User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

More pillars

In wondering why these bottlenecks persist (slow edit-preview for 2 years), I have been remembering the strategy for "continuous improvement" (with Kaizen and all). Basically, the underlying values of a system, the pillars, must be set to favor, to empower major improvements. Perhaps some new pillars: Performance, Progress, and Readership.

• Performance: Even the word "wiki" mean "fast" and everyone should worry about performance, otherwise it is no longer "Wiki-" anything. Hence, we have articles on Egypt/Israel that need 30-40 seconds to edit-preview. That ain't wiki. If processes drop into 7-level approval steps before allowed into mainspace, that is no longer fast. Let's coin the term, now, to beware when it turns "Sicki-" (easy to remember!) and needs treatment to regain health as a wiki. The value of Performance is not be belittled, but instead becomes a core pillar.

• Progress: I was warned, many years ago, of the adage, "People dislike change". That means: if you hold a vote to change something, the election will typically decide "no". I think we have enough evidence to confirm that adage certainly seems true. The whole driving force for progress must be an underlying value in the system. It is no longer wise to ask people if they will allow change; instead, it must be guaranteed, where Progress is an underlying value.

• Readership: WP promises "anyone has access" and if the readers say that it is too slow to bear, then that is another reason to make improvements. Now, the concerns of the readers become a major value in the WP system, another pillar.

More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Impact of pillars: The key point here, about emphasizing those issues as pillars, is to emphasize their vital importance when sorting out priorities. Consequently, the related guidelines, standards and best practices would be written with central focus on performance speed (or clarity), plus easing progress towards better methods, and also focusing on concerns for current or future readership, as also being high-priority issues. No longer would the speed of article page-loads, or reformatting, be a lower secondary issue allowed to become slower, year after year. For instance, more people would know how a small template with one #switch of 20 choices could run over 500x times per second. Also, more people would know setting the Special:Preferences default image thumbnail-size smaller or larger, from the typical 220px width, to perhaps 120px or 250px, would bypass article-cache copies for that user and incur the reformat penalty for almost every article viewed, whether popular major articles or stubs, so all would appear by reformatting, 10-50x times slower than viewing the cache versions. Similarly, for viewing prior revisions of an article, more users would know how any prior revision of a page is reformatted every time when viewed, even if already just viewed a minute earlier, the page get reformatted again. Hence, the pillars direct the amount of focus of all users upon the core values of the operation. The pillars determine the focus of the basic "sum of all knowlege" for running a wiki better. Otherwise, editors could justifiably state, "Don't worry about Readership, because any readers, who care enough, can join a discussion to form consensus", rather than pro-actively consider Readership an important aspect which always influences any decision made. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:02, 17 July, revised 03:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find a facepalm image of sufficient size to respond to this? No, wrong, just wrong. "the pillars direct the amount of focus of all users upon the core values of the operation" Yes, they do - and the "core values" of Wikipedia have nothing whatsoever to do with "speed of article page-loads". This is an encyclopaedia, not an exercise in abstract software 'optimisation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a wiki-encyclopaedia, and a "wiki" is a type of computer website (networking interface), so ignoring the computer aspects would be ignoring half of the name "Wikipedia". -Wikid77 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. "It is no longer wise to ask people if they will allow change; instead, it must be guaranteed, where Progress is an underlying value". Is that a direct quote from uncle Joe, or a paraphrase? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Joe generally tail ended the majority position in the party, much more of a demagogue than a dictator. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Progress is part of the "quality revolution" (see: Google Search link), where the entire organization finds ways to change to better practices. When people know more about the computerized display and transfer of information, then they can better judge how to improve the system each month, rather than wait until articles need almost a whole minute to edit-preview. -Wikid77 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Vacuous management-speak isn't 'progress'. And Wikipedia would be better if its users needed to know less about "the computerized display and transfer of information". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be great if article editing could be faster, but such technicalities should not be pillars, nor should they motivate any changes to content writing policy. Technical formatting should be in the service of article writing, not the other round. Solutions to technical problems should be judged by their usefulness as experienced by contributers, not by any standardized measure of efficasiousness or "end user satisfaction".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"It is never forum shopping to post on this page. Ever."

Can I make the same ruling on my talk page? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You really can't, because Jimbo's statement glosses over the reality and dynamics of this page's importance. He may not consider it forum shopping to post on this page, but many of the 'go ask Jimbo' questions are entirely too-thinly veiled attempts to draw attention to something, since this is one of the most (and most eclectically) watched talk pages, is watched by a lot of people holding positions of responsibility, and it has the historic open invitation from Jimbo. That is, while it may or may not be forum shopping since it is not a decision-making page, posting here will more often have the net effect of canvassing. But the larger question should really be... is this really a bad thing? In a situation that works by consensus, the current "loser" in any discussion has no disincentive to attract a larger audience, because more people can't usually provide a worse outcome, and the larger a discussion, the higher the likelihood of a "no consensus" outcome. The winners in a WP:CONLIMITED discussion, of course, benefit from such a dispute not being publicized widely. I'd actually think a more apt comparison is that posting to Jimbo's talk page quite often parallels a Hail Mary pass by someone "losing" a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally Jclemens I disagree with you. IMO if an editor wants to put a message on thier talk page that says that anyone can leave a message and its not considered forumshopping then thats up to them. It opens a big door and the user should accept that but I don't view it as against policy but up to the decision of the editor. Just my opinion. I would though that the message should contain a link (as this one did) to the main discussion though. Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For most user pages, there's no question of FORUMSHOP (although CANVASS applies...), since most user pages aren't watched nearly this much. After all, it's WP:Centijimbos, not "jimbos" or "kilojimbos".... Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Holy Relic of Jimbonaeus Walesimus is one of the more powerful in the Hallowed Crypt of Vagaries and Ineffables. With one wave, thine enemies may be smitten by an ignoration of all rules and precepts, while onlookers verily say mighty loads of trouts can be cast among us in all directions. Truly even the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch dost pale in comparison to the slightest glimpse of the Relic. No shopping was done by him who brought forth his concern before the Relic, and yet many would yet say it was shopping nonetheless. Truly such paradox can only be contained herein. -- Avanu (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't agree, I think Jimbo's intention is to have an 'open-door policy' where there are no restrictions to the use of his talk page.--TP (alt) 01:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't change the fact that many editors use his talk page as an attempt to forum shop in order to try and overrule some other incident. Silverseren^C 02:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Many editors attempt it. It rarely works. More often, it simply attracts more attention to the underlying issue, to the detriment of the person posting here to avoid accusations of 'forum shopping' - and asking Jimbo to "consider some kind of intervention", as above, is exactly the type of posting that tends to boomerang most. I think it often works as a sort of safety valve - and sometimes (rarely) posting here may help us focus on the real issues, rather than the endless bureaucratic nonsense that so often dominates elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What I would say is that it has worked less over time, which I ascribe to the increasing political maturity of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've followed the "Run to Jimbo" phenomenon for some time now, and it usually has the same result: Losing debate --> Run to Jimbo --> People become interested --> More opposition to your cause. Ultimately, this talk page is about as ineffective at enacting change as ANI. Resolute 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think people are overlooking an important point. In a very significant number of cases, people who complain here about forum shopping are just simply and purely in the wrong on the underlying issue. One common technique to try to win what is a hopelessly brutal and unfair attack on someone is to try everything you can to avoid independent minds taking a look at it. Suppressing discussion by screaming about "forum shopping" or "canvassing" is very frequently a sign of something bad happening. There is never anything to fear for the righteous party in asking more people to take a look. This is, as was mentioned above, a rather 'eclectic' place to do that, as people follow this page for a wide variety of interests.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that the policy section on WP:FORUMSHOP should not exist? Because, if they don't apply here, then they don't apply anywhere else either. Silverseren^C 09:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that WP:FORUMSHOP is too often relied on to shut down or suppress legitimate discussion than it is to deal with actual bad behavior. As TheDJ says below, "There is forum shopping, and there is forum shopping." One of the things that are unhealthy about the constant jabbering about canvassing is that alerting people to an issue deserving of more attention is a risky activity. I think that policy about forumshopping and canvassing is fine, but we should examine how it can be (and is) misused to stop people from doing good work to generate consensus.

Let me give a personal example. I've opened a discussion to brainstorm what I hope is a thoughtful way forward on the personal image filter issue. I mainly want participation from people who agree that a filter is worth doing (and worth compromising with others to achieve), and from thoughtful opponents who feel they could be persuaded if the thing is done in a suitable fashion. I have a pretty good idea of about 20-30 great people who I'd like to be involved in that discussion. What happens if I go around and notify them on their talk pages? Well, I don't want to find out, but I'm pretty sure I know: a massive community drama about canvassing. So instead I just talk here on my talk page and feel happy that Signpost picked it up. I think that's really problematic - if even I can't convene people for a specific purpose, I'm sure others feel even less empowered. That's not good for community or consensus.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Jimbo Wales, I recently saw an editor go to different talk pages of people he knew and explain that he was starting discussion of an idea or two. It worked out. Useful discussion of those ideas has been happening. Obviously, that editor knows his way around well or that wouldn't have worked. I'm sure it helped that his ideas for new initiatives have so much merit. the editor's name is Dennis Brown. I think he may still be helping out in the discussion to increase editor retention. So my point is that it is possible to contact 20 or 30 editors to ask if they'd join in a discussion. If I wanted to do something like that I'd ask Dennis Brown how he did it. NewtonGeek (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you think Jimmy could learn something from me, but I think you give me too much credit (and thanks for the point here, I don't normally watch this page). When I started WikiProject Editor Retention, I did so without an answer, instead gathering people so we can first find the real problems and together search for solutions, making it a bit different. I think this is different than canvassing (which IS improperly claimed all too often, see my RfA). Others might say that I exploit opportunities to link the project on high profile pages to bring awareness to the issues when it is applicable, but I would never take advantage that way. We have cookies and punch there, by the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll bring pie and ice cream. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have to go to an opposite extreme to justify one exception. This user Talk page is a unique one among many others. Perhaps there will come a day when another editor gains some degree of status and will have a similar large viewing audience, but suffice to say, this page is unique. One exception doesn't upend all of policy and society. Jimbo seems to have indicated long ago that this page will be a place where exceptions can be made and people can be ignored or listened to simply because. Think of it as 'royal prerogative' if you wish. The community can decide to discuss and weigh in or can avoid something entirely, or Jimbo can remove it by fiat. It is one place where the non-bureaucratic-Wikipedia still exists to some extent. So let it be the miracle in the meadow, where ethereal sprites play and dance, and let the magic live unquestioned here. -- Avanu (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)There is forum shopping, and there is forum shopping. It is there as a useless behavior that that annoys people and doesn't help drive your point forward. There is posting so omnipresent that it becomes annoying (because the same people are answering the same question over and over again at different fora) or SOO present that it can be considered spamming. There is also the BOLD variant of it, where you basically just have to kick an issue up and up, because people simply have not noticed what you have posted. However, this is Jimmy's talk page, it's HIS courtyard, not our shared forum. So as long as he is not personally annoyed by it (as made clear by his personal statement), in my opinion, forum shopping doesn't apply here (especially with the special status Jimmy has). At most WP:CANVAS applies slightly. People should stop capturing things in WP: shortcuts and start applying a bit of measure to the labels they put on people. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to buy The Forum. How much does it cost? --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we have WP:verifiability for that it is never forum shopping to say something here and as we know the mantra is 'verifiability not truth'. ;-) You really do always have to allow a way of complaining about the system so I agree this has to be an exception to any rule about forum shopping however formed. Dmcq (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I grow weary of all the claims of forum shopping and canvassing. The act of notifying many people isn't canvassing, it is how it is done that determines whether it is appropriate or not. I have my own bad experience where my previous silence still leaves a scar. Coming to the most neutral and heavily watched page on Wikipedia, here, can't really be canvassing because there are simply too many diverse and independent people here, so there is no singular person or group to persuade. It is simply shinning more light on a situation, cutting both ways equally. It can't be forum shopping because it isn't a forum, plain and simple. It is more like a bar, where everyone wants to say they know the bar owner, and it attracts every kind of patron, good and bad. I don't normally watch this page, but it seems that people come here in desperation, as a last hope, even when they don't understand that they are clearly in the wrong. Perhaps sometimes they are not. That function is served no where else: the last hope. I wouldn't be inclined to take that away from someone, nor brand them as a policy offender for reaching out in this fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, what you wrote here is very noble, but FYI not so long ago, an editor was banned and blocked because he/she raised a legitimate issue here. Evidently what you write here has zero impact at the AN/I and ArbCom. --109.65.205.91 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Which editor was this? Tarc (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"This" might be the one who was already a sock, who then continued to make new WP:EVADE accounts again and again (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

We tied Google+ as a social media site

Apparently Wikipedia is giving off an image that this is a social media site rather than an encyclopedia. In this CNN article they say, "Google+, the 1-year-old social network that pundits declared dead last year, ties Wikipedia at the top of the list of social media sites, with a score of 78 out of 100."--v/r - TP 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The report itself--v/r - TP 21:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, encyclopedia, social media - they rhyme, and they're both on the Internet, so they're the same thing, right? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In other news, Wikimedia Commons has recently tied Redtube.com as the highest rated porn site (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If Commons is a porn site then I won't be working at my new job for much longer :D -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is engaged in social information processing and as such is a form of social media, and is currently accurately classified as a collaborative type of social media. This often repeated meme that Wikipedia is either an encyclopedia or a social media site is and always has been wrong. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, anything crowd-sourced (so-called) and collaborative is always going to be classifiable as "social". Nothing to be ashamed of... —MistyMorn (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, comparisons with Facebook and YouTube, for example, does feel a bit like apples and pomegranates, and maybe not entirely complimentary to the online encyclopedia. Presumably (I haven't checked) the ratings are based on feedback from any user, including consumers of information who don't go in for direct social interactions. The pollsters can always reply that they're looking at satisfaction with the social sites as a whole, rather than with social interactions on the sites. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a question regarding page view statistics. If a page is viewed externally, like from huggle for example, does Wikipedia get credit for the view? If mirrored sites, external editors, and dashboards don't record as a view here, how skewed would that make the results? 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It won't count mirrors (though I would suspect they hold only a minuscule fraction of the global views); but external tools that actually contact Wikipedia will be counted if they view Wikipedia through the normal web mechanism (HTTP). Tools that use the bot API will probably not be counted, however – and I don't know offhand which of those AWB is. — Coren ^(talk) 00:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd think the API would count, it's still an HTTP connection.--v/r - TP 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but that's not certain; it's all in what data, exactly, they look at. Personally, I'd exclude API calls regardless of the transport because automated edits are not really informative when you want to measure traffic: their use pattern is unusual, and don't match "visits" by any reasonable metric. I expect they are (or should be) treated much like crawlers, and left out of "visitors". — Coren ^(talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How did public libraries score? Consolidated corporate publishers? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On a more serious note, Wikipedia is pretty easily defined as an encyclopedia built through crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is a form of social media (well, at least, it'd be easy to argue that it is). Ergo... - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:ISAFORUMGETUSEDTOIT Wikipedia is a forum, get used to it. Never going to take the top position as the number one social website, but it's use as a forum will be a primary attribute as it grinds itself into marginalisation. Penyulap ☏ 00:43, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Gah! Me on a social media site? I feel contaminated like I just found half a slug in my sandwich. :) On a more serious note there are I feel quite grave dangers in making it anything like a social site as that encourages in-groups rather than neutrality. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

see my little exposé, how one lovely simple sentence turns into a gazillion pages of infighting between factions over the inclusion or exclusion of newbies. CREEP is the tool of the hour for creating in-groups. The fundamental systems of wikipedia in place today generate exponentially increasing discussion. To repair, or even slow the problem by streamlining only speeds up the increase. While everyone is distracted looking at the number of articles and the number of editors, the cultural changes will broadside the project, you don't even see it coming. The editors who don't join and the editors who leave go somewhere, the number in that 'pool' of potential you don't even track, why would you ? Penyulap ☏ 18:29, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

One reason people don't want to be admins. I was considering adding a script that scrambled my password if I ever started up an RfA subpage since I must have gone doolally to do so. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Actually though that one is rather overlong at least they were discussing something reasonable. It's when they get onto introspection and recusal and baring souls at a place like AN/I is when it really gets at me. Dmcq (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord Lucan

I recently re-wrote this article, which has just been promoted to FA status. If the username is accurate, it appears that the subject's wife/widow objects to some of its content. A content issue involving a peeress who was almost murdered by her husband (Lucan is infamous in Britain) may be an issue for the WMF, especially as she seems to be unaware of policies like reliability and verifiability. Discussion here. Parrot of Doom 21:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on running checkuser, I conclude that this is unlikely to be the real Countess of Lucan, but rather a known abusive sock puppeteer. I recommend that a full checkuser investigation be launched to confirm my informal results. Having said that, I think the content questions should be taken seriously, not as first-hand reports, but as potential problems to review. (If there are no problems, that's great!)

It's probably best, despite my results, to treat the user with respect as if she/he is who she/he claims to be, with a request that they get in touch with Wikimedia UK to validate their identity to us. That'll probably be the end of it. The main reason I say this is that the ip number traces to what appears to me to possibly be a public terminal. Would a 75 year old Countess possibly be using a terminal in a Westminster City Council Library? I have no idea, but would not want to presume certainty.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My research assistant tells me that it is not unknown that personages of great distinction use Westminster City Council libraries. The [Dowager] Countess is active, even 38 years after the events in question, in making her side of the story known. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about BLP and rape allegations

Drew Doughty, a star player for the Los Angeles Kings, was recently cleared of rape allegations in relation to an incident from this spring. Predictably, the media has been all over the story, and so there are a plethora of reliable sources on the matter (1200 results for "drew doughty rape" on google news vs 1730 for "drew doughty"). My question is, given that the police elected not to press charges, should it nonetheless be covered in the article? It clearly passes all tests for notability and verifiability, but I have reservations due to the BLP aspects. On the one hand, I feel it's unfair to him to enshrine this incident on his page when the police felt there wasn't anything to the allegations, but on the other hand it certainly has been a major story and may deserve coverage on that ground alone. I feel pretty conflicted about it, and would appreciate any guidance you might be able to offer.

Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what past practice has been, but my gut it that this would merit one sentence, noting that allegations were made (sources), and that the police felt there wasn't anything to these allegations (sources). That way, people coming to his bio will see that the allegations are acknowledged, and the release from those allegations noted as well. I do note Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, which suggests accusations not be placed until a conviction is secured --KarlB (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mention unproven claims in broad subarticle, not bio page: A reasonable approach to writing about notable allegations would be in a subarticle of wider coverage, such as "Legal issues of Drew Doughty" which would focus on multi-year scope, and also consider impacts to him rather than treat the text as aggressor versus victim. In trying to avoid wp:SOAPBOXing about specific short-term events, and focus on a long-term view, the title of the subarticle should convey a multi-year topic, but within that topic, then a notorious set of events could be given more text, in proportion to the amount of coverage, over multiple years. Such broad-scope subarticles will require more research, to include legal issues from previous years, and not start the focus as "Let's talk about the recent unproven rape allegations" (no, mention more topics). Instead, each legal issue would be given adequate coverage, in the subarticle, where any unfounded allegations would be described in terms of impact to his contracts, family attitudes, or impact to interacting with fans, because he is the main subject of the article, not opinions of other people seeing themselves as victims or suffering. The overarching goal is to provide NPOV coverage of the allegations in a broader subarticle that deters wp:GRANDSTANDing about events that would have sensational appeal. In that manner, the widespread notable coverage of events is described, but the subarticle is never available to empower "yellow journalism" about a recent event. Wikipedia's guidelines about these cases are still weak, in regard to deterring sensational article titles and casting aspersions on those accused of misconduct. Hence, the placement of text outside the main article, under a neutral title, with broad consideration of some related multi-year events, can really dampen the impact which would otherwise taint a main BLP article with hot-topic, or tabloid phrases. Always reduce the space available for wp:SOAPBOXing or wp:GRANDSTANDing by having broader coverage. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Never believe those approximate Google numbers. It's an advertising tactic, meant to make you feel like they're some unstoppable juggernaut, when really, their index however impressive is not that good. When you page forward you get 153 Google News results for "drew doughty rape" [1] and 576 results for "drew doughty" [2] (quotation marks not used in the searches). Wnt (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you must include something in the main article, include it in a phrasing like "so-and-so was cleared of such-and-such charges, which got extensive coverage in the press." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Bluntly, this pretty much comes down to being a false accusation, but as is usually the case, the accusation alone is enough to stain the person wrongfully accused permanently. The question for me, is are we going to play a role in that staining? Resolute 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in discussion in relation to amending the unique powers your account possesses as a route of appeal from Arbcom

Dear Jimbo, I have mentioned you in discussion here in relation to amending Arbcom policy to remove reserved powers related to appealing arbcom rulings from your account. You may be interested in any discussion that will happen there. thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't give up your appeal powers until Arbcom shows greater commitment to justice. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	There's only one suitable reward for the founder: a very, very special Barnstar. Userboker (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

According to one Wikipedian "one childish statement" is not "harrassment"

I would disagree. I did not investigate the full extent of the statement or the circumstances, but I'm sure alot will be written concerning it by others... given your recent support for something to happen about cyber bullying, I was wondering yours and the Community's thoughts about an Admin having said such a thing to someone who came to them for help. I think civility should be extended to having admins be sympathetic instead of "boys will be boys" attitude of "suck it up" and "get thicker skin" and my all time favorite "more heat than light" (the single most obnoxious over-used piece of 'baloney' used on Wikipedia to make oneself look semi-intelligent). I'd love for the dispute processes we have actually be run by those who care to actually get involved instead of run by those who would rather call those that complain "whiners".Camelbinky (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

collapsing OT that explains a small redaction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Camelbinky: I've redacted a word which could be deemed offensive (please see WP:BIAS). —MistyMorn (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I've undone the redaction. First, redacting bologna is ridiculous. Second as redacted, the obvious fill in the blank would be ...obnoxious over-used piece of shit..., so the redacted version is far more likely to make the editor look bad then the unredacted one. If Camelbinky wants to remove it they are free to do so, but it is certainly not justified to redact it from the comment of another editor. Monty845 02:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) One hemisphere of my brain wants to remain silent and laugh as the typical Wikidysfunction continues for several days. The other wants to suggest that C use the alternate spelling "baloney" so that MM can sleep tonight without staying up worrying about this. The third hemisphere thinks I should self-importantly change it myself without checking with C first. [flips 3-sided coin] and... it's #2. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) You think it is "ridiculous", I don't (please read WP:BIAS), although I don't wish to dramatize in any way. I tried to do this in the most unobtrusive manner possible, and chose to use six asterisks (******) to avoid the "shit" connection (although using the name of a beautiful city as a pseudo-polite euphemism is not good). I would be grateful if someone uninvolved would reredact in as discreet a way as possible [baloney would be fine] and collapse or remove this subthread - thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC) The relevant guideline is located at WP:TPO. The potentially offensive word here does not rise to the level envisioned there. Monty845 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC) MM, show a bit of Dunkirk spirit and stick to your guns. If you welsh here, you'll be sent to Coventry. That's just according to a lesbian friend of mine. Formerip (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)That depends where you're from! —MistyMorn (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Was about to say the same thing. Harassment is the result of a pattern of incidents rather than a single incident. So no, "one childish statement" is not harassment. That does not mean it should be overlooked either, especially if egregious. Resolute 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that the admin should have been more understanding and helpful rather than dismissive. Perhaps looking at it from the point of view that the editor mispoke using the word "harrassment" and the admin could have done more to be helpful.Camelbinky (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One childish statement is not harrassment. It could well be a personal attack, though. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

#SaveRichard

[3] needs only about 15,000 more signatures before rumor has it that Parlament would be compelled to debate the issue. Is that rumor correct? I thought that was only true for petitions created at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ on which I can find no mention of the issue. Should you ask signatories in the UK to try that route? [edit: "if the subject of the e-petition is currently going through legal proceedings, it may be inappropriate for a debate to be held" says the FAQ.] 75.166.200.250 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please weigh-in at this AN/I report

I am getting very discouraged here lately, as I have only been trying to improve articles as best as I can. Recently I have been having some serious disruptions/intimidation/harassment issues and so I opened an AN/I report. It turns out, as things are run here now according to some admins, if you take a complaint to AN/I, then you are considered as guilty as the user you are reporting. Indeed an admin recently commented: "Also remember, that when you file at ANI, all of your behaviours come under the microscope too ... are you sure you're doing this correctly?" Is this really how AN/I is supposed to work? Imagine if assault victims had to defend their related behaviours while pressing charges against an offender. The same admin called me "pathetic" and told me to "grow the fuck up", all for reporting edit-warring and abusive/disruptive editing. Do you think this is how admins should behave?

Please take 5-10 minutes to review this thread, please. Thank you very much Mr. Wales. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to advise me GabeMc when you report me ... and don't forget to add the whole context. You were in the middle of a childish situation between you and another editor, which led to an ANI report. You then continued your edit-warring and filed an AN/3rr against the other editor while the ANI was still on. You were refusing to accept any responsibility or advice, and continued your childish bickering with the other editor across multiple fora. You continued to frustrate the hell out of the community. Yes, I think you need to grow up. Oh, and the part about "your behaviour comes under the microscope" - um, it says that when you file at ANI, and that was not even related to a situation you were involved in. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing is clear at the Administrator's Noticeboard (for Incidents), there is a very clear lack of decorum, politeness, and professionality by some participants. The general atmosphere at AN/I is very charged and combative. The general attitude expressed by "all of your behaviours come under the microscope too" is not one of seeking to educate and help an editor get on the right track, but a challenge that simply serves to attack people who often don't know how Wikipedia works.

At the top of the AN/I page, it says "Do not clutter discussions here with irrelevant side-discussions", yet this is more often a rule of thumb for participants at AN/I, who devolve from a debate on the issues, to one about the editors. It isn't as bad as Mos Eisley, but at times it is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Even if GabeMc were simply midunderstanding the situation here and BWilkins is 100% correct on his present point, the overall point is very valid. Our eternal admins are not perfect, they are human, they make mistakes, but when they do make a mistake, it is usually met with contempt when anyone happens to notice. I don't recall whether I have actually seen an apology for poor decision making or questionable blocks. I do what I can to try and focus debate on policy issues and not on unrelated personal attacks there, but even this is met with a bit of disdain, as if my efforts are merely dilatory.

However, as with anything complicated, I reserve judgement. I am almost 100% certain that most actions by the admins on Wikipedia are unseen, thankless, subtle, and excellently virtuous. But if those actions we see are rife with moralizing, resentful, personal attacks, or are characterized by a lack of honest admission of human frailty, I lose hope for them. -- Avanu (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

AGF applies to ANI as well. From what I have seen ANI is usaully quite civil with the occasional comment going to far but with others responding to the incivility etc. I don't think that there are the level of personal attacks as Avanu suggests; commenting on editors at ANI can be a relevant thing to do. I don't think this is fair or accurate either: "Our eternal admins are not perfect, they are human, they make mistakes, but when they do make a mistake, it is usually met with contempt when anyone happens to notice". Claiming something is a personal attack or uncivil etc when it is not can be disruptive itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, this is not a formal report of any kind that would require I notify you. At least not that I am aware of. This is a talk page, not a noticeboard. Anyway, I stand by my comments and actions. You were not at all helpful IMO, if anything you have only made matters worse, and your hostility toward me was unbecoming an admin IMO. Also, I was not part of the problem as you have assumed and erroneously stated here and elsewhere. I was restoring a recently promoted FA back to it's MoS compliant version, that passed FAC only days prior to the full-blown edit-war, which began as light sabotage on the talk page a week before that. I wasn't edit-warring, you are incorrect about this. A more in-depth reading of the totality of the situation would certainly reveal this. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I was never hostile towards you. Frustrated for being in the middle of trying to resolve your situation in one spot, only to find you spreading the issue across multiple noticeboards and behaving very poorly overall. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you can understand that "frustrated" can come across as hostile to someone already in a dispute. It's a mild and subtle WP:BATTLEGROUND-ish mental state that's difficult to avoid. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My views on this are quite simple. An admin telling a user to "grow the fuck up" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and is ground for immediate desysopping. If we care about having a serious, thoughtful, kind, adult and mature community (which I assume was the sentiment behind that unseemly outburst) then we have to model that behavior ourselves as admins. There's a bit of sad irony in behaving in a juvenile and bullying fashion in an attempt to get others to behave better. Bwilkins, I recommend that you turn in your bit and take a break from being an admin for 6 months and then return if you feel you can handle the job in a more responsible fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)