User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251Auto-archiving period: 24 hours

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Jimbo, would you say that a trustee of a Wikimedia chapter would have a conflict of interest regarding direct editing of an article about the future executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation? (Example) - 2001:558:1400:10:514C:ED33:5FD5:596A (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Such edits are best avoided to avoid even a hint of impropriety. However, adding an infobox is not in any way problematic and so this particular edit is just routine and boring. Had I been asked I would have recommended against it but really this is a non issue. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, would it be okay for paid editors to add routine and boring infoboxes to articles about their clients, so long as the infoboxes do not advocate anything? Sorry to keep asking you to clarify, but it seems like every time you lay down the law on a "Bright Line" Rule, the next thing you know, the line is fuzzy and erased in some sections. -2001:558:1400:10:3188:66D5:62C1:F630 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No that would not be ok and it is completely false to say "the next thing you know, the line is fuzzy and erased in some sections". You may wish that were so, but it isn't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The advice I always give to biography subjects and companies is not to edit an article where you have a COI, other than to repair obvious vandalism or correct uncontroversial errors of fact. However, a trustee of a chapter adding an uncontroversial bit of furniture to an article, is very different from an employee of a company adding promotional text to the company's article. There si a bright line rule: don't edit articles where you have a COI. This bright line rule is applied with a leavening of WP:CLUE. Think of it like a speed limit. Nobody gets prosecuted for doing 31mph in a 30 limit, most people will get away with 33mph. Drive by at 50 and you are clearly taking the piss and are likely to be stopped.

Interestingly, I have yet to encounter a biography subject or anyone else who was not on a mission, who found this remotely difficult to understand. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who made that edit is a board member, and doesn't appear to be an employee. Either way, I agree that it's not a desirable edit. But on the scale of crumminess, with 1 being a "editing out of the goodness of one's heart" and 10 being "running an outfit that edits for pay," I put it at 3 at most. It's always interesting to see self-confessed 10s complaining about 3s. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, never mind, you guys. Obviously, there is no way to circumvent the Bright Line Rule! It is all-powerful and indestructible. Like a Pirelli tire, if you will. - 2001:558:1400:10:3188:66D5:62C1:F630 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very confused about this video, considering its contents are fake. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the other 56 videos on Pirelli Brasil's channel are also fake? — Scott • talk 02:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything about the other videos or whether they actually did what they said they did. The actual Wikipedia screenshots shown in the video, however, are manipulated. Some of the mentioned articles don't exist, and the file at the end of the video (File:Lap 1, Turn 1 Canada 2008.jpg) does not match up. The Commons image at that title is different than the one in the video, was uploaded back in 2008, and shows no sign of ever being the file shown in the video. It's...interesting. I suppose it's either a hoax or they fabricated the examples to hide their actual edits? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean - I didn't check that file title, and looking at the various pt.wiki articles that flash up shows no sign of the claims made in the video either. In that case, it looks to me like a marketing department pitch trying to get someone to approve the idea. Why they've phrased it in the past tense though, I don't know - maybe to say "look what we could boast about to other divisions"? This probably wasn't meant to be visible to the public. — Scott • talk 03:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. It's the work of the São Paulo branch of Havas Worldwide, a marketing company.[1] — Scott • talk 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I suppose it's a potential project, then. It's only visible to those who have the link, so I'd imagine it was being shared internally. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that people see a difference between adding a template to an article about someone with whom you have a tangential and non-financial relationship, and trying to build a business out of someone else's volunteer-run, charity-funded project, then trying to get it shut down out of spite when you get stopped. People can be funny that way. Guy (Help!) 03:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I have learned from looking at Wikipedia behind the scenes is that trolls will always be trolling, trolling, trolling. These poor, sad people simply can't help themselves. Another thing that I have learned is that Jimbo's patience and tolerance seem almost inexhaustible. Thank you, Jimbo, for setting an excellent example for other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the troll has a point, though. If you really have a bright line rule, there's no such thing as "it's only bad at level 3 on a scale of 1 to 10"--a bright line rule inherently means no tolerance for ambiguity or circumstances. It either violates the rule or it doesn't, and if it violates the rule it has to go. Bright line rules are rather like zero tolerance policies in that way. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The video managed to change my mind slightly on companies donating media to Commons. I had thought that any donated image is ok. In the video they emphasize the branding in the images. "Pirelli" banners all over the place in them. I suppose we should still accept images and most media from these advertisers, but placing them in articles should be regulated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what we do, there will be clever ways to game the system. We should not over-react with a moral panic. A gentle adjustment to the rules would probably help: Wikipedia is not to be used for product placement. If an editor is repeatedly uploading images for the purpose of promoting a brand, that editor and those images should go out. Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should welcome the contributed images --- being sure, of course, to recognize that the product placement is not something valuable. Getting them licensed means we can crop extraneous product placements in some cases. In others, such as Car racing, Stock car, Super Bike Series, the articles they were gloating about, there's an intrinsic problem that all the vehicles and racetracks and plastered with ads. If it's not them, it's someone else, and indeed at least in the current version I see many other companies far more prominently advertised. Our role should not be to discard contributed material, but to try to round up some non-COI editors to push out avoidable or especially visible placements and avoid domination by any one company's forces. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago some comment were made here by editors concerned about the development of mathematics rendering and editing. The point was made that currently WMF allocates essentially no resources to this and it continues entirely on volunteer effort, which is made less effective by the way it is not integrated into WMF development. At that time I asked [2] what plans WMF had for developing mathematics-based text. Unfortunately neither you nor anyone else was able to answer before the question was aged off [3].

However, just recently I received an answer to my question from User:Jdforrester (WMF) who confirmed [4] in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#VisualEditor_math_formulae that the assessment of another editor [5] that WMF has 0 and no plans on Math was entirely correct.

This is very disturbing. Mathematics support is a key component of writing a serious encyclopaedia and it is quite unacceptable that WMF should devote no resources to its effective development and have no plans to do so. Please would you ask the WMF to reconsider its policy on this matter, and allocate a suitable proportion of its resources to the maintenance, sustainability and development of mathematics rendering and editing? Deltahedron (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to chime in here to support everything that was said above. Mathematics on wikipedia is already difficult enough to read and write as it is, any efforts to simplify this process should be encouraged. I understand that WMF is busy with everything on their plate, but at least have someone poke around and see what options are available to improve how math can be better communicated on wikipedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read the lede of a Wikipedia maths article that I could understand. À Propos of nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. If any money is going to be spent on mathematics on Wikipedia, it should go towards hiring people who actually know how to write mathematical articles for a general audience. — Scott • talk 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent plan, and I would be happy if WMF were to spend money on that too. But support for mathematics rendering and editing would still be required. Currently it seems we have none. Deltahedron (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an excellent mathematician (even if I say so myself) and I rarely understand a word of them too. That's the nature of the mathematical game these days I'm afraid. Still it's true that many articles, even on elementary topics, could do with some Sqrt(1 + Tan^2(x))ing up (this is an excellent mathematician BTW who believes we can get on just fine with the ten digits and twenty six letters the good lord gave us like we used to on Usenet - nevertheless support Deltahedron because we must move on with the nooths I suppose, for better or worse ). Still there are some excellent articles out there, Logarithm for example. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grants are available to anyone who wants to do technical work, but, as I understand it, the WMF never funds content creation, no matter how sorely needed it is.

It's possible for dedicated people to form their own non-profit and seek funding for content creation, and if you're serious enough about it, then you might want to look into that. I doubt that it would work in practice, though: making some articles completely impenetrable to the lay person (and making sure that even the most trivial facts in it are all sourced to equally impenetrable sources) appears to be a goal held by some long-established editors, so efforts to write good, intelligible articles is likely to produce significant resistance. It would be unfortunate if you went to all that trouble and expense only to have some WP:OWNish editor revert it all to the impenetrable versions. On the other hand, mathematics may be the one area where this is least likely to be a problem. I've personally encountered several editors who really are trying to make these articles more accessible (with variable success).

As a mid-point between these two extremes, it might be possible for you to convince the WMF to fund a structured training program for making mathematics articles accessible, if there were enough editors interested in working on this. meta:Grants:IEG is probably the place to start that inquiry process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, although perhaps I might re-iterate that my original request to Jimbo was entirely about WMF planning and resourcing technical elements for mathematics rendering and editing. Deltahedron (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the math articles we have are very useful to people who actually need to know something about the topic. Some years ago Sean Carroll wrote on his blog that he was doing a computation away from his usual workplace and he needed to know the explicit form of some spherical harmonics, and he found them on Wikipedia.

The problem with math really is that the general audience is math illiterate and generally not really interested to learn about the topic. It's therefore pointless to aim too much at the general audience, as we cannot make up for a deficient educational system here. What we can do is present the material in such a way to make it as useful as possible. This means that we relax the Not Textbook rule a bit and write up articles such as Methods of contour integration or Rational reconstruction (mathematics) that are very useful to people who are already into these topics who need to learn more. Count Iblis (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Notice WMF's usual non-answer answer.) I think we've been sidetracked here. The issue is squarely about the math rendering. Deltahedron has been too polite, so I will be more blunt. Basically, the math support here "sucks" in terms of performance and appearance (png is still standard), compared to other notable sites like math.stackexchange. This is more than a practical problem:

1. It gives an impression that Wikipedia is less hip (at least used to be). This decreases our ability to attract new editors.
2. It gives an impression that WMF doesn't care about the editors, especially those working on serious encyclopedic subjects like math.

(If I'm allowed to say a bad joke, unfortunately, non-math editors and admins are not smart enough to understand the problems that we math editors are having.)

-- Taku (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to give more specific details. "png is still standard" is a tantalizing clue but... what do you recommend instead? What does the dream solution look like? What is currently state of the art on the web in terms of math editing and rendering software? The last time I looked into this (admittedly quite some time ago) what most math editors wanted was LaTex support, and rendering to png was a reasonable way to render. So, that's what we have now. What would math editors prefer today? I'm happy to help but it would be delicious if I had an NPOV summary of the current state of the art, how it compares with what we support, and some basic first step explanations of what the steps are to get from where we are to where we want to be, what help we might be able to engage from the broader math community, and what engineering costs we might expect to shoulder on our end. We have a new CEO now, specifically chosen for tech/product focus, and so a lot of things will be up for discussion over the next year or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Haired Girl just did something I do not recognize an admin having the right to do. I would like to hear about whether this can actually be done?

Impossed moratorium with no discussion? Just...I did it. Great...and I don't recognize it.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that I'm aware of that allows an admin to unilaterally impose a one year moratorium on discussion of an important issue. Such a policy would be absurd on the face of it. At the same time, it seems pretty clear that a one year break from discussing this perennial topic is not a bad idea. The right way to accomplish it is not through some fictional admin powers, but through appropriate community RfC. I think that even if the parties to the discussion can't come to an agreement about the title after repeated efforts, they may very well support imposing a moratorium on discussion for some defined period of time, as well as the implementation of a process for assessing the various alternatives and coming to some thoughtful and reasonable compromise solution that can gain consensus.

A moratorium on discussion is not a solution to the problem, without consensus on that moratorium, and without some efforts to build consensus around a process with a path to peace in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is already under discussion at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, where I noted the moratorium promptly after it was imposed. Seems to be supported so far, but it's up to other admins to decide whether or not to enforce it. When the same questoion is raised repeatedly with the same outcome, WP:TE and WP:DE start to look relevant.

I have suggested there that editors consider a more structured process for examining the question next time round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to cancel the moratorium. I think people are supporting because, in this specific case, a one year moratorium sounds relaxing and good. But just because something is good, doesn't mean that it should be imposed by fiat, particularly not by a single admin, and particularly not when it may set a particularly bad precedent for future custom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I have no stake in the outcome of this. It is already being discussed at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, and so far there appears to be a consensus there to support the moratorium. That may change, or maybe not. Maybe someone will take it to move review. But I will let the moratorium stand, and be a focus for a discussion the community needs to have. This is far from the first RM moratorium, and the discussion may trigger a wider consensus on what to do with intractable disputes such as this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussions are supposed to look for thoughtful and reasonable compromise solutions. What often happens is a finding of "no consensus" which results in the article staying where it was before the discussion began. The "losing" side has no incentive to agree to a moratorium as you suggest. So what's probably going to happen is a seven day move discussion followed by a thirty day RfC with the same editors making the same arguments. A likely scenario is a finding of "no consensus" again and the re-opening of yet another move discussion. I think BrownHairedGirl presented a nice lightweight solution. An uninvolved admin uses their judgment and then presents it to the outside community for comment. Kind of like Deletion Review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A nice lightweight solution is unhelpful and predisposes to further requests. Countering this with a fiat-like moratorium runs counter to the spirit of collaborative editing. I commented on a more constructive way forward over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The time sink that some of these tendentious and repetitive move request hobbyhorses create (see also Sarah Jane Brown and Hillary Rodham Clinton) is the greater harm to the project than an admin using her common sense to encourage people to go do something else for a while. Page protection and blocks/bans are also counter to the spirit of collaborative editing, but sometimes such actions are required for the greater good of the project. That being said, things like 'move moratoriums' should probably be discussed then implemented rather than the other away around. Resolute 04:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is real harm in allowing anyone a special right not grnated to even Jimbo himself. We discuss these things and admin have no special rights granted by anyone anywhere at anytime to impose their own will or decisions on the community and there is a policy for that called: Wikipedia:Consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT which states clearly:

Decisions not subject to consensus of editors

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF"), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus.

• The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
• Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
• The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
• Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are, in fact, in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and other volunteers, and the activities of Wikimedia Commons, are largely separate entities, as are the many non-English Wikipedias. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features, or accepting or rejecting images, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.

--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual problems sometimes require unusual solutions. BHG has tried to close a never-ending cycle of acrimony, and has correctly taken it to WP:AN#Move request moratorium at Genesis creation narrative for discussion. That is a valid place for any concerns to be raised and third-parties should support such solutions in order to protect the encyclopedia—perpetual bickering is death for an online community. John resolved another never-ending battle regarding whether a certain game should be called "football" or "soccer" using a similar technique (see here). Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BHG has recognised the fact that the likelihood of achieving consensus for this move is slightly less than a snowball's chance in hell, so devoting more time and resources to pulling the warring parties apart is a waste of everybody's time. We could, I guess, just topic ban the ones who refuse to accept their failure to gain consensus for a move, that would work too. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know...this really isn't about BHG, although I really don't agree with what the admin did. This is really about whether editors must follow our policies and guidelines or if they can "go rogue" (and no that is not a comparison to Sarah Palin). Are we or are we not a community of policies and guidelines and then...on the flip of that, does this constitute Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Not sure anyone has brought that up yet. Is this case where ignoring the rule was needed to improve the project. I would, of course, argue no, it wasn't as a simple community discussion is all that was needed. Is it possible the admin was simply frustrated with the constant move requests, I wont even try to speak for the admin or second guess her. What is clear is, this isn't the norm nor is it a precedence that is good. I assume good faith and BHG has stated that the discussion she started was to gain a consensus. While it didn't look to me as that was the case from just the prose that was written, I am satisfied it was their intent. I am still very concerned that the way the closing was written, it clearly shows that the admin did indeed impose this on their own as they also clearly admit. But that is also because they seem to have been allowed to do this in the past Other admin have done this in the past with no one really noticing and so, I can see why they would think they could simply do it again as well. That is the real issue, my real concern is not sanctioning anyone. I am concerned that this is being supported in a casual manner for admin to do again, and I simply can't support that and feel this needs a much more detailed discussion. Perhaps at the village pump after the centralized discussion has closed at AN, we can begin discussing whether we should or should not allow this for all admin as part of their bag of tools.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussions to a special page can work well. This is what was done to the debate about "Not Truth" on the verifiability page. This made the discussions focussed and constructive. Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a more constructive result would be to say something like, "It is clear that these move discussions have worn out the community's patience. While anybody is free to start a discussion at any time, there is an increasing chance that such discussions will be speedily closed as redundant, and that editors starting them may be subject to warnings or even sanctions for disruptive editing." At some point starting the same discussion for the nth time for no good reason is problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised on my talkpage and I am going to read the material and respond to it. For the two of you to have basically the same conversation on multiple pages strikes me as not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]