I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Remember, the above links are very helpful, so make sure you check all of them out. All the best, Matty.007 10:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

.....what? K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

.....click on the links. Matty.007 12:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, unscrupulously redirecting editors from what appears to be a valid informational template to somewhere else. ES&L 12:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't change the actual template... that would be silly. Matty.007 12:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• @EatsShootsAndLeaves, K6ka: I guess the bolded "April Fools" in the template text was a bit too subtle, eh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. Didn't bother to click on the links. Well, I got fooled. K6ka (talk | contribs) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 15:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yawn, more wasted bandwidth...--ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit of fun for once a year. Matty.007 17:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That presupposes that it's actually funny - very few AFDay pranks are, and I am afraid that after the spaghetti harvest the bar is set pretty high.--ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The spaghetti harvest is too hard to top though, this is just a light hearted jest. Matty.007 17:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Mailing list and Irate

Unclear what the humorous point is supposed to be of this discussion being reposted from several years ago.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo, I see that you've blocked User:Irate indefinitely based on some comments he made on IRC. But I only found out about this on the mailing list, and I think it should be discussed on Wikipedia, preferably on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, so that the rest of us can know about it and discuss it. For example, I myself strongly disagree with your block, but if you take this process, of doing it by fiat and only talking about it on the mailing list, those of us who disagree are effectively excluded from the decision. Everyking 03:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC) You may start a discussion there if you like; I think it will be quite instructive. You could also discuss it here. I think such a discussion might be quite helpful to everyone to clarify the purpose of the website: is it to be a playground for belligerant, illiterate, and unapologetic users (like Irate), or a serious encyclopedia project? --Jimbo Wales 10:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC) That isn't a fair characterization of the matter. Nobody wants Wikipedia to be a playground for anybody. The question I was raising was one of process, whether it was done correctly or whether it should have been done only on the basis of broader input. But of course it's settled now anyway. Everyking 10:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I don't see what you think was done incorrectly. Everything was by the book. There was an arbcom case, a result, an appeal, a result. There was and continues to be broad community input and support for the process. --Jimbo Wales 11:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Huh? You just banned him because he said something you didn't like in IRC. Everyking 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Yes he did. Irate said that he intended to disrupt wikipedia. Everyone who has had any contact with irate knows that this was no idle threat as Irate had already disrupted wikipedia. Jimbo enjoys my support for this action, and I expect the support of everyone else with the exception of Irate and yourself. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC) You're trying to trap me in the box of supporting Irate, but it's not going to happen. All I'm saying is that we should follow process and a permanent ban should not be done purely on the basis of an IRC conversation. I'm not even saying the IRC conversation shouldn't be admissible as evidence! That alone is pretty radical, since there's precedent that IRC and the encyclopedia should be treated as completely separate. Everyking 23:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I am not trying to trap you! you daft thing! Yes IRC and Wikipedia are seperate things, and yes something like "you are a wanker" said on irc shouldn't be grounds for a ban on wikipedia. But "I will disrupt wikipedia" is a different matter. Jimbo banned a disruptive editor who threatened to disrupt again as soon as his current block expired. This is entirely within process. Jimbo has every right to ban anyone he sees fit to. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I agree with Theresa, but I'll go further and say this wasn't just a ban because "he said something I didn't like in irc" nor was it a ban of "anyone I see fit". This is part of our standard operating procedure which sets no new precedent at all. Everyking's point would be valid if I had randomly banned an otherwise good user for misbehaving in IRC. But Irate was not misbehaving in irc, and that was not at all the point. (And, let's be honest: Everyking surely knows this and is making a silly argument anyway.) The conversation could have taken place in email, on the phone, in the wiki, wherever. The point that a user was protesting his sentence before the ArbCom by making the argument that (a) "the rules are rubbish" and (b) other people's bad behavior justified his own and (c) a clear promise to continue behaving as he always has and (d) a clear rejection of my own suggestion that he hold himself to a higher standard than the rules. I am quite certain now that this case is going to go down in the "troll version" of the history of Wikipedia as the case where Jimbo randomly banned a perfectly good user because he said something that Jimbo didn't like in irc. Fine. But good users will not be deceived by that sort of nonsense. Irate was very very very lucky to have been allowed here as long as he was.--Jimbo Wales 10:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Well, I think there are cases like this, or there could be, where a user makes a threat on IRC and that is followed by an encyclopedia block. I think C is the only one of your points that could warrant a block. The question is, did Irate make this promise? I mean in the sense that he said he would continue doing what got him banned before. Even in that case I think a block based on that is jumping the gun a bit, but it would be a bit more reasonable than I've previously thought it to be. Everyking 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC) What worries me most: how certain can you be that you are actually speaking with the editor on IRC, rather than some adversary who simply says he is the editor? I've generally avoided IRC over the past 20 years but I tend to think of it as a morass of netsplits, spoofing, flooding, hacking ops etc. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I'm a little torn here. I am for "process" and I think Everyking mades a good point that Wikipedia in 2014 doesn't need Matt Dillon on a big horse riding around shooting bad guys. On the other hand, it's about damned time that IRC gets reeled in (or better yet, terminated as a quasi-semi-official arm of WP). So: consequences for bad behavior there, that's good. It's a tie. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Erm, it appears Jimbo banned this user in 2005 (!). Am I missing something that caused this to become an issue today? Resolute 16:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Carrite and Resolute, this appears to have been a prank by Count Iblis. alanyst 16:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1000000 years for inappropriately founding Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I hate it here too sometimes...

How the hell can you ever effect change when you have people with narrow and outdated views who will do anything to protect their little fiefdoms? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Thumbnail_Preferences_-_max_300px I went through all that effort to realize all I achieved was a potential location to start the discussion all over again and still no sense of the process. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC) 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)