You wrote in 2012:

The Wikimedia Foundation has zero collaboration with the government of Kazakhstan. Wikibilim is a totally independent organization. And it is absolutely wrong to say that I am "helping the Kazakh regime whitewash its image". I am a firm and strong critic. At the same time, I'm excited by the work of volunteers, and I believe - very strongly - that an open and independent Wikipedia will be the death knell for tyranny in places like Kazakhstan. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it is absolutely silly to suggest that I'm in any way actively supporting tyrants.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How's that working out? The NY Times writes (3 December 2015):

Government officials in Kazakhstan are borrowing a page from China, quietly devising their own version of China’s so-called Great Firewall to unscramble encrypted web and mobile traffic as it flows in and out of Kazakh borders.

... Unlike with China, which filters data through an expensive and complex digital infrastructure known as the Great Firewall, security experts say Kazakhstan is trying to achieve the same effect at a lower cost. The country is mandating that its citizens install a new “national security certificate” on their computers and smartphones that will intercept requests to and from foreign websites.

That gives officials the opportunity to read encrypted traffic between Kazakh users and foreign servers, in what security experts call a “man in the middle attack.”

As a result, Kazakh telecom operators, and government officials, will be privy to mobile and web traffic between Kazakh users and foreign servers, bypassing encryption protections known as S.S.L., or Secure Sockets Layer, and H.T.T.P.S., technology that encrypts browsing sessions and is familiar to users by the tiny padlock icon that appears in browsers.

Peter Damian (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain further what you mean by your question "How's that working out?" The terrible recent developments in Kazakhstan are to be deplored and opposed, as with their human rights record stretching back for many years. There is very good reason to think that a strong and independent Wikipedia (along with an open Internet generally) will be the death knell for such regimes, and this is a fight which will take decades.

In terms of this recent initiative, which effectively mandates a "man in the middle" attack, I will be campaigning with the major Internet providers globally to blacklist the Kazakh certificate and to improve and strengthen MITM protection via certificate pinning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By 'how's that working out', I meant 'how is [an open and independent Wikipedia] working out [in terms of being the death knell for tyranny in places like Kazakhstan]'. A knell is a loud sounding or ringing that happens when death is imminent, rather than 'will take decades'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will take decades, particularly in areas that are mostly neglected by liberal democracies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you claimed in 2012 that 'Wikibilim is a totally independent organization'. Wasn't there a question about that? Peter Damian (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any questions about that. It remains true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‘ “Kazaksha Wikipedia” project is implemented under the auspices of the Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim Massimov, head of “Wikibilim” public fund Rauan Kenzhekhanuly said in an interview for PM.kz site.’ [1] — Official web site of Kazakhstan prime minister Karim Massimo. Further reading: [2], [3], the December 23 2012 online Examiner article Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales denies Kazakhstan connection, and this Wales talk page thread, in which Wales participated, entitled Kazakhstan government support for Kazakh Wikipedia. Factoid: Currently 50% of Wikibilim’s trustees are paid government employees. Writegeist (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely false that Kazakh language Wikipedia is a project of the Government of Kazakhstan. Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter. As of the last time I checked, Wikibilim employees do not edit Wikipedia. It is easy to piece together misleading quotes to try to imply things that aren't true - but it's easier to just tell the truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By flatly contradicting the Kazakhstan prime minister’s official statement, you are saying that either he doesn’t know what his own government is doing or he’s lying on his office’s website (perhaps calculating that outside Kazakhstan the only likely challenge to the lie would be an unsubstantiated one from someone whose veracity on this page in relation to Kadazhstan had already been thrown into question by that same someone's own words, i.e. (1) “Past connection to the Kazakh dictatorship" - total and utter and complete bullshit. I have no past connection of any kind to the Kazakh dictatorship. — Jimbo Wales, Jimbotalk, 14 December 2014. (2) “I’ve been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there [ …] I'm going in December and I'm gonna give the award in the presence of the Prime Minister …" — Jimbo Wales, 2011 closing ceremony speech at Wikimania 2011)

Also of interest here: Before he became president of Wikibilim, Rauan Kenzhekhanuly (first recipient of the aforementioned Wikipedian of the Year award) was first secretary at Kazakhstan’s embassy in Moscow and head of Kazakhstan’s government-controlled propagandist TV operation, which was launched by the daughter of Nursultan Nazarbayev. Oh. Who he? President of Kazakhstan.

Wiikibilim is funded by Samruk-Kazyna, Kazakhstan’s sovereign wealth fund. The state is its sole shareholder. Chairman of S-K’s board when Wikibilim was set up: Timur Asqaruly Kulibayev. Who he? Husband of Dinara Nursultanovna. And who she? President Nazarbayev’s daughter. Writegeist (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he says that, then he's lying. This surprises you?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat more than if you are, as I’m more familiar with your track record than with Massimov’s.

You say that Massimo is lying; that there’s no state control exercised in this instance by a government that’s notorious for control and censorship of information and the media, and for suppression of free speech; and that Wikibillim is independent of the government that funds it, fills half the seats on its board of trustees with government employees, and selects 100 of its users to receive free laptops in return for transcribing and writing government-approved articles, none of which address Kazakhstan’s record on human rights or suppression of independent media. Am I surprised you say that? Not in the least.

By the way, FYI, as apparently you are unaware, your unsupported assertion that Massimov is a liar violates the BLP policy, which applies to this page just as it does anywhere on Wikipedia. (For more information on Wikipedia’s BLP policy, refer to WP:BLP.) Writegeist (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing. Mr. Wales has just said that everyone in Kazakhstan who runs the Wikipedia project there, and says it is backed and funded by the state, is lying. Instead the truth is as Wales presents it - that Kazakh Wikipedia is independent of the Kazakh government. Don't believe your own lying eyes kids. Again, Republican primary debate levels of astonishing.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. If you put words in my mouth, you can make it seem like just about anything. There are very serious concerns and problems with the Wikibilim organization, but it remains the case that the Kazakh language Wikipedia is not a project of the government. If Massimov says that it is, he's lying. If he's concerned about that as a BLP violation, then he's free to complain. I have not said that Wikibilim is independent of the government that funds it - it is not. What I have said is that Wikibilim is completely independent of the Wikimedia Foundation and of me. I have no connection with the Kazakh government, despite the ongoing pretense by people who know better. I oppose them firmly. I have had contact with them in the past, and I would imagine that I will again - to lobby for change. I will not apologize for that, nor will I allow dishonest people to portray opposition as support.

There is a much more interesting conversation to be had. Rather than dishonestly trying to pin something on me, a rather ridiculous thing to do, it would be better to show some genuine concern for the people of Kazakhstan, and suggest genuine ways that we can help in the current situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. Wikibilim runs the Kazakh Wikipedia. Wikibilim is entirely funded and run by the Kazkh government and senior Kazakh government bureaucrats. The vast majority of the Kazakh Wikipedia is articles imported from the government's official propaganda encyclopedia. The Kazakh government's academy of arts and sciences runs "fact checking and quality control" on the Kazakh Wikipedia. The Kazakh Wikipedian of the year you named was prior to that award, and since, a rising star in the repressive firmament of the Kazakh regime. And your response to people who say this shows the Kazakh government runs the Kazakh Wikipedia is to call them "liars." It's astonishing you get away with such counterfactual claims. At any rate, this is like talking about the nuclear triad with Donald Trump. I'm out.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Anyone of reasonable intelligence who has been paying attention to this thread can see where the porkies are.

@Jimbo Wales. Question: did you ever actually pay the Kazakh state apparatchik the much trumpeted $5,000 that supposedly went with his Wikipedia of the Year award? A straightforward, factually correct reply please. A simple yes or no will do. Thank you. Then I’m done with you here.

Oh, one other thing. You wrote above, on 15 December, “Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter.” (Emphasis added.) Wikibilim’s own CC submission states: “Recognition of «Wikibilim» as a Wikipedia’ local chapter in Kazakhstan is in progress.” [4] Obviously there were plans for Wikibilim to become a local chapter. What happened to its application? Why were the plans permanently scrapped? Writegeist (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see there's an article HTTP Public Key Pinning, and more information on MITM attacks at Transport Layer Security (some copypasted from Stackexchange, according to a tag there...). I don't really understand it though, or how to apply it here. Key pinning is apparently already being bypassed in the Chromium browser to allow the actions that our corporations (and perhaps the Kazakh officials) call "content inspection" - wouldn't a Kazakh end up being unable to do anything online unless he disabled it such a way? And as for blacklisting certificates - how do you blacklist every certificate the Kazakh government could obtain? Wnt (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, they are distributing a certificate to everyone in Kazakhstan. If that one gets blacklisted, they could get another one, and distribute that one, but... I'll be looking for technical advice as to the most effective thing that we (and other internet providers of various kinds) can do to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is in flux. [5] I don't know nearly enough about TLS to understand whether a third party site can figure out which top level certificate authority issued a certificate, or how much data it knows about you from that, though I would suspect the worst. But if Kazakhstan actually does execute a MITM attack against a connection, can't they request whatever certificate they want from whomever they want to apply at the point past the "Firewall", as if they were the computer owner, thereby concealing their role? Wnt (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way certificates work is that the creator generates a pair of keys—private and public. Everyone can get the public key and can use it to check messages signed with the private key. Your computer and/or browser has a list of trusted certificate authorites, and a method to check the trust has not been revoked. The browser will establish an encrypted connection with a web server, but the browser will fill the screen with warnings if the server is not using a certificate from a trusted authority. Presumably the Kazakhstan plan is that each citizen would install a Kazakhstan authority as trusted. Then the government could MITM encrypted sessions—citizen computer to government proxy would be encrypted using the Kazakhstan certificate, and proxy to target web server (say Wikipedia) would be encrypted using the Wikipedia certificate. That is how a company web proxy works when a company workstation establishes an encrypted connection with an external web server such as Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of Kazakh language Wikipedia

You wrote "It is completely false that Kazakh language Wikipedia is a project of the Government of Kazakhstan." (06:02, 16 December 2015).

Let's take a look.The English Wikipedia has an article, Zhanaozen massacre, describing a labour protest where 14 civilians were killed by police. The state described the killed as "hooligans". On the Kazakh Wikipedia, the same article is entitled Жаңаөзен оқиғасы, which translates roughly as "Zhanaozen Story". In English it's a massacre, in Kazakh it's just a story. The lead of the English-language article notes: "The massacre was a stark illustration of the country's poor human rights record under President Nursultan Nazarbayev." The Kazakh article mentions Nazarbayev by name only once: "On December 22, a special visit was made by President Nursultan Nazarbayev who arrived in the Mangistau region."

The largest section of the English article details the testimony disclosed during the investigations after the shootings. It generally focuses on the point of view of the protesters and of outside watchdog groups. The largest section of the Kazakh article details the testimony of the General Prosecutor's Office, which describes the protesters as having engaged in "misconduct", and that "the suppression of the riots" was necessary "for the protection of civilians". The hooligans were participating in "mass disorder". And that's why 64 people were shot.

Peter Damian (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How Kazakh language Wikipedia aids censorship

And as I have pointed out to you before, the development of the Kazakh encyclopedia is part of the process of 'Kazakhisation', i.e. to move both the culture and the language of Kazakhstan away from Russian (a quarter of the population are ethnically Russian) to Kazakh. The department of education has excluded many Russian classics from its instructional program, and there has been a deliberate imposition of Kazakh culture, including Nazarbayev’s brainchild, the six volume national encyclopedia, which began publication in 1999, and which has now been incorporated into the Kazakh Wikipedia. As Bhavna Dave put it, the primary value of the Kazakh language is as an instrument of nationalisation.

The practical effect of the language program is discrimination and censorship. Discrimination, because the Kazakh constitution holds that all public jobs require knowledge of the Kazakh language, which amounts to excluding Russians from the public sector. Beginning in the late 1990s, candidates for the presidency were required to pass a test for proficiency in Kazakh language and culture.

Censorship, because no one understands the Kazakh language outside Kazakhstan. As long as Russian remains the language of inter-ethnic communication in the Kazakhstan, it is a means of opening its speakers to ideas circulating outside the country on TV and on the Internet. While the internet can supposedly route its signal around any obstacle, it can’t help people understand that signal. Once Nazarbayev’s program to focus the teaching of Kazakh on the next generation is realised, no one in the country will understand external media. There is no need to censor something that no one can understand. “Looking at the situation in the long-term perspective, if Kazakh language policy is successfully implemented in the same direction at a similar pace, in few generations we are going to have more and more people who have access to only part of the story unless they learn other languages”, says my friend Yevgeniya Plakhina, a freelance journalist who contributes to the banned opposition newspaper Respublika. “Access to other sources might be also blocked because Kazakhstan has very restrictive mass media and internet legislation. It is clever to say that if you show part of the story it does not mean it is lies”.

Peter Damian (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most useful exercises of freedom of expression I've seen, the interlibrary loan service Sci-Hub, actually started in Kazakhstan.^[6] So that country is not always behind the U.S. - and sometimes, they're out ahead. Wnt (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Damian, while I share most of your concerns here, I disagree with your take on the Kazakh language issue. They are indeed downplaying Russian, but that's no different from the vast majority of post-Soviet states who want to distance themselves from their former colonial masters and stress their own national identity. In contrast, they are pushing hard for better English levels, for example Nazarbayev University requires at least band 6 in IELTS. Part of this is for geopolitical reasons (Nazo is nervous about Russia eventually seeking to annex parts of north Kazakhstan with Russian majorities) and part for pragmatic business reasons: 2 devaluations in 22 months have shown them that their economy is over-dependent on natural resource prices and Russia and they're seeking to diversify away from that. Valenciano (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's very helpful - I didn't know about the English thing. Though this does not detract from my main point: that projects such as individual language Wikipedias can often conflict with the broader aims of the Wikimedia movement - particularly opposition to censorship. Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibilim: the unanswered questions

Jimbo Wales, apparently you missed these questions, which were buried in a preceding thread, so I’m giving them more prominence here. And pinging you.

Q1: Did you ever actually pay the Kazakh state apparatchik the $5,000 that supposedly went with his Wikipedia of the Year award?

Q2: You wrote above, on 15 December, “Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter.” (Emphasis added.) Wikibilim’s own CC submission states: “Recognition of «Wikibilim» as a Wikipedia local chapter in Kazakhstan is in progress.” [7] Obviously there were plans for Wikibilim to become a local chapter. What happened to its application? Why were the plans permanently scrapped?

Writegeist (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: No.

Q2: You would have to ask them and people directly involved in the chapter submission process. If I had to guess, when it became clear that such an application would be very unlikely to be approved, they dropped further action on it. But I'm not directly involved. If the matter came to the board, I would strongly encourage the board to not approve the application without some major changes and some thorough due diligence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: Thank you for clearing that up.

Q2: I note your emphasis on "due diligence". It’s interesting that Nartay Ashim, Wikibilim’s “National Coordinator”, is listed among the attendees at the 2012 Wikimedia Conference Chapters meeting (so apparently the WMF were already treating Wikibilim as a chapter); and that the WMF gave Wikibilim $16,000 for the 2012 Turkic Wikimedia Conference in Kazakhstan. Was that because the WMF board had failed in its due diligence? I.e. had the WMF failed to grasp that the Kazakh Wikipedia is a project of the Kazakh government?

When you’d accepted the official invitation to Kazakhstan from Yerlan Idrissov (their ambassador to the US), Khazak TV announced you’d thanked the Kazakh government for “creating conditions for significant achievements in the development of the Kazakh language Wikipedia”, and that you’d announced your intention to visit (as you did on Wikipedia). You didn’t go; and neither, as you now confirm, did you ever pay the promised $5,000 to the Kazakh state apparatchik who won your Wikipedian of the Year award. Was that because it wasn’t until after you'd thanked the Kazakh government that you did your due diligence? Writegeist (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met nor spoken nor even heard of Yerlan Idrissov. I have never accepted any official invitation to Kazakstan. I have never spoken to anyone at the Kazakh embassy in the US. I have never spoken to Kazakh TV.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh TV reported "The Kazakhstan Ambassador to the US Yerlan Idrissov has already handed over an official invitation to Mr. Wales. Having accepted the invitation, Jimmy Wales thanked the Kazakh government for creating conditions for significant achievements in the development of the Kazakh language Wikipedia." One of you is not telling the truth. Peter Damian (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up the issue of “due diligence” and I’d like to return to that for a moment. Wikibilim’s “National Coordinator” is listed among the attendees at the 2012 Wikimedia Conference Chapters meeting (i.e. the WMF accorded Wikibilim chapter status even though it was not a chapter); and the WMF also gave Wikibilim $16,000 for the 2012 Turkic Wikimedia Conference in Kazakhstan. Was that because the WMF board had not done its due diligence? I.e. had failed to grasp that the Kazakh Wikipedia is a project of the Kazakh government?

At Wikimania 2011 you announced the inaugural “Global Wikipedian of the Year award, in my opinion, given by me personally”. 2011 You also announced you’d been connecting with the Kazakh government and talking to the Kazakh prime minister (the man you recently called a liar), and that you'd be going to Kazakhstan to present the award in his august presence: ”I’ve been following the story of Kazakh Wikipedia [ … ] and I also I've been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there. [ …] I'm going in December and I'm gonna give the award in the presence of the Prime Minister.” (Same link.) The honored Global Wikipedian of the Year was a Kazakh government operative who ran the government-funded organization tasked with giving Kazakhstan's heavily censored and propagandist national encyclopedia the Wikipedia imprimatur of respectability and independence., and with further adding government-approved content. Presumably you had not done your due diligence, as otherwise you would have known what this fellow was. So when you broke your promise to go to Kazakhstan, and also broke the promise to pay the $5,000 that accompanied the award, was it because you had done your due diligence in the meantime (or someone had done it for you), and it had finally dawned on you that the Kazakh Wikipedia is a project of the Kazakh government?

Above you say: “I have never met nor spoken nor even heard of Yerlan Idrissov"— Kazakhstan's ambassador to the US; and "I have never accepted any official invitation to Kazakstan. I have never spoken to anyone at the Kazakh embassy in the US.” (Emphasis added.)

At Wikimania 2012 you said: “I met with the Ambassador of Kazakhstan this morning.”

Which of these two statements is the truth?

Writegeist (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the second one. I have no recollection of it, and I can say I certainly didn't have any sort of formal sit down meeting. In a line up of dignitaries, it is of course possible. As I have said before, I misspoke if I said in 2011 that I had talked to the Kazakh Prime Minister at that time. I had talked to his office, an Australian guy named Catallus. And since then, I have met with the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan and spoke to him about his country's dreadful human rights record. I've also had, with Orit Kopel of the Jimmy Wales Foundation for Freedom of Information, a formal meeting with the Kazakh Ambassador to discuss freedom of expression. I will continue to have meetings with dignitaries and officials from many countries to lobby for positive change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When someone makes untrue claims about themselves and then backtracks with the euphemism much favored by politicians caught in a lie (“I misspoke”) it leaves an impression of duplicity that’s hard to eradicate.

I note your response evaded my points about due diligence, and I won't press you further. Instead let's examine your claim (in your reply to Peter Damian in the "More contradictions" section) that the Kazakh regime was “interested in change” in 2012— which you cite in support of your “diplomatic gestures to open a discussion”.

In a 2012 article titled “Change put on hold in Nazabayev’s Kazakhstan” Luca Anceschi clearly stated the Kazakh regime’s intractable opposition to change at that time:

• “[There is] a sense of political stagnation that pervades today’s Kazakhstan. A sense that much-needed change has been postponed until the inevitable, though not yet imminent, leadership change [. . .] the (authoritarian) impetus of the 1990s and the 2000s has been replaced by the immobility typical of the end of an era [. . .] It is possible to identify the precise moment at which Kazakhstan entered this phase of possibly irreversible decline, and that is Nazarbayev’s decision to run in the snap presidential election of early 2011 [. . .] Two things mark the post-election landscape: the appearance of a more stable regime and the neutralisation of every form of internal opposition. The neutralisation happened quickly, and targeted both discontent within the elite, as with the radicalisation of society, which in the recent months had come to be viewed as even more dangerous [. . .] Kazakhstan’s future outlook, in this sense, does not appear bright, as the rapid deterioration of whatever little internal dialogue had survived 20 years of fictitious liberalisation is now exacerbating the socio-political stagnation into which the regime slid in 2011 [and] change for Kazakhstan is postponed to a later date.” (Emphasis added.) [8]

Three years later Anceschi would write that the regime still "seeks to sanitise the local media landscape in its print, broadcast, and digital segments.”

This Central Asian scholar’s informed views (which I trust you won’t rubbish, as you did those of a Chinese dissident, as “loud-mouthed rhetoric”) contradict the claim that the regime was “interested in change”. They were interested in it only insofar as it was anathema—they saw it as antithetical to their tyrannical socio-political ideology and self-interest, and blocked it accordingly.

The regime's obdurate opposition to change is further evident in the Human Rights Watch World Reports on Kazakhstan for 2011, 2012, and 2013:

• 2011: “During its 2010 chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Kazakhstan's human rights record was marred by continued disappointments. Restrictive amendments to media and Internet laws remained, and a number of websites and weblogs were blocked on a regular basis.” (Emphasis added.)

• 2012: “Kazakhstan failed to carry out long-promised human rights reforms in the year following its chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Instead, its rights record suffered further setbacks. Control of the penitentiary systems moved from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, putting prisons back in police control, and a new restrictive religion law was adopted. Websites were blocked and legal amendments limiting media freedoms remained. A union lawyer was imprisoned for six years for speaking out on workers’ rights.” (Emphasis added.)

• 2013: “Kazakhstan’s human rights record seriously deteriorated in 2012, following violent clashes In December 2011 between police and demonstrators, including striking oil workers, in western Kazakhstan. Authorities blamed outspoken oil workers and political opposition activists for the unrest. Freedom of assembly is restricted and dozens were fined or sentenced to administrative arrest in early 2012 for participating in peaceful protests. A restrictive law on religious freedoms remained in force. Media remains under tight control and there were attacks on independent journalists.” (Emphasis added.)

You mentioned media reports asserting the Kazakh regime's interest in change. In the light of the above, it would be interesting to see them. Were they Kazakh state media?

Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Writegeist:

You are essentially calling Jimmy a liar, and generally harassing him in this entire 6,000 word section. I'll be mostly out-of-touch until the new year. I hope you can make amends before then. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are unwelcome on this page. Happy holidays. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones:: I think you're over-reacting. There is no doubt that the Kazakh government have been responsible for serious human right infringements. And how much they control the kk.wp is an interesting question. Whether or not it is Jimbo's "fault", as a member of the WMF board he is the right sort of person to pose these questions. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 04:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Wales may or may not be—and I see no need to hazard a guess here—he's certainly not such a precious snowflake as to be incapable of conducting a robust dialogue without officious, dishonest, patronizing, and threatening interventions by Smallbones. Writegeist (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just get to the point. Do you have particular actions to propose?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had already got to the point: to be blunt, the takeout from my post is that you appear untrustworthy when it comes to facts.

For further clarification, and at the risk of belaboring the point:

You’re no fool. You successfully hosted soft porn on the Internet. You were one of the people who started an online encyclopedia compiled by volunteers. You parlayed that into public speaking engagements and some useful social climbing in London and elsewhere. And you cast yourself in the role of bold free speech activist and “lobbyist for change”. Yet you stand shoulder to shoulder with representatives of a despotic regime when they mount an odious public PR exercise to whitewash their image in the eyes of the world, and on that stage and under that international gaze you coolly accept fistfuls of their money without also taking the opportunity of that public platform to utter so much as one word of protest against their vile human rights abuses, including lethal oppression of free speech—which, coming from you, and given the circumstances, would have put these crimes front and center in the global media. Further, you present an award to an operative of another repressive regime, also without uttering a word of condemnation; then also make plans to travel to the country to pay money to the recipient of your award in the presence of the country’s dignities, and when you announce these plans you inflate your importance by gulling an eager audience with a story of communicating with the host government at the highest level—with the prime minister, no less—when in fact the PM’s office had palmed you off onto some Australian guy; and then you don’t even go—thus missing another outstanding opportunity for public condemnation of the host regime’s records on human rights and free speech.

When you don’t walk the walk, your talk is further devalued. We’ve already seen pronouncements from you that are evasive and less than honest. E.g., to take a recent one: you “misspoke” about a chat with the Kazakh PM that never actually took place, just as Hillary Clinton “misspoke” about arriving under fire in Sarajevo, which never happened, and Richard Blumenthal “misspoke” about fighting in Vietnam. (To be fair though, it’s easy to mistake an untroubled stroll across an airport for ducking and diving through sniper fire, or being in America for fighting in Vietnam, or speaking to some Australian guy for speaking to the Kazakh PM.) Also, in 2012 in Washington, you said that you had met with the the Kazakh ambassador that morning. Later you denied saying it. When provided with the recording in which you said it, you backtracked, saying you couldn’t remember.

So for someone who isn’t a fool you sure do make yourself look like one; and by repeatedly underestimating the intelligence of well-informed people, you treat them like fools also. There are well-informed people among your Wikipedia volunteer force on whose work you have built your career. You present yourself as the public figurehead of their enterprise. They deserve a figurehead who doesn't appear foolish.

You ask what action I propose. I propose you either abandon the posture of advocating for human rights in general and free speech in particular or play the part with real commitment, conviction, courage, integrity, honesty, and good judgment. (Yes, yes, I know about the Jimmy Wales Foundation--and about the history of its creation.) Another proposal: escape the clutches of whatever amateurs appear to be advising you—to attend the China event, for example, when people who actually know what they’re talking about urged a boycott—and consult with experts who can give you knowledgeable, well-judged guidance on how to walk the walk.

Moving on briefly:

(1) You state on this page: “There is no trademark agreement [between Wikibilim and the WMF to revoke.”

(2) A post in August 2011 on Meta re. Wikibilim’s application for chapter status states: 8 June 2011 – Signed Trademark License Agreement with Wikimedia Foundation Inc.” [9]

Point: These two conflicting statements cannot both be true. Question: Which is the truth? Proposed action: answer (1) or (2)

(3) “promises from aides . . . that [the Kazakh regime] were interested in change.” Aides of the regime? Proposed action: reply yes/no; if “no”, who were they? I ask because you also said:

(4) “[there were] news reports at the time that [the Kazakh regime] were interested in change.” Point: this appears false in light of the evidence (some of which I presented above) of the regime’s well-documented, implacable opposition to change. Proposed action: diffs please.

Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, experienced Jimbotalk page watchers: as Mr. Wales asked what actions I proposed, and I obliged with three in sections 1 through 4 above—i.e. that he post simple yes/no answers to two simple questions and furnish some simple diffs as evidence for one simple assertion—I totally trust him not to just sit this out until the thread gets flushed down the archive drain, but rather to step up and respond. Really. I do. Shame on you, O ye of little faith! Writegeist (talk)

More contradictions

1. You say you will not "allow dishonest people to portray opposition as support". Yet you say at the Wikimania 2012 conference (time code 23:45 onwards) that you are going to give the award [to Rauan] 'in the presence of the President and Prime Minister'. So that's opposition, and it would be really "dishonest" to portray your giving an award in the presence of the Kazakh President and Prime Minister as support? I don't follow this.
2. "I have not said that Wikibilim is independent of the government that funds it - it is not." But you say in your interview with Yevgeniya – now ironically deleted from the internet, probably by the Kazakh authorities – that "Wikibilim is absolutely independent. They do not [control] and do not [manage] the Kazakh-Wikipedia", and you say that while there was a government grant, it was issued without any obligations [regarding] the Wikipedia content (which Wikibilim in any [event] does not control). You also concede in that interview that the funds were used to import the Kazakh encyclopedia, but as I have pointed out above, that encyclopedia is an instrument of nationalisation, whose effects are both discrimination and censorship.

Peter Damian (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic gestures to open a discussion, given promises from aides and general news reports at the time that they were interested in change, is not support for a tyrannical regime, but support for change.

I don't understand your second point at all. It seems dependent on severe and deliberate misinterpretation of multiple parties. Wikibilim does not control and does not manage the Kazakh language Wikipedia. Indeed, when I last checked, employees are forbidden from editing Wikipedia. If that has changed, that's interesting and useful information - I haven't checked recently. There have been other instances of previous encyclopedias being imported with permission into Wikipedia (one in Kerala comes to mind) and yes - they generally come in with severe biases that the community needs to correct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Indeed, when I last checked, employees are forbidden from editing Wikipedia." - Jimmy Wales, Dec. 25 2015. In January 2013 you were expressly told that Wikibilim employees (that is, Kazakh government employees) were editing the Kazakh Wikipedia. When the evidence of Wikibilim honcho Nartay Ashim editing the Kazakh Wikipedia was presented to you, you responded. "He edits on his own time. Lots of people do that." They were never forbidden from editing Wikipedia (and it's strange that you would claim to know so much about internal policy of an organization you otherwise have claimed you know little about - never-mind that that's not the policy). At any rate, the Kazakh Wikipedia is now run by the Kazakh government. It was run by the Nazarbayev regime at the time you rewarded the Kazakh government propaganda official Rauan Kenzhekhanuly with "Wikipedian of the year." It is still run by the Nazarbayev regime. It will be run by the regime for the foreseeable future. That has been the succesful Nazarbayev regime strategy for Wikipedia - and a model that's incredibly easy for other dictators to emulate, thanks to the Wikimedia's own policies and actions. Or perhaps better: Non-actions.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. When I was informed, I inquired. When I inquired, I was told (a) that he was editing in his own time (very common in such organizations, for example chapter employees are often active wikipedians) and I was told (b) that this would stop. I'd like to ask you: what actions are you recommending at this time?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd pull the plug on the servers if I'd let my supposed encyclopedia be coopted as part of a propaganda exercise of a more than usually unsavory dictator. Then I'd begin a major initiative at board level to hire area specialists to supervise the various small Wikipedia's that are completely unsupervised and are tailor made for the brand-sweetening exercises of thugs like Nazarbayev. Language and academic expertise would be required. Ignorance is only bliss to the criminally arrogant and irresponsible.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dependency matrix

Of course you know very well that it sounds cool if you say they are "completely independent" while omitting to make clear that you mean completely independent of the Wikimedia Foundation. To help out, here is a matrix connecting the four different entities.

This chart is misleading and confusing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to indicate where you think it is misleading and confusing - thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wales probably means that it doesn't give any indication of the direction of the dependency. In other words, when we look at the chart, are you suggesting that the government of Kazakhstan is entirely dependent on Wikibilim for the survival of the government? Not likely, but it could be interpreted that way. Whole milch (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The box you are reading is almost certainly meant to be read in this direction "Wikibilim is entirely dependent on the Kazakh government" - and that's certainly true at some level (though the relationship is via a grant that I'm told had no content stipulations in it, one can assume that Wikibilim employees whatever their personal views would not feel comfortable and secure writing in an NPOV way about human rights in Kazakhstan, etc.). --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I thought your position was that Wikibilim was entirely independent of the government? Peter Damian (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not my position. Never has been since they secured their major funding from Samruk-Kazna. I wish they had never sought nor received that funding, although it is understandable that they would naturally turn to their government for a grant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibilim employees forbidden from editing Wikipedia?

"Indeed, when I last checked, [Wikbilim] employees are forbidden from editing Wikipedia." - Jimmy Wales, Dec. 25 2015. I already pointed out above the Kazakh Wikipedia article on the Zhanaozen massacre, a labour protest where 14 civilians were killed by police and 60 or more were wounded in the shooting. The article calls the same event Жаңаөзен оқиғасы, loosely "Zhanaozen Story". I should have added that the article was almost exclusively written by user:Ashina, who is an active administrator on the Kazakh Wikipedia to this day. Weirdly, Wikipedia's rules on censorship forbid me from mentioning the real life name of 'Ashina', but his occupation is Head of the Astana office at Bilim Media Group, where his work includes Government relations and communications. Previously he was employed in other government and corporate communications positions. The justification for not employing real names is that dictatorships may bring pressure on Wikipedia editors. But of course this equally works the other way round. Wikipedia secrecy rules make it difficult to identify when governments have infiltrated Wikipedia projects.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Kazakh government's line has not been that nothing untoward happened in Zhanaozen. Nazarbayev sacked his son-in-law Kulibayev over the affair, and governor Krymbek Kusherbayev (Rauan's erstwhile boss in Mangystau, now his boss again in Kyzylorda) resigned when Nazarbayev visited, presumably to help Nazarbayev save face. Kusherbayev certainly never fell out of favour with Nazarbayev. [11]

I can only report on what I've been told. Thank you for looking into it further. What action do you propose?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed action

I think it's really up to the WMF, but here is a suggestion. Why can't WMF hire a person, based outside Kazakhstan, but proficient in the Kazakh language, to make more accurate translations of articles in the KZ Wikipedia, so that the WMF can assess for accuracy and so on. The WMF should also investigate the administration of the encyclopedia to ensure that it really is independent, and not run by Wikibilim or the government or whoever. Or something on those lines. Intended outcome: determine whether the encyclopedia really is independent. If not, remove its charter. Peter Damian (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What 'charter' do you mean?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Peter Damian (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, no organization in Kazakhstan has permission to use the Wikipedia trademarks. As with every language version of Wikipedia, Kazakh language Wikipedia is hosted on Wikimedia Foundation servers and is 100% under the legal control of the WMF. There is no trademark agreement to revoke with anyone.

I'm surprised this organizational information isn't known to you, but assuming good faith, I suppose what you are suggesting is that the WMF could remove the logo from the website? That wouldn't do very much, since it's all about the domain name and the inbound links. Other options that you might be suggesting, such as closing down the Kazakh language Wikipedia (or deleting the content to start over or something like that) don't strike me as particularly helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in the WMF organization, for from it, but it seems to me that something called the 'KZ Wikipedia' (Уикипедия) is borrowing the Wikimedia brand somehow. What about establishing the facts first, namely my suggestion of hiring an expert translator. I have used Google translate to look at some of the articles and they do not seem to be neutral. Furthermore, WMF could easily investigate who actually is controlling the content of KZ Wikipedia. After the investigation, a decision could be made whether or not to continue with the KZ encyclopedia. Peter Damian (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note here that it has a whacking great Wikimedia/Wikipedia logo on the top left, and says 'A Wikimedia project' on the bottom right. Peter Damian (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Kazakh Wikipedia is under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation in the same way as the English Wikipedia is. It isn't "borrowing" the brand any more than the English Wikipedia is. You are forgiven for misunderstanding, given the level of misinformation from people who claim/hint otherwise. In terms of the WMF conducting an investigation, I support the idea. Too many of the people in this conversation who are making claims seem to have as their primary interest attacking me, rather than genuine concern for freedom of expression in Kazakhstan.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an ambiguity in the term 'Kazakh Wikipedia'. You take it to mean the servers. I take it to mean what is sometimes called the 'mind and management' of an entity. But if you think it is appropriate for WMF to conduct an investigation, that would be a good start. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, who is the 'mind and management' of any Wikipedia? It usually isn't the chapters, for example. It's usually an ArbCom or the ArbCom+active admins.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a separate question here. There was a "fast track" approval of the trademark licence agreement with WikBilim in 2011. Something very out of the ordinary must have happened for Wikibilim to get this, less than a month after they first communicated with WMF, and barely a month after Wikibilim was established. Do you know anything about this? See the timeline below. Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know little more than your timeline, and I would not have been able to construct that today without a lot of work. I can say this - nothing strikes me as out of the ordinary at all about any of it. Indeed, since that time, we have become more liberal with allowing user groups to use the marks for events, etc. And I think we should be even more liberal than we are today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline, 2011

• 4 May 2011 – The registration of WikiBilim Public Foundation (per Wikimedia Meta page) takes place.
• June 2011 - Nartay Ashim contacts Wikimedia Foundation. WMF agreed to send Mr Ting Chen. It was June 2011. We tried to involve many parties as we could. We communicated with the business and academia, research centers. Kazakh Encyclopedia agreed to donate paper based materials, they are not even old. It is National encyclopedia. We involved the students from International IT University in Almaty.
• 1 June 2011 – According to statements made on Wikimedia Meta, Nokia Kazakhstan signs an agreement to sponsor a Wikipedia article writing contest (awarding mobile phones to winning writers).
• 8 June 2011 – According to the Wikimedia Meta page, WikiBilim signs a Trademark License Agreement with Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
• 16 June 2011 – Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees Chair, Ting Chen, visits Almaty, Kazakhstan. On a Wikimedia Meta page, WikiBilim indicates it received a letter of support from the CEO of the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation, providing financial sponsorship to WikiBilim (including laptops for winning participants in the Wikipedia article writing contest). WikiBilim conducts a press conference (with participation of Ting Chen, Murat Abenov (member of Kazakhstan parliament and future Deputy Minister of Education and Science), Bauyrzhan Zhakyp (Chief Editor of the government-published Kazakh Encyclopedia), and A. Tutykin (Deputy Head of Kazcontent JSC).

"Ting Chen of the Wikimedia Foundation attending the press conference said that 'the Foundation is considering launching a regional office in Kazakhstan. Altogether, there are a total of 30 representation offices. I believe Kazakhstan stands all chances to be home to one', he said."

Reported on Wikimeta: "On June 16, 2011 in Almaty, Kazakhstan chapter creation initiative group organized the first WP events. It had been press-conference and presentation of the web-page with kazakh video & PDF tutorials and start of Wiki-campaign dedicated to 20th independence anniversary. Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the WMF Mr.Ting Chen, Head of Kazakh Encyclopedia Mr. B.Zhakyp, Parliament deputy Mr. M.Abenov (internet advocate), co-founder of Wikibilim Foundation Mr.Rauan Kenzhekhanuly, deputy chair of JS "KazKontent" (state agency responsible for development of Kazakh internet) had participated in the event. Also Mr.Ting Chen held a seminar on Wikipedia and WMF development. [13]

• Ting Chen wing.philopp at gmx.de Fri Jun 17 20:32:55 UTC 2011 I was mostly on travel last week, and had visited Almaty, Kazakhstan. Something really remarkable is happenning there. Our volunteers there had started to organize a nationwide movement and had found support in the politics, companies and media. The Kazakh Encyclopedia had decided to put its up-to-date 16-band encyclopedia under a free licence. There are initiatives in the parliament to make the copyright law more clear and supportive in respect of free-licenses, and the biggest national welfare fund "Samruk-Kazyna" had decided to fund activities to build up the Kazakh Wikipedia. Our volunteers there are going to start ambassador programs in the universities in Almaty and had set the very ambitious goal to expand the Kazakh Wikipedia into 200k articles until December 16th, the 20th independance [sic] day of the Republic Kazakhstan, not by using bots, but by writing and translating qualified articles. That would mean about ten fold of the article amount than at the moment. It was on my way from airport back how when I got the first congratulations, before I got know the result.
• June 20, 2011 - The Wikimedia Foundation holds a board meeting via IRC. Ting Chen and Jimmy were both in attendance.

Other possible actions

I will leave it up to the community to make their suggestions, but other actions could include:

• Put a banner on the Kazakh Wikipedia, visible on every content page, pointing out to readers, in Kazakh and English, that significant parts of the Kazakh Wikipedia's content are non-free and/or reflect the Kazakh government's view only, and advising them that they should consult other Wikipedias to get a more rounded view of certain topics. The WMF and the community should collaborate to work out an appropriate wording for this on Meta. Peter Damian (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, all of it is "free" in the sense of the license. As has happened in other countries, the copyright was donated. In terms of pointing out the bias, it strikes me as overkill to place it on every single page. Would it not be better to work with the community there to be sure that NPOV notices are placed liberally whenever they are needed? And to be prepared to deadmin and make new admins if it turns out the existing admins are not acting in accordance with our principles? Obviously, all of this sort of thing should follow not precede a thorough study of the situation there. Trusting a bunch of people who don't read Kazakh and who have a long history of trying to discredit me with an insane view that I'm a supporter of the regime in Kazakhstan is hardly a proper process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support these proposals (i.e. make a thorough and independent study, then work with the community on KZWP to be sure that NPOV notices are placed liberally whenever they are needed, and be prepared to desysop or create new admins where necessary. Peter Damian (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to you before regarding this topic and after a year of suppression still I am unable to bring the subject to main space. The topic is Involuntary celibacy, the ongoing DRV can be found here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 21.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)
• First DRV
• Second DRV
• RfC request
• Third DRV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination)

I have provided the full history for any page stalker wishing to participate. There is an overabundance of sources which shows the concept has over a century of research and study. This is certainly not fringe nor WP:NEO. The reason for this concept's suppression may be political because as far as I can tell it passes every GNG and NPOV guideline. There was also a great deal of of wikicanvassing in favor of deletion all of which I provided in the DRV including your comment from March 16th of this year. I hoping for your input for or against, so far not one editor endorsing deletion as provided reasons based on the most recent AfD. I feel this is the prime example for what happens when editors mobbed together and vote WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If administrator can supervote and override both consensus and policy then editing Wikipedia becomes difficult. I really hoped to rectify this issue before the year's end. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to bring it as it is a neologism that reifies a complex and sad phenomenon that has diverse aspects to it. Pages like this serve to lead suffering people down wrong paths rather than seeking proper professional help or reading about conditions and causes that have been studied and validated. What you are doing is extremely ignorant and potentially harmful to others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. pages such as Social isolation, Social anxiety, Avoidant personality disorder, Adjustment disorder, Sexual frustration, Human sexual activity, Sexual orientation, Intimate relationship and Mood disorder (and related aritcles) among many others are areas that should have more pertinent material that relates to the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying involuntary celibacy is the same thing as those conditions? It is clear that people that have those conditions may be involuntary celibates, but the term is obviously its own thing the job of an encyclopedia is to document this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like this I think it is clear that editors are attempted to ensure their views prevail rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. It is human nature to become defensive when proven wrong sometimes to the point of violence. In the case of Wikipedia, it becomes impossible to edit when those in power mob together maintain status quo. I fear that this current DRV will be closed as no consensus to overturn when there clearly is solid reasons to overturn, the only way to combat this it override incorrect closures when editors fail to bring reasoning to retain deletion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: And you expect Jimbo to do what exactly? Smells like a bit of WP:FORUMSHOP to me... Mdann52 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, I am saying what you believe to be involuntary celibacy is a misconception of a complex scenario that encompasses many subjects - those I have listed are a partial list. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A good rule of thumb on Wikipedia is: if someone's main argument against deleting a topic is "suppression", the article probably should not exist. Nobody is suppressing anything, the problem is (and always has been) your attempts to use Wikipedia to blaze the trail in getting this term accepted. Do we really have to explain, yet again, why we don't do that? Guy (Help!) 14:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good rule of thumb, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The main argument against deleting the topic is that it is notable. The main argument for deleting the topic appears to be variants of IDONTLIKEIT. Take another look. If a term is used in the media on a regular basis in major publications, and if the subculture of "incel" is written up by major publications, then people will turn to Wikipedia to learn more. It's like "homeopathy" - we may not like it, but we know the best thing to do is write about it neutrally and fairly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy I am not the type of editor to recklessly apply information suppression if you've seen the offwiki harassment message you will know this suppression is indeed political. I've avoided mentioning what the message pertained to for the sake of neutrality. I just listed the sources on the page, they were provided as links during the AfD, however it is unlikely those in favor of deletion have read those links so I listed them plainly if this is not suppression then what is it? Cas Liber I agree that the subject is complex and many types of involuntary celibacy may exist, our job here is to document them and I've never heard of this as a reason to delete, in fact if this was a deletion rationale we would not have an encyclopedia at all. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy-related reason to delete is that is not notable - it was concocted by a single team of researchers, was not generally taken up, except by some web-based people with some bare circulation. My opinion is that its subject matter is enmeshed in medical and psychological (as well as sociological) topics and hence should abide by sourcing for medical articles - i.e. reliable peer-reviewed secondary sources - as we are talking about peoples' health and livelihood here. My ethical reason for getting rid of it is that it is misleading and potentially harmful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber based on your edits, I believe you have a science background. Nearly all studies begin with a single group if not a singular individual this, however, has not. The concept began, based on my research in 1916, the source termed it involuntary abstinence, before the teetotal movement when abstinence referred to sexual activity over substance abuse. It was among the first serious sexology studies and thus notable. The argument that we should ignore this is inherently flawed not only for an encyclopedia, but for research itself. I assume your fear is not based on GNG policy, but social protection. This is the same ideology applied by dictatorships and is naturally dangerous. I've highlighted a century of sources covering this topic we are progressive our only hope is NPOV so that an uneducated viewer understands the depth of the concept he or she is reading. Please reconsider. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reflects sources - it doesn't do original research. You wanna research it? Fine, go write a paper and get it submitted to a journal. Seriously, you're missing the point about this whole schmozzle and reifying something that is warping understanding of it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Cas Liber, there appear to be a great many sources. You seem to be making the error of assuming that there need to be academic sources, but this is a social movement / social phenomenon sufficiently covered in mainstream high quality magazines and newspapers, not a scientific concept. A good article would note exactly what you've said above - that this is a concept that has not been taken up by professional medical researchers in any serious way. Compare: homeopathy and other such pseudo-science - we don't say "this subject matter is enmeshed in medical and psychological topics" and refuse to have an article if those don't support the concept. Instead, we provide a public service by explaining to people that a term they heard about in the media or floating around on the web is not a scientific term.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm shocked by the response I've provided sources which clearly show this not OR. Anything wrong with the sources I provided? We can discuss this by email if you'd like I don't see any benefit on flooding Jimbo's page at this point. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering what enormous impact Wikipedia has, no wonder that this neologism is fought for. I don't have Casliber's medical and science background, but I do have all the other background to be able to dicern a little here - philosophy, the term celibacy and a lot of confusion in defining the subject. Wikipedia is nowadays the number one for acknowledging any term, so - one must be careful. This is a WP:NEO that has some severe definition problems. If we do publish this article - it will blow - because these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. It needs to be written - if it should be written with great care, and not the way it is suggested now. that would not be proper and cautious... Hafspajen (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo, I believe I am allowed to appeal an ArbCom decision on your Talk page. My request for an amendment by ArbCom regarding a previous decision of theirs has just been archived, which I guess is their way of saying they have rejected my request. This means my posting here to you is my last avenue of appeal. This request is not based on any intricate wiki-lawyering or tortuous argument, rather, it is based on a simple matter of principle. I have been topic banned from an area in which I have never edited. Despite my asking for evidence of such editing, none has been produced by any user or arbitrator. I feel it is a very dangerous precedent for ArbCom to ban editors from places they have not even edited, let alone disrupted. My original posting here for you to look at my request was piggy-backed by numerous other editors making diverse (often unrelated) points, which I am sure would have made reading my request rather tedious. I will therefore re-post my request on my talk page which I will keep clean of other edits in the relevant thread (other editors please note). I hope this is OK. Please feel free to comment either there, or here. I thank you in advance for considering my request.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a fool of yourself, Doc. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've just been caught intervening in discussions about GMOs and human health at Precautionary principle[14] these protestations ring rather hollow. This excessively shrill & legalistic rebellion against your sanctions will, I suggest, shortly exhaust the patience of the community and result in a permanent ban. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate request made according to an accepted and recommended process. Please stop bullying.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DrChrissy. Bullies, begone. Jusdafax 05:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DrChrissy and Jusdafax. The first two comments after the OP do indeed look like bullying to me. One is a plain gaslighting "You're stupid, doc, just go home" comment and the other is an attempt to poison the well by introducing the flavor of a bad character reputation to the OP by calling this request an "excessively shrill & legalistic rebellion against your sanctions" for a very civil appeal. SageRad (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, the problem here is that wherever you edit, you consider that your opinion, and only yours, is correct and valid. That's why you got topic-banned over your promotion of quackery, and it's why you got topic-banned from GMOs. You are the very embodiment of WP:IDHT, and your response to any answer you don't like is simply to ignore it and ask again. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am following a legitimate and accepted process of appeal. Your bullying attempts to discredit me and poison the well for a totally acceptable action are extremely unwelcome here - especially considering you are an admin. Please stop following me around and leaving inflammatory and highly inaccurate statements about me.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what it might say in da rulez, Jimbo has never overruled an Arbcom decision and most probably he never will. Really, his name should be stricken from the policy as a valid course of appeal IMO. I don't agree with the decision myself either and its been my experience that Arbcom decisions are generally negative in their outcome. But the Arbcom has established themselves so that once they have made their decision there is no way to appeal it, change it or revoke it. Even a community RFC or discussion with consensus cannot revoke it. Good luck! Maj Turmoil (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no bullying. I see other editors advising User:DrChrissy that the continuing efforts to appeal the ArbCom decision to Jimbo (when Jimbo has not overruled an ArbCom decision in a very long time) is tendentious. I have in the past seen editors who tend to see disagreement and advice not to oppose consensus as bulllying, and I am beginning to think that User:DrChrissy is another such editor who sees bullying when there is disagreement. In particular, heed the comment of User:Alexbrn, which is not bullying, but a good-faith reminder that continuing to protest at such length may exhaust the patience of the community and result either in an expanded topic-ban from discussing topic-bans or even in a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the policy that states that there is an option to appeal to Jimbo should be either deleted or replaced with instructions on how to appeal to the WMF, if there is a privilege to appeal to the WMF. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What then is the point of imposing a topic ban on an editor who has never edited the topic? This seems to me to be a gross overreach of the Arbcom's power and frankly a waste of time. If anyone were given a topic ban on a topic they hadn't edited with broadly construed discretion to block them on sight, they would be understandably annoyed. In this case, DrChrissy is topic banned from editing GMO's but the topic ban explicitly exempts genetically modified animals. I didn't know that and I suspect others won't either. So its only a matter of time before some well meaning admin blocks her using broadly construed discretion because they modified an article that appeared to be related to a GMO. Then, that block is on record and right or wrong, its a hit for life and will be continuously used against them. So why even topic ban them if they have never edited the topic area and are exempted from the topic they do participate in? Its a setup for future failure. Maj Turmoil (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Jimbo Wales,

fyi

Please see, particularly: "Kevin: "Yes, "abuse of discretion" would be a good way to describe the standard. That's really the standard when we review any administrative actions—...." Seraphimblade

User:Jimbo Wales, I can not imagine you expected the Arbitration Committee to unilaterally change its mandate wherein it now takes on the characteristics of some Southern U.S. State Appeals Courts; i.e., no matter how wrong headed the decision and/or cruel and unusual the punishment decision meted out to an individual by a lower authority,i.e. Administrator(s), the higher authority, i.e. the [[Arbitration Committee] will not entertain an appeal unless there is extreme and undeniable evidence, and a consensus reached by the Arbitration Committee, of what the ArbCom members are labeling as "abuse of discretion" by one or more Administrators who meted out the punishment.

I am wondering "why" the Arbitration Committee would make such a drastic reduction in its authority and remedial effect upon the checks and balances within Wikipedia. The change obviously makes it much easier to quickly discharge appeals without much time spent with thought or reading, by simply browsing to see if there are any glaring evidence of Administrator "abuse of discretion". However, from a democratic process perspective, few initiators would even think of framing an appeal as an "abuse of discretion" appeal; even I had to go back and add to my statement once the ArbCom members specified that "abuse of discretion" is now the impossibly high standard ( especially by consensus ) that must be proved by the initiator.

Kevin, A brave(imo) and concerned Arbcom Clerk, bravely recused himself to make a statement in the middle of this Request for Amendment to bring this concern to all our attention

Kevin in his recusal and statement first brings up this change in ArbCom policy i.e. to only change an Administrator's discretionary decision when there is a determination by consensus, by ArbCom, that an obvious "abuse of discretion" has occurred, so perhaps Kevin's edit is more credible for you to read than my own view of the importance of what is happening on Arbitration Committee.

Worse of all, from a common sense viewpoint, this change in mandate presents a non-climbable conundrum, imo, since we must all AGF with whatever the Administrator has done or decided. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I see at that request, is that Kevin simply wanted to ask a few questions and offer his opinion on the matter, and thus rightly recused himself from further clerking. There was no "brave recusal to bring this concern to all our attention", nor is there any reduction of authority to a rubber stamp. This was a clarification of which you don't like the outcome. Everthing you have written here is either false, or hyperbole.--Atlan (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No,Atlan, your lack of AGF re: I "don't like the outcome" is wrong and, although perhaps unintentionally on your part, has the effect of being simply an ad hominem(see "motive") and strawman deflection of thought and discussion of this important matter to the lowly ad-hominem level. Only I know what my motivation is for trying to bring this to User:Jimbo Wales's attention, and, believe me, it is not solely or even mostly in relation to my own case before Arbcom. Also, what I have written here is not false, as a review of the edits I link to will show any who wish to see the reality of what I am saying. Your dismissive use of the word "Hyperbole", although common in online discourse, does not fit here as I have exaggerated nothing, as interested editors can see for themselves. I suggest you read thoroughly the Arbitrators' discussion here and think about what the words actually are meaning. Also, Kevin,L235, imo, had a real and valid concern to raise, a similar concern to what I bring up here, in fact, I am only repeating, albeit in a more wordy way, what he said. You can not diminish his action and words to simply "a few questions and offer an opinion" as he could have easily done that after this Amendment request was dealt with and/or in private or talk page discussions with Arbitration Committee members. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Atlan said. You're not a Brave Warrior Against The Forces Of Corruption, you're someone kvetching over a decision you didn't agree with. Arbcom's standard, with regards to allegations of admin abuse, has always been "Is this decision defensible within Wikipedia policy?", not "Would I have made the same decision?". ‑ Iridescent 20:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is not defensible within Wikipedia policy; and those are not the words being applied today; the words today are "abuse of discretion", which, in my English, is a much higher bar to reach. Your other assumptions about my point of view are, as with most assumptions, dead wrong. I am a very old man just trying to fight what I see as being a destructive and/or stupid abuse of discretion and authority within our community; no bravery and no corruption are involved at all.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to make it clear that all I was doing was clearing a procedural question by the Committee, not raising a concern to the community or even commenting on the merits of the appeal. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, you have brought into the daylight something within the ArbCom process which few editors know, imo, i.e. that "abuse of discretion" is seen by ArbCom Members as the only standard by which they should/will overturn a decision by an Administrator, regardless of how obviously wrong or unusually punitive that decision may be. And since we are bound to Assume "Good" Faith, and since "abuse" by definition involves "bad" faith,then I don't see how ArbCom can ever overturn a decision by an Administrator. Thus,our Administrators, or a couple of them together, have dictatorial authority. And perhaps just as bad, ArbCom has embraced a standard which has the effect, whether intended or not, of making their work a whole lot easier as it will usually be unnecessary for them to actually read thoroughly any matters related to Administrator decisions( they can just browse looking for "abuse of discretion" sticking out like a sore thumb, and simply say "decline" very quickly, as was done in my case by one "Arbitrator"). Any clear thinking editor who reviews the Request for Enforcement which resulted in a topic wide ban from US politics since 1932 against me, an 8 year editor with many thousands of productive edits and no blocks at all, will see a blatant overreaching and misrepresentation by the Administrator who decided upon the topic ban within 1 day of the request for a ban from editing 1 single BLP. And if ArbCom is self-limiting itself to a nonsensical standard which only serves to enable abuse of authority and discretion, which because of AGF can never be seen as such, then the foundation of Wikipedia is under attack; not by intent nor individuals, but by double think and the evaporation of critical thinking among most of us, imo. Perhaps its a good time to remember the Essjay controversy as many of us are giving so much leeway to Administrators and Arbitrators, as Essjay was both and accorded the same high levels of leeway.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been announced that by an 8-2 vote, James Heilman has been removed from the WMF Board — the legally governing entity of WMF. The resolution published by the Board LINK is absolutely devoid of any rationale for this radical step. An explanation of why one of three democratically elected community representatives to the Board was summarily removed is to be expected. As JW is one of the 8 Board members voting to remove Dr. Heilman, I ask him here now to comment. Thanks. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread about this at Wikimedia-l but it currently has no further information. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Text from the mailing list:

Dear all,

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of the
Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective
immediately.

This was not a decision the Board took lightly. The Board has a
responsibility to the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation to
ensure that the Board functions with mutual confidence to ensure effective
governance. Following serious consideration, the Board felt this removal
decision was a necessary step at this time. The resolution will be
published shortly.

This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee>
to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
steps.

Patricio Lorente

Chair, Board of Trustees

Wikimedia Foundation

• — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add me to those asking for a much more detailed response here, whether from you or the Board as a body. If eight people are going to overrule more than 1800, we need a better reason than the current one, which essentially boils down to "Because we can." Maybe this is defensible, but as things stand, it smells very bad. An explanation should have been immediately forthcoming upon the removal of a community Board member elected with overwhelming support. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to thank Doc James for all the work he has done on Wikipedia.

If there is going to be a quick replacement - and there probably should be - I'll suggest that User:Raystorm, who finished 4th in the election and had the highest number of supports is the obvious choice, followed by User:Phoebe, who finished 5th. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is shocking. Unless a rock solid explanation is given, then James Heilman should be replaced by . . . James Heilman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be? Given Dr. Heilman's standing in the community, I think it's fair to say that, pending further clarification, the Board's lack of trust in him reflects a lack of trust in the community as well. If so, why should the community hurry to participate in manufacturing consent for whatever the Board intends? I think the example of the electors of Middlesex in 1769 is much more to the purpose. Choess (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I'll add my voice to be keen to hear why. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation could be fairly benign, such as Dr. Heilman consistently being unavailable for WMF business. After all he's a doctor (an ER doctor to boot) and so has lots of unpredictable demands on his time. There are other explanations that would be more concerning -- such as WMF politics or a serious breach of protocol related to confidentiality or the like. The bottom line is that we just don't know. The longer an explanation takes, the more people will speculate. So a timely explanation will be helpful to all concerned. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that first explanation. Emergency room physicians tend to work regular, predictable schedules, except during disasters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it seemed to some that I was rushing things above. I'd claim to be Doc James's biggest supporter on Wikipedia, except that I know there are many others who would also like to claim that honor. I do think that the community should continue to be represented by 3 seats on the board, so a replacement is needed. I do assume good faith by all parties involved. If Doc is not contesting this, there is likely nothing to contest. In short the only possible explanation is that the board and Doc held incompatible views on the direction of the WMF. It would be good to hear what those views are, and get further community input on them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly hope there's a benign explanation for it, and I'm not exactly proud to be out in front shouting "Wilkes and liberty!", but if so, it's remarkably cack-handed. I'm on the board of a much smaller non-profit, and if we had to vote out one of our number, I'd expect us to do so with great deliberation, and to have some sort of explanation at hand when we did so, even if it was rather non-specific. As you say, the longer this goes on, the more people will come to believe they're being given a non-explanation because the explanation can't be made palatable to the community. Choess (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? John Wilkes fought for the right of his voters—rather than the House of Commons—to determine their representatives. In 1768 angry protests of his supporters were suppressed in the St George's Fields Massacre, when government soldiers opened fire on demonstrators that had gathered at St George's Fields, Southwark in south London. The protest was against the imprisonment of the radical Member of Parliament John Wilkes for writing an article that severely criticised King George III. After the reading of the Riot Act telling the crowds to disperse within the hour, six or seven people were killed when fired on by troops. In 1771, Wilkes was instrumental in obliging the government to concede the right of printers to publish verbatim accounts of parliamentary debates. In 1776, he introduced the first Bill for parliamentary reform in the British Parliament. During the American War of Independence, he was a supporter of the American rebels. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "Because we can." seems to be in fashion. This is so similar to my issue in the section above this one, of being topic banned for no real reason at all, even in light of my 8 years of thousands of productive edits and no blocks at all, especially the argument "Because we can." as expressed quite ironically by Seraphimblade. Now you all know how I feel! So, I wonder if you'll take this "abuse of discretion" all meek and mild like you expect me to take mine??? In the meantime, I will join you in this fight simply because I am and have been for 8 years a vibrant and constructive member of this community and will continue to be so. "He who sacrifices some freedom for some security deserves neither and will lose both". Benjamin Franklin,Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, your attempt to vary a topic ban is not analogous with the forced removal of a community-elected WMF trustee. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Because we can" mentality at work is all that I am saying is similar. I think this "because we can" mentality and modus operandi was dramatically boosted and promoted by events General Wesley Clark identified quite a few years ago: and the subject matter the General is talking about is far more important to Wikipedia and everything else than this or my "because we can" episodes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say. WMF legal has asked the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues. Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For now, please be patient. Accuracy is critically important here, and to have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more likely to give rise to confusions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the few properly elected members of the board, so there have to extremely severe reasons to ditch him. Just because you can will mean the rest of the board has proven it's untrustworthiness. The communities are the proper sovereigns of the wikiverse, not the more and more disconnected bureaucrats in the foundation. The foundation is just a service organisation,it's bosses are the communities. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 10:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo, that is really fine to blame James for your own actions. --.js (((☎))) 11:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way did I do that? I did not. I merely gave you a very clear, transparent, honest and NPOV explanation of why this was announced in this fashion. We were having a meeting about it, and hadn't begun to discuss how to give the full explanation to the community in fairness to everyone, and James decided to simply announce it without explaining anything. That's just what happened, it's a fact. If you take it as "blaming" him in some way, you are reaching beyond what I said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either this was a long vented decision, then the explanation should come in syncron with the decision. Or it was some emergency, then at least that should be made clear. This are the only two valid circumstances for this decision against the communities, so some kind of explanation is not only possible but necessary. If you refuse to give any of this two valid explanations, you say that the decision was not valid. It may be valid in a legalistic way, but that's just bollocks. It has to be morally sound and legitimate, everything else cries for a complete new board. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision against the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<squeeze>He was elected by the community, and thus was fully vetted. Most of those who voted against him are just poorly vetted members, without a proper community backing. So this was a vote by more or less random bureaucrats against the community, full stop. If this was not a decision against the community, what do you consider as such? The community should always have the last call over bureaucrats, WMF is just a service organisation for the community. Unfortunately they fail to see this and quite often regard themselves as something better. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 23:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how exactly has he failed the community, again? odder (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I dunno. Maybe we'll find out when the statement is released. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am not so much worried about removing a person from the board. there are so many different characters and opinions in this movement that i find it an illusion to believe everybody can work with everybody. it is human, and it is ok. personally i like to read differing opinions and background information about the reasoning as this advances the cause and tends to involve more people, deeper. i like this also in a group like the WMF board - it always frightens me a little when i see 9-0 votes. but _if_ a vote is passed, i'd expect the whole group to stand by it, no matter of the individual opinion in creating this result. what i consider quite paradox though is that we trust ourselves as a community that we can produce wikipedia in a way we define it. Jimmy, why can we not trust this same community to judge if a board member is a good board member, in a legally binding way? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the remaining board comes up with a good reason. I've met Doc James personally, and know about his merits in our project; I won't accept any weakish legalese putoff. --MBq (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Doc James's statement "I have done what I believe is in the best interest of our movement". If legal takes out a specific explanation of what, specifically, Doc James did and tries to lose it in soft corners and vagaries, I will personally find that insufficient. Doc James took strong positions on matters that divide this community, including some the board has in the past acted on. The community elected him (and should elect his replacement, in my view, no fourth-place runners up please) and needs to know what, specifically, its representative did to get kicked off the board and not go quietly. His not going quietly (evidenced by his vote against) puts this back into the lap of the community. If he had resigned, that would be quite another thing, the matter would be resolved and we might not need to know. I'm content to wait and see, but the community does need to know the utmost possible. We may be dealing from the fallout from this for some time to come, especially if Doc James remains active outside the board or seeks a new mandate from the community, which he has every right to, he has not been banned.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there has to be a new election, and DocJames must take part in it. If the community will elect him again, that's would be a harsh vote of non-confidence towards the non-elected members of that club. Only elected members have a proper vetting to belong there, non-elected members are imho some kind of second class members, they miss any real community backing. And community backing is the absolutely highest level of confidence in a community project. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 14:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• James Heilman is a good Wikipedian in my estimation, but some of the things people write above are without foundation. The winner in his election was by 900 votes nuetral, which means even for the Wikimedians who voted it was not any mandate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant mandate in the strict sense of election victory, nothing more.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy. Thanks for sharing your perspective. You said: "Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say." My comment is: The Board went to the meeting knowing that there will be a vote on James' removal, so the Board knew that there was a chance that James would be removed by the end of that meeting. In this case, is it fair to say that the Board should have prepared an announcement before going to the meeting, in case that announcement needed to be used? I understand that the Board members have a lot on their plates, being in the middle of the holiday season doesn't help, and the resources are limited, but given the position the Board has and the importance of this recent vote, I expected some more preparedness. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we should have had a prepared statement in advance. The meeting was entered into in good faith by all parties, and the outcome was in no way a foregone conclusion. It would be premature to prepare a statement before there was a chance to have a full discussion among all the board members, including James. This wasn't a kangaroo court to rubber stamp a pre-written decision and announcement. What would have been better, in my view, is if James had waited to announce it in a time and manner that both his perspective and that of other board members could be presented fully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I gently suggests this sounds like poor planning? If ejecting James was one of the possible outcomes of the meeting, those prepared to do so should have planned for it as a contingency (not a certainty), along with the possibilities that he might resign amicably, or might modify his position on the issue of contention. If the Board wanted time to craft a mutually acceptable statement of the affair with James, perhaps it would have been wiser to remove him after, rather than before, the statement could be prepared.

I can certainly envision scenarios in which the judgment of the majority of Board was correct and James was wrong (say, involving a conflict over funding the editing of medical content). I'm having more trouble imagining a scenario wherein it becomes necessary to remove James from the Board at once, rather than a week from now. There may yet be one. But it seems churlish to remove him from the Board, effective immediately, and then feel aggrieved that he made that event known on the same timeline you provided him. I don't prejudge you, but I hope there was one heck of an emergency to justify these steps. Choess (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Will the minutes of the meeting be posted with other meeting's minutes or elsewhere. When can we expect to have them posted? If they will not be posted then why not? Jbh^Talk 18:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, was shocked Doc James was ever appointed to the board in the first place, just from seeing his work on WP. While probably 80 percent of his edits are positive for the project, he does have some areas of questionable judgment, topics where he creates bitter divides, and acts entirely against the principles of the project. On several occasions, I have questioned his maturity to even handle being an administrator, much less a WMF board member. If this were Guy Kawasaki, I would be shocked, but I know that in the case of Doc James the board must have had its reasons and then some. You will find no criticism of this decision from me. LesVegas (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one would expect criticism of the decision from you, given your history of disagreements with James. But I'd at least expect you to refrain from gratuitous grave-dancing, particularly when you (like most of the rest of us) know absolutely nothing about the actual facts underlying the decision. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No gratuitous grave dancing was intended, merely I was a bit tired of seeing all of Doc James's buddies angry at Jimbo over this and I was simply trying to give another perspective. Sure, nobody knows the details, but I'd be shocked if the shortcomings in character that I see in Doc James weren't also seen by the board. Unlike his little WP fan-club, nobody on the board worships him as a deity. When that's the case, it's much easier to judge his disposition and makeup. LesVegas (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what's it's worth, I don't see anyone particularly angry with me. And if they were, it wouldn't bother me because there's no reason to be angry at me, so if someone is angry at me, then they are mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should really stop this. There is a time and place to air your grievances but this not it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"shortcomings in character" ← is this kind of PA sanctionable? It probably should be. Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only someone who worships an editor as a deity would think "shortcomings in character" was a PA! Every human being has some shortcomings in character. I happen to believe Doc James has more than many around here perceive, but I suppose that's my opinion, one that I am certainly entitled to. I have my reasons, and many others in the community would also agree, but I agree with Jules that this isn't the time or place to get into all of the specific grievances. I was just simply trying to give Jimmy my support for the board's decision to counterbalance the swath of angry critics. Since I've done that, you won't see me post any more about this. LesVegas (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're supporting a decision in total ignorance of the underlying facts, and based solely on your personal distaste for the person affected. That reflects poorly on you, and more pragmatically, it sets you up to look both petty and foolish when the facts come to light. I don't see people treating James like a "deity" in this thread. I see editors expressing concern that a person elected to the Board by popular vote was removed without explanation, and demanding transparency—both of which seem reasonable under the circumstances. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if i disagree with You Jimbo, but "9 board members posting their own first impressions would be" transparency, not giving out any information is exactly what is "more likely to give rise to confusions".--Emergency doc (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We agree in part and disagree in part. I absolutely agree that "not giving out any information" would be disastrous. Remembering that a man's reputation is at stake here, the responsible thing for the board to do is to consider their statements carefully for absolute accuracy, and also to work with James to ensure that his side of the story is properly heard as well. Bursting onto the wiki with random impressions and thoughts would not be helpful at all. Patience.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, you (the board) had your reasons, but the way, the information came out was already disastrous. Well, I'll be pantient an waiting for information to come...--Emergency doc (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The board could learn a share from the astounding professionalism of the german inner minister: ... please understand why I don't want to give answers to your questions. Why? A part of those answers would irritate the population ... ... oh, did they already? --.js (((☎))) 20:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Jimmy's comment "He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting." The vote had concluded and I had been requested to leave. I had therefore left the meeting before I posted anything and from my perspective the meeting was done.

With respect to board process, the community does not really elect people to the board, there is a community election that provides suggestions to the board that they may or may not approve. Per the board handbook the board is completely within its rights to remove board members without cause by a simple majority. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James:. A question: are you preparing a statement on this matter? Or will you being issuing a joint statement with the WMF board? There is a lot of consternation on what has happened, I really feel this would help. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"from my perspective the meeting was done..." No offense, but you not being in the meeting, does not mean the meeting ended and this does seem a little disgruntled, which causes many to become concerned for many reasons. I don't know, but maybe you should not have reacted immediately.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing Doc James, but sensing from the comments here something about his connection to the community, I would guess he simply felt like sharing with the people he represented as quickly as possible the crucial, bottom line fact of what happened. This is similar to how people react in a family tragedy or major event; immediately get in touch with the the rest of the family with the major news and then soon, very soon thereafter, get into the details. So, I think since he is obviously held in such high regard by many of you, he treated you like family by immediately telling you what he could. It may and is not the way corporate officials are trained to behave....i.e. to wait and come out with a joint and well thought out official statement...but I have a feeling that you should all perhaps be touched that this person who you trust and put his name forth treated you like family when this event happened. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 very good point! --.js (((☎))) 07:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo: If you kick an elected representative out of an official meeting, it is not only predictable that he will asap tell that to his voters, but it is his natural moral obligation to do so (unless he beforehand would have agreed in free will to postpone this information for good reasons). To now attack him that he did so, the (leader of the) board not only shows a huge lack of empathy, but in knowing a bit about the communication tactics of WMF and the board it is clearly visible that the gossip spitting machine called Wikipedia helps putting the outcast in the center of attraction of the gossip investigators and thus drawing the attention away from the honourable persons who casted him out. If this "was" a deliberate communication stragedy one would have to praise it's effectivtiy while it would be morally disgusting.

The still remaining question is: How long will the board (leader/s) let this happen? Until they finally come up with their rendition. The damage is done to the condemned one by not only letting speculations grow and spread what evil he could have done - and never mind the facts, some things will keep sticking on him afterwards. And by writing "a man's reputation is at stake here" and "If a board member fails the community in such a serious way" they even heat up that unsubstantial gossip. Congratulations.

Honestly, Jimmy, please give us a reliable estimate When and where will you give the official statement on this case? (And meanwhile you really should stop circulating rumours.) --.js (((☎))) 07:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the Board of Trustees post advance notice of its meetings and the matters it intends to consider?

While there may be matters involving commercial negotiations, pending legal matters or employer-employee issues which would not be suitable for public airing, I see no reason why a community-driven project like Wikipedia shouldn't provide reasonable advance notice to the community of planned actions of sufficient importance to require Trustee review and approval. Why does the WMF seem determined to forestall input by the community which does so much of the work to implement the activities the WMF is trying to encourage? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF does not want the community to be involved. They want to discourage community input. They will not get involved in the daily activity of improving articles.

The people who voted to remove James Heilman from the Board of Trustees are Patricio Lorente, Alice Wiegand, Frieda Brioschi, Jimmy Wales, Stu West, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Guy Kawasaki, and Denny Vrandečić. The reputation of the WMF and the people who voted to remove James Heilman is at stake here. One of the major problems is that "The Wikimedia Foundation has virtually no influence on what is written in Wikipedia." Wales says "I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do."[15] However, The WMF has failed the community a long time ago. If there were paid editors to deal with the WP:NOTHERE editors things could improve greatly. Admins currently don't police article content. Arbcom does not police article content. Problematic editors continue to make counterproductive edits and try to white-wash articles. The disruption on Wikipedia continues by advocates who are indistinguishable from trolls according to User:Larry Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, your user name just screams loud and clear to me how neutral you will be towards those editors you perceive to be promoting what you feel are "fringe" theories. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps announce some date by which an explanation will be issued. Edison (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect they'll just wait for the next thing to distract attention and hope this dies. That seems to be the normal strategy. Intothatdarkness 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we need to know what happened--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WMF board has gotten the message. If Legal needs to review the statement, WMF will release it on their timetable, not one that is desired by Wikipedia editors. Until more information is released, I'm not sure what else can be done here right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err Liz, you ever worked with management in situations like this? It shouldn't take too long for the people involved to agree on a statement. 48 hours at most. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you know" – that Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania was named after John Wilkes and Isaac Barré? – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies for the future

Jimbo, why should the time or manner that an ejected member chooses to announce the ejection have any bearing at all on when or how the Board chooses to describe the rationale for the ejection to the community?

Will you please support a resolution requiring that board agendas be posted publicly in advance of board meetings, and that the minutes be posted before the next meeting's agenda is finalized, and that votes on unagendized items be deferred until the next meeting?

Would you please support an amendment to the bylaws requiring that a majority of the board be elected by the community? EllenCT (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've explained the answer to the first question quite well already, but let me try again. The ideal pattern here would have been for there to be a clear, transparent and agreed explanation posted by all parties. He announced before we had the chance to formulate a statement that he would approve of. Our choice might have been to post something blunt and damaging to him, but it still seems better that we go slow and make sure that everything is done in a respectful way.

I would support as best practice the public posting of agendas for routine board meetings. I would support that minutes be posted promptly - but before the next meetings agenda is finalized is not really practical because we normally vote to approve the previous meetings minutes at the next meeting - every board I have been on does this. I would not support that unagendized items be deferred until the next meeting - we are working board and we have long board meetings and such a delay would not be helpful in any way.

I do not support any changes to the bylaws around the composition of the board at this time. There is a very unhealthy and plainly false view among some in the community that elected board members are more supportive of the community than appointed. It actually doesn't turn out that way in practice, and with good reason. All board members have a fiduciary duty to the organization, which means that caring about the community - the lifeblood of the organization - comes naturally to everyone.

One more point, which you didn't directly ask about but which I think is relevant - would it have been wise to be public in advance of this board meeting about what we were to consider? Clearly not. Had we made a different decision and allowed James to say, what benefit would there have been to publicly raising a cloud around him. He had made a different decision - to quietly resign, as many of us recommended to him, again there would have been no benefit to making public a cloud around him. It was important to have the meeting privately so that we could talk through the situation before deciding what to do. Remember, a man's public reputation is at risk here. It would be unfair and unwise to go public prematurely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbo, will you support an amendment to the bylaws prohibiting the removal of community-elected trustees without cause? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, as I haven't thought through the detailed implications. But in this case, it isn't relevant as this was a removal for cause.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Maybe state the cause within 24 hours? How long does it take to craft a reason for some seemingly arbitrary action? If you did not have a clear reason for the action, why the hell did you do it? And why is it so hard to state it that a gross delay is required? Edison (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting discussion on BLPN (link) where some editors are saying that a rape victim (viz Jameis Winston) should not be referred to as a "victim" but instead as an "accuser". The reason for insisting on this change, apparently, is that we should retain doubts about whether she was telling the truth -- which I think amounts to saying that we should retain doubts about women's reports of rape as a general rule. This might be a discussion of wide interest to editors here. I naturally think the topic is connected to what some people perceive as Wikipedia's gender problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomoskedasticity, I think the correct legal term in this case is "complainant", which doesn't isn't supposed to imply either way. I understand your concern. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think it might easily be read to imply that she was (merely) complaining... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity I understand, but that's the legal term that would be used. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can always wikilink the term (which redirects to Plaintiff) to forestall improper implications. -- Avi (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one approach, but it seems that if we use a word and have to wikilink it because we know it may be misinterpreted, we should usually try to look for a better word that says what we mean in a more direct way. In this case, "accuser" is the plain English word that I think we're looking for. And given the overall facts of this particular case, at least as currently presented in the article, there seems no way for Wikipedia to say anything stronger than that.

I hasten to add that this in no way amounts to saying that "we should retain doubts about women's reports of rape as a general rule". Indeed, it strikes me that if we adopted the stance that we must in every case use the word 'victim' upon a report of rape we would be adopting a rule to "assume the truth of all rape allegations as a general rule". Neither is suitable for Wikipedia, which should always take a pretty cautious approach in terms of reporting what is known and confirmed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME plays a major part. Since rape is a serious criminal offence, saying "victim" implies guilt regardless of whether a court has decided this or not. This leads to NPOV issues and also potential libel. Although many rape cases never come to court, there is also a need not to allow guilt by accusation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, a person who has been raped only becomes a complainant upon filing charges, and cannot become a complainant at all if, for some reason, charges are not or cannot be brought. The victim's inability or unwillingness to file charges, or the court’s failure to accept them, does not mean the rape did not occur. What if the courts are not functioning because there’s a war? What if the victim is a slave, or otherwise lacks legal standing? It is very well to say that Wikipedia "should always take a pretty cautious approach in terms of reporting what is known and confirmed," but in the absence of a definitive judicial determination, how is Wikipedia to know or confirm? That could lead us into the unsavory old custom of assuming that a person who says they have been raped should be treated as a liar unless they can prove otherwise. The specter of libel raised by ianmacm appears to be illusory, since the underlying libel -- having been published by the victim and reported by reliable sources, could not be laid at Wikipedia’s door.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, fewer than 10% of rapes reported to the police result in a conviction. By the logic favoured by most editors posting on this topic, what we then get is that more than 90% of women who report rapes to the police are not "victims". Have some fun with that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is emphatically not the case. The term "alleged victim" is commonly used in newspapers here in the US and by police and court officials in the absence of a conviction against a named defendant, as is the case in the BLP article we are talking about. Please don't imply that most of the editors working toward an NPOV resolution here are rape denialists. That is unacceptable. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that most rapes reported to the police do not result in a conviction. However, rape is such a serious criminal offence that guilt by accusation is unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I understand it, a person who has been raped only becomes a complainant upon filing charges, and cannot become a complainant at all if, for some reason, charges are not or cannot be brought. The victim's inability or unwillingness to file charges, or the court’s failure to accept them, does not mean the rape did not occur. What if the courts are not functioning because there’s a war? What if the victim is a slave, or otherwise lacks legal standing? It is very well to say that Wikipedia "should always take a pretty cautious approach in terms of reporting what is known and confirmed," but in the absence of a definitive judicial determination, how is Wikipedia to know or confirm? That could lead us into the unsavory old custom of assuming that a person who says they have been raped should be treated as a liar unless they can prove otherwise. The specter of libel raised by ianmacm appears to be illusory, since the underlying libel -- having been published by the victim and reported by reliable sources, could not be laid at Wikipedia’s door.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the term accuser: an accuser is someone who accuses a specific person. Some rape victims cannot accuse anyone, because they are unable to identify the perpetrator. In other cases, rape victims may be prevented from identifying the perpetrator by extortionate demands, fear of reprisal, incapacity, or other considerations. A crime may be reported by its victim, but that victim may in some cases be neither an accuser nor a plaintiff nor a complainant. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case at hand, the reliable sources use the term "accuser" - thus we should not use a stronger term than the sources use. And the (unusual) argument that by using "accuser" we are saying rapes do not occur or that we imply that "accusers" are liars is simply Python-esque. Collect (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is being bandied about here as well in order to please the drama gods, people would like to slippery slope their 'general rule' when in this specific case a rape was investigated by the police and determined given the evidence available no real chance of conviction. It was also investigated by the FSU before an ex-Judge who determined there was a lack of evidence of a crime. What is really depressing about the whole thing is that someone who has a biography on wikipedia has to have a section in it about rape allegations where not only is there unlikely to ever be a conviction, but is probably going to tar him for the indefinate future. Or as long as people can edit wikipedia anonymously in order to smear others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's comments above aptly summarize my position on the issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]