User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 145

Yes, RfA problems again. I also tried a wp:RfA (aka "Request for Abuse"), after 8 years of waiting, and it was still as bad an experience as everyone has been warning:  block-log entries from 3-7 years ago were treated as if yesterday, and many insults were over-the-top. The quickest fix: as you, Jimbo, have suggested:

• Have a house of wikilords: There needs to be a system of appointed wiki-lords, as users given various user rights, perhaps selected by groups of similar-focus admins, to be rejected only by strong evidence of problems, and because wikilords are *appointed* then they could be unappointed, perhaps temporarily, at any time when their actions seemed to diverge off-course.

Currently, the RfA process seems like a "insta-poll popularity contest" rather than a "job interview" and the main focus directs people to issue judgmental decisions of Support/Oppose within seconds of starting an RfA page. Also, there are unusual cultural twists in RfA discussions, such as treating rebuttals to objections as being "badgering of opposes" rather than a logical discussion to clarify misunderstandings. Because I was a formal debate judge for years, I was not fooled to refrain from refuting incorrect claims (bottomline: debaters who fail to refute claims partially will lose a formal debate). Plus, of course, the RfA process allows the same level of insults as could be expected at wp:ANI, except each user's wp:RfA page is named with their username as an obvious, obvious case of "wp:Attack page". The whole process is completely awry, and I had to respond quickly to refute wp:NPA insults which would otherwise stand as accepted by begging the question. Anyway, the only workable solution, to the current judgmental RfA process, is to separate the interview-period from the judgement period:

• Split RfA into interview days versus judgment days: Hence, an RfA would begin with a questions-only phase of 4 days, as a job interview, with perhaps some competency tests depending on the stated intent of the candidate. Then, another period, of perhaps 4 days, could be the judgment period of Support/Oppose/Neutral.

The 1st, interview phase would discuss issues, and hopefully, follow "rules of evidence" (real evidence, not spin-doctored slants) to have specific diff-links; plus the focus would be on asking questions about the activities which the candidate would be performing. If the questions, or potential admin tasks, seemed too difficult, then the candidate could withdraw during the first phase. Then the 2nd, judgement phase could be longer if any insults were redacted meanwhile, by a neutral moderator, so that a candidate would not have to watchdog the RfA as being an outrageous personal attack-page during the whole time period. I was totally unaware that an RfA was like a wp:ANI thread open to insults, except with a person's username "flashing in lights" as a beacon to come see the insults by name. No wonder some people refer to the RfA period as a horrific experience, and as I said, if I had not been a debate judge for years, I might also have been tricked in allowing insults to stand, unrefuted, because of fear to avoid "badgering the opponents" who hurl unfounded insults. However, a separate "House of wikilords" would allow quick appointments, such as a request for 20 bilingual admins if an avalanche of new articles were created with non-English sources, pushing the limits of notability decisions due to a lack of other-language skills. Anyway, I would warn anyone, who plans an wp:RfA, to be prepared to defend yourself from over-the-top insults during the whole time period, and do not be fooled into keeping quiet to refute claims just to avoid "badgering of opponents" while insults are hurled without restraint. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, this is so sad. You were making such a good impression with your posts in #VE bad links on 22 September above, and then you go and spoil it with this section. If I got snowed that bad, I would step back for some serious personal meditation and reflection rather than come vent in this most public place. I see that apparently some admins have behaved so badly that they have been topic-banned; I didn't realize that. So perhaps life is unfair and there's a double-standard here, you'll have to deal with that. Maybe just focus first on getting that ban lifted first, before applying to be an admin? Hope you can apply for the template editor user right soon, good luck. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the words of encouragement, but other users have been coming to this talk-page, warning others for years about the RfA process, and the problems in the RfA process need to be pinpointed, in order to be improved. There have been prior discussions with vague details about various RfA experiences. However, in this case, I saw the distortion in progress, because I had lived the actual details for 8 years. Also, other people have warned there was discrimination against users with block-logs, and the attitudes should have improved by now, but I was even condemned for a wp:3RR block 7 years ago. Also, I had to remind people how I was strongly advised to retain my topic-ban about college student Amanda Knox acquitted of the 2007 Murder of Meredith Kercher (her British flatmate in Perugia, Italy), because many other users had been indef-blocked, and my topic-ban protected me from getting blocked along with them. Recently, long-term power user Rich_Farmbrough (WP's highest edit-count for years) was indef-blocked (site-banned) after users could not learn to work with him, and so that shows how anyone can be blocked despite the incentive to try to keep a valuable editor by finding ways to work together. If people cannot understand how that topic-ban has protected me during the past 3 years, then I wonder if they understand how to think like an admin, and how to use tactics to protect users from newcomers being secretly investigated for advocacy stopped by indef-blocks. Anyway, I just wanted to let Jimbo know what I saw in the rush-to-judgment of a popularity contest, which does not wait 4 days while discussing issues before entering an Oppose/Support/Neutral comment. Next time someone reports problems in the RfA process, then this can be a point of comparison. As for me, I am far too busy to perform admin duties at this time, so I am relieved that my RfA was closed early, and I just objected to the general RfA process. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Farmbrough is not "indef-blocked (site-banned)", he was blocked for 1 year, and as far as I know still can use his talk page. I admire the way he's conducted himself during the block. In contrast to another editor who a couple months ago was indefinitely blocked, email disabled, and cannot edit their own talk page. Please just stop digging your hole deeper. It's painful to watch. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Farmbrough might have a 1-year block now, but I do not think anything has changed to work with him, so upon return he would get another 1-year block? ...as I said, "indef-blocked". His restriction of "no automated edits" was untenable, and when he violated it at the end, he made more than 1,000 repeated changes inside a page (sending a clear message I think), so I suggest a compromise where he might use automated edits but with a mentor to approve those edits, or reduce the scope of edits as needed, but not zero automation. -Wikid77 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wikid77. RFA is a broken process, but not entirely the way you think. Old issues rarely cause opposes unless people have reason to think that they persist, one test of a good candidate is to be able to demonstrate how you've resolved such issues. The good thing about RFA is that it isn't a popularity contest, a sufficiently over qualified candidate can sail through with over a hundred supports, the vast majority of whom have never previously interacted with them. The bad things include the overreliance of the !voters on the Q&A section and simplistic measures such as raw edit count and length of tenure, combined with galloping standards inflation, but standards inflation re the most easily measured criteria. My fear is that good candidates are being deterred by arbitrarily high requirements for edit count and tenure, (as well as the occasional incivil participant) and that we risk bad eggs slipping through due to insufficient scrutiny of their actual edits. But the good news about RFA is that the long decline has bottomed out, after five consecutive years of sharp falls in the number of new RFAs, 2013 has already seen as many successful RFAs as 2012. RFA still has problems, we are a long way from being able to appoint as many new admins as we lose to retirement etc; So we are still heading towards a cliff, but are no longer accelerating towards that cliff. ϢereSpielChequers 07:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, other factors have shown a resurgence in Wikipedia activity, beyond more new admins, such as people asking why protected-template updates from 3 years ago did not get installed. Plus I imagine the VisualEditor did not hurt editor retention, because over 94% of editors avoided it each week. As for the RfA process, I see niche groups supporting a fellow editor, as a way to increase the support pile-on, and I think that might be an effective way to overcome judgmental restrictions; however, the danger is to promote a candidate with a secret agenda to use the powers in other ways. In cases of editors blocked for the Amanda Knox case, we see an unrelenting determination to thwart them, as evidenced in User_talk:Charlie_wilkes#Block where a responding admin refused the unblock request because his supporters all knew him from the same article, the only article (duh) where we all worked together, and he had provided reliable sources to disprove a claim how suspects lied about when they called police, as later refuted by sources. However, my RfA is an extreme case of someone topic-banned with numerous editors blocked, while trying to write about what was later confirmed in court. However, I think splitting an RfA into an interview phase, with later judgment phase, would give people more time to see the hollowness of several editors all blocked together who were later proven correct by court reports. Yet, insults about my knowledge of Wikipedia software, or misinformation, were likely too complex for RfA discussion and scary to others. Technical people need to be selected by a panel of technical users; otherwise it could be too confusing/boring for others to follow. But again, approval should be recommended by a random sample of users who review a candidate. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers. Quoting myself on these things: Timbo's Rule 16. The slogan of "Adminship is No Big Deal" needs to be reestablished. Currently RfA is a 7 day proctological exam, conducted by a tag team of 150 people of differing intentions — some of whom wish to subject the patient's rectum to blunt-force trauma during the process. Only people who REALLY like proctologists would be advised to run. (July 2012) /// Timbo's Rule 17. Then again, proctological exams do help ward off certain types of cancer. (Oct. 2012). Carrite (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of misunderstandings about what is wrong with RfA. A truly huge amount of research was done into it at WP:RFA2011 that pretty well identified the real problems. Among the regular !voters (and this pool of editors changes slowly over time in a cycle of about 2 years or so) there are three main factions: Those who feel that every established editor should have the bit, those who think adminship in general should be abolished to be replace by some other totally different system, and those who provide well researched, objective rationales for their votes whether they know the candidate or not. The remainder and the vast majority is a very transient pool of people who have only ever voted on one or two RfAs. Among these are the ones who very often appear to fail to understand what adminship is all about and probably do little or no research and just pile on.

It's interesting to note that en.Wiki is one of the very few major Wikipedias not to have introduced a minimum requirement for voting at RfA. If it appears that the dearth of candidates seems to have bottomed out, this is possibly due to the fact that the traditional PA and incivility at RfA has somewhat, but not entirely abated. I think we should give it a little longer however before claiming the improvement as a clear trend. That said, whether we have enough candidates or whether RfA is really a 'horrible and broken process', it does do it its job reasonably well - if the very rare close calls demonstrate anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, oddly we might agree on the close calls if not on the rest. I fear that RFA and especially its reputation is scaring away many well qualified candidates. Paradoxically the shift in focus of the RFA community from judging candidates on their edits to the Q&A section and simple stats such as number of edits and length of tenure may also be letting more bad eggs through. I've seen one admin from recent years be desysopped despite getting over 90% support. I doubt we have sufficient stats yet but it would be interesting to see if the last couple of hundred admins wind up with a lower proportion of bad eggs than the earlier batches. ϢereSpielChequers 18:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I think a few troublesome admin promotions could be expected, and "people have a right to be wrong about a candidate" but they do not have a right to treat an RfA as a named wp:attack-page, so I will be more vigilant to check for attacks posted to future RfA pages and redact vicious insults, to be sure people provide adequate diff-links to support their claims. The more people who view an RfA as a cordial discussion of qualifications, then the better the chances for more candidates to apply. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The systems that deal with the Admins and ArbCom won't be changed because they have become fundamental parts of Wikipedia and you'll never get a consensus to make significant changes. That's why e.g. the de-admining propsal failed. It's similar to why in the US Congress has a very low approval rating but any proposal to make even small changes to the system (e.g. term limits), is a non-starter.

Perhaps what could work is to make a copy of the entire Wikipedia (Wikipedia-beta) that has the same articles but which has a different Adminstrative infrastructure. Then, if over time the beta version is seen to work better, then one makes that the standard version and one can then try out some new experimental changes by creating another Wikipedia-beta. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It will be difficult, if not impossible, to change the RfA system as long as current Admins have a stake in keeping the standards high and the barriers to entry arduous. If there is a large enough group of Editors, they could impact how RfAs are done but I gather most do not even know about the RfA process, much less be aware that when there is an active one going on and how they can participate. Active Admins (I think there are about 700?) are disproportionately represented among users who weigh in on a RfA.

So, until those Admins realize a) that they are carrying too heavy of a load, b) that having more Admins will actually be a net gain to them personally, c) that for the future operations of en.wiki, more Admins will be needed as 1 or 2 new ones are added each month while more and more Admins become inactive, until these realizations happen, I don't think change is likely. And so, the number of active Admins will continue to drop and drop because fewer Editors want to subject themselves to the RfA process which often becomes more of a hazing than an informative interview. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it actually admins themselves being querulous on RFAs? Did the 2011 or any other study show this? - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Of the various RFA reform proposals I can think of one that tends to be opposed more strongly by admins than non-admins. I suspect this is the source of the "admins are blocking reform" meme, though I'd prefer a description of admins are blocking those proposals they believe would make things worse rather than admins are playing dog in a manger, but then I would wouldn't I. There was a study some years back as to RFA !voting by admins and non admins, as I remember it, it showed that admins at RFA were usually as supportive as non-admins. It would be good to repeat that, or at least to ask if anyone repeating that meme can point to an unsuccessful RFA that would have had consensus for promotion if all the admin !votes had been discounted. ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that 'current Admins have a stake in keeping the standards high and the barriers to entry arduous' - this is most likely a myth put about (partly) by those who believe to have wrongly failed at RfA or wannabe admins who feel the criteria are too severe. Generally speaking, I think admins provide the most thoughtful and objective comments at RfA. Moreover, several of the admins who are most concerned with the dearth of candidates have been actively scouring the users for candidates of the right calibre whom they can nominate for some considerable time, not to mention Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination - another project launched by an admin. The reading list at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates includes all known users' RfA criteria, while VOTER PROFILES at RFA2011 has an enormous amount of research detail with a complete breakdown and analysis of who and how often users voted and whether they were admins or not, and the increase in participation of voters at RfA. Nothing has changed much since that time except that 100+ 'supports' are no way as rare as they used to be, but FWIW I suppose the regex could be re-run to update it. It would be good if people would refer to these important stats before positing hypotheses. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In the 2011 study of votes, non-admins !voted support about 70% of the time, admins !voted support 76% of the time. (Support % calculated as Support divided by support plus oppose plus neutral). This pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of the idea that it is admins are the barrier to new admins.

• Here are the basic facts of life, which apply to the OP (and to me — assuming I wanted to run the gauntlet, which I don't — and to dozens of others in the same boat)... RFA is a supermajority process, which means a motivated minority can sink a nomination. If one makes noise about controversial matters, one builds up a little fleet of "opponents." Add a misstep or two on the block log and it's pretty much curtains for passing a RFA. It doesn't matter if a person needs some of the tools for their work and not others; it's a unified package that includes The Nuclear Buttons — block and delete — and there's going to be high scrutiny for that. That's fair, I reckon. Bottom line is this: if one wants to be an Administrator, one needs to be perfectly bland and to keep the block log clean, both. Is that a fully rational requirement? Not really. But it's a fact. That's show biz. If there actually is a shortage of admins either (a) more frenetic efforts will be made to find and recruit perfectly bland candidates; and/or (b) the nuclear buttons will be separated from the rest of the tool kit and a more "chill" process instituted in lieu of the current RFA process. If no such shortage develops, things continue as they are now, with all that implies. Yeah, it sucks if you need some of the administrative abilities for your work; no, it's not fair. But that's the way it is. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing about blocks, most legit reasons for a block raise a question of the blocked person's self restraint. If you couldn't restrain yourself when using the non-admin tools, are you going to be able to with them? I know that is a gross over simplification of the myriad reasons a person could get blocked, but it covers a surprising number of them. As for holding controversial opinions, most aren't much of an issue at RFA, instead, there are some RFA third rails, that can sink a request. The biggest ones are being overly deletionist, particularly with CSD, and showing authoritarian tendencies. Monty₈₄₅ 04:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin covers everything from gnome work with the mop to making immensely complex decisions where mistakes do huge harm to people. Those things need to be split. The latter needs a high standard. Current admins have been keeping that from happening.....with an obvious conflict of interest on that question, they shouldn't even be weighing on on that question. And the process should be changed to have the discussions center on the required qualities, not the current criteria which rules out anyone who has ever taken a stand which some involved people disagreed with. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, having the new admin process broken means that the overall standard is "got in when it was easy" North8000 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Current admins have been keeping that from happening" - so far the evidence is the opposite. Do you have evidence (e.g., verifiable statistics) to support your claim? - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My experience has been that each time it is brought it I see an admin shut down the discussion with a comment something like "that is an old idea which has been already reviewed and rejected" . Or when the conversation starts on whether such is happening an admin can chill or kill it by implying that concerns are unfounded / improper to express unless the person expressing them meets the impossibly high bar of having "verifiable statistics" of that concern as you just did.  :-)  :-) What realistically could satisfy the criteria of "verifiable statistics" of such? Conversely I know that just expressing the concern does not establish it as fact. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable statistics were cited above in this discussion, so I disagree that it's an "impossibly high bar", unless you more generally consider the general requirement to supply some sort of evidence for controversial assertions inherently flawed - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you just switched to a different more reasonable bar. ("some sort of evidence"). The only thing unreasonable thing is you incorrectly implying that I objected to such a reasonable thing. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what some may want people to believe, there is almost nothing in the admin toolset that cannot be undone with a simple reversion. Its just not that big of a deal. So there is no reason whatsoever with guarding it like the Crown Jewels. And even as hard as it is to get rid of a bad admin, if they misuse the block tool, they would probably get their access yanked pretty fast. So really, all the hyperbole about people getting into mischief if they had access to the toolset is just hogwash. With all that said, no one believes anything will change regardless of how many times its brought up until a crisis ensues. That being either no admins being promoted for a prolonged period or too few active admins to accomplish the necessary tasks (which really has been the case for some time now given the length backlogs at many of the venues). The bottom line is, unless the community decides it needs to change the process or Jimbo and the WMF step up, its going to stay broke. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocks and deletions can in theory be easily reversed, but few are and their effects are not so easily resolved. When we block someone or reject their contribution by deleting it we risk losing that editor, so it is really important that we keep the block and delete buttons out of the hands of those who would use them in a heavyhanded way. ϢereSpielChequers 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, there are already no less that a half dozen admins who delete mercilessly and no one is chomping at the bit to remove the tools from them. And as I already mentioned, if they abuse the tools then take them away. We are already driving away editors at an alarming rate. So the argument doesn't really hold water. Its just a poor justification for a bad policy. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if we it was only half a dozen admins who are over eager with the delete button who accounted for a large part of the incorrect deletions at new page patrol. Though I suspect that incorrect tagging by some non-admins is as big a problem, maybe bigger - I'm pretty sure that merely tagging a goodfaith article for deletion is enough to drive away many newbies. Yes we are driving away editors at an alarming rate, roughly as fast as they are joining us. However whilst we can get a blocking minority, maybe even a majority to stop people who can be shown to consistently make errors in deletion tagging from becoming admins; I'm not sure we can get consensus to remove the bit from those admins who would be too deletionist to get consensus for the tools, and I'm not volunteering to monitor the deletions that others have done in order to address this issue. If someone does want to take this on, then the route is fairly straightforward, monitor enough deletions to spot the admins who are too heavy on the deletion button, politely raise the issue with them on their talkpage, and for those who don't come into line with policy escalate first to an RFC and if that doesn't work take it to Arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 05:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@North8000 I can appreciate that it might look like the current admins "got in when it was easy", criteria inflation at RFA means that candidates need far more tenure and edits than was required in 04/07. But tighter criteria only means higher standards if they are the right criteria. In my opinion the shift in focus from checking candidate's edits to weighing their edit count and giving them an open book exam on policy means that RFA not only deters a lot of good candidates, but is probably less effective at screening out "bad" candidates than it used to be. Better in my view to consider it a situation where RFA is so broken that it cannot appoint sufficient admins to replace those who we lose. ϢereSpielChequers 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The current criteria doesn't mean higher standards, the current criteria simply means that one cannot get involved in administrative stuff (because much of it is controversial) until after they get the tools. In order to be an admin, editors have to plan to be one and carefully monitor their actions and their activity so they don't ruffle any feathers. All it takes is one misstep or to bump into an admin with a chip on their shoulder about some article they wrote ten years ago that they "own" and you won't get the tools. That is not how the system should work. RFA is a broken system and virtually everyone knows. Its time to stop justifying it and protecting it and fix it so I completely agree with your last sentence. Let's be honest. Any editor who has been here a few years or has a few thousand edits and has a history of knowing policy should be able to get the tools if they want them. If they abuse it then the beauro's can take them away. Its just that easy, bottom line. We need to let people help the project. Not give excuses why we don't want or need their help. This project needs all the help it can get these days. If that means the WMF and Jimbo have to get back involved with the RFA process for a while as a reviewer and hand out the tools then so be it. The community has shown that we can't do it effectively. Jimbo said a year ago he was going to do something, where is it? 71.126.152.253 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, your bitterness at the RfA process is epic. Naturally four failed RfA attempts will do that. I think in your case the community performed effectively, keeping a moody and unpredictable character out of a responsible position. Thank goodness a simple calculation of edit count and time period are not enough to acquire the tools. Binksternet (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, when you're pretty much the Buffalo Bills of RfA, it may be time to hang it up and quit trying. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@IP There are two controversial areas to avoid if you plan to run for RFA in the next few months; Anything that involves blocking or unblocking the regulars, and anything borderline at deletion. Other admin like activities, especially correct AIV reports and even cautious CSD tagging are actually treated as a positive. If a candidate has over 100 correct AIV reports the community won't oppose because they don't need the tools, for a candidate like that to fail they'd need a recent block or zero content contributions or some other reason to reject them. But candidates can and do get rejected for completely avoiding admin like activity, I don't personally agree with "no need for the tools" as a reason to oppose, however sufficient others differ that I'd always counsel any candidate to be able to demonstrate one or two areas where they are already tagging things for admins to action. But the reality isn't quite as bad as you seem to think, opposes over old grudges from more than a year ago need some sort of evidence that the concerns are still current, otherwise they carry little weight with the RFA crowd.

As for Jimmy intervening, I suspect that he's waiting for the system to more clearly fail first. All it would need would be the press noticing one vandal on a bit of a rampage during an hour when no admin was at AIV and the WMF will be pretty much forced to step in. My hope is still that we will be able to fix things ourselves without intervention from above, but I'm not putting money on it. When we do get a solution I agree with some of what you say, if we are going to work with the grain of the community we need to make the change so that RFA looks more like a less dysfunctional part of our system like Rollback, FAC or even AFD. First we should User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform#Agree_a_criteria_for_adminship\agree a criteria for adminship then in individual RFAs we discuss whether the candidate meets that criteria. Where I disagree with you is over making this about edit count and tenure, there are plenty of problematic things that we should check for at RFA. Alternatively we could unbundle a limited block right that restricted the blocking and unblocking of the regulars to crats and full admins. Do that and we could keep going this way for years. ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

While RFA is certainly not without its problems, if it's really as 'broken' and 'impossible to pass' as critics claim, how come two candidates passed with unanimous support in the past month alone? RFA has never been an obstacle for clearly suitable admin candidates. Most of the time, it does ultimately reach the right decision. The real issue is finding and convincing more suitable candidates to run in the first place. Robofish (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that one individual who passed by unanimous support has never done much admin work. The don't comment at ANI, they don't work at CCI, TFD, CFD, AFD or Articles for Improvement. Neither really appear to need the tools and it appears that they are just hat collectors. I would be willing to bet neither one could edit very many of the protected templates or Wikimedia pages they now have access too. Both are ultra conservative and neither is likely to rock the boat or attempt any sort of real improvement to the structure or policy of the project. That's what got them promoted. They stay in their swim lane and don't upset the order of things. Its just 2 more editors who got promoted that probably won't even use the tools. The admin toolset is no big deal, it never has been and never will be. The reason we have all the back logs is because its been made into a cliche'. We need to get away from that and allow people to help. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, I would worry about you engaging in wheel wars if you got some part of the tools. You have demonstrated a retributive personality, engaging in personal attacks and harassment. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit, being vocal against abusive users, several of which having the admin toolset and who their POV and violate policy is not harassment. Harassment is an admin that follows the same user around, watching their every edit until they find something they can block them for. I anyone here is harassing anyone its you constantly griping about my comments and making snide comments. At least I am trying to make the place better by advocating for change and bringing attention to the problems. What have you done? 71.126.152.253 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Robofish, it's not the fact that 2 Editors successfully passed their RfAs. It's that if you look at past history (and I wish I had that table at hand), five years ago, there'd be a dozen successful RfAs and over a 100 new Admins every year. Old, inactive Admins are being desysoped at a rate of 5-10 a month so the increase in new Admins is not keeping up with the decrease in Admins. There are, what 1700 or so Admins on en.wiki and less than 50% of them are active? Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with me about too high standards (especially compared to pre-2007), if you look at the trend, there will be fewer and fewer Admins as the months and years go by because they aren't replacing themselves.

And that is just taking into account Admins who are being desysoped because they quit back in 2010 and are part of the three years of inactivity desysoping plan. Every month there are currently active Admins who either get burned out or retire.

So, forget about the personalities that you may or may not disagree with in this particular conversation. The bottom line is that if these trends continue into the future, there will be fewer and fewer Admins handling more and more responsibilities. The workload and backlog will most likely continue to grow. As long as that is okay with y'all, you've got no reason to advocate for change. If you want more volunteers to help share the workload, pick up the slack, well, the ball is in your court. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and there are about 1405 admins and the 50% number is roughly correct depending on how you define active. Also, its the same 50 or so that do the vast majority of the admin work. If even that many, probably more like 20 or 30. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes at any one time we rely on a small number of active administrators for most admin activity. But it isn't the same admins who are active each month, we have about fifty admins and former admins who have made over 33,000 logged admin actions each and hundreds more who have made over a thousand logged actions. My experience is that most active editors who become admins will go on to make a useful number of admin actions. That's why I don't regard "no use for the tools" as sensible reason to oppose, though I'm conscious that if someone doesn't make a coherent case as to what they will use the tools for they won't get through RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ϢereSpielChequers, I've found JamesR's AdminStats interesting but I wish they were broken down by month and weren't cumulative...that would reveal more information about how many Admins were very active at different points in the year. I've posted questions on the Talk Page about this but it doesn't look like questions there get any response from James. It could be a system he set up a while ago that runs on its own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, one of Wikipedia's admins who also happens to be a doctor working on WikiProject:Medicine said the following:

"Dear Pharma Companies... we advise you to employ a Wikipedia editor if you want to make sure only evidence-based information is included in entries about your own products. Appointing someone from within your company as a 'spokesperson' in Wikipedia who would perform all edits on behalf of the company is an excellent way to update those entries."

Are we to assume that Dr. Bertalan Meskó is interpreting your Bright Line Rule somewhat loosely, or is there an exception for pharmaceutical companies, because of their expertise in ensuring evidence-based information? - 68.87.42.110 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In practice, there is no "bright line rule". The community decided that it's OK for BP's public-relations department to draft substantial portions of our coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. ArbCom decided that it's OK for employees of the Transcendental Meditation movement to insert (often highly dubious) claims about the health benefits of TM into our articles. (Frankly, the way that the TM editors spin the medical literature to promote their product is virtually analogous to the way drug reps use the literature to sell their wares). This is a natural consequence of the precedents we've set—or more accurately, failed to set—for dealing with conflicts of interest. Why would you expect a pharmaceutical company to show greater restraint than we've demanded in the BP or TM cases?

(Separately, I don't think Bertalan is saying what you think he's saying. I think he means "employ" in the sense of "work with" rather than "hire and pay a salary", but you might wish to ask him for clarification directly). MastCell ^Talk 02:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with you of course about some errors that have been made in the past, but I encourage you not to say things like "In practice, there is no 'bright line rule'." Such a statement will be twisted by people who do not agree with you to suggest that you think that it's ok for POV pushers to edit Wikipedia articles directly. A better statement might be "Going forward, we should begin to vigorously enforce the "bright line rule" as a bare minimum expectation of behavior from editors with a financial conflict of interest, including big Pharma, big Oil, employees of religious movements, etc." Don't give up the good fight - make it consensus that we will do the right thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Currently we have only WP:NOPAY that says If either of the following applies to you:...then you are very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. It is not exactly a bright line rule. Everybody caught in pay editing can say that a) it is not forbidden but only discouraged, b) they believe the external relations did not affect their ability to make neutral edits (experienced wikipedians know how to make biased edits that appear to be neutral). So we either have to make the changes to the policy ASAP or admit that we do not have the bright rule regarding paid editing. In my own opinion if we at least make a bright line that any potential COI must be acknowledged then it will be helpful and enforceable Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• user:NCurse has not been very active recently, and has not interacted with WikiProject Medicine for over a year, so it's a bit misleading to describe him as a "doctor working on WikiProject:Medicine". The ideas he stated in that post are not consistent with what most members of WPMED would view as good practices. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and there is no "pharma" exception to the bright line rule.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that you are speaking of a bright line "rule" and not actual governing policy or guidelines of the encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Med Foundation] is here to collaborate with organizations that share our goals. The pharmaceutical industry, unfortunately at this point in time has made it clear that they do not. There is no official collaborations and I personally have declined offers. I am not for sale at any price. I am happy to investigate any cases people come across. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that Bartalan (User:NCurse) has an exceptional and unblemished record as a contributor here, and has done a lot to help build WP:MED into an exemplary WikiProject (and into one of the few aspects of Wikipedia that actually generates positive publicity for the project). There's never been any indication that his editing is motivated by anything other than a desire to provide free, high-quality medical information. Before anyone starts treating him as a de facto pharma shill, they owe him the courtesy of talking to him directly and asking him to clarify. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Agree and have only seen positive from Bartalan. Will drop him a note to clarify what he means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

All in favor of asking Bertalan about what he wrote, but in my opinion there is nothing confusing or ambiguous about his advice: "Dear Pharma Companies... we advise you to employ a Wikipedia editor if you want to make sure only evidence-based information is included in entries about your own products. Appointing someone from within your company as a 'spokesperson' in Wikipedia who would perform all edits on behalf of the company is an excellent way to update those entries." How will he possibly back-pedal from that? - 2001:558:1400:10:6CDA:AD4F:2207:8B09 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Why don't you ask him? It's literally the least you could do. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Because Doc James just said above that he would drop a note to Bartalan. Do we really need multiple Wikipedians contacting the doctor about the same thing? - 2001:558:1400:10:6CDA:AD4F:2207:8B09 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

All the turmoil about the VisualEditor has reaffirmed a major aspect of software development: write tools which the users want, not something imagined to be useful. After removal from the top menu, when VE became an opt-in feature under Special:Preferences, the usage has dropped to almost 0%, as about 2-to-5 edits per thousand. Although there has been much anger about the WMF decisions, I want to emphasize how writing of unused software has been a common problem in other computer systems for decades. Many computer people often zone-inward (in a form of "navel gazing") to focus intensely on problems which many people do not think are important. I recently read comments about the old wikitext source editor being a convoluted implementation, and then thought, "Oh no, I hope they don't rewrite the typical wikitext editor to run like VE!". Of course, wp:edit-conflicts are a real, major problem in common talk-pages, or busy hot-topic articles, but unless developers think like users, they would rather sub-optimize the ultra-mega-gadgetry which they see, everyday, rather than upset their worldview by focusing on needs of users. Again, it is not an exclusive problem of WMF but rather an "age-old" problem in the development of computer technology. Anyway, based on those issues, I am wondering: what can be done to get the Foundation to focus on writing tools which people want? -Wikid77 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As you note, VE has essentially gone Hindenburg — buggy software was forced upon users and it was rejected. Is there anything salvageable from the effort? That remains to be seen. The unfortunate thing is that WMF seems to have failed to learn from its mistakes and is intent upon remaking the wheel for talk pages with their so-called "Flow" software. Rather than working out software issues through testing and then road-testing the beta in an out-of-the-way corner of the multi-language Wikipedia project, will they once again rush to impose bad software upon En-WP? I have very grave misgivings. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems a valid concern, as WMF has a track record of long-term momentum to push its agenda of re-inventing the wheel, regardless of resistance. The response to the VE RfC, to make-VE-opt-in, did sound like, "So anyway, here is the next forced VE upgrade" and at that level of wp:IDHT, then there is little evidence of any change in other plans. Of course, similar problems have occurred with local transition to Lua script modules, as mostly re-inventing the same templates, with little innovation for new ideas. -Wikid77 12:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A while back on VP there was a thread asking about HTML signatures. Someone promptly responded "we are working on a fix for that with Flow". And I almost wanted to say, "No, the WMF is trying to shove a fix down our throats, the same as with VE." Projects like VE and Flow are shortsighted missions intended to revamp a system that was never broken. Rather than waste time and money on such projects, why couldn't the WMF just fix the current system and get rid of a lot of bugs? It sure seems like a lot better solution than the massive failure that was VE. KonveyorBelt 16:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the best plan would be to expect the worst, and be prepared, this time, to quickly bypass wp:FLOW when there are numerous problems, rather than everyone drop all plans for the month and focus on bugfixes to make FLOW as useable as VE was. Fortunately, VE could be/was ignored by over 94% of users, eventually by 99.7%, but perhaps the plans to force use of FLOW will be more strict, and there will be a greater need for "talk-page lifeboats" to allow users to still discuss issues, without garbled nowiki-tag phrases or FLOW cratering and losing messages which were "too large" to save. Meanwhile, it seems as though Wikipedians are able to create some valuable tools, even if smaller, but at least provide some new functionality. -Wikid77 12:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, it sounds like they are planning to "roll out" Flow on a piecemeal basis rather than flipping a switch and making it the default for all talk pages. If true, this is a correct approach. It may be that Flow turns out to be a perfectly fine thing for big "hot" talk pages (Lady Gaga, etc.) but is an enormous thorn for the 99% of the talk pages with little traffic outside the hardcore Very Active Editors — just for example — and being able to use the tool where appropriate and not use it where inappropriate (think: Pending Changes) seems critical. VE was not only a programming debacle but an enormous tactical error — they could have been tweaking and perfecting and smoothing the thing out for two years in some limited place on a Non-English, Non-German Wikipedia, building a real world case that it a product that works AND builds the editor ranks. Instead they went with the premature mass roll out in the harsh light of English-WP and mandatory default status for a very buggy beta product. The mind reels at who thought that was a good idea... Carrite (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear supervisor my name is Somar and I want to complain about the Articles in Arabic and being different from what it is in all other languages ​​and express opinions that is not required and are not considered neutral, where your site is considered a neutral reference and I consider this fraud, so please respond to me because I intend to raise a lawsuit on the site in the event of non-responding

this is my email : <redacted> please respond to my email

Kind regards Somar n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.154.171 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see our policy against legal threats. Also please understand that the wikipedia project for each language is separate, and has no control over articles in other languages. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please learn to address the central point rather than simply ignoring the crux of the argument—namely, that Wikipedia has committed blatant misrepresentation, fraud, even, through the systematic warping of history on smaller wikis. This blog post outlines the extent of the problems, and even though it is on Wikipediocracy (which is, unfairly, automatically considered to be a "bad site" among insiders here) it would be a good idea for you to go and read it. The lack of neutrality is so gaping that on the Arabic Wikipedia some users publicly sport userboxes showing their admiration for the brutal, barbarian murderer of millions, Adolf Hitler, including an individual who was very recently on the gravy train payroll of the Wikimedia Foundation. We should not encourage demagogues like this individual and make them Wikipedia insiders, nor should we allow the warped history taught in the Arab world to influence the minds of hundreds and compel them to wear the Hitler userbox on their userpages.

Somar, the insiders here have a strong policy against legal threats. Even if your statement was partially in jest, rather than a solid threat of any sort, they will ban you, because they look for form over substance, social connections rather than rational thinking. If I were in DES's position, I would have entertained your concerns and addressed them, rather than looking only at the legal threat and giving the dismissive "call my supervisor" treatment that you have received from DES. DES, you should be ashamed for biting a newcomer to the English Wikipedia.

I call upon Jimbo Wales to install open, constitutional authority upon all Wikipedias, rather than the opaque system of power networks and self-selecting leaders that we have right now. This is especially important in places of ethno-religious conflict, such as Indian-language Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia, as English is an official and very commonly-spoken language there), Balkan-language ones, and the Arabic Wikipedia. We must not allow history to be written by those with political ends through its revision. Wer900 • talk 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I will only say that it isn't "insiders" that are concerned about legal threats. But just not understanding that is not going to keep you off the site. Please retract that threat in an unambiguous manner and you may well be unblocked. Wer900. you may well be a kind hearted person, but a threat is still a threat and many of us will ignore the subject when such threats are made. it is easy to simply pass over those that think that such threats will further their cause or make the situation better. Threats always make things worse.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Bright line rule for my discussion of a change I made at WP:NOT (it was reverted within a minute, so I'm not sure the change will still be there). Jimbo - if I have misstated the bright line rule, please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It seems like an odd place for it - "What Wikipedia is not" I mean. But otherwise, I encourage vigorous discussion so that we can reach consensus. I also recommend that we ignore the paid advocates who turn up at every discussion of the matter to derail it with fallacious arguments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, could you tell us which of the following users who left comments here and here are the paid advocates, and which of their arguments are fallacious? Or, were you just casting aspersions without any evidence to support? - 2001:558:1400:10:6CDA:AD4F:2207:8B09 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good question. How do we know who to ignore them if they don't identify themselves? I only know of three paid editors, and none have gotten involved. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The way I figure it is that, as a whole, the presence of multiple fallacious arguments in an RfC is pretty obvious. If it turns out to be the case that this tactic is used, I'll suggest that we request the WMF to conduct a vote such as is used for electing arbs and board members. I doubt that paid advocates are more than 10% of our editors, but they can grandstand in an RfC and try to derail matters enough to appear to be 50% of editors. I suspect that if the question of allowing paid advocacy is put to a vote of editors, at most 20% would vote to allow it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Checking the contributions of some of the "opposes," I'm seeing evidence of advocacy suggestive of paid editing. But that's by no means clear. I'd still appreciate some follow-up by Jimbo Wales on his remark. I notice that, busy man that he is, he has a tendency to drop in on a subject and then withdraw, not responding to follow up queries. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the request that I name specific users - I see no benefit to come from it. It is general advice that we should all take into account. I have always said that we should not consider the community to be "anyone who happens to show up" but rather those who share our values. Examples of blatantly fallacious arguments include (1) equating all paid editing of any kind (a professor whose university supports that faculty should contribute to Wikipedia in their subject areas is not at all the same thing as a representative of a PR firm engaging in chicanery) and (2) a view that paid advocacy is no different from any other kind of advocacy so that no special rules are possible or desirable. If rumors and recent press reports are true there is at least one sleazy firm with 20 or more employees working full-time to subvert our processes with sockpuppets, spoofed/distributed ip addresses, dishonest self-descriptions, 100% lack of transparency, etc. It would be ludicrous to think that such characters, working with that level of dishonesty, are not attempting to derail our defenses against their spam operations. Keep an eye out for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You suggested "we ignore the paid advocates who turn up at every discussion of the matter to derail it with fallacious arguments," and I was trying to figure out who those paid advocates were. Re the fallacious arguments, I certainly agree with you on that. What we're seeing, however, are fallacious arguments being advanced very vigorously by long-established Wikipedia editors, including at least one who I believe is on the arbitration committee. It's not just fly-by-night accounts. There is very strong opposition to doing a thing to curb paid editing, even imposing a simple "bright line rule." As you can see from the discussion on that page, there is at present no consensus for imposing such a rule as policy, and it stands a good chance of going down to defeat. If that happens, would you or the Foundation be able to do something yourselves? Or does that end the matter? I'm not talking about sockpuppeting, as that is already prohibited, but a rule against paid editing beyond what is already there now. Perhaps the Foundation establishing a conflict of interest policy? Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm referring specifically to the RfC here. Note that long-term editors are vehemently opposing this idea, using the kind of arguments that I think we both agree are fallacious. Coretheapple (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Several people thought WP:NOT was "an odd place for it." The proposal at WP:NOT is now closed and a very similar proposed policy is at Wikipedia:No paid advocacy standing all by itself, not attached to anything. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, geez. There are two arbitrators who have opposed this proposal, so I am not sure which one of us is supposed to be posting the "fallacious argument". I will note, however, that arbitrators generally speaking are probably far more aware of the actual types of disputes that occur on Wikipedia than the average editor; we get the ones that the community has washed its hands of because there aren't easy answers. My arguments aren't fallacious: they're based entirely on events that have already occurred on this project, and most of them have included allegations that *someone* was a paid editor, used as a trump card to try to eliminate an opposing point of view. Wikipedia is about the content, not the contributors. It doesn't matter if someone gains a benefit from writing articles; in fact, there would hardly be a point if our editors gained no benefit at all. But there is absolutely no difference between advocacy because one's a true believer and advocacy because one is getting a few bucks. The problem is advocacy, and it always has been. POV-pushing is just as virulent whether it's argumentative or civil, whether it's from new editors or old hands, whether it is motivated by altruism or remuneration. That money is more evil than other means of advocacy is the fallacious argument here. Risker (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a long time editor who couldn't agree more with this 'fallacious' argument. That PR firm was guilty of POV-pushing and sock-puppeting, guided by their extreme conflict of interest. We have policies in place to stop that sort of thing. Paid POV-pushing and sock-puppeting is only the very, very tip of the iceberg when it comes to Wikipedia's problems. Just look at this talk page and you see what we're talking about: POV pushing by Hindu nationalists, POV-pushing on both sides of Monsanto, POV-pushing on both sides of big Pharma, and transgender issues (I'm not taking sides with any of these, fyi). By far the worst advocacy I've seen on Wikipedia is based purely on personal beliefs, political agendas, grudges, religion, or just plain spite. Better to focus on using the tools we already have to make sure articles are neutral and non-promotional. We don't need witch-hunts started by every accusation of someone being a corporate 'shill'. It couldn't be more obvious that money is not the renumeration that is responsible for most POV and advocacy issues. First Light (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There are problems with conflating editing on the basis of personal convictions with editing for monetary gain. The owner of WikiExperts states that millions of dollars are at stake for his clients vis-a-vis their articles on Wikipedia.

There is a concept in intellectual property law that generally occurs with respect to trademark violations that is referred to as "free-riding" (been a while since I've thought about this). That concept is based on the notion of obtaining an unfair advantage by using a mark that evokes an association with a famous brand, causing confusion in the mind of the consumer whereby the associate the free-riding product with the famous brand product and buy the free-riding product.

Though not a direct correlation, what the companies this "WikiExpert" is marketing is basically a service of enabling them to free-ride on the good reputation of Wikipedia to present their marketing hype as a reliable source of information on the company and its products and services. It is a blatant attempt to circumvent the non-commercial character of Wikipedia and appropriate it for commercial ends that are counter to the Wikipedia ethos and values. The result, of course, is that it subverts Wikipedias ethos and values. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that you may be right about the "free riding" — that would apply only to them using "Wiki" in their name to tie them to Wikipedia in people's minds. But I'm not a lawyer. I'm still not convinced that there is a significant quantitative difference in conflicts of interest caused by financial gain, emotional gain, religious or national boosterism, politics, personal vendettas, etc. The difference is only qualitative, in terms of what people value the most and how they use it to color their POV-editing. My own POV may be showing through here, because money is quite far down the list of things I value the most (not because I have it in abundance, far from it, but because I've had enough life experience to know better). First Light (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but recall that they leave no trace of their involvement except in the editing history. That is to say, the reading public wouldn't know that the promotionally slanted article they are reading has been crafted by a PR profession in the employ of the company that is the subject of the article. WikiExperts are thereby effectively hijacking Wikipedia as a medium for their PR venture, adding a different dimension to the IP concept of free-riding.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker, I think that what's reflected in your comments on the subject is an overly rigid interpretation of the "comment on content, not contributor" principle, in such a way that Wikipedia will forever be stuck in the Stone Age when it comes to policing conflicts of interest. Since your viewpoint is widespread, and is adopted by longtime editors who have been drinking the Wikipedia kool-aid for years, my feeling is that this is a hopeless subject to pursue in "community" discussions, and that a meaningful COI rule will only be adopted if imposed from above. Wikipedia volunteers are clearly too utterly clueless on this subject, too ignorant of best practices, to deal with corporate people planting and controlling articles about themselves and their clients. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, the long-standing and almost universally upheld "comment on content, not the contributor" extends to policy discussions with Wikipedia editors, except it's called No Personal Attacks. So far on this page you've accused some of us as being "utterly clueless", "too ignorant", and "drinking the Wikipedia kool-aid". None of those comments have helped this discussion proceed, and are only derailing it, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm interested in the opinion of Jimbo Wales. The "Brightline" proposed policy is clearly not going to be adopted. So my question to him is this: Is the next step in the hands of the "community" - in other words, nothing is going to happen - or are he or the Foundation going to do anything about imposing a COI policy? Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC){od}

Are we really concerned about content or editors? I'd almost postulate that if editors are being paid to create articles then just make the "Keep" criteria based on a minimum number of commenting editors. Sockpuppets can make contributions difficult but in rarely read and unread articles, who cares? Make the AfD a brightline participation goal: "If less than 20 editors comment on an AfD article, it's an automatic delete on notability". Then auto SPI all contributors for IP and tag it in the header. "15 of the 20 editors used the same or similar IP in this discussion." If the article is worthwhile, it shouldn't be hard to generate enough independent editors to comment. Virtually all of our content is sourced to paid contributors anyway whether it's a primary source or a secondary source. None of their COI is disclosed to us though even when we determine it to be "reliable." . --DHeyward (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you know?

You can create and edit multi-level lists in VisualEditor. The first two icons let you set or remove list formatting.

The last two are used to increase or decrease the indentation level. This can also be done from the keyboard, by using Tab ↹ to indent the list and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ to outdent it.

For more information, read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide.

VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Largest sockpuppet bust in Wikipedia history traces back to paid editing for hire firm 'Wiki-PR': http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Incredible. I've been hearing rumblings about this for a few days, and I'm very eager that we pursue this with maximum effect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting read. I'm sorry to note that I helped morning 277 with some OTRS issues. I think they were legitimate, but this puts a different spin on some of the requests. However, I must comment of how well-done the article is. My experience is generally that if I read something in a newspaper or magazine, and I have more than average knowledge of the subject matter, I can usually poke a few holes in the article. This reporter, Simon Owens, seems to have done some homework. Of course there are nits, admins can do blocks not bans, and I suspect some of our non admin editors will question the gaudy portrayal of admins (for that matter I think it was a bit over the top), but many things seems to have been done right. Acceptable discussion of inside baseball terms, and a decent handle on the processes. I'm not active in SPI, and maybe those active will find some fault, but on balance, it seemed well-done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For everyone's information, WMF's Legal and Community Advocacy teams have been looking at this issue for a few weeks, and we are continuing to do so. As part of that investigation, we're continually following the analysis being done by the community in the SPI page. Unfortunately, while we are evaluating taking legal action we can't discuss the issue as openly as we would normally do. In the meantime, we deeply appreciate the years of work done by the various volunteers involved in this case, and are looking at every option we have to support you. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd encourage everybody involved to take very serious steps on this. There are too many times (e.g. in the last few days) that I've heard something like "Well, you can't do anything about paid editing, so you're just going to have to accept it." I don't think we have to accept this. Some things the WMF can do.

• Report the case to the FTC - undisclosed advertising is illegal - and there is almost certainly advertising in here. It would make a point.
• We could also send them notice that all their owners, employees, and contractors are banned for violating the terms of use, that is:Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes ....
  • Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law.

The WMF certainly has the right to do this - (further on in the terms of use) "We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice."

You might wonder what is the point of banning possibly unknown employees if the WMF doesn't have the technical means to do anything about it. Well, the WMF likely has the legal and/or PR means to do something about it. Possibly a cease and desist order could be filed to prevent them from advertising (after all - they won't have any employees who can edit here - so they would be doing false advertising as well as defaming Wikipedia by claiming our admins work for them) and in any case their business reputation would be in tatters.

Of course, the WMF should talk with them before threatening to go to court. Ask for their employee and client lists so we can repair the damage they caused.

Finally, I think this should be reviewed at the board level - are we ever going to have a policy that can clearly discourage paid editing in an effective way? Another thing I heard in just the last few day goes something like this "There are too many editors with an interest in keeping paid editing, and with the consensus system and RfCs, they can always prevent anything from being changed." Sounds like a challenge to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones above. The most disturbing aspect of this article is that it says that administrators are claimed to be paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Smallbones. What's most disturbing to me is that once again there is no "blow-up" over this here, on-wiki, where it matters. petrarchan47tc 18:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also agreed. I was hoping this would be something the board could take action on, legal or otherwise. I think it is dangerous for the community to just accept or let slide an institution that disrupts Wikipedia in this systematic manner. Sure, they may be bluffing about having admins, but maybe they are not. I am surprised their business model has not failed given this kind of press, of which I hope it so deservedly gets more. But this is not the kind of matter to wait out. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

When the word spread that BP had an employee, the head of their PR department, working on Wikipedia, drafting text which was then entered by (what we must assume to be) independent editors, the Wikipedia community supported it. Sure, there were a few outliers who complained, but we were drowned out by the overwhelming defense of the activity because it is wiki-legal and because the PR rep is a perfectly nice guy. However, the off-wiki chatter was filled with outrage and most importantly for Wikipedia, filled with a common sentiment: "Well, I'll never donate to Wikipedia again!". We can continue to look the other way but our readers do not and will not. petrarchan47tc 18:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That was because he "follows the rules." See my comment below. The rejoinder to that is "what rules?" Chevron's p.r. person is at least as aggressive. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"The rules" are the issue here. They support paid editing and in turn unfortunately contribute to the mass exodus of independent editors, who can feel and witness that the cards are stacked against them. petrarchan47tc 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any data about this "mass exodus of independent editors"? I'm not even sure what distinguishes an independent editor from a non-independent one. And as for "the cards are stacked against them"...I'm not sure what this refers to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Data: * * * *. My experiences working on articles where BP and Monsanto have an interest showed me how to easily distinguish between an indie and someone playing the role, but bending or ignoring wiki guidelines in a way that slants all of their edits, and indeed entire groups of articles, in favor of these companies. The cards are stacked against anyone wanting to add information, however well-sourced, that may not improve the image of these two companies on Wikipedia. Did you know about the Facebook group called CREWE? It that is made up of PR reps and Wikipedia editors willing to help them. On the other hand, what I refer to as 'independent' editors do not declare any such POV, and unfortunately have no such support system.

FWIW, Jimmy Wales: "I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do." petrarchan47tc 21:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

He said that in 2006. It would be nice if Mr. Wales could either reaffirm what he said then or repudiate it. Clearly the practice at Wikipedia is to discourage (but not prohibit) p.r. people from editing, and to allow them to create articles via the Articles for Creation process. People apparently make their living doing so, and it's apparent that the amount of p.r. participation in Wikipedia has increased simultaneously with the decrease in the overall number of people editing Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

From 2013, regarding BP PR 'ghostwriting', Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has also weighed in, writing in a discussion forum on the site that Wikipedia would analyze [BP]'s work to see if it qualified as biased and would also examine whether the Wikipedia editors' copying and pasting of [BP]'s content was "inappropriate."Still, Wales said that it's possible no whitewashing took place on BP's part because there is evidence that the article covers the Deepwater oil spill in a "quite direct and clear way." But, Wales said, that issue needs to be discussed further. Yes. Yes, it does. petrarchan47tc 23:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What this article omitted was that there is an enormous safe harbor permitted for paid editing. As long as the conflict of interest is disclosed, paid editors are not only accepted into the bosom of the community but are dealt with warmly, even protectively. The mistake made by the editors described in this article is that they broke the rules. They did not have to, because there really are no rules, only guidelines that are weak. Paid editors even create articles through the AfC process. I see nothing happening about this disgraceful situation until the flow of money to Wikipedia from donors is affected. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No. A paid editor who puts an article through AFC will (or should) have it declined if it fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOV. An open paid editor who takes all available opportunities for review and only promises clients a neutral article is an asset to the client and the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No? You mean "yes." Paid editors create articles, resulting in content that would not be there if it wasn't for the subjects paying for it. The more this happens, the more it tilts the content of the encyclopedia into becoming a tool of the p.r. industry. Defending that is like defending a newspaper that opens up its pages to paid contributions without disclosure to the reader, with the "advertorials" mingling with legitimate news copy as long as it reads "neutral." Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting because I just stumbled on to Wikipedia:Bounty board this morning. Granted, the money paid by others went to WMF and not the individual Editor but it demonstrates that "paid editing" is not something brand new. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather figure out ways of curbing paid editing rather than excusing it or finding precedents for it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the above is something familiar to anyone who has studied alcohol prohibition in the 1920s or today's "war on drugs"; attempts to "curb" something often lead to there being more of it. If we discourage the ethical COI editors who self-disclose and who let independent editors evaluate their suggested changes, we will get more undisclosed COI editing. The demand will not go away just because we try to "curb" it, and where there is money to be made, someone will step in to meet that demand. Allowing ethical COI editors to meet that need hurts the undisclosed COI editors and thus benefits us two ways; first, it reduces their customer base as corporations discover that we revert the blatant PR when we find it. second, the ethical COI editors are in a unique position to find and report the undisclosed COI editors; often the same customer talks to both while shopping for the service. Also, the ethical COI editors have a financial interest in finding and reporting the undisclosed COI editors, and in spreading the word about Wikipedia COI policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

One problem is the assumption that we can "let independent editors evaluate the content", and be assured a neutral result. It is an uneven playing field, where one is being paid and may have a PR team behind them, as in the case at BP, to dig up exactly the right sources, and craft the perfect wording. At BP talk, this grew exhausting for independent editors to have to check each and every reference, for every proposed change (which come at a dizzying rate sometimes), and research the issue to see whether the whole story was being told. And in the case of BP, it was rarely a straightforward process. It is less time consuming to start from scratch adding content by neutral editors. That is a longer story, but a point User:SlimVirgin made well. A perhaps larger issue is that we are not indicating to our readers when content emanates from a COI source. I'm not sure that is legal. petrarchan47tc 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, just wow. Paid editing by admins. I have been saying for years paid editing was a slippery slope that should be fought against with every resource available. Now this. Jimmy, after reading this article I call on you and the WMF to take prompt and very firm action against paid editing. As for admins, it is such an obvious COI that words fail me, except to say that admins caught as paid agents should be perma-banned. Period. Jusdafax 00:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Admins have been caught editing for money before; it's not unprecedented. Graham87 07:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Nor is the talk of PR firms' activity here. Time to put an end to it. petrarchan47tc 22:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Jimmy, as someone who did 300 of the last blocks, then abandoned the case, trust me that this isn't going to get pursued to the maximum effect. If you want to know more, you can email me, this whole affair has pretty much chased me away from Wikipedia, and I don't see a benefit of harping here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, I find it extremely disturbing that Dennis, who has done more than anyone to tackle this, says here that he knows "this isn't going to get pursued to the maximum effect", and has said before that he has been warned off pursuing it: "Arb has privately made it very clear they don't want Morning277 sockpuppets blocked".

Dennis has been reluctant to give further details publicly of what he has been told. Please take up his offer and email him, and then let those of us on the front line know what is going on. Absent any explicit order, I have been continuing to block obvious socks and to refuse under WP:CSD#G5 to restore their deleted articles, but it is alarming for those manning the battlements to hear hints that the high command do not want the barbarians kept out.

Dennis says that this has "pretty much chased me away from Wikipedia". If there is a policy of appeasement which loses us one of our most energetic and level-headed admins that will be serious additional damage.

I agree. I've emailed Dennis. I need allies on this one. It's time to put our foot down.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think myself that the only way this will be stopped is if socks are blocked, articles deleted, G5 applied ruthlessly to prevent re-creation, and titles salted, in the hope that the word gets round that being a Wiki-PR client not only doesn't get you an article but effectively gets you blacklisted. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, subject to some caveats. (I.E. I think that's a good broad thrust of what a policy should say, but a longer version would be more detailed and cover exceptions and way for victims of such PR scammers a way out of purgatory.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, we also must think about that any editor around here could be paid editors...some more openly admit it and same goes for socking....we have had several previous admins that were sockmasters or sockpuppets of banned users. The thing is that Wikipedia is so anonymous. Very few editors identify their real-life name, city, age, etc. If we thought further, a 4 year old could be behind an admin account, or a 90 year old, you never know. What WP needs is a system, as SPI is a mess ATM. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• If it is indeed the case that "Arb has privately made it very clear they don't want Morning277 sockpuppets blocked" (and knowing Dennis I believe this absolutely) then we need to know which Arbs, when, and how, and this information needs to be made public. Because if any Arbs have done this, they need to be removed ASAP. Dennis? Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite when are the ArbCom elections? Because if so, then we do remove them and don't re-elect them. I do wonder how it leaks that a user is a paid editor. Hm.... WorldTraveller101 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that elections are even the issue. If it is the case (and I of course, like anyone else, would need to see proof of this), then any Arb doing this type of thing needs to not be an Arb now, regardless of when their term expires. Black Kite (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saw how it goes...deeply concerning that such an event would occur. Let Dennis figure it out and we'll go from here. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that those "in the know" generally cannot disclose the specifics of what they know, because it came from confidential lists. --Rschen7754 07:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

But that leaves us in the intolerable situation where an industrial-scale spamming operation has been exposed which is still continuing, Wikipedia is filling up with paid-for articles effectively written by companies' PR departments, but the relevant SPI has been effectively closed down and the admin dealing with the case has been "pretty much chased away". "We can't tell you what's going on because it's confidential" is not good enough. Are we allowing Wiki-PR to carry on unopposed, or are we trying to stop them? If we are not trying to stop them, I certainly want to know why, and why I should continue to spend time deleting other spam and blocking spammers. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The odds of us "allowing Wiki-PR to carry on unopposed" are about the same as the odds of Jimbo becoming the next pope. (if he does become the new pope, I get dibs on being the new Advocatus Diaboli...) I think that you and I are going to have to accept that if they tell us everything they are also telling Wiki-PR everything and that we will get all the details as soon as possible without hindering the efforts to fight the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you repeatedly assert no one is doing anything when statements about intent have been issued already by Jimbo and Luis (not to mention that WMF has already been looking into this for several weeks). What are you expecting them to tell you? They're certainly not going to divulge their legal strategy or their internal analysis because obviously that could be used to circumvent or weaken any future legal action. We've expressed our outrage at the situation, and the WMF is clearly making an effort to respond, which is likely going to take some preparation. This seems like a satisfactory enough response to me for the time being. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What I was expecting them to tell me was whether pursuit of Morning277 socks was or was not officially discouraged. There seems to be an answer at WT:Arbitration Committee#So what's the deal here? JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)