Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:28, 19 December 2015 view sourceWnt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users36,218 edits →Feinstein's next attack on Misplaced Pages← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:14, 10 January 2025 view source Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,539 edits →Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef|small=yes}} {{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Stb}} {{noindex}}
{{Stb}}
{{Usercomment}} {{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates.'''<br />
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s ].<br />The three ] elected as community representatives until Wikimania 2017 are ], ], and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is ].'''}}}}
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 197
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(1d)
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}-->
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{annual readership}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{Press
|archiveprefix=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive
| subject = talkpage
|format= %%i
| author = Matthew Gault
|age=36
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
|index=no
| org = ]
|minkeepthreads=2
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
|maxarchsize=250000
| date = 8 December 2021
|numberstart=189
| quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.
|header={{aan}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(10d)
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 252
| maxarchivesize = 350K
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{Centralized discussion}} {{Centralized discussion}}

__TOC__ __TOC__
{{-}} {{-}}


== Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! ==
==Are persons with advanced permissions exempt from ]?==

Some weeks ago, in a discussion at ], User:Alison disclosed she was site cofounder. After she declined to do so, I placed her name in a connected contributor template at the top of the page per the guideline. Alison and others immediately treated that as a joke, adding nonconflicted editors. Alison herself has edit warred to remove the template after she and others crammed it with the names of nonconflicted editors. I view this situation as an editor with advanced permissions and many friends avoiding basic COI rules. My question is, do we give editors of long and distinguished service, and advanced permissions, a de facto exemption from ]? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

:Yes. ] (]) 19:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:No. -- ] (]) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A related question:

Do we disregard only the “foes” part of the COI guideline "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes”? If the guideline applies to {{u|Alison}}, then it must apply equally to {{u|Coretheapple}}, who makes no bones about regarding WO as a foe, yet fights tooth and nail against being held accountable to the guideline, and refuses to share a Connected Contributor template, which he wishes to keep in situ at the WO article talk page, with Alison.

Note: There is a Connected Contributor template /COI discussion at ], including a common-sense solution in the form of a notice suggested by ], which Coretheapple rejected as a substitute for the Connected Contributor template; and {{u|Smallbones}} opened another discussion on the same topic at . ] (]) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
::Honest to gosh, Mr. W, I have been as clear as crystal about my total indifference about the very sparse and rather old static about my username on an external site. I have said that much worse comes at me here, where it doesn't matter either because this is my hobby. I am not here to protect an article about a site I founded. I am not here to rake in bucks, as some other editors are. yadda yadda. I don't much care for editors claiming to have COI to disrupt the discussion on that page (as you and other editors have done), but I view that as a user conduct issue, it does not make me a "foe" of the article you are protecting.

::And I might add, the efforts of you and other article ]ers to stick my name on that template was removed by an administrator as a violation of ], and it was further explained to the bunch of you on COIN that I do ''not'' have a COI. After that, you switched tactics, came up with a special, custom-made template for that article and that article alone, which would defeat the purpose of ] by not in fact, disclosing the identity of the editors who really ''are'' conflicted. And it goes on and on and on. You guys just simply do not want ] applied where your pals and your favorite site are concerned. ] (]) 23:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:::The leitmotif in your Misplaced Pages hobby is the obsessional vendetta against COI and paid editing. You hate paid editing. You rage against it. You recently declared Wikipediocracy “a veritable Mission Control for paid editing, and in a very cynical fashion at that.” So it’s silly to pretend you don’t regard as opponents those whom you see as cynical perpetrators and enablers of a practice you detest—a practice you've been battling for years. Of the numerous episodes that lend the lie to the denial, two stand out: earlier this year one admin reverted your edits to ] (founder and owner: Gregory Kohs) as “POV additions dangerously close to a BLP vio”; and another, rolling back your BLP vio edits there, described your work on the article as “a BLP hatchet job”. Your response: “I thought my edits were pretty good. Of course, I usually feel that way.” ] (]) 08:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Core's edits to that article were approved by an RfC, so your selective rendition of history is disingenuous. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::<small>(inserting) Sorry about that. Thank you for pointing out the RfC. Unfortunately I took the article off my watch list after that intervention by the administrators—up until then I’d viewed Coretheapple as a fellow of high principle who went in hard but fair. I regret I didn’t see the RfC until you drew my attention to it, so I didn’t know that thereby a consensual legitimacy had been conferred on what the administrators saw as BLP vios and a “hatchet job”—I assure you I’m not the kind of person to make a deliberate attempt to mislead in order to win an argument (and I know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of that). I’d go so far as to say that, even if I was, say, ridiculed and vilified in public by a hostile crowd kicking me in the nuts and yelling that I have an undeservedly high opinion of my own importance, and that I’m a petty bullshitter, a loser, a cesspit full of turds, three kind of shit in a two-shit bag, a fuckstick, a smug brainless fool, a petty incompetent, a rotten, malicious character, a nasty bullying halfwit spewing bile, or any other horrible thing you can think of, and even if those guys offered money to the first person to track me down at home, or—OK, enough, you get the idea—well, even then, and even if I thought it might serve my purpose to claim I didn’t see them as antagonists in any way or that I didn’t feel any antagonism towards them in return, I promise you I wouldn’t do that. Seriously! i wouldn't! I'd come clean, and to Hell with the consequences! That's how I roll! So although I can see how you might have thought my post was disingenuous, I assure you it wasn’t. ] (]) 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)</small>
::::::You lost me halfway through but I do appreciate the clarification. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You wouldn’t have got lost if you’d spotted the thread provided by Coretheapple’s detractors at Wikipediocracy. It’s the April 2015 thread “Paid Editing / Coretheapple”, from which I borrowed the epithets (targeted there at Coretheapple) that Coretheapple dismisses above as “very sparse and rather old static” and towards which he feigns “total indifference’” (who is he trying to kid?) in order to evade the very obvious facts that (1) Wikipediocracy is (one of?) his “foe(s)” (to use the COI guideline word), therefore (2) he has a COI and should not edit the article directly, and (3) if he’s determined to have a Connected Contributor (i.e. COI) template on the article talk page, he should be on it. Fair's fair. Putting it as charitably as I can, I’m perplexed by his refusal to come clean about this. The only reasonable explanation that seems to fit is that he regards the template as a badge of shame, at the same time as insisting it isn't. ] (]) 20:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::That's been thoroughly hashed out at COIN, with a determination that Core does not go in the template, and his placement there was removed by administrator action. I fear also you may be conflating distress with editor behavior with hostility to the article subject. Given the cross-pollination between the two that's understandable. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::For absolute clarity: The crux of Coretheapple’s COI really has nothing to do with whatever feelings or indifference he declares. The COI rests not on his emotional response (or indifference) to Wikipediocracy’s commentary on him, but on the nature of the commentary itself. Would any reasonable person reading the epithets listed in my <small> small font</small> post see them as indicative of neutrality towards him or as indicative of opposition/antagonism/enmity/disgust etc? Obviously the latter. Equally clearly therefore Wikipediocracy is a foe of Coretheapple’s, and he has a COI in relation to editing the article. He should man up now, declare the hitherto concealed and oft-denied COI, and add himself to the template that he’s so keen to keep in situ. ] (]) 22:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::How many times have you repeated that point? Enough already. You guys just don't let up. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
::::That is correct. It was one of those things that never happens, which is a bad administrator call. My dear Mr. Writegeist, I used to have an essay on my talk page on paid editing. It is gone. I used to participate very actively in the discussions, still ongoing and very active, on paid editing. I no longer do. I used to patrol this page for depredations by a well known banned paid editor. Ditto. Not doing it anymore. I have been quite clear that I view this as a Jimbo/Foundation problem. I know you would love me to hate that off-wiki site, these people, these entities, but the only malice I see is what is directed at me from the editors controlling that article. ] (]) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:It would be great if anyone with a COI on Wikipediocracy simply ceased editing the article on it, per standard practice about people or organisations that editors have a direct association with. That includes people with roles in the site's administration, ''and'' people who feel so strongly about it that they can't edit it neutrally. No especial need to flag them all in templates, let's just have regard for apparently non-neutral editing in the article like we would on any other page. -- ] (]) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

::We have gotten to this point because Alison, the site founder, and her friends are adamant about their desire to control the article on the talk page and edit it. The template would not be an issue except for that. I'm really maxed out on the arrogance and hypocrisy I've encountered on that page. At the COIN discussion, a supporter posited that COI only matters for harmful edits. If so, what is the point of the guideline? These people have sought to manufacture a COI for Core by attacking him on the site, and I'm sure I'm next. I think Jimbo needs to state whether it is kosher for a checkuser to disregard the COI guideline. If so, I certainly won't pursue this further but it's not a great precedent. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:::COI applies to anyone with a COI, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. But the CU status is a red herring. No one is suggesting there has been a misuse of the CU tool. -- ] (]) 23:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
::::I assume he's referring to ], which requires (with a straight face) that administrators "are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities." Etc. But note - aha! - that ] is a ''guideline'', not a policy. So it doesn't matter and the flabby and non-compulsory language of the guideline has been pointed out to me at the COI/N discussion. So I guess the question is whether admins need to lead by example on COI. In my experience, unrelated to this article, the answer is an emphatic '''no'''. In fact, I have found that admins with COI feel that they are privileged characters, and that they can slip-side past COI rules. After all, they know the rules, and they know how weak they are. Some example! Again, I am thinking of a much, much worse situation than this one. But the principle is the same, as is the admin not giving a shit about COI and getting oodles of support in that position. ] (]) 23:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

* I am not "the site founder" - please stop repeating this bare-faced ''lie'' across multiple pages. Now, it's here on ]. Also, I was not informed that I was being discussed here - not cool - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

:*Egad! I was wrong. It was a '''LIE''' with a capital L. Yes you are merely '''CO-founder'''. Changes everything. Totally. Sorry. So sorry. So very very very sorry. ] (]) 00:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Could an uninvolved administrator please step in here? This is two days past ridiculous. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::::To deal with the disruptive behavior on the Wikipediocracy talk page (cramming names into the "conflicted contributor" template) ? Yes, overdue. The only admin action taken so far on that page has been to reverse putting me in the COI template, as a violation of ] as well as ]. ] (]) 01:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::No, I was referring to the vitriolic tone you have used in this discussion, your hounding of Alison, and your battleground approach (including that rather silly point scoring you're trying to apply to me). --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Oh, by hounding and vitriolic tone are you referring to concerning a post not referring to her either directly or indirectly? By vitriolic do you mean or . And then we have , reversed by an administrator as violating ] and ]? I have more examples, from other editors, apart from your comment that you were being deliberately disruptive, but that's a start. ] (]) 15:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::This^ is a prefect example of why it's been impossible to have a cool-headed discussion of the issue when you jump in, and it's why an uninvolved administrator should see to your needs. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::It's difficult to have a "cool headed conversation" because you and others protecting that page use terms like "baying dogs"? Yes, possibly, that's a factor. In this very conversation, Alison referred to a minor slip ("founder" instead of "co-founder") as a "bare-faced lie." Yes, that kind of ] does hamper "cool-headed conversation." SB_Johnny, while we're on the subject, why do you keep personalizing the discussion while then complaining that the discussion is personalized? ] (]) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Another example^. You can stop now. (Also it's baying ''wolves'', not dogs. The ] may or may not have been implied.) --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I know, I could quote from the ] and you'd be saying "another example^." ] (]) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::SB Johnny, I think we get the point that you don't like Core and everything he writes is bad. Give it a rest, please. Right now the only user whose input is requested is Jimbo. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Apologies, ], I'll duck back out. Please ping me if a real discussion starts somewhere on the subject and I'll weigh in there. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 21:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Also I noticed in response to a civil and serious post Figure made on Alison's talk page, trying to turn the whole thing into a joke. I can't blame FON for coming here in light of that, do you? Futile and all, but understandable. ] (]) 17:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::*I think you guys might be surprised to learn who actually were the "founders/cofounders" of that swank site. And also disappointed, since they don't have active accounts on Misplaced Pages that you can harass. ] (]) 01:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::*When Alison she was co-founder of her site, she said "we all know that." Are we all supposed to know the other co-founders of her site? ] (]) 01:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Alison}} <del>Of course</del> <ins>I'm not surprised Figureofnine</ins> <del>Coretheapple</del> didn't notify you.</del> That's <del>just</del> <ins>also</ins> how <del>he</del> <ins>Coretheapple</ins> rolls: like how, while the template discussion was ongoing, he secretly started ], which is clearly aimed at you and I and other people from this. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 11:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC) <small>Corrected. All these weird screen names look alike to me. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 13:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)</small>

{{od}} Tell you what, I'm going to make a proposal. Alison and Coretheapple, leave each other alone and leave the article alone as well. Clearly, there are issues being caused, so remove yourselves from it and hopefully the drama will die down. This sort of thread is what is making Misplaced Pages look more and more silly to those who browse past the articles..... ] (]) 08:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:I didn't ping Alison because she has not responded to numerous pings on this subject and, except for snark and inflammatory edit summaries, has never commented on her editing the article on a site she cofounded, except to say indignantly on her user talk page that she will continue to do so. In that position she has substantial support from the editors controlling that article. Core is incomplete on one point: Alison as well as SB Johnny were reversed by an admin for playing games with the template on that page. That kind of behavior is why I asked for an opinion from Jimbo. (And contrary to Alison's response above it is not forum shopping to come here.) Are people of advanced permissions expected to set an example on COI? Is it reasonable to expect that administrators will not directly edit articles on subjects with which they have a direct connection? I would like Jimbo to address this please. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::Of course it was forum shopping. The same points are already being discussed at ], ], ] and ]. Having not liked the response received at any of those venues, you decided to raise them here for a fifth bite at the cherry... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 13:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::: is where matters stand at Alison's talk page. Productive! At WT:COI, Alison came by to scream at me for referring to her, which I did not. It was nice to see a direct statement from that account, as ordinarily she only communicates by edit summary. At COIN, the only editor on the Alison team to make a substantive posting was you, and you said in sum and substance that COI was voluntary, only mattered as icing on caKe in the case of edits violating policy, and essentially that it has all the force of an essay. So that's where we stand. As for this discussion, my experience is that wild horses wouldn't drag Jimbo into a discussion such as this, but there's no harm in trying. And no, it is not forum shopping. Of course, I'm sure you can look into the Wikilaw books and find an escape clause in there somewhere, as you have striven to do with ]. ] (]) 15:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't believe we've communicated prior to the discussions in relation to ], but I find your approach here combative and unhelpful. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground for you to work through whatever issues you have with other editors/websites. Read back some of your posts and tell me if you think they set an appropriate collaborative tone. Because I disagree with you, you have dismissed me as part of "''the Alison team''". I have pointed out that ] is a guideline should be applied with common sense, which you choose to represent as me saying that it has "''all the force of an essay''". Please do me the courtesy of not grossly misrepresenting my position. Your final straw is now to suggest, even before I have responded to your latest point, that I am going to engage in some elaborate form of wikilawyering. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::I've said four or five times that there is no Wikipediocracy "battleground" between me and that website, only that which is in the imaginations of people like yourself, the non-members of the Alison team. I know why you've chosen to misrepresent my concerns about puffery and COI in that article, and I imagine that is pretty much all you can do because there is nothing else to say. The COI guideline is clear, and your efforts to wikilawyer it so that it does not apply in a clearcut situation, ditto. ] (]) 16:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::WJBscribe, as you've just experienced, using strawman rejoinders is a favorite debate tactic of Wikipedians. ] (]) 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:Quite well established that it isn't. Note the FOF in the Banning Policy arbitration. I didn't come for anything more than an opinion from Jimbo. But while we are here, I have a proposed solution: instead of her friends going on the offensive and coming up with reasons for her not to comply, Alison complies with ]. She confines her contributions in that article to the talk page. She makes the other disclosures required by the guideline, on the article talk page and her user page. That would resolve matters. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::As WJBscribe points out, after you didn't get what you wanted at COIN, you came here to get it: {{tq|This dispute has become so ridiculous, and the number of administrators involved so high, that I've thrown it on Jimbo's lap. We can carve out a special exemption for Alison but let it be Jimbo's doing.}} And you claim not to be forum shopping. Now who's being disingenuous? &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 15:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I don't know what you think figureofnine is trying to "get," as both the main COIN discussion and the subset were both initiated by other editors. And note above the "never forum shopping" quote from Jimbo above. ] (]) 15:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the personalities (please), it is pretty simple, really. COI disclosure belongs on an article talk page, where the COI editor has participated, this is true even if they are an admin. Disclosing COI is what we want on our talk pages. -- ] (]) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

: is what the Wikipediocracy article regulars want on the talk page in lieu of the standard template. I think that's what Figure might have meant when he used the word "ridiculous" to describe the degeneration of the situation. ] (]) 18:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::That, uh, creative one-off, makes no sense. Its, 'everyone has a POV' disclaimer - is not informative of anything and thus useless or worse - we already know everyone has a POV. Just use article talk templates, like any other talkpage - ] (]) 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::That uninformative template is on the page, along with the standard one, and there are periodic edit wars to have the standard one taken off. ] (]) 18:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::You say "use article talk templates." Hello? That's what everyone is screaming about. They no like. They like their own. ] (]) 18:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Tell them to stop screaming, and just use the template that discloses the User's COI - remind them we are here to provide information, not legal disclaimer. ] (]) 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Look, here's the timeline: first they accepted the standard template, but only if I was in it. They were reverted on that by an admin. Smallbones took it to COIN. You and others told them no. Then someone came up with this ridiculous template to replace the standard one. Then there was asn edit war over removing of the standard template. Then Figure came here. That's the situation at this point in time. ] (]) 19:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} Since you are already participating in the COIN discussion on this article you may already have a sense of the kind of unreasonableness prevalent among the editors there . As you know, one can tell COI editors about the guideline until one is blue in the face and it doesn't matter if they are intent on disregarding it. In this instance, the majority of the editors are so wrapped up in the subject that they have declared their COI. Their position is that their COI should not be disclosed, however, they're against that. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

*Figureofnine, why is it so important to have this debate in three places?&nbsp;] 13:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

::This is the first debate on this COI issue that I initiated. The COIN debates were launched by Core and Small. The talk page discussion of the custom COI template was launched by NE Ent. If you read my first post here you can see why I came here. We are having a discussion in now three places because of one administrator's refusal to abide by the COI guideline. Yes I feel that is something deserving of Jimbo input. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::: Okay. Because what it looks like is a group of editors (you, "Core" and "Small") continuing to raise the same issue at different venues in the hope of eventually getting the answer you are looking for (which I assume is not the answer(s) you have already got).&nbsp;] 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::FON naively believes that because there has been administrator misconduct that Jimbo is going to give a hoot. Please be kind to him. I once came here because I felt that there was some kind of evil machination going on in an article and good heavens! The silence from Mr. Wales was deafening. One must learn these things firsthand I guess. ] (]) 14:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::There's really not much here for Jimmy to comment on as it stands. There probably is a philosophical issue of the sort he comments on buried under all of this, but it's rather hard to see the trees through the weeds at this point. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::I can put the issue even more simply than FON. Does Jimbo approve of ? Is it ever OK? Well do you, Jimbo? {{ping|Jimbo Wales}} Not a binding opinion but it is the one FON wants. ] (]) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am tempted to request this article be placed under discretionary sanctions. There's no way neutral editors are going to contribute to this war zone. ] <small>(])</small> 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well have at it. Give in to your temptation. There seems to be quite an anti-Wikipediocracy animus going on, although from what I can see the article seems OK and in fact would benefit embiggening from the multiple ] covering the subject.&nbsp;] 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

:There's plenty of animus on display from both sides. ] <small>(])</small> 21:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

::Any steps that will reduce the lack of civility and personalization of the discussion, in multiple venues, would be welcome. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

* Discretionary sanctions is a favorite tool of yours, isn't it, Gamaliel??? ] (]) 07:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to why this is on Jimbo's talk page. Does he have special powers? What is he supposed to do about it? Just open an RfC or something. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 08:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:::It's quite clear why. Just look at the initial post. FON had a good question for which he wanted Jimbo input and was swiftly punished for it. It certainly is not a new question either, in a general sense. That is, whether "vested users(I believe that's the term) and administrators get away with things that mere mortals do not. ] (]) 15:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:::: {{re|Coretheapple}} Unfortunately, you have not answered the question as to what Jimbo is supposed to do about it. ] exists, ] exists. ] exists. And ] exists for user conduct. Why is this here? Much verbiage and no results, is what I'm seeing here. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 07:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::I don't expect Jimbo to do or say a thing. It was naive of FON to raise the issue here. However, he was well-intentioned and had every right to do so, and his reason for doing so is clearly stated in his initial post. In fact, I'll go a step further: I'd say this outcome, with all the COI editors clamoring around and deliberately making a muck of things, was totally foreseeable. In fact, I'll go yet another step further: while FON was technically correct to add the "connected contributor" template to the article talk page, it was foreseeable that it would create an unholy row, as that article is ]ed by the article subject and its fans and is a lost cause. ] (]) 14:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm puzzled about this being on Wales's talk. But while it is: @{{u|Figureofnine}}: Somewhere above you said of the Coretheapple COI issue that it had been “thoroughly hashed out at COIN”, where it had been "determined" that “Core does not go in the template”. . I’m sorry, I missed that determination at COIN, and I can’t find it though I’ve tried. Would you be so kind as to supply the diff, to show the rationale for the determination?

You also said his “placement there was removed by administrator action”—as indeed it was. IMO the action was erroneous, as at that time the administrator clearly didn’t grasp why Coretheapple should be included, and apparently thought it depended on whether or not he had self-declared a COI. The administrator’s erroneous action was soon reverted by a non-admin, thereby restoring Coretheapple to the template. After that, AFAICT no action was taken to remove him again by the administrator who'd been reverted, or by any other administrator. Without that context—and if my understanding of it is correct—the inference to be drawn from your narrative of events might be rather misleading, which of course I doubt was your intention. Apologies in advance if I’ve misread the COIN discussion or the WO article history. It’s easy to miss even quite significant stuff now and then, as surely you'll agree. ] (]) 09:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:What's this, the fifteenth time you've repeated yourself on this? The sixteenth? Look, the position taken at COIN was simple: just because Alison started a topic about me on Wikipediocracy that resulted in people throwing crud at me, which I don't care about, that does not mean that I get a COI. No, ''she'' is the COI editor. ''She'' is the cofounder. Alison hates me. Fine. Her problem. Not mine. Enough nonsense on this please. ] (]) 16:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
::The haranguing schoolmarmish tone (which, along with outbursts of vitriolic antagonism, characterizes so much of your commentary re. Wikipediocracy) makes your replies vaguely amusing—thank you—even though the routine shrill exaggerations (e.g. your "fifteenth/sixteenth time" I've repeated my request for the diff—it's actually, I think, the first repetition; and Alison “screaming” at you is another choice example) tend to undermine the credibility of your take on the realities IMHO. Nevertheless, thank again for your reply on behalf of Figureofnine—such a common practice between you two that I’ve come to think of you as a single entity, "Corefigure", which incidentally sounds terrific if you imagine it sung by Shirley Bassey to the tune of ]. Unfortunately your reply doesn’t actually answer the question. I find myself sometimes having to repeat myself if I come up against a bad case of IDHT when I've asked for a simple clarification, and this is one of those times: ''where'' in the COIN discussion was it ''determined'' that Coretheapple has no COI? I can see plenty of argument from Corefigure ''claiming'' it, but i can’t find a ''conclusive determination''. I’m sure it’s there, because you both say it is. I just can’t find it. (And surely it would be useful for others reading here to see it.) So I’m waiting for Figureofnine to help me out with a diff as requested. Or for you to—which I suppose is likely, given I asked F first. You have of course omitted to address, let alone counter, the main point in my post, and that's your prerogative. I may or may not reply when one or other of you provides the requested diff. I sincerely hope—if only for the sake of giving the schoolmarm a long-overdue rest—that I won’t have to repeat myself :) ] (]) 20:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree that repeating yourself for the seventh time is probably not a good idea. But here is something I haven't heard you address: Why did you add yourself as a COI editor to the "connected contributor" template and can you please explain your edit summary ? Did you add yourself to that template because you felt in good faith that you had a COI, and if not, why did you do that? ] (]) 20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
::::So that’s twice I’ve asked for a diff to support what, in the diff’s absence, one might think is a deliberate distortion of the facts if one didn't know better, and twice I’ve been been met by IDHT and misrepresentation (twice is not fifteen, sixteen, or even seven times) in replies that also deny me the courtesy of the requested diff. I’m not interested in going on with this unproductive exchange beyond extending the courtesy of a reply to your own question: we’re known by the company we keep, and as a member of Wikipediocracy I am (1) proud to share the template with the other members listed there, all of whom have earned my respect, (2) likely to have a COI in relation to the article if I contribute to it, and (3) unable to see a reason to be ashamed of any of that. Sky’s blue, sun’s shining, trail’s waiting. Merry Christmas and adios. ] (]) 22:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Not trying to ignore your question, but I just felt that the comments on that issue, delivered repeatedly by Alanscottwalker, and then by Gamaliel, were clear. I also felt that the nastiness and personalization of the discussion, though common when COI editors are discussing subjects close to them, needed not to be fed. A good holiday to you and my apologies if you felt that I was ignoring you. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::You said it had been “thoroughly hashed out at COIN”, where it had been ”determined" that “Core does not go in the template”—i.e. after thorough discussion of the pros and cons, it was established that he should be excluded. Now you mention comments “delivered repeatedly by Alanscottwalker and then by Gamaliel”, as if they confirm it. (Thank you.) I’ve checked them. Actually no such “determination” was established. There were merely expressions of opinion (plus Gamaliel’s exhortation “let’s all be civil” in an edit summary—Gamaliel’s one and only comment throughout AFAICT, although I may have missed others—when removing Coretheapple from the template, apparently at his request; a change followed of course by non-admin reversion without further admin intervention). Nothing more than that. And certainly no consensus for exclusion. “Nicht daß du mich belogst, sondern daß ich dir nicht mehr glaube, hat mich erschüttert.“ Sorry, it's the time of year. I have a fondness for Stollen, ''Stille Nacht, heilige Nach''t, and ''The Blue Angel''—a cautionary tale for all Misplaced Pages regulars. Given time and cool heads, trust can be restored. Wishing you a good holiday too. ] (]) 21:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

:On the "related question" -- clearly 'foes' can have a COI, but that COI (as for one which is positive) must be tangible. If someone from the Truman campaign edits Harry Truman's article, that's COI; if an operative of the Dewey campaign edits it (at least while they are contending in an election with each other) that is also COI. However, if someone just ''really really dislikes'' Truman, or is his Number One Fan, but not an employee, that is not COI, though of course these should be careful to keep their POV in check. It is not, of course, possible to avoid contributors who have a POV from contributing to an article; otherwise, who would write about ISIS? ] (]) 11:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:: Case in point: I edited as an IP ''love me longtime''. It took months editing under this nick to learn the finer points of the Misplaced Pages rules. But, by profession, as a librarian & historian, I always had the 'stick to the reliable source' thing in mind. As a result, despite inadvertently violating Arbcom sanctions as a member (if there is such a thing) of Anonymous (hence the name) I added historical sources (1940's-1970s) from Australia using the National Library of Australia TROVE newspaper digitisation project to Scientology pages. Every addition was a summary of the source & easily evaluated via a linked click-thru. In the years that have gone by not one of those edits has been overturned. I eventually found the Talk page warning & stopped editing on potential COI pages, but then discovered pages such as Landmark, where there were current, not historical, sources that showed the cult giving *coughs* 'training' to politicians & law enforcement (dudes with guns) not only in my country, but my ''state''. I added carefully footnoted additions & they were swept away by a page protection posse, including those who openly espoused & identified with the cult, backed up by some, including a newly elected member of Arbcom, who always sided with the cult even if it meant removing legitimate edits. I've seen COI from both sides. Ultimately - you have the RS sources or you don't. Anything else is an organised power play. I did the wrong thing, early, unknowingly, without revert, & never did it again. Meanwhile well connected editors, admins & even - now - Arbs, can do it constantly, without fear of rebuke. The COI system of enforcement is tragically broken. ] (]) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
=== A question ===
I have a Facebook account - should I avoid editing articles on Facebook, Mark Cheeseburger etc?<br />
I have a couple of Twitter accounts, should I refrain from contributing to articles on Twitter, That Bloke Whose Name Escapes me, etc?<br />
I have a Myspace account though whether it is still active I couldn't say. Should I eschew commenting on Myspace or that bloke Tom who claimed to be my friend?<br />
I have a Wikipediocracy account. Fill in the rest for yourself.<br />
I have a Misplaced Pages account. Should I disappear in a puff of logic?&nbsp;] 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
:This was my question as well...do we need to poll all editors of the Reddit article if they are active ] users? Does this mean they have a conflict of interest? Or exclude all editors who go to ] from editing that article? Or ask that all editors who have strong pro or con feelings about Donald Trump not edit his presidential election page? As Pablo X infers, this low bar for COI would exclude all Misplaced Pages editors from editing ]. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::Uh, no. The only person ''ever'' asked to comply with ] was the site's co-founder. No one else. Other names were added to the "connected contributor" template for purposes of disruption by those persons themselves, users of the site. Some of the edit summaries said "I am Spartacus." Solidarity with the COI editor. ] (]) 23:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
::: Alison is '''one''' of the site's co-founders (There are a few - not like Misplaced Pages where there are 1 or 2 depending on who you believe. Get that right at least).<br />Entertaining though all this is, I think I shall go to bed now, after phoning my broker and checking that I don't have a conflict of interest with my bedroom. I do hope not. &nbsp;] 00:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
::::That is one heck of an incivil tone.It's immaterial how many cofounders are claimed by the subject of an article. That's my view at least. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
:The problem of COI editing is proportional to the degree of non-NPOV editing of said subject. So if you have a weak connection, but your editing is still heavily biased, it becomes a problem. And likewise if you have a strong connection, but also strong NPOV, no real problem arises, unless a COI between you and the subject is known.
:All this ] business is a distraction really: the real problem is ] editing. Even if you were the ceo of a company, it wouldn't be a problem editing the article on said company if strict attention was paid to NPOV. The real problem is that non-NPOV editing is sometimes hard to categorise as precisely that, and therefore hard to deal with. If then a COI could be established it becomes far easier to deal with. That's the reason for COI, it's a way of dealing with editing that is not NPOV but hard to categorically assert that it is non-NPOV. And to discourage editing from people who could have a bias.
:So if you have a strong COI, and nobody knows about it, but you are sure your editing is unbiased, and you're actually correct, it's not really a problem. Unless you get found out! <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">]&nbsp;]</b> 12:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
::Well of course that is the philosophical question that has surrounded paid editing and COI editing for years. The counterargument is that readers expect articles written by persons not connected with the article subject. In this instance, it's subject to dispute whether the edits were NPOV or promotional. In a now archived discussion and an RfC, opinion was split as to whether the word "investigate" was neutral. I favored the less POV "discuss." The COI guideline makes no distinction between neutral and POV edits. Likewise, whether the COI contributions on the talk page are NPOV or not also are worth pondering even if one accepts your argument. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
:::The undisclosed CEO edit is a problem, regardless of NPOV; it is a problem of information, whether or not there is an expectation. If you are reading the writing of the CEO in a supposed encyclopedia, that is, itself, information to learn about the subject. ] (]) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Well I don't agree; if the editing is NPOV I don't see a problem overall, even though it contradicts ]. Also I don't believe that readers have an expectation of COI-free editing; what they do have an expectation is NPOV editing, as, from an information point of view, that's all that matters.
::::My advice to the above discussion: if you suspect promotional editing, then sure, COI is a good way to go. But if you feel that an editor has a COI, but their editing seems to be NPOV, then it is best to ignore the COI for that particular editor, as it only waters down you arguments towards editors showing clear bias. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">]&nbsp;]</b> 16:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Opinion was split}} = no consensus for the proposition, repeated here, that "investigate", a common English word, is "POV". Hope this helps. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 12:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
: I think it's pretty straightforward: if you have an account on a site like Facebook, and you puff them up in their article, what do you stand to gain from it? ''They'll'' own a more valuable site, perhaps, but ''you'll'' still be the proud owner of a piddly little blog account designed to track and sell data about who you know. So there's no COI there. In the Wikipediocracy case, the question is, what can a co-founder get out of it? Is there money to be made? It may also be relevant whether you can simply put it on a resume, because I recall there have been cases where the designers of open source software tools have been raked over the coals for putting up articles about their software. I could live with that tendency being dialled back, however, so long as it is done across the board. ] (]) 11:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::There's no money to be made, or a "conflict of interest" at all, since there's nothing at stake of any value. There's certainly interest in the sense of an avocation, but if that's the bar, then Coretheapple certainly belongs on it as much as any of the rest of the people on the template (who listed themselves because they are just as non-conflicted as Alison). More about that on my talk if you're interested. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 14:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::What not one person has mentioned during all of this is the part of WP:COI, ], that says:
:::''While editing Misplaced Pages, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopaedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest.''
::Maybe this is because it would be impossible for Figureofnine/Coretheapple/Smallbones to actually demonstrate that latter contention. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 12:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::COI ordinarily is self-declared, as when you added your name to the "connected contributor" template, declaring that you have a close connection with the subject matter. No one has to "demonstrate" that User:Scott has a COI under the guideline as User:Scott said so. ] (]) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::That has nothing to do with what I said. All of you have been completely unable to "reasonably say" that my and her and others' roles at WO undermine our roles as editors at Misplaced Pages. You ''can't meet the threshold required by the guideline'', as quoted above, to declare that any of us have a COI as it defines one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't even have mundane evidence.
::::I added myself to that list because I have the same rank at WO as Alison, and if we're going to have an absurd list on the talk page, it might as well mention all of us. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Incorrect. A COI ''in reason'' exists because of the fact of a relationship with an article subject, not because either a state of mind nor the ability to say 'I'm still neutral'. When people declare a COI, it is usually not because they they think what they do lacks neutrality nor integrity, it is because it is information uniquely in their possession, which others learn from knowing. ] (]) 17:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'm sure that's all very interesting. If you want to change the actual definition in our guideline, which I just quoted to you, then best of luck trying. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::What definition are you talking about, the definition of "reasonably say"? When the guideline says, COI "involves contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships" and you are contributing about a subject (website) you co-founded, it is reasonable to say you have a conflict of interest, within that guideline. ] (]) 22:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::What part of "undermine their primary role as an editor of Misplaced Pages" is proving difficult for you to grasp? &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 23:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Indeed. Being involved in "contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships" "undermines public confidence in Misplaced Pages". The primary role of a Misplaced Pages editor is to avoid involvement in contributing to those (few) subjects and thereby not undermining public confidence in Misplaced Pages, and where avoiding is not completely possible to disclose. -- ] (]) 02:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|"undermines public confidence in Misplaced Pages"}} Finally, you demonstrate the point I'm trying to make here. Your entire argument is based on making stuff up, or as it's also known, hand-waving. Thanks. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 09:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::No. That is what the guideline says. I did not make that up. That is quoting from the guideline. ] (]) 11:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It does. But you've not been able to satisfy the definition of a COI (again: "When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role , the editor has a conflict of interest."), and gone straight to some alleged people reading ], having their theoretical confidence in Misplaced Pages undermined by a completely baseless accusation of a COI. That's not even in the realm of fantasy, it's a fever dream. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 14:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, under that guideline, COI arises upon the very act of editing when the relationship with the subject exists. The COI guideline says that undermines Misplaced Pages, so should be 1) avoided or 2) disclosed. It applies to all articles not just that article, where a defined relationship exists. ] (]) 15:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You're not listening. I'm done here. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I did listen but the COI guideline is explicit, it says it is not about bias, nor about feelings, nor about advocacy, nor about personal integrity, it is about all editing where there is the defined relationship with the subject. ] (]) 12:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

To cut through the B/S, this is like the problem over at the 'Landmark' related articles, where someone who states they have paid for 'Landmark' courses (& thinks that training is tripple rainbow, dude) patrols the article. Same old. Same old. A Conflict of Interest is a Conflict of Interest. No matter how you wikilawyer it. (I keep away from certain articles for that very reason.) ] (]) 14:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
: Come on people, wikilinks! ] is the article (which is under some sort of Arbcom sanction) and appears to be the last COIN discussion of it; there is more available by searching the . Remember, only ''you'' can prevent dramatis interruptus. ] (]) 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Friendly reminder''' - This entire wall of useless verbiage is the result of a COI editor attempting "naming and shaming" on a page of a site he opposes. Proof positive that the worst disruption at WP isn't necessarily the editing that is paid. ] (]) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::What COI does Figureofnine have? As for shaming - that's just a silly claim - who is ashamed of being a co-founder of a website, when they readily say they are. ] (]) 17:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the take-home message from all of this is simple; "'''Never''' disclose a potential ] on Misplaced Pages. Doing so will result in your being hounded to the ends of hell and back, including four separate major fora, and will likely have you walking around with a bell tied around your neck to warn the populace of your shame and sin." In short, how is it possible to allow individuals to disclose any COI in a manner that will ensure it will not be used as a stick to beat them? It's perfectly okay within policy to edit pages in which you have a declared COI, but ] must be paramount. So ... carrot or stick? The reason I'm not wading into the muck here is because it's largely pointless, IMO, is ostensibly a witch hunt and a forum-shopping exercise. Also, my other ] is sucking away all my free time. Fortunately, I get paid for that, so it gets priority :) - ] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Welcome to my world. Ding! Ding! Shame! Shame! ] <sup>]</sup> 09:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

::I think that's a rather selective rendition of what transpired. You omitted your role in fueling the drama. Let's review.

::First, apparently FON made a fuss about you going into the "connected contributor" template. You reacted by to the COI template with the edit summary ''It's a well-known fact that that scoundrel, Stanistani, is involved in that wretched hive of scum and villainy, too. Alphabetizing, just to spite him!'' I was added to the template, someone removed me, and you added me back, with the edit summary '' let's not do that. It's already been shown, and you don't get to make that call. Openness and transparency!''

::SB Johnny then removed the entire template. I restored. You , with the edit summary ''this is starting to smack of bullying, "badges of shame" and general silencing of undesirables. Not really the Misplaced Pages way, is it?''

::On your user page, FON asked if you would consider recusing. You in inflammatory fashion. (''Absolutely not! I'll edit as I see fit, under the rules that govern Misplaced Pages. Same as I've always done. Nor will I be bullied into submission, thanks. And, unlike you baying wolves, I'm open about who I am. If you know me IRL, you'll know why I'm busy ;'')

::Then on this talk page, above, you said that calling you a "founder" rather than "cofounder" is a .

::Then you went to the COI talk page to comment on a proposal from me a few weeks ago to prohibit COIs among admins. "What a spiteful little missive. Clearly, you're not beyond bending and shaping policy to remove people you find unpalatable. Yet you don't have the fortitude to actually ''name'' those two admins you've come to despise, one of whom happens to be me. What a craven stunt indeed." But as I pointed out, your outburst was not warranted as I was not thinking of you, but paid editing situations, and that the name of those two editors was completely immaterial when drawing up additions to a guideline. Indeed, if I ''had'' named them (or you, if that was what I had in mind) it would have been improper.

::So you left out the above. My "takeaway" is that this is an ordinary COI situation, with COI editors behaving as COI editors do. ] (]) 04:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
::: ^^^^ thus proving my point. Who in their right mind would want to wallow in this?? - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Quite. Much like common sense, right minds are in short supply around here. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 10:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Alison knows her George Bernard Shaw. All the WO contributors here might do well to heed his advice now. ] (]) 08:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::@Alison: "This" meaning your personal attacks, inflammatory edit summaries and behavior on the Wikipediocracy talk page and article? Such subjects are off-limits? ] (]) 14:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::@Writegeist: Or, since the self-declared COI editors are all basically saying the same thing, you could appoint a spokesman. ] (]) 15:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I'm sure glad you're bored and indifferent about WPO, Core — it shows. Actually, that's sarcasm, what we all see is an obsessive warrior on the topic. Hatred is your COI. You are absolutely incapable of observing NPOV on this topic. ] (]) 07:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}Evidently that personal attack bears repeating a multiple of times, from multiple tag-teaming editors. I am coming to see that given Jimbo's failure to offer an opinion as I requested, all this discussion has done is to serve as a forum for personal hostility and disdain for the COI guideline on the part of Wikipediocracy advocates, some of whom are administrators. Agree with ]'s comment above about well-connected editors being able to act as they please and without fear of consequences. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: Uh no, just don't much care for the COI editor tactics in that article, here, everywhere. Said that a bunch of times, and you guys just keep lying. Keep on keeping on. I have to admit that given the ] situation in that article, its control by COI editors, the line between the article and the subject has been blurred to such an extent that yes, perhaps "hating" the way that article is ]ed and the tactics utilized to keep that control can be construed by the COI editors/fanboys as hating the subject. ] (]) 17:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
: It's not so much as a "disdain for the COI guideline", which I adhere to tho' it is a guideline and not binding policy. More, it's a disdain for you two and your relentless pursuit of the 'unclean', from forum to forum. Looks like this one's exhausted - time to move to another. Maybe ]? - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::FYI, is compliance with the COI guideline (''I will not make direct edits to this article because of my ]'') is not. A BP employee has more respect for the COI guideline than an administrator. Funny, that. ] (]) 19:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::No, to have a COI is not to be unclean, it simply means one is subject to a guideline. If you were adhering to the COI guideline, which strongly discourages COI editors from directly participating in articles and requir es specific kinds of disclosure, I would not have come here out of exasperation with your resistance to doing so. In particular wp:coi requires self-disclosure by a connected contributor template. You and your friends fought that, sought to remove it entirely or, in the alternative, to add Core. Then you and your friends treated the template like a joke by adding names to the template with "I am Spartacus" edit summaries. Yes I agree that this shows contempt for the guideline. You resorted to snark and personal attacks throughout, and refused to discuss this in civil fashion on your talk page. Instead I just got more snark from your friends. You say you comply but you have no user page COI disclosure as suggested by the guideline. The sense I get is that you and other longstanding editors involved in this article feel you can pretty much act as you wish, especially in the use of personal attacks, without consequences and that the system has your back. That may be unfair but it is my sense of the situation and I believe it is accurate. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::The COI guideline "which I adhere to." Yup. You can clearly get away with ignoring the guideline, so what is the point of ANI? ] (]) 22:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::: Awww, come on, bring it. Let's determine who the community deems are COI-blinded disruptionists and who are adhering to NPOV. Maybe we can get a couple topic bans out of the deal... ] (]) 03:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::If you want a ] for your ]ership of your article the place for that is the county clerk's office, not whatever "community" you guys can bring over from that site. ] (]) 15:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::: You know where AN/I is... Give it a shot.... ] (]) 21:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I know that there is a high degree of confidence that the "community" (i.e., friends of the site and the administrator who co-founded it) will turn up in force to give you a warranty deed to the article. Thank you for repeating yourself. I didn't understand you the first twelve times. ] (]) 21:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm sure it's a total coincidence that most of the people who showed up here to complain about the injustice of being listed in a talkpage template that no one reads anyway are active and frequent Wikipediocracy posters. I presume if Mark Zuckerberg started editing ] the same people would argue that this shouldn't be noted on the talkpage because he's just a co-founder and you're assuming bad faith by saying he might have a COI and why are you trying to smear Facebook. Anyway someone just file the ArbCom case already. They're down to only three open cases! Gotta make sure the incoming arbs have enough work! Just be aware that participating has a good chance of getting you a nice page on ] if you don't already have one, with all the personal information people can ferret out about you. --] (]) 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::I agree that the hubris displayed by the Wikipediocracy contingent is quite remarkable. They are so well-connected that they are cynically confident they have mastered the website they criticize as "broken." Ironically their control of their article is Exhibit A for that proposition. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 14:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::: An alternative thesis for you to consider, not that you are interested in exploring alternative theses, is that many of the people who post at the message board called Wikipediocracy are critically-minded Wikipedians, and that the "broken" POV behavior here is the ongoing IDONTLIKEIT warriorism of the site's opponents. ] (]) 21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, "we're right" is always an alternative thesis, especially in situations like this in which administrators control an article. (And yes, I know, there is always ANI, you got that covered, blah blah blah). By the way, how many admins have been involved in this discussion on the "there ain't no such thing as COI" side. Four? Five? Counting the admin/checkuser? All "critically minded" Wikipedians I know but aren't you guys taking cynicism just a bit too far? ] (]) 21:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Something—a very significant something—that Coretheapple and Figureofnine are too polite or perhaps afraid to mention is the fact that there is a Wikipediocracy cabal that meets once a month at undisclosed locations (never the same one twice) to discuss, strategize, and strengthen WO's WP:OWNership of the WP article and their control over ANI. Presiding over these meetings are Her Satanic Majesty herself (I dare not speak Her name but you know who I mean—all of Wikipediocracy is in thrall to Her) and The Evil One (ditto), banished from this Eden, who can only be referred to by the initials GK and no I don’t mean the God-King. ''The entire active contingent of the WP administrator corps is forced to participate'' (blackmail, natch; also threats of red-hot pokers up the ass etc., and—for those who brush that off as mere inconvenience—being locked in a room with a GOP presidential candidate for half an hour). ''It's to these hapless slaves that falls the task of supervising and enforcing OWNership of the Wikipediocracy article and control over ANI''—as Coretheapple, who is no fool, has already guessed. I hardly need add: little heads are ripped from mewling kittens at these terrible meetings and much feline blood is quaffed. The cabal wanted virgins to sacrifice but the human ones are in short supply these days. But it's not all bad. The virgin kitties are rescued from the SPCA. ] (]) 23:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::No, I'd put it more like this: COI + OWN + Admins= the Wikipediocracy article. I think that if you guys were candid you'd have to admit that this pretty much sums up the dynamic. ] (]) 00:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

==Kazakhstan Firewall==
You wrote in 2012:
: The Wikimedia Foundation has zero collaboration with the government of Kazakhstan. Wikibilim is a totally independent organization. And it is absolutely wrong to say that I am "helping the Kazakh regime whitewash its image". I am a firm and strong critic. At the same time, I'm excited by the work of volunteers, and '''I believe - very strongly - that an open and independent Misplaced Pages will be the death knell for tyranny in places like Kazakhstan'''. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it is absolutely silly to suggest that I'm in any way actively supporting tyrants.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
How's that working out? The NY Times writes ():
: Government officials in Kazakhstan are borrowing a page from China, quietly devising their own version of China’s so-called Great Firewall to unscramble encrypted web and mobile traffic as it flows in and out of Kazakh borders.
:... Unlike with China, which filters data through an expensive and complex digital infrastructure known as the Great Firewall, security experts say Kazakhstan is trying to achieve the same effect at a lower cost. The country is mandating that its citizens install a new “national security certificate” on their computers and smartphones that will intercept requests to and from foreign websites.
:That gives officials the opportunity to read encrypted traffic between Kazakh users and foreign servers, in what security experts call a “man in the middle attack.”
:As a result, Kazakh telecom operators, and government officials, will be privy to mobile and web traffic between Kazakh users and foreign servers, bypassing encryption protections known as S.S.L., or Secure Sockets Layer, and H.T.T.P.S., technology that encrypts browsing sessions and is familiar to users by the tiny padlock icon that appears in browsers.
] (]) 09:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
:Can you explain further what you mean by your question "How's that working out?" The terrible recent developments in Kazakhstan are to be deplored and opposed, as with their human rights record stretching back for many years. There is very good reason to think that a strong and independent Misplaced Pages (along with an open Internet generally) will be the death knell for such regimes, and this is a fight which will take decades.
:In terms of this recent initiative, which effectively mandates a "man in the middle" attack, I will be campaigning with the major Internet providers globally to blacklist the Kazakh certificate and to improve and strengthen MITM protection via certificate pinning.--] (]) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
::By 'how's that working out', I meant 'how is working out '. A knell is a loud sounding or ringing that happens when death is imminent, rather than 'will take decades'. ] (]) 18:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
:::It will take decades, particularly in areas that are mostly neglected by liberal democracies.--] (]) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::Also, you claimed in 2012 that 'Wikibilim is a totally independent organization'. Wasn't there a question about that? ] (]) 18:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I am unaware of any questions about that. It remains true.--] (]) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::‘ ''“Kazaksha Misplaced Pages” project is implemented under the auspices of the Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim Massimov, head of “Wikibilim” public fund Rauan Kenzhekhanuly said in an interview for PM.kz site.’'' — Official web site of Kazakhstan prime minister Karim Massimo. Further reading: , , the December 23 2012 online ''Examiner'' article ''Misplaced Pages co-founder Jimmy Wales denies Kazakhstan connection'', and , in which Wales participated, entitled ''Kazakhstan government support for Kazakh Misplaced Pages''. Factoid: Currently 50% of Wikibilim’s trustees are paid government employees. ] (]) 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::It is completely false that Kazakh language Misplaced Pages is a project of the Government of Kazakhstan. Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Misplaced Pages. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter. As of the last time I checked, Wikibilim employees do not edit Misplaced Pages. It is easy to piece together misleading quotes to try to imply things that aren't true - but it's easier to just tell the truth.--] (]) 06:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::By flatly contradicting the Kazakhstan prime minister’s official statement, you are saying that either he doesn’t know what his own government is doing or he’s lying on his office’s website (perhaps calculating that outside Kazakhstan the only likely challenge to the lie would be an unsubstantiated one from someone whose veracity on this page in relation to Kadazhstan had already been thrown into question by that same someone's own words, i.e. (1) “Past connection to the Kazakh dictatorship" - total and utter and complete bullshit. I have no past connection of any kind to the Kazakh dictatorship. — Jimbo Wales, Jimbotalk, 14 December 2014. (2) “I’ve been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there I'm going in December and I'm gonna give the award in the presence of the Prime Minister …" — Jimbo Wales, 2011 closing ceremony speech at Wikimania 2011)
::::::Also of interest here: Before he became president of Wikibilim, Rauan Kenzhekhanuly (first recipient of the aforementioned Wikipedian of the Year award) was first secretary at Kazakhstan’s embassy in Moscow and head of Kazakhstan’s government-controlled propagandist TV operation, which was launched by the daughter of Nursultan Nazarbayev. Oh. Who he? President of Kazakhstan.
::::::Wiikibilim is funded by Samruk-Kazyna, Kazakhstan’s sovereign wealth fund. The state is its sole shareholder. Chairman of S-K’s board when Wikibilim was set up: Timur Asqaruly Kulibayev. Who he? Husband of Dinara Nursultanovna. And who she? President Nazarbayev’s daughter. ] (]) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, if he says that, then he's lying. This surprises you?--] (]) 13:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Somewhat more than if you are, as I’m more familiar with your track record than with Massimov’s.
::::::::You say that Massimo is lying; that there’s no state control exercised in this instance by a government that’s notorious for control and censorship of information and the media, and for suppression of free speech; and that Wikibillim is independent of the government that funds it, fills half the seats on its board of trustees with government employees, and selects 100 of its users to receive free laptops in return for transcribing and writing government-approved articles, none of which address Kazakhstan’s record on human rights or suppression of independent media. Am I surprised you say that? Not in the least.
::::::::By the way, FYI, as apparently you are unaware, your unsupported assertion that Massimov is a liar violates the BLP policy, which applies to this page just as it does anywhere on Misplaced Pages. (For more information on Misplaced Pages’s BLP policy, refer to ].) ] (]) 18:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: Astonishing. Mr. Wales has just said that everyone in Kazakhstan who runs the Misplaced Pages project there, and says it is backed and funded by the state, is lying. Instead the truth is as Wales presents it - that Kazakh Misplaced Pages is independent of the Kazakh government. Don't believe your own lying eyes kids. Again, Republican primary debate levels of astonishing.] (]) 18:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh, come on. If you put words in my mouth, you can make it seem like just about anything. There are very serious concerns and problems with the Wikibilim organization, but it remains the case that the Kazakh language Misplaced Pages is not a project of the government. If Massimov says that it is, he's lying. If he's concerned about that as a BLP violation, then he's free to complain. I have not said that Wikibilim is independent of the government that funds it - it is not. What I have said is that Wikibilim is completely independent of the Wikimedia Foundation and of me. I have no connection with the Kazakh government, despite the ongoing pretense by people who know better. I oppose them firmly. I have had contact with them in the past, and I would imagine that I will again - to lobby for change. I will not apologize for that, nor will I allow dishonest people to portray opposition as support.
::::::::::'''There is a much more interesting conversation to be had.''' Rather than dishonestly trying to pin something on me, a rather ridiculous thing to do, it would be better to show some genuine concern for the people of Kazakhstan, and suggest genuine ways that we can help in the current situation.--] (]) 19:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Oh, dear. Wikibilim runs the Kazakh Misplaced Pages. Wikibilim is entirely funded and run by the Kazkh government and senior Kazakh government bureaucrats. The vast majority of the Kazakh Misplaced Pages is articles imported from the government's official propaganda encyclopedia. The Kazakh government's academy of arts and sciences runs "fact checking and quality control" on the Kazakh Misplaced Pages. The Kazakh Wikipedian of the year you named was prior to that award, and since, a rising star in the repressive firmament of the Kazakh regime. And your response to people who say this shows the Kazakh government runs the Kazakh Misplaced Pages is to call them "liars." It's astonishing you get away with such counterfactual claims. At any rate, this is like talking about the nuclear triad with Donald Trump. I'm out.] (]) 20:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::: What he said. Anyone of reasonable intelligence who has been paying attention to this thread can see where the porkies are.
::::::::::::: @Jimbo Wales. Question: did you ever actually pay the Kazakh state apparatchik the much trumpeted $5,000 that supposedly went with his Misplaced Pages of the Year award? A straightforward, factually correct reply please. A simple yes or no will do. Thank you. Then I’m done with you here.
::::::::::::: Oh, one other thing. You wrote above, on 15 December, “Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Misplaced Pages. ''It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter''.” (Emphasis added.) Wikibilim’s own CC submission states: “Recognition of «Wikibilim» as a Misplaced Pages’ local chapter in Kazakhstan is in progress.” Obviously there were plans for Wikibilim to become a local chapter. What happened to its application? Why were the plans permanently scrapped? ] (]) 16:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::Interesting. I see there's an article ], and more information on MITM attacks at ] (some copypasted from Stackexchange, according to a tag there...). I don't really understand it though, or how to apply it here. Key pinning is apparently already being bypassed in the Chromium browser to allow the actions that our corporations (and perhaps the Kazakh officials) call "content inspection" - wouldn't a Kazakh end up being unable to do anything online unless he disabled it such a way? And as for blacklisting certificates - how do you blacklist every certificate the Kazakh government could obtain? ] (]) 12:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::As I understand it, they are distributing a certificate to everyone in Kazakhstan. If that one gets blacklisted, they could get another one, and distribute that one, but... I'll be looking for technical advice as to the most effective thing that we (and other internet providers of various kinds) can do to help.--] (]) 17:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::It looks like this is in flux. I don't know nearly enough about TLS to understand whether a third party site can figure out which top level certificate authority issued a certificate, or how much data it knows about you from that, though I would suspect the worst. But if Kazakhstan actually does execute a MITM attack against a connection, can't they request whatever certificate they want from whomever they want to apply at the point past the "Firewall", as if they were the computer owner, thereby concealing their role? ] (]) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::The way certificates work is that the creator generates a pair of keys—private and public. Everyone can get the public key and can use it to check messages signed with the private key. Your computer and/or browser has a list of trusted certificate authorites, and a method to check the trust has not been revoked. The browser will establish an encrypted connection with a web server, but the browser will fill the screen with warnings if the server is not using a certificate from a trusted authority. Presumably the Kazakhstan plan is that each citizen would ''install'' a Kazakhstan authority as trusted. Then the government could MITM encrypted sessions—citizen computer to government proxy would be encrypted using the Kazakhstan certificate, and proxy to target web server (say Misplaced Pages) would be encrypted using the Misplaced Pages certificate. That is how a company web proxy works when a company workstation establishes an encrypted connection with an external web server such as Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

== Some may find this interesting ==

about China.--] (]) 20:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:It is still ] in the People's Republic. ] ] 20:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:Ironic, maybe even deliberate. But I don't think it's ''that'' unusual for crude machine translations to be exactly backwards. And that phrase you used is tough: "...will become completely antiquated." Compare the translation if you'd said "...will become completely traditional." With ]'s attitude toward free expression, there are more than enough things to criticize unambiguously. ] (]) 21:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"We will see, not perfect, but very much improved machine translation, which will very much enhance person-to-person communication worldwide. This will be a very powerful thing. I believe as a result of this, the idea that any one government can control the flow of information of what people know in their territory will become completely antiquated and no longer possible". You tell em'! The idea of censoring widespread information in this day and age is unbelievable. Think how big Chinese wikipedia could be by now if they stopped messing about... It must be awful to live in a place where the government keep blocking and unblocking wikipedia.♦ ] 23:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:I hate to say this (it causes stress and makes me cringe) but in the spirit of Free Speech would like to express what I really believe. ] is ] and any attempt to directly quote the "deniers" (regarding the practicality of using louse disinfestant and diesel exhaust for gassing and the logistics of cremating thousands/day) is censored on Misplaced Pages because they are not "reliable sources". People have been jailed in Germany -- extradited from the U.S. -- for discussing it. (See ], ].) I also think the ] article is censored, POV. Even giving is censored. These are just a few of the articles on Misplaced Pages I think are censored. ] (]) 01:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::I encourage you to revisit these questions with a crucial distinction in mind that you appear to be missing. "Editorial judgment" and "censorship" are not the in the same category. One involves the threat of force (arrest, jail, etc.) and the other does not. On each of the elements within Misplaced Pages that you mention, there is no "censorship" but there is "editorial judgment". Now, you might argue that our editorial judgment is wrong - but no one is going to jail if they argue it. I should hasten to add that I do not agree with jailing Holocaust deniers, but that isn't really relevant to the point that I'm making. No one is being threatened with jail for the kind of Misplaced Pages editing you are discussing. In particular, editing about the Hilary Clinton email controversy is not even remotely close to something that anyone, anywhere, is in danger of being arrested for. You weaken whatever valid point you may have (if any) by saying things that are just transparently not true.--] (]) 02:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

''“The thousand foreign guests who have agreed to attend the conference should be ashamed of themselves,” GreatFire co-founder Charlie Smith told RSF. “Lu Wei has at least been consistent with his messaging and his conditions for doing business in China. If foreign guests think that by attending the conference they can help to free China’s Internet then they are deluded. I would even go so far as to say that they are complicit actors in the Chinese censorship regime and are lending legitimacy to Lu Wei, CAC and their heavy-handed approach to Internet governance. They are, in effect, helping to put all Chinese who stand for their constitutional right to free speech behind bars.”'' Full article at Reporters Without Borders (RSF). Related GreatFire article, focused on LinkedIn in China, . ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

== Appeal of ArbCom decision at GMO ==

Dear Jimbo, I believe I am allowed to appeal an ArbCom decision on your Talk page. I have actually e-mailed ArbCom today regarding this matter (please see below), however, I note that appeals here must be made within 7 days of the Arbcom decision. I am posting this to adhere to that 7-day time-limit, but I am happy for you not to consider this request until ArbCom make their decision on amending my topic ban.

'''Email to ArbCom'''

I would like to request an amendment to my recently imposed topic ban. I am requesting the amendment deletes the inclusion of "genetically modified plants and". I am requesting this amendment because there is a total absence of evidence that I have been disruptive in this topic area. I respectfully quote the ] policy as "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area '''where their contributions have been disruptive''', but to allow them to edit the rest of Misplaced Pages." (my highlighting). Below, I provide evidence that I have not been disruptive in this topic area, in fact, I have not made a single content edit about GM-plants in my history of editing WP.

I have reviewed all the submissions relating to myself presented during the evidence phase of the GMO case. There was not a single diff provided by any party which related to me editing or discussing GM-plants.

I have also reviewed all my edits for the year of 2015. This review showed that I have not made a single edit of article content relating to GM-plants. In the last 12 months, I have edited only two articles about GMOs which contain sections on GM-plants, i.e. ] and ].

I made a handful of edits (6) on the ] article (
) but these were all unrelated to GM-plants.

I made 13 edits to ]. The vast majority of these related to animals and were often simple editorial changes such as typos, links, redundant words. I made one edit potentially tangentially related to GM-plants - I reformatted a reference title to be lowercase rather than uppercase. I reverted only a single edit here and although my revert was itself reverted, I did not engage in any behaviour that might be considered disruptive.

Prior to the GMO case, I was heavily involved in editing ] and I accept the ArbCom's decision to topic ban me from the area of agricultural chemicals as a remedy. However, I think there has been an inadvertent "topic-creep" which has led to the unnecessary inclusion of GM-plants in my ban. I have not been disruptive in the slightest in the topic area of GM-plants. My overall concern here is that some editors believe that because my topic ban includes plants, general GMO articles such as ] are included in my ban. I would be very grateful for a clarification by ArbCom that if this amendment is approved, my topic ban does not include these general GMO articles.
I respectfully await your decision on my request for an amendment.


Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for considering this.
<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 03:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:Uh, DrChrissy, Jimbo doesn't overturn ArbCom or community decisions. There's no point in appealing to him. ] (]) 03:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::Well, theoretically, ]. However, your chances are very small. It is - in my opinion - only for obvious Arbcom rights abuses - a ban without any evidence at all, for example.--] (]) 08:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::As per above. The final 'Appeal to Jimbo' is always available - however a quick look through the cases where the user has appealed here will show that it rarely (in fact I can only think of one instance) results in any change due to the indepth community involvement before it gets to that point (which Jimbo is unlikely to overturn without very good reason). But I am sure he will be along presently to give his opinion. ] (]) 13:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


==]==
== Feinstein's next attack on Misplaced Pages ==
]
]
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.


Could you or your page watchers help me with ]? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
As I'm sure most here are aware, several aspect of the ], against which Misplaced Pages mobilized in 2012, are reflected<sup></sup> in the ] that was passed as part of the omnibus spending bill. Now the next step in Senator ]'s unwavering decades-long crusade against freedom of speech is underway.<sup></sup>


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
As by its sponsor, would require "an electronic communication service or a remote computing service" to report any "terrorist activity" it knows about. The trick is that, while "terrorist activity" is required to ''include'' sharing any information about explosives or weapons of mass destruction under various circumstances, it is not ''limited'' to that: it permits the ], an appointed executive official, to define the phrase as he sees fit. Thus the bill is an ] granting the executive branch an open-ended authority to punish sites like Misplaced Pages if they do not report their users for making whatever kind of informative editing the appointee doesn't approve of.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
]
::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Just wanted to say ==
In response to this threat, Misplaced Pages needs to take certain actions.


You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you. <br>It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the <s>cabal of editors</s> <b>thriving community</b> that is Misplaced Pages.
1. The WMF must either sign or issue a concurring opinion with the against the bill.
I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) &#124; (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ==
2. The WMF must have its legal staff provide editors with specific advice pertaining to , the specific existing law, potential violations of which must be reported if Feinstein's proposed law is heeded.


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. One issue with which I am particularly concerned is the definition of ''"knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence"'' and the related provision from the previous part. Past enforcement of this has followed a terroristic pattern, going after rare soft targets like ]. Nonetheless, ] has a famous slogan, ''"...every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."'' Well, is that already illegal under U.S. law? And if so, is Wales criminally culpable if he edits, or hosts, an article about a ], knowing and indeed intending that the Caliph or one of his men, who doubtless would love to own one, might choose to read it?


:Summary: {{tq|This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies.}} –] <small>(])</small> 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Any report of "terrorist activity" may land editors on the ], which is part of a ] used by some countries as a reason for denial of travel, and by others for indefinite detention and torture.<sup></sup> Obama recently proposed to use this list - in which no due process is ever used - to deny gun purchases (but why stop there? Can't a ''car'' be used for multiple murder?). Misplaced Pages will need to canvass contributors to see if they are subjected to such measures ''regardless'' of their country of residence or "citizenship", whether there is formal reporting mandated or data is harvested from public article history records.


== Happy new year ==
5. The WMF needs to understand exactly how much information about a user it is going to be required to turn over if Feinstein's bill passes. It is hard to picture it will be required to make a report, yet be allowed to insist on a warrant if asked for details. It is time for Misplaced Pages to start sanitizing any non-public records ''now'', while it is legal to do so, and to advise users on what actions they may be able to take to protect themselves.


Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? ] 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
6. If expert legal opinion occurs that this bill is an existential threat to its educational mission, the WMF should campaign against this bill with more vigor than it opposed SOPA. It is ''worth'' making this fight, in the hope that injustice delayed is injustice denied. ] (]) 15:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


== ==
:I wouldn't be worried about Misplaced Pages's article on ]. It's the articles on ], ], ], ], etc. that would be problematic. --] (]) 01:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Carnildo}} I chose that article for two reasons. The first is that if there ''is'' a terrorist in ISIS working on a nuclear bomb, wherever he came from, whether he trained in Islamabad or in Berkeley, it is a ''near certainty'' that he will actually have looked up ] and its sub-articles at some point in his life, and made that a part of his education. The ''issue'' is whether we go by the standard of looking only at whether terrorists might access the data, or instead consider that an educated populace has many effects, some positive, some negative, and have faith that the positives of a free society ''outweigh'' the negatives.
::The second reason is that these articles, like ] and ], are useful in understanding, for example, the role of ]s and ] in generating plutonium to make the bombs. So if our society were ''not'' committed, fully, to preserving the availability of such information that has become known to the world, we would be giving up the ability of the public to make informed decisions about some of the more controversial facilities required for nuclear weapons production. It follows, logically, that in a Feinstein America, it would be a threat to national security to allow this public to have any say in such decisions - so any pretense of democracy must be put aside to ensure that military specialists would have total control over them. I think this is the case for the lesser explosives you mention - for example, plants like have been exploding periodically for more than a hundred years. But the public policy implications are most obvious with the nuclear example. ] (]) 03:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Celebrity donation ==
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}?
It has been widely reported recently (e.g. ) that ] has donated to Misplaced Pages because he "attributed a large part of his academic successes in both high school and his lone year at Duke to the online encyclopedia". This is good news for us, so I was wondering what you thought about Misplaced Pages hiring celebrity spokespeople to do this sort of thing (ie donate to us and encourage people to do the same), since it doesn't happen very often that a famous person donates to us. We'd still be relying on donations (and we already ask people to donate when they see this website) so I don't think this would qualify as advertising. ] ] 19:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was.
:Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
:I personally don't like the idea of '''''hiring''' celebrity spokespeople'', but if they wanted to donate their services and if the banners (or whatever) we'd do with them fit in with the message we want to send - then why not? I also question "it doesn't happen very often that a famous person donates to us." I'd guess quite a few famous people do. Say Justise Winslow is one of the most famous 100,000 people in the world. I'd guess that there are 100-1,000 people just as famous who also donate. But why limit ourselves just to famous people? Why not ask donors to send in a pic and 15 words or less on "why I donate?" ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 21:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::BTW, he seems to have donated $100 out of his $2.5 million salary. So we should definitely say thanks (and send some good CC-BY photos). ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 21:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:14, 10 January 2025

    Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
    Start a new talk topic.
    Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
    He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
    The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
    The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.
    This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
    you can leave a message here
    This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
    Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
    This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
    Media mentionThis talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

    Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder!

    Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Albert Percy Godber

    Albert Percy Godber at his brass finishing lathe in the Petone railway workshops. A sign before him reads: `This is my busy day'
    "Looking down over a settlement with houses set amongst trees. The arm of a lake or harbour lies beyond, with a mountainous range on the far side. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber. Probably taken at Queenstown, Godber having visited Lake Wakatipu and Queenstown in 1926"

    Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.

    Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.

    "Phyllis Mary Godber wearing a Maori cloak, holding a taiaha, standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber

    I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Godber family outside their house 'Railway Whare' at 23 Bay Street, Petone, circa 1906. From left to right: Albert Percy Godber, Mary Ann Godber, Laura Godber, Phyllis and William. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber"
    And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Just wanted to say

    You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you.
    It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the cabal of editors thriving community that is Misplaced Pages. I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Summary: This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Happy new year

    Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? -Lemonaka 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors

    That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?

    ... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.
    Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
    As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category: