Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:54, 2 December 2017

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 1 day

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.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Why

Why does Jimmy invite people to edit his user page, when it wouldn't be appropriate to change his own words? Benjamin (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"it wouldn't be appropriate to change his own words" ... without his permission – So often it's in the details. ... Or were you, Benjamin, suggesting that it wouldn't be appropriate for Jimmy to change his own words? Therefore suggesting it would be inappropriate for others as well? The phrasing of your question leaves it unclear for me. --–A Fellow Editor– 13:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Remember the episode of Rick and Morty with Stephen Colbert? Crowdsourcing! 185.13.106.234 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean, why does he want other editors to edit his page, when really, he's the only one who should be? Benjamin (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"when really, he's the only one who should be?" – Says who? You? Obviously—self-evidently—he doesn't.

(... doesn't say so, that is ... FWIW, AFAIK, neither do any WP policies and guidelines; p&g do state that users have a wide latitude over how they run their own assigned userspace though—i.e. it's up to the user's discretion, it's Jimbo's prerogative. As on your 'own' userpage the prerogative regarding whether to allow such is yours.) --–A Fellow Editor– 13:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"These are Jimmy's words. Should not be changed."? Benjamin (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The user is meaning this edit. Going by what Dr.K. has said in the edit summary, it was reverted because you changed Jimmy's words. What he is quoted as saying.--5 albert square (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, I understand that. What I don't understand is why Jimmy would invite me to edit his words on his page, if they are quotes that should not be edited. Benjamin (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's because you changed it from reading "founder" to "co-founder". I looked at the actual article Jimmy Wales for this and it says "He is historically cited as a co-founder of Misplaced Pages, though he has disputed the "co-" designation, declaring himself the sole founder". There's also sources backing this up.--5 albert square (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a content dispute, is it? Benjamin (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin, stop trolling and go do something useful please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) – OH! So this thread is all because you, Benjamin, tried but got reverted! Now I see ... Tnx 5 albert square, I was starting to think some weird 'on-the-spectrum' pedantic OCD fixation of some sort was going on ... Turns out instead I just got drawn into some classic passive aggressive rhetorical questioning. Eww, now I feel icky ... ... --–A Fellow Editor– 14:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I thank 5 albert square for the ping. Now that Jimmy himself has replied, I think this matter has been put to rest. In any case, my opinion is, when editing anyone's userpage, or anywhere for that matter, one should not put words in other peoples' mouths. Editing is not an exercise in ventriloquism and noone should manipulate the expression of anyone's ideas anywhere. Dr. K. 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it is not my intention to troll. I'm still confused about why Jimmy would invite editors to edit his page. Benjamin (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo trusts that most editors are mature enough to only make constructive edits to his page. His page has been built mostly by editors other than Jimbo himself. When the occasional vandal or troll makes unconstructive changes to his user page, he trusts that they will be quickly reverted. Deli nk (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What would be a constructive edit? His page is composed of things that aren't supposed to be changed. Benjamin (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

_ _ ___ ___ _ _

"I like turtles"

--–A Fellow Editor– 17:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin, a constructive edit is something that benefits the encyclopedia. Altering Jimmys talk page to say he is the co-founder when he denies this is the case is definitely not beneficial.

He allows editors to edit his userpage because Misplaced Pages is about anyone being able to edit it. The same goes for his talk page, he prefers that it isn't protected. However, he also understands that in order to stop damage to the encyclopedia, sometimes we will need to protect it. If that is the case, he trusts us admins to make decisions. 5 albert square (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You can compare Bitcoin to the rise of Misplaced Pages: 1,000 articles in February 2001 (one month after founding), 10,000 in September, 40,000 in September 2002, 100,000 in March 2003 (with 500 people editing daily). Unlike Bitcoin, however, there's no danger of its collapse. Jimbo hasn't actually edited his userpage since before the London riots - more than six years ago. 81.158.234.14 (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the above explanation, good faith requests to Jimbo should not be reverted, but they sometimes are, and the page is protected into the bargain. To the onlooker this looks like an attempt to gag Jimbo. Why does this happen? 86.159.115.241 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Donations

Browsing the web while not logged into Misplaced Pages I came across donation requests by you for Misplaced Pages. I will not consider a donation, and will be advising against it to contacts, due to the toxic editing environment I have encountered here. Regards. SaintAviator 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This is what happens when you set up an organization without a leadership hierarchy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You've made 86 edits to mainspace since September 2016 and exactly 1 edit to mainspace since April. I wonder how you know exactly that the editing environment is so "toxic." Pro Tip: Maybe Vladimir Putin is not a subject on which one should spend significant time if one wants to actually improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors' experiences can be unpleasant. On the other hand, have you found Misplaced Pages useful as a source of information? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Buttons0603 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you think the overall reaction might be when readers who are fans of Hannity see the fundraising banner over a NPOV tag on his article? Do you think it has an effect? Stats show the page's monthly pageview average is 88,838 (Nov 2016 - Oct 2017), or 1,066,056 total pageviews for the year. It could be that WP isn't experiencing any negative feedback over it, or possibly not enough to matter, but my experiences in marketing/advertising/PR says neutrality is a priority, unless your targeting a specific demographic. 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that we should decide whether our articles are neutral or not based on... whether that would appeal to "fans of Hannity"? Seriously? You've read WP:NOTHERE, right?  Volunteer Marek  03:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The NPOV tag doesn't indicate whether the dispute is about the article being more in favor or more against Hannity. Does that have an effect on your thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I just read the lead and it may look anti-Hannity to a fan or others. If the fan noticed the NPOV tag, that might give the fan some comfort. FWIW, I also looked at the Rachel Maddow article for comparison. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And what was your conclusion, Bob? I just attempted to remove the conspiracy theory crap which is noncompliant with NPOV - it's biased, and when you consider Maddow is in competition with Hannity it should be removed, or the conspiracy claims about Maddow added to her BLP for Balance using the same arguments that are used in Hannity. I tried that a while back - and it was reverted. I was also reverted at the Hannity article twice within a few minutes today. It's all about tag-teaming and gaming - there's clearly a POV push, and it has nothing to do with AGF - it's soapboxing. If that doesn't reek of partisanship in defiance of our core content policies, I don't know what does. 20:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you have reasonable complaints and nothing much can be done about it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree...and the beat goes on. 02:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Atsme. We have thousands upon thousands of articles that have NPOV tags. Clearly we should temporarily disable Template:NPOV during donation drives, lest we offend anyone who is an aficionado of any one or more of those topics. That's a lot of donations we could be losing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I happen to know how to relieve famine in Ireland. Volunteer Marek  03:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

😂 Just slap some lipstick on that pig and be done with it. 03:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. Volunteer Marek  04:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed...it may explain your misinterpretations about some of our PAGs, but quite frankly - I believe you understand them quite well and just spin the meaning to fit whatever dispute you're involved in at the time. 01:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I still would like the appeal to be "Misplaced Pages needs your support. Please take it upon yourself to add content supported by a reliable reference to an article in an area of your expertise this holiday season." Misplaced Pages is the one place on the internet where money is not speech, and I feel that the marginal impact of asking for editors is larger than the marginal impact of asking for cash donations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Tampa Mayor's communications director censoring content

It appears that Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn's communications director is censoring content from the article about him. Is that allowed? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC) FloridaArmy (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No. And has already been reverted. Not sure why you are coming here with it though. It's not Jimbo's job to monitor each article. Regards SoWhy 16:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is the appropriate place to go on Misplaced Pages with censorship issues? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a good place for reporting this type of concern. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Edgar! I see other people had also discovered the editor's connections to the subject and sent warnings to her. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Is a communications director a paid editor?

The editor involved has been blocked as a paid editor. It is very common for Misplaced Pages editors to edit articles about their employers or organisations to which they belong. While there is the potential for a conflict of interest in those cases, that is not considered to be paid editing. In this case, the editor is question is alleged to be the mayor's communications director. Is that different from being an assembly line worker in a factory editing the article on their employer? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I performed the block and yes, I think being the communications director director means you are being paid to communicate about your client/company. It's not the same as if you were a mechanic working at a Chrysler repair shop updating the specs in a car article. --NeilN 19:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I should add, the block was for violating WP:PAID - that is, undisclosed paid editing. --NeilN 19:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The "connected contributor" template was added to Talk:Bob Buckhorn in June, after Ashleybauman's first edit. So it wasn't really undeclared, was it? While I'm not disputing that "Ashleybauman" Misplaced Pages editor is almost certainly Ashley Bauman Director of Marketing & Communications at City of Tampa and Mayor Bob Buckhorn, it feels like someone may be advancing their own political agenda by getting their "opponents" blocked. Don't we usually ask representatives of article subjects to discuss issues on the talk page rather than blocking them as "paid editors"? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It was added by another editor tying the various accounts together. I don't see where Bauman ever declared it herself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Waters.Justin added that template and this discussion. Both of those seem to be egregious violations of our WP:OUTING policy. Justin.Waters is also the editor who added the material removed by Ashleybauman. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolving a conflict of interest and paid editing is an exception to the outing policy, and I'm not sure it's even outing when one username with the name of the mayor's communications director explicitly stated she is doing it on behalf of the mayor and another user has "COT" City of Tampa in her username. I didn't add the material removed by AshleyBauman; I added references to the material she was deleting in hope she would stop deleting the content and I deleted some of the content that was not in the cited article. She and the COT username were section blanking the article before I even made my first edit to that page. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Waters.Justin I don't see where the policy says what you say it does. Can you quote the relevant part here? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

WLC, the policy is very clear that non-outability takes precedence over COI et al.Whilst the issue could have been better handled through COI noticeboards and the like, notice carefully that Justin has used the phrase that appear to be connected with her.There was no definitive linking of user accounts with RL people and whilst there was obviously some extent of attempted outing, common sense takes precedence over all policies.Winged Blades 04:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In this edit Waters.Justin uses an edit summary "Restoring unexplained blanking by a single purpose account, Ashley Bauman. She's the spokesperson for Bob Buckhorn". That is a definitive linking of an account to a real life person. In Talk:Bob_Buckhorn#Conflict_of_interest, they actually outed two people. Considering they used their own names as the usernames, I don't think they were expecting a lot of privacy, but let's agree that this is outing and against policy. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of the policy state "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." "Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy." If they didn't disclose their name and use the abbreviation "COT" City of Tampa and even say she is editing on behalf of the mayor, then I would have had to privately email the COI information to an administrator, but they did disclose their names and affiliation with the City, so the policy allows me to discuss it in an "appropriate forum." The article's talk page seemed appropriate; but maybe the COI forum would have been better. Waters.Justin (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

There was no "self-disclosed posted information". There was no self-identification. "Self-disclosed" means they deliberately and explicitly told you who they were. It doesn't mean what you can puzzle out from usernames. What you did is exactly what the policy prohibits. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

There was self-disclosed posted information. Zara Rahim, the mayor's previous communications director, used her real name and wrote "hey there i'm trying to make edits to Bob Buckhorn's wiki page wondering why you are deleting the factual edits i'm making? i'm doing this on behalf of him.thanks." Ashley used the name of the mayor's current communications director and included "COT" for City of Tampa in her username. There is no puzzle here. Most editors would be immediately aware that those two editors are disclosing their connection to the City and the mayor. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was only referring to the Ashleybauman account. In the case of the Zararahim account, the self-disclosed information is that they are doing it on behalf of the article subject. That doesn't mean that you are therefore allowed to tie that account to the real life person. The account has admitted a conflict of interest, which is all we need to know. Another editor explained what was wrong with their edit and that was the end of the matter. That is what I think should have happened in this case, instead of first outing and then blocking the user. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bauman was very explicitly informed about the policy over two months ago. And you're still missing the undisclosed part. Undisclosed paid editing is against the WMF TOU. --NeilN 20:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen editors or IPs showing up at biographies and edit-warring to remove some piece of information. Eventually they communicate something like "I am Mr X's assistant/employee/office intern/etc and Mr X doesn't want that in his article". Someone usually manages to direct them to the talk page or the BLP noticeboard and the issue is discussed and sorted out. We don't block them as paid editors. I don't think they would generally be considered paid editors. I've never seen a case where they were asked to put up a paid editor declaration. Is it because this person has that particular job title that they are being treated differently? How is blocking them addressing their issue? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"I am Mr X's assistant/employee/office intern/etc and Mr X doesn't want that in his article" - which can be considered enough of a declaration to satisfy most people. If you don't think we don't block for UPE, you haven't looked hard enough. If you disagree with the WMF TOU, take it up with the WMF. If that clause exists in the TOU, admins are going to enforce it. --NeilN 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I know that editors are blocked all the time as undeclared paid editors. I'm just not sure that is meant to include people making good faith attempts to change something they don't like on their employer's biography. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is. People making bad faith edits are simply blocked for vandalism or disruption. The routes to unblocking are quite different. Bauman can simply declare and get unblocked (with a rap on the knuckles for her editing). Vandals usually stay blocked. --NeilN 21:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletions

Your deletion discussions and process seem to be very flawed here. A few of the problems I've encountered include:

• Not being notified an article I created was being prodded for deletion
• An article is nominated for deletion doesn't show up when viewing it on a mobile device. Are people trying to discourage people reading articles from participating in the deletion discussion?
• Navigating deletion discussions from a mobile device is VERY difficult. I've had to toggle to desktop mode. But still struggle to make posts and proceed via links to proper venue.
• The sourcing links provided at the the top of the deletion discussions are deeply flawed. For example, the links provided in the Jeff Peek discussion return minimal results. But if you Google Jeff Peek or Jeff Peek CIT you get lots and lots and lots of coverage in reliable independent sources.

Is it normal to keep deletion discussions hidden? Not to alert editors that articles they created and are working on are being deleted? To provide sourcing links that don't work?

Just glancing through some of your deletion discussions I am amazed at what's on the block. A pioneer nudist activist who was arrested and later institutionalized for daring to bicycle nude in Oregon. When she couldn't be convicted of any crimes she was instotutionalized. Her forced incarceration was eventually overturned in state court and became a landmark case. Renowned authors, artists, designers also face deletion. And the system seems to be set up to favor getting rid of this valuable content. Pretty sad really. Misplaced Pages can do better. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, would someone be so kind to add this link to sources for the Line the Label deletion discussion. I've tried repeatedly but the little pencil edit button isn't working for me. I tried opening and closing my browser, toggling between desktop and regular mode. Didn't see a "view as a wiki page link", sometimes that helps with functionality. I don't know. But the broader editing and deletion environment don't seem healthy. It's very hard to find or access article talk pages from a mobile device as well. Troubling. I suppose if you're a regular on a laptop things are easier to manage. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: I don't often get angry, but in my view you have been treated like complete crap and I'm amazed you haven't left and gone off to one of several Misplaced Pages criticism sites on the net where you would have a very sympathetic ear. I haven't checked the other articles, but Nyakim Gatwech and Line the Label both bring back multiple news stories from all over the world in Google News, so they seem to me to be worth at least investigating and expanding first. I am particularly concerned that the articles are about a black model and a fashion clothing brand, which are topics the stereotypical Wikipedian may not know much about and accidentally nominate for deletion. If you get any problems with any of your articles being deleted, drop me a line and I'll restore them to userspace or draftspace so you can at least retrieve the text. Ritchie333 17:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This author is up for deletion. Seriously?

And when I provided a link to articles on Jeff Peek in that deletion discussion, I can't seem to edit that discussion now, the nom said oh those aren't substantative. They cover his being passed over for the CEO spot at Merrill Lynch. His taking over CIT Group. His expansion of CIT. His problems at CIT when the financial crisis hit. His hiring at Bank of America. I mean, which of those articles on him isn't substantive? I really don't get it. Maybe a culture change is needed here? Leadership? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

There is something strange going on. First, @FloridaArmy: - it doesn't help that you start articles in very bad condition. You left stubs, in the case of Jeff Peek for a day, which do not demonstrate the notability of your subjects. Ideally, you should get together about 3 WP:GNG-grade inline citations, or at the very least two, before dropping your first stub sentence. Otherwise it's like walking through gamelands in a brown coat during deer season -- you certainly shouldn't get shot... However, I am also disturbed to see the knee-jerk pace at which articles are hit with three different kinds of deletion processes -- Erin Morrow Hawley in 30 minutes, Nyakim Gatwech in 5 minutes, Line the Label in an hour after they were first created. If one guy in a brown coat gets shot in hunting season, that's a tragedy, but if every guy in a brown coat gets shot, that suggests something is seriously out of whack. I remember how the "new pages patrollers" have been ranting on about how they need so much more help so that they can go through this tremendously over-elaborate process they set up, and even heard people complaining that too many people make new articles and how can the patrollers sort through them all? Well, guess what -- if they're the ones behind this, I'm thinking not merely didn't I mind the backlog, I rather miss it. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As the person who nominated Erin Morrow Hawley: this wasn't a "knee jerk" nomination. In fact, I actually didn't realize (my mistake, I know) that the article was that new when I nominated it. I did find it via NPP but I tend to use the NPP browser to search for unreviewed articles that contain the word "professor" (since I have a longstanding interest in academic biographies). There are about 170 articles currently in that category, most are weeks or months old and basically untouched since creation (the two articles I reviewed & cleaned up just prior to happening upon Hawley's, for example, were created on Oct 30 and Nov 2). The browser doesn't sort by date, so the odds of me coming across an article that new are actually pretty dang slim, but I'll certainly make a point of checking the timeline more carefully going forward.

None of that, however, has any bearing on Hawley's notability, which I'm still firmly not convinced of - she does not have enough coverage in independent RS to meet the GNG and it's still my opinion she fails PROF, even taking into account the stuff that people have added to the article since I nominated it. She's not notable imo, and no amount of time for the article creator to polish it up would have prevented my sending it to AFD in this particular case. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

2011 sockpuppet investigation in the news, now that the sockpuppeteers control Time, Inc.

Read it where you can. The Intercept says the folks running User:MBMadmirer (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive) will be taking over Time, Inc. Though perhaps it is just because the massive subscriber database will help i360 turn out more votes... they pledge a hands-off approach, mostly... Wnt (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...I was wondering how long it would be before Time, Inc. publications ended up on the unreliable source list. 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• I was skeptical but Wnt's story more-or-less checks out. It just goes to show how vulnerable we are to both commercial and political paid editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. On one hand, it helps establish that major PR forces have already gone up against Misplaced Pages. But on the other hand ... at least that time, it seems like we didn't lose. If we can stand up to the Koch brothers we can stand up to anybody, if we try. 50.29.152.30 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you really believe that it isn't/hasn't been happening on both sides for quite some time, or that there aren't congressional staffers, PR firms, and businesses that have been milking WP for everything they can, or that some COI editors haven't formed advocacies and sock farms to run-off GF editors who are just trying to maintain quality and NPOV in our articles? POV warriors are relentless...and they've been adding every piece of dirt they can dig-up to make coatracks/attack pages of their opposition's/competitor's articles while protecting their articles about the causes/people they advocate to make sure they stay sparkling clean like a freshly washed window. 01:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We are apolitical. Ish.

Jimmy. Forgive me, but this needs a public forum. As it happens I follow both Misplaced Pages and Sadiq Khan on Twitter. The Misplaced Pages account (recently more active) should, one would think, be used for engaging users (both editors and readers) and maybe donors. It absolutely should not be "liking" political comments as it clearly has done. This shows a bias that's utterly unacceptable. And before anyone moans about my bias, the fact I follow Mr Khan should show where my bias might lie. This needs fixing. Pedro :  Chat  01:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pedro: Hello! Thanks for alerting us to this. The like was a mistake; it was actually already undone by the time I went to address it, and it goes against quite a bit in our social media best practices. I'll bring this up with the digital media team in our Monday meeting. Best, Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Begging campaign

Just saw this years begging message. Pretty shameful that these annoyances still imply the moneies go to Misplaced Pages when instead they go to the bloated and unaccountable WMF. How much the endowment worth at the moment? Shameful indeed. 73.200.32.53 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)