Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 31.193.138.223 (talk) at 16:29, 11 September 2012 (→Re: Bill of Rights: will not help). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


(Manual archive list)

The New Wikipedia?

Very interesting but this sort of thing just hurts my head. I cannot for the life of me imagine why on earth anyone cares enough to spend this many hours fighting about it. I advise the world to relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! Let It Be... Formerip (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft: I thought the Golgafrinchams were unable to invent fire because their marketing consultants couldn't agree on why people needed fire... or was it that they couldn't agree on what parliamentary procedure to use in their meetings to discuss inventing fire? My commanding officer swore that the entire planet was about to be eaten by a mutant star goat... sorry about that. Back to your regularly scheduled grammatical dispute. I try to Imagine (get it?) what John Lennon would think about all this were he here to see it. I think he would find it very funny, after all, here's a guy who, whenever asked where the name "Beatles" came from, came up with a different fake story every time, just because he got tired of giving the same answer, and now this project has expended gigabytes of storage (and counting) debating, with great earnestness, the crucial issue of whether to put a "The" or a "the" in front of it. There's no time for fussing and fighting, my friend... Neutron (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Jimbo could just flip a coin. And someone could make a template On 4 September 2012, Jimbo flipped a coin. From that day forth this article consistently uses..... Just think how many pointless arguments could be solved this way - French pancakes, Cultured milk products, hyphens vs n-dashes.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This idea amuses me greatly. I am thinking of the natural objections and next steps. Why is Jimbo's coin so special? Even Jimbo himself acknowledges that he'd like to have systems in place so that his authority continues to be diminished over time. Is it really right for any one man's coin to have so much power? What we need is a consensus of coin flips. Decisions can only be made when at least 80% of coins agree.
The point I'm driving at is that I think there— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a coin-toss template, but it got deleted by the overly tidy minded. Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I take issue with the dispute being trivialized. Somehow, I don't think everyone's reaction would be the same if we had a contingent of editors going around insisting that every occurence of the indefinite article "a" be capitalized, or that we be banned from using it in the middle of a sentence. It's precisely because the community at large has refused to address this issue in the past that I and other editors have gotten so fed up with the constant bickering that we've quit Beatles-related articles entirely. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may say Jimbo's a dreamer, but he's not the only one . . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get back, Jimbo. (This is terrible, it reminds me of the time I got involved in a fish-pun match, just for the halibut, for cod's sake.) Neutron (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evan, my comments do not in an sense mean that I trivialize the dispute. Quite the contrary. The fact that such a debate can occur and cause such massive upheaval is a testament to how at least some aspects of this editing model have failed. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do want to trivialize the issue. There is no reason you can't handle this the same way I handle American/British spelling changes in the articles I watch, namely, ignore it. Just ignore it. Really. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um... No. I can't ignore it. Not when it's being brought up on a continual basis by trolls and sockpuppets engaged in a campaign to drive away everyone who disagrees with them. Not when I've dedicated a good portion of my time online to making sure no one ever has to deal with it again, only to be rewarded by constant personal attacks and threats against my life. If you don't want to care about it, that's fine, but don't presume to tell me what to do unless you know the full details of the situation. It's easy to look at it from afar and say, "Dur-hur-hur; ass-hats fighting over a tee! Funny!" But unless you've spent month after month being degraded and attacked because you tried to help resolve this like I have, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
Can't one of you code-bot-wizard guys (or gals) invent a thing where you put in your preferences whether you want to see "The" or "the" in front of Beatles, Yardbirds, Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band (really dating myself here I guess) and whatever, and it automatically capitalizes the "T" if you want. I've seen more amazing things done on here, that shouldn't be any problem at all. I guess it would be tough for names that are also words, like t/The Who, and let's not even talk about t/The t/The. (A little punctuation humor, or is it humour, there.) Neutron (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as an alternative, siteban everybody involved. There you go – problem solved. That would at least get rid of the first over-obsessive batch until, inevitably, another batch comes around. --MuZemike 04:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um....No I can't ignore it? Sure you can. You're not willing to ignore it and there's a huge difference.You can ignore it, but you aren't willing to. Silling f'n worthless argument, but you can't ignore it... --Onorem♠Dil 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're suggesting... what, exactly? That I bury my head in the sand like you and everyone else have? Everyone has been ignoring it since it started, and have you seen it go away yet? Do you honestly think looking the other way and saying "lalala, I can't hear you" is going to accomplish any more than it already has? You're confusing your own interest in this dispute with its validity; they are not the same thing. If you have nothing to contribute on the subject, then do not comment, and do not demean and insult those who are actually trying to bring it to an end. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the kind of silly disagreement that has led to a complex mediation request and fights across the project, that could easily make one accidentally say "grow the fuck up" in frustration, whether you've been involved in the case or not. dangerouspanda 09:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, why are disagreements over typography inherently silly and childish? This is an encyclopedia is it not? I suppose you recommend all parties stop debating voluntarily and agree to allow whoever edits the page last to have the final word? What if I went to the United States article and demanded that all instances of "the" before US be capped, e.g. "The United States"? Or how about if I went to the Toronto Maple Leafs' article and demanded all mid-sentence instances of the team name be formatted: "The Toronto Maple Leafs". I suppose anyone who opposed me at those articles would also be silly immature time wasters. Is it possible that not every party to every dispute is equally wrong to support their position? The only reason this has now gone to MedCom is because others have passed the buck with a "shut-up and find something more important to do" reply. Is it so wrong to want this to end, but not want to voluntarily follow an arbitrary demand not supported by any external manuals of style and without any due process? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was about the setting up of a court with a panel of judges, who would accept a 7-to-3 decision to enforce a rule.--andreasegde (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might have been about the cultural implications of adopting a judicial model to decide details of our Manual of Style. Like, isn't there some easier way of doing this (eg WP:CONSISTENCY)? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to believe that would be any more effective than any of the other non-solutions that have been tried over the reasons. It's taken outside (MedCom) intervention to put a stop to this because some people can't let it go. Consensus isn't enough anymore. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "Consensus isn't enough anymore" is what is most worrying. Creating a precedent in this way will give credence to people saying "consensus isn't enough anymore" at any time in the future. It's a long and slippery slope.--andreasegde (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am only asking for clarification about consensus, and if it is to be abandoned in favour of a defined percentage of voters in a poll.--andreasegde (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People obsessing over minutia in articles devising overly elaborate decision procedures to resolve such issues? Who'd have guessed that was going to happen? Tijfo098 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus over this issue is almost certainly that it is a monumentally stupid thing to waste so much time over. Jimbo should toss a coin, and everyone involved should find something more useful to do. If they can't, they should be shown the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the coin will care who gives it a toss.
You're right about what the consensus here is, but we haven't really answered the question asked. It looks like some odd means of deciding have been suggested but rejected. There's going to be a poll (not clear what form this will take if not an RfC), a perfectly reliable editor will close it and the disputants agree to be bound. That seems to me like a good way of doing it. Maybe they care too much. But we're all capable of being nerds from time to time. Formerip (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which proves the point about wasting time? Hot Stop (Edits) 06:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell. If the coming poll yields a clear consensus then it will be at once obvious which side was correct all along and which side was wasting other people's time. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. There isn't a 'correct' answer. It is a matter of opinion, nothing more. And since there is no more likely to be a clear consensus now than there has been in the past, it will be obvious that all those involved in this facile bit of nit-picking have been wasting everyone's time yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! No correct answer; sort of like the opinion as to whether the word "Wikipedia" should be spelled "Wikipedia" or "gfdxklmkldfmdkl". Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Slow down there, Socrates. Seriously, you think there is no right or wrong answer to that?! Formerip (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there not a correct answer to "the" v. "The"? Every known style guide agrees with our Wikipedia MoS, which says very clearly to lower-case the definite article mid-sentence when mentioning the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my original point is being side-tracked to the issue of a definite article, which is not why I originally posted here. The setting up of a judicial system to determine the future of Wikipedia consensus is worrying, IMHO. Are we going down the path of "first-past-the-post"?--andreasegde (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have made it clear, why it is of concern. In every edit, consensus possibly has to be determined; either it is done informally or, if that does not work, more formally. In matters of style, it usually is going to fall to a more or less arbitrary agreement, since that is what matters of style are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what do you mean by "more formally"?--andreasegde (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formal process, other than ordinary editing, (eg. RfC; formal adoption of policy or guideline, etc.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A formal process which follows a judicial line of action? I do understand there are rules about how Wikipedia is edited, but they have all been defined through consensus. Are we to follow the line of thought that is being proposed in the link given above? What will this lead to?--andreasegde (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm? Binding mediation; large scale RfC, with definitive close; are how we have addressed problematic issues. So, if you have objections to whatever process is being constructed there, you can talk with those people about that, and perhaps influence however they decide to get it done. It seems it has to be "done" by those volunteers some way (and the choice is rather binary), and uninvolved people are not really interested, except that it get done, so people move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Binding mediation"? Is that not an oxymoron? Let's debate the pros and cons of hanging, until it is decided that a judge's decision is final. The word 'final' is uppermost in this case.--andreasegde (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? So, we are back where we started. I don't think I have more to add. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the beaTles". There. End of - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want everyone who has commented here to take a look at this and tell me again how awful, silly, childish I am for wanting to end this. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

evan you have so much to learn 103.9.151.142 (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

take a look jimbo at how silly your editors are acting over a silly little teeeeee. We like it! 103.9.151.142 (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and again, and again, the original point is trying to be diluted. If Wikipedia is to be led by a decision made by a neutral judge, then why don't we all just lay down and accept that consensus is going to die very soon, and things will be decided by a judge? It's scary.--andreasegde (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If Wikipedia agrees by consensus that this ridiculous argument over trivia can best be settled by appointing an arbitrary and possibly biased 'judge' (who would probably deserve to keep any bribes offered, as compensation for the inevitable flak over his/her decision), by tossing a coin, or by examining the entrails of a dead goat, the sky won't fall in. The consensus is "we don't care, shut the **** up about it and do something useful instead". And if you find the possibility that a miss-capitalised 't' might occur in an article on JPG&R 'scary', I think you may need to examine your perspectives a little. We are making a decision that it is better in this case to reach a 'wrong' decision by arbitrary means than to go over the same old ground again and again - because it isn't important enough to waste further time over. If someone proposed to use the same procedure to determine what the Capital City of the State of Israel was, you might have a point - but that isn't what is happening. We don't care about the decision, so we don't care how it is arrived at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There you go: "we don't care, shut the **** up about it". I'll doff me cap and get back t'work on 'treddle at' mill. Ta very much.--andreasegde (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, to clarify, there are no "judges" at the mediation. This is no different then any RfC, AfD, RfA or FAC. Someone uninvolved needs to evaluate the results to determine if a consensus has been reached, its that simple and not at all something to be feared. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, Gab.--andreasegde (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

I'd be interested to learn your opinion about this article http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html --67.169.11.252 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The article begins as follows: Dear Wikipedia, I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel “The Human Stain.” The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip—there is no truth in it at all. Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my interlocutor was told by the “English Wikipedia Administrator”—in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor—that I, Roth, was not a credible source: “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work,” writes the Wikipedia Administrator—“but we require secondary sources.” Thus was created the occasion for this open letter. After failing to get a change made through the usual channels, I don’t know how else to proceed. A case of Wikipedia hubris? JN466 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought that, but once the timeline was explained, it only brought further confusion. His interlocutor appears to have been his biographer, who suddenly began changing the article section in question. Of course, he was reverted for unsourced changes. Then the biographer reverted back, saying that he was the biographer, but without a source for the change, there's no way we could accept it or even really trust him at his word. Thus, the article was reverted back again and other users added in more reliable sources that further confirmed the way the Inspiration section was written. I don't have a problem with things so far.
But, after that, it doesn't appear that the biographer contacted OTRS or any other Wikipedia related noticeboard or service. I'm not sure who this administrator in question is he is referring to or what he means when the administrator "wrote" to him, since there's certainly nothing on the article talk page about this.
So, it's all very confusing. It seems like Roth just strode straight into our COI guideline and didn't even back himself up with any sources or even proof that he was who he said he was (or who his biographer said he was at least). SilverserenC 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is his biographer Special:Contributions/Nabokov9 who is also apparently the biographer of John Cheever ‎and perhaps others? Dream Focus 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Press coverage within the last week has been given to the fact that Blake Bailey, the much praised biographer of John Cheever, is working on a biography of Phlip Roth. Bailey has enough credibility as a biographer that his reports that he had recorded interviews of Roth that gave a different inspiration for the character should have been taken on face value.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the guy doesn't want an article to mention his nervous breakdown, we shouldn't be listing that. I see that was one thing his biographer removed from another article. And if there was a mistake where his book was inspired by, then that should be removed, and list that the writer says it was inspired by, sourcing the information to him. Dream Focus 01:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is on the BBC website today.[1] The problem is that a person who is directly involved in an article should not have a free hand to alter it, as there is a potential for conflict of interest. Also, a quote from WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source", all of which is relevant here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, his biographer could have made a helpful edit. His edit was not helpful because it was removing content that was reliably sourced and was NPOV. I stand by the reversions of his edit, although I cannot address the apparent e-mail issue since no one has released the full account. --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing happened at Paul Dirac recently. An IP editor claimed to be Dirac's granddaughter [2] and altered the reason why he turned down a knighthood. The edit was reverted because a) it is unclear whether the IP was Dirac's granddaughter and b), even if she was, it is WP:PRIMARY and contradicts the sourcing from Graham Farmelo's biography.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise how this looks to the uninitiated? Something that can only, by definition, be known to the author himself - the inspiration for a character - is not changed because they don't represent a reliable source? It's not beyond the wit of man to check such claims. Now I'm a fan of Wikipedia, especially the little foibles. But this is a case of an admirable project disappearing up a bureaucratic backside.86.5.254.174 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of this possible interpretation at the time of reverting the Dirac edit, and put an explanation on the talk page. It is hard for random IPs to prove who they say they are, and there is a need to ensure verifiability. In 1972, Richard Nixon could have edited his BLP to say that he had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in, but this would not have been a reliable secondary source. The explanation of WP:PRIMARY seems to have been lost in translation in the case of Philip Roth, and the media is having a field day. All the edit history of The Human Stain shows is that an unsourced IP edit was reverted. Roth or one of his representatives could have started a thread on the talk page explaining what they considered to be wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that strikes me reading this is that some regular hands seem to expect the 'uninitiated' already to have familiarity with Wikipedia policies and processes. Although it could be argued that a professional might try to gain some familiarity with the rule tome before WP commencement, isn't this the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you really can? —MistyMorn (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they can intuit or not, surely they must be speedily made aware that other anonymous people cannot possibly know, they are who they say they are, and that they have a vested conflict of interest in writing about themselves and their own work, partly because these should be obvious to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time I have wondered about the best way to communicate with a new editor who is using only a (possibly dynamic) IP address and cannot be expected to know much about history and talk pages. If you notice something wrong early enough, a message to the talk page might work, but if the edit is a few hours old you can't really expect the editor to ever see the message. This is also a problem I've encountered when handling the new feedback feature. --Boson (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this illustrates the reflexive nastiness and contrariness of Wikipedia. Let's look at what happened: someone wanted entirely erroneous speculation removed. The result was pushback, and a reception section that now consisted to 50% of material about this erroneous speculation, along with four lengthy quotations all about Broyard in the footnotes. This – "You don't like it? Well, let me show you! I have sources!" – is Wikipedia's supposed mechanism for arriving at NPOV, and passes for normal here. The other thing it illustrates is how corrosive anonymous editing is to human discourse. Everyone contributing is considered a potential liar and vandal, because there is no way of telling a liar and vandal from an expert who knows what he is talking about. And because there is no way to tell the difference, both are treated the same. JN466 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article at that time noted that critics were struck by the parallel to the life of Anatole Broyard. Phillip Roth in an interview agreed that critics were so struck, but that that was not his inspiration, as he did not know at the time he began writing that Broyard, whom he knew slightly, had African heritage. What it shows is that writers can't control the associations they evoke when they write, a good lesson for Wikipedia writers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the reception section came to be about Broyard, just because someone saying they represented the author wanted that gone. That's at best thoughtless, and at worst a "Fuck you!" It also illustrates how Wikipedia articles so often get bent all out of shape. Adversaries argue about one specific point, and each brings more and more sources focused on that one point, until that one point assumes a totally undue importance in the article, and you end up with the tail wagging the dog. Contrariness and pushback. JN466 14:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now the "entire" inspiration section is about "Boyard" and the authors reaction, years later. As far as I can tell, this was the first time Roth published in depth about his inspiration, so now the world has more and clearer knowledge of that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New essay WP:Mindreader: We have talked, for years, to avoid text which speculates about people's private thoughts and motivations, where such text is rampant in society, as verifiable but typically unprovable remarks. I have created essay "WP:Beware mindreader text" (WP:MINDREAD) to give a spotlight. The text about a writer's "inspiration" as imagined by other people, should never have remained in that article. It was inviting big trouble from the writer(s) and their related associates. However, now we have a term "wp:Mindreader" to help reduce future problems. People will more likely complain about major misstatements, not typos. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Literary and artistic critics speculate on inspiration -- this is part of critical reception. Wikipedia's job is to reflect that accurately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia's job is to reflect literary and artistic critics speculations on inspiration but Wikipedia's job is to reflect what the author is saying too. And here we go Today's headlines: "Wikipedia told Philip Roth he's not "credible source" on book he wrote" ;"Wikipedia Tells Philip Roth He's Not A Credible Source On His Own Book"; "Wikipedia to Philip Roth: Hey, you're not credible"; "The Internet Stain of a Philip Roth Wikipedia Entry";"How Philip Roth Outfoxed Wikipedia's Rules"; "Philip Roth Gets Wikipedia to Remove 'Stain'"--24.4.36.87 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Except now we know more fully Philip Roth's side of the story and more importantly a reliable source has confirmed that it is, in fact, Philip Roth's side of the story, so now we can report with confidence his side of the story. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We never said Roth was not a credible source. I have access to the exact email sent. It said we needed secondary sources.--v/r - TP 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you should all note is that this is the first time ever that Roth has stated what his inspiration was. In past interviews, he just said it wasn't Broyard, but he then said there wasn't any real inspiration. So you can't expect us to have had it say what his real inspiration was when, before yesterday, he had never said it either. SilverserenC 18:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is probably not the first time ever that Roth has stated what his inspiration was. He emailed to somebody from Wikipedia and was told that he, "Roth, was not a credible source". This situation is similar to this one in which an expert tried to improve Wikipedia's article but was told "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy." Wikipedia has problems, and unwillingness of some of Wikipedians to admit it will only make the matter worse.--24.4.36.87 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We never said Roth was not a credible source. That quote is from Roth, not us. The text Roth actually quoted was what we sent him. I have access to the exact email sent. It said we needed secondary sources.--v/r - TP 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific Roth's article says his interlocutor was told Wikipedia needed a secondary source not that Roth was not a credible source (although he interpreted it that way). (In the end, this was incorrect, as Wikipedia has accepted, here, and will accept information from published primary sources under these and similar conditions). A few questions: Can you produce, where else Roth published his inspiration? What exactly is the problem that you are referring to? It is known that anonymous people are anonymous, is that the problem, you are referring to? Are you saying the problem is that Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable sources? It would help if you could be specific. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need essay "How to work with notable people": These types of inept interactions with notable people, writers, or celebrities have persisted for years, and we need an essay, "WP:How to work with notable people" to improve the lines of communication. The key pillar is, of course, wp:Assume Good Faith, because 99 times out of 100, when a notable person contacts Wikipedia, then they are, in fact, that notable person. Being too suspicious of a person's identity is like saying, "We need proof of your identity because everyone here is absolutely, totally, and utterly convinced that you are actually a lying, deceitful scoundrel, and even if you are that person, also prove that you are not lying about everything now, you deceitful scoundrel". Any hints as to why that type of interaction would fail to impress notable people? Some level of discretion is needed, and many people are not aware of the balancing act in play. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^Indeed. The biggest problem here was not the content of the article, nor the process by which it was changed, but the way the person (unknown as far as I can tell) who was in contact with Mr. Roth handled the situation. While the sentiment might have been correct: that we cannot remove the opinions of notable literary critics based on emails from the author, the way in which it was explained was clearly lacking. An essay or guideline could be helpful for those that deal with notable subjects. --Daniel 01:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a mystery about who contacted Philip Roth. The media says "an administrator" but nobody seems to know who it was. Could someone clarify this? The controversial interaction is not on the talk page of The Human Stain.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could just AGF the "interlocutor" and everyone else too. I don't know how the new proposed essay will help, though, as AGF is not just for famous people -- it's for the "Wikipedia administrator" and the ordinary folk too. And it doesn't change the need or the burden for identifying reliable sources -- that still remains. In fact, a far a can be determined, at this point, the "interlocutor" was told in effect, 'I believe you are who you say you are but we need something else . . .' Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stan Shebs has said that he was the administrator and yes he should have assumed good faith given Blake Bailey's reputation as a biographer.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I thought that was a joke since he said "but seriously." But since Roth did not name his "interlocutor" or the admin. They would have to speak about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say something about this, but when I did that on the article's talk page, my contribution was censored and I was warned about "soapboxing." Of course, the comments there that have praised Wikipedia on the article's talk page have not been removed. Therefore, I see little reason to say anything more here. Moynihanian (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may be another in-depth article coming up about Roth and Wikipedia (including the talk page) in the Washington Post. See Talk:Philip Roth#Google search result. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 09:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination would be to say "Bring it on". The material which such non-trivial press cases throw up provide a useful basis for discussion here about the sensitive (and complex) underlying issues. They also provide genuine insights into real-world perspectives from people outside the community. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At twitter, there have been a great many tweets about the Roth affair and most do not understand the idea of reliable sources, saying things like "Roth was told he needed a second source." Esowteric+Talk 10:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And looks like there could be some more tweets coming up http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Shylock&action=history --24.4.36.87 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In which the interlocutor does confirm that he is Blake Bailey.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best to be a little careful, there. The User in that discussion does identify as Mr. Bailey but not that he is the August 25, "interlocutor." Perhaps that is a reasonable surmise, but why surmise? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, across at twitter, I'd say that 99% of those retweeting the Roth affair simply see Wikipedia's actions as ludicrous. Esowteric+Talk 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What can we do except roll with that, though? We could mount a campaign to set the record straight, but I really don't think it's worth it. The saddest thing about this is someone of Roth's talent being reduced to writing this sort of Polyfilla journalism. Hopefully it's a blip and, for our part, we just carry on. Formerip (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Roth case is also referenced in The Telegraph, in a piece commenting on the Shapps article:

A quick browse through the profiles of MPs reveal that a huge number have entries which tortuously detail trivial events in their political lives. For example, Damian Green’s Wikipedia entry devotes well over 1,000 words to his 2008 arrest alone; for comparison that's more than three times as much wiki-ink as any of Disraeli's governments.

This happens because Wikipedia has become a magnet for political nerds who want to fight proxy battles. With a general election two and a half years away, some think the best way to damage the other side is to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for smears. Equally, many see it as nothing more than an online CV service.

You may question if it matters whether Shapps is reported as having four or five O-levels. The trouble is that ease of access to articles on Wikipedia means they're often used as sources for the media. Wikipedia has mutated from an encyclopedia into the central source for information on public figures. An untrue fact can cascade through a person's life, causing all manner of problems for them.

Self-editing is forbidden is to stop self-promotion; however, it can lead to frustrating situations when false information appears. For example, Philip Roth complained recently that Wikipedia would not accept him as a reliable source on his own novels.

However, Wikipedia allows anonymous editing. Thus those who honestly correct incorrect information are penalised, whereas those willing to edit anonymously, or create sinister false online personas, are given free rein. Johann Hari used Wikipedia as a weapon to attack other journalists, and puff his own achievements. Since then, plenty of others have adopted Hari's tactics.

It's nice to see some of the press finally wake up. JN466 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that people take the attitude that no information at all should be removed as long as it is verifiable, and that the way to resolve undue weight concerns is to turn on the complainer and say "if you think this section is undue weight, it's your own fault for not adding more information about other topics. Don't remove things that people may be interested in reading." This is a bad idea, but I've seen it a lot. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. The thing to note in the Shapps case is that the material Shapps took out was very problematic, and put in by an anonymous editor (User:Modernway) who only discloses that he is "a British Liberal. He lives in London and Brussels." Sounds like someone with LibDem and EC involvement. This was of course well before the LibDem-Tory coalition, when LibDems and Tories sniped at each other happily. This was the edit where the anonymous (or pseudonymous, if you will, though I don't see much difference) "Modernway" added his material. If you look at what the sources said, and what Modernway wrote, skewed and omitted, you could forgive Shapps for being somewhat aggrieved. This is something the press don't pick up on enough: when you get a BLP subject editing their own article, it's often because the article is grossly unfair to them, and in violation of Wikipedia's own policies. Shapps told the Daily Mail, "these days when I see stuff that's blatantly wrong on my Wiki page, I just shrug my shoulders. If people want to claim I'm a Jehovah's Witness, agnostic or crashed a car into a school wall—all real edits I'd previously changed—then I just leave them to it." Those edits he refers to can indeed be found in the edit history. What you see here is that almost the only people editing articles like this are the BLP subject, and people who have an axe to grind against them. Without flagged revisions, no one else bothers to check in and see what is going on, no one picks up on poor content. John McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun summed it up well yesterday: I remain convinced that Wikipedia's confidence in its self-correction mechanism is an illusion, that the editing it does is inadequate, and that the outright errors and constant manipulation of entries by interested parties make it an unreliable reference. --JN466 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to all editors to participate in WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party

See here. I've just written up the rudimentary outlines of this. Instead of bickering about ArbCom, let's change the ArbCom system via the elections. Count Iblis (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So throwing more politics on top of the current politics and bureaucracy is going to do any better? --MuZemike 18:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because you need a political process to make the right choices for a system that everyone is subject to. What we need is a debate on a new system and candidates who want to implement that if elected. They run together and ask voters to vote for everyone with that same candidate statment. If there are enough of them elected, they can implement the new system. Other arbitrators who don't want to work in this new system will then be sidelined. So, this solves the problem of having to have a huge supermajority to change things. Count Iblis (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And we all know how well Parliamentary political systems work in the real world. </sarcasm> Anyways, I know which door I'll be heading to in the event Wikipedia does become a microcosm of the U.S. or UK Government, and that's the exact door I came in some 4 years ago. --MuZemike 20:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before you invite "all editors" to join a political party, don't you think it makes sense to tell your prospective members what your proposed platform (or program, manifesto, or whatever term you choose) for the party is? It is apparent from the Wikiproject page that you have something(s) in particular in mind, so why don't you say what they are? "Reform" can mean almost anything, and therefore, without some additional definition, it means virtually nothing. Neutron (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you are attempting a coup? Resolute 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I can't really see this proposal ending anywhere other than MFD, but if this nonsense isn't nipped in the bud, you can guarantee that I will be voting against any so-called "reform party candidate" with extreme prejudice. As MuZemike notes, politicizing Wikipedia will do nobody any good. Resolute 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting blocs I think are much more vulnerable to takeover and gaming than individuals. That would worry me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a very outspoken critic of Arbcom and I think that there needs to be a serious reengineering effort of Arbcom, how it works, what it does and how it can do it but this is not it. This IMO is replacing one bad thing with problems with another bad thing with different problems. I commend your efforts but this won't work either. Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the MfD, but doesn't "Reform Party Arbitrators who will hear and conduct cases according to the rules in the Party Program"sound just a teensy bit...Stalinist. I've always thought that one of the strengths of Arbcom is that we disagree with each other so much, that it forces us to constantly think about what we are doing in order to reach consensus decisions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could provide some statics to back it up? How many motions (cases) that did not pass because of your "disagreements"?--24.4.36.87 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or is that the "posse's of people who received sanctions from Arbcom and didn't like them" party? North8000 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if some may see this as "Stalinist", however for Resolute to form an MFD and everyone to be so... well, scared I suppose, that they are so vehemently against the even discussion of this party that they have to destroy it seems MORE Stalinist in nature. That's what Stalin would do to any formation of even just two individuals who went against the status quo of the USSR, destroy it before it went beyond two people. The United States Constitution did not predict the rise of a two-party system (though a political scientist can tell you it was inevitable given winner-take-all elections that the US can only have two major parties), nor did was it written with the intention of political parties whatsoever. Political parties DID however make the Federal government actually able to function (and if you think current disfunction is bad, it would have been a lot worse if party formation had not occurred). As much as you can rail against bureaucracy and politics, it already exists upon Wikipedia, if you are against parties, bureaucracy, politics and such then start your own party against that stuff (perhaps call it the Republican Party? Sounds catchy...) As oxymoronic as it sounds parties in government that are against government actually exist... Turkey even has a Kurdish party that advocates Kurd homeland independence and they get elected to the national legislature that they dont even want to be a part of. The time is here for such an "evolution" of Wikipedia. You started this road the minute the first Administrator was crafted from the clay by Jimbo (or whatever our future Wikipedia Bible will say, because first comes government, then comes religion to justify the government's existence, then something about kissing in a tree and then comes love and a baby... maybe in a treetop... then Athena is born from Zeus' head... then Jimbo is reborn as our Saviour from Arbcom sin after 30 days and nights of worldwide flooding...)
Basically- if enough people really want to join this party and they make a difference, for good or bad, they should have the opportunity to try. Conservative overreacting and crushing change is not what Wikipedia is about.Camelbinky (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was more based on the discussion I've seen so far. The gist of the vehement stuff usually is "they made a finding I didn't like therefore there must be something wrong with them" North8000 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of bollocks. A 'political party' on Wikipedia? Some people clearly need to get a sense of perspective. Or a life... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party/Bill of Rights Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - I was suggesting that the idea of 'political parties' amongst Wikipedia contributors is bollocks. I probably got the indentation wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page Wikipedia:WikiProject_ArbCom_Reform_Party/Bill_of_Rights for the "party" appears to allow:

    • polemic blogs on userspace
    • secret hidden accounts
    • automatic unblocking of blocked editors
    • civil POV pushing
    • limitations on all block lengths
    • allows unsubstianted allegations of discrimination.
    • Opportunities for gaming the system with "juries"

Quite frankly, no sane editor would support it. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so it will fail. But the point is to let it fail. Censoring them and trying to destroy them is only going to make it worse. Let them have their place to feel like they are doing something. Perhaps another "party" will attempt to form with a more reasonable platform.Camelbinky (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Censoring them and trying to destroy them is only going to make it worse". Yup. Don't censor them, tell them they are talking bollocks, that their premise is a joke, and that their platform is facile. And as for the 'Trial by jury' section of the 'Bill of Rights', I've not seen such a blatant attempt at jury-rigging in years: "the editor shall have the right to request a pool of editors be canvassed and invited to join the discussion as jurors, who have been chosen by a provably random method biased toward selecting jurors who have been recently active in edits made within the accused's approximate time zone" (my emphasis). If you are going to try to rig a jury, please at least have the sense not to tell everyone you are doing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bad wording in my draft - I never actually meant to geolocate jurors, but only to find jurors chosen on the basis that they had recently been active within a range of time chosen by the defendant. That was indeed bad wording, and I didn't even realize last night after you bolded it! Wnt (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! And what legitimate jury would be prepared to face the barracking Arbcom gets from the same group of people every time it acts. No chance of ever removing a rouge admin's bit or banning an edit warrior ever again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or put the other way, all you need to be immune from blocking/banning is to be friendly with the people who own the party. And no, Camelbinky, MfDing a stupid idea does not constitute "censorship", as Count Iblis and any other people behind this are still free to propose their changes at legitimate venues. What I was hoping to shut down was the transparent attempt to bypass policy and consensus that is proposal entails. This "party" would take policy decisions out of the hands of the community, and restrict it to party supporters. That is not cool, nor should it be encouraged. But, thus far, it seems people wish to waste their time on this nonsense. A pity, but there it is. Resolute 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to prevent editors from standing in ArbCom elections who ask voters to also vote for some other candidates. So, whether you like it or not, one can use the ArbCom elections to reform ArbCom and thereby bypass the huge supermajority you normally need to reform the system. This is best done on-Wiki with a lot of feedback from editors. If it can't be done on that Wiki-project, it can be done on my userspace. if that isn't allowed either, it can be done on my blog, via email or via other means. Count Iblis (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To do what you would say you need an actual concrete proposal. Your proposed bill of rights is counter-productive and would damage wikipedia if ever in-acted. For example, automatically unblocking people who are blocked is just plain stupid. Your rights aren't even related to reforming arbitration, they are actions that are designed to effect all throughout wikipedia. What you are actually proposing is to add new pillars to wikipedia. I've set up the Things mostly work, let's keep doing roughly the same thing party which proposes to be the do-nothing party. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration policy cannot be changed, even by Arbcom without putting it to a community vote, though Arbcom can put a proposed amendment to a vote much more easily then a community proposal that Arbcom does not approve, which requires an onerous petition. Changing policy without putting it to a vote would create a major governance crisis. Monty845 23:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called "Bill of Rights" is actually rather amusing. Count Iblis' proposal to remake ArbCom as he sees fit suddenly became a proposal to remake all of Wikipedia to suit the viewpoint of the central committee. A poor proposal became bad faith in less than a day, imnsho. Resolute 00:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is moving into incivility, and off topic
Resolute- you are either not reading, or not taking the time to truly READ, what those who are voting at the MFD are saying. Most, like myself, are not judging your MFD on whether we LIKE the proposal or not, we are voting based on Wikipedia POLICY. Almost all "keep"s are saying, like myself, they dont think it's a great idea or that it will work (or even that it SHOULD work), we are simply saying- it is ok to have such a page under Wikipedia policy and who cares if they want to try? Why are you so scared of them working on this project?! If they are wasting their time as you say, let them. Why does it bother you so?Camelbinky (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself, Camelbinky. I've as much right to criticize a poor idea as you do to incessantly whine about what you don't like. Resolute 01:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny because you are the one incessantly whining about what you are not liking right now. I dont go around trying to shut people up you jack ass. Now go run and cry foul over me calling you a name when you defend others who call me names. Because that's what you do, you shut up those that disagree, and defend others who are disagree with those that disagree with you. You're a little whiny b. and I dont respect you.Camelbinky (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL. ;) Camelbinky, grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't whine at me, Camelbinky. You are the one that chose to make it personal, I merely replied in kind. If you are so thin skinned as to generate that response, then perhaps you should stick to arguing the content of my edits. Or better yet, go edit in mainspace for once. That is what we are supposed to be here for. Resolute 13:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and did you really claim that you "don't go around trying to shut people up" barely 5 hours after getting trouted for trying to shut Andy up at the MFD, after which you ran and cried foul? I am actually in awe of your hypocrisy, sir. Resolute 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's already (unofficial) political parties & voting blocs on Wikipedia. They're called WikiProjects & WikiProject members, IMO. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Iridescent was the only honorable person who served on the Arbitration Committee in the recent years. That's why he was voted off the island.--37.157.246.90 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent was removed by motion from the committee solely in order to allow the community to elect a replacement at the next scheduled election--or more precisely, to allow the community to decide whether to elect a replacement for the remaining year of Iridescent's two-year term after months of non-contribution to and rather complete non-communication with the committee. Since I have been the beneficiary of that unexpired term, I believe I'm in a reasonable position to comment on the effect. Were Xeno in the same position (with an unexpired year of tenure, an upcoming election, a lack of communication, and an inability to discharge the duties of an arbitrator), we would almost certainly be considering the same outcome. (In fact, the situation is rather unlike, since Xeno has been in contact with us and his term expires at the next scheduled election, but he is the closest relevant example) Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reaction after a first read: A bad idea in that it will factionalize Wikipedia. Full disclosure: I am hardly pleased with several rulings by ArbCom of late. However, the concept of voting blocs organized by "parties" is unseemly, awkward and an embarrassment. We are all Wikipedians in the final analysis. We need to act as a community. Jusdafax 05:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe non-communication with the committee was Iridescent's way to express his disagreement with the Committee's practices. Iridescen writes: It's no secret that I think Wikipedia in its current form has become overwhelmed by its own bureaucracy and a self-appointing elite who control that bureaucracy, and that the structure will collapse completely if given a strong enough kick and you know what,I think he's right!--24.4.36.87 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom is the best bit of the dispute resolution process. I don't think politicising Arbcom will offer any improvements, and although I have called for changes before I would be tempted not to make too many changes as it seems to work reasonably well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that; no one knows what, if anything, would cause Wikipedia to "collapse". That just sounds like bluster from a burned-out person who should have quit a long time before she did and is attempting to blame the community for her now lack of interest; see WP:OWB#2. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way Wikipedia collapses is if (when) outside interests, whether driven by monetary or political considerations, manage to get enough board members or perhaps WMF employees and arbitrators on their side to fully subvert Wikipedia from the inside. To me, the Fae decision looked like a major step in such a program, even if I don't recognize the details. To "corporate raiders" Wikipedia's credibility and site traffic are vast assets waiting to be liquidated in exchange for votes and market share. Once the encyclopedia is discredited, the push to fork begins in earnest - which may involve a small number of noble and innovative solutions like fed.wiki.org (though I think a MediaWiki implementation of its principles might work better). But I'm thinking that Hudong, Baide Baiku, maybe Google itself ... someone would rush in to try to make the best-known fork using a quick infusion of capital. Once that happens, and once Google starts linking to the new copy instead of the old, Wikipedia would probably implode quite quickly under a huge operating budget. I would guess Wikipedia will take years to sink, but the end will come with surprising speed. Wnt (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, why are you still wasting your time here instead of getting a head start on your own fork which will be the one true Wikipedia when the original inevitably falls to the machinations of the New World Order? I would even be willing to help you set it up, if it will make you go away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bill of Rights

  • I should note that I unilaterally proposed the Bill of Rights after reading Iblis' call for ideas, and it hasn't been ratified by anyone. Yes, much of it is in response to specific cases where I feel ArbCom made the wrong decision - which should be taken as a sign that I intend it as a list of procedures that ArbCom can implement within (or to limit) its own purview, rather than a plan to increase their power and impose "Stalinistic" central control. It is indeed a very rough draft which cannot be fully refined until those interested in the project put themselves forward to discuss it.
  • In defense of my proposal to limit the length of indefinite bans, I can only say that I don't believe that people will necessarily be re-blocked if they return to the project five years after a previous ban. It is entirely possible that they will have changed. However much it may match the pattern of the "real world", we should not subscribe to a cult of youth where those who first come to us are regarded as perfect characters and then we gradually brand, mutilate, and destroy editors in a slow accumulation of complaints over time. We should allow people a fresh chance, which has to mean being willing to place some sunset on how far into the past we are willing to look for problems.
  • As for the trial by jury and the biasing thereof - the scheme I have in mind is that we take the results of one or more national lotteries, use them to select a revision number beginning at a specific time which is convenient to the defendant (so that he is more likely to be able to converse in real time with the jury). The odds of a juror being selected would be proportional to the amount he had been editing in the days leading up to the lottery. After selections, the defendant (and also the accuser, I imagine) could issue peremptory challenges against a few jurors they know or think or imagine to be biased. Then the rest would be canvassed, preferably by a neutral party i.e. a clerk, to come and look at the situation (presumably the parties have already laid out their positions regarding the facts). In this way a jury of people not directly involved in the case could make an impartial decision. I'm picturing that this would be a way to make ArbCom proceedings more democratic, but it would be desirable to emulate at other proceedings such as RfC/U. That said, I proposed this Bill of Rights for the ArbCom Reform Party and recognize that without further community action it would be applicable only to those situations where the candidates elected had the power to do so. Wnt (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify why you think 'juries' need to be selected from the same nationality as the 'defendant'? For the life of me I can't see why this is likely to reduce bias. And why is it necessary to 'converse in real time'? Are you proposing that 'jurors' actually investigate the 'case' themselves, rather than reaching a 'verdict' according to evidence provided by others? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My only consideration was that juror could ask a question and get an answer in near-real time. If two people are both on Wikipedia at once, they can have a conversation in fifteen minutes that otherwise might take four days. Because some people edit in the morning, some at night, some even at work, I didn't think that the effect on nationality of jurors would be particularly important. I suppose I could take it out if there's this much rejection of it - the whole point of the process is to be fair - it would actually make it easier to implement simply. Wnt (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! I just reread this and finally got why this was so wrong - I didn't actually mean to determine the physical time zone where jurors live, but only to find jurors who, by chance edited within the range of times at which the editor was active. Sorry for all confusion - I didn't realize my first draft would get so much attention here so quickly. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also clarify that yes, I expect jurors to have some investigative role. The moment you cite a diff in a presentation of evidence, you're inviting the juror to go back and investigate - it's inevitable. Supposedly there are still some states in the U.S. where jurors are allowed to raise their hands and ask questions at trial, and I don't see what is wrong with that. We won't be able to enforce the sorts of rules of evidence that keep jurors in IRL trials ignorant of key points - actually that doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. So yes, I'd want them to be able to ask questions. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not to pardon some blocked users? I would have started with Will BeBack, Ottava Rima, Peter Domain and Fae. I am sure this approach will greatly improve the atmosphere around here. --24.4.36.87 (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the time good ArbCom candidates are found, voted on, empanelled, and have a chance to implement reforms, any user I could name would already be at least eligible to ask ArbCom to return, so this would be pointless. The important thing is to create and strengthen the sense of rights - social highways within which people feel safe and free to navigate without being stopped and questioned. The more rights people have, the more harmonious their interactions can become. To take an example from real life, if you don't have free speech, saying someone is a liar can lead to a duel - but with it, it is just idle complaining. Wnt (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rights for the sake of rights are counter-productive unless they have some sort of proven usefulness in terms of encyclopaedia building. US style Free speech for example would definitely be a net negative for wikipedia and would lead to more polemic blogs and rants.
This "right" is specifically problematic: "When each individual edit is acceptable under Wikipedia policy, he shall not be subject to penalty because of the "overall bias" or effect of such edits taken in collective." i.e if you can civil POV push or edit war, you can't be blocked, because each individual edit is not a blockable offence. You have constructed a system which is perfect for gaming wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's a way to put this better, but the fourth edit in a 4RR is not the same as the first; it's recognizable as a fourth revert banned by policy. Now "civil POV pushing" is another matter - I've seen this vaguely defined, mostly in terms of admins saying what they can't do about it. When civil POV pushing is done by reverting and Wikilawyering, the edits are not good edits. You have edit after edit in which the "pusher" is saying "this violates policy X", and it's a line of bull, so X changes every time. But other people will try to claim it's "civil POV pushing" if, say, you edit Wikipedia to add a mention of a news story every time a Republican gets indicted for something. I find that to be improper - it's unreasonable to expect an editor to be neutral overall in his editing style. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the term 'rights' in this context is meaningless anyway. Wikipedia is in no position to either extend or restrict individuals legal rights, as set down by applicable laws. It is pretentious twaddle to suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we should go around pardoning lots of editors until we can improve our behavioural dispute resolution processes significantly - I'm sure as it is you could ask Arbcom to allow you to come back after 5-10 years or so with a fresh account with no particular problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should go around pardoning lots of editors because besides being Wikipedians you should try to remain humans. Besides 5-10 years is way too long. By that time Wikipedia could collapse as Iridescent predicted just above.--109.123.87.153 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand that the vast, vast majority of Wikipedia editors don't end up getting community banned because they seem to manage to behave to an appropriate standard. I really see very little reason to change the process for a tiny minority of editors who get community banned.
If anything editors are driven away from the project because the current process to remove editors who aren't able to contribute appropriately is too convoluted and difficult to deal with. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a process for editors to request to be unblocked. "Indefinite isn't permanent". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this; even so, there is a certain pride barrier to deal with, and a vulnerability afterward that may be too maddening for some people. I think it would be good to sunset everything after some substantial time has passed - the sanctions and any "unindicted" offenses; just put it all out of our minds and start fresh with an editor just as if he were starting for the first time, but without having to actually be ignorant of how things went before, so that we can still try for a better outcome. Wnt (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, do you not agree that the reality is that an editor who was banned five years ago and has never edited since, and who asks to return, is likely to be allowed to return. If not, would a better suggestion be to load the appeal procedure more in favour of allowing a return in such situations. What your suggestion would do is force us to readmit Johnny the Vandal because it was five years since we first banned him, even though he's still socking and vandalising.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think I was that unclear; I'm not saying he couldn't be penalized for things he's done more recently. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that was what you meant. It was the way it was focused made it sound like that. I'm saying it would be better on focusing on a better unban process (the current BASC process by no means qualifying as the bees knees), rather than just making bans time limited. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a general statement, I see several areas where the proposed "Bill of Rights" does not comply with the Terms of use, and the majority of it refers to community–developed and approved policies that are not under the control of the Arbitration Committee. I will make further comments on its talk page. Risker (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen why are you trying to pretend that the Arbitration Committee acts only against vandals? When was the last time a vandal was banned by the Arbitration Committee? The Arbitration Committee acts against editors not vandals. Iridescent was mentioned a few times here so let me quote him one more time "...but you're not arguing for the return of Ottava, Mattisse, Peter Damian, Kohs, Mbz1 and many more, all of whom were considerably more productive and certainly no more disruptive.)" --176.67.165.198 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to where I said the Arbitration Committee ever dealt with vandals. It almost never deals with vandals. Vandals get dealt with at a very low level. And I think the creators of this initiative have just let their slip show.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside, uninvolved administrators and/or checkusers might want to look at some of the IPs that have been posting in relation to this issue, as at least two of them appear to be confirmed open proxies. While I support members of the community participating in this discussion — there is always room for improvement — the community has a longstanding prohibition on avoiding scrutiny and/or evading sanctions. Risker (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]


You like Wikipedia's policices don't you? Then you should probably know that CU is not for fishing.

Oh these Wikipedia's policies, the polices that are executed by true believers, the policies that make this site laughable, the polices that bring more harm than good.

Example: A banned user made a sock account named Warrah. This sock account created lots of valuable, encyclopedic articles. The sock was discovered and blocked which is fine. More than 1.5 years later admin DragonflySixtyseven deleted articles created by Warrah with the reason "article created by banned user in violation of ban".

In particular the administrator deleted:

Two articles on films that are part of the U.S. Library of Congress’ National Film Registry: "Commandment Keep Church, Beaufort, South Carolina (May 1940)" and "Kannapolis, N.C. (1941 film)." A third National Film Registry-related article, "Traffic in Souls," was also deleted but was later recreated by another person.

Two articles about noted U.S. zoologists William G. Conway and Susan K. Avery.

An article about the critically acclaimed biography "Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just."

An article about the book “The Biology of the Cell Surface,” written by the aforementioned Ernest Everett Just (it is one of the most important books in early 20th century marine biology).

An article about the American Wind and Wildlife Institute, a prominent U.S. wind energy and environmental organization.

An article about the environmental book and documentary "River of Renewal: Myth and History in the Klamath Basin."

An article about Absalom Boston, the first African American whaling ship captain.

An article about the maritime folk song "John Kanaka."

Articles about the famous paintings "The Dream" (Rousseau), "Lions in the Desert" (Tanner) and "Apocalypse in Lilac, Capriccio" (Chagall).

Articles about two New England museums: Azorean Maritime Heritage Society and Kendall Whaling Museum.

Articles about two organizations that preserve U.S. whaling history, The X Seamen's Institute and Melville Society.

An article about the acclaimed indie publishing company Orchises Press.

An article about the Sarawak pygmy swellshark. (I guess it is not such a notable shark after all?)

An article about the influential U.S. pediatric physician/researcher Sidney V. Haas.

An article about the U.S. television program "Zoorama."

An article on Scottish historian Ashley Cowie (someone else rewrote it).

An article on the Giant Solenodon (somehow that got restored).

To protect Wikipedia don't go after socks of banned users, better look at actions of Wikipedia administrators.--31.193.138.200 (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Eraserhead. "Wikipedia is corrupt, we need politicians to take over and run it!" AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that this IP is the banned editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"silly season protection" proposal

At AN/I [3] in response to a long discussion as to what to do with political articles in election season, I proposed:

Place all WP:BLP covered articles connected with politics for the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and France for a period of 3 months prior to any major elections in such countries under "silly season protection" with the goal of reducing the use of such articles as campaign vehicles.

I think this is in line with my consistent position about Wikipedia being used as a campaign vehicle, which has, unfortunately, clearly been a problem in the past. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we about ready for this to be listed at WP:PERENNIAL? I was dragged to ANI a few years ago because a few partisans had a hissy fit about their favorite non-notable politicians being at AfD. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - nothing to do with deleting any articles at all -- just a simple recognition that Wikipedia has been abused as a campaign vehicle in the past, and it is time we do something concrete about it. I did not find any similar older proposal at all -- I wonder exactly why you consider it "perennial"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perennial as in there is a "we must do something about it!" proposal around this time of election year, where someone claims that this group of articles needs some sort of special protection above & beyond what we normally do. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so when the invariable articles get in the press about the problem, the solution is to ignore the problem? Nope -- I suggest that the problem exists (The Earth still moves') , and it is in the best interests of the project to do something instead of pretending that "nothing is wrong, folks." As to saying someone claims something is amiss, that is wondrously absurd - as something is amiss with regard to people using Wikipedia as a campaign vehicle. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another bad publicity

Exclusive: Wikipedia ignores solution to rampant porn problem although maybe there is no such thing as bad publicity? --24.4.36.87 (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, Fox must be low on news. Company X trying to promote product Y couldn't sell specific product to organization Z. And somehow this is newsworthy? I see the marketer for the product also views it as an "an important issue, They have a social responsibility to address this", which is hardly surprising considering they are selling the product. I think Fox news will be a little shocked when they discover there is actual pornography on the internet; personally I've never found pornography on wikipedia doing my normal editing and reading. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares what fox news is writing. --Conti|✉ 14:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many do. In September of 2012 Fox News is shown under number 7 in the top 15 Most Popular News Websites.--24.4.36.87 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This must be some great company. "Here, we're willing to offer you an almost FREE deal to set ourselves up to censor what your readers can see [for our own political ends], to "automatically inspects and filters user content requests"[4] [and probably make permanent records of every article they browse to be sold for who knows what purposes], [if not put ads on your pages then at least get loads of free publicity], [and probably dictate terms and conditions about what your users can do so that they don't defeat/confuse our filter]" ... "and if you don't buy we'll go to Fox News and make a huge stink about how you wouldn't take our gracious offer." Wnt (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For this to be bad publicity, someone would actually have to give a damn what Fox News thinks. Resolute 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please ask Larry Sanger if he's read the support FAQ. "After installing the Dynamic Internet Guard filtering solution on our local network, users are experiencing slower than usual surfing speeds," does not inspire confidence in scaling capability. Perhaps if we installed it FOX News would get more viewers. 31.170.166.17 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the known issues could be addressed by a category based image filter on Commons, which would not be expensive or difficult to introduce. The real problem is the perpetual cry of "OMG censorship" whenever this is proposed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a method that would not be objectionable to me, which I think can be implemented by anyone familiar with writing user scripts. [5] I've had no answer in a very long time now. Someone else apparently has an actual working (but not user friendly) filter using Adblock that was mentioned on Jimbo's page. It sure seems like a lot of people only want to talk about filters that steer straight for the conflicts that arise when people try to come up with some universal one size fits all standard for what is offensive or not. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every single image issue can be avoided by configuring your browser to not display images... it's not that complicated. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My final plea. TParis and his actions!

TParis posted this on my talk page “I've removed rollback privileges from your account because you've been misusing the tool on Kashmir conflict. You have used the tool in a content dispute here and here and reverted good faith edits here and here. It isn't to make it easier to undo ~20 edits that you disagree with.”

I first thought he wasn't wrong (I have a very forgetful mind you can say). Hence I replied on his talk page, "It won't happen again, I promise. I fully understand that I had, intentionally or not, overstepped my rights. Somebody told me that repeated disruptive edits, can be seen as vandalism. I again say, it won't happen again. And please consider that I use WP:STiki to fight vandalism mostly, and that that contravention, as far as I can remember, wasn't based on malevolent intent (as a side note, If you see the talk and other edit summaries on kashmir conflict, I repeatedly tried to explain that is not the right place to put an infobox). I understand that it doesn't legitimize my contravention, I am not trying to sanitize what I did, not at all but consider my predicament.

Now, please can I get that right back on this condition? That would be great. You can watch me, I will be doubly cautious after this."

Then I remembered, I have not used "rollback" in the first place. I used either "undo" or "restore this version". I even told him, "Sir, I think you have made an honest mistake. I have not used "rollback" there. I used twinkle. Please give me those rights back." His reply was: “If I could remove Twinkle with it, I would.” - I have never talked to him before in my life.

What is going on? I have not violated any rules which could justify this revocation. Technically I am still entitled to this right/permission. I can swear on anything that there are at least scores of other rollbackers and even some admins, if not more, who, like me, have engaged in multiple edit wars (to protect a page without breaking 3RR) and there privileges are quire rightly intact. What about ignore all rules if you think that they prevent you from improving wikipedia, what about collegial collaboration and policies that give Wikipedia its identity? I implore everybody to check my contributions for the past month and check how many actual edit wars I was involved in. Besides, edit warring, while it's a bad practice I admit, shouldn't serve as grounds for removal of rollbacker privilege when I have not abused it at all.

I tried to explain my every edit on kashmir conflict page. In any case, I have not "abused rollback rights". Hence, I went to Wikipedia:ANI#TParis_and_his_actions, a discussion ensued, where most were in favor a warning, at best, but restoring the right/permission.

The discussion was closed prematurely I'd say, "to stop the dramafest". I think it was closed early so that a consensus couldn't be formed in favor of restoring my rights/privilege. What is going on, is not right, Sir! I am feeling discouraged. I do one thing and then I get punished for another. WoW! Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has not been mentioned and was discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#TParis and his actions is that twinkle automatically uses the user right if it is present. If MrT was edit warring (which the editor doesn't seem to deny) with twinkle, rollback would be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although we've been told that it's not considered to be forum-shopping to post here, it's sure looking like it - however, please allow me to comment. I would hope that you will have read some of the comments in the ANI thread - especially considering the user right (note: it's not "right" as in "rights and privileges", it's a technical switch). The Rollback technical right is entrusted only to editors who do not edit war, and who successfully show a pattern of being able to determine vandalism from non-vandalism. It's typically granted after a request is reviewed by a single admin. It can also be removed by a single admin if those undesired behaviours occur.
In the ANI thread, there's a lot of confusion by a number of people on how the rollback/undo work on Wikipedia - this is fairly common. However, you do NOT have to have used rollback itself improperly to have lost the trust of the community to have the extended right to use it.
The thread was closed to save you further embarrassment: there certainly was consensus to not re-grant you the rollback feature at this time. It was also closed to save you from yourself.
Losing access to a technical feature is only permanent if you make it permanent - I even gave you excellent advice in that thread in order to gain it back fairly quickly dangerouspanda 09:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll acknowledge a mistake that I wasn't aware Twinkle was used. There was no (TW) in the edit summary. Whether or not Twinkle used the rollback tool because it was available to the user also isn't important; I do not want to 'win' on a technicality. However, I don't believe this user can be trusted with the right given their very recent content disputes. If some other admin wishes to restore it, that's fine by me, but I won't. Rollback is rollback despite the tool. I feel this is demonstrative that we need a blacklist for Twinkle despite the consensus against it.--v/r - TP 14:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mistake might be a bit bigger. I am sill puzzled why you would claim that any tool, rollback or TW, has in any way been abused. These are the 4 diffs you gave to justify removing Rollback. here and here and reverted good faith edits here and here. Each one provides a very detailed edit summary, including some wikilink to relevant policy. Each one also follows an edit by another editor containing NO edit summary. Are you sure you have not simply scanned the diff incorrectly because from where I'm looking, the complainant's edit summaries could not be more detailed. He might have been involved in an edit war, but he abused no user-rights. Leaky Caldron 14:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary or not, this editor unilaterally reverted ~20 edits in a content dispute after a prior warning about edit warring. I don't see why you won't acknowledge that. Even considering the edit summary: it is not at all sufficient to explain that revert.--v/r - TP 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not denied his involvement in edit warring but cannot see any of the claimed abuse of Rollback or TW which is what you nailed him for. The only abuse of tools in this case is the removal of user-rights for reasons not substantiated by the evidence. Justice is not served by justifying "punishment" for a different reason to that originally claimed and found lacking in evidence. Leaky Caldron 15:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never justified not restoring it based on his behavioral issues like the ANI thread did. You can review the ANI thread to be certain of that. I've maintained the removal was because he was reverting edits in a content dispute after receiving a warning for edit warring.--v/r - TP 15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you told him on his TP, including refs and bold. "I've removed rollback privileges from your account because you've been misusing the tool on Kashmir conflict. You have used the tool in a content dispute here and here and reverted good faith edits here and here. Rollback is for vandalism only. It isn't to make it easier to undo ~20 edits that you disagree with." You told him that he had misused Rollback - he hadn't used it. You repeated this claim in the 2nd sentence. Finally you said Rollback is for vandalism only."
Again I say to you, he did not use Rollback in any form. This seems to be about your determination not to be found wrong in your assertions about the editor and finding a suitable justification for your erroneous claim that he had abused user-rights. Why not just pursue a proper edit warring case which would likely find against him and with possibly greater sanctions? At least that would be "just". Leaky Caldron 16:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note it should be pointed out here as it was at AN/I that per WP:Rollback, as long as an edit provides an edit summary, it is irrelevant whether the edit technically used rollback or some other technical mechanism. The restrictions on rollback use apply only when it is used without edit summaries. It is therefor irrelevant wether or not the technical implementation of twinkle called the rollback function or performed the edit in some other way. Monty845 16:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=511873660"