Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I would just like to say that I believe we are making a critical mistake by further limiting anonymity in any form or fashion.

At the personal level, this type of policy will undoubtedly discourage some editors from contributing. On a systemic level, it will potentially pave the way for eventual community acceptance of additional restrictions. To outsiders, it will further legitimize the negative "elitist" stereotypes that are already costing us quality contributors. Philosophically, it will undermine the ideals that many contributors believe so strongly in.

As an active and upstanding [registered] Wikipedian for more than half of a decade, and as someone who has never contacted you about any other matter, I sincerely request that you reconsider your position on the matter -- and I call on you to postpone further action so that a broader range of (now informed) contributors may offer insight and work towards establishing consensus. 69.117.250.169 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67.., do you understand the compelling reason that motivates the experiment of flagged revisions (and that it's an experiment, rather than a final decision)? I don't think anyone denies that your concerns are valid, but there are also clear benefits to the system. If you were to enumerate them, and describe alternative solutions to those underlying problems, it would add a lot of credibility to your argument. -Pete (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter half of my request explicitly entails soliciting a broad range of the community for insight and alternative solutions.

Personally, I have only had a few moments to ponder an alternative to flagged revisions, but I will offer the following conundrum: Suppose we introduce a 60-second delay before anonymous edits go live. Would this not be an indiscriminate method of accomplishing the same goal as flagged revisions? 69.117.250.169 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it would. But more to the point, there should be ample opportunity to propose alternatives and variations like that during the trial period. Again, there's been no final decision made -- Wikipedia is merely testing out a technology (and one that has met with measurable success on the German Wikipedia). So if you want to develop alternatives that mitigate the consequences you outline above, there should be ample opportunity. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may officially be an experiment, but once it's done it's done. As with all politics, it is much more difficult to change the status quo than it is to change a proposal. Based on my experiences as a seasoned editor, I honestly do not foresee a large number of admins and hardcore contributors speaking out against a policy that makes things significantly easier for them. 69.117.250.169 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Since it's rather prescriptive, and lacking detail, I can't see how it's indiscriminate. However, if you are suggesting that "pending edits" should be somehow subject to review before being approved for "live transmission", that's little different from what happens already and flagged revisions, in that it still requires some intervention. The only benefit would be to delay approval for 60-seconds + reaction time for an interested editor to confirm or deny the edit; whereas those of us who watchlist contentious articles tend to be able to react as frequently as we refresh those watchlists. Unfortunately, articles that aren't watched won't be updated as frequently using flagged revisions unless they are brought to somebody's attention, and that is only likely to happen if they are listed somewhere. These technicalities have not yet been made clear to us, unless I've missed something. And, to be clear, I see little connection between flagged revisions and anonymous editing. Rodhullandemu 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not mind debating things with anyone here, I do not want it to shift the focus from my original request. I came here to make a request. But in answer to answer your question, there's a vast difference between delayed revisions and flagged revisions. Under a delayed model, edits like "George Washington was a flaming homosexual" or "Miley Cyrus (1992 - 2009)" would never make it to the end-user. Patrolling users and bots would have sufficient time to weed out bad-faith edits. With a flagged revision model, Editor A has editorial power over Editor B. Editor A will have an inherent level of human fallibility and bias, which may mean that some of Editor B's legitimate content will be censored. If I understand correctly, the rationale behind these policy changes is to prevent the scenario described alongside the delayed model. Anything beyond that is simply an invitation for unintended censorship.

EDIT: Ironically, my edits to this very page were just erroneously reverted by an editor in good faith. Afterwords, my second reply was filtered out by the automated edit filter. If, as an anonymous (but seasoned) editor, I can be censored not once, but twice, then what are we to believe will become of flagged revisions? 69.117.250.169 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Flagged Revisions has anything whatsoever to do with anonymity. It will allow ip numbers the opportunity to edit things that they have long been forbidden to edit. But editing as an IP number is less anonymous than getting an account.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. On one hand, an IP is easier to trace to a location. This is true. However, I don't believe many IP editors remain IP editors out of concern for being located -- editing from Universities around the world makes me frighteningly traceable -- and those who do already just run though Tor or a private proxy (or series of proxies). As I mentioned above (I am the IP who unleashed the previous tirade against registration), the question is more complex than just "anonymity". I'm sure we all have our separate reasons, but some of us are proudly anti-elitist and would like nothing more than to see the sum of human knowledge appear out of no-one but everyone. Some us don't see any benefit to registration aside from becoming an entity to which this knowledge can be attributed. Nevertheless, two things really bother me about flagged revisions. First, it systematically enforces discrimination against IPs and new accounts. We already have enough paranoid editors looking shifty-eyed at every IP. I don't see de jure discrimination easing the situation. Second, flagged revisions add another layer of extra work to the few editors who still contribute. Protectionists already revert everything anyway, but contributors will also now be forced to revert or pass edits. Not a terribly efficient process, anyway. 128.61.29.242 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jimbo, you are right -- edits made from IP addresses can be more easily traced by the general public. However, there are some scenarios (e.g. implementing verifiable information directly opposed to a dictatorship government, or making controversial edits that could endanger the life of an established editor using a personally identifiable username) in which editing from an IP address could potentially help facilitate anonymity and/or plausible deniability. With that said, physical anonymity was only one aspect of my commentary.

The central and most important concern is whether or not everyone in the world can freely and indiscriminately contribute quality material without subjective interference. If we partition our contributors into "trusted" and "untrusted" factions based on their credentials, we introduce some level of inherent bias, and we risk further isolating ourselves from the common man.

I'm not going to sit here and condemn you for your viewpoint. I'm sure that you have spent hundreds of hours pondering how to deal with hoaxes and character assassinations. All I'm saying is that this particular method of dealing with it will eventually change the scope of our project, and for that reason, I believe that the community should be invited (via global pop-up notification--not unlike the transition from GFDL-CC-BY-SA, or the current proposals) to participate in public brainstorming. Our entire community can come up with something better than flagged revisions. 69.117.250.169 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To outsiders, it will further legitimize the negative "elitist" stereotypes that are already costing us quality contributors. Do negative "elitist" stereotypes actually cost WP quality contributors? I shouldn't be surprised if the stereotypes do just this. Let's look at that /. thread. There's an interesting comment (though one hugely overrated at "4, Insightful") near the top: The fundamental aspect of the Wikipedia concept was the fact that there wasn't a bureaucratic layer between your information and the world. Before I first edited, my own impression was that there was no protective layer between any fool's misinformation and the world. Actually this impression has lasted; and my contributions, for what they're worth, come despite the knowledge that the underinformed, stupid, drunk, childish, obsessed, and borderline insane are likely to debase these contributions. (See the editing history of the article on the indisputably and long dead Jacob Riis.) So I wonder: To outsiders, will this change do something to lessen the negative "any crap goes" stereotypes that are already costing WP quality contributors? I shouldn't be surprised if these stereotypes do just that. However, rather than merely guessing why those qualified to edit well do not edit and why those not qualified to, do we have any research on the relative importance of the reasons? (Any PhD theses on the matter?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I previously read an article speaking of how elitist editors were killing the Wiki. Quite a few blogs have noted that the number of active editors has fallen off, and I commonly see attribution to protectionist editing practices and elitism. Can't say for sure, though, how that holds today. 128.61.29.242 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Inquirer article appears to imply that (a) reduction in increase is the same as (b) decrease. That assertion comes as a great surprise to me. Either the author's head is seriously confused or my own is. The author huffs and puffs but says very little; however, he helpfully cite this, which says that "the growth rates of Wikipedia have slowed". I don't know about you, but I'm not the slightest bit alarmed to hear that the growth rates of Wikipedia have slowed. (Incidentally, remember that "elitism" is an obsession of a large part of the mass media, leading to such bizarre phenomena as the pretenses by US political candidates that they're monolingual and that they prefer junk food to tasty food.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article just happened to be a recent one discussing the problem. Nevertheless, the linked blog post reveals that edit numbers are dropping off while reverts are holding steady (making reverts a larger portion of the whole and contributions a smaller portion -- basically, it means we edge closer and closer to the point at which all edits are reverted). The only way Wikipedia can actually shrink is to delete pre-existing content while contributing no content whatsoever. Thinking of a cumulative process like Wikipedia as an absolute doesn't make much sense. Also, you should keep in mind that The Inquirer is not American and not really "the mass media". 128.61.30.181 (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am posting this on behalf of 69.117.250.169, who was disallowed from doing so by edit filter 225. Rodhullandemu's comment is provided for reference. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Since it's rather prescriptive, and lacking detail, I can't see how it's indiscriminate. However, if you are suggesting that "pending edits" should be somehow subject to review before being approved for "live transmission", that's little different from what happens already and flagged revisions, in that it still requires some intervention. The only benefit would be to delay approval for 60-seconds + reaction time for an interested editor to confirm or deny the edit; whereas those of us who watchlist contentious articles tend to be able to react as frequently as we refresh those watchlists. Unfortunately, articles that aren't watched won't be updated as frequently using flagged revisions unless they are brought to somebody's attention, and that is only likely to happen if they are listed somewhere. These technicalities have not yet been made clear to us, unless I've missed something. And, to be clear, I see little connection between flagged revisions and anonymous editing. Rodhullandemu 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not mind debating things with anyone here, I do not want it to shift the focus from my original request. I came here to make a request.

But in answer to answer your question, there's a vast difference between delayed revisions and flagged revisions.

Under a delayed model, edits like "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" or "Miley Cyrus (1992 - 2009)" would never make it to the end-user. Patrolling users and bots would have sufficient time to weed out bad-faith edits.

With a flagged revision model, Editor A has editorial power over Editor B. Editor A will have an inherent level of human fallibility and bias, which may mean that some of Editor B's legitimate content will be censored.

If I understand correctly, the rationale behind these policy changes is to prevent the scenario described alongside the delayed model. Anything beyond that is simply an invitation for unintended censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.250.169 (talk) 01:37, August 27, 2009

There's no way you can guarantee these edits won't make it to articles particularly poorly watched ones (Miley Cyrus is obviously a bad example there). (There's no way we can guarantee it under flagged revisions either, but it is less likely.) Also you appear to be under the mistaken impression that editor A will have more power then they would under your proposal. Under your proposal as happens now, there's nothing stopping these editors reverting you if they wish to 'censor' you. These edits won't be seen by most readers the same as with flagged revisions. And under all flagged revision proposals I'm aware of, editors are only allowed to reject bad edits. Editors practicing censorship, whether intentionally or not, will have their privileges revoked. In fact, under your delayed edit proposal, weeding out those who do such things is likely to happen less often since it would require revoking all their editing privileges whereas in the later case, we can just remove the editors right to be a reviewer if they make a poor one. In other words, being a reviewer will, not surprisingly, come with greater responsibility and accountability. Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, there's one problem with the "IP is less anonymous than an account can be" line of reasoning: it's generally accepted practice for an experienced, account-holding editor to use an IP if they wish to be anonymous (I believe that's what's happening here.) But if our friend were to make a second account, to be more anonymous, and leave comments here, that would be in violation of our sockpuppet policy. I'm not sure what the ramifications of that are...just thought I'd point it out. -Pete (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I have three options here: 1) use my personally identifiable username and risk jeopardizing my reputation both on Wikipedia and in real life, 2) create a second account and violate policy, or 3) post legitimate content from an anonymous IP address which (without a warrant) cannot be used to personally identify me.

On a side note, there is an increasing risk of having an account compromised when using a public terminal, network, or WiFi hotspot. 69.117.250.169 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Sockpuppet policy doesn't forbid the use of alternative accounts. Nor does it require accounts be linked (it's generally encouraged but editors are explicitly allowed to have alternative account which aren't linked). And editors are perfectly welcome to (and many do) have multiple accounts for security purposes. However you don't need multiple accounts for security if you are using a public network of WiFi (well unless you don't trust your computer's security, but in that case the network is of limited relevance). You should instead just make sure you always use the HTTPS to login. Using another computer (whether public or private) that you don't trust or in a location where you are afraid of people watching you etc are cases when you may want to consider an alternative account for security. What is forbidden under policy is when you misuse an alternative account. If you wish to express views which you don't want to to be linked to your account, creating an account for that would likely be okay within reason. If you are always using your alternative account to comment on issues, I think that will raise eyebrows (obviously creating multiple alternative accounts is far worse). Similarly if you continually disrupt wikipedia with the alternative account or always behave very poorly, then that would be against policy. Obviously replying to yourself, participating in the same discussion under multiple accounts etc is also against policy (i.e. a good rule of thumb is make sure your accounts never interact or participate in the same area). One thing I would emphasise, logging off and appearing anon makes little difference when it comes to sockpuppetry. If what you are doing is forbidden under policy then whether you use an IP or another account is irrelevant. In most ways it's actually worse since it makes tracking you when you do do such things more difficult so people are more likely to start to wonder whether you are up to no good, particularly if you use multiple ISPs (even if that isn't on purpose). And in fact, using your IP means that if you are linked, your IP will become known. And it may be easier to link your account to the IP if information about you is known, and it's obviously easier that you may actually forget to log in one day and reveal your IP then it is for you to use the wrong account (unless you are continually using the other account). A good idea whether you are anon or using another account is to at least mention you are an established wikipedian even if you don't reveal you identity. If any of this was new to you, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Sock puppetry Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This contention of a "change to anonymity policy" is pure nonsense. What flagged revisions means to me at one level is that edits will stack up until resolved by an admin or other approved reviewer. It may be that vandalism will be reverted, but for the interests of the encyclopedia, contributions from individual editors, whether IP or registered accounts, may escape scrutiny, and that might be a concern. However, those whose purpose here is not constructive are likely to be detected by other means. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times says

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html

Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People

Mr. Wales began pushing for the policy after the Kennedy and Byrd hoaxes

This sounds accurate and very reasonable.

The BBC says

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7851400.stm

Editorial row engulfs Wikipedia

The proposal comes after edits of the pages of Senators Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy gave the false impression both had died.

The call for flagged revisions came from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales

Saying a live person is dead is a real dirty and low thing to do. It's even worse if it's done to an influential person, like Ted Kennedy. I suspect that the Ted Kennedy incident was the straw that broke the camel's back that cause you to make those proposals (unless the BBC and New York Times are lying and you never did).

I wrote in the Ted Kennedy article a very short sentence (long paragraph would be too long) mentioning that after his erroneous report of his death in January 2009, Mr. Wales proposed changes in Wikipedia editorial changes.

Some people might be opposed to that because they want to no mention of anything remotely negative of Wikipedia. Other conceivably might think they "own" the article.

I'm not asking you to decide whether or not this should be included. The information is just FYI for background. What I am asking you is "Is the BBC and New York Times lying about you and that Kennedy's false report of dying had no role in your proposals for editorial changes in Wikipedia?" I will have lost much confidence in the reliability of the BBC and New York Times if they lie about you.Dellcomputermouse (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those quotes claims any causal link. They say the proposal came after the high-profile vandalism, that is perfectly true (although I think it had been being discussed from time to time before that, the recent push came after). Good journalists often word things very carefully to avoid making claims they can't back up while still making an interesting sounding story - that is what has happened here. Nobody has lied. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have long supported that this feature be developed and turned on. It has taken a lot longer than I would have liked. And yes, after that annoying day, I did begin a new push to hurry up and get this implemented, and that pushed was at least a partial cause I believe for the subsequent end of discussions with a proposal that gained 80% support. (Before this, I think we had gotten into a "wait and see" and "discuss forever" mode.) I haven't read the two articles you linked, so I can't vouch 100% for their accuracy, but there is no question that those events did play a role in the history of this feature. (But it is worth noting that I should not be given credit for thinking up the feature, nor should there be any simplistic reading that those events were the "cause" of the feature... which had been in development and testing for years). Is that helpful? Is that what you were asking?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Wales, for your answer. You are a reasonable and thought provoking man. I see your answer as what a normal person would have expected (that there was a problem, but the huge magnitude of saying Kennedy was dead, probably was the last straw or shove that got you started again, as it would to many leaders). This is what the BBC articles and NY Times articles seem to be saying.

One problem with Wikipedia is that there are no useful behavioral standards for administrators. There is one who is quite abrasive (name not mentioned because I'm not asking you to wiki-arrest him). Legalistic administrators can always fabricate a defense by saying the bad administrator did some good (just like Hitler liked children). Instead, there should be an emphasis toward good editorial skills and good people skills in administrators. Without a push from you, this is impossible (or about as likely as Parliament disbanding or Congress resigning as a group). You should give it some thought to how to improve the lot of administrators, some of which are quite amateurish and, in some cases, not helpful. This is why I said I would exit Wikipedia yesterday and plan to do so in a few minutes. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Loaded question. There are a lot of reasonable explanations that don't involve bad faith by any party. Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo, this announcement has raised quite a few eyebrows on German wikipedia, see discussion. Some people argue that a board seat seems to have a price tag of 2 million dollars. Given your rather tough stance on paid editing, are you comfortable with this development? Your statement would be highly appreciated. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Board seats are not for sale. "So there's no tie between the grant and Omidyar Network taking a board seat. That's absolutely not part of the conversation. It something that Omidyar Network likes to do with our organizations, because we think we tend to be able to help and we have experience, but there's no tie with the grant that we've made to Wikimedia Foundation." [1]

Since the discussion is in German, which I can barely read and can't really write effectively at all, I think it'd be best if you asked Arne (in transit back to Germany now) or Erik (probably in transit too, though I'm not sure of his exact schedule) to join that discussion. Ting and Michael Snow, while not native speakers, are also much better able than I am to write in German.

I'm 100% comfortable with the appointment of Matt to the board. He brings serious expertise, he shares our values and mission. He also was instrumental in getting us a $2 million grant, a not-insubstantial achievement.

I really like the Omidyar nonprofit grant making model. They understand, because of their roots in the venture capital world, that to be successful requires more than just money: it requires expertise, access to a network of people, the ability to make connections, etc. Just as traditional venture capital firms provide a lot more than just money to startups - and have been incredibly successful at generating new businesses, Omidyar provides a lot more than just money to their nonprofit grantees - and I have every reason to think that this will be successful.

I think that people who are concerned that this is "buying a seat" can take some comfort in the fact that not one board member supports the notion that it would be ok to "sell" a seat on the board. But additionally, I think it's important to remember that it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to get their money's worth, if they have some nefarious purpose in mind. A board seat simply wouldn't be worth $2 million - how the heck could you ever make anything back out of it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your statement. I have posted a link to it on German wikipedia. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May it had prohibited some discussions, if the board had a bit more offensive told, why he's a good man for the board. In the press release it's really a bit in a strange connection. And this together with the actual critics at de:WP depending the sponsoring/advertising on the "Wikimedia Deutschland" Website, the mood at de:WP actually is very down. Germans sometimes are... - strange. Or very critical. Or both. But at the end it would be a little much to make all in the way we're Germans are contented. I belive, we're never all can be getting contented. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the communications could have been handled better, but I also feel pretty sure that when everyone gets back from Wikimania, it'll all sort itself out just fine. I think Matt is going to make a great board member, we have all been impressed with him so far.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You musn't convince me - I'm pretty fine with that. But I know my fellow Germans. ;) Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo. Congratulations on the 3 million mark. That's a really amazing feat.

On a less positive note, I'm wondering if you're aware of the ongoing campaign of harassment, stalking and intimidation that goes on here against editors who hold minority perspectives. I've been hounded and stalked for months now for suggesting that we abide by the neutral point of view policy. My harassers have used the administrative noticeboards for a series of frivolous reports against me that is time consuming and harassing to keep track of, they've posted incessantly about me on various talk and discussion pages, they've made repeated attempts to have me blocked and banned. They also stalk me around article space and disrupt my contributions. Now they've gotten Arbcom to impose a restriction that I'm not allowed to discuss or object to this censorship and POV pushing anywhere on Wikipedia. I find this Orwellian and totally unacceptable. It reminds of the Nazis and book burning, and I'm deeply troubled by it.

Is there a way to rein in those who push to block, ban and intimidate anyone who attempts to balance our article coverage on political subjects? I think it's very important that good faith editors are treated with respect no matter what their opinions are, but that hasn't been my experience. Thanks for your thoughts on this serious issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What this actually is is a case of the convicted attempting the no, you are bit, which has probably been going on for as long as there's been lawyers in the world. ChildofMidnight was found to be one of the major instigators in a recent ArbCom case, and has been running around the project ever since crying "victim!" This is but the latest stop, with the added twist of the last few stops around the boards containing accusations and comparisons of Nazism. Tarc (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc is one of those relentlessly hounding me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight, I haven't looked into the content dispute here, and I have no idea what political positions you or any of the other editors hold. But I just visited your user talk page in which you compare wikipedia editors with whom you are having a disagreement with Nazis. This behavior is not acceptable at all, and pretty much puts an end to any possibility of reconciliation. I don't have any sympathy for this approach to working for change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we disagree on how damaging acts of intimidation, harassment and stalking are to building an encyclopedia and how dangerous biased one-sided information and propaganda can be. Thank you for responding. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if we disagree about that. The place where we disagree is the notion that "The best way to work against bad things happening is to call people Nazis". It is not the best way at all. It tends to lose the very audience you want to appeal to, because you are engaging in the very behavior that you claim to want to eliminate, when you harass people (and I do consider it harassment) by throwing insults in their direction.

Consider me a potentially sympathetic audience. I've been made aware of your issue, but only barely. If I went to your talk page and saw a polite, friendly, well-reasoned and well-evidenced explanation of what you think has happened, I would at least be in a position to make a judgment. Instead, what I found was you behaving in a harassing way, and found some diffs where you were being extremely irritating by changing other people's talk comments, even one which was asking you to stop doing that. Wow. That's just not a very effective strategy for you to achieve positive change.

My point is to think about me as an example. You claim to have been censored and harassed and intimidated and stalked. I'm asked to look into it. I do, and I immediately get the exact opposite impression. Is that really an effective strategy for you?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you might be busy Jimbo, but if you are weighing in on the current situation, the heart of the event is Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Obama_articles:_ChildofMidnight--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I call them how I see them Jimbo. I've been restricted from editing certain articles based on the flimsiest of evidence, but I've obeyed those restrictions. The stalking and harassment continued. When I was followed to other articles and told I couldn't edit those, I moved on. The stalking and harassment continued. I was finally able to get some restrictions to keep two of the worst harassers and stalkers away from me, but they've continued to file reports against me and to go after me as best they can on and off-wiki. I'm here to work on Wikipedia and to build articles, not to do constant battle, dig diffs against and play wikilawyer. There is no content dispute because I'm not editing any of the articles that were in dispute (those harassing me caused a great enough disruption that Arbcom chose to restrict me from working on them). Yet I'm still being stalked and harassed. And now I'm told I'm not even allowed to mention the censorship abuse and harassment that some parties engage on at certain articles. I think it's disgusting. I think it's despicable. I think it's outrageous. I think it has strong similarities to the type of censorship, intimidation, and abuse that have taken place in history. If others disagree that is their right. I'm not good at waging these diff battles, because I'm here to improve articles and I don't enjoy that kind of bureaucracy. The actions of those harassing me and their edit histories speak for themselves as mine does. On days like today I am unable to do much article work because I have to deal with this endless nonsense, so that's very frustrating. Hopefully tomorrow will be better. But I am by no means the only one who suffers incivility, personal attacks, harassment and abuse from these editors. A look at Tarc's editing history, for example, show's his nastiness towards editors with whom he disagrees. I had hoped Arbcom would work towards alleviating that kind of behavior, but instead they encouraged it by sanctioning the editors enduring it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my advice to you. You will be better served by stopping the personal attacks, removing the absurd Nazi stuff, and instead documenting in a neutral and factual way (without accusations) the things that you are concerned about. You say "A look at Tarc's editing history, for example, shows his nastiness towards editors with whom he disagrees." Ok, I looked quickly but didn't see what you meant. What you might want to do here is something like this:

1. Apologize to the community and to Tarc and others for creating such a dramatic stir. This may feel uncomfortable or difficult, but it is the right way to move forward if you want to achieve positive change.
2. Explain, using neutral language and diffs, what got you so upset in the first place. "I'm sorry that I got so dramatic and emotional. The reason for it was the following set of diffs which show behavior that I think was clearly uncivil towards me. I felt frustrated and behaved in a way that is less than what I expect of myself and others, but I hope people can forgive me for that and look to help all of us... including the people I'm complaining about... to improve. It is painful to not have it acknowledged that I have a legitimate complaint, and I'm sorry that my outrageous behavior made that more difficult."

You're a longtime editor. As I said above, I don't really know what this dispute is about. What I'm encouraging you to do is to reform your own behavior so that, if you do have a legitimate complaint here (and I have no idea about that, because through all the heat you've generated, there has been precious little light), people are better able to hear you.

I speak words here that I know to be wise, but I also know to be difficult. I have sometimes failed to follow my own advice, so I know how hard it can be when we are feeling emotional. I am therefore not trying to lecture you, but to reach out to you with some thoughts that I think you will find helpful in the long run.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo,

I want make a suggestion which I deem very important for the future direction of Wikipedia.

Currently, the ref element is quite imprecise. Look at the following example:

This is sentence number one. This is sentence number two.<ref>This is a reference.</ref>

It can be observed that in this example it is not clear whether the reference is linked to both sentences or to sentence two only. It is thus proposed to change the reference syntax. Look at the next example, now:

This is sentence number one.<ref source="This is a reference.">This is sentence number two.</ref>

Now, it is quite clear which sentence is referenced. This could be a tremendous improvement. The following features could become possible:

1. Every sentence is referenced and in every case it is clear which reference belongs to a sentence.
2. Future editors know, if they are allowed to put in a new sentence between sentence one and sentence two, without pretending this sentence to be referenced by the final ref element.
3. References could be shown in a small box when the mouse pointer is above a sentence.
4. The 100% reliable Wikipedia could become reality!

I hope you support my suggestion. 92.225.137.203 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see merit in what you are saying. I note that what we currently do follows standard academic tradition, but you make an interesting point for sure. The syntax you recommend could still render to the end reader in the traditional manner, but would make it clearer to other editors just which part of the entry is supported by the reference.

There would be many difficulties with changing to this, and there are probably some downsides that I haven't considered. One problem may be that reference syntax is already frightening to newcomers. A more precise style has benefits, as you have outlined, but when putting in a reference is too complicated, many people will look at it and decide it isn't worth the tedium of figuring out how, leaving us with a net *less* referencing overall. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]