In the early days of Wikipedia is was impressive even while lots of confused apes wandered about chaotically. Then it reached a mature phase and functioned in orderly fashion for some years. Now dishonest cowardly bullies sanctimoniously preach about civility while bullying their betters, bullying honest participants, bullying knowledgeable and erudite participants, bullying generous participants, and the bullies have now achieved dominance. I have done nearly 200,000 edits and created hundreds of articles, and I have done far more than 200,000 edits if you count edits while not logged in. I have edited Wikipedia daily since 2002.

I propose:

• that Wikipedia announce a date, perhaps six months from now, when it will cease allowing any edits at all; and
• that Wikipedia abandon all pretense of opposing personal attacks or condoning civility, since it is now only a pretense at best, and is ceasing to be a successful pretense. People will laugh at official avowals of wanting civility or even of wanting honesty. This abandonment should be done now. Today. With an accompanying explicit announcement that the Wiki is on its death bed and that euthanasia is the best option in this case.

Wikipedia will be a thing of the past very soon. A very impressive museum.

Maybe the culture will change so that it can be reincarnated some day. Or maybe something better will succeed it in the future. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, what happened?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN#Suppression or courtesy blanking of an AfD page containing libelous material - Whatever this is, is what happened. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been going on for a while: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy § History of the ancestral health article and surrounding disputes. Michael Hardy has WP:OWNed that article since he started it, apparently, but I can't really see why this is suddenly so important that the entire project should be shut down two years after the event. Guy (Help!) 05:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that Michael is one of the most prolific members of the community who has been around for years. Whatever this is all about - I had missed the entire controversy until today - it's worth understanding. I think it fairly obvious that Michael isn't seriously suggesting shutting the project down - he's upset and venting. When things have calmed down, it's really worthwhile to consider what sequence of events led to this disruption and to also recognize that longstanding trusted and valued community members who are feeling this hurt and upset may actually have a point worth hearing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Jimbo, have you now had a chance to look at the train of events? What do you make of it, and what would you like to feed back to Michael? Things do appear to be getting a little heated on his talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have Wikipedia kept online. So far, it has inconvenienced:

• Corrupt politicians
• Dictatorships
• Immoral businessmen
• Nazis
• Misogynists and misandrists
• Racists
• TERFs
• Religious fanatics
• Homophobes
• Terrorists of all flavors
• Other bigots not listed here
• Conspiracy nuts

...because Wikipedia has exposed their actions as immoral, illegal, illogical or pseudo-scientific, and that attempts by these groups to edit articles are prevented by users enforcing anti-POV policies. It's also the reason why it's banned in countries that want to maintain strict control of their populations. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderOzEvolved—I would say that the above is more sanctimoniousness. Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is now in full-blown "suppressing dissent" mode, as an examination of the edit history of this page shows. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop Yeah I went overboard with this one, but hey. At least I like it Wikipedia for its impact. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to mention to any watchers of this page who might have faced issues which have inspired them to come here and make similar complaints, that community health is an issue which is addressed on Wikipedia here and on Wikimedia at large here. The former of the two, the Wikipedia project page has been inactive since May and it's talk page since July and could probably use Your* help. The Wikimedia initiative is benefiting from a recent banner designed to kick-start new initiatives and is quite hot at the moment. The aforementioned pages contain links and are far from being the only pages on Wikipedia, which deal with this subject. In short: community health is not something which is overlooked by either editors or organizers of this project and involvement in community health initiatives may be particularly rewarding to people who believe that their time here as an editor has been made in any way uncomfortable for having encountered bullying or anti-social behavior.
  

*Anyone and everyone Edaham (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth remembering that Michael is one of the most prolific members of the community who has been around for years. Maybe MH is due some respect for being around so long and contributing so much, but you know what? So is Cullen. So are a lot of other editors. The fact that MH signed up first, or makes more bot-assisted or minor edits is really immaterial to how much respect they deserve relative to other editors. You know what's not immaterial to that? the number of disruptive ANI threads they've started. The number of editors they've alienated with their poor attitude. MH doesn't really measure up too well in those two regards, but by all means: ignore all that because he's been fiddling with redirects and fixing grammar for ten years.

I would also point out that the "personal attack" which was removed from this page was, quite obviously, anything but. It was arguably somewhat uncivil (as it didn't bother to explain the logic behind it, only present a conclusion as a given), but to call it insulting is completely ignorant. "You are pursuing a crank agenda" and "you are a crank" mean two entirely different things, and it's rude and disrespectful not to give someone like Cullen the benefit of the doubt by asking them to explain before just jumping to the worst conclusion and calling it a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone has forgotten, the Michael Hardy case is an example of Arbcom flat out lying (saying that "a number of other community members chose to involve themselves in this dispute and/or commented extensively during the events leading up to the case... Softlavender in particular [has] made comments that may have been good-faith expressions of concern, but were critical of Hardy in ways that did not clarify the situation or deescalate the dispute."[1]) when Softlavender's only involvement was offering evidence in the Arbcom case.[2])

Arbcom followed up on this blatant lie (yes, there will be those who object to me calling a lie a lie, but presenting evidence during an Arbcom case is not "commenting extensively during the events leading up to the case". That's a lie.) by attempting to sanction Softlavender and others[3].

They relented when there was a shitstorm of protest ("Switching to oppose by request of the community. Everyone thinks this is outrageous and useless..."), but some of them did so with snarky comments like "I remain very disappointed in many of the community members who participated in escalating this dispute, and unimpressed that almost no one involved... seems to have changed their position, reconsidered their behavior, or demonstrated self-awareness of their own contributions to the problem" -- totally ignoring fact that multiple editors had just told them that their "escalating this dispute" claim was factually incorrect.

As I have done several time before, again I call upon Arbcom to make it clear that anyone can offer evidence in an Arbcom case without being sanctioned simply for presenting evidence that some arbcom members don't want to hear. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#I believe that I am owed an apology. for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the topic at hand, Michael Hardy has been "blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for namecalling and doubling down on personal attacks against six named editors",[4] and when he continued the personal attacks on his talk page,[5] his talk page access was revoked.[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It worries me that he is behaving as if he is invested in the topic or has some personal relationship with the individuals called out in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying question

This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health. AfD pages are not indexed so should not pollute Google searches, but regardless, the bar to courtesy blanking is pretty low for BLP issues.

However, this is not obviously a BLP issue. Michael Hardy appears to have some kind of emotional investment inthe subject, he considered Orangemike's characterisation of the Journal of Evolution and Health as unrecognised to be outrageous. Actually it was pretty accurate. The journal published its first issue in 2013, its second in 2017, so at the time of the AfD it had one issue only, which contained the cited paper. It had then and as far as I can tell has now no entry in the usual indexes, no impact factor, and is not listed in any of the directories that indicate reliability.

Michael Hardy appears to think that it is libellous and outrageous to suggest that this journal was set up by advocates of this particular fad diet in order to promote it. Whether or not that is true, it is, I suggest, a reaonsable interpretation of the facts. A random sample of articles found at least one member of the editorial board as author or co-author on every one. In my experience, that is a massive red flag for a crank journal. I have assessed and purged references to hundreds of these over time, most are predatory.

He also appears to believe that it is libellous and outrageous to assert that advocates of this fad diet are using discipline-specific jargon in order to give an air of legitimacy to what is implicitly a pseudoscientific study. Again, regardless of the merits of the claim, it a not unreasonable inference in context. A group of people combine to publish a journal which has Vol. 1 Iss 1 and then lies dormant, using sciencey-sounding language to advocate something that is unquestionably commercially lucrative but which does not appear to have significant academic support. That is a giant red flag, and if it was the Journal of Reiki and Health or the Journal of Homeopathy and Health I venture to suggest that MH might well feel less inclined to die on this particular hill.

So the comments on the AfD are not actionable, and are defensible, but someone doesn't like them and it sounds very much as if they are in touch with MH complaining about it.

My personal preference is to courtesy blank any AfD where an editor in good standing asks nicely. If this had come in via OTRS when I did that, I'd probably have done the same. Does anyone have any good reason why we should not do that here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was libelous to say an organization is promoting a fad diet (even though that is not it's purpose, I don't think that's libelous. I never said it was libelous or outrageous to call an unimportant journal unrecognized; I said that word should not be used in a misleading way. What I called libelous was the statements that certain professors are charlatans.

(The organization's main purpose is to organize conferences at which researchers do presentations of their findings to their fellow researchers.)

"Unquestionably commerically lucrative"? How? They're not selling anything except tickets to their conferences at which researchers meet; the tickets costs pay for the conference. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say blank it, but only after the current discussion dies down and the block expires. Right now a lot of us are looking at the AfD to evaluate the claims of a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the good reasons not to blank are all the reasons that JzG already noted, and the unanimous consensus among 13 admins and other experienced editors at AN that it should not be blanked. Acceding to a ridiculous whim after a barrage of personal attacks that resulted not only in a block but a TP revocation as well is only going to make things worse. Softlavender (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a lot of a reason to blank an AfD, once the debate is done the utility o the page is over, and the content remains in the history of anyone cares. The entrenched views on display here are inexplicable to me given the trivial nature of the content itself. This stinks of an off-wiki dispute of some sort. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at ya. The trivial (and off-article-space) nature of the content itself means there is utterly no reason to blank it. There is an overwhelming unanimous consensus not to blank it, so to blank it would be against consensus. As is, the person insisting on blanking has been blocked and is having his mop newly questioned, especially following the ArbCom reprimand he received for exactly the kind of odd and bullying behavior he is currently exhibiting. Softlavender (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that questions about MH's suitability as an admin are not, in fact, new. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Can anyone think up a good reason not to blank the AfD? I'm just saying, if there's a mediocre reason to blank (fulfilling a request from a longstanding editor) and no appreciable reason not to do so, then the obvious course of action is to blank it.

I don't consider this a rhetorical question. I'm honestly asking. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for courtesy blanking:

1. Someone somewhere finds a debate page upsetting.

2. Er....

3. That's it.

Well, not quite, but not far off. The bar to courtesy blanking if any living person finds a page offensive or belittling is very low, because WP:NOTEVIL.

I have no clue why MH is so angry about this, equally I have no clue why people are so keen to ensure that the visibility of this AfD is maximised. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I've moved your comment to what seemed the more appropriate place and altered the indenting. Feel free to revert me if I was in error.

I think you've described my position fairly well, assuming that "blanking" refers to actually blanking the page, and not revdelling all edits to it or deleting the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• While the article may not be based on good sources, we should look beyond that and take all the evidence on this whole issue seriously. We can read here:

"...the Tsimane, a forager-horticulturalist population of the Bolivian Amazon with few coronary artery disease risk factors, have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population recorded to date."

This raises questions about the way research is conducted on health and nutrition. It seems that too much weight is put on research involving Western-style diets, without questioning whether all Western-style diets may actually cause heart disease. The result on the Tsimane wasn't actually the first such result, we can read here:

"Williams and Jack Davies had shown clinically and pathologically that coronary heart disease was almost non-existent among the African population in Uganda, although Hugh Trowell had reported a single case of coronary heart disease in an African judge. In the Asian community of Uganda, on the other hand, coronary heart disease was extremely common, accounting for almost half of the male deaths in Kampala in 1956–1958."

So, the data about diets that cause orders of magnitude less arterial plaque on which you can thrive, is out there. It existed already in the 1950s and it has been replicated recently. However, we prefer to ignore that data and do research that allows us to eat a diet similar to what we eat already that will reduce adverse health effects, take e.g. the Mediterranean diet. But compared to a diet that leads to almost zero rates of cardiovascular disease, the Mediterranean diet is not at all healthy.

So, while Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, there should still be plenty of room to write a good article about this subject, as there is evidence for the general claims made, published in reliable journals. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to relitigate that question here (though the inability of the proponents to sustain a self-published journal rather suggests you may be wrong). The question is purely about courtesy blankign a page that implicitly identifies living people in a less than flattering context. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I also do not oppose blanking (just in case I am included in the 13). My take from the AfD is one has to do not insignificant research to even begin to understand Hardy's complaint (the "critical comments", shall we say, seem too generalized for something like "oversight" action, although there is talk of "scam", which it's not now clear where that first came up (edit summary?). Initially, I was thinking targeted redaction but that is rather too pointed on single editors' generalized comments. At any rate, as suggested, there is no need to prove or even claim something like "libel" for a courtesy blanking. I also think that discussion at AN got a bit out-of-hand with reference to past 'bad acts' of Hardy (per CIVIL and NPA - bringing up past bad acts, but then again, it rather started off sidetracked with "libel") -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A sample of reasons not to blank: the page contains no BLP violations or other inappropriate material that needs blanking; AfDs are archived because they're a record of prior consensus and shouldn't be obscured without grounds; this particular AfD was also cited in an arbcom case; several "editors in good standing" have already explicitly opposed it; there are strong indications that the request is motivated by, if not a COI, then a fringe POV; MH has already gotten away with far too much disruptive and frankly bizarre behaviour because he is a "longstanding editor". – Joe (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we should retain a page that contains insinuations about readily identifiable living people, in order to punish MH for being a dick? This really isn't about him. At all. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I probably should have been more clear: I was asking for reasons to not blank. What you've provided here are mostly arguments against the previously described reason for blanking. Don't get me wrong, these are good arguments. But they undermine reasons to blank: they don't provide a reason not to blank. To express myself better, let me ask: What do you think the downside would be to blanking? How would it hurt the project? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, there isn't much of a downside. Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted. Oh, well, I tried. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, if someone asked me "do you see any reason in the AfD that it should be blanked", my answer would be no. But I also don't see any particular reason to deny courtesy blanking in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

↑ This exactly. Courtesy blanking should follow a rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. What matters is that someone has identified a potential problem. I would like to know the basis for this, two years after the event. I would absolutely support "X has contacted me and asked for courtesy blanking of this page" as a rationale for an AfD debate, but MH's over the top reaction has not helped. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This really isn't about him" – of course it is. We're only engaged in this colossal waste of time because he has apparently carried this grudge for two years while the rest of us forgot about that AfD. If merely stating a reasonable and relevant opinion about a living person is cause for blanking, you better get cracking on every AfD of a BLP there's ever been.

And to clarify, what I was trying to say above is that we shouldn't accommodate groundless, POV-motivated requests to censor discussions from disruptive editors just because they're old hands. Especially not when other editors object. It hurts the project's integrity, may cause a chilling effect on future discussions, and we wouldn't even be considering it if MH wasn't an admin with an old account. – Joe (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with your first paragraph, and your second contains one of the reasons I was asking for, thank you. I've manually reverted your revert because your edit summary seemed to reply only to the specific reason Sarek gave, and while I won't edit war over it, I will hope you won't, either (but I will, neither, be surprised if someone else reverts me). Nevermind: I see you've already decided it's worth edit warring over.

So it seems to me that we should weigh the benefit of extending a courtesy to a longtime editor with the drawback of possible giving off a harmful impression to newer editors.

I, for one, would be happy to make an additional statement outlining my support for blanking, my past interactions with MH (entirely negative), as well as my estimation of the value of their request ("childish demand" would be more accurate), and a clear statement that I would extend the same courtesy to any editor who is not indeffed or community banned right there on the page to offset any perception of favoritism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe restoring the stable version agreed upon in an WP:AN thread is "edit warring" any more than your revert was. However you interpreted my edit summary, it seems extremely arrogant to impose your personal judgement of the situation over that of the half a dozen editors who participated there.

I agree entirely with the trade-off you mention: MH's behaviour in the AfD in question already drove off one new editor (the very same person he is now accusing of slander), and I'd opt for not rubbing salt in that wound, not rewarding his bullying with "courtesies". – Joe (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe restoring the stable version agreed upon in an WP:AN thread is "edit warring" any more than your revert was. You've reverted twice now, which meets the definition of "edit warring". Whether it should be responded to with sanctions is a different question, one I'm inclined to answer "no" simply because I don't care enough about this subject.

Which leaves another question: Why do you?

I might point out that there are (quite obviously) people who agree with Michael Hardy and support him. Look at Jimbo's response to Cullen's comment, described above. Those people will, to some extent, agree with his complaints about being bullied and discriminated against. So whether we blank the page or not, we're giving the impression that we encourage favoritism and reward bad behavior, just to a different group. I've offered to do something that could -along with the blanking- offset that. I've yet to see anything coming from the "don't blank" side of this argument that even approaches an attempt to work things out, instead of winning the debate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "not rewarding his bullying" above caught my eye. When someone behaves badly, the Right Thing To Do is to act exactly as if they hadn't. We should not be more inclined or less inclined to courtesy blank because of Hardy's behavior. And blanking a year-old page when even one editor thinks it is a BLP violation is standard (and in this case it is more than one editor). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Censorship"? For goodness sake, that's just ratcheting up. In no way is courtesy blanking upon request censorship. It is also unseemly to not extend a courtesy, because one does not think a particular editor deserves a courtesy (courtesy is trying to be better, is it not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? "The suppression of speech... on the basis that such material is considered objectionable" is our definition of censorship, but feel free to pretend I wrote "redact" instead.

To answer Mjolnir's question: I care because of the shameful double standard. A new editor is driven off the project by an "established" one, and we're now seriously considering obscuring the record of that as a courtesy to the latter? MH's response to failing to gain consensus at AN was to repeatedly attack the other editors involved and whine to his old pal Jimbo... so we let him have his way? – Joe (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are looking at this in fundamentally the wrong way. However much of a dick MH might have been, that is never a reason to refuse to courtesy blank a debate that makes insinuations about somebody else. A righteous concern raised in the wrong way is still a righteous concern. I don't give a monkeys about MH or hos motley band of boosters and knockers, but I do care that someone has, at some point, raised a concern about rhetorical exuberance concerning easily identifiable living individuals who have no obvious role in the fight. And so should you. It's about showing class. Leave it to Commons to do the worst thing possible just because it's legally allowed, here at Wikipedia we should aspire to better. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you just mentioned redact. At any rate, a blank does not suppress any speech, it just files it in a different form. And the idea of limited courtesy is not just to the editor, it's to the one(s) whose professional or personal reputation it "may" effect. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't know what speech you think is being suppressed. Everything i nthe AfD has already been said, and can still be seen after a blanking.

To answer Mjolnir's question: I care because of the shameful double standard. What double standard? Is M. A. Bruhn being denied a courtesy blanking?

MH's response to failing to gain consensus at AN was to repeatedly attack the other editors involved and whine to his old pal Jimbo... so we let him have his way? MH has been blocked, and had their TP access removed. In addition, according to comments by the last arbcom (which -it should be noted- seemed to be eager to blame anyone but MH for all the shit he stirred up), this incident itself creates grounds to seriously consider desysopping him involuntarily. Plus, I'm of the opinion that his outlook in a possible site ban discussion would not be so hot. Sure, Jimbo might show up and rally some support, but the community at large seems to be mostly fed up with his crap by this point.

It's hardly fair for you to suggest that a blanking represents us kowtowing to MH, or letting them get their way from throwing a fit. It seems more like us being nice even when we don't have to be. It also seems to me to be a good way to reduce MH's avenues for stirring up more shit once their block expires. You know: we do it not because he deserves it, but just to shut him the hell up about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's a synonym for censor. And yes – "may" in massive air quotes. Guy, above, you yourself describe the comments you have just blanked as "not [an] unreasonable inference in context", "not actionable" and "defensible". Yet you have overridden the opinions of a half dozen plus of your fellow editors and removed them anyway. Why? Because we should act on any request to courtesy blank? Even when the person making the request has not "asked nicely" and patently has an ulterior motive? – Joe (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to jump in here to give my view of the philosophical questions you raise here, Joe. Should we act on any request to courtesy blank? No, not any - but we can and should be very liberal about it. A courtesy blank is a very good tool to do the right thing by a person who some may perceive have been treated less than ideally. And I don't see any reason for the behavior of the person making the request to come into it very much at all. Wikipedia is not the place to punish people or to act out grudges.

Let me say this more clearly by presenting it as a hypothetical that I do NOT think is a description of the current situation. Let's imagine that a very very annoying person asks in a really rude and wrong way to courtesy blank something that is about a third person (a BLP subject), and it is obvious that the very very annoying person has some ulterior motive related to internal Wikipedia disputes. In such a case I think the ONLY question to consider is the nature of the content to be blanked, and the dignity of that third person. And the analysis should absolutely not be "is this illegal" but a much much lower threshold of something like "is this something that could potentially cause hurt" and we should balance that - but not against "is there any conceivable possible reason why a blank would hinder our work in some tiny way in the future" but "is there an absolutely overwhelmingly compelling reason to keep it".

Why do I take this approach? Because this is a wiki. We don't have to keep absolutely everything, nor should we keep absolutely everything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's a synonym for "censor", "suppress" or "redact"? At any rate, it does not matter, no speech is being suppressed or censored - that "censor" claim is both wrong and ratcheting up. "May" is quoting the courtesy blanking guide, not air quotes (whatever those are). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants: It certainly is kowtowing. When his short block expires, his tantrum has had the effect he wanted. I completely agree with you that a desysop and ban is in order but I wouldn't put money on it actually happening with the friends he has. In which case I hope you'll still be happy that you tried so hard to hide his dirty laundry for him. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I hope you'll still be happy that you tried so hard to hide his dirty laundry for him. In case you didn't look at my edit before you reverted it; I included a link directing readers to exactly where they could find this "dirty laundry", so your comment here and your comments above about "censorship" reek of hyperbolic falsehood.

And yes: I would rather look back on my actions and say "Hmm, being courteous actually ended up biting me in the ass this time," than to look back and say "Ha! Serves that immature little lunatic charlatan right that the discussion never got blanked." I know it may be hard to believe, but I actually do think that MH's history of contributions to this site has earned them at least a little courtesy, even if it's courtesy in being shown the door. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we have to hide content that may violate BLP, but hiding it doesn't actually hide it, it helps people find it? What funhouse mirror-world have I stepped into? – Joe (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Have to?" No. But should we take an action that doesn't really change anything but could very well stuff a sock in the piehole of a disruptive editor whom you think is immune to a community ban and give him one less thing to bitch about? Yup. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you both think this should be discussed and decided elsewhere? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this should be discussed and decided elsewhere. Michael Hardy posted his complaint here, not elsewhere. And while it is true that Hardy is behaving very poorly indeed, He feels that there is a BLP violation, and in general we courtesy blank 2-year-old deletion discussions if anyone thinks they contain a BLP violation -- we don't argue with them, we don't require an RfC on the issue, and we don't revert when an uninvolved veteran editor blanks the page for containing a BLP violation. So Hardy, no matter how annoying he happens to be, was right to appeal to Jimbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well. Meanwhile, up here in Canada we stood up for Mexico to keep them from being thrown under the bus re: NAFTA "negotiations", only to see Skull and Boner, Mnuchin, recruit Mexico into joining his skinny ass to apply the Boners' so typical as to be boring "double cross" tool (think GHW greenlighting Saddam's invasion of Iraq) ...thereby putting 500,000 Canadian jobs in jeopardy ...point being, Michael Hardy????? Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Michael. With the way Wikipedia is going, the project is doomed anyway. Good editors are bullied out, bad ones are catered to, the signpost and wiki projects are dead. So is RFA. Just put it down. 170.121.246.249 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a petty thing that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. If someone wants to sooth him and hide it, knock yourself out but don't dress it up as anything more than a small gesture of coddling and somewhat inappropriate (the community found no obvious BLP violation at ANI; the given reason is without merit). But really, fuhgedaboudit. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One point I feel needs to be made here concerning the blanking of the AFD is that according to WP:CBLANK, "Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration." So contrary to what has been suggested above, we should not simply courtesy blank any discussion that we are asked to courtesy blank; we should only accept such requests if there is a good reason to do so. Certainly claiming that something is "libelous" reeks of WP:NLT and doesn't seem like a very compelling reason to blank anything. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sense and nonsense, truth and falsehood

• "JzG"'s comments are nonsense. I do not consider the "ancestral health" article important.
• It is not true that I said it was outrageous to call an unimportant journal "unrecognized". Rather, I said that word should not be used in a misleading way by suggesting there is such a thing as official recognition of journals.
• The things I called libel were these: (1) At least three respected professors at respected universities were said to have been making use of the standard jargon of their fields only for the purpose of creating a false impression that they are legitimate scientists. (2) It was asserted that they do not publish in any journals except one they founded. Somehow it must be possible to become a professor at Johns Hopkins while doing that. (3) It was asserted that those professors do not collaborate in research with anyone not belonging to an organization they founded.
• (Personal attack removed)
• It is not true that there are venues within Wikipedia to which one can bring complaints of bullying. Those who say there are, are either deceived or deceivers. That is entirely fraudulent. Probably that will result in legal proceedings some day, and the sooner the better for Wikipedia. This fact is what is important here. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is absolutely true that you personally attacked those six users; apart from the original allegation, you also called them "deeply dishonest", amongst other things, on your talk page. Therefore I have removed that section as a personal attack; I did that instead of the alternative action, which would have been to block you again. Please stop flinging accusations at other users, or that will be the eventual outcome. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: What do you propose is the proper way of accusing those who commit acts of dishonesty on Wikipedia? Is there a way? The venue provided for that is corrupt and the accused are of the faction that controls it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the proper way is certainly not to attack people (often without a shred of evidence) as you still appear to be doing (see the paragraph you wrote below). You know very well that the correct forum is ArbCom, and whilst you may have no confidence in it (I myself have criticised it many, many, times), that is the situation as it stands. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to do anything that might look like throwing water on this grease fire but I think it's worth responded to MH's initial complaints.

At least three respected professors at respected universities were said to have been making use of the standard jargon of their fields only for the purpose of creating a false impression that they are legitimate scientists.
That is factually inaccurate. What M. A. Bruhn said was "In general I support people's honest efforts to come together to learn and discuss how to improve their health. Although I do wish they didn't co-opt mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy." It is rather obvious that Bruhn was not claiming that these aren't legitimate scientists, but that "ancestral health" was not a legitimate field of study. Note also in that diff that Bruhn opens by disclaiming the attachment of pejorative labels to ancestral health advocates.

It was asserted that they do not publish in any journals except one they founded.
This is also factually untrue. What M. A. Bruhn said was "The best evidence of their lack of acceptance in general scientific discourse, is the fact that all their discussion and collaboration takes place entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discoure. No publications in journals outside their own, no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations. Their history describes their community as emerging from the blogosphere, and that is where they have since remained.".Note that in the original text, the words "Their history" were externally linked to http://www.ancestralhealth.org/about) It is quite clear that in this section, Bruhn is speaking exclusively in the context of this discussion. Bruhn did not claim that no advocate of ancestral health had ever published anything. He claimed that no literature on ancestral health had been published in the mainstream.

It was asserted that those professors do not collaborate in research with anyone not belonging to an organization they founded.
This is untrue, as seen in the diff/quote provided in response to the previous claim.

I would, finally, point out that at no point prior to Bruhn's comments had anyone mentioned the credentials of any legitimate scientist discussing ancestral health, nor their affiliations. It may very well be that Bruhn was under the impression that there were no actual scientists or doctors involved with the ancestral health movement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MPants at work's analysis. But even if Michael Hardy exaggerated, isn't there still a major problem with the statements quoted above, or especially this, calling the Ancestral Health a scam--something MH found particularly troublesome? A simple look on Google Scholar on "Ancestral Health" [7] produces what appears to me a "legitimate article" in a "legitimate publication", not to mention the extensive talk about the "Paleo diet". As for the claims that these professors do not collaborate with others in this or related fields, that they do not do outreach, and that they do not publish about their "Ancestral Health" work in any but their own journal does seem both unduly nasty and also untrue. I looked up Hamilton M. Stapell's published articles and see for example this article published in an Oxford journal on "evolutionary medicine". And the Ancestral Health symposium's stated purpose is to "bring together a community of scientists, healthcare professionals, and health enthusiasts who collaborate to understand health challenges from an evolutionary perspective." [8] Isn't there also a problem with saying that professors "co-opt mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy"? Yes, it's possible that the author of the statement believed they were not professors, but if so, shouldn't that statement still be retracted? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way, but...

Oh noes! An editor was wrong about something! Whatever shall we do?? See my edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fixer-upper:for many of our ills....and I brought this up before MH was piled-on for wanting a blanked AfD

• Trial period for all new admins
• Mandatory recall at years 3-6-10, or at years 5 & 10
• After year 10, a one or two year break - reapply for tools

^{Atsme📞📧} 22:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not happening, all discussed multiple times and rejected. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would estimate that we have over a 90% consensus that there is something wrong with how we choose administrators, but no proposed solution -- and there have been a lot of proposed solutions -- has ever reached a 10% consensus, and most are much lower than that. Unless you can come up with something that nobody has proposed before, it is a colossal waste of time proposing solutions that have been rejected multiple times. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exposing the fact that problems exist is a step in the right direction as it often leads to discussion which leads to potential solutions. Discouraging such discussion leads nowhere. Complacency, intimidation, real or perceived, and the chilling effect such behaviors have on the community are major hurdles to overcome, as is any challenge to positions of authority or changes to longstanding customs. Perhaps some of the eye-opening events that have occurred over the past 10 months at RfA, AE, and with problematic desysopping will serve as catalysts for positive change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the elephant in the room here is that the way in which administrators are chosen has changed somewhat over the past 17 or so years? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC) ...although whether or not Michael actually had any admin tusks, seems to be still in dispute.[reply]

IMO 2 gradual changes would 90% fix it. Slowly develop a list of "Yoda admins who have Yoda wisdom qualities. And eventually they become the ones to handle disciplining and other really tough /complex people situations. Second, evolve RFA to receiving input on listed required qualities. Finally, after there are some Yodas in place and in use, lower the bar a bit at RFA. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A classic of the "Jimbo-talk" genre. The solution to all our admin problems is ... Yoda. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mock the consensus you must not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has resisted information warfare, but could it fight off a proper attack?, in the New Statesman. Jimmy - any comment?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP already in POV-warfare versus propaganda: I'll leave space for Jimbo to answer above, but that report presented some valid concerns. However, at the typical editor level, WP is already handling POV-warfare and is very tedious to update, due to numerous squabbles about format, wp:UNDUE weight, wp:BLPVIO, wp:DE, wp:3RR, wp:Canvas, "{{cn}}" citation needed, or even sources demanded within talk-pages, etc. Hence, it is actually quite difficult to substantially change major Wikipedia pages. I think the only real danger would be admins who scare editors on one side of a debate to back-off, using veiled threats of blocks or topic-bans, whereby articles can be more quickly slanted without the typical delays over consensus-debates. Perhaps evil forces had already devised the wp:Topic ban process, years ago, in a long-term strategy to slant Wikipedia by thwarting experts who tried to resist balderdash added into pages. Anyway it certainly has worked to severely slant some pages. So, perhaps the main solution would be to have term-limits for admins, to easily desysop when suspected by the larger community, without having to somehow prove various admins are "sleeper spies" for corporate or international interests who wish to spread their own propaganda. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The Trolls from Olgino have made several appearances here which I've seen (as in: I've seen IP addresses geolocated to Olgino being used to to say incendiary things about American politics, with a decidedly right-wing slant, often in a way that makes it clear they are the same person as a different, more prolific IP that belonged to some sort of proxy in Europe or America). I'm quite sure there are more which I haven't seen. Plus there has been -for the past 1-2 years- a phenomenon whereby accounts that were registered, used and seemingly abandoned a decade ago suddenly show back up and start editing, and wouldn't you know it: they all say the same sorts of things the troll say. Almost as if those accounts were being bought, sold and traded.

In response to this piece, I would suggest that it's at least possible that WP has been the target of a concerted attack for some time, and that we're just not as aware of it due to the decentralized nature of the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or because it's been BAU since forever? I mean, seriously, anyone who watches articles on quackery, conspiracy theories, antivax bollocks, scams like the e-cat and so on will have toruble distinguishing these trolls from the normal everyday ones. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BAU? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Business as usual" if I am not mistaken? PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: sorry to tell you, but the "weaponized" anti-vaxers are largely from St. Petersburg. How many more of our perennial BAU controversies are Russian active measures? 107.77.165.1 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not hardly. Sure, some of them are, but what they were doing is merely amplifying existing home-grown fucknozzles. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not similar to an organization like NATO, the arms race between hackers and such organization is not relevant to Wikipedia's cyber security. It's a bit analogous to the fact that insects do fine with only an innate immune system, as explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Count Iblis's contribution, in general I agree with everything said here. There are lots of things that look really funny looking back a ways, and some things not so funny too. There is also lots of small stuff that is BAU (I like the acronym), and it's hard to distinguish between state-sponsored information warfare (SSIW) and our usual trolls. It's also hard to distinguish between SSIW and misguided patriots that have read too much propaganda.

It's also hard to decide what to do about it. Or even how an open project like ours could plan a response.

But please consider the following scenario. I'd guess people will argue whether this has a 5% chance of happening, or a 50% chance of happening, but I suspect you, Jimbo, would agree that it has some real chance of happening. In two years there is a big election. Some of the fake-news tactics that were used in the previous election will be tried again (and why shouldn't we expect this?) . Some websites will be "inoculated" against this fake-news and others won't have made any plans or preparation. So imagine a news story after the election headlined "Facebook and Twitter were prepared for the fake-news onslaught, Wikipedia and XXXXX weren't".

Shouldn't the Board of Trustees consider doing something to prevent that?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could start by locking down the enforcement of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:SCANDAL and then strengthening all three to keep Wikipedia content as dispassionate as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem here on Wikipedia, because long before fake news on social media became problem, Wikipedia had to deal with POV warriors. Note that Wikipedia was always focused on bringing reliable, verified information, while Facebook and Twitter are purely social media sites that don't have that focus. The Fake news is caused by the large fraction of the population who are poorly educated, who end up turning to social media to get their news. Count Iblis (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly reason to believe it can: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ...home-grown fucknozzles. This... Right here... This is poetry.

P.S. Guy, I said it's "possible". I don't particularly believe it myself. I just don't think the evidence is sufficient to rule it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed all those sleepers. A hypothesis is that they may have moved elsewhere before (other Wikis and/or social networks where their POV could be posted) and have been canvassed as part of campaigns. However, some prolific LTA socks also tend do create account farms and return to old ones hoping to evade scrutiny... —PaleoNeonate – 10:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: it's also possible that leaks from other websites and login bots managed to compromise a number of old accounts. At times we've seen a number of editors complain about warnings they received about other addresses attempting to login... —PaleoNeonate – 10:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the author of the New Statesman article, Carl Miller. He's

a researcher at Demos (UK think tank). Those folks likely run in the same intellectual circles as Jimbo, so I'll suggest that Jimbo try to make contact to see what Miller is talking about. Miller is something of an academic and has a new book related to the New Statesman article. I suspect that he'd be willing to suggest to Jimbo what might be done to help prevent the scenario described above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby failed so how can anyone else succeed? Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know anything about Scibaby until your post just now, but it looks like he's been somewhat successful from 2006 thru 2018 with 1,073 sockpuppets, and 223 more suspected. I don't consider this a success story for Wikipedia, nor evidence that there aren't more like him, or even more prolific, that haven't been caught. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like he's been somewhat successful from 2006 thru 2018 with 1,073 sockpuppets, and 223 more suspected. Umm, the very fact that you know that requires that Scibaby has not been successful with any of those accounts. Else you would not have been able to look up that info. QED. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're using a narrow metric of "success" defined as direct influence on content, and I'm not convinced that was Scibaby's goal (except maybe in his very earliest days). If you broaden "success" to include disruption, sowing dissent, and time wasting then Scibaby was much more successful.

A state actor or other agent could take a similar approach by dividing the community and wasting its time. And the real strength of Wikipedia is its community. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they've been very successful at disrupting anything as evidenced by the fact that we're all still here, still editing away. Most of us don't even know anything about Scibaby (I never heard of them until this thread, and I've edited in climate change myself). As for time wasting: You pick any one of the most prolific good contributors, and I bet I could pull out just as much wasted time from their editing history in the form of ANI reports, AfDs and RfCs that go nowhere, mistakes that need to be undone, edits that just didn't look right and need tweaking, talk page comments that got a little too verbose, etc, etc. If we measure a troll's success by that metric, then we're all trolls. Pretty much the same goes for sowing dissent. Right off the top of my head, I can think of two recent (like: the past two days) situations that had good editors arguing with each other over something silly. Both instigated by good contributors, too.

I'm not saying it's not possible. In fact, I'm only saying that most of this is pure supposition: we don't know that we will be attacked like that. We don't know that we haven't already. We don't know how effective such an attack would be. We just don't know much of anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change articles have not been affected, and that's because we stick to our core principles like verifiability from reliable sources. Any Scibaby sockpuppet gets caught simply because of editing against such rules. The fake news problem only affects those sites that don't have equivalent rules that make factchecking using reliable sources mandatory. But if the population at large does not value reliable news outlets, if they turn to social media sites to get their news from, then there is little we can do to stop Russia from manipulating public opinion. The problem isn't with social media, because people visit those sites deliberately. E.g. if Twitter were to change its rules making it more difficult for Trump to post some of his more outrageous comments, then Trump will find some other site to post his comments, say Instagram, and his followers will move there and CNN will start to report on his latest Instagram uploads and comments. Count Iblis (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of bikini-selfies I see on instagram, I hope to god that never comes to pass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)The above begs the question, do we have any research on how long it takes to catch sockmasters? and how long they worked as regular editors before turning to the dark side?

I'm sure there are individual cases that would shed some light on these questions. Off the top of my head I'll give 2 cases. 1) the folks at Banc de Binary, who were arrogant "amateurs". They seem to have been fairly successful for about 1.5 years (as I remember) and then much less so for about 3 years afterward. Then there was the crafty professional, Orange Moody. I guess he was pretty successful for about 5 years before being caught and continued his work for several years afterward (until at least last year when he was reported a couple of times on the wider web). Probably still going in one form or another. But more comprehensive research would certainly be welcome. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is actually a super-serious question and I really hope that WMF has spent some serious intellectual energy on it. There will come a day, soon, when a hostile fascist government is going to attack the information pool that powers Google and Siri and all the other reality-determining tools. ARE WE READY? Carrite (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A related story Exclusive: U.S. accuses China of 'super aggressive' spy campaign on LinkedIn from Reuters.

'LinkedIn “is a victim here,” Evanina said. “I think the cautionary tale ... is, ‘You are going to be like Facebook. Do you want to be where Facebook was this past spring with congressional testimony, right?’” he said, referring to lawmakers’ questioning of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Russia’s use of Facebook to meddle in the 2016 U.S. elections.' (William Evanina is a U.S. counterintelligence spokesperson.)

We should make sure that we don't over-react to this type of thing - and I'd recommend focusing on election meddling, not all SSIW. Nevertheless, the sure way to over-react to this threat would be to ignore it until it hits you over the head. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that three days have passed, I want to request that you please read the entire thread that you started on my talk page. Please read the comments there by quite a few experienced editors. I did not intend to insult anyone but rather to briefly summarize what many other discerning editors had concluded about this particular editor's behavior. I was commenting on his recent contributions not on him as a person. It was not intended as a personal attack and others are not reading my comment that way. Of course, a four word summary lacks nuance but I was prepared to engage in a more substantive discussion, and I still am willing to do so. I do not want to be your enemy, Jimbo, which is in no small part due to my deep respect for your profound and enduring contributions to human knowledge in creating and shaping Wikipedia. I love this project from the bottom of my heart. When I criticize, which is not often, I strive to do so in a responsible and thoughtful way. I hope that you can see that this type of criticism is necessary and useful. So, I extend this olive branch to you. Please soften your heart. Let's discuss this encyclopedia and this free knowledge movement. Just as you have devoted your 21st century to it, so too have I devoted my last nine plus years, inspired at least in part by you. Thank you for considering my request. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I forgive you. It's just - when a user of long standing is obviously feeling emotional pain about something, I think we can do better than a 4 word snipe. I also think that words like "crank" should never be used for the work or agenda of another respected editor. But yeah, you're one of the good ones. We all get upset sometimes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 is also a very long-standing editor and admin, and a genuinely nice person with tremendous reserves of patience. I have no clue what has Michael Hardy so worked up, I invited email correspondence but he did not say anything he hasn't already said, and none of that explains why he has chosen this particular hill to die on. I find his behaviour on this topic frankly bizarre, and the topic itself is somewhere in the grey area where fraud, fad diets and pseudoscience mix. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo:  I want to thank you for your comment "I think we can do better than a 4 word snipe.  I also think that words like "crank" should never be used for the work or agenda of another respected editor."  I suggest we go further and not tolerate the use of ad hominems and pejorative labels towards any editor--regardless of whether they are in good standing or not--unless strong diffs are provided that prove the described behavior.  This applies doubly to admins, who should exhibit exemplary behavior.  I believe a major reason we lose editors is bullying that begins with the use of ad hominems and pejorative labels.  --David Tornheim (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is about User talk:Cullen328#I've removed your obnoxious comment from my talk page.

This is simple. Jimbo asked Cullen328 to stay off of his talk page. Cullen328 refused. We should treat this as we would treat it on any other talk page, with a series of escalating blocks until the disruptive user either decides to stay off the talk page or is indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the above to be a more than adequate apology.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On this page we have a guy who regularly posts crap like this, but Cullen is the disruptive user? You have a strange sense of humor. Gamaliel (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you sincerely believe that to be true, Guy Macon, and you believe that I am being disruptive, then please report me to ANI or whatever venue you believe is appropriate. I assure you that I will comply 100% with whatever community consensus emerges. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The basic principle of "stop posting to a Wikipedia uer's talk page when they ask you to" is well established. I am uninterested in getting into a fight with you. If an admin chooses to act on my advice and give you a warning followed by escalating blocks, so be it. If another editor wants to report you at ANI, so be it. I personally am going to follow the advice at WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a discussion about it on one of Wikipedia's most traffic pages isn't ignoring the drama, it's starting the drama. Gamaliel (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing that I didn't open a discussion about it on one of Wikipedia's most traffic pages, then. Unless you wish to count replying to an unambiguous violations of Wikipedia policy like refusing to stay off a user's talk page to be opening a discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, if you plan on ignoring drama, might I suggest that you not go around to different pages leaving unprovoked inflammatory comments. Nihlus 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Nihlus really doesn't like receiving standard user warning templates.[9] What I warned him about was pinging another user when that user asked you not to ping him[10][11] -- another behavior that should result in a series of escalating blocks until the disruptive user either decides to stop pinging or is indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, what does something a year old and irrelevant to the point being made have to do with your tendency to make unrelated and caustic remarks? Oh wait, you're just proving my point perfectly. Thanks. Nihlus 15:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was nice enough to use an interaction search to try to find what it is that you are nattering on about, but now I don't care. Next time, provide a diff instead of posting vague accusations. I am going to ignore you now. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

God, the irony. Nihlus 17:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep announcing that you are ignoring people? Why not just, say, ignore them? Gamaliel (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because certain disruptive editors (you know who you are) repeatedly claim that whenever someone stops replying to them without notice that the person who went silent is admitting that they were right. Also, I like to encourage other editors to ignore those who are especially annoying in the hope that they will grow tired of shouting into an empty room and find somewhere where their kind can find food. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been a fan of yours recently, particularly disappointed with the way you treated TRM on his talk page. I thought you received some quite just desserts when Jimbo booted you off his. Though I have to say, and GW put it very well, [o]f all things that are posted to Jimbotalk, this is the one that warrants a scolding and a ban from the page? Jimbo, Cullen is one of our most dedicated admins. He is, not coincidentally, the only admin candidate for whom over 300 editors turned out to support at RfA last year, myself included. In my opinion, and I've been very opinionated today, you'd do a disservice to the community by not considering Cullen's post here, and responding to it personally. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, it sounds to me something like: '. . .crank'; 'remove claimed attack'; and a response in the nature of, 'I know I am but what are you' (about some old 'bullshit' remark - what, you had that in your back-pocket to just whip-out?). Perhaps, just forget this stuff? Jimbo once showed up on my talk page as I now recall very unhappy with some remark of mine here, we did not agree (and perhaps would still disagree, were we to revisit it), but I don't now remember the details of what was said, at all, or what it was about (we could look it up in history but dredging through such details seems a waste). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. We're all human beings. We get emotional sometimes. If we're grown up about it we apologize and move on and agree to disagree (or, actually, once we calm down, we often find that our disagreement was much smaller than it felt at the time).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking - when RL identities are known, as it is in this instance, it is much easier to relate to one another with a sense of humanity and humility - much like normal people behave face-to-face - whereas the online veil of anonymity increases the likelihood of detachment and the "nasty effect" by those who already harbor such tendencies. I believe the WP community is unique in that collegiality continues to prevail despite the disagreements, occasional tiffs and heated debates...and that's a good thing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki for you Google9912 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about articles related to history. The article Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is completely biased. It has all Indian side views. According to India they won the war, and it is mentioned in the article. However, Pakistan believes that they were victorious (which I don't believe, after reading neutral history), while a large number of neutral historians say that the war ended undecided due to USSR involvement. But no, the article completely says that India won, and all other sourced contents are reverted! I would have discussed it on the article talk page, but I know that the article is completely under the control of Indians and it would be useless. I just wanted to make you aware about this. Thanks,Knightrises10 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's debates like this that make me sympathetic to the "burn all infoboxes" crowd. Here and at other pages (Bangladesh Drug War and Cold War II to name two where I've removed infoboxes recently) the attempts of some editors to shoehorn everything to fit an unreasonable data schema results in inaccurate information. This isn't a football match, the winner of the war doesn't go on to fight China to determine Asian supremacy. And is it necessary to list every general and howitzer in the infobox? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No person or a group can control or WP:OWN wikipedia articles. Content disputes on wikipedia are not decided by majority votes but by WP:CONSENSUS if you have a sound argument and reliable sources to support your argument, no one can stop you from starting a discussion on the talk page, getting a consensus made and then getting the edit done. But if you lack these things, then WP:FORUMSHOPPING will never help. cheers and regards --DBigXrayᗙ 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that crowdsourcing works when people are contributing content to Wikipedia articles. It works when people are contributing questions and answers to stackexchange.

When people are performing regulatory functions is does not work. I originally saw how the process works by looking at how it works on stackexchange, and that enabled me to recognize it when I saw it in action on Wikipedia. Things like the Administrators' Noticeboards attract people who want to push others around under pretense of performing a useful function. One sign that that's what you're seeing is that people issue rulings while refusing to argue or discuss, on a topic that they don't care about, and expect and demand obedience to their rulings. There is a collegiality among these people: they see when one of their own is behaving like this and gang up on anyone who is being unruly by actually wanting to discuss a matter rather than obeying rulings issued by people who won't discuss it and who demand obedience.

Some honest discussion is tolerated on the Administrators' Noticeboards and similar venues, and some escapes notice and survives. But corruption is dominant in those venues. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate questions here. The first is whether Ancestral health meets WP:GNG, which in my two cents' worth of opinion it probably doesn't. If you had accepted this, all of the subsequent shin kicking and recriminations would have been avoided. The second question is whether some people have managed to turn this into a full blown drama festival. Wikipedia can get heated sometimes, and it is important to take the dog for a walk when this happens.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds strange to me that the ancestral health article could not be better sourced. We have an article on Staffan Lindeberg who is well known for the the Kitava Study. Also, there exists lots of other research results that corroborate the results from that study, see e.g. here and here. So, here you have 3 independent studies into 3 different indigenous populations who eat a similar diet, with fat intake at 20% or less of total calorie intake, who are virtually free of cardiovascular disease. Now a lot of the medical research that makes it into the tertiary review articles where the guidelines for healthy diet are formulated, don't have this focus. The focus there is to study small changes in diet and lifestyle relative to the unhealthy Western lifestyle. The problem may then be that our WP:MEDRS standards that mandate us to consider tertiary review reports for medical articles. Many researchers in the field actually defend this non-scientific attitude by saying that what matters is to get to an effective message about a healthy diet. E.g we can read here: ""Whilst consuming more than five portions of fruit and vegetables a day may be desirable... adding pressure to consume more fruit and vegetables creates an unrealistic expectation."". Count Iblis (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of him to say so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well worth reading, if only for illuminating the importance of talk page discussions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]