Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:29, 15 January 2015

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

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.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

November 2014 participation numbers

A new set of official participation statistics are up, these for November 2014. These show the two key metrics for En-WP as essentially stable, with Very Active Editors steady at 2910 against 2897 for November 2013 and Average Number of New Articles Per Day falling 3.8% to 893 from a previous year figure of 928. The sky is still not falling. Carrite (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It occurred to me this morning that much of the month-to-month variation in the count of Very Active Editors is directly attributable to the number of days in the month. If somebody is bored and wants to play with a project, it should be pretty simple to adjust the series to account for fewer days in February, April, June, September, and November. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course this is right, though the number of weekends in a month is probably also a smaller factor. Then there's holidays and academic terms around the world. We know December will bring low figures, as always. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism to keep majorities from running amok?

I've noticed in some articles and entire topics, it is hard, even with our policies on NPOV, OR, and RS to have a fundamental NPOV regarding historical facts. Either you have the argument "those sources are not reliable because they are white people POV and 'outdated'" (which is a legitimate argument) or you have the flip-side "those are not reliable because they are propaganda from anti-Western sources trying to push a geopolitical agenda". I don't want us to get bogged down into specifics but you can find many in our history articles (eg- China and its relations towards Tibet when edited can cause an uproar; Israel/Palestine is another). When one group is a majority they often get upset about articles regarding the history of the people they "represent", it's human nature, and it can cause problems either in absolute numbers such as over 1 billion Chinese or in Misplaced Pages terms because that group happens to be over-represented on the internet (WASP men would be an example, maybe? I dont know, just guessing. I'm Jewish, perhaps we're they ones that are more than our .2% of the world population when it comes to editors on Misplaced Pages, we've never had a census). So, basically my question to Mr. Wales et al is this- do our policies really stand up to large majorities who wish to incorporate a POV from sources that want to rewrite history for geopolitical purposes? I ask this because history is written by the winners; China is just one example of a recent winner who, rightfully or wrongly, does now get to write history from its perspective, just as the "American Century" is full of history books written from their perspective and are still incorporated into Misplaced Pages (again, wrongly or rightly is debatable). As their secondary sources become more numerous, there are likely to be versions of history that may not be correct from a loser's perspective. Just looking for some philosophical perspectives on how Misplaced Pages is set up to handle this.Camelbinky (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the idea of many eyes/opinions on articles but, ultimately, is 'Misplaced Pages is set up to handle this'? My answer is no. AnonNep (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Another good example that Jimbo was also recently involved in the the Cultural Marxism spat, which I think was led by self-proclaimed Marxists and cultural Marxists -- who probably didn't believe in abolishing money like Marx did. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AnonNep. There is, though, a slight oddity wrt Indian/Pakistan/Bangladesh history articles, where many people get upset even though they are in the statistical majority. This may be the reverse of Camelbinky's experience as in those articles, aside from our policies not being favourable to oral history and ancient primary sources, the statistical majority fall foul of the policies when it comes to the geopolitical mess that was created by Raj ethnographers etc who slavishly accepted as truth what has often since been determined to be fantasy, wild speculation or boosterism/puffery. The rewriting of history in relation to those articles is generally regarded as having happened in the period roughly extending from 1820 to 1931, rather than in the present day. James Tod is a classic early example of it and this subject area might be the exception to the rule that Camelbinky raises. - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Most issues with systematic bias can be boiled down to editor demographics and the need to welcome new editors with more diverse backgrounds and POVs. CorporateM (Talk) 22:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably Jimbo is part of the problem. His claim to be an atheist and his tendency to break all of Misplaced Pages's policies in order to promote his views sets an appalling example to any editor who comes across his edits and free reign for those editors who either share his view or want to ingratiate themselves with Jimbo. Perhaps one of the most notable examples was the site banning of TimidGuy by Jimbo. TimidGuy was a long term victim of WillBeBack, an admin who was able to bully, stalk and out editors who didn't share his POV with impunity; despite numerous examples of POV editing, harassment, gaming the system, battleground conduct and appeals for help from numerous editors who suffered at his hands. Eventually it got too much for even ARB COM, who had a history of rubber stamping the numerous Arbitration requests brought by WillBeBack to harass and eliminate his victims and TimidGuy's ban was overturned and WillBeback desysopped and banned. Unfortunately ARB COM has done nothing since and numerous editors remain blocked and banned as a result of WillBeBack and ARB COM compliance whilst WillBeBack has been welcomed back to the fold and his editing rights returned. Misplaced Pages is indeed the encyclopedia any one can edit and that means minorities will always be marginalised and that is unlikely to change as long as Jimbo, ARB COM and admins think their views are more important than the truth.MOMENTO (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"His claim to be an atheist..."? Are you suggesting he isn't one? I've seen Jimbo accused of lots of things, but lying about non-belief is a new one. Why would he 'claim' it if it wasn't true? Not that it actually seems to have any bearing on the rest of your diatribe... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to derail this discussion, but I wanted to point out that atheism is not a "non-belief". Since the non-existence of God is unprovable, that means that atheism is a belief. It is a belief that God does not exist. That's why atheism should probably be categorized as a religion within WP, if it isn't already. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Kindly take your train-wreck logic elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Momento's version of those events is highly skewed, in my opinion. Who truly knows "the truth" and who adjudicated that? Yes, WillBeback made mistakes and was subjected to an exceptionally harsh penalty. He lost his administrative privileges. He is now free to edit again, but is not currently editing, as far as I know. I believe that a careful examination of the work he did will show that it was mostly positive, though he made errors in dealing with aggressive POV pushers. He paid his price. Let's move on. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If my version was just an opinion or even just slightly skewed it might be difficult for an inexperienced editor to show it. But since you say it is "highly skewed" it should be easy for a Senior editor like yourself to point out the flaws. I look forward to your corrections.MOMENTO (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, this was entertaining. Starting from an interesting concern about very large majorities and large ethnic or national groups of people, we have actually had an illustration of the problem that I think is more real: extreme minorities such as the followers of an Indian guru who has been called a "cult leader" manage to tediously battle to keep out negative information about their beloved guru. Or, as in the Cultural Marxism example, we reach what is an obviously wrong conclusion because again an extreme minority of people cares enough to "!vote" while most everyone else just ignores it. (And yes, I'm saying that the conclusion of the Cultural Marxism thing was clearly wrong, not NPOV, and in fact just wrong. If anyone wants to talk about that, we should discuss it in a separate thread.)

My point here is this: I'm intrigued in a philosophical way as to whether eventually English Misplaced Pages will tend to reflect an Indian perspective everywhere (if for example the rate of English usage in India doubles or triples from 10% of the population to 30%) and Indians become our largest number of participants. That's years away and it's an interesting and fun thing to contemplate.

But I think the problem we have much more often right now is situations in which only a tiny extreme minority cares enough about an issue to weigh in on it, while everyone else is worrying about more important things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And you've just summarized systemic bias in a large inhomogenous group. WP isn't a large blended group of dispassionate editors, it's a collection of many passionate groups. Any topic that has controversy has groups that attach themselves to it. Cultural marxism might be clear cut but others have only factions of strongly held POVs and size wins. The groups don't have to be along country or religious boundaries but can be any other unifying viewpoints. --DHeyward (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be a bit more optimistic, it's actually both - a large blended group of dispassionate editors *and* a collection of many passionate groups.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I think nearly all editors have a passion of some sort and are dispassionate about other topics. The difficulty arises in controversial topics where dispassionate is desired but the atmosphere leaves no one with the will or competence to continue unless they are passionate. There's no malice in passion but there is also no compromise. Arbcom exists because of this. But since content is not decided, only behavior, it's an intractable problem. I'd submit that this embraced/structured method of problem solving (small, passionate groupings in uncompromising battles) is the root of larger issues such as the gender gap and why that gap spans topics, countries, religion, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, this was entertaining.

You may find it entertaining, but I consider it heartbreaking to see Misplaced Pages turn against its core principles and degenerate from within.

Starting from an interesting concern about very large majorities and large ethnic or national groups of people, we have actually had an illustration of the problem that I think is more real: extreme minorities such as the followers of an Indian guru who has been called a "cult leader" manage to tediously battle to keep out negative information about their beloved guru.

I would caution all Wikipedians not to label individual editors as "extreme minorities" or "lunatic charlatans" unless one has good reason to do so.

Or, as in the Cultural Marxism example, we reach what is an obviously wrong conclusion because again an extreme minority of people cares enough to "!vote" while most everyone else just ignores it.

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. It's the strength and quality of an argument that counts, not the number of votes.

I'm intrigued in a philosophical way as to whether eventually English Misplaced Pages will tend to reflect an Indian perspective everywhere (if for example the rate of English usage in India doubles or triples from 10% of the population to 30%) and Indians become our largest number of participants.

I understand that a particular minority ethnic group might eventually usurp the POV of the prevailing ethnic group, but our editing policies applies to all users regardless of nationality and I would welcome more diversity in our encyclopedia even if it upsets a number of editors from the prevailing ethnic group.

But I think the problem we have much more often right now is situations in which only a tiny extreme minority cares enough about an issue to weigh in on it, while everyone else is worrying about more important things.

I think the bigger problem is that the prevailing majority refuses to engage with the minority and, as a result, consensus discussions are often reduced into mere acts of votestacking in favor of the majority.

Well, to be a bit more optimistic, it's actually both - a large blended group of dispassionate editors *and* a collection of many passionate groups.

Unless one is absolutely sure that the passionate minority group is illegitimate, I would advise everyone to give the minority a chance by truly listening to them in order to reach a consensus rather than merely votestacking against them. Ad hominem arguments that attempt to portray the minority as "lunatic charlatans" and/or irrational followers of a cult leadership should obviously be avoided if WP:AGF still means anything on this site.

-A1candidate 18:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

JImbo has me at a disadvantage here because if I respond to his comment with facts I will be site banned from Misplaced Pages for ever, not just topic banned forever. But I can mention the two authoritative and respected scholars that Jimbo goes to when researching cults. One is Bob Larson, author of such learned tomes as "Rock & Roll: The Devil's Diversion", "UFO's and the Alien Agenda" and "In The Name of Satan: How the Forces of Evil Work and What You Can Do to Defeat Them". And Bob is not just an author, Bob is actually more famous for exorcising people over the radio but if you can't find him on your dial Bob will perform exorcisms over Skype (for a donation of $295). The other reliable source Jimbo goes to when researching cults is Ron Rhodes, learned author of "Unmasking the Anti-Christ: Dispelling the Myths, Discovering the Truth" and "The Wonder of Heaven: A Biblical Tour of our Eternal Home". Now some people might think that these authors might be "Questionable sources who have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest" but if you're Jimbo Wales, you'll go to the end of the earth or the remainders basket to get what you need to justify your opinion. Now at this point, I am going to predict the future. This conversation will terminated by an obliging Admin and I'll be site banned for annoying Jimbo.MOMENTO (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not speaking the truth. You will not be site banned nor topic banned for responding with facts. What might be very interesting would be for you to justify your claim that when "researching cults" (which is not really something that I do) I read those two? What are you talking about? I'm sincerely interested to know.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I predict that anyone reading that will just go 'WTF?', mutter something entirely inappropriate under their breath, and try to forget they ever looked at it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. And that, of course, is the problem. No one gives a toss that Jimbo or his acolytes make edits based on such absurd sources. Perhaps you can demonstrate your NPOV credentials and remove any edit based on Larson and Rhodes. Prediction you won't.MOMENTO (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably going to regret asking, but where has Jimbo been citing Larson and Rhodes as sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell you because I'm not allowed to talk about it. But there are enough clues on this page for you to find out. Or you can email me and we can do charades on Skype.MOMENTO (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Charades unnecessary. You've 'not talked about it' quite sufficiently. And I can see no reason why I shouldn't talk about it, in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Momento, you have my full permission to answer AndyTheGrump's question, as I sincerely do not know what you are talking about. As far as I am aware, I have never read anything by, nor even heard of, either Bob Larsen or Ron Rhodes. I could of course be mistaken, and perhaps I have at some point made an edit restoring some citation to them or something of that nature - although I doubt it. But I have certainly never proactively researched by reading them and adding things to Misplaced Pages. I am a trusting person, and so my first Assume Good Faith approach is to assume that you are not completely making something up out of thin air. But unless you can name specifically what you are talking about - where I have cited such authors in Misplaced Pages (or elsewhere) then it is hard to respond. For the record, and as would be obvious to anyone who knows me, I don't think UFO authors or radio exorcists are ever likely to be citable sources, and if I made some error at some point, it is certainly important to me to know about it. Ball is in your court, otherwise people will quite rightly conclude that you are just trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is (I assume) Prem Rawat. Your edits can be seen here: . I've started a thread on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Too little too late Jimbo. And I am not going give ARB COM an excuse to site ban me because I break my topic ban by discussing a banned topic.MOMENTO (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually Jimbo, if you would like an open and truthful discussion on this subject you will have to remove the topic ban that was slapped on me by a minion who thought he was doing your will with no discussion or evidence and remains in place 2+ years later despite several appeals all the way to ARB COM who didn't even have the courtesy to review the evidence.MOMENTO (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your topic ban probably doesn't extend to talking about your topic ban. Btw, I'm interested to know, which arbcom case/enforcement request are you talking about? The earliest one in which you were involved (not counting the article probation) was in 2009. --RAN1 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Log (2012) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in an unusual category RAN1 normal Misplaced Pages rules don't apply to me but I'm going to take a chance here and take Jimbo at his word that "You will not be site banned nor topic banned for responding with facts". Here's an indisputable fact, the first comment by an ARB COM member at my most recent appeal was to decline my appeal (I'm not inclined to lift a topic ban when it's actively being violated) because I had prepared some material for the appeal on my sandbox. Even though the ARC&A instructions say "You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private". Damned if I do, damned if I don't, damned if I can understand how this insanity has been allowed to continue for seven years.MOMENTO (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate is an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas. Misplaced Pages always documents these things according to the dominant scientific interpretation. That is why the creationists stalked off in a huff to create Conservapedia and the quacks set up wiki4cam. I sincerely hope Misplaced Pages will never fix this "problem", but preventing cranks, quacks, shills and other low-lifes form trying to "fix" it has been ArbCom's major task for a long time. Climate science, evolution, quack medicines and the like are battlegrounds, because Misplaced Pages is trusted - of course Misplaced Pages is trusted precisely because it does not cave in to lunatic charlatans. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for WMF to Address Arbitrator Comments

I am asking that the following post, by an English Misplaced Pages arbitrator, User:Roger Davies, be considered by the WMF. I am commenting here because User: Jimbo Wales is the public face and a public voice of the WMF and has an open talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FGamerGate%2FProposed_decision&diff=642154916&oldid=642151661

I mostly agree, at least that ArbCom is being asked to do too much with too few resources.

First, if ArbCom is being asked to handle off-wiki harassment, then the WMF is placing itself at legal risk. Off-wiki harassment has civil and criminal implications, and should be handled by paid staff, not by volunteer arbitrators. If paid WMF staff finds that editors must be banned, WMF has the power, which it has used, to ban users globally.

The post then lists three areas where “the community has failed”: CU/OS (checkuser – oversight) responsibility; administrator misconduct; community ban appeals. It is true in an abstract sense that “the community has failed”, but the English Misplaced Pages community, as represented by those of its editors who take part in discussions, is a large, diverse, and fractious community that is not really capable of self-government. The fact that it almost does govern itself is an interesting experimental outcome that perhaps requires more explanation that its failures to govern itself. It is time for the WMF to lead or even to govern (it owns the servers), since asking the community to govern itself is asking what has been proven not to work. With regard to Oversight, in particular, the WMF should take that responsibility on itself, again, so that it does not place itself at legal risk, since the primary purpose of Oversight, which is really suppression, is to remove possibly defamatory or otherwise legally questionable posts. Checkuser supervision requires the same high degree of trust as is placed in the arbitrators, but other than the need for trust, there is no connection. If community ban appeals are a burdensome drag on the arbitrators, again, another group of trusted functionaries may be needed. The WMF should lead, initiate, or if necessary govern, rather than expecting “the community” to do what it has not done.

What the community can see is that ArbCom cases are time-consuming, and that the ArbCom is only able to handle a few cases at a time. In 2005 through 2007, the ArbCom was able to handle a hundred cases a year, until additional responsibilities were shifted to the ArbCom.

I have suggested in the past and will suggest again that the ArbCom should handle full evidentiary cases in panels of three, with the power to issue final rulings, from which there should be a right to request en banc rehearing, but no right to an en banc rehearing. That is my suggestion. Other reform suggestions may vary. In any event, the WMF should take leadership in areas where “the community has failed”.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have to admit that I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying. Off-Wiki harassment is something which always has the potential to develop into something much more serious so I think it should be only paid staff that deal with it. That way Misplaced Pages should be 100% covered, should any criminal or civil proceedings begin and it gets the time and resources it deserves (and WMF would have a lot more of that than ArbCom). I think the problem may arise though from getting the WMF to take responsibility for it. --5 albert square (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How does one define "off-wiki harassment"? (For the benefit of those of us who have not been following that humungous case.) Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How to define "off-wiki harassment" is really a question for User:Roger Davies, since he said that dealing with it uses too much of the English ArbCom's time. Also, my original post and his original post had to do with various issues that the ArbCom has to deal with besides conduct arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to narrow my question: I realize it means outing. Anything other than that (to your knowledge)? Thing about the WMF is that if one passes the buck to the WMF, what guarantee that it will actually do anything? Not that it shouldn't be involved, mind you, but is that the correct place to expect action? If your house is burning down, who do you call first, the fire department or your insurance adjuster? Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should the ArbCom be the police or fireman whom one calls about off-wiki harassment? I don't know the details, and I don't think that I want to know the details, but there is a problem in that the ArbCom is slow (and was not always slow because it did not always have non-arb responsibilities). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true. Also I agree with Smallbones below. Coretheapple (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment You seem to be searching for a problem when there is none. There is nothing that Misplaced Pages can do in terms of off site harassment. That's just a plain fact. Not to mention that the H word is a strong indicator and as a result, people like to use it for things that may or may not be actual harassment. But to Robert--what do you suppose are the methods that these WMF paid staff will do? I really want to stress 'off wiki', because that's what I'm getting confused about here. We have problems on Misplaced Pages that need attention, stuff that needs refining, tending to, copy edits, sources, articles, community discussions, etc. Why would we need to delve into off wiki harassment--even giving that it's happening, when there's absolutely nothing that we can do. It would be the equivalent of Youtube deciding to monitor harassment on Facebook. It's just a bit off base in my honest opinion. Now, I can very much understand if from perspective that someone, of the same username, linked to an account from their Misplaced Pages userpage or elsewhere confirmed it was them was doing questionable stuff, ie: Canvassing, promotional editing, whatever. But the big H word is very much used even when it can't be confirmed that the individual on Misplaced Pages is the same person as on that website. I'm very much tentative to get into matters where it's possible that some person on another site may get a Misplaced Pages editor blocked when it may just be a coincidence that their usernames match or that they talked about 1 of the top 10 websites in the world. It just reads very ambiguous, very convoluted, very concerning. Tutelary (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem if an arbitrator says that there is a problem that is taking too much of their resources away from their primary job of handling arbitration cases, some of which are complex and hard. I don't know the details of the problem. There is a problem if an arbitrator says that the problem is taking too much of their resources. Robert McClenon (talk) 6:06 pm, Today (UTC−5)

That very much is true. Now that I brought this up, I'm also a bit curious on how ArbCom even deals with off wiki harassment. I get it, they were elected by the community, very likely have admin status on one of the top ten websites in the world. Great. They're also elevated (even if not intentional) to have more power. Their combined authority decide disputes on Misplaced Pages and can desysop admins and issue discretionary sanctions in their name. I mention all of this because even given their authority, power, respect within Misplaced Pages. What can they do about off site harassment? Harassment that occurs on Reddit, Facebook, Youtube, Forums, etc. You have all the power in the world on Misplaced Pages, the instant you get off the site you're on the same stance as everyone else. What I'm assuming they do is look at plain simple cases, with same usernames, basic confirmation that the user is who people suspect they are and then block or restrict their access to Misplaced Pages. Other than that, I don't really have a whole lot of belief they can do anything about off wiki harassment. Until I know exactly what ArbCom does in terms of off wiki harassment, I can't support this proposal because the fundamentals aren't there. If we don't know what ArbCom does, how can we adequately ask ourselves to designate this to a paid WMF representative, to do this function automatically? Or to safeguard against possible mistaken blocks. Say it weren't so black and white, different usernames, styles, maybe a diff implicit mentioning as proof? I've no comment for now on the other things you brought up, but it surely is interesting. Tutelary (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the problem has been well defined so far, but if arbcom members are saying that they can't properly perform the duties expected of them by the community, then this is worth pursuing. My feeling is that arbcom's duties have gradually grown and that it is too much with too many different types of things for them to do well. Cases do take too long. Rules of procedure should be laid out better, and the ones in place should be enforced. For example, I was recently involved in a case, and I had to spend a whole lot of effort pursuing the question "What rule am I accused of breaking?" I also think that the CU function needs some work. Too often I've reported sockpuppets and the response seems to be "what do you expect me to do about it?"

Misplaced Pages has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years, and governance mechanisms which were fine back then seem to be incredibly outdated now. A review of arbcom, and other governance mechanisms, seems overdue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A separate thread regarding Cultural Marxism

In this edit, you write "I have no strong opinion on whether the merger should happen or not, but given the level of outrage that this has generated, a wider discussion is warranted."

In this edit, you write "I'm saying that the conclusion of the Cultural Marxism thing was clearly wrong, not NPOV, and in fact just wrong. If anyone wants to talk about that, we should discuss it in a separate thread." This, I believe, could be appropriately characterized as "a strong opinion."

What changed? What caused this change? When did this change happen? Given the change, why did you not weigh into the various discussions even once after you set them in motion? Hipocrite (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

At the first time, I had not looked at the issue very much at all. I had seen a couple of arguments about it and viewed the main problem as being procedural - i.e. one of the biggest advocates and proposer of the merger, self-identifying as Marxist, closing the discussion, does not conform to best practices. I paid little attention after that, although I did do a little bit of research.

After the discussion closed again, with the same result, I become more interested and did further research. The issue is not subtle, as it turns out, but rather obvious.

Frankfurt School is a perfectly legitimate encyclopedia topic as a total standalone. I am not an expert on this school of thought, but as far as I can tell, much of the article is quite good, in the way that historical articles about intellectual matters often are.

The article does possibly break down a bit when it gets to Frankfurt_School#Conspiracy_theory, in that it liberally quotes and cites sources claiming that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory without any responses from proponents. One is left here with the clearly erroneous perception that the term is only used by "conspiracy theorists" and the "LaRouche movement", a "lunatic fringe" (from the title of one of the sources), and so on. That's not good, and clear POV pushing, but that isn't my fundamental concern.

My fundamental concern, and the reason why I say that merger was clearly wrong, is that "Cultural Marxism" is a meme - a contemporary bit of controversial terminology. Most people who search for "Cultural Marxism" will be seeking to learn more about that meme, and will be somewhat bewildered in a bad way to land at an article about what, for most people, is a fairly obscure academic school of thought. The old article was problematic in various ways (not least of which being more Marxist POV-pushing, but perhaps equally plagued by POV-pushing from the other side) but it at least - from the very first version created back in 2006 - was actually about the topic. To quote that very first version: "Cultural Marxism is a term used to by some people to describe what they percieve as an attempt to undermine western civilisation through internal cultural means, rather than direct economic and military means following the fall of the Soviet Union, thereby bringing about a Marxist revolution." That sentence could be refined to a degree, but at least it has the merit of telling the reader what the term is.

There is a very big difference between the contemporary concept/meme and the Frankfurt School as a historical topic. The obvious problem that I see is that for readers who don't know a lot about the term, read it somewhere, and then are directed to an article that is only tangentially relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Another example of our forgetting that we should provide a useful and usable service to our readers. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

While not fully endorsing the proposed language (disagreeing with much of it, actually), I do agree with the fundamental premise that so-called "Cultural Marxism" is effectively a common and WP-notable meme which needs its own stand-alone article. Unfortunately persistence pays in Wikiland and a bad result was replicated. The redirect outcome is clearly a bit of POV shenanigans. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Citations to RS? "Cultural Marxism" is a meme" I did not participate in this and don't know enough to write an encyclopedia article about any of it, although I did strongly suggest to Jimbo Wales that he should state his research at the time. But now? If it's a meme, there must be serious RS memetic study - which RS study demonstrates and documents its beginning, and documents its evolution. Cultural Marxism is there right now for you to edit (so go clean up the POV) but it is still unclear what or how you would write concerning its memetic origin and development. As for whether it needs its own article, obviously you have some convincing to do there, but the way to begin is go expand Cultural Marxism, if you have the RS to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely disingenuous to contend that Cultural Marxism "is there right now for you to edit" — it has been deleted and converted to a redirect to a section of a tangential piece. Really shameful argument you are making there... Trout. Carrite (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And a trout back to you; it is there right now for you to edit (there is nothing disingenuous about that), but yes, I was unaware that it was not a merge (as I said, I did not participate). Go forth, and edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) And get a copy of the old article, if you would like. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The best approach, strictly in terms of implementing Alan's excellent suggestion, would be to undelete the article (so editors can review the history) and get rid of the redirect. But there was just a discussion and a close, so that would be controversial. However, I don't see why undeleting (to restore the history for editors to see what can be salvaged) and keeping the redirect (to preserve status quo for the moment) would generate any controversy, and it would be a valuable first step.

I disagree, though, with Alan's views on what is necessary in order to establish that "Cultural Marxism" is a contemporary political meme or phrase which differs from the perfectly valid historical topic of "Frankfurt School" requires "a serious RS memetic study". That's not something we normally require. All that is needed is to show that the term is in play in reliable sources - we don't need some kind of separate "memetic study" (whatever the hell that is).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Memetic study is the study of memes, it's not "a separate" anything, it is a way to refer to study of memes. And "serious" is merely just a reference back to RS secondary sources. The pedia generally requires multiple, reliable, secondary sources for notability and so as not to have original research.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we need more than that, because we don't carry independent articles on every single term that is in play in reliable sources. We need sufficient sourcing to show that "Cultural Maxism" is an encyplopaedic topic in its own right, and that a substantial article could be put together without needing to duplicate other content on WP or to be filled-out with trivia.

When you say that the wrong decision was made previously, you should note that at the time there were actually three articles to consider, the two mentioned plus Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. Since this article seems to be on a topic that's completely indistinguishable from "Cultural Marxism", I think it's hard to argue that WP needed all three articles. That article has also subsequently been deleted, though, which may have been a bad descision. But if anyone really wants to, then it should be possible to reverse that be fleshing out the relevant section of Frankfurt School until a content fork can be justified, perhaps under the name "Cultural Marxism". It seems to me that that would be a better approach than arguing for the creation of what would probably be a stub to begin with, with unclear future prospects. Formerip (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the fools in Category:Misplaced Pages administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can generally provide deleted history if asked (some exceptions may apply - copyright infringement, gross BLP violations, etc.) But regardless, anyone who wants the deleted copy from Cultural Marxism can have it. WilyD 11:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First I think it was a bad outcome - harmful to the integrity of the encyclopedia.

I've been researching the topic ever since this became controversial. What's become apparent to me is that the "contemporary meme" is not used only by people who are extremists, conspiracy theorists, etc. It's used by some conservative scholars who seem respectable enough and are not alleging a conspiracy. It's also still used by some Marxist scholars and mainstream intellectual historians - partly talking about different issues in parallel but partly talking about the same thing. I've tracked the term back to at least 1973 when it was apparently used by Trent Schroyer in a book called The Critique of Domination, and it seems that other Marxist scholars got it from Schroyer (Richard Weiner attributes the term to Schroyer in his 1981 book Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology). While Schroyer may not have meant exactly the same thing by it as someone like William S. Lind, they are probably not talking about entirely separate things, either. I still think there's scope for a good article on this topic that would pull it all together, but it would take some time to dig into all the available reliable sources. The version of the article from May 2014 that David Auerbach referred in an article that he published elsewhere was a lot better than recent versions, but it was still under-researched and relied too heavily on a fairly informal paper by Douglas Kellner.

I'd be prepared to put in some more work on this over time to help get a good, informative article on cultural Marxism, but I've found it frustrating. It's difficult to make progress if the article is going to be a site for culture warring, as it has been. I was also surprised that my pleading for more time for people wanting to work seriously on the article didn't seem to be received sympathetically... but oh well (I don't mean to sound passive aggressive, but I probably will anyway). Again, I do think it damages the integrity of the encyclopedia if we don't have an article on cultural Marxism that's clearly neutral and informative, or if we must redirect we could do so to a properly informative and NPOV discussion within a broad and clearly related article like Marxist cultural theory (we don't have an article on that broad topic, but perhaps we should). Metamagician3000 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get myself involved in this row again, but I will say that Mr Wales' understanding of Misplaced Pages policies seems a bit off the mark. I would specifically draw his attention to WP:NEO (a section of the policy titled "Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary"). I believe this is what Mr Walker was referring to above. I would note the following text:

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Please note, Mr Wales, that simply showing "that the term is in play in reliable sources" is explicitly railed against by the neologisms policy. This is for good reason, as was evident in the late "article", as merely gathering assorted works that have the term "cultural Marxism" appear in them does not make an article, but original research and synthesis. If he can provide sources that do what the neologisms policy asks them to do, then I suggest that he should do so. Otherwise, we've only got his own original research that "Cultural Marxism is a meme", and nothing to back-up that assertion. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this

Good Morning,

This discussion was just recently closed and due to discussion a guideline . Since Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and since this policy , in essense, makes it the encyclopedia registered users can edit, I thought you might want to be aware of it, and weigh in if need be. Thanks KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 12:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Quick question, but how does that affect how unregistered users edit? It's one thing to be able to edit, and it's another thing to declare an outcome for an AfD. --RAN1 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there are lots of things IP editors can't do, and lots of things new editors can't do, and lots of things editors who aren't admins can't do... none of these restrictions breaks the core principle of an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. For example, a newly registered or IP editor can still contribute to a semi-protected article by requesting an edit. In this particular case, you are referring both to an area of Misplaced Pages that is not an encyclopaedia per se (it's part of the administration of the project, not the content) and is also only restricting their ability to close a discussion which in itself is not restricting their ability to edit (i.e., add some content) but rather their ability to make a decision - something very different. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Good questions! Actually , it assumes bad faith on the part of the IP users. The deletion policy , prior to the change just made, read that non admin closes were possible by users in good standing. It's been changed to read that non admin closes were possible by registered users only. This implies that somehow IP users are "less-than" or "unequal" to users that have actually registered, thus automatically assuming bad faith on the part of IP users, and that's flat not right. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It only makes clear that "Editors in good standing" can't possibly mean IPs, as IPs are by definition anonymous and thus unable to gather any standing at all. That's all, that's imho self-evident for adminstrative actions like those (and thus something completely different from just editing), there's no problem to see anywhere. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 16:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You, User:KoshVorlon, persisted in using Assume Bad Faith as a mantra in order to argue that unregistered editors should be able to close AFDs. By bringing this here after it has been dealt with, KoshVorlon is, first, forum shopping for a strange cause about unregistered closers, and, second, engaging in a massive case of refusing to listen to reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleting content is something most prone to chicanery, so yes, I can see "semi-protecting" the deletion close process. That said, there's a danger of proliferation of arbitrary and undefined levels of authorization here. "Registered editors" is a criterion somewhat different from the usual autoconfirmed users standard of semi-protection, as is "editors in good standing" or "experienced editors". Practically speaking, I don't think the extra minute to register a brand spanking new account entitles someone to close an AfD any more than being IP-'anonymous', so I'd just as soon see it done at the autoconfirmed level. The other levels need to be formally and clearly defined to be usable, or else there will be post facto arguments. Wnt (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon When "reason" favors unreasonable bias, of course I'm going to refuse to listen. Stating or even better yet, having sysops endorse a line of thinking like "IP's cannot close AFD's because they're IP's" is insane, and against what Misplaced Pages actually stands for (you know, "The Encyclopedia Anyone can edit "). The rationale for it has been bizzare (for example, "can't track history ", bizzare since history is tracked for anyone that edits, IP's included, so yes a history exists for that IP ).

Also, what you call "forum shopping" I call dispute resolution. Because Sysops are now involved, I can stir more drama up by attempting to bring this to arbcom, but you know what, that's too much damn drama, I figure , dropping a note on Jimbo's page, since he's the guy that started wikipedia, might get a more sane point of view. For the record, I have no dogs in this fight, I log on with my name , the two times I didn't, I identified myself in the edit summary, my argument is this, banning someone from making some kind of edit for any other reason other than the content of their edit is assuming bad faith, period, full stop, and it can't exist on Misplaced Pages. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is 'banned from making edits' unless they have previously been sanctioned (and unless we find out that they are in fact banned...). Nobody not previously blocked/banned is prevented from creating an account - a reasonable precondition for anyone wishing to carry actions which require long-term accountability. If people chose not to create an account, any restrictions it places on them are voluntary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, even if Misplaced Pages were to completely ban all edits by IP's (not that this is something I'd necessarily endorse), it would still be "The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit" because we allow anyone to create an account. The business of history being maintained for IP's isn't reliably true. Some people only edit from one computer and have internet service providers who try to allocate the same IP address to you all the time. But other ISP's reassign a new IP address from a pool of thousands or even millions of addresses every time you reboot your computer and/or once a day whether you reboot or not. This creates a great disparity. For some IP's, yes, we can indeed track their history with some degree of reliability...but for others, it's utterly impossible because they get a new IP address every day - or, when evildoers figure it out, they can dump their old history and start afresh with a simple Ctrl-Alt-Del. In many cases, a total newbie will come to Misplaced Pages with every intent to do good work - and pick up the IP address of a previous evil-doer, and then the history that they seem to have may be horribly ill-deserved. I've seen this happen with places like schools that may only have a Class-D network with a pool of only 127 addresses....one stupid kid can easily fill up all 127 addresses with blocks and bans and terrible history records - then graduate from the school and move on - leaving every single student and teacher with a stinky reputation here. SteveBaker (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

blocking accounts and IP addresses

I thought one of the advantages of having an account was that it functioned separately from IP addresses. In the past when I worked from school I would get a message saying the address was blocked but if I logged into my account I could edit. Now I can't.

It depends on the type of block on the IP address. When blocking an IP, administrators have the option of allowing registered users to use that address ("soft block") or to disallow it ("hard block"). If you often face the problem of not being able to edit as a registered user because of blocks on the IP address you are using, you may request Misplaced Pages:IP block exemption. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that it's preferable that, if it's just an occasional thing, like wanting to edit for around 30 minutes while in class, you wouldn't request the exemption. It's for people (from my understanding) where their IPs have constantly been used for disruption, and that is their primary IP address. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem comes when an evil-doer starts to engage in massive sock-puppetry. Creating hundreds of accounts at the same IP address (or the same small group of IP's). Since nailing each sock individually gets painful, we'll have to impose a hard-block, which will indeed prevent innocent people from logging in through that IP address, even though they have a legitimate account of their own. This is unfortunate and annoying - but honestly, what else can we do? IMHO, if you're at a business or a school where this has happened, you should go to whoever is in charge of the network and have them track down and nail the evildoer. Since you can see the history of all of those socks, you should be able to correlate dates and times on edits to the network logs to figure out which physical computer is the source of the problems, and thereby find out who owns it and to take appropriate disciplinary action. If that's done convincingly, then it should be no problem in getting the Admins to unblock that IP address again.

To show, or not to show?

Hi Jimmy,

As for other wikis, we have a policy in Persian Misplaced Pages to bring the featured articles to the Main Page and show each article for a week. Selection of an FA to be shown is on a first come first shown basis. So far, we have shown more 100 FAs on the Main Page. However, there are two or three FAs that haven't yet hit the main page due to their "sensitive" contents. For example, Homosexuality is an FA in our wiki, but has never been taken to the first page. While we are not experiencing any major homophobic opposition in our community, the main reason for that article to have remained off-the-list has been due to the fear from Iranian government's action against Persian Misplaced Pages or strong reaction from hardliners that could potentially affect the availability of encyclopedia's contents in Iran.

There's been an unwritten agreement among active users and sysops not to show those specific articles on the most watched page. The problem, however, is that we have strict guidelines against censorship set by the Wikimedia Foundation. Once any user provokes the discussion of bringing those articles to the main page, no policy (even local) can prevent that user from doing it. This becomes even more sensitive when a second FA article about a Bábí figure is considered. From minority rights point of view, believers in Bábism have the very right to object to a form of censorship on one of their respected figures; but from another point of view, showing that article on the first page of Persian Misplaced Pages will not only make headlines in Iran, but would also result in sever state pressures on known editors inside the country.

As someone who has been in charge of selecting the FA article to be shown every week, I always had questions in mind regarding this issue. However, I thought that recent debates about boundaries of freedom and censorship have provided a good ground to solve this local issue once and for all. I appreciate if you could provide foundation's viewpoint on this matter. Thanks. -- Nojan (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)