User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 156

• Here's a concept: terrible idea for the mainpage. See: WP:BLATANTLYOBVIOUSTROLL. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you refering to Cirt? I have no doubt that he's honest, and has put the work in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you,
      WP:GA quality article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. — Cirt (talk
      ) 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, it hardly is necessary to read that as a personal attack (as an aside, is NPA anti-free speech), since 'a troll' is also the description of a needlessly provocative posting (although, you were perhaps trolled by its use, above) but we are, after all, discussing a provocative posting, on the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I'd consider troll a low-level PA, as trolls are considered 1) not worth listening to, 2) not having anything to say that is significant, 3) not constructive or intent on promoting a group effort, and 4) into getting reactions rather than results. In other words, saying Cirt is a "blatantly obvious troll" is tantamount to saying Cirt, his opinions, and the article are garbage which should be ignored or discarded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
          • • You have missed the point, 'troll' may refer to a written posting and not a person, and here what was explicitly referred to was not a person but an "idea for the main page." Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
              • Why does ASW's attitude make me think of giving out the "pot-calling-the-kettle-black-award" for the incongruity of a troll having the gall to call another user a troll?--
                talk
                ) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
                • ASW, the context does not lend itself easily to a post as a troll. Reading it as a PA is perfectly reasonable, considering Carrite has not replied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, in 2007 on his RFA user:Jehochman was asked a question. Below is the question and the response:

Question from WjBscribe

4: Following a link from your userpage I see that your company [37] is involved in SEO and internet marketing. Commentators have increasingly been discussing the use such firms have put Wikipedia to in terms of enhancing their client's profiles on the web. How do you combine your role in that industry with your editing here while avoiding any conflicts of interest?

A:I've been an outspoken critic of link spammers and those who would abuse Wikipedia. There's a big misconception that all SEOs are spammers and jerks. Some of us aren't. Here's a summary of my Wikipedia and SEO presentation given to 500 SEOs in New York this year. Here's a review of my SEO Reputation Problem talk in San Jose this August. My business involves helping people build better websites and promote them through legitimate means. I strongly discourage all forms of astroturfing (phony, COI contributions) because I've come to realize that this sort of marketing can trigger very negative publicity when discovered. Professional marketers can't afford to take those risks.

Jimbo, I have evidence to demonstrate that the articles listed below were written by Jehochman on behalf of his clients and/or his friends.

• Intermec
• Virtutech
• Lyrtech
• Clay Johnson (technologist)
• Vanessa Fox
• Bob's Discount Furniture

There are more, some of which were deleted. Jehochman was not happy about that, and even accused the initiator of a few AFDs of "wikistalking" and vandalism. Jehochman also spams articles with the link to his clients websites.

Jimbo, even more concerning is this BLP. The subject of the BLP is not Jehochman's friend and not Jehochman's client. He was the Chairman of Vonage, the company that was a competitor to the company Jehochman worked for or was associated with BroadVoice. The BLP I linked to above is an attack page written to discredit business competitor.

PSC Inc. This article was written as an advertisement to begin with. It is still an advertisement. I don't think the company even exist anymore, but its Wikipedia's entry does. Is this a free knowledge or a paid advertisement? As I said above I do have all the evidences to confirm my words, but I am sure Jehochman is not going to deny them. The question is if Jehochman should be allowed to keep his tools. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll respond here. This, by the way, is not the right venue to actually do anything, and I encourage you to take this to an appropriate venue as well. This is a good place for the philosophical conversation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

On the philosophical point, I personally think that admins should not engage in paid advocacy editing, nor in undisclosed COI editing as some admins (and crats) have done in the past. On this particular case, I think someone should bring it to arbcom, which is, I guess, the appropriate venue. It shouldn't be the unregistered editor posting above that does so however, as they've been banned by the community and thus should not be editing at all. Someone else can do it. --

talk

) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

On the philosophical point the thing is that I am banned by the community of russavias, jehochmans and demiurge1000s. I am banned, alright. The question is who Wikipedia is left with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.100.208 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Slightly over the top ego if you feel no one is left after you are gone.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it was slightly over the top, just my English, you know :-)50.174.100.208 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is a great place to have a conversation about an administrator who shrieked and shrieked and shrieked and shrieked about Arbitrator-elect 28bytes "lying by omission" and then, uh, oh, you get the point. Time to resign your tools on general principles, Mr. Hochman. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• 28bytes was an insider at paid editing advocacy forum Wikipediocracy, though (where the originator of this section is also a regular, surprise surprise), and thus 28bytes can have his admin (and crat) bits back anytime he likes. Just by asking. There's the difference. --
  talk
  ) 03:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipediocracy is not a "paid editing advocacy forum", given that it's populated with people of diverse opinions and there is no formal site position on same. But you already know that - Alison ^❤ 06:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Diverse opinions? On that particular topic? Hardly. Besides which, it's no secret who owns the domain, and the agenda they come here to push. --
  talk
  ) 07:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Demiurge1000. It's a shame that the only Wikipedia criticism site is dominated by paid editors to the extent that it is. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I took care of it. Cla68 (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• There does not seem to be any recent COI editing concerns. However, it does appear that Jehochman was less-than-forthright during his RfA about COI issues. It is quite likely that had the above editing been disclosed at that time, when it would have been much more recent, that he would have had far less chance of passing an RfA.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• DA, have you read the beginning of the thread? There's a quote from Jehochman's RFA from 2007. He was specifically asked about editing on behalf of his clients and he has never disclosed his spamming. Also in 2006 Jehochman was asked a direct question: May I ask, are you being paid to edit wikipedia? See his answer? It's good policy never to answer pointless questions. I don't understand the point of your question. How would you verify my answer, and what difference would it make? Edits are evaluated on their merits, not their motivations. Jehochman 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Also you don't know if there is or there is not recent COI edits. For example see this AFD. I assume the BLP was written by Jehochman because he got a notice of of its nominating on deletion He took an active part in AFD, and he is associated with the subject of that BLP.50.174.100.208 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Did the IP admit to being a banned editor? They appear to be complaining about edits that are 7-8 years old, done when I was a newbie and didn't understand much about Wikipedia, done within my first several hundred edits (which now total over 30,000 I think). Much of what the IP alleges is flat out false and the rest is distorted or presented out of context. But there is a bit of truth. I have freely admitted that I did a bit of link spamming when I first arrived here. After a while I learned what Wikipedia was about and changed my style long before my RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So, sir, do you have any amendments to make to your purple prose about "lying through omission" directed towards other people when you yourself claim not to participate in paid editing yet have participated in the past in the editing of WP pages on behalf of clients without making appropriate talk page or user page disclaimers? We're waiting for you to come clean. Or to resign your tools, which would be the honest thing to do. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are really mad at me I will not fight with you. See my statement above. Ask as many times as you like. That's my answer. Jehochman ^Talk 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:REDACT— alf laylah wa laylah (talk

) 06:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you seem interested in dragging me into this, perhaps you'll also be interested in my thoughts on the subject. Stay tuned, I've got quite a few of them. 28bytes (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Stay tuned, but change the channel, I guess :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jehochman let's do some calculations please. You started editing wikipedia in 2005. For how long have you been a newbie? this AFD is from 2011 (less than 3 years ago). I hope you're not going to deny you had COI with the subject of the article? Also you started this article in 2007 the year of your RFA. You last edited it in 2009. The subject of the article is involved with you. You wrote this article in December of 2006 less than a year before your RFA. Also please tell me what is false in my summary and please provide a diff, where you "freely admitted that you did a bit of link spamming when you first arrived here"? 50.174.100.208 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have 30,000+ edits. If you want to troll through them for the occasions where I have talked about some of my (bad) early edits you can. I have better things to do than entertain a banned editor. Second, I have no conflict of interest with Aaron Wall. He's some guy notable in my industry. I have no connection with him. Jehochman ^Talk 05:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

One more thing... Take a look at the

WP:COI page history from 2005-2006. It was very different then from now. It was called the Vanity Guideline and focused on warning editors not to create fluff pieces about non-notable people and bands. Over time the page became stronger. It is very wrong to apply 2014 standards to 2005 editing. Of course, your purpose isn't fairness or objectivity, is it. You weren't banned because your editing was fair, collegial, and high quality. Jehochman ^Talk

05:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest with Aaron Wall How strange you say so.

Now, you'd like to talk about 2005-2006? Let's talk about 2005-2006.

• Here's the post you removed from your talk in 2005. Even back then you were asked to stop advertising.
• Here is the tread about your spamming from 2006
• This AN/I thread about you is from 2007.
• This thread questioning your possible COI editing is from 2009.
• And here your "friendly" response on the question about your paid editing from 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.100.208 (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So as you see see

1. many different editors were questioning your editing habits during the years.
2. The COI and spamming policies were not so much different in 2005/2006 than they are now.
3. You have never admitted you wrote articles about and on behalf of your clients.

But of course it is 2014 now. You cannot go on with your spamming as you did before,but you're still helping your clients with their Wikipedia entries only now you adopted a different approach. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

How clever. Posting my nefarious plans in the open like that. Jehochman ^Talk 08:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I had never come across Jehochman before his October 2013 most unsavoury and arrogant attack and attempt to defend a major case of paid advocacy by tarnishing a practically univolved admin's reputation at ANI, I have serious concerns about his suitability for adminship as an admitted spammer and the way he conducts himself in discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

More sour grapes. Join the party. We can make vinegar. Jehochman ^Talk 08:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sour grapes - it if were, I would have escalated at the time; your behaviour was beyond the pale considering the conduct vested in you at your RfA. I am simply reinforcing that issues concerning your participation on Wikipedia and as an admin are far from isolated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I criticized your admin action. Was your action sustained or overturned? Jehochman ^Talk 08:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You didn't criticise anything, you simply launched forth with multiple arrogant, blatant, unprovoked personal attacks and disparaging conjecture both on my talk page and again at ANI with a disingenuous 'striking' of one of your comments. My action was of course sustained by a plurality of the community as you are perfectly aware from your persistent defense of the spammer concerned. We refrained from making an issue of your action at the time although it certainly raised concerns in various quarters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We? Who else do you refer to? You seem to suggest that I connected to the spammer. Do you have any evidence, or is that just an assumption of bad faith? Jehochman ^Talk 09:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Enough solid evidence to embarrass you in the light of this current discussion, so I'm not going to list the diffs here - that will be for the day if and when someone finally escalates. Before calling 'bad faith' I suggest therefore that you stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about and review the issue concerned - it was far too important as one of the series of paid advocacy cases to have escaped your memory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• John Cline (talk
  ) 09:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Support last sentence and need for question to be answered. DeCausa (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty much retired and use admin tools very little. I no longer have much to time for Wikipedia as anybody can see from my edit history. I don't think the handful of opinions in this thread represent the community. There are many editors who avoid drama and won't comment here. To sum it up, I am not doing anything contentious with my admin access. Jehochman ^Talk 10:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So, you should be trusted to keep the tools because you're not going to use them? DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

With a regular editing pattern of over 1,000 contribs since October, I would hardly consider that a retirement or even a semi-retirement. However, with all due respect to

John Cline for at least posing the question raised by the anonymous OP, and taking into consideration Jimbo's 'This, by the way, is not the right venue to actually do anything, and I encourage you to take this to an appropriate venue as well,' I feel the question is a leading one and which Jehochman would only feel obliged to answer at an official venue. There are however other ways of avoiding the nascent drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk

) 10:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The accusations are not accurate, and that's all I need to say if the issue is raised again. When edits are 7-8 years old they are ancient history. The newest thing mentioned was 2011 and that complaint is absurd. The best way to avoid wasteful drama is not to extend the thread. I'm sure many wise editors have seen this discussion and made that decision. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to decide whether I am wise or not, but my confidence in you as an administrator - already at a very low ebb - has now dropped to none at all. You had several opportunities to prevent that, but the nature of your replies here has sealed the deal. —

talk

15:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jehochman, you wrote this article in 2013
  Ugo Colombo (real estate). May I please ask you who asked to write this article, and by what means. Did somebody ask to write the article on Wiki or off Wiki? Thanks.50.136.134.129 (talk
  ) 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall starting that article. Check the article history. Somebody asked me to look at it for BLP violations. Don't remember where the request was made. Could we relocate this discussion to my talk page? Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me please refresh your memory:

• "Somebody asked for technical help to create a disambiguation page. I've started the smallest possible stub with just a few facts. There appear to be reliable sources https://www.google.com/search?q=ugo+colombo that can be used to complete the article. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)"
• "Hi talk page lurkers. Somebody wanted to start an article at Ugo Colombo (real estate). I provided a bit of technical assistance, but this article needs content review, and we need to answer the question whether this is a proper topic for an article (notable) or not. If anybody watching my talk page wants to help out, that would be good for Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)"
• "I don't recall starting that article. Check the article history. Somebody asked me to look at it for BLP violations. Don't remember where the request was made. Could we relocate this discussion to my talk page? Jehochman Talk 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)"

So you gave three different versions about starting of the same article, which you did just a year ago. Which one is the correct one? And once again I repeat the question: Who asked to write the article, and by what means it was done. Thanks.50.136.134.129 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mysteriously, this request does not appear in a search for "Ugo Colombo" outside mainspace. So where, then, is it supposed to have taken place? —

talk

22:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Jehochman, while you're trying to remember a history of writing

Ugo Colombo (real estate)

, here's one more question:

Above in this very thread you stated One more thing... Take a look at the WP:COI page history from 2005-2006. It was very different then from now. It was called the Vanity Guideline and focused on warning editors not to create fluff pieces about non-notable people and bands. Over time the page became stronger. It is very wrong to apply 2014 standards to 2005 editing. Here's a warning you gave to another user for the "spamming" of the article Squirrel. So it looks like even back then, in that ancient 2006, you knew that spamming on Wikipedia is not allowed, did you not, Jehochman? This warning has two other problems as well:

1. the editor has never added any links to Squirrel
2. You warned the editor who has not spammed about spamming just a little bit later after you, Jehochman, added spam links to an article and wrote a spam article, and on the same week you wrote this article on behalf of your client.

Don't you think your conduct looks kind of unclean, and not only in 2006, but also now in 2014? 50.136.134.129 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman may have done some dubious things. But listing some companies that already have articles as examples of manufacturers of a certain type of products is hardly spamming. And neither is writing a stub about a NYSE

WP:LISTED company (Intermec). Creation of Lyrtech was indeed more questionable. EE Times is pretty indiscriminate with their coverage. A single article there doesn't really speak of notability; see TTRAM for example. The ref he used wasn't even an EE Times article proper but a press release [38]. But I suppose those were the early days of Wikipedia and a lot of stuff like that happened, admins or no admins. It seems the community didn't care much about such things back then when giving the tools. Someone not using his real name (talk

) 21:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem with your statement: Intermec is a client of Hochman Consultants, Argos USA has no article. New article Argos has nothing to do with an old article written by Jehochman about his client. That old one was deleted although Jehochman himself closed the AFD as "keep". So get this: Jehochman writes the article, votes to keep it, closes the AFD as "keep" and accuses the nominator of of "wikistalking" and vandalism., and yes, the community cared about such things . Please read the whole thread and hit the links50.136.134.129 (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If the community cared, how did he make admin? Did he buy the bit? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It was much easier to pass RFA back then. Besides Jehockman lied, when he was responding a question about COI editing (please read the beginning of the thread). Also please see this. These links are not to Wikipedia articles, but to the companies websites, with at least some of them his clients. 50.136.134.129 (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the diff you gate the first time around [39] used internal links. Did he create all those company articles thereafter? Besides Intermec, were any other of those his clients? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

How was the old Argox (company page) deleted anyway? I can't find a 2nd AfD for it. Apparently it was by self-

WP:PROD in 2007 [40], which was technically improper because the page had survived an AfD in 2006. Were they no longer his client at the time? Someone not using his real name (talk

) 22:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the 2007 RfA, did he bribe all these editors to write such superlative assements of him "one of the finest up-and-coming Wikipedians at this website, period", "Precisely the type of person we want as an admin. Lots of consistent editing over the past few months", "Stronger than possible support. [...] What better way to deal with it than to have someone on our side who knows the ins-and-outs of the business?", "Fully qualified candidate, no significant issues"? If you read the RfA carefully, apparently he ingratiated himself with a large segment of active wikivoters by being a wiki-spearhead against Scientology. Does that say something about the community's priorities (at the time)? Quid pro quo or easy-to-manipulate/fools? Somewhere in between? Half-and-half? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot respond your question about the clients. Jehochman states at his user page: "No, I can't provide you with my client list, because that's valuable, proprietary information, and in many cases subject to confidentiality and no publicity agreements." So I found only very few of his clients, the early ones (I guess) that somehow got overlooked, when Jehochman was not yet so careful.

I am not sure how he passed RFA. A year later he withdrawn his candidacy from the arbcom election My candidacy is causing more heat than light at this point. Thank you." - he says. Two years later he got only 38.6% votes in his bid for the arbcom. I don't think he would have passed his RFA if he run today or even before the thread was started. 76.126.141.41 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that could cut both ways. Portraying himself as strongly anti-Scientology would definitely make him extremely unpopular with some people at a certain off-wiki criticism messageboard... oh wait... --

talk

) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean the off-wiki criticism messageboard where everyone hates kittens, puppies, and small children? Hopefully there's another one somewhere that knows you're full of hooey. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP has always been short of admins, so most of the RfA regulars will enthusiastically vote in support unless someone gives a compelling, or seemingly compelling, reason why the candidate is not suitable. I know this by experience. When an "ah-ha!", pejorative reason is given, the RfA regulars will often turn on the candidate with equal enthusiasm. By not being completely straightforward in his presentation and responses to questions, Jehochman appears to have avoided giving them a compelling reason to vote no. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm no fan of paid editing, but these allegations are all so far back in the past; many of the edits being scrutinized took place before current policies on COI came into effect. Is there anything recent that may be problematic? If not, then what's the cause for concern? The forum posts that started this (like much of the content on that webpage) reek of personal vindication and revenge. Unless hard evidence is given of recent paid editing, this is a low priority COI case at best. Why don't we focus on exposing the paid editing that goes on every day instead of scrutinizing 8 year old edits? ThemFromSpace 02:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We're dicussing them because they are still relevant today, and the user who made them is now an administrator, making them relevant. KonveyorBelt 02:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides there's this article from 2013

Ugo Colombo (real estate), and we still don't know who and where asked Jehochman (or someone else) to write it although we do know who asked Jehochman to write Clay Johnson (technologist) in 2010. I believe I would not be mistaking to assume it was Clay Johnson (technologist) himself or a very good friend of his76.126.141.41 (talk

) 03:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Complicated questions, but one thing is clear: Jehochman did not lie in response to the question "...How do you combine your role in that industry with your editing here while avoiding any conflicts of interest?" at his RfA and it's not fair to characterize him as having done so. He said "I've been an outspoken critic of link spammers and those who would abuse Wikipedia..." and so on. And he is. You could say that he changed the subject, maybe. But nothing in his answer constituted a promise not to edit for clients, only not to do so in a spammy and abusive manner. (I'm not saying that he does, just that he didn't promise not to.)

However, he also answered the question "Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?" with "I have intended to do so because many of the admins I respect are already members of that list. There's nothing to lose and a lot to gain." I guess I'd take that as a "yes", so he can be reconfirmed for any reason, if people really want this. AFAIK Jehochman didn't specify any particular parameters so presumably this defaults to the Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process, therefore you'd need six editors (with standing) to request a reconfirmation RfA. Herostratus (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, outspoken critic of spam as in "do as I say, don't do what I do". After investigation using reliable sources (alas all in French), this revision [41] of the wiki page of Lyrtech certainly looks like typical PR spam: very rosy picture of the company, based only on press releases and which turns out should have had huge caveats based on independent sources. The company was for instance operating at a big net loss just as they were getting that award for record revenue growth. An they had been close to bankruptcy in 2002. And their IPO was accompanied by a 25% crash on the day of the launch. (All of these were reported in the mainstream Canadian press.) But all sins are forgiven if Mr. SEO admin banhammered a Scientologist or two and professes to hate spam. Should we ask Morning277 if he hates spam? Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Herostratus, Jehochman also said: "I strongly discourage all forms of astroturfing (phony, COI contributions) because I've come to realize that this sort of marketing can trigger very negative publicity when discovered. Professional marketers can't afford to take those risks." He has made "phony, COI contributions" before and after that statement. For example, he created this article in 2007, the year of his RFA. Of course it is a phony COI contribution. It's how the article looked by the end of 2007 Almost all references were blogs, some her own blogs, and Jehochman and the subject of BLP know each other rather well. Even now the article is hardly any better. Some links are broken, other links are blogs. And it is only one example. So, I do believe that a user who claims he strongly discourages all forms of astroturfing (phony, COI contributions), at the very same time doing this himself is a liar.76.126.141.41 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that page looks like typical spamcruftvertizement. Don't see how it was any different than the page of, say, Michael Adams (graphic designer). Except that if you tried to AfD it at the time, Mr. SEO admin's hardened anti-S wikibattle friends (who also wrote posts for SEO blogs) would have blocked you as an obvious sock of User:!!. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but. All this stuff, and we've been seeing a lot of this sort of stuff on this page lately, puts me in mind of

If you ever wondered why so many pop stars and TV shows have such well-maintained wiki pages, see the last part of [42] (about Comedy Central using wikipedia to promote their stuff: [Wikipedia] is "a top 5 traffic driver" [for them], they "are saving $20K a month by using wikipedia and the traffic is coming to comedycentral.com. [...] Wikipedia editors become decision makers. [...] If you are marketing content, make sure what is appearing in wikipedia."); info thanks to another SEO in a round-table discussion that aforementioned senior admin took part in. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

**"

Freedom of speech" is irrelevant and does not apply on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

23:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, in so many ways. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

An essay by Essjay, one of the biggest beeess emeffs in the history of doubleupee. Consider the source. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

--Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_proposal

88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Freedom of Speech" is hardly ever relevant to disputes at Wikipedia. (There are edge cases, I suppose.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, users need to be able to criticise the way the wiki works though, and their being blocked for merely contradicting the status-quo seems wrong.

That was my point.

People need to be able to challenge the status-quo, without worrying that they'll be blocked for doing so. Gosh, I'm a poet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That quote by Bushranger actually reminded to me one of the so called telemosty between Soviet Union and USA that were popular in the Soviet Union in 1980s. In one of the shows, a woman from Boston inquired about Soviet contraception. A Russian woman responded: "Here in Russia we don't have sex." Well, we had no freedom of speech in Soviet Union either... but I would have never believed that in the 22nd century, in the free world, here on Wikipedia a person could get community banned with absolutely no means to say a single word in his/her defense and with no evidences of an alleged behavior whatsoever.

Jimbo, Wikipedia would have been much better off, if it treated people with dignity and with the respect. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, 50.174.100.208, let me ask you this: Do you have any "rights" on Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have my constitutional rights that do apply to even private websites. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Which country's constitution do you have in mind? --

talk

) 02:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been well discussed. The US constitution has no control over a private organization's decisions on content. Odd that anyone would be so upset by a democratic !vote for their ban. In almost very case, the editor being proposed to be banned is allowed to defend themselves at AN or AN/I. But, as for rights...as I understand it, our only right is to leave and stop editing. Beyond that it is a privilege to donate here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So, this place holds itself up as an open and public space that anyone can edit, yet is not subject to the US constitution because it is a private entity despite the fact it is also a public charity that relies on the state for its charitable status to entice that same public to donate to it?

Saffron Blaze (talk

) 04:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

4,439,567 articles in English" ...as clear as it can get, even more ridiculous you are questioning this, at all...But not only ridiculous, actually claiming such stuff is very impertinent.--37.230.23.56 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark,there were precedents when freedom of speech was allowed on private sites, and if it was allowed on shopping malls, surely it should be allowed on a site that belongs to a charitable tax-exempt organization.

I had no democratic vote for my ban. I was not allowed to say a single word in my defense, not even at my own talk page.

I am not editing here. I am trying to make Wikipedia more humane, safer place. Why? Maybe because I am different. I came from a different culture. You've never lived behind the iron curtain, you will not understand. When a friend of mine went to live to USA he wrote a letter to me. He wrote that he felt as kissing every star and every strip on the American Flag... When I lived in the Soviet Union I was not allowed to travel, where I wanted to, I was no allowed to read what I wanted to. I tried to change the regime there, and now I'm trying to change the regime here on Wikipedia because no human being should be treated as I was, and I know a few persons who are: the former editors and the subjects of BLPs alike. I was even able to help two of them. What I am doing I am doing not only for myself,not even for others like me, but for Wikipedia too. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"I am not editing here. I am trying to make Wikipedia more humane, safer place." Admission that the IP editor is not here to build an encyclopedia? Do you understand how you make it difficult for others to see anything but point making.

Yes, there are times when an editor has lost their talk page privilege and when blocked one cannot edit at An or AN/I but it is your responsibility to know our policies and procedures and if you disrupt to a point that others don't want to touch you...you're on your own and few will assist in guiding you.

Your link is not a precedence to private, non government websites. Websites are not "Private property" in the sense that case law discusses and attempting to stretch it here and now is not the best thing to attempt.

I have great sympathy for having lived behind the iron curtain. I do...and if you took a bit of time you would see that Wikipedia currently has editors who cannot edit freely because they are STILL behind such an iron curtain. But they manage to show their good faith intentions and learn the ropes while respecting the reality that, this is not a public space. This is a privately owned and operated website. it is not the same as if you wanted to carry a banner into a grocery store.

Here we work with the consensus of others. You seem to miss that part and it may have led to your downfall.

If Jimbo sees this, perhaps he will take a moment just to be sure you were blocked properly. However...if everything was done to correctly, your best bet is what we call the "Standard offer". Please take a moment to read through the link. I hope you understand that, as editors, we are here for one purpose, the free flow of information. In order to accomplish the free flow...we must at times block editors that clog up that flow. It may not be forever and if you can demonstrate that you understand what is expected from us here, it is likely you will be allowed back eventually.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• 1. Mark, Admission that the IP editor is not here to build an encyclopedia? Do you understand how you make it difficult for others to see anything but point making. No I don't and you're wrong because the Wikipedia is not getting built in a vacuum , and making the environment, in which the encyclopedia is getting built, more humane helps to retain the editors, the very editors that Wikipedia is loosing. When I edited Wikipedia I wrote around 100 popular DYKs, I uploaded thousands of high resolution images, many of which are unique, but what I am doing now is the best contribution to your site.
  2. Yes, there are times when an editor has lost their talk page privilege and when blocked one cannot edit at An or AN/I but it is your responsibility to know our policies and procedures and if you disrupt to a point that others don't want to touch you...you're on your own and few will assist in guiding you. I have not disrupted any policy and although I was blocked for an alleged harassment no single diff was provided to confirm the accusations. Half of the users who supported my ban were heavily involved with me. What consensus are you talking about? Besides consensus should be based not only on the number of votes, but on some evidence, some diffs. There was none in my situation.
  3. the "Standard offer" does not work as you think it does. I know many editors who were refused to be unblock until they apologize, and even after they apologize, please see this talk page as an example. This editor is lucky. He is able to edit his talk. The ones who do not mostly got ignored when they email to the arbcom or getting responses such as that: "The Arbitration Committee believes that the action taking regarding you on English Wikipedia was correct, and will not discuss the matter at all with you. Any further e-mails relating to this subject will be ignored." with no any bloody evidence to support their "belief". Also please read this to see another example of the "Standard offer" that did not work.50.174.100.208 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is your example? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: "users need to be able to criticise the way the wiki works though, and their being blocked for merely contradicting the status quo seems wrong", I have recently disagreed with the WMF regarding

I have never been blocked in my 8 years of editing Wikipedia. The way to avoid blocks is rather simple:

1. Do you best to follow the letter and the spirit of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even if you disagree with them.
2. If you are warned about doing something and the warning was legitimate, stop doing it, apologize, and don't do it again.
3. If you are warned about doing something and the warning was bogus, stop doing it, open up a discussion about why you think it was bogus, and don't do it again until that disagreement is resolved in your favor.

It really is that simple. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• You have only 18.08% in editing articles. If one edits articles, writes new ones especially in the area which is under arbitration, it is all but impossible never get blocked even if one edits within policies.50.174.100.208 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• At least I am above the 15.10% of that noted slacker, Jimbo Wales. :) Seriously though, while article creation is important, so are things like volunteering at
  WP:DRN or participating in policy discussions. As for it being all but impossible never get blocked while editing articles, I have made 2900 article edits without being blocked and some users are in above 100,000 article edits without being blocked. Again, the key is to take warnings seriously and to immediately stop doing whatever it is that got you warned until you have discussed the issue and the warning admin gives you the go-ahead. You really have to work hard at it to get blocked without being warned first. --Guy Macon (talk
  ) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• You're right. I did work hard to get blocked without being warned first. I collected lots of evidences about a bully-admin. I submitted RFC concerning that admin, I supported every statement I made with at least one on-wiki diff, I predicted that the 16-years old boy that admin was bullying at the time is about to explode, and he did (the boy said he felt as killing himself tonight") , and guess what I was able to stop that admin. For two years that admin has not bulled anybody and even admitted she's no longer comfortable to misuse her tools when involved. I am proud of what I did! I wish I were able to stop her before that 16 years old boy sustained irreversible emotional damage. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

wp:TE. Just kidding ;-), but I wanted to add a small dose of reality into the discussion at this point. It is amazing, after 8 years how you do not understand the way blocks have been made on Wikipedia. Did you really think blocks are made only after allowing a person to make one reply, or perhaps 3 replies, without the block being issued before even one word is said in defense of actions? Blocks are made with no chance (zero opportunity) to discuss the events in question. Numerous people who have described their blocks as "unfair" have been warned they would even lose talk-page access if such comments continued. You are lucky to be living in bliss, but please beware the suffering of others is real. -Wikid77 (talk

) 13:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Its a block on an online encyclopedia...not a Crucifixion. I have been blocked for stupid things I did do and for things I never did. Both warned and not warned, but dwelling on all that....doesn't move anything forward. It just keeps me in one place. I move on and work on content and then some project work and then a little discussion of policy etc.. I don't worry about my past blocks, I just do what I know we do, in a civil atmosphere, to foster a free flow of information and try not be an ass as much as possible. OK...so I don't always succeed at that last part but I do try.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can be instantly blocked for certain egregious actions, but that won't happen if you follow #1 above. And yes, Wikipedia administrators are human and at times block improperly, so there is a chance that even if you do everything right you may end up blocked and then quickly unblocked by another admin. This is rare, because an admin who repeatedly makes bad blocks will end up desysoped. In general, whenever I hear about "administrator abuse", it turns out that it is the administrator who is being abused.

When you are blocked you get a chance to appeal, with a link to a nice tutorial on how to appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by another, uninvolved administrator. If you end up concluding that both admins are "unfair", perhaps you should listen to Taylor Swift's upcoming song "Maybe I'm the problem". As for your claim of numerous people who have described their blocks as "unfair" and have been warned they would even lose talk-page access if such comments continued, evidence, please. Give me diffs to example that are not violations of Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse of the unblocking process. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I am feeling it is useless to continue our conversation. I only would like to make two points please. When I provided Willbeback example I meant this one. The user made apologies, the user has not socked, and the user is refused not only in the unblock but even in the public hearing of his case. The arbcom should work on the positions of transparency not on the positions of closed tribunals. Also please see this. The members of the arbcom confirm " that community ban appeals are usually dismissed and referred to the community". Interesting how one could appeal to the community, if one talk's page access is removed. 50.174.100.208 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I, too, am impressed by Guy Macon's skill in avoiding blocks for so many years. However, it needs to be stressed that his good fortune is exceptional. Editing uncontroversially can be a very tricky thing, and most people either run into serious problems sooner or later, or they just quit in despair. Often times, perhaps most of the time, our wiki-processes work very well in resolving problems, but it is not at all uncommon for people to be treated unfairly, even terribly, by administrators, and we should not pretend that this system we've created is anywhere near perfect. Everyking (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The system is not perfect. Do some administrators have an attitude and misuse their tools? Yes. Is there always a route to overcome and resolve conflict? No, not always. Is that frustrating? Yep. But some editors do try. Guy is one of them. The fact is this is about a conflict not having to do with content. An abusive admin is not a content dispute. Claiming you were unjustly blocked is not a content dispute. Complaining about an admin on AN is likely to be seen somewhat skeptically by most unless a clear cut case and seems to be a dead end to many and don't bother. Should there be some other options? I think so. OK...now what?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not exceptional. Been editing for 6+ years, with 25K+ edits to articles (a lot of them brought up at

WP:ANI, etc.). If no one seems inclined to help you out, perhaps the issue isn't as big as you think it is. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I hope you were never blocked on accident. Many of those routes you mention are strictly content venues, where ANI is for administrative intervention...where an admin has to step in, and BLP of course is to get more eyes and opinions on a situation or article of concern that are not within BLP policy and guidelines (something very importan) but not a conflict venue. It isn't as much a trick to stay calm, but a trick to know exactly where to take your issue, if you're very sure it is an issue. The best one can do now is find a trusted admin who you can seek some assistance in an informal or formal manner. If your issue is another admin, then you have the AN board where you can formally complain about a specific administrator. But that can make new comers and even some old timers think twice since you are reporting an admin...to an admin. I've worked a good deal through our DR mechanisms, there is no conflict resolution. Just "Dispute" resolution and we define a dispute on Wikipedia as being "content" issues. If two people are simply unable to get along and have active conflicts, we don't tend to deal well with the situation and seems to blow up and end up at arbcom. Everything shouldn't be a "High court" decision and yes...I do see arb com as such, whether that be true or not, but they are our equivalent of a high court of peers. Not a knock against them, just that maybe all such conflicts need not end up on their plate.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As for me, 26,000 edits, 36% to article space, and I've never been blocked, and not even come close. I've never had an adminstrator say a mean word to me. My secret? I do my best to follow policies and guidelines, I don't edit war, I try hard to be polite and helpful, I compromise, and I try to resolve disputes instead of escalating them. When things get nasty, I take a break. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." --Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia attracts people of varying type and situation. Some with different ways of interacting in this medium of text only. Everyone acting perfectly after hours of research, writing, copy editing, etc. is not always going to happen. It can tire a person out quickly when someone decides to challenge something you feel has legitimate value, sourced reliably etc.. We can expect the best, but we have to admit imperfection exists, help guide it and allow some venting. We can only learn and grow when given the room to make mistakes. Mistakes can always be overcome. Mistakes can always be corrected. In the time I have been on Wikipedia I have learned how to avoid content disputes in a number of ways to avoid content issues needing intervention or mediation. It took a number of...less than cordial exchanges that, eventually, everyone was able to apologize for their own behavior...even after, what I thought would simply be the end of all enjoyment on Wikipedia for me. But then I realized that if I was not going to have fun, I might as well admit I was being an idiot for my part and leave it to the others to decide how next to reply. Given the opportunity, most people choose peace and forgiveness...even if the situation is never forgotten. It isn't a zen thing. People just have to naturally find their routes and some personalities may clash and need a lot of room to understand where the other is coming from and how best to work with whatever new tilt that editor may be adding. Maybe that just takes imagination to be able to see how something might work or maybe just patience, but I have blocks. I am not ashamed of them. They're there for the reasons they are there whether they were or were not exactly as black and white as "Doing something wrong". I don't hold much weight to a block log. not really. I have worked well with editors who have never been blocked, and why not be proud of that? However...I have worked with editors very well who have logs the length of a feature article. If you are really attempting an honest contribution to content, most good editors can see that and find a way to compromise if they don't agree with it.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've been blocked by accident (the admin got me instead of the spammer I was dealing with). But I saw the situation for what it was and had a laugh about it. Much better than trying to stir up drama. And

WP:BLPN can occasionally turn into quite the conflict venue, with editors disagreeing on how the policy applies to certain situations and each side wondering about the "competence" of the other. Most boards act the same way, with different areas of focus. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

14:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I have volunteered on a lot of the boards including BLP. Yes, I cannot deny that they can all have their fair share of drama. DR/N, RS/N can be as overwrought as AN/I and some of the worse RFAs. But I would not label them as conflict venues. I very much see conflict as between people and disputes being about content. I separate these as I might in conflict/dispute resolution at a job. A conflict is between people, a dispute is about how to proceed on a project.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The most vicious conflicts, and the ones that make Wikipedia such a vicious place are (indirectly) about content. Gangs centered around ideologies seeking to mis-use the system to deprecate editors who they perceive to be ideological opponents. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I feel the conflicts between editors who just can't let go, and seem almost obsessed with each other damages the encyclopedia the most.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are certainly those too. But in that case they are likely to get stopped because they are violating (vs. using) the system to try to harm other editors. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the likelihood that two, well established content creators in a conflict, would be stopped? First, the question is kinda...what exactly can the community control with a conflict that continues. Even when direct steps are taken we know that conflicts between two editors, that is not content driven can even fester and continue when bans are enacted and make feelings worse, eventually just spilling over again on one board or another leading to blocks and eventually site bans. Not the best editor retention route we could be taking for conflict resolution. Although those registering such grievances have to understand that diffs, not being supplied during a an AN/I ban vote may be a technical issue of little merit. Wikipedia has very few bright line rules. I would expect a request for admin intervention to require some form of diff just to make it easy for the admin to see the issue, but when creating a community ban discussion....? By that point, many times, everyone is already very familiar with the issues. Graciously accepting one's fate for the moment is kind of a community wide test to see how the editor handles meeting the immovable object. I have seen editors lose it upon being temp blocked or just topic banned after a community !vote. It isn't fun to be on the long end of the stick. And there are those wonderful types that react by grave dancing. In short, it is actually unlikely that all conflicts will be stopped and even one really big conflict handled badly can lead to hundreds of editors either leaving or not registering, making them walk away and not return. Over time extending such conflicts can effect thousands of potential articles, contributions and improvements to the project. I just wonder if the one thing being asked from the OP (as I read it) of whether or not there should be some way to allow a more "freer flow of comment" is valid. Such questions should always be tempered with the understanding of our policies and guidelines however, because our policies and guidelines as well as our 5 pillars are a lot like Wikipedia's constitution.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, I hope you agree that the

Given the nature of the edits, and the overall status of the article, I think "massaged" is too strong. Yes, it would have been better had they followed the best practice of the "Bright Line Rule". The article still needs a great deal of work. I've made a small start on it myself. I hope you will be interested enough to do the same.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia thinking it must "describe" anything, in the first place? Who cares about an unimportant public relations and marketing agency? Why does this "description-mania" lead to people wasting their time they could use for a much better cause? --37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

While I'm generally sympathetic to this sentiment, this company apparently has 111 offices in 29 countries. It's not a small local company.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There was definitely some COI editing, but in my view not enough to warrant a COI tag. I've taken it off, but if anyone feels strongly about it he or she can put it back on and I won't beef. The norm in articles on PR people, I've noticed, is that they have the "feel" of autobiographies. This one does not, and apparently at one point was dominated by criticism. Generally speaking this article needs a lot of expansion. So much of what is there and what was removed is ten+ years old. Checking the checkers, just out of curiosity, why did you choose to raise the issue of the article here? Coretheapple (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I raised the issue here because I knew of Jimmy Wales' newsworthy discussions held with Bell Pottinger, another PR firm that he was not pleased with their editing practices on Wikipedia. What I opted not to mention yesterday was that Fleishman-Hillard IP addresses haven't just been editing their own Wikipedia article, they have been editing their clients' articles; especially,

Papa John's Pizza, and Ford City Mall (client is US Equities Realty). I didn't want to pile on too much, and perhaps that was smart, given that Jimmy doesn't seem to think Fleishman-Hillard's editing is terribly egregious. Even Jimmy's own recent deletion from the FH article complained that "the source is broken", even though a working link could have been easily found. Maybe it was more convenient to lock targets on a paragraph discussing the Labour government, when Wales' new business venture (The People's Operator) is closely tied with the Labour government? We really can't know for sure, can we? - Checking the checkers (talk

) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to imply. You didn't mention the other edits, so I had not and have not (yet) looked at them. Why didn't you mention them? I'm glad you found a source, but that particular passage appears to have virtually nothing to do with Fleishman-Hillard anyway, nor does it appear to reflect either positively or negatively on the Labour Party. There is no suggestion in the article that Fleishman-Hillard has or had the Labour Party as a client, nor is there anything particularly unusual or interesting about a large PR firm putting out a briefing to their clients about political developments and what they may mean for corporates. If you could explain, preferably on the talk page of that article, why you think that passage is relevant to the article on this PR firm, that might be helpful. Otherwise your sneering insinuations (which don't make any rational sense at all) should just be dropped.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well as I indicated to Mr. 2001 and other editors raising remarkably similar points a short while back, I think that any and every such concern is welcome to those of us who are not happy with PR influence on Wikipedia. I for one am not concerned about motivations. Again, glad to have you back with us. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, it's not that I set out to make you look like a grifter and a PR manipulator, but your patent refusal to just come clean when you do something wrong leaves me little choice. The problem is not your feeble strawman that "Fleishman-Hillard has or had the Labour Party as a client". The problem is that you have a conflict of interest regarding the Labour Party. The relevance to the Fleishman-Hillard article of the passage you deleted is not the matter of concern here, it is the fact that you decided directly whether it should stay or it should go. Let me provide you with a few quotes from a famous Wikipedian:

...recent edits are indeed highly problematic from the perspective of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I will immediately send an email expressing my concerns and inviting him to come here and explain, and I will urge him to pledge not to do anything like this again. -- Jimbo Wales; 20:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The very strong message in any positive collaboration is: there are good people here ready to help you, you don't need to try to brute force it and create appearance of impropriety by editing pages yourself. -- Jimbo Wales; 16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Best practice is to suggest edits on the talk page with full disclosure of your conflict of interest, and then to escalate if you don't get a response. The main problem with even very neutral and boring factual edits is that they can give rise to an appearance of conflict of interest... -- Jimbo Wales; 23:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

...to avoid any appearance of a potential conflict of interest, I disclosed my plans to OTRS and further disclosed that it was a personal matter. -- Jimbo Wales; March 2008

Jimbo, on at least four different occasions you have spoken forcefully about the need to avoid the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, yet you recently disregarded your own advice with your editing of

Fleishman-Hillard, apologize for the edit on the article's Talk page, and ask unaffiliated Wikipedians to handle the matter as they see fit. That is how we avoid the appearance of impropriety or the appearance of conflict of interest. It is the path you ordained for the rest of us, so please just follow it yourself! - Checking the checkers (talk

) 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is not even the remotest appearance of a conflict of interest here. I again invite you to take this discussion to the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I can imagine why you want to get this discussion off your highly-visible Talk page as quickly as possible, onto a page that gets about zero to two page views per day, on average. But, since I am such a generous and thoughtful person, I have complied with your request. Hopefully the readers who follow that link will see that it is laughable for you to say that "there is not even the remotest appearance of a conflict of interest" when you edit Wikipedia content about the Labour Party, given your long pattern of close affiliation with Labour Party stars and bigwigs. - Checking the checkers (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editors need to take a look at that article. It is really crap at present. I can't think of a better word to describe it, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is crap. It's a random assortment of facts from several years ago with no real narrative stream or explanation of anything. With 111 offices in 29 countries, surely there's something interesting to say about the company.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it should be turned into a stub? But some administrator or other person with scrambled egg on his hat ought to do it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So he stated on the talk page of an article for several years the following comment:

"This article is concluded, linguistically as well as in respect of content and needs no further editing" http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Robert_Falcon_Scott&diff=118537931&oldid=118534541

Next step, two editors remark

a)"...So you think that any new insight or valid argument on the matter should be ignored and the community should be ommitted any substantial renewal...?

b)"How can the article be completed when there are so many flaws (*lists up a vast series of shortcomings)

(see link above)

Then this user "Jamiri" just deletes his comment of trying to discourage the community from editing, deletes important passages from the other two editor's comments and leaves only fragments that have nothing to do with the original context.

And when trying to correct this, he's lying and telling that those comments were old and had no place although the fragments currently on the disc were posted on the very same day... http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Robert_Falcon_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=127111946 unbelievable.

As if this was not enough, he even dares to file a vandalism report, where he personally attacks me and accuses me of "hallucinations", "delusion" and "muddleheadedness" and the responsible admin rebukes him on his own talk page of not using such kind of words. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Hansbaer#Wahnvorstellungen --37.230.23.56 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verhalten_im_Notfall

Topics include

Announcement of a suicide

Announcement of a crime

Seems like a lot of people feel treated in a very just and fair way by Wikipedia, its administrators and trusted editors... --37.230.23.56 (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the German Wikipedia taking extra steps to allow greater checking of their content is uniquely good for them.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of this post? The link is to the German Wikipedia equivalent of Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and is not a "vandalism report site". It recommends phoning the police when you find threats of crimes or suicide on Wikipedia - and gives the emergency telephone number. --Boson (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank You Rassnik (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So there are people who not only have found that there is CFD, but actually know what it is supposed to do (unlike about 99% of all internet users visiting Wikipedia), and these people make comments like this: "....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today." "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places" One could think Wikipedia's inner circle contains some overly uneducated, dehumanizing and unethical people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Who said that? Link?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I found the page via the search box. Looks like a CFD from 2007? And the users were Cool Cat and Haddiscoe respectively. 37.230.16.36, why do you bring this up now? Ross HillTalk to me! 04:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The respective users were already quoted by in a topic above this one, when having read all of my points, one should know...

Neither of whom could remotely be considered "inner circle".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

They have actively contributed deleting an article who is important reflecting the truth and what has happenen in history, building up about 25% of the voices judging to delete both the categories "slave-holder" and a similar one.

Interesting. Who do you regard as "inner circle" and why do those two fail to even remotely get there? 217.28.0.65 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

See above response, I consider those belonging to the "remote" inner circle whose voice is deciding to delete categories that should not be ommited, neither to the community nor humanity as a whole. (and whose deletion is a clear case of blatant racism and approval of oppression)--37.230.25.235 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

They aren't inner circle primarily for 2 reasons. First, neither has made any edits since 2007 (so the inner circle has moved substantially to the left since they stopped editing) and 2nd because neither is an admin. In order to be a part of the "inner circle" one must be an admin. Which of course they say is no big deal...but it is a profoundly big deal....well to them anyway. The problem is once they get it, the only way it can be removed is if they die or stop editing. They are admins forever...like royalty. Even cases of blatant abuse are brushed off or justified. So if you meet one make sure you take a knee and kiss the ring. :-) 138.162.8.59 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to editing as an IP again, eh Kumioko? Resolute 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh its you! Don't you have an editor to block or an

AFD to delete or something? Besides harrassing everyone and accusing them of being Kumioko. Why don't you go Resolutely find something to do! There's no reason to have an account on here anyway as long as abusive admins like you are allowed to harrass logged in editors, abuse the tools and generally act like an ass without any ramifications. No wonder the edit rate in the project is dropping when the admins on this site are allowed to do whatever they want. Everyone knows your a great writer and everyone knows your a complete jerk. You just got the tools back when they were still no big deal. You and I both know you would never pass now. But that statement will probably get me blocked instead of you since I am not an admin it would be against policy to say something negative to an admin. Only admins can do that here. And a look at the comments in your edit history over the last couple months reflect that Resolute. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.104.158 (talk

)

They same people who have deleted categories like "Slave-owner" Category:Slaveholders making statements like this:

"....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today." "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places"

have been notoriously been pushing the POV and try to villainize an unarmed, black boy being shot to death in all articles connected to the incident http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.25.235 (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Links please?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Slave owners and Category:Slaveholders. While the latter had a discussion with the quotes I cited, until yesterday, but quite frankly, this discussion is gone since I mentioned it, exactly, ...yesterday... --37.230.25.235 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is not gone. It was and is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 28#Category:Slaveholders. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I was unclear. I'm not that interested in the Category deletion debate - we discussed that recently and while there were some terrible comments there (quoted above), it's an old, dead and gone issue. The current claim is that the same users have been POV pushing on "all articles" connected to Trayvon Martin. That's a pretty bold claim and would require links to back it up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that if a member of the mainstream media (or, really, any member of civil society) were to trawl through the archives of

Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the result would be intensely embarrassing and shameful for Wikipedia. Regardless of one's view of the legal aspects of the situation, the volume and intensity of not-so-subtly-racist venom directed at a deceased teenager and the concerted effort by a number of editors to posthumously vilify that teenager are as repulsive as anything I've encountered on this site. That said, I don't see the overlap with the deleted categories which the original poster alleges. MastCell ^Talk

20:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have information, as you proclaim that you do, that specific editors have acted in a vile, racist manner, than I suggest you lay forth your evidence, with links. I see no links, other than to the talk page of the article. Personally, I consider using vague allegations, lacking names or evidence, to be the more cowardly course than to lay your cards on the table. I suggest that you either refrain from such claims or act in a forthright manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you mention it, one of the most egregious offenders "retired" when his behavior came under scrutiny in

shunned. Thanks for the advice, though. I will endeavor to live up to the high standards of integrity and forthrightness that you set for us all. MastCell ^Talk

04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There were some cringe-worthy comments made from all sides on the Trayvon Martin talk page, not just one side, from what I observed. That was in addition to the edit warring on the article itself. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, which is why I object to the characterization. Such rewriting of history is very reminiscent of an editor with whom MastCell has been linked in the past, and I hate to see people keeping in bad company. MastCell, I take your words in the spirit in which they are offered, and in return hope you will make positive contributions to the encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Keeping bad company is one of the few pleasures left on Wikipedia, so you'll have to excuse my choice of associates. By the way, since you're obviously angry with me about something, it's probably healthier to drop the childish, passive-aggressive insinuations and just come out and say it. It will probably make you feel better, and it might even lessen the overall level of repressed hostility which permeates this project under the banner of

WP:CIVILity. Anyway, this thread has now been derailed from its original topic into weird personal grudges, as is standard on Jimbo's talkpage, so I don't have much to add. MastCell ^Talk

21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzeZhCt5PVA--37.230.25.235 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if you have an opinion on this issue? This came up in a discussion about the foreign-language redirect

I can see the benefit, and at least one person is actively using it. I see no harm. So I would vote to keep.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this project have a discussion page anywhere? I came across the subject

• Click again. It was a quickie; I'm on the run. I added one quick ref but I'm almost embarrassed to leave it like this; unfortunately I have to. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  She's definitely notable I think. I've done some tidying up behind you, so hopefully Candleabracadabra can now expand the article. Eric Corbett 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate it, Eric. In the meantime, I got the tag for my Prius, so we've all done at least one good thing today. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks gentlemen. I was hoping our visitors would do it. I guess there isn't a page or on Wiki organization of their efforts? I'm always trying to get out of doing work. Have a great weekend. Thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor has been working through National Register of Historic Places properties for years. He recently completed those listed in Virginia. Pretty awesome! Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Pub is a great editor - one of my top 5 for sure. To give a better description, he has written articles on sites on the National Register of Historic Places to (almost) complete the lists in Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, Delaware (?) and now Virginia. That must be well over 10,000 articles.

I'm guessing there are a few editors here scratching their heads on what your last 3 sections are doing here. Much of the time they come here to bitch about something. It's far from my place to say there might be a better place for this. Keep on truckin' Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought it would be nice to let Jimmy and anyone watching his page know about Pubdog's great work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It was nice, and I shouldn't have mixed that in with the usual BS that goes on on this page (see e.g. 2 sections down). Sorry. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

At

Can someone point me (and others) to the latest discussions about what we might do that day? The last I heard, there was pretty strong support for changing the home page to an all-NPOV special day with educational information about the issues of the NSA, surveillance, etc. And then there was a complicated poll that someone was complaining about, etc. I just would like to know the current state and whether we are ready for (and whether we need) a straight up vote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A highly-relevant POTD has been reviewed and scheduled for

Amash-Conyers Amendment & Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act

As for me personally, I have no talent for generating consensus for scheduling and have disconnected from that process, focusing my time in the content creation trenches over at WikiProject Mass surveillance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's "semi-relevant" in the sense of "not at all relevant".

Bencherlite^Talk

15:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, 14th amendment or 4th amendment,

Freedom for the Thought We Hate, even it if it is a re-run. But that's a decision for higher authorities than me. --HectorMoffet (talk

) 16:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So the argument about "relevance" has become simply this: "The Day We Fight Back is about one aspect of human rights - this is a TFA about some other aspect of human rights - therefore it is relevant". I disagree, but there's little point in going on about it because it's not running on 11th Feb anyway (it got no support for that when nominated at TFAR). Nor have you found any support for the notion of re-running any TFA, least of all Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, which was TFA just over 4 months ago (and not even from the principal author of that article).

Bencherlite^Talk

17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Freedom for the Thought That We Hate on that date, I was the principal author, but yes it did already run recently. So I'll respectfully defer to the wise judgment of Bencherlite about that. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

While anything is possible and many of those articles are excellent we are very time limited here and I prefer to have any article that gets the FA star be a full FA and not one that has had a rushed vetting process just so it can be mainpaged. The Fourth Admendment article you have commented on could be fast tracked though I suppose, but it's a lengthy piece and not an absolutely relevant one.--MONGO 12:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything about privacy or spying? First-amendment issues are pretty marginal to the mass spying controversy, except maybe for non-disclosure clauses of

national security letters. Someone not using his real name (talk

) 18:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady has attempted to schedule a Feb 11 (or later) nomination for Feb 6, despite clear flagging that the nomination was to be held for Feb 11 or later, as per our usual practice (see the Olympics). Orlady justified their action by pre-judging the outcome of our on-going discussion here, saying "we are not going to treat 11 February as a special occasion on the topic of mass survaillance. Your hook is currently scheduled to run on 6 February". diff. This is behavior that needs addressing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Following a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, there is no consensus to treat "The Day We Fight Back" as a special occasion, which is not a "usual practice" (or even one with precedent) in the context of protests.

I don't know why you believe that a discussion on Jimbo's talk page overrides the DYK discussion or regard this as a suitable forum in which to report a perceived infraction.

I see that you removed the DYK item from the set. And for good measure, you moved the article back to the draft namespace and inserted a bogus tag "to keep [it] off mainpage for a few days". And you're accusing someone else of attempting an "end-run around consensus"?

These actions seem particularity bizarre when one considers that Orlady is the editor who proposed that February 11 be treated as a special occasion (in the discussion that failed to achieve consensus) and you're the editor who terminated an already-belated RfC on whether to participate in the protest. —

David Levy

07:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep-- there's an on-going discussion, and I'm deeply offended that any one editor would prejudge the outcome. I don't claim a consensus exists for a special day on Feb 11. What's unacceptable is a tiny retinue of editors, editors I can count on one hand, who are just an isolated clique, making broad declarations pre-judging site-wide consensus and flouting WP:OWN? Those make me see red. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep-- there's an on-going discussion,

On Jimbo's talk page. Not to be confused with the lengthy DYK discussion that's already concluded or the RfC that you unilaterally removed.

and I'm deeply offended that any one editor would prejudge the outcome.

Orlady explicitly cited discussion at

WT:DYK

. Again, I don't know why you believe that a discussion on Jimbo's talk page overrides that.

I don't claim a consensus exists for a special day on Feb 11.

Then why do you feel entitled to flag nominations to be held until that date or later (which isn't a normal part of the process)?

What's unacceptable is a tiny retinue of editors, editors I can count on one hand, who are just an isolated clique,

An isolated clique? Like the editors who watch Jimbo's talk page? (I'm including myself, of course.)

making broad declarations pre-judging site-wide consensus

Site-wide consensus? Do you understand what a user talk page is? I'm not sure, as you referred to "high level discussions" occurring here.

and flouting WP:OWN?

You just moved an article back to the draft namespace and inserted a bogus tag "to keep [it] off mainpage for a few days" (after yanking its hook from DYK). And you're accusing others of "flouting WP:OWN?"?

Those make me see red.

I can tell. You don't normally behave like this.

Incidentally, as you didn't bother to inform Orlady of this report, I've done so. —

David Levy

07:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving articles into the draft namespace is inappropriate, so I have reverted that change. As it stands, the article will never appear at DYK because the nomination has been closed as "promoted" and the hook (but not the credits) has been removed from the prep area, so no-one at DYK will know that the hook has not in fact run. I just wish that instead of complaining that people are prejudging site-wide consensus, HectorMoffet would note that (a) consensus at WT:DYK is against this; (b) the

Bencherlite^Talk

08:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As with the "lengthy discussion", the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal had been for an extraordinary (like, extraordinarily bad) home page with all the usual rules thrown out the window. That does not mean that material about this day which passes the usual DYK or FA rules (including editor requests to hold hooks) should be rejected. Wnt (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As noted below, you evidently forgot about (and subsequently overlooked) part of the DYK discussion. You also seem to have forgotten about the discussion of less extreme ideas at Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day.

Your impression that DYK hooks are routinely held for any day of the nominator's choosing (including that of an organized protest) is erroneous. —

David Levy

15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

An isolated clique? Like the editors who watch Jimbo's talk page? (I'm including myself, of course.)

 Yes Agreed! Everyone will know what we do on Feb 11-- so almost everyone should know what we plan to do by Feb 10 (at the latest). This is a decision for multiple dozens or hundreds of editors, or more! -- it's not a decision for 3-5 editors, wherever they congregate.. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you terminate the RfC and hang your hat on a discussion occurring on Jimbo's talk page? —

David Levy

15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To quote from the masterpiece that is Game of Thrones
Spice King: "The discussion is over Xaro Xhoan Daxos. The Thirteen have spoken."
Xaro: "I am one of the Thirteen and I am still speaking. "
Jimbo may not have the vocal resonance of Xaro, but you get my point. A consensus for a special day has not been reached and a consensus may never be reached. Or maybe a consensus will be reached after all. But pre-judgements of what consensus will bring unfortunately reek of the foul stink of

I see very little debate at

T:TDYK. (Note that the "lengthy discussion" linked above rejected a different proposal to re-run old DYKs, which I also opposed, but is not a blanket ban on this topic!) A few editors at [43] seem to have decided that some events deserve to have timed hooks held for them, but this one doesn't -- I guess that funneling copyright royalties into the corrupt morass that is the IOC is just so plainly a worthy cause that Wikipedia has to accommodate it, but that isn't a privilege allowed to editors covering anything else. Wnt (talk

) 11:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that the "lengthy discussion" linked above rejected a different proposal to re-run old DYKs, which I also opposed, but is not a blanket ban on this topic!

One of the subsections (introduced by Orlady, as noted above) is titled "Proposal: Treat this like a 'special occasion'". You supported said proposal, so it's curious that you've now overlooked it. Discussion of the broader idea to tie DYK into the February 11 protest occurred throughout the parent section.

A few editors at [44] seem to have decided that some events deserve to have timed hooks held for them, but this one doesn't -- I guess that funneling copyright royalties into the corrupt morass that is the IOC is just so plainly a worthy cause that Wikipedia has to accommodate it, but that isn't a privilege allowed to editors covering anything else.

DYK's purpose isn't to support "worthy causes". It's to highlight/encourage the encyclopedia's expansion. Occasionally, hooks' appearances are purposely scheduled to coincide with well established, widely recognized events (such as holidays and major competitions). Again, DYK has never made special arrangements for a protest (and there isn't consensus to start now). —

David Levy

15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Supporters of this have had weeks to discuss and get aproval from the community at large. They have no one to blame but themselves that they have never attempted to have a centralized discussion on the basic question "Is this something Wikipedia should actively participate in." To late to push something through and when casting blame look in the mirror first.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Day we fight back" or "Surveillance Awareness Day" proposal was discussed last month at

I agree that some bad proposals were made, and moving a page back to Draft: space is the process I would like to see substituted for deletions, and after such a reform I would view such a move as the sort of thing to oppose vehemently at AfD. That said, we still have the fundamental philosophical problem of "very widely recognized" by who? It is a gateway to POV. For example, right now there is a holding area for "22 February (Investiture of new cardinals appointed by Pope Francis)". Now that's fair enough, it's widely recognized, can't argue that. But does everyone in the world agree the appointment of a new cardinal in Rome is more notable than a political event supported by 100 organizations advocating an end to global surveillance? How do you evaluate that? Or even putting this event aside for a moment -- what are you going to decide when the Mormons are appointing their church functionaries, the Unitarians, the UCC, etc.? Does Wikipedia, like Russia, take an official view of what is a Recognized World Religion and what isn't? I say the only possible answer there that is not very, very offensive is to say no, we don't. We leave the POV to the choice of every individual editors, each and every one of which is free to propose a DYK and decide on an individual basis whether it is worth scheduling it for a day in the near future or not. There simply is no other acceptable solution. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: The

article ownership -- in effect, saying "if Wikipedia won't feature my work on the main page they way I want it to be featured, I am not going to let Wikipedia have the benefit of my work." That's not the way this place works. --Orlady (talk

) 17:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That said, we still have the fundamental philosophical problem of "very widely recognized" by who?

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

It is a gateway to POV.

Permitting editors to flood the main page with material intended to support political causes would be such a gateway.

But does everyone in the world agree the appointment of a new cardinal in Rome is more notable than a political event supported by 100 organizations advocating an end to global surveillance?

No, of course not. And

David Levy

17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Except the Olympics, and the Vatican, and other organizations you support, that is. Please note that there is no WP:Established cultural significance, nor any reason why someone would pick that particular criterion. Also note as I've said before that WP:Advocacy speaks of politics and sports in the same breath - if it is wrong to "advocate" TDWFB by creating DYKs about it, then it is wrong to do it for the Olympics. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between writing about a widely recognized event and participating in an organized political protest. —

David Levy

18:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure I know the difference. It's the same reason why an article about a neighborhood in the U.S. goes without a second thought, while an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan gets deleted with a few pejorative comments about it being a "wide place in the road", without regard to population. The difference is money. We're all supposed to whore after money night and day; it gives dignity and meaning to employment, and therefore to life; it distinguishes the noble and the celebrity from the nobody. And of course, the NSA is money (with all that insider stock information, how can't it be?) and it is dangerous to be on the outs with money. But on Wikipedia, we don't actually have to do that - we can respect a partisan organization equally whether it is housed in a cathedral or a hastily built website, and feel free to offer research support to all without prejudice. And when prejudice is unavoidable, we could (in utter violation of every de facto precept and tenet of capitalism) leave the power in the hands of those doing the work, rather than saying "thank you for your contributions, but when it comes to showing what our site supports (like not boycotting the Olympics while boycotting anti-NSA protest) your efforts are now the property of the Few In Charge". And I think that democratic, individualist response is exactly what we can and should do. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure I know the difference. It's the same reason why an article about a neighborhood in the U.S. goes without a second thought, while an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan gets deleted with a few pejorative comments about it being a "wide place in the road", without regard to population.

Please provide links to the relevant discussion(s). If your description is accurate, this sounds like a problem in need of attention.

The difference is money. We're all supposed to whore after money night and day; it gives dignity and meaning to employment, and therefore to life; it distinguishes the noble and the celebrity from the nobody. And of course, the NSA is money (with all that insider stock information, how can't it be?) and it is dangerous to be on the outs with money.

I really am trying to understand the above comments' relevance, but I'm not seeing it.

But on Wikipedia, we don't actually have to do that - we can respect a partisan organization equally whether it is housed in a cathedral or a hastily built website, and feel free to offer research support to all without prejudice.

And we have an article about "The Day We Fight Back", which received a DYK hook.

And when prejudice is unavoidable,

It's much easier for Wikipedia to avoid participating in an organized political protest than it is for us to take part.

we could (in utter violation of every de facto precept and tenet of capitalism) leave the power in the hands of those doing the work, rather than saying "thank you for your contributions, but when it comes to showing what our site supports (like not boycotting the Olympics while boycotting anti-NSA protest) your efforts are now the property of the Few In Charge".

Once again, this comes down to you not recognizing the difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism.

Running main page items about the Olympics during the Olympics is a means of delivering timely content, not "showing what our site supports".

Setting aside the matter of cultural significance, if it were feasible to write multiple articles about "The Day We Fight Back" and create a DYK hook for each (to run on the day of the event), that would be a materially different situation. What we actually have is an attempt to flood DYK with articles whose subjects merely relate to the political cause behind the event — for the express purpose of supporting the protest and influencing its outcome. —

David Levy

21:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Those Olympics related articles aren't about the present competition either. And when a person is interested in finding out and telling the honest truth, there is no difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism. Wikipedia started as an activist cause and, despite unjustifiable obstacles, remains one, provided that we can avoid getting bogged down in frustration and focus simply on what we can do. Obstructionism is limitless, but so is our creativity. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Those Olympics related articles aren't about the present competition either.

Indeed. Please ask yourself why it's possible to run DYK hooks about past Olympic events but not past "The Day We Fight Back" events.

And when a person is interested in finding out and telling the honest truth, there is no difference between encyclopedic coverage and activism.

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

Again, the motive behind efforts to run special items on February 11 is to participate in the protest (not to write about it, but to become part of it).

Wikipedia started as an activist cause and, despite unjustifiable obstacles, remains one, provided that we can avoid getting bogged down in frustration and focus simply on what we can do.

Yes, Wikipedia's mission is inherently non-neutral. This is a discussion about its encyclopedic content. It's impossible to eliminate all bias, but we do our best.

Obstructionism is limitless, but so is our creativity.

I'm sorry if you regard opposition to the idea of Wikipedia participating in the protest as obstructionism. My goal, like yours, is to do what I believe is best for Wikipedia.

That includes examining the problem that you mentioned earlier (with the deletion of an article about a modest-sized city in Pakistan as an example), so please provide the discussion link(s). —

David Levy

23:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been a few related events in the past such as Stop Watching Us which are indeed candidates for the February 11 DYK push. And TDWFB is most directly targeted at passing USA Freedom Act and stopping FISA Improvements Act, both candidates also. I don't recall all the village threads - here's one of them [45] but not the worst I remember, which was some AfD .. somewhere. Wnt (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, those articles relate to the political cause behind the event, not the event itself. And that isn't the only issue, as I've tried to make clear.

I can't comment on other discussions, but the one to which you linked doesn't match your description. I see from your comment that you regarded the proposal as an example of "contempt people show toward Indian and Pakistani locals", but it was based upon the articles' poor quality (and the idea that readers would be better served if pointed to broader articles for the time being), not a belief that certain cities are unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. —

David Levy

00:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this was already in the discussion and I just missed it, but is there a template we could put on our userpage?

• Can someone (Jimbo preferably) please collapse this sub-thread? It has become a blame game, and this is not what Jimbo was asking for. It's distracting from constructive solutions. (And there's been enough bloodletting on this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Holds not being respected at WP:DYKN.) Thanks. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

See

I'm also concerned with the single focus of this. If it's actually going to be NPOV, there has to be mention of the snooping conducted routinely by Google, recent concerns about voice data from the iPhone, and other, commercial uses of snooping and surveillance. If all it's going to be is some sort of self-congratulatory rant against the NSA, it's quite frankly a sham and political activism. Intothatdarkness 14:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, what most of the people are doing right now is writing and promoting drafts and nominating DYKs. If you want to do that for Google, iPhone, or other companies, by all means, please do! WP:WikiProject Mass surveillance isn't defined any more precisely than mass surveillance, so you'd be more than welcome to join and work with us. None of that, of course, makes you or us NPOV. No person is NPOV; only articles can be NPOV, when they fairly and comprehensively explain everything from all the reliable sources available. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate what I said before. Most people don't care about this NSA issue, or perhaps even tacitly approve of the NSA's actions. And stemming from that, a number of admins think it's inappropriate to use Wikipedia for "fighting back" purposes; so they have taken the necessary steps to prevent the use of DYK etc. for such purposes. Jimbo doesn't own Wikipedia either, so it seems any gesture of solidarity will have to be made by him personally or the WMF, if they can agree to that. (And amusingly, the issue of "zero as a price" [46] applies both to the discussion about spying [47] and to what get's published on Wikipedia['s main page].) Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What we can do

• Well, it's not the Main Page, but Portal:Mass surveillance/Intelligence and the associated WikiProject illustrate that Wikipedians are at least putting some effort into covering these issues. Wnt (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is great work. Bravo to the stamina shown by Wikipedians. It was incredibly tough wading through the strong reactions. I am impressed by the ability to remain unemotional and get good work done. My hat is off to

project has just begun. petrarchan47tc

03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.t-online.de/computer/internet/id_67681618/manipulationen-in-wikipedia-dauerbeschuss-von-pr-agenturen.html

(Translation kudos to Google Translator...)

Wikipedia manipulation is "a problem for democracy"

Copy of the article removed as a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is worth highlighting a few statements under Fair Use. As translated by Google:

Malte Landwehr, a specialist at manipulating Wikipedia articles PR consultant, told monitor as the procedure is this: "There are many professional providers who work on such a level with so much effort that the Wikipedia there really no chance has to reveal it. "

On one hand, desired information would be specifically enhanced in articles, on the other hand removes unwanted information. Landwehr've worked on several projects, where was doing, he said in an interview. These manipulations would not be in the open and have permanent existence...

Even the Wikipedia authors confirm that the attacks of PR agencies are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Dirk Franke, honorary author, PR Hunter and one of 250 administrators at Wikipedia told by very advanced manipulation at Wikipedia. Since going to tricky the weighting and the tone changed for individual paragraphs and, for example, in the criticism-paragraph also adds a critique of the critique. "This is an eternal cat-and-mouse game for years drags on," he said.

The big problem of the online encyclopedia: In the Wikipedia there is always less honorary active authors like Dirk Franke and more and more paid writers like Malte Landwehr who work for PR agencies and have even managed to administrator privileges on Wikipedia. "I have several PR agencies in Germany known to have at least one user with administrator privileges," he says...

Now to be sure, if Wikipedia can motivate some good people to do development, it can fight back against stuff like this. For example, we could have a built-in feature with an article that hunts through the history for references that have been removed, linking to the relevant diffs. (I've actually thought about writing such a thing myself in Javascript, but it would be better for a program to have access to save its interim data files so that they can be reused by other readers, and to be widely and easily accessible by editors who never heard of it) Wnt (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Create lists to gauge scope of problems: I think if there are just a few
  wp:COI problems, then people could be warned of concerns, and focus instead on large, continual writing of paid-advocacy pages. Perhaps we should create some lists to check for excesses, such as:
                 • "wp:List of corporate articles created by admins"
  For admins who have created just a few, or a dozen, corporate pages, then perhaps a discussion could recommend curtailing the activities, but for admins who have created several corporate adverts articles, then perhaps a User/RfC would be needed to assess the impact on an admin's neutrality. Already, people have echoed how "admin abuse" is likely to be abuse to admins, and so there is a sentiment that admins should be allowed to do almost anything. Keeping some lists could help to gauge the extent of the problems. -Wikid77
  14:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• How is this even news? We had at least three examples of admins with strong COI editing patterns and another with a more moderate one on this page in just last few months. One of the COI admins was even a WMF employee and was caught advertizing her services on a ejobs site. Lost her WMF bit, but still is an admin. On the milder side, an ArbCom member resigned after it turned out he wrote articles about his own projects. I'm sure there's a lot more that flies under the radar, particularly since admins (unlike arbcom members or Foundation employees) don't have to disclose their real-life identity to anyone. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do I ask about copyright questions? Are WPA funded painting at U.S. post office in the public domain? I've seen at least one image at Wikipedia commons. I did some work creating articles on the artist who did some of them and it would be nice to have images of their work. Is there a general discussion board for people working on articles? A place to get input and ideas? I find the individual WikiProjects can be useful but are sometimes not very active and often insular. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Start at

WP:Copyright questions

. I have to say that in the past I've had some strange experiences there and have tended to avoid it. It seemed to be a place where you could go to have somebody imagine a reason that a work wasn't in the public domain. I'm not kidding, I once had a 3 week discussion there why a 300 year old painting couldn't be copyrighted.

Commons now has a special copyright tag for WPA works saying that the are pd. There are possibly some tricky areas - there's a whole list of 1930s agencies that people tend to call the WPA. For Post Offices you probably want the one called Section of Painting and Sculpture which was part of the US Treasury and is as pd as pd gets. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, thoughts and clarification. You are absolutely right. Although the paintings get lumped in with WPA projects they were done under the Treasury Dept. known as The Section. Helpful to know that they should in fact be Public Domain. Have a great weekend. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things, just because it was a government WPA work does not mean it is in the public domain. The artist ALWAYS retains their copyright on these works unless you can demonstrate that this was indeed a work for hire, the only way an artist can give up their rights to the work outside of selling the copyright.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument Mark. How is a contract for public art not for hire? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't an actual argument...its actually copyright law. If I paint a picture for the WPA, I have to do either of two things. I must admit and declare the works as a "work for hire" releasing the rights immediately, or sell the rights I own". Many editors will not do the research and just throw "PD" as an excuse to upload someone else's work. Problem is...it is a copy right violation if not actually public domain. pretty simple actually.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller is quite correct. A work is only a "work made for hire" in copyright terms if a specific contract between the creator (artist, author, sculptor, whatever) and the employer says that a specific work, or works generally created as part of the contracted employment, is a "work made for hire". If the contract doesn't mention this, or there is no written contract, the copyright remains with the creator unless it is sold or assigned (again in writing). If a work is a "work made for hire" then legally the employer is considered to be the creator, and initial copyright would vest in the employer. Except that if the employer is the US federal government, the work is therefore a "work of the US government" and is PD from the moment of creation. The application to WPA projects and similar publicly funded art ist ot determine the normal contract practices of the specific agency involved. If these invariably made the art a "work for hire" then it is PD, otherwise the content of the specific contract for the specific work must be looked into. These are often filed with the Copyright Office. DES ^(talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be really nice if someone who knows would explain the meaning of "WPA". Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be the

John Cline (talk

) 09:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:WikiProject_Mathematics/Popular_pages - lists Top 500 pages

Some equations were even aligned at bottom of "Probability density function" as the math pages have become overly complex treatises on each topic, with several multi-part equations in each page. -Wikid77 05:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a reminder for more people to update articles about the 2014 Winter Olympics (in Sochi, Russia), 7–23 February 2014, which are currently being viewed several times per minute. More is needed about the weather conditions, as the average temperatures usually reach

This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}.

, but this week seem to be more like middle

This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}.

and could include the conditions in the nearby mountain slopes. I think people would appreciate even basic copy-editing for text grammar and phrasing in the general sports articles or hundreds of current athlete articles, for almost 300 medals in the 98 events (see: "List of 2014 Winter Olympics medal winners" and follow wikilinks to other athletes). -Wikid77 22:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

NBCUniversal would also appreciate this help from the Wikipedia volunteers! - 2601:B:BB80:E0:209F:EC6E:3CD3:5324 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The warmer weather in Sochi is being noted for melting the mountain snow, and seems to have enough sources now to support a separate article, with earlier sources explaining plans to offset any potential melting of snow. -Wikid77 05:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking "Mass surveillance at the 2014 Winter Olympics" where people who plan to attend have been warned that the WiFi network(s) and mobile phone connections are likely bugged to detect any potential threats disclosed in daily conversations. In general, any writings in pages related to mass surveillance would support the events planned for 11 February 2014. -Wikid77 22:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia events were canceled for TDWSB. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all:

WP:Mass surveillance is here to stay, and this would be a great DYK for the project. There's also http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/02/06/russia_olympic_shower_cams_hosts_dismiss_hotel_complaints_by_citing_video.html ... I had given this a minute for the dust to settle (and perhaps for someone to publish particulars on the cameras) but we should have an article at some point. Wnt (talk

) 13:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)