Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-10-28

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-10-28. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: A second attempt at Arbitration enforcement (5,593 bytes · 💬)

  • Regarding, "In [the first Arbitration enforcement] case it was found that they found no grounds to block Corbett for a different incident but had the decision overruled by GorillaWarfare, who blocked Corbett for a month without discussion", didn't one admin, User:Black Kite (a vehement supporter of Corbett) close the AE request after only a few hours of commentary - mostly from Corbett's supporters? So, when you say "they found no grounds to block Corbett" the "they" to whom you refer is the usual Corbett cheer squad. Or am I misremembering there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyhcole (talk • contribs)
  • I'm referring to Black Kite being the one who closed the AE request. See here. GamerPro64 19:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. When you say in today's piece, "it was found that they found no grounds to block Corbett" are you referring to this: "Black Kite's actions had the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision; in fact, since Eric's comment was a violation of his restriction and was not minor in nature, Black Kite should not have dismissed the enforcement request so quickly and without waiting for input from other uninvolved administrators" [1]? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry. When you say, "it was found", found by whom? And when you say, "they found no grounds to block Corbett", who are they? Sorry for not putting it in those terms to begin with. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I already told you that "They" is Black Kite. The findings were by the Arbitration Committee. What more do you want that isn't the same circular conversation? GamerPro64 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Aaaaah. The singular they. now I see what you're saying. Thanks.
One other thing: you say "Corbett went onto the thread [on Jimmy's talk page] to defend himself but was blocked for a month by Kirill Lokshin due to violating his topic ban from the Gender Gap topic." It sounds like Eric was blocked for the comments he made defending himself. Eric did more than defend himself there: he also made two comments, in two seperate edits, about the gender gap and misogyny on Wikipedia. It was the latter comments Kirill blocked him for. Not the comments where he was defending himself against the claim that he had said something rude to Lightbreather. Would you consider clarifying that point in your piece? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If you can point me to the edit I can see if I can. Also, apologizes for coming off as abrasive. GamerPro64 21:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you like me to point you to where Kirill links to the two comments that triggered the block? I'll just go fish them out. I think it's in the block notice on Corbett's talk page. Yep. User_talk:Eric_Corbett#Blocked. I think most people, including Kirill, think Eric had a right to reply in that discussion on Jimmy's talk page. The problem arose when Eric used the moment to say a few gratuitous words about the gender gap. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I was about to post my own take on the "AE2" case here, but I realize that we are at risk of relitigating the whole case on this page. That would be counterproductive; if, as I personally believe, the current case is probably unnecessary, then reliving the whole case on another page would be doubly so. (In the unlikely event anyone cares, my statement at the case acceptance state is now on the case talkpage, along with those of about 80 of my friends.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Community letter: Five million articles (3,681 bytes · 💬)

Congratulations! Five million articles!
  • Congratulations, Wikipedia! There have been many ups-and-downs, but the encyclopedia has pushed on to reach the golden 5 million article mark. May Wikipedia continue to be around to serve future generations for decades to come. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 18:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    • And congratulations to Mark E, the winner of the Wikipedia:Five-million pool, for his prediction, made in 2007. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If you've contributed articles, you get your own mini-celebration, by adding a template to your user page, that calculates the percentage of articles that are yours :) --Djembayz (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to celebrate with more TLC all around! (tender loving care) ...

How to feed our growing flock of articles?

Any thoughts or tips on how we scale up to curating and maintaining all these articles?

Here are a few:

  • If you are a careful and patient person, the Page Curation tool may be worth trying out, as it's one of the first lines of defense on quality control.
  • A little-known asset is this page of cleanup listings. If you activate Visual Editor, you can zoom through these listings adding wikilinks and reference cleanup. (Don't throw tomatoes at me until you give it a try!) You'll find that there are Wikiprojects such as African countries that don't have anyone working cleanup, so your contribution can be truly significant.
  • De-orphaning by WikiProject can be quite gratifying too. (Here's how to de-orphan).
  • There used to be a really neat display of articles ranked by quality and page views over on the Toolserver. You could decide whether you wanted to go for high-traffic, unknown and unassessed, or middle-of-the-road articles. Anybody know where to find it these days? --Djembayz (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • We also have a "copy and paste" detection bot that runs on all new edits to En WP and lists potentially concerning edits [2]. It is correct about half the time and like everything is a work in progress. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured content: Birds, turtles, and other things (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-28/Featured content

From the editor: The Signpost‍ '​s reorganization plan—we need your help (15,094 bytes · 💬)

Does this mean we can finally unionize? GamerPro64 18:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Settle down, Norma Rae. We have to pay you first before you can unionize. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay… Does this mean we finally get paid? GamerPro64 18:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
fr.wiki's RAW isn't weekly; its latest issue appeared in October, it's not that dead after all :) --Elitre (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
We were told they were going on hiatus. Perhaps something was lost in translation? Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
+1. I talked with Cantons, and they've already missed the 23rd/I don't see anything for the 6th coming along. :-/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I especially like the statement that the Signpost gets some great ideas for articles, but they need more writers to produce them. Having gone through the archives extensively, I don't think I saw times when the Signpost didn't have enough subjects to write about, it's always a matter of having enough contributors to cover all of the story ideas, news beats and discussion reports that are possible and suggested. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Off-topic discussion about race, because reasons. You are welcome to read, participate, or just point and laugh, but this has nothing to do with the organizational structure of the Signpost.

It has recently become my opinion that a majority of Wikipedians are not really a well-represented demographic here, given their skin color ("white" as if ghosts, scary and unwelcome) and gender (e.g., where locker room phrases like "mansplaining" cause little concern). It has become my opinion that this publication is becoming more and more a political tool to annoy and harass ("molest") European male Wikipedians, likely also harbouring other minority and extremist political ideologies, under the guise of empowerment and equality and who knows what else.

And at the same time, it seems to have adopted an uncanny similarity to political warfare widely adopted by European males: seeking control of social institutions (Wikipedia) by seeking control of their institutions of violence (ArbCom in this case, their decisions more-or-less being enforceable in SF courts and their associated US police and paramilitary forces), and attacks (propaganda and using the instutitions of violence) on "oppresors" and other enemies as a method of fearmongering meant to aid in the raising of morale and troops, but also meant to push their opponents into more extremist and minority positions.

The Signpost seems dominated with editors consumed by hatred and fear. I primarily edit articles about European government institutions, the traditional political instiutions of European males, knowing full well the violence they are responsible for causing. I consider it so important becuase the Signpost makes it clear that there is a significant political movement to retrain this violence once again, obviously unaware of the historical fate that awaits such attempts. We're not out of the woods yet, so don't go starting a forest fire. Int21h (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, is it the Traffic Report that is victimizing European male Wikipedians and promoting extremist political ideology or is it Featured Content? Your assertions might have some weight if you actually provided evidence of your over-the-top claims. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Internal divisions of the Signpost are distinctions without a difference. It is the heavy use of gender-, sexual- and ethnicity-oriented content in general that has piqued my interest. Those are common political topics worldwide, but nonetheless are often precursors to gender, sexual and ethnic discrimination, and I think it is increasingly going that way. I focused on the term "mansplaining" because it was the most obvious, but I didn't really consider the assumption underlying most of the dicussion: (a) that a majority European male population is bad, and/or (b) that a majority European male population must be suppressed.
I'm not even sure what would be considered "evidence". I think it would be more efficient to let someone else prove it, especially since I am not very knowledgeable on the topic of "class warfare", but it is on my list of things to do when my primary editing goals are sufficiently met. Int21h (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that the entire Signpost editorial board is made up of all white (and one slightly off-white) males of European descent? Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
While that is an intriguing facet of psychology, it is well known feature of the topic. E.g., wealthy landowners supporting (even being the main force behind) a political movement for radical land reform and redistribution of wealth does not magically mean that movement does not exist as such. Int21h (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
How does one conduct a paramilitary overthrow of an internet encyclopedia exactly? Asking for a friend. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who contacted me privately or on my talk page to potentially volunteer. Give me a day or so to contact you. Everyone else, keep those requests coming! Gamaliel (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


Preexisting conflict

@Gamaliel: - I think The Signpost's coverage of Wikipedia's gender issues has been absolutely laudable, but it feels a bit bizarre to me to then turn around and make a man who wrote this and this responsible for Special Reports/Projects. Does your concern about the treatment of women on the project not extend to men who like to call women editors "bitches"? The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

First, no one "makes" me responsible for special reports—I might deign to do it if I feel like it. it's not a paid job. Second, "bitchy" is far from calling someone "a bitch". And you're proving right here that the epithet (not the noun, which you dishonestly throw around here) was exactly what you deserved. I wouldn't have a clue what gender you were ("wife" proves nothing, and if anything your username is pretty sexist ... someone's wife, are you?), but the other editor I called that at the time I know was male. Where does that leave your twisted logic? Tony (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Tony1 has been an indispensible part of the Signpost well before I ever contributed here. All I did was put a title to something he's already been doing for a long time. I'm sorry you had a disagreement with him, and I'm not going to defend or excuse whatever someone thinks he may have done wrong during that disagreement as that has nothing to do with the Signpost or anyone else here, just as the many disagreements I've had with users over the decade that I've been a Wikipedia editor and the many instances where I acted poorly should not reflect upon my colleagues here or this publication. Obviously I am concerned about the treatment of women, and editors of any gender, race, or nationality, on Wikipedia. That doesn't change just because I acted like an asshat here in the past. The fact that I acted in poorly in the past doesn't make me a hypocrite, that doesn't make my concerns invalid, that just makes me a regular, flawed, imperfect human being. I'll take a flawed person who strives to do right by the encyclopedia any day over a person who says we shouldn't be concerned about how we treat others here, and loudly insists that they should be allowed to be terrible to anyone at any time. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you're terrific and respect you highly, and none of this was a criticism of you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of rightfully pointing out that tolerating and supporting a man who thinks calling women "cunts" is probably not great for encouraging the inclusion of women on the project, while happily collaborating with someone who likes to call women "bitches" with a rationale that could be Eric's word for word except for the different slur. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You are a vile, detestable person. "For what it's worth", this appears to be pay-back for my calling out of the Australian chapter for its illegal behaviour. I believe s/he communes with them. Tony (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, that "illegal behaviour" was choosing a spelling of "notice board" over "noticeboard". As if this doesn't even more clearly demonstrate that Tony1's attitude towards and means of communicating with women editors is no different from Eric Corbett's. One tends to remember the men who unashamedly throw around misogynist slurs at women editors. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, no, I'm referring to several years of wrongdoing by the committee of WMAU—breaking its electoral rules, for example. See Meta for the current issue. Thank you for your concern, which has not been duly noted. Tony (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A concise, informative, neutrally toned weekly newsletter would be a great asset for Wikipedia editors. The present Signpost is very far from that and instead has become a vehicle for grandstanding and personal crusades. I've stopped contributing or even reading the thing: Noyster (talk), 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want the Signpost to be a glass of warm milk before bedtime, then I am not the editor for you.
There's nothing wrong with wanting that, of course. There's a place for newsletters with a sedate tone, like the Wikidata Newsletter or Books and Bytes. But the Signpost attempts to cover all of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement. Wikipedia is the seventh largest website in the world, by traffic. Wikimedia is a gigantic global movement of hundreds of projects in hundreds of languages, with contributors from every continent. It is the world. And that world deserves a newspaper and not a newsletter. I want that newspaper to reflect that cacophony of global voices. I want it loud, boisterous, and opinionated. I want it to piss them off and make them think. I want to turn it up to eleven. I want to be your angry conscience buzzing in your ear like you have tinnitus. I want to be H.L. Mencken or Walter Cronkite. I want to feed off the hostile voices of vested interests who don't like being called out like a kid devouring a bag of Halloween candy.
But I'm just one guy, and what I want most is for the Signpost to have a diversity of voices and opinions. This week the Signpost had ten sections, and the week before it had nine. I write a chunk of the Signpost but I don't write all of it, or even most of it, and whatever issues people have with me have nothing to do with the people who write, say, Traffic or Recent Research, or the quality content they produce. If you don't like what I have to say, the best way to drown me out is to add more and different voices to the chorus of contributors here. Gamaliel (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
" I want it loud, boisterous, and opinionated." As long as those opinions are wiki-politically correct -- otherwise: [3], [4], [5], [6]. As long as the Signpost model is National Inquirer rather than Washington Post folks with any sort of sense are going to be ignoring it. NE Ent 14:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can't tell the difference between vigorous debate and copyright violations, trolling, and harassment, the National Inquirer is your model. Gamaliel (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In the media: The world's Wikipedia gaps; Google and Wikipedia accused of tying Ben Carson to NAMBLA (3,621 bytes · 💬)

WP:MOS says that linking from within the quote should be avoided "as much as possible". However, looking at the present version of the article I don't see a link to NAMBLA at all, and I imagine that even among Americans there are many who have absolutely no idea what that acronym actually refers to, so a link is appropriate. There will be no difference if we link to it inside or outside the quote so far as Google's rankings are concerned. And whatever their problem is, I doubt that one link in our article is what is to blame for it.

We should not be rearranging articles trying to decide on search rank. It's not our problem, and even if it were, maybe a lot of people actually search Google for Carson NAMBLA because they want to see this quote and use it for some purpose (whether anti gay marriage or anti Carson or whatever, none of our business). Or maybe there are just a lot of news sites and opinion pieces that talk about Carson and NAMBLA within a headline --- your own included!

Let's not focus on trying to guess what our article might make happen, but instead focus on having it be as informative as possible. He said this thing, it had a certain resonance in a certain segment of society, history needs to know about it. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Regarding the story about The world's Wikipedia gaps, as a contributor to the Wikipedia version in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål I don't think machine translation is the way, its just not good enough. The problem is our biggest competitor: The English language Wikipedia. A well-known Norwegian journalist said some years ago that media use Wikipedia all the time, the English language version, that is. Why someone would contribute to the version in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål was beyond his understanding.
What we need to do, both the WMF and local chapters is to highlight the inequality of Wikipedia. After all its not that bad in Europe, quite a few are able to read some English. But in places like Sri Lanka, where the local languages are next to non-existent on Wikipedia, it means that the local elites have all they need, while the rest is as bad off as ever. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem with keeping quotes free of hyperlinks is that frequently without them the reader would be clueless as to what the quoted speaker is talking about. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 I agree. I forget how I learned I'm not supposed to hyperlink in quotes, but there was one I included in an article and I knew people would be likely to want to learn the definition or significance of some term that was used. I didn't think there was any other way. While I've forgotten exact details, I'm pretty sure the quote would have been hard to understand without the hyperlink.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

News and notes: English Wikipedia reaches five million articles (3,959 bytes · 💬)

It's remarkable you managed to squeeze in mention of the 5,000,000 millionth article into this issue, especially considering that it only occurred an hour or two before publication time. Bravo! Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I spent a lot of time anxiously watching the countdown this weekend. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It is extraordinarily unfortunate that such an otherwise celebratory occasion must also bear the sad news of a Wikimedian no longer with us. Rest in peace, Kahlid Mahmood. My condolences to their loved ones. Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll bet 50% of those articles are sports articles, obscure villages, railway stations, little known bugs, and entertainment trivia. Praemonitus (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It is only a small sample, but I looked at the last ten articles he created, between June and July this year. Thanks to interwiki links and google translate, I was able to discover that the article topics were stamen and pollen, a 19th century Polish poet, a city in Israel, a desert shrub found in India and Pakistan, and five articles on United States geographical features, including Lake Michigan and the Chicago River. If Praemonitus or anyone else is curious in exploring Khalid's contributions further, his list of articles created is here. He also contributed 61 articles to the English Wikipedia. I'll let the reader decide whether a World War I battle falls within the category of entertainment trivia. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Note the indentation: I was not referring to Khalid's contributions, but rather to the net total of 5,000,000 articles. Sorry for any confusion. Praemonitus (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, so you were. I am equally sorry for the ill-aimed jab. If talking about the net total, I think your 50% may be an underestimation. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Images now available

As a result of the initiative mentioned here, images of Persoonia terminalis' two subspecies are now available on Commons.

  • Persoonia terminalis ssp recurva, Australian National Botanic Garden, Canberra
    Persoonia terminalis ssp recurva, Australian National Botanic Garden, Canberra
  • Persoonia terminalis ssp terminalis, Australian National Botanic Garden, Canberra
    Persoonia terminalis ssp terminalis, Australian National Botanic Garden, Canberra

Thanks to the photographer, Russell Cumming, for kindly relicensing his images. Andreas JN466 12:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed: It’s time to stop the bullying (55,573 bytes · 💬)

Bullying

  • How can we distinguish between a serious commitment to ending bullying, and the feckless hand-wringing “we’re trying, but..” that has been so familiar by the infamous GGTF, Gamergate, Lightbreather cases? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If nobody else asks the candidates, I will ask them directly "Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Wikipedia? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this your number 1 priority?" I think this will help distinguish between those committed to a solution and the hand-wavers. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
A good idea. Last year, I asked the candidates what I thought were softball questions about civility and gender and I was astonished to see how many of them flailed about or responded in ways that were appalling. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there are 7/15 slots up this time, unless there are some resignations... Carrite (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"For 2015, seven current arbitrators will remain on the committee. The committee will continue to have 15 seats, leaving eight vacant seats with two-year terms to be filled in this election."
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2015#Vacant_seats
Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There are seven expiring two-year terms, plus another arbitrator is leaving the Committee a year early which explains the eighth vacancy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Correct, Euryalus announced that he or she will be stepping down at the end of the year. Mike V • Talk 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem I foresee with this approach is that many editors will link "anti-bullying" to editors who promote civility which, to some folks, is a cardinal sin. You wouldn't think that encouraging civility and politeness, even in the midst of heated disagreement would be a bad thing but to some editors it's equated with a disparaging term, the civility police. This notion has tripped up many discussions and caused them to go off-track as some believe civility actually promotes censorship which is not the point at all. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The decision to abandon enforcement of civility opened the door. That decision seems irreversible with strong support of most if not all, sitting arbitrators and the community. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @Liz: - We have to have faith in the community. Sure there are groups boys around here who like to joke around and don't intend to be obnoxious, but I believe the very large majority - even of the immature boys here - know the difference between joking around and systematically harassing a large part of humanity. The very large majority don't like bullying because they have, at times, been subjected to it themselves. Most people know the difference between right and wrong and are willing to act on it if they see the way forward. Have faith and respect the community.
      • @Fred Bauder: Perhaps the sitting arbs would rather not bother with standing up to the bullies, but I just cannot agree that the community supports ignoring the problem. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
      • To be fair, we should acknowledge that bullies are not just those who use a few naughty words. Bullies also include a not insignificant number of "editors" who act as though they were as pure as the driven snow while aggressively progressing their own agendas, as well as any editor who feels that they are "punching up", or that it is appropriate to do so. We could all (and I do include myself) do a lot worse than having a long, hard look in the mirror. Sometimes the best way to address bullying is to simply stop. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't say "don't vote neutral." I'll vote neutral if, after much deliberation, I neither support nor oppose the candidate. I'll also vote neutral if I don't have an informed opinion on a given candidate by the time I cast my vote. If, as it sometimes happens, life intervenes and I don't have time to have an informed opinion on any candidate I may skip the election altogether rather than "vote neutral" across the board. Ditto if I do some or all of my homework and still can't support or oppose any candidate which I had time to research. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think if you asked most sitting arbs if they were committed to stopping bullying, they'd answer in the affirmative. It's a lot easier though, to sit on the sidelines and say "This is what should happen", and a lot harder to make the same call when you're going to have to cop the responsibility and consequences. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

ClueBot for talk pages?

Wikipedia has benefited for a long time now from the services of ClueBot and its descendants to protect content from vandalism. Maybe we should think about whether a similar artificial intelligence solution, using an edit filter and/or tags, could also be viable for catching problematic talk page interactions: Wikipedia should value its editors as much as its readers: without editors, there is no content. If you have suggestions or concerns related to this idea, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposed:_Tag_.2F_edit_filter_for_talk_page_abuse. Thanks. Andreas JN466 21:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a great and potentially revolutionary idea. Instead of putting the onus on editors, especially new ones, to find out how to request assistance and negotiate Wikipedia's dramaboards, help can come to them. As long as humans reviewed the bot's results, I don't see any downside. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Except it's not anything different than what we do now. People read talk page comments. Will a bot somehow give it more "gravitas?" "The bot said so" is not really a stronger argument than what goes on now. And no, the chance that it will be used to bring "help" to new users is as naive as saying posting to ANI will bring "help." More likely it will attract drama bullies looking to wield the ban hammer. It will be like a tool that brings ANI to every discussion. Reviews of ANI and it reveals that it is not a welcoming place for new editors and most new editors learn about "boomerangs." There will be a new talk page summary coment though: "rv per bot."
Really the first step would be to eliminate offensive words. If we can't even agree on a framework of "offensive," a bot will just derail discussion into the weeds. Lightbreather was bullied by the "C" word because she found it offensive - intolerably offensive. That there is still an argument about that means we face a fundamental divide that has to be bridged before bullying can even be addressed. It's like trying to battle racism but having ground rules that allow the "N" word. Bullying can be intensely personal so Lightbreathers offense being greater than others in the discussion is not an excuse. Her venture to ANI where that word was used is a preview of the drama a bot will bring to talk pages - hordes of people arguing about whether a victim is really a victim. I don't think it will help unless more fundamental issues are solved. --DHeyward (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Reading something like this makes me really wonder what Wikipedia has become. Just to recap, you want a bot to censor naughty words because they might be bullying. Did Wikipedia get bought by Tumblr or something? Gigs (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's a strawman. A bot will just provide a list where such words are used, which will then be checked by human volunteers. Vandalism bots do the same thing without human intervention. Is Cluebot a censor machine? Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Gigs, you nailed it. Just as a broken clock can be right twice a day, so too can conservatives, who correctly warned us of the "creeping authoritarianism" liberals and progressives can unleash if given the chance. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
So when are you going to post to the Village Pump and demand they deactivate Cluebot? Gamaliel (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Bots can flag it for review but what we've already seen is there isn't even an agreement on what is civil or harassing. Without that, I'm not sure what a review will accomplish. Clear-cut cases are already handled, marginal cases create drama. Until we teach the difference between "censored" and "civil", there will always be someone arguing for their "right" to speak "truth" to "power." Failing to see how offensive the "C" can be in certain cultures (and its total lack of necessity in civil and collegian discourse) speaks to infantilism of the community. No bot will cure that. In the course of my life, I've learned some choice Hindi words that are not polite in mixed company. But simply because the words mean nothing to me and are not offensive to me, doesn't give me carte blanche license to use those words. The "no, no, no, it's okay because I wasn't offended" is nonsense. --DHeyward (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
But besides, as was pointed out below, the superficially polite people who can abuse our processes to bully people are far more insidious and damaging than some random insults. Gigs (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not the editors using those words. The problem is that unlike every modern organization, Wikipedia tolerates those words and the disrespect of others. Until you do a current, community wide civility assessment survey, you won't be able to gauge the extent of the problem. But I already know what the survey is going to show. It will show that admins and arbs and all the rest of the bureaucrats are out of step with our civility policies and guidelines and have allowed the problem to fester over the years because they can't be bothered. You folks have elected the wrong people and you've appointed the wrong people, so now you need to lie in the bed you've made. Don't you dare blame other editors for your monumental failures. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-government and self-responsibility

This essay is a nice fantasy best suited for the gullible, but history shows otherwise. There is no elected body of people that have ever changed a single damn thing to improve the lives of individuals. All change comes from within and radiates outward, from our close relationships with others to society at large. Until people take responsibility nothing will change. This begins with the author who says that he never really considered himself a feminist. I will not be placing my hope in any elected body of people but in myself and other people who I interact with on a daily basis, because that is the only thing that matters. Everything else is a distraction from the responsibility we have to each other. All that is necessary for gender-based discrimination to continue is for good men and women to do nothing when they encounter it. The solution is not arbcom but the will to act by the individual. Even consensus is not enough to stop it because groups can decide to discriminate as they see fit. So in closing, I voice my objection to the idea that the solution exists outside of ourselves and the choices that we make. Arbcom is not the solution and never will be the solution. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course the main way forward is for individuals to stand up to the bullies. I'm asking people to stand up to the bullies as a group. I don't agree that "There is no elected body of people that have ever changed a single damn thing to improve the lives of individuals" People can and do work together all the time. Wikipedia is a prime example. Let's just work together in an even better way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The way forward is to weaken bureaucracy and strengthen individual decision making. Wikipedia has focused far too much time and energy on building bureaucracy that has become more and more distant from the actual needs and requirements of the editors who use this site. It's almost 2016. We are now in the era of decentralized, direct democracy made possible by instantaneous communication and feedback. We are no longer in the realm of following leaders and organizations down blind alleys that lead nowhere. The model of this era is organically complex, fluid, non-hierarchical, self-organizing and emergent. Ironically, the old model of bureaucracy used a computational model that time and time again biology has disproved. The model of our time is a living system not an artificial intelligence, and this necessitates allowing the system to function on its own until homeostasis is reached. Instead what we see, time and time again, is a bloated, uncompromising bureaucracy trying to lobotomize, surgically remove, and extract the most important elements while ignoring their essential function. Stop building bureaucracy and start building relationships between editors that reinforces community. And stop saying Wikipedia isn't a social network. It is and it must function as one to retain female editors. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the idea that we need to "start building relationships between editors that reinforces community" but I'm not sure how that alone will help create and reinforce positive behaviors. Bureaucracy is not ideal, but almost every rule ever created was because some idiot did something to make that rule necessary. How is will a sense of community alone help fend off people determined to be terrible? Gamaliel (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Lord Acton? The evidence shows that the "people determined to be terrible" are those with power. By decentralizing power, you eliminate the problem. Why would you want to harm someone if that action would only end up harming you? When there is an imbalance of power, the distance between a harmful action and the victim is that much greater, externalizing the risks and the harm. At the end of the day this is about values and conflicts over values. Do you value knowledge and knowledge building, or hat and trinket collecting? Power and prestige, or sharing and self respect? Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Whether it's the abolition of slavery, the introduction of old age pensions, the plimsoll line and other health and safety legislation, removing lead from petrol or banning children from being chimney sweeps, history has shown that elected bodies can change things in ways that improve the lives of individuals. To think otherwise is an extreme libertarian or anarchist political view that ignores many successful reforms by elected bodies. Of course elected bodies can prove inept, and Arbcom has often got things wrong, but the alternative of accepting that all individuals are free to act as they choose is to yield this site to the trolls, spammers and vandals, and in short order even the spammers would abandon it once the audience had gone. ϢereSpielChequers 09:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
All of your examples demonstrate my point. All individuals are free to act as they choose. In the past, many people freely engaged in slavery, allowed the elderly to live and die in poverty, gave corporations carte blanche to pollute, etc. Elected bodies allowed these things to happen. History shows that reform came about due to the efforts of individuals, not elected bodies, who are always the last to officiate and "legislate" what society has already decided. You have confused cause and effect. The pomp and circumstance of institutional formality comes after individuals have devoted and given their lives for these causes, in most cases against the consensus of the elected bodies who allowed them to happen in the first place. Your version of history is completely at odds with the arrow of time. Elected bodies of representatives are completely irrelevant in the Internet age of direct democracy. You're free of course, to keep trying to bring back the 18th century, but I think most of us have moved on. Government works only for the government. Few if any of us benefit from "representation". It may be difficult for you to accept these facts, but politics can and does evolve. We don't need arbcom or any other kind of bureaucratic process on Wikipedia, but it seems like a great number of people here are religiously devoted to creating and perpetuating unnecessary bureaucracy by any means necessary as a way to ignore the real problems and issues. It's essentially a shell game. Vote all you want, nothing is going to change until people change. Real change takes place at the level of the individual, not with laws nor with governments. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Being a fan of subsidiarity, I am all for solving social problems "at the most immediate (or local) level consistent with their solution." And I hope that you will consider organizing a local user group to do just that. You may make many wonderful friends that way. However, your local group will only be able to stick up for you against bullies at your local events.
It's pretty crazy to insist that the community should refuse to designate participants (such as the Arbcom, administrators, or WMF representatives) as having responsibility and authority to assist volunteers who are being bullied. Fighting things out as individuals has had some nasty results, some of which spill over onto other websites, and impact people in their offline lives. Basic order and civilized behavior is not optional if you want to be an appealing place for volunteers.
As for elected bodies: some volunteers here appear to think that elected governmental bodies are powerless to affect what happens on the Wikipedia websites because the websites are located in "cyberspace." Dream on, folks! If we don't solve our problems ourselves and elected governmental bodies have to step in, I can guarantee you it will not be fun. --Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
And here we see the problem on display. I am "crazy" for objecting to an idea and proposing one of my own. Is this your version of civility? Perhaps you meant that my idea was crazy, in which case you would be attacking the idea, not the person. But what I've said is not crazy at all. Running to mommy arb or daddy admin for help when the big bad editor is uncivil is not a solution to anything. The solution is to teach individuals how to deal with and mitigate conflict and disputes on their own with tools and resources available to all. Is that so crazy? Perhaps it is to someone brainwashed by the authoritarian aesthetic that seems to have taken hold of this site. If you put down your glass of Kool-Aid for just a moment, you'll realize that instead of giving people fish we need to be teaching them how to fish. And when people can solve disputes on the level of the individual, disputes at the higher levels will resolve, from the bottom up. You've been deliberately misled into thinking that leadership and problem solving are a top-down process. It isn't and it never has been. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It is. Your proposal is long on principle and short on concrete methods for dealing with these issues. It would be a recipe for chaos that puts the onus for dealing with these issues on victims of incivility and harassment and gives the perpetrators free reign. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Concrete methods start with you. For example, in a previous discussion, many editors expressed displeasure and unease with your use of the word "mansplaining", yet you continued to brazenly use it, right in their face, so to speak. So if you can't be civil yourself, I don't expect you to understand the problem. You keep projecting the issue on to others and for others to clean up because you won't take responsibility for your own contribution to the problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the phrase "tone policing"? Because that's what you're doing here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the phrase "old ideas die hard"? Your continued claims of "chaos" fly in the face of research and innovation. Urban areas, for example, are removing traffic lights and signs to improve the flow of traffic. According to your argument, this should lead to chaos. Why doesn't it? Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Show me a new idea and I will consider it. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if you have some specific technique that makes it possible for individuals to defend ourselves against bullies on this website without turning to others for help, it would be very useful. What is it? --Djembayz (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you as someone who was on the committee when some of the cases referenced were being handled that I was not pleased with some of the results. In fact, there was one case where I was 'in fairly strong opposition to the results and at odds with other members of the committee about how to proceed.

On the other hand, people need to understand that arbcom is not an investigative body, it si a deliberative body. In other words, an arbcom decision is only as good as the evidence submitted. Sometimes there is not enough evidence to support a strong finding or sanction. Sometimes there are moutains and moutains of evidence, but much of it is irrelevant. If arbcom had their own investigative wing that could put in the hundreds of hours needed to thoroughly research each case on their own and gather their own evidence, they would produce more even results. As it is, they are simply volunteers like everyone else and can barely keep up with their workload.

It is not my intention with these remarks to defend some of the more questionable decisions that have come out of the committee in the last few years, but to point out that the problem is not nearly as simple as this piece would have us believe. Different arbs would probably produce different results, but do we actually know that they would be better results? I think not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

First, though ArbCom has limited abilities, it is far from clear that they have used the resources available or sought the resources that were needed. A small deliberative body which, for example, decides to act on the theory that Gamergate is about gender, really might be expected to seek expertise about gender before proceeding. A small deliberative body which decides to act on the theory that the Lightbreather case concerned harassment might have sought expertise about harassment. Consultation would have helped prevent blunders which continue to damage the project.
Second, does ArbCom use even the evidence placed before it? In the current AE2 case, it has indulged endless arguments to the effect that discussion of The Atlantic required that an editor be able to reply on-wiki, even though such a reply violated an Arbcom sanction. In contrast, another editor, Lightbreather, requested permission from Arbcom to address the same question a week ago, and has apparently not received even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. The disparate treatment complained of in The Atlantic continues, it seems.
Third, collusion and coordination have been the consistent, if silent, subtext of much of ArbCom’s recent work. Instead of stepping back, observing the big picture, and addressing the true problem, Arbcom has consistently chosen to pretend that all problems stem from personal misbehavior and can be addressed through personal solutions, as if the source of all problems were childish or deranged behavior. Many problems faced by the project stem from well-planned and well-executed conspiracies and campaigns conducted by dedicated operatives; you cannot hope to fix these with tools adapted for disciplining misbehaving children.
Finally, while ArbCom claims to base its decisions on evidence, it appears increasingly clear that evidence is beside the point: civility -- as Eric Corbett has pointed out so effectively -- is whatever your allies (or ArbCom’s) say it is. When is a cunt not a cunt? We now have thousands of words on this edifying subject! When is a block not a block? When the blocked party has influential friends! Wikipedia has become a place of men, not rules. When we equate harassment and the resistance to harassment, and when we demand that perpetrators and victims alike behave blamelessly, we ask too much; when we do nothing about offsite attacks and then demand that victims either offer no defense (lowering their profile as ArbCom intended to require) or offer a defense that is studiously civil to their attackers, scrupulously neutral in tone and substance, and never exhibits a trace of battleground behavior or ownership, we ask too much. We are asking volunteers to act as if they were saints in the face of attacks for which they were unprepared -- and then further demand that their behavior be judged as saintly by their dedicated opponents. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't use the c-word, I don't try to retrieve it for discourse, and I frankly don't find it useful. That's me. Now others, however, seem to use it to offend other people, perhaps for the shock value and classless humor, I don't know. Whatever the reason, we know others use it. We also know that some editors want to control the words other people use. Maybe it's because they want to increase the participation of a certain group of people. It doesn't matter for the sake of this example, but we know that some people seek to control others. Now, we also know that there is consensus for civility, decorum, and maintaining a healthy environment. I'm on board with that as are most people. So what's the problem? This is about civility enforcement, which the community has refused to do, time and time again. So what are we taking about? The same old arguments, going over the same old ground, with no solution in sight. Now stop for a minute and think what would happen if you taught people how to deal with incivility? Just think about that for a moment. If editors had a toolset from which to draw from, civility would form at the lowest levels, between editors, and percolate to WikiProjects, noticeboards, and talk pages. If you want people to be civil, teach them. Show them the benefits and what they will gain by it. Pointing them to policy or guideline pages isn't working. Gamaliel, Smallbones, and others should have spent their valuable time selling civility to the community, instead they have squandered it by asking us to put our faith and trust in the behavior of other people. That avoids the problem once again. It is our collective behavior that is the problem and needs to be addressed. Stop asking other people to do it for you. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course, some -- many -- editors don't want civility at all. Some want to be free to drive their opponents off-wiki and to silence their critics through threats and extortion. Some hope to be free to drive opponents off simply by making editing unpleasant for them. Some hope to drive their critics to distraction through endlessly repetitive reposting of the same discredited arguments, time and again, for months or years on end -- all while being scrupulously “civil” in the finest passive-aggressive tradition. We all know it, we all see it. We do nothing to stop it; in fact, we encourage it by banning the victims, making the perpetrators unblockable, and maintaining the fiction that tag-teaming and offsite coordination are unwelcome. Unless we start enforcing the pillars with an even hand, and unless we end the current practice of applying rules only to the powerless, we’ll see more, not less, harassment. The cure for that will ultimately be governmental regulation; you won’t like it, but have a wonderful day!. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a big difference between enforcing civility by taking a zero tolerance stand (which for the last decade I've been here, admins refuse to do to the detriment of the community) and issuing fatwas. You need to start blaming your holy and exalted guvmint for the problem, and stop blaming editors who live under their failed policies. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Now we're going to start religious bullying, too? I thought that was limited to off-wiki harassers, who regularly regale me with a variety of anti-Semitic slurs. I do blame editors for sexual harassment, however, despite the government’s occasional shortcomings. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mark, using a figure of speech is not "religious bullying" in any form. I'm getting the sense that you enjoy playing the "I'm taking offense at your offense" card to win sympathy for your position. I don't blame any editors for harassment, I blame the admins and arbs who should take a zero tolerance stand when it comes to incivility, just like every major, modern organization. Please leave your ramblings about some kind of government control out of this. I'm not the least bit interested in your Sharia-like enforcement proposals so keep it to yourself. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"Ramblings" is an interestingly civil choice of words here, much as "fatwa" was above. You'll note that my Congresswoman.has been a leader on these issues; see, for example, her prominent statement (and prominent invitation) in the wake of the SXSW Gamergate debacle. If Wikipedia cannot rid itself of harassers--and all indications are that it cannot or will not-- we'll take steps to see that the harassment ends.MarkBernstein (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Seriously though. Congress passes laws. This sounds a lot like a legal threat. 107.107.58.249 (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm increasingly finding Mark's rambling rants indistinguishable from the kind of raging fatwas issued by fanatical clerics. Is Mark trying to discredit feminists by pretending to support them? Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It's good that you are keeping this issue in perspective. Gamaliel (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Am I reading this right? You're defending the ayatollah's Mark's threat to sic the FBI on Wikipedia editors? Have you gone crazy? Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
"That’s a nice store window you have here. It would be a shame if...."[7] I know it when I see it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, it was brave of Ms. Clark to risk the lives of the "‘‘SavePoint: A Discussion on the Gaming Community’'" panelists in the face of threatened violence. The show must go on. --DHeyward (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
What I find problematic is to continually use the example of Lightbreather or any other individual that's been banned, as a one dimensional whipping post for all that's wrong with Wikipedia. Lightbreather was certainly not the only person offended by the "C" word. Nor is she the only feminist. As GorillaWarfare highlighted, she is not the only one who has been harassed, sexually or otherwise. She did, however, earn her site ban. It has nothing to do with her being a woman or a feminist, rather it had a lot to do with how Lightbreather behaved. It is the same for Eric Corbett. He gets blocked rather regularly but it's for his actions and reputation, not because he's a man or because of his choice words. He's a polarizing figure just as Lightbreather is so it's not surprising that they earn very polarizing sanctions. It's a long and drawn out history that cannot be summed up in pithy soundbites, rather these individuals end up exhausting the communities patience. Claiming her site ban is because of her stance on feminism or intolerance of harassment or "tone" does a grave disservice to women and feminists that manage not to get site banned and still fight harassment and still uphold their feminist beliefs. "Works and plays well with others" is the key learning from Kindergarten that underpins civlitiy and that's really all anyone needs to survive here. If an editor finds themselves constantly at AE or ANI, they should indeed "lower their profile" but it has nothing to do with their ideological stance. Anybody that's played the whack-a-mole game knows this basic rule. Topic bans by their nature are enforced "profile lowering" and "tone policing" by fiat. --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As a new arb this year, I am acutely aware that there are some inevitable limits to what arb com can do. For one thing, it has to act with evidence. This obviously limits its ability to act on internal conviction, but it also limits its ability to act on the basis of prejudice and rumor. For another, it acts by majority decision. This limits the influence of the few people who may happen to be in the right in a particular situation but cannot convince the others, but it eliminates the first-mover effect in other processes, where the person who is most convinced they are right and quickest on the trigger can get their own way. It cannot make policy, as a limitation imposed by the community, and this prevents it doing right when the community has not come to a conclusion. But this also prevents it going its own independent way and dominating everything. A key example of such a policy limitation is the community policy that avoiding outing is more important than avoiding disruption or even harassment. To the extent the community is willing to change that, a great deal more could be done.
There are also some limitations that are not inevitable, but self-imposed: the committee tries to decide cases on the immediate issues, not the fundamental problems, and in this sense resembles most conventional judicial systems. The committee tends to judge by the letter of the policy rather than the intent, and is not always willing to use discretion, and therefore sometimes creates more injustice than it need to, again resembling many judicial systems. The committee keeps most votes internal, to avoid pressure on individual arbitrators, but this can give a false impression of unanimity and make it seem hopeless to accomplish changes. These three factors can be changed by the community, by electing arbs who feel differently about them. (I personally would welcome such changes.) DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@DGG: Thank you for a cogent and well-reasoned comment. Unfortunately, you depend on “the community”: does that community any longer exist? Gamergate, for example, has openly sought to recruit editors and administrators to its cause, with systematic efforts to create new accounts and to revive disused accounts that can be newly devoted to the cause of using Wikipedia to harass female software developers. Will these Gamergate accounts ever join in a community consensus to deplore harassment? Of course not. Will they embrace a proposal to make WP:OUTING subsidiary to, say, threatening Wikipedians, or seeking to make them unemployable if they interfere with harassment? Of course they won’t.
The same situation holds elsewhere -- Mens Rights Activism, the Balkans, I/P, American Politics. Nor will the professional publicists who work for major corporations and agencies weaken the shield that protects their lucrative operations from scrutiny. No Wikipedia dispute today is likely to be free from threats, veiled or unveiled; we just saw a legal threat directed at an admin on the talk page of a clerk(!) and what happened? The admin was told to lower their profile! Wikipedia has one set of rules for the bullies and their pals and another for their victims. The “community” cannot even muster the will to deplore sexual harassment; no real consensus is possible in these circumstances, and so nothing can change.
There is no community -- no unified purpose or goal. There is only ArbCom, and as far as outsiders can see, they're working for the harassers. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Editors may be inclined to wonder on We just saw a legal threat directed at an admin on the talk page of a clerk(!) and what happened? The admin was told to lower their profile!, and find bewilderment in how such an occurrence could find here a home.
Of course, no legal threats were made. Per my comments on that page, One is ever comforted by the knowledge that strong mechanisms licensing the practice of law exist, and that those reading the comments as legal threats are assuredly not licensed to practise in any jurisdiction ... One might ask that editors read policy before referencing it, but an explicit request that they comprehend the same would also seem to be required - and for some, a bridge too far.
Editors whose assumption of good faith is weakened by regular witness of such hyperbole may be inclined to assume willful misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation. I, of course, do not so assume; comforted as I am by both Hanlon's Razor, and the knowledge that repetition of nonsense does not make it true. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
No matter what the deficiency of the community, it's what we have. There is no one else, unless we're prepared to let the Foundation run this from the top downwards. Beyond trying to improve the encyclopedia, of course there is no unified purpose or goal. Why should there be? We're a very wide and inclusive community of volunteers, each with our own vision, and the visions can be expected to clash at times. We have different ideas of what the encycopedia should be like, of what editors should do, of how they should do it, of how they should work with to each other.
No matter what our mode of organization, a large minority of people are not going to like it. If we work in a organization directed from above, we often won't like the directives. If we delegate authority to a committee, we often won't like want their conclusions. If we work in a democracy, we often will lose important votes. If we work in a manner dominated by conflicting tries at rough consensus, the results may please no one. If we work in an environment dominated by cliques, our clique will often be the loser. If we work in a free-for-all, we often won't like whatever come out on top. If something is worth fighting for, one side is going to lose. This is inevitable for people in groups, unless the group is going to be totally brain-dead. Group activities at their best involve doing other than what you really want, for the achievement of what you think important. In GG and some other recent cases, it was very clear that no matter what arb com did, it would offend a significant part of the community; in fact, I think that to most of us, it was clear that we had no real solution. In some current cases, decisions have been very slow because nobody has been able to think of an adequate remedy for something we all know to be a problem.
I like many of us ideally want a situation where I'd win every argument and people would always listen to me. I learned as a child this wasn't going to happen in the real world, and a little later that it wouldn't happen in any imaginary or constructed world I wanted others to join. I didn't come to WP because I thought I'd finally found a place that would fulfill all my desires. I joined because I thought, correctly, that this was a place where I could find some corners where what I wanted to do would be accepted reasonably often, and where I could simply pay no attention to the parts I didn't like. (Unlike the RW where one is often forced to pay attention to things one finds unpleasant). Anyone who cannot be satisfied with this for whatever part of their life they want to spend here will not be happy here. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Admins

The article correctly points out that one doesn't need to be an admin to stand for Arbcom, but omits to mention that so far the community has only elected admins to arbcom. If any non admin reading this is considering running for Arbcom either this December or next December then may I suggest they consider first becoming an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Since RfA should be abolished and user rights devolved and decentralized and made available to anyone who needs them, which in turns allows them to be removed easily and without the current tyranny of indefinite terms, and in the process limits the powers of admins and gives the power back to the community whom they have disenfranchised to begin with, I would strongly disagree. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
WSC is just being real. The truth is that while it is technically possible to be a non-admin arb, it has never happened in the history of the committee. It's all well and good to imagine a whole other way of doing things and what you believe it should be like, but realistically it is highly unlikely, but not impossible. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Beeblebrox. I actually think that if we don't succeed in fixing RFA it is only a matter of time before we elect a non admin as an arb. Possibly even this year, personally I have voted for at least one non admin candidate in the past. But if any such are watching this becoming an admin first is going to make it easier to win an Arbcom election, and in my view anyone who would get 50% support in an arbcom election is likely to get over 75% support at RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Imagine me as an Arbitrator, if you can :) GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy

Is there a reason we are going about this via an Arbcom election, instead of (say) writing these concerns on a project page and slapping it with {{proposed}}? This just seems a very indirect method to me. Have we really given up all hope of Arbcom following policy? --NYKevin 22:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. WP:Civility and WP:Harassment are already quite clear on the matter, but ArbCom has chosen to view these policies as optional.
  2. When the people's elected representatives do not represent the people's views, it is customary in a civilized society, for the people to elect new representatives in the next election. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Policy is enforced an ANI and AE and everywhere else. Arbcom settles disputes, they don't set policy nor are they particularly vested in enforcing policy except as it relates to the dispute they are solving. It seems rather shocking, given the complaints over site bans and blocks, that one would argue they are viewing these policies as "optional." I wish they would have done more but most peopleseem to be complaining they did too much. --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course arb com "determines" policy, by interpreting it. They don't make policy in a literal sense, but they determine the scope of it and how to apply it & thus set the effective policy.
But that's not the problem with this particular issue: rather, the key difficulty is that many cases can not be investigated within the restrictions set by the basic policy of anonymity. If we permit unidentified editing we will never be free from harassment. Anonymity is a foundation policies, and even if the community here wanted to significantly modify it, we almost certainly would not be permitted to. We therefore need to accept that we can & should try to decrease harassment, but we cannot end it. For most instances of harassment I've seen on the committee, there is not much help we can provide. Those running for arb com who are urging stronger action will, once they are on the committee, find themselves just as frustrated about this as I have been. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-bullying

I would support an anti-bullying agenda. I think it is worth understanding what bullying (or attempted bullying) is. Bullying is the use of power to abuse or illegitimately coerce. It's important to realise that power is a subtle thing, especially on Wikipedia - it's not just wielded by arbitrators and administrators. Long standing editors have power, those that write for the Signpost have power - and, of course, we inherit, if we choose, power structures from the outside world. For example attempting to belittle another author's knowledge of Shakespeare as User:MarkBernstein has done, is an exercise, and I would say an abuse, of power. Making accusations of criminal activity against other (blocked!) editors is an abuse of power. Forming a cabal is an abuse of power.

Are those who are so keen on anti-bullying prepared to have their own actions scrutinised?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

The only power I have is to tell people things that make them uncomfortable. Given the response the last two weeks, apparently people are very uncomfortable. As gratified I am to wield that power, I want to point out that we are willing to share that power with anyone who is willing to contribute to the publication. Gamaliel (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You can resign as an admin, making the above statement true retroactively. Or not. I think it's already pretty clear what role "truth" plays in your narrative. 107.150.94.6 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I'm having too much fun pissing off the peanut gallery. Gamaliel (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That's hardly any kind of "power", Gamaliel. As adults, we have to take responsibility for our own reactions, including aversion. When you learn how to control the reaction of feeling "uncomfortable", the power manifests itself in the individual, not in anything one would say or do. And here we come to the central problem. You and others wish to take power from others by treating people as infants, potential victims who can't control their own reactions. And I will continue to object and disagree with you and others on this point. You don't have any power to make me feel uncomfortable; the only power you have is the power others give you to control their reaction. When individuals work together, on a personal basis, the entire power structure of domination and control is undermined, and the "bullying" that you talk so much about (and depend upon for your next article) vaporizes as if it never existed. This is, of course, the big secret. By keeping people divided, by separating us over issues, you diffuse and weaken the personal power of the individual. You may not even be aware you are doing it, but that's exactly what's happening. Anyone who tells us we are incapable of controlling our own lives needs to be called out as liars. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Brush up your Shakespeare! You better start quoting him now. Brush up your Shakespeare, and the women you will wow! (Are you quite certain is was Shakespeare and not Milton, Rich? Or Marlowe, perchance? Maybe it was Cole Porter? Or Sondheim?) The occasional literary allusion is not bullying; it's a good way to keep educated people amused and engaged. Jokes are good too, but they're hard work. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should such literary giants seem too far a reach, one might solace in the bon mot of Justice Potter Stewart. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought we still had a policy that said something about No Personal Attacks. Did it really read, "no personal attacks by little people?" Speaking of the weather, and without reference to anything above, I also would like to mention that threatened boomerangs can be used by a mob of harassers to silence their opponents. "That’s a nice store window you have here. It would be a shame if...." MarkBernstein (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Voter guides

When I last ran page views to voter guides were about double those of the candidates' question pages. That means that about a dozen guide writers have a huge influence as opinion leaders, and if they don't like a certain type of candidate, for instance non-admins, then there is very little chance to gain a seat. --Pgallert (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've always been a little dubious about having these, but perhaps they're better collected than spread out in people's talk. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent research: Student attitudes towards Wikipedia; Jesus, Napoleon and Obama top "Wikipedia social network"; featured article editing patterns in 12 languages (2,388 bytes · 💬)

I'll confess to frustration that these are behind a paywall. I'll have to dig to see if GMU gives me access but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Wehwalt Send me an email and I can help. I don't have access to those repositories, either; I had to request a review copy of my article from a university colleague. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"In contrast to the other social media sites, I note that Wikipedia does not allow its users to comment on content; hence there is little room for this alternative form of modification." Am I misreading it, or is the author totally clueless? If so, we should not hesitate to say so in the review (in a more polite form, as in "the author seems to display a near total lack of understanding of Wikipedia basics"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The finding that students consider Wikipedia to be useful (despite a certain lack of reliability) is encouraging. Further research in that area may be beneficial. For example, would it be possible to gather data on page hits from school-based IPs at different levels of student attainment (high school, college, graduate, &c.)? Praemonitus (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Over four fifths of the links in Wikipedia are to male persons, which roughly reflects the gender distribution of Wikipedia biographies", I very much doubt that, could the meaning have been intended to be "Over four fifths of the biographies linked to in Wikipedia are of male persons, which roughly reflects the gender distribution of Wikipedia biographies"? I'm sure the links to articles other than biographies are a significant proportion of links. ϢereSpielChequers 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Technology report: Tech news in brief (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-28/Technology report

Traffic report: Canada, the most popular nation on Earth (3,894 bytes · 💬)

  • Canada, so hot right now -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've often thought about moving to Canada. If only it were further South, I'd do it. The cities are great to visit in the summer but the winters can be pretty brutal. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding number 6, black hole, perhaps the explanation for the high page views can be found on CNN, which has published a higher-than-usual number of black-hole-related stories recently. Other media outlets may have done the same, leading to a higher number of page views. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Etamni, thanks for giving this some thought. Unfortunately, the sustained jump in views is not consistent with the spikes and tail-offs we see with press coverage. It just went from a few thousand views a day to around 60,000. Then it jumped to closer to 120K a day around Oct 27. I think someone is messing with us!--Milowent • hasspoken 21:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
When I look at the chart you linked to, I see that there is a very abrupt start in this traffic that does not coincide with any of the press coverage I found for black holes -- indeed, in some cases, it was weeks after some of those stories ran. I'm inclined to agree that it appears to be an automated system of some sort. Meanwhile, is there a technological solution to this? Does anyone (other than those who are interested in the true readership of articles) care about this anomaly? Is this a prelude to some form of a DoS attack on the servers? I don't know the answers to these questions. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Typo, sorry, but helpfully it was a redirect. And wow, Jobs' birth story is incredible.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought about correcting it mself but for some reason thought people might actually have looked for "Steven" meaning that it was correct. Which is ridiculous. No one would.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)