User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

The New Wikipedia?

• On this mediation page, the word "judge/judgement" is mentioned 20 times, including "a three-person panel of judges".
• The phrase "the threshold for a decisive outcome be set at a minimum of 67%", is also there. Could you please look at it?--andreasegde (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Indeed. Fighting over "T" vs "t"? This place is jumping the shark. I'm reminded of Golgafrinchams not being able to invent the wheel for lack of agreeing what color it should be. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whisper words of wisdom, let it be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahem! Let It Be... Formerip (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There was a coin-toss template, but it got deleted by the overly tidy minded. Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC).

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)

You may say Jimbo's a dreamer, but he's not the only one . . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)\

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Before judging everyone involved as silly time wasters, take a look at the evidence. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Which proves the point about wasting time? Hot Stop (Edits) 06:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, but what do you mean by "more formally"?--andreasegde (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Formal process, other than ordinary editing, (eg. RfC; formal adoption of policy or guideline, etc.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"the beaTles". There. End of - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

• stop the mediation please it is fake and a kangaroo bs steamroller now okay? 41.77.137.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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). Silverseren^C 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• It doesn't say "this is what it was inspired by", it said "this is what this famous critic thinks its inspired by". Huge difference there. Silverseren^C 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 18:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

^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)

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)

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)

One year since WP:Acceptability

Hard to believe it has been one year since your message (on 1 September 2011) about acceptability of text (and "transcription monkeys" versus editorial judgment). I created essay WP:Acceptability back then in 2011, and even though we never publicized, the initial essay has still received about 40-70 pageviews per month. It contains your quote with the famous "monkeys" note and the key concept line:

"We want verifiability and truth. And relevance. And proper weight. And some other things besides! Template:J 04:52, 1 September 2011, link: diff-3527)

Since there was little effort to spread the word, due to numerous other topics here, I have created redirect "wp:Monkeys" to help increase wider interest. So many topics discussed here are expanded into WP essays, as a method to increase the impact of ideas as they are emerging.

People were trying to limit the focus to only "verifiability and truth" while you were reminding them to think about even more issues behind the overall acceptability of text in articles. The 1-year anniversary is a good time to re-think the issues and make some future plans. -Wikid77 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In other words, you are attempting a coup? Resolute 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Wouldn't it make more sense to use the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update_and_ratification#Ratification_and_amendment to change policy, rather then trying to establish a voting block to hijack the committee? Monty₈₄₅ 00:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Given I said MFD was inevitable, I went ahead and created the discussion myself. You may find it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party. Resolute 00:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Permanently blocked because I didn't indent

I have been on English and Swedish Wikipedia for a good while - around four years or so. I have now been permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipiedia because I didn't indent a comment. I kid you not. I went to the help desk - no response. I can make a presentaton of what happened for you or someone else, otherwise this is going outside of Wikipedia. Regards, RPSM (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't have jurisdiction over the Swedish Wikipedia, at most we can offer you asylum here and see if the WMF can intervene. Count Iblis (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You did get a response on the help desk, along with User talk:Sjö#Why am I blocked? and User talk:Niklas R#Hello it's quite clear that you are aware of the reasons behind your block and that it is about a lot more than just your lack of an indent--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)