Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 7 September 2016

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 until Wikimania 2017 are 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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

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

On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Misplaced Pages

• Mr. Jimmy Wales!

You have announced that Misplaced Pages has 5 principles (Misplaced Pages:Five pillars). This principles have to be followed in each edition of Misplaced Pages. But when I informed Meta that in Azerbaijani edition 5 principles are not being followed, common rules are being brutally breached, administrators are involved in vandalism, meta did not take any measure and they excuse themselves by stating that Azerbaijani edition is independent?! So why then did you write that the 5 common principles are in force in all of Misplaced Pages’s editions? You should write instead that the 5 common principles are not in force in Azerbaijani edition, as administrators there do whatever they want!

Jimmy Wales, if you don’t consider Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages to be yours maybe you have sold it then? Who did you sell it to, Jimmi? It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work. We know you sold Kazakh Misplaced Pages to Nazarbayev. We want to know if you sold Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages to gays or to Azerbaijani government.

Jimmy Wales, your business abilities are not bad, you know how to make money. However if you sell Hebrew Misplaced Pages to Arabs, Ukrainian Misplaced Pages to Russians and Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages to Armenians (maybe you already did this), you could earn more money and give bigger salaries to your employees.

Idin Mammadof (talk), editor of DMOZ, 09:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors might find these links to be helpful.

• Category:Wikipedians in Azerbaijan
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Azerbaijan/Members
• Category:User az
• Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages
• Misplaced Pages:Local Embassy#azərbaycanca (az)

—Wavelength (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Editors want it...

The package of proposals of the Wikimedia Foundation

• Wikimedia Foundation took this decision:

I’d like to thank you again for providing your insights on the recent situation on the Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages. This email is sent in BCC to all users responded to my questionnaire sent in early March.

After a thorough investigation by the support and safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation, we understand that the current major issues on the Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages are as follows :

User concerns of admin rights abuse by a few admins, most notably by User:Sefer_azeri.

Lack of local community policies that regulate admins’ work, or admins’ decision appeal process.

We understand the need for a harmonious, peaceful community in order to create a productive editing environment. However for both legal and ethical reasons the WMF strives to limit office actions to cases of obvious harm to an individual user's personal safety or where we're legally required to intervene.

As the above prescribed issues do not rise to the level that WMF can take office actions, we urge the Azerbaijani community to come together in order to resolve those issues internally and with the help of the global community on meta.

Meanwhile, we recommend the following prioritization as a guideline to what needs to be done as a resolution roadmap :

1.Desysop of rights-abusive admins, most notably User:Sefer_azeri if judged appropriate

If you believe that a user's rights need to be removed, this should probably happen first to allow for a clean slate. Requests to remove user’s rights can be made on meta. To request the removal of another user's permissions, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, a trusted user from that wiki should provide a link to the discussion on the steward's request page, a brief explanation of the reason for the request, and a summary of the results of discussion.

In order to create consensus, we recommend starting a specific topic on the local village square on Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages. The discussion should include links that demonstrate the admin rights abuse. The topic should be opened for discussion and vote for a few days before submitting the request to the steward page on meta.

2.Set-up policies to regulate admins’ work

3.Activate the ArbCom and/or draft and put major policies into effect

In order to simplify the process, we will be happy to provide ideas based on existing policies or the experiences of other communities on steps 2 & 3 once the community is done with dealing with step 1 or decides not to pursue that action. We believe that this is a complex issue, and looking at the resolution systematically as a step-by-step process is an essential element to make progress.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Haitham Shammaa

Senior Strategist

Wikimedia Foundation

• We agreed.
• But users prepared rules regarding Arbitration Committee and held a electionon about it. Approximately 20 users took part in it. When 4 days were left before the end of the elections one of the sysop but the vote on it was stopped before its time, as I understand and it didn't have any official result (neither positive, nor negative), which goes against the rules.

• Those who start discussion about administrators' actions and who express negative views about their actions are being blocked. There have been 3 blocks (, , ,). like that.Those who organised the discussion are being blocked without time limits. In addition to that, those who participated in the discussion are being blocked without time limits as well

User:Cekli829:

"Hesab edirəm ki, müddətli bloklanan qərəzçilərin blok müddətinin müddətsiz blokla dəyişdirilməsi ilə bağlı da konkret fəaliyət ortaya qoymalıyıq."; 

User:Sortilegus:

"Bu məsələnin təşkilatçıları da təbii ki, bloklanacaqlar, çoxu onsuz da dediyim kimi blokludurlar.. 

• In the end, Haitham ran and hid. Maggie Dennis advised us to do so:

You need to demonstrate issues to the community at Meta. I am not able to assist directly.

Idin Mammadof (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Which specific content edits do you think are the locus of this dispute? EllenCT (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost exact same issue (admin rights abuse) is happening on Chinese Misplaced Pages as well, and apparently Wiki Official is not going to do something about it. Yeah, talking about the five pillars as if those are the fundamentals of wiki, yet we see no neutrality, nor do we see openness; all we see is block after block (both account and IP), which takes place whenever someone edits contents that the admins "don't want to see" for political or other bias-based reasons.

Sad to see these wikis are becoming true dictatorships minute by minute.

～～～～ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmimBenson (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Long story short. In Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages if you openly disagree with an administrator's action, for instance if you question some other user's block, you get blocked. So, if I would write the exact same words I just wrote here in Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages, I would get blocked. The last time I got blocked (it was a short term block that has already ended, but I'm still angry that no other administrator dared to question it) it was basically after I criticized an administrator who then said that my words were lies and then he blocked me for "making groundless claims". Then a different user came and said that it's not ok to block a user for that. For which that same administrator responded that by continuing such a discussion "based on false claims" he have "disrupted work" in Misplaced Pages for which he was blocked. I want to highlight that there was no other reason provided for that user's block. So, basically there was no legitimate reason to block either of us. Non of the other administrator cares or even if they do, they know that if they do something about that there will be a scandal and AzWiki will lose some of the admins because of that (as practice shows), so they don't wanna do anything. This is just one of the many examples (If you want, I can translate the conversation for you). But the worst part of the story was not even about the AzWiki situation itself, it was about complaining to meta and Wikimedia both it. Both of them have basically said that the situation is bad and then they've sent me to each other (so, meta said that they can't do anything and sent me to Wikimedia and then Wikimedia sent me back to meta). --Мурад 97 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't claim that this has anything to do with LGBT, any government or corruption. It's just that whatever it is, it should be fixed. And it can't be fixed from within, as there have been some attempts which simply didn't work. --Мурад 97 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

PMID 26518345. Please see also New Zealand. EllenCT (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, how that has anything to do with what we have written? We are talking about administration blocking people for questioning their actions, like blocking other user with no legitimate reason. --Мурад 97 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to find the locus of dispute, and came across some arguments which led me to think sources on topics which have resolved similar issues in the developed world may help. Would you say that most Azerbaijani editors agree with the statement, "Bura Azərbaycan Respublikasının qanunları ilə tənzimlənən ensiklopediya deyil"? EllenCT (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I again don't see how this has anything to do with what we are talking about, but actually many wouldn't. This phrase roughly translates as "Here is not a place regulated by the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan ". Many people seem to be in disagreement with that. When Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages was divided into two (South Azerbaijani dialect got its separate edition), Azerbaijani Misplaced Pages should have been logically renamed into North Azerbaijani. However, most users preferred referring to the Constitution of RoA which names North Azerbaijani just "Azerbaijani" and thus kept the original name. I don't agree with such an approach, but once again, I don't understand how it has anything to do with the current discussion. --Мурад 97 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Do the disputing factions each have their own preferred versions, like in Ukraine? EllenCT (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine? Are you trying to compare this with a military conflict? What are you even talking about? I can provide you with a translation of one of the disputes and you can see what is an existing norm in AzWiki yourself. And the thing that happened to me and the other user that was blocked is not an individual incident, it's a norm. --Мурад 97 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to read a translation of an actual underlying dispute, but if you have evidence that editors are being banned with regard only to their perceived loyalties, then maybe you need more than Jimbo's help. EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There are 5-6 of them. They are state officials. They are writing articles on order. They don’t let others work in Misplaced Pages. Our administrators are elected for life. There is no place to complain on administrators. They don’t let an arbitration committee to be created. Participating in a discussion, saying that an administrator broke a rule results in blocking. When I’m asking why I’ve been blocked, they don’t answer. A representative of Meta asked then about this as well, but didn’t receive an answer. When I asked Sefer azeri about his work place, his answered me that way: “I also deleted the article you have written about your father. Let it be a wedge for you (put it in your ass). You are a very ass-headed horse , so I will delete both an article about his newspaper and an article about your newspaper.” Here’s what our administrators and their morals consist of. Why don’t you do anything? Can one do such things in Misplaced Pages. Idin Mammadof (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a great thing and I believe in it both as a general principle and as the most workable policy. But we should remember that providing freedom of speech to editors is not actually what Misplaced Pages is for. Misplaced Pages is supposed to educate with a large collection of comprehensive, neutral articles by gathering together a large number of volunteers. So in order to get the WMF to take action, it is probably crucial not merely to show that administrators are arbitrary and unreasonable, but that the consequences for the encyclopedia are bad. This might include showing that particular articles are badly biased -- and I don't mean if a word like "North" is left in or out -- I mean, you have to show that facts are misrepresented or suppressed. You could compile a long list of experienced editors that administrative nonsense has driven off, and show that it is cutting down the total available labor significantly (not that this ever won the day on en.wikipedia...) You could show that false and libelous information is being put into articles about people to back some partisan agenda. And if you can, it's important to do one or more of these things, because otherwise I think you're not likely to get a lot of action, I'm afraid. I rather wish it were otherwise. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) (a message that "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydinsalis (talk • contribs) " was produced by his inadvertent deletion and prompt restoration of my text. Wnt (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

As is well known, Azeri Misplaced Pages (and Kazakh Misplaced Pages) have not been sold to anyone. The allegation is perplexing, but I'm used to perplexing allegations. For everyone else: the Foundation has been looking into the situation in Azeri Misplaced Pages for some time. It's messy and complex, but allegations like "It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work" are false. Azeri culture is quite conservative with regard to issues around homosexuality, with at least some users (and perhaps some government officials) being opposed to neutral encyclopedia articles on the subject. LGBT rights in Azerbaijan provides some general background on the subject.

There are some really great Wikipedians there working hard for NPOV. As we all know, even in English where most editors would not face persecution or social ostracism for working on LGBT topics, emotions can run high and people can be quite difficult. Imagine the same thing where there is a fear of legal (or illegal) physical pressure as well.

The people doing the right thing here are among my top personal heroes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, I'll provide a translation here this week. And why in the world would you give me a UN link? As a law student myself I know that it may have an authority over some stuff (even though it usually fails at it), but it certainly doesn't have an authority over Misplaced Pages disputes. So, is it some kind of a joke? 'Cause if it is, it's not funny.

Jimbo Wales, I have never claimed that I or anyone else in Azerbaijani (it's not Azeri, which is extinct) Misplaced Pages was forced to right articles about anything, including LGBT. This is where we have a disagreement with Mr. Idin. But this is true that administrators block people with no reason provided in the rules and you will see a clear example of it (which has nothing to do with LGBT or corruption) this week when I will provide a translation of what have happen with me and one more user who was defending me. --Мурад 97 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for using the wrong term. I have heard the modern language referred to as "Azeri" by many people, and if it is incorrect I won't use the term any more. As always, I welcome NPOV summaries (rather than one-sided summaries) of events in other languages. I would try really hard to work with multiple people from both sides of the issue to present the facts in a way that everyone can agree upon... this normally means avoiding, temporarily, evaluative terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, I appreciate your understanding. I've managed to translate the thing faster. Please, keep in mind, that this is just one example of two users being blocked that way:

"

Hello. It would be good if you provide a basis for your claim here. I’d like to inform you that the article you are referring to there (List of unusual jobs) have been deleted by a decision of Wikicommunity during my term as an administrator. And I have done nothing to restore it. Because I think that in such cases discussions are essential. For so many years I’ve mentioned that on the talk page of that article, on the first talk that you have started and after in talks regarding other articles. I’d like to inform you that if an article is even a little bit encyclopedic, or if many have worked on it, deleting it without a discussion would be inappropriate. Even taking your long experience into account, you throwing baseless claims shows that you still lack understanding of Wikiphilosophy. And I consider your saying, “let administrator status be taken from him” to be harsh attitude, equal to insulting my personality, I count it as a big injustice towards my busy activity in Misplaced Pages. With a deep respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 19:22, 20 mart 2016 (UTC)

In order to see that what I have written is true, it is enough to view the full version of the page you have mentioned. --Мурад 97 (müzakirə) 20:03, 20 mart 2016 (UTC)

You are doing wrong by treating standards from 5 years ago and now equally. It shows you being tendentious. In fact even you didn’t want deleting this article, you wanted to unite it with the Job article. It’s good that you didn’t become an administrator. In this case most of the articles would be deleted and rest of them would be united in a mish-mash. Articles shouldn’t be deleted, as many of them as possible should be saved. Unfortunately, you can’t base your claim. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 11:27, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean “It’s good that you didn’t become an administrator”? Why would you write such a thing, if I have never tried becoming an administrator in my life? I don’t understand how did you get into discussing this. I am not obliged here by anyone to prove anything. Any person can go via that link, see the style in which you hold a discussion and make conclusions. I think, there is no need to prove anything. --Мурад 97 (müzakirə) 11:55, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is about you making a baseless claim. The discussion is about being tendentious. I think, 1 week long block will be enough for You to understand how wrong were you by making this claim. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 18:41, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, I think that based on this discussion, blocking an editor in such a manner is not right. --samral müzakirə 00:02, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

When claim is baseless, there is a base for a block. That’s why there is a baseless claim by an instigator. --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 10:51, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, but he did provide a base. What do you mean, he didn’t? --samral müzakirə 15:40, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Samral, the thing that he is claiming is only about a discussion from 2011. Back then he didn’t even provide evidence that the article he wanted to mix with another one was un-encyclopedic… You need to provide evidence to unite or delete an existing article. Acategory who have created the article provided an even more solid thought that my acceptance of it according to Wikistandards of that time was expedient. As a result of it, 5 years ago Murad was unable to base his thoughts. But regardless of that, 5 years later him purposefully bringing this up shows how tendentious and malicious his position is. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 19:18, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, where is it written that you can’t bring up a 5 years old discussion? He brought it up now, right? This doesn’t mean you should block him. This is abusing your administrator’s position. --samral müzakirə 21:37, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Dear Samral, it seems you can’t distinguish between rightful and non-rightful charges/claims. By continuing such discussions you disrupt normal work in Misplaced Pages. Because of that, based on the 7th article of the Blocking rules, I block you. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 12:32, 26 mart 2016 (UTC)

"

You can ask about accuracy of this translation from anyone in AzWiki. I was a bit too fast in translating it, as I was doing this for you. I am opened to criticism. Now, do you think blocking the two of us is reflecting Misplaced Pages principles? --Мурад 97 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, allegations like "It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work", no are false. Indeed, using another username, Sefer Azeri suggested me to help with LGBT themed articles. Then he said, he got administrator status from 3 administrators who were against the LGBT theme. I can show you a picture of this no are false the discussion chat, this is not a lie.

I can show 1 or 2 links to the articles that were related to me and were deleted in a vandal way. Repeatedly deleted encyclopedic articles (, , , Why? This article contains information about my father and so on. Why do you defend this administrator?

Look at them: , ...

We gave you information that they have stopped the Arbitration commission voting 4 days before it ended. Why don’t you restore it?

Jimbo Wales, I thank you for personally participating in the discussion. We are pleased by that, but your decision that would lead to resolving the problem would please us even more. And we wait very much for your decision. Idin Mammadof (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Was there any reason given that formation of elected Arbitrators was halted by administrators? EllenCT (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not the choice of arbitrators. It was a vote on the "Project Arbitration Court". We have given the above information, "But users prepared rules regarding Arbitration Committee and held a electionon about it. Approximately 20 users took part in it. When 4 days were left before the end of the elections one of the sysop but the vote on it was stopped before its time, as I understand and it didn't have any official result (neither positive, nor negative), which goes against the rules".Idin Mammadof (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Did az:İstifadəçi:Sortilegus say why they halted the proposal? Are they involved with blocking based on perceived political loyalties? Has anyone taken Shammaa's advice and made the request to stewards on meta? (Where is the steward page on meta?) EllenCT (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sortilegus took part in the discussion of the project, and was satisfied. He was given a detailed explanation. I made the request to stewards on meta (the steward page on meta). Look also at this. Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the stewards should be asked to unblock the arbitrarily blocked editors who were trying to form an arbitration committee, or de-admin the administrators who were blocking proponents of an arbitration committee, or both, instead? Have you tried two competing arbcom proposals with, for example, different levels of article editing experience to qualify? EllenCT (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Stewart wrote, "Stewards also have no role in voting and elections of an arbitration committee".

The project was developed in 2011, by the administrator.

The user who started the voting, it is not on the block. (The package of proposals of the Wikimedia Foundation, a suitable 3-th place.) I think, there are no people who want to become an administrator among us. Nether I, nor Murad or Samral or others never wanted to become administrators. This is made up by the administrators. If a user ia a bit active, it seems to them that this user wants to become an administrator, so they start disrupt the activities of such users. Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales, we can normally be active in other language editions of Misplaced Pages despite that we don’t know other languages well. It’s not possible to do in our own language. You already know that in the Azerbaijani edition an administrator can undertake massive vandalism whenever they want and they openly say that. Even though terminating his administrator status was discussed a number of times, he is still an administrator. Neither meta nor stewards thought of stopping his activity yet. A package of 3 proposals was brought upon you by the Wikimedia Foundation, as I know it wasn’t allowed for it to pass. Now, the word is yours, please. İdin Mammadof (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am studying all of this, seeking to understand how I might be most helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I recommend asking the stewards to proactively support the formation of a regularly elected Arbitration committee comprised of long term editors elected by their peers without regard to standing. EllenCT (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon further study, I recommend directing the stewards to unblock any editor blocked for even the appearance of complaining about administrator abuses. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New article improvement drives

Check out the following new article improvement drives/contests. North America 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:The 10,000 Challenge – aims to reach 10,000 article improvements for UK- and Ireland-related articles
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge – aims to reach 10,000 article improvements for Africa-related articles

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Misplaced Pages coverage

• WikiProject report: Watching Misplaced Pages

• Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

• Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

• Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

• Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

A mashup for you!

	Stromae/Coldplay - Formidable/Viva La Vida
	Hi Jimbo, what kind of music do you like? I enjoyed this work by Gio Giorgadzé. EllenCT (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

BOOK OF LIFE BEING PUT BACK TO SLEEP HELP

I don't know how to bring bible to life it's like the world birds snacth up any little hope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:660:A8DA:81E8:C98B:FFDF:D049 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the birds in the Parable of the Sower.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP membership or IP editor?

Hello, Jimmy. I've been using Misplaced Pages as an IP editor for several years and, given that I have expertise in XML and other system development tools, have acquired a wide knowledge of the site's usages and I've taken the trouble to understand its policies, guidelines and various processes. I became semi-retired earlier this year and, with more time on my hands, I decided a few weeks ago to give membership a trial.

I think I've seen and done enough now to decide whether I should continue as a member or go back to using my IP address. I've drawn up a list of the pros and cons of membership, as I see them, and I hope you might find them useful. I know, by the way, that you have often spoken warmly of IP contributors (well, the majority of us) and I'm pleased that you appreciate the added value that people like me have provided over the years. Whether I could do the same using a long-term membership, I am not at all certain about and, given the nature of membership vis-à-vis the site's less welcome visitors, I seriously doubt that membership is the best option for someone like me.

May I put forward a recommendation? This is not an original idea, but something I have seen and heard on numerous occasions. While I entirely agree that "anyone can edit", why can't that basic ethos carry the very reasonable condition that "anyone with a valid e-mail address can edit"? If the e-mail address was mandatory, it would decimate vandalism (blocking an e-mail address is a much more powerful response than merely blocking an IP address) and very few bona fide editors would object to providing their e-mail address because it's a common requirement across the internet.

The greatest benefit you would gain from e-mail address login is an increase in the site's credibility. I have numerous contacts in academic spheres and they are unanimously adamant that Misplaced Pages breaches its own reliable source policy. They do not accept it is a valid, reliable or credible source and, I have been told, they never will as long as cranks and morons have free and unlimited access. Okay, most bad edits are rectified or reverted within a day or so, but what happens to the reader who is using that page in the interim? The "information" they glean during that window between good versions is useless and potentially harmful. You cannot have a reliable or credible source when people who are malicious, uninformed or simply careless are free to write whatever they want. Reverting it an hour later does not help the people who have read it during that hour.

The following are the pros and cons of membership as I see them:

Pros of membership

• IP address is hidden – great, but... When editing, the IP editor sees: "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits". Thus spake the source editor. Having a userid hides your IP address, which really doesn't matter to the overwhelming majority of IP editors. I could not care less that geolocation reveals I live in an English county with over 5.5 million inhabitants, as geolocation is imprecise and only gives an approximate location. My current IP geolocation is about 15 miles out, as it happens, though it has got the right county this time; my previous IP address geolocated to the neighbouring county, where 5 million people live. Assuming it's usually no problem having the IP address displayed, and if you should become worried about it or if someone is annoying you, all you have to do is switch the hub off and on to get another IP address within a minute or two while you make a cup of tea. You might then need to avoid a certain article for a while but there's always plenty more needing attention. Hiding the IP address is no big deal, really.
• Watchlist – certainly useful, but easily replaced by my own list in a text editor given that only a limited number of articles are being monitored. I always kept a list of the, say, twenty articles I wanted to monitor and just loaded it into a sandbox from where I could easily check any interim activity. Obviously, if you are one of those ultra-keen people who monitors a whole project rather than just a few articles of interest, then the watchlist is essential and you do need to be a member, but surely most editors focus on a limited portfolio.
• Navigation popups – these can be handy, but are not essential. They are actually a liability during edit if you are removing or changing a link: you get an annoying popup which lingers, delays your progress and can break your train of thought.
• Twinkle – yes, this is good if you intend to fight vandalism but you need to be a really dedicated member to do that and have admin aspirations: best to just quietly and politely revert stuff (and even then you can find yourself being harrassed). Twinkle is useful for placing tags on articles but, then again, I find that many of the options are iterative or don't adequately describe the problem, and it is best to just write "refimprove" at the top (they always need more references) and go to the talk page if a fuller explanation is necessary.
• Suppress banner and notice displays – yes, this is fine but they are easily and quickly switched off.
• HotCat – this is the one that really is useful and I see absolutely no reason why it should be limited to members. I would strongly recommend that HotCat is reclassified as a default on all article pages so that anyone including IP editors can use it. For the benefit of readers, ease of navigation is essential and good categorisation practice should be facilitated by provision of a tool that does the job quickly and efficiently. Any misuse can easily be reverted in the normal way.
• Purge option – useful button but the browser purges too, so it is superfluous.
• "Move" option – admittedly, this is very useful but I've found that you often cannot complete a rename because of existing redirects and double redirects, so you have to shout for an admin in any case. During my IP days, I rarely needed to rename an article and, when I did, it was always attended to.
• Edit semi-protected pages – this does save time if you really do need to edit one but I always found it easy enough to get help at the project forum if I spotted something that needed correcting; these pages are heavily edited and an IP editor is best advised to just read them and move on.
• E-mail – talk pages are fine for communication about articles or projects. There is no way I will allow someone to send me an e-mail in lieu of a talk page message. I would, of course, be happy to provide my e-mail address as part of login but that's the limit.
• Uploads – few IP editors would ever need to do this and images are a copyright minefield. A page of text is fine, you don't need a photo and I only add them if they already in the database (as I did recently to enhance an FL candidate).
• Replace the "new section" tab text with "+" – little things like that are "nice-to-haves".
• Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header – again, a "nice-to-have" which saves a visit to the talk page, assuming you as an IP editor are actually bothered if an article is rated FA, GA, B, C, start or stub. I find that these "ratings" are invariably wrong, anyway. Numerous times, you find a two-liner which is rated "C-class"! The vast majority, of course, are either start-class stubs or stub-class starts.
• No CAPTCHA when you include a website citation in your edit – this removes a minor inconvenience (which any regular IP editor soon gets used to), so a small plus there.
• Article creation – this is certainly a plus but, to be honest, I rarely needed to create an article in my IP days and you can usually get it done quickly if it is necessary. I really don't see why an IP should not be able to create an article, given the efficiency of patrolling and the various BOT checks.
• Teahouse – yes, this is nice and cosy, I'm told, but I'd guess that most new members quickly find their own way.

Cons of membership

• Only one, as it happens, but it is HUGE. Having a userid hides your IP address (which is neither here nor there as discussed above) but leaves you vulnerable to attack and harrassment because, unlike an IP address, you can't change the userid. Some members are subject to constant harrassment. There is one I'm aware of in WP:FOOTY and it is completely undeserved as he is one of the best editors in the project. Even I, after only a short time as a member, have had a banned idiot trying to make trouble for me because I reverted two of his disruptive edits. If this individual chose to persist, how would I escape his attention as a member? Do I just put up with it and have it spoil my enjoyment, or do I go back to being an IP which was enjoyable 99% of the time?

You can change your ID. Sir Joseph 15:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good if we could end constant harassment of people, so people can use a constant ID and still be free of harassment? Reduce the need t change the user ID by having policy enforced with real backbone? That seems to be the better solution to me than to sort of "force" people to "sort of sockpuppet" by changing ID's to avoid attacking bully elements. It's a huge problem on Misplaced Pages, in many subtle to blatant ways, and generally for a purpose of bullying a particular POV into articles and prevent good discussions on content to bring it to a NPOV state. SageRad (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary

All told, I have not seen any appreciable improvement in membership over IP editing. The main one is HotCat which should be freely available to everyone because it greatly facilitates categorisation changes and anything that encourages good categorisation must improve the reader experience because efficient and comprehensive navigation is vital in any menu-driven system (which, at core, Misplaced Pages is). The other benefits are, frankly, no big deal and are mostly "nice-to-haves". Some of them are time-savers, of course, but at the end of the day they are resolving problems that for the typical IP editor do not exist. The watchlist versus my text editor list is a good example, especially as the watchlist only shows the most recent change while going straight to the history page lists everything for that article.

The big issue is being unable to edit without being attacked or harrassed. The IP editor can escape this in a couple of minutes, though he might have to avoid a particular article for a few days. For the member who has attracted a stalker, there is always going to be the nagging doubt that if he writes this, he's going to have to remove some garbage soon afterwards and eventually have to waste time getting an admin to block the offender, protect the page, and so on and on and on he goes.

Having seen the persistent attacks being made on other editors, and given that I have already attracted a troublemaker myself, I have decided to abandon my membership and go back to being a happy and carefree IP editor. I would, however, appreciate the future use of HotCat. Thank you for your time. BoJó | talk UTC 10:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

One huge reason for members wishing to hide their IP address is if it is traceable to an institution or employer; it is not then one in millions but one in a few hundred. It is also advantageous to have a common ID if you edit from multiple machines. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Timbo's Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Misplaced Pages as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. (Feb. 2012) Carrite (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just been catfished!

Hello Jimmy, I thought you might like to hear an anecdote.

A couple of weeks ago I was cruising on Grindr and I came across a profile that really caught my eye...he plays rugby! I got to chatting with the guy and he sent me several photos showing his physique. Within 5 milliseconds of him sending the 4th photo I had decided that yep I definitely wanted to hook up with the guy. I got his address and I was at his door within 20 minutes! When he answered the door, I couldn't believe it! I'd just been catfished!

He was like 55 years old, didn't have a beer gut but a keg gut, and the rugby physique from the photos was nowhere to be seen. I immediately called him out on this, in a polite way, and it turns out the photos were of him, but were from 25 years ago! Like seriously! Catfished! I was out of there and down to the beat around the corner.

Which brings me to you Jimmy. I feel that you are somewhat catfishing people on Twitter. Look at your profile photo. It must be at least 10 years old! And looking at your recent photos I doubt you are ever again going to look like you do in that photo. Catfishing people is wrong Jimmy, please change your Twitter profile pic to a more recent example!

Thanking you in advance,

An unhappy catfishee. —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.8.159.140 (talk)

I'm calling Russavia... The Ukrainian geolocation was a nice touch. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, we still have a problem.

A month ago i posted this here on Jimbo's page. I was quickly summarily blocked with the patently false accusation that i had violated my topic ban, which is a bad judgment to begin with. I absolutely had not. Anyway, that's the wages of speaking about a systemic problem in the place where the problem is enacted by the majority of the people participating. Basic game theory. Beware. This is a serious problem in Misplaced Pages -- a hostile and distorting McCarthyism by an ideologically motivated subset of editors who have too much power. SageRad (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So at this point it's safe to assume you just want to get indeffed? I ask because at some point the community is going to find your constant charges of McCarthyism against them to be disruptive. I'm sure you realize this. Capeo (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and that very reaction is a textbook example of the very nature of the problem at Misplaced Pages. The totalitarian, fascist way that is completely contrary to the ideals and policies of this place. Thanks for making my point obvious with an example. It is not "the community" but a power-dominant faction of the editors here who would use those numbers to make the claim that i am disruptive for speaking about the dynamics i see here within Misplaced Pages from one year of editing experience. When civil but critical speech is demonized and disallowed then you have the makings of an ideological monopoly. SageRad (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If all you want to do is criticise a dynamic or a systemic problem that you perceive to exist then there are other forums that may be far more sympathetic to your views. You are not going to achieve anything by repeatedly posting here calling people McCarthyists. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to speak to a systemic and large-scale dynamic that i do see here, and i want to do that here. I don't seek a "sympathetic forum" but rather i seek to hold a critical dialog here where it matters, in the place that purports to be a space for civil but critical dialog. I think i am going to achieve something by holding this dialog and exposing when dialog is shut down in ways that lack integrity. SageRad (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sage, my reply was totalitarian and fascist? So I guess I'm part of this "ideologically motivated subset of editors that have too much power" because I've agreed with the sanctions against you in the past? I didn't realize till now the power I wield around here. I think you made my point more so than yours. Capeo (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I posted to make it known that i had posted a month ago with some critical comments about Misplaced Pages at large that involved a sort of ideological lockdown and too-quick-to-block-and-punish mindset, and not actually making this a good environment where it does matter, like enforcing real civility and making a good space for critical dialogs among people with differing experiences and therefore points of view. And... you threaten to indefinitely block me. Sort of reminds me of a government wherein dissent is not tolerated, at penalty of lockup or death. Now, i wasn't "disruptive" in the sense of calling any specific person a name, or being "I Don't Hear That" in attitude, or railroading, or any other form of disruptive editing. I simply posted a comment to make it known what happened last time i posted a comment and ironically, you responded with a threat to indefinitely block me for doing just that. That's what happened. Every reader here can decide what they make of that. SageRad (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't threaten to block you. I'm not an admin. I was simply predicting, from experience, where this will end up. People tire of martyr acts quickly. How you don't see that constantly claiming you're the victim of a fascist community is disruptive is beyond me. This place is mostly run by consensus and consensus has mostly been against your views. Really it's simple as that. Capeo (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table." Ravensfire (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a martyr act. It's an act of speaking truth to power. And in fact i was banned for a month from previously commenting on this. "So at this point it's safe to assume you just want to get indeffed?" sounds remarkably like a speech with an expectation of chilling effect. SageRad (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)