User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Personal appeals

Hi Jimmy. While it's clear that your "personal appeals" are working for now, but the parodies have become a meme, and some people seem to be disenchanted.

I know it's been a bit of a rough year for you, and I'm genuinely sorry to see that, but I do wonder: could you see the "Wikimedia garden" moving forward and growing without the benefit of your green thumb?

I guess I'm just trying to offer a synopsis of my sense of what's been said here on this page and elsewhere. I strongly believe in and support Wikimedia's mission, but I have grave concerns about how the fate of the project has been tied to your personality (not that you don't have a great personality, of course).

Do you think it's a healthy thing for a crowd-sourced and hyper-democratic project to rely on one single guy's mojo? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(Before I start, I wanted to note that the link to people who are allegedly disenchanted is a link to an operation who demand advertising in Wikipedia and who are trying to offer a service of paid editing - I don't think 'disenchanted' is the right word.)

I think Wikipedia is much much bigger than I am, and I believe very strongly that Wikipedia should outlive me. One of the things that I'm very happy about these days is the state of the Foundation and the Board - a lot of very good people have worked for a very long time to get us to where we are today, and one decision that I made early on is one that the most valuable things that I could do is help us to avoid the Founder's syndrome. Outside of the curious situation of fund raising, the Foundation is strong enough to stand without me without any problems.

Regarding the fundraiser, the evidence is sadly clear. The banners with my face, which I only reluctantly agreed to after testing proved their efficacy, outperform by a wide margin. I have been joking for awhile now that like Colonel Sanders, after I pass I will be turned into a cartoon symbol. :) (Drawn, presumably, in the style of manga, ha!)

Inside the community, too, I encourage the development of institutions that are robust enough to deal with change and stable enough to preserve our values. The current situation in case something were to happen to me is "In case of my untimely death or inability to perform my capacities, the ArbCom is hereby authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50% + 1 vote of the community. In the interim between them coming up with a ratified proposal, the status quo is to be considered as much as possible. I will amend this succession plan from time to time upon the recommendation of the ArbCom and Community, until such time as we figure out a more long-term and binding way of dealing with it." I think that we should think in the coming year about constitutional matters, but I shall say more about this in my ArbCom appointments announcement, likely late this afternoon but possibly tomorrow morning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bit busy today (goat issues again) so I'll give a reply in the morning, but as far as the "disenchanted" thing goes: I think their point was more that there needs to be much beefier funding in order to have some staff dedicated to editorial work. The bit about it being great PR for you personally but not necessarily for the project isn't just snark, either... avoiding the negative aspects of the Founder Syndrome may be one of those "stitch in time" things, and the "personal appeals" might actually be a step backwards there.

I hope that makes some modicum of sense... I'm a bit distracted by events in the barn but wanted to pre-empt the archive bot ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, but I'm not entirely with it, right now. If you have one paid "editorial staff", then she will be universally derided and vilified since her edits will never match up to the expectations of all the thousands of editorial staff who are not paid. So you will need ten, and have them act as a committee. Once you have ten, you will see that having ten paid editorial staff is not enough, since the unpaid editors still have a concensus and are more productive. So you need 100 paid editors, or maybe 1000. And then you need adverts, to pay for all those editors that you just accidentally hired. See, this is going nowhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not be be morbid, but I was recently married and had to change some things in my will (which always feels a bit surreal in the few times I have had to do this), so my interest was piqued by this discussion. What exactly would happen to WP if something happened to you? I assume there is a plan for this...but is there an "heir to the throne" (someone in the Wales family), or would the Board choose a new "leader" (for lack of a better word)? The Eskimo (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has answered this, elsewhere on this page. So read the whole page, and you will find it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, he said "In case of my untimely death or inability to perform my capacities, the ArbCom is hereby authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50% + 1 vote of the community. In the interim between them coming up with a ratified proposal, the status quo is to be considered as much as possible. I will amend this succession plan from time to time upon the recommendation of the ArbCom and Community, until such time as we figure out a more long-term and binding way of dealing with it." but then he explained how and where he was going to expand on that, so maybe you should read what he actually said, rather than me quoting it. It's all on this page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion here, but I think it would be better (both for Jimbo and for WP) if the baby was delinked from the founder's parenting in a less abrupt way than whatever he puts in his will! Sheesh. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom request for comment

Hello Jimmy, we already send you mail but got no response anyway there is strong need to discuss one case which was handled by arbcom we tried to discuss it on wiki but it was deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sophie, please read it and tell us what you think about it arbcom is of no use as they refuse to talk with us if there is some justice on wiki I would appreciate any response or please let us even discuss it Petrb (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will repost

We request comment on following case, Sophie (talk · contribs) is a regular wikipedian, participant of counter vandalism unit and project articles for creation, she was blocked indefinitely by arbcom with explanation that she is pretending that she is minor or a minor with provocative behavior, she was notified that if she wants to resolve this she must email arbcom. When she was blocked several users disagreed - see her talk with no explanation from arbcom. She submitted an email (and got the mentioned answer), then she asked what she can do to resolve this, as she is willing to proove her age, and contest the reason of block, however arbcom started to ignore her / stopped answering because issue is already resolved by them. She was also suspected from sockpuppetry and there were many unclear things, but she is willing to explain all of them and she already explained them to many of us, however had no chance to explain it to arbcom because they refuse talk with her. One of our theory is that she had conflict with some administrator on irc, then she posted inappropriate and negative comment on his name and that was a real reason for block (and also why they refuse to talk about it), the comment was seen by many of us, it was "stupid" but appeared as a comment from 13 years old wikipedian who she is, although that action may be subject for some punishment from side of admins we disagree with indefinite block, it was childish and stupid but it was not anything she should be blocked from editing for, from her edit history you would see that she never attempted to post unconstructive edits and is no threat for wikipedia and its users. We don't want to aim this against someone nor to punish anyone from arbcom for this, we only want to peacefully resolve this issue. I will not be surprised if someone revdel it because censorship is modern trend of admins on wiki.
read also comments by users on deleted page I hope you don't ignore community as arbcom do Petrb (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this issue. I support ArbCom in this. I think there are likely facts that you don't know, facts that it wouldn't be appropriate to post publicly due to this possibly involving a minor. This has absolutely nothing to do with irc, and the person running that account has received a full explanation from ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

She already sent explanation to all of us and I don't know what clear is on it, anyway why they refuse to talk with us? why they refuse to talk with her? Why all discussions regardint this were removed? See her talk page - it was admin protected. Why? That is what we wanted comment on we did not want to discuss private stuff Petrb (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that she wants to proove that she is 13 and from explanation we have seen that was one of main reasons she was blocked for, and concerning second reason she never get any explanation what it was - I reviewed most of her contributions and she never did anything wrong apart of that conflict with admins, just tell me if the findings were so important that she has to be blocked indefinitely because of them. And I don't understand why you could not tell it to her. Petrb (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you don't seem to have access to all the facts. This is a potentially sensitive matter possibly involving a minor, and I think you've been misled. I urge you to drop it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume this message meant that you are going to block me if I continue discussing this, anyway keep in mind that I only want to peacefully resolve this issue, it's not easy if you talk with someone who got blocked and doesn't even know why and many things looks weird on both sides, imagine that you would not be founder of wiki, you had same issue, some of your friends was blocked and all people who can do anything would stopped talking with you and him and what is even worse they would deny you from any attempt to discuss it with anyone by removing all you post anywhere about that case. What would you do? Petrb (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If people with more information than you have tell you clearly that there are real-life issues that prevent the matter from being discussed openly, you have two choices, either you trust them or you don't. If you trust them, then drop the issue. If you don't, then I'm sorry, but there isn't much you can do but "vote with your feet" and leave the project. Regardless, when certain kinds of information (such as personally identifiable information about legal minors) are in play, the protective rules outweigh transparency, and that is Wikipedia practice. You may not like it, but it is there for a reason. -- Avi (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was asking why they ignore her - that informations so private that even she can't be told about and she is such threat to wikipedia that no one should talk to her? I never wanted to discuss private stuff publicly. Petrb (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Drop it mate. Yes, something more than a block without talk page access with a cryptic log summary is a pretty shite way to treat a volunteer editor (I block vandals and show them more respect than that), but this is ArbCom. While I don't trust ArbCom's collective judgement, I trust Risker, the arb who implemented the block. There are obviously things you and I don't know, but I can't imagine Risker doing something like that without a good reason. You should be content with that, both because it's true and because it's the closest thing to an explanation you're going to get. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Petrb, ArbCom has talked with her, repeatedly both via email and responded to her when she's messaged us individually on IRC. She has been given all of the details of exactly why she was blocked and it's been discussed with her directly. If you're being told otherwise, someone's pulling your chain. Shell ^babelfish 21:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Being misinformed is not a valid reason to block anyone. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Appeals

Let me tell you, Mr. Wales, I use Wikipedia frequently. I've tried adding to the project by contributing, but most times, the admins do nothing more than crap all over my contributions because their not notable in the internet sphere. What it seems has been forgotten in this project is that notability is not strictly limited to the internet, but includes books, radio, magazines, etc, etc. I'm not some vandal and I'm not updating trivially. I truly care about this project, but I am not willing to fund something that operates the way the moderators/admins do around here. Fix that problem, and you'll see some cash. Until then, I'll be pressing the "x" in the box every time I see your pleading mug at the top of a topic. If Wikipedia disappears, I have Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.24.147.160 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps provide us with some examples? Yes, notability can be shown with materials not available on the Internet. Did your deleted contributions make specific references to those books, etc.? Without examples, we can't evaluate your complaint. LadyofShalott 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia response to this complaint. We'd love to help you solve this problem, but we can't fix our hoier-than-thou attitudes until you provide a list of problems so we can delete them and slap a band-aid on this festering infection. Been there, done that, won't waste my time again trying to do this. 134.24.147.160 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Without specifics, what specific help do you expect? You may not be a vandal, and you may not be updating trivially...but quite a few other people are, and unless you explain the situation, it's going to be difficult to assist you. --Onorem♠Dil 17:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you expect me to come to you with the same list I've typed out and had disregarded before by the same Wikipedia mods/admins? That's hilarious. Maybe I'll take this as a prompt to keep a detailed list such that I can present it EVERY TIME I have an issue with how draconian you are. 134.24.147.160 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What was your goal in starting this discussion? If you don't want help, I can't. If you do want help, give specifics. If you're so frustrated about being continuously disregarded that you refuse to even discuss the situation, perhaps the issue isn't with en.wiki, but with how you think en.wiki should be. I'm afraid I don't see what positive response can be given to such a generic complaint. Though I very much prefer to keep discussion public, please feel free to email me if you feel the need to avoid having a public conversation about the issue. No guarantee that I can help, but I will try. --Onorem♠Dil 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Case where PendingChanges would have helped

This edit shows an anonymous ip number self-reverting vandalism which was in this article for 16 hours. It looks like the ip number vandalized one evening and reverted the next day.

I saw it for the first time a few hours after that while reviewing my watch list. Had this been a good-faith edit, the wait time for review might have only been as long as 19-20 hours (when I got to it) even assuming no community special attention to the PC queue. With that attention, I suppose a good faith edit would be approved much more quickly, and this bad faith edit rejected before the public ever saw it. I just note this here for interested parties to consider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly serious vandalism from a BLP perspective. The bad stuff is the stuff that gives plausible misinformation and a wide use of pending changes won't help with that.--Scott Mac 17:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, but not relevant to the point I am making.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

PC would be helpful in certain situations. That isn't breaking news. It also is limiting in other situations. --Onorem♠Dil 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

thePeerage.com? Is that a reliable source? I'm not saying it isn't, but it's not clear from a quick review that it's known for it's fact checking. It doesn't appear to have an article here..not that en.wiki articles are end-all on being reliable sites. I'd think that should be the issue you have with the article instead of someone saying that the children (who's names certainly aren't noteworthy) are 'rabid' fans of random clubs. --Onorem♠Dil 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd ask over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage about the reliability of that site. I think that it is generally considered ok for basic information, although perhaps not the best possible source. I'm not an expert on that point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant. Deploying pending changes across the tens of thousands of articles you'd need to in order to prevent stuff like this, prevents a more targeted deployment, which would be needed to properly review additions to vulnerable BLPs. The question is which is more of a priority, reducing embarrassing vandalism of the type that does not harm subjects, or giving more effective tools to prevent real damage. --Scott Mac 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok now that you've clarified, I see the relevance of the point you are making. However, isn't that just a function of the empirical question of how long it takes to review additions to PendingChanges protected articles? I don't see this as necessarily a tradeoff - I believe we could deploy PendingChanges very widely indeed, and still have a perfectly acceptable response time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree. It is a "deep or wide?" dilemma. If you deploy it very widely and generate a fast response time, then the trade-of is that reviewing rights need to be handed out on demand at a low threshold, and people will be under pressure to work fast, that means that the quality of the review (and the reviewer) will be very poor - only obvious stuff will be picked off. So, yes, petty vandalism edits like you've mentioned above get filtered, but really dangerous BLP stuff will be entirely missed, because the dangerous BLP stuff is the stuff that looks plausible to reader and reviewer. That's a poor trade-off for me. If makes our embarrassment and annoyance at vandalism a higher priority than the much rarer occasion of serious BLP damage. The type of wide-screening you propose will get the "is a dickhead lol" stuff, will probably miss credibly-written stuff about a Kennedy Assassination, or a malicious change of date of death, and would certainly miss plausible lies with purported sources. An opportunity squandered. Better to use it on much fewer underwatched BLPs and have a relatively small but dedicated team of BLP savy people review.--Scott Mac 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by, the dangerous BLP stuff is the stuff that looks plausible to reader and reviewer. While reader I understand, I'm not seeing a large attack surface for things that a reviewer will find plausible yet would cause harm to the level of dangerousness. I agree that it's possible to put plausible non-truth in an article and fool a reviewer, but that's not material I would tend to call dangerous. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly simple. To defame someone, you have to say something untrue and prejudicial about them which people might take to be true. "George Bush sucks big cocks LOL!" is not really capable of damaging the reputation of the subject, because it isn't likely to create a false impression of the subject. But statement like "John Smith was declared bankrupt in 1989" or "had an affair in 2010" or "..was investigated by the police for..", if untrue are potentially highly damaging to the subject. Here's the point - something which is obviously untrue to the average Wikipedian reviewing an article, will also be obviously untrue to the average reader. Untruths that are less likely to be believed are less dangerous than untruths that appear credible to the uninformed reader.--Scott Mac 01:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're assuming our reviewers would be too stupid to check out such a statement? Really, I don't doubt that errors are possible on occasion, but I tend to think our reviewers can do a reasonably good job at perceiving such statements and rejecting them unless the edit comes with an accompanying RS. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you Jclemens, although note that Scott Mac's general point about there being a tradeoff between deep and wide does make sense. I just think it's not nearly as difficult as he seems to think, and I think there are easy ways for people of different "styles" to work together. For example, if I'm the sort who enjoys doing fast "vandal patrol" type work, then I can just pop along quickly rejecting things that are obviously vandalism, and leaving the rest for others. If the edit is not obviously vandalism, I just ignore it... which is what vandal patrollers generally do right now (and is part of why we have problems, although I am not blaming them - that's not what they are doing, they are vandal patrolling). But since the article is under PC, ignoring an edit causes no BLP harm - and what will naturally happen is that the oldest things in the queue will tend to be things that are tricky to decide about - and people who (like me) prefer to do slower but still lightweight fact checking can take care of those.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes would often help with low-traffic BLPs, avoiding many cases where vandalism isn't reverted, e.g. the two months old vandalism here. It wouldn't help in many other cases, like the three year old very serious BLP violations reverted here which claimed about a living politician that "earned a reputation as a scheming and corrupt leader and a major force in Oruzgan's flourishing opium poppy business. X is illiterate and demonstrated no administrative competency, often favoring his own Populzai tribe in legal and administrative decisions and enriching himself on public funds." and "has four wives (a fifth was killed under unclear circumstances, it is rumored that he murdered her)". (note; these allegations were removed in September 2009[1], but reinserted by an IP the next week[2]). Whether it is Pending changes or some other mechanism, I do think that we need more BLP patrol and content protection of BLP articles (and protection of articles on companies, parties, ... as well probably). Fram (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom appointments

Having completed my due diligence, I will formally make ArbCom appointments tomorrow, likely before noon UK time. There will be no surprises; I just need to finish writing up my annual appointment essay.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I had an interview with the Independent this morning that I wasn't aware of; set me back a bit. Soon. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A question about arbitration

Mr. Wales,

I have a question about something involving arbitrator neutrality. I’m not really sure who I ought to ask about this, but I guess I should probably ask you, since as far as I know you’re the only person with the authority to answer questions about the role ArbCom is intended to play.

I know that in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest, it’s expected that arbitrators will recuse themselves from cases involving articles that they’ve been involved in. What I’d like to know is, does the same principle also apply to specific editors? For example, suppose that I were a close personal friend of a member of ArbCom, and regularly talked to them off-wiki, including about things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. In that situation, would it be appropriate for that arbitrator to be proposing or voting on arbitration decisions about me, or should they be recusing themselves in that case also?

This isn’t an entirely hypothetical question, but at the moment I’d prefer to discuss it in just a theoretical sense. I’m not sure what I’ll do if the answer is that this isn’t appropriate, but I’d at least like to know whether it is or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the arb should recuse themselves. My advice would be to ask them to do so by email and, if they don't, email another arbitrator you trust and/or Jimbo. I would advise against going into anything more than hypothetical detail on-wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.

I have one other question: what should I do if the decision proposed by an arbitrator, about a user who's a close friend of theirs, has already received support from a majority of arbitrators and is likely to pass? I’m not clear on whether it’s too late for them to recuse themselves when other arbitrators are already voting in favor of their proposal. Is e-mailing the arbitrators or Jimbo still the best thing to do in that case? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well one would hope that arbs don't just fall into line behind the drafting arb and actually review things for themselves, so hopefully it's not a major issue, but the best thing to do would still be to email that arbitrator and, if you're not satisfied with the response, email another active arb that you trust and explain it to them. If it's time sensitive (ie it can't wait for them to pick up an email and make up their mind) then do both at the same time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Something I ought to mention is that I was sanctioned in the same arbitration case where I’m now concerned about a conflict of interest on the new motion that’s being proposed. I’m a little concerned that if I start e-mailing the arbitrators about this issue, it’s going to look as though I’m just being spiteful about my own sanctions. If you still think this is the best idea, though, I’ll follow your advice. (And yes, it is somewhat time sensitive.)

Are you sure it’s preferable that I not mention any of the details of what this case is and who it involves? Everything relevant has been stated on-Wiki, including the relationship between the drafting arbitrator and the editor about whom he’s making a proposal. And I would feel a little more confident about what to do here if I were told that this is the best idea by someone who’s aware of all of the details. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if you prefer to, you could raise it on the arb's talk page and maybe email the ArbCom mailing list. My only concern about raising it publicly is that it's likely to cause unnecessary drama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it’s probably too late to avoid drama about this. Another editor, Vassyana, has already raised this issue at AN/I. The thread is here, if you’d like to comment there.

I suppose it’s possible that the AN/I thread itself will resolve this issue. If it doesn’t, though, I’ll try your suggestion of e-mailing some of the arbitrators and/or Jimbo about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) I guess you're referring to me though it's a bit difficult to recognise myself from the version of events you have provided. What follows is the facts.

Mathsci contacted the committee by email on 18 August to ask a procedural question about the privacy policy. I replied on behalf of the committee (with a copy to ArbCom) and mentioned in closing that I was running out of time as I was about to go on holiday to XXX in France. As this is close to where Mathsci lives, he replied inviting me to meet him for a drink/meal (also disclosed to the full committee). When I was about to return from holiday, on 4 September, I remembered Mathsci's invitation and phoned him to make my excuses for not taking him up on it. The conversation drifted into a discussion of the cost and quality of local broadband providers, and the quaintness/prettiness of the neighbourhood. Incidentally, other than a follow up email later that day, kindly advising me how to deal with the braying of a neighbouring farmer's donkey, I have had no subsequent contact with him.

To see the record straight, I am not a close personal friend of Mathsci (or indeed a friend in any sense of the word); I have spoken to him once (not regularly as you state), and our conversation neither touched on arbitration matters nor influenced my opinion of him. There is nothing secret or surrepitious about any of this and indeed Mathsci has already mentioned it online. Arbitrators do interact with, um, litigants all the time in varying contexts (email, Skype, meet ups, IRC, Chat etc): it's the nature of a wiki and being available.

The motion represented existing publicly-stated consensus among arbitrators and was impelled by a general reminder from another arbitrator that it needed posting.  Roger ^talk 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, I’m sorry for saying you’ve been in contact with Mathsci regularly when that wasn’t the case. Mathsci has referred a few times to what amounts to a friendship with you, so when he mentioned his phone conversation with you, I assumed that this was not just a one-time event.

However, this does not completely assuage my concerns about “cronyism” (which is the term that other editors seem to be using when expressing concern about this issue.) Ideally, I think arbitrators should avoid any contact with the editors involved in a case while making rulings about those editors. To you, Ferahgo and I are nothing but a bunch of text and some userboxes on a computer screen, while Mathsci is someone you know on at least a semi-personal basis. It’s difficult for me to believe that ArbCom could completely avoid letting this affect their decisions regarding him and me. This is especially the case considering that most of the editors who have interacted with me and Mathsci an approximately equal amount have been expressing the view that it’s a problem for him and me to be treated unequally. Even people whose editorial viewpoints are more similar to Mathsci’s than to mine, such as Maunus, Ludwigs2, and VsevolodKrolikov, have agreed about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns about appearing to be an anonymous cipher are easily remedied. Email me your Skype details (and cellphone if you like) and we can discuss ways of resolving your currently unhappy relationship with the topic.  Roger ^talk 22:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the gesture, I’m not sure how helpful that would be. You’ve apparently known Mathsci for a few years, whereas I’ve only been active at Wikpedia at all since 2009, and my first interaction with ArbCom was a primarily negative one this summer. Friendships take time to form, and it doesn’t work very well to try and make one on the spur of the moment just to remedy an imbalance like this.

If by my “relationship with the topic” you mean the race and intelligence topic, I’m also not sure what there is to discuss. I’ve stated several times that my current desire is to just forget about this topic at Wikipedia, but I don’t feel like I’m being given an opportunity for that, when one considers I have an even stronger desire to be treated fairly. I got pulled back into this issue around a month ago when Mathsci posted an AE thread accusing me of sockpuppetry, the drama caused by his AE threads are what resulted in EdJohnston’s new sanction against me, and the fact that I (and a number of other editors) consider this sanction unfair is what’s led to the current drama. All of my involvement in this topic for around a month has been related to protesting what I consider the imbalance in how Ferahgo and I are being treated. If you have any advice other than to just let this issue go, then I guess I can talk to you via e-mail or AIM (I don’t use Skype). But if that’s going to be your only advice, I’m already following it as well as I’m able to: I’ve already disengaged from the articles as far as content is concerned, and I don’t really think I can disengage from discussions about the fairness of my own sanctions. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? My first contact with Mathsci was during the arbitration case and my only "personal" contact the one described above. What is the source of all this stuff? "Close personal friend", been in touch "regularly", "apparently known Mathsci for a few years". It's all completely untrue.  Roger ^talk 23:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the things which was discussed prior to the arbitration case is that Mathsci was friends with several members of ArbCom. Based on what Mathsci said about his recent interaction with you, I assumed you were one of the examples of that. I guess I may have been wrong to assume that—I’m going to try and find out more specifically which members of ArbCom were being referred to in that discussion. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The only former arbitrator I know slightly (and that was from RL) is Charles Matthews who blocked me in 2008. I later bought him a tomato juice at a wiki meetup. I don't know where Captain Occam is getting these ideas from, but please could he stop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, you know that this was discussed at length before the arbitration case. You were involved in that discussion. I don't remember the details anymore of which arbitrators this was discussed with regard to, but I've asked someone else who was involved in that discussion who hopefully does. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I know no such thing. Please could you stop writing things like this? It is not in your best interests at present. Mathsci (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, if you could provide a diff or link to that discussion, it would probably help resolve the concerns here. Shell ^babelfish 23:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve Smith's recusal because of interactions on WR? Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Shell: it was discussed a few times. Before the current discussion, the most recent discussion about it was here, while the arbitration case was underway. As is evident from the fact that we were referring there to an earlier discussion about the same issue, this wasn’t the first time we discussed it. The discussion about this in which Mathsci participated was the earlier one, but it’s probably going to take me longer to find that discussion, because I can’t remember anymore where it took place.

I’ve just asked Ludwigs2 in his user talk if he could remind me of more of the details about this. Based on his comment in the thread that I linked to, it’s apparent that he remembers Mathsci bragging about his friendship with members of ArbCom. I suspect that he remembers more of the details about this than I do, so I think we should wait for him to comment there. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop writing in this way. I don't know any members of ArbCom. I've participated in previous ArbCom cases, but that's it. Mathsci (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(od)Erm, you did notice that Ludwigs2 said "Mathsci may have friends on the arbitration committee (I don't know if that's true or if that's just another elements of Mathsci's preening bluster)". Since that's a rather vague insinuation which he admits to not knowing the truth of coupled with a personal attack thrown in at the end by someone who's been in repeated disputes with Mathsci, do you think it's possible that there isn't really anything to the accusation? Shell ^babelfish 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What Ludwig has said (in that discussion, and elsewhere) is that Mathsci has bragged about being friends with members of ArbCom. But since I don’t remember anymore where Mathsci actually said this, I suppose it’s possible that Ludwig and I are both misremembering it.

Why don’t we wait for Ludwig to comment here, and see if he can remember more of the details about this? If he can’t, and I’m not able to find this discussion either, then I guess we’ll have to accept that there’s no way to prove it’s the case. If Ludwig can find the link to the discussion in which Mathsci talked about this, though, it shouldn’t matter whether the link was provided by Ludwig or someone else. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth bearing in mind for the future that serious accusations without serious evidence are regarded as personal attacks. There have been a number of these here so the quicker a line is drawn under this the better.  Roger ^talk 00:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could stop repeating insinuations for which there's no evidence until such time as that evidence is provided? I thought it might be pertinent to consider the source when making unsupported allegations as you've done here repeatedly. What matters here is not who said it but whether or not it was said at all or has any truth to it. Shell ^babelfish 00:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

After Roger Davies told me he hadn’t interacted with Mathsci prior to the arbitration case, the only thing I’ve said about Mathsci’s friendship with arbitrators is that this was discussed. It was discussed, although whether what was said in that discussion was correct is a separate question, and one that I don’t claim to have the answer to at this point. I’m sorry if I’ve made myself sound more certain about this than I am. If I’d known that mentioning this discussion in response to Roger Davies would have been taken as a personal attack, I wouldn’t have mentioned it. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) @ Occam: Heavens to Betsy! I am not your advocate, and while I am happy to throw in my two cents' worth in the interests of a just outcome, you need to recognize the extent to which you've made your own bed here. If (when this whole debacle had started) you had been able to let go of things and accept problems in stride, you'd have lost a few debates but you'd have gained the reputation of being calm and reasonable. You didn't, and now you've lost the debates and the reputation. It's not unrecoverable if you really want to get back in people's good graces, but you can't demand respect from others (no one can). You have to earn it, which is not likely to happen if you keep on this way. If you want more detail on how to do that, see me in my talk. And if you do, don't argue with me this time like you did the last time I tried to get you to choose a better path.

With respect to Mathsci, what I actually tried to point out in the arbitration (repeatedly) was that Mathsci works very hard to give the appearance of being a 'made man' in some Wikipedia old-boy network. It's a tactic that he uses (and that is - unfortunately - used by a number of experienced editors) to intimidate new editors who seem to be pushing POVs. It's highly effective, if skanky: most times I see it used it acts like a hazing, forcing the new editor to learn Wikipedia norms through fear and self-preservation (and often giving them bad habits in the process, but that's a separate issue). Sometimes - with editors such as you and me, because yeah, it's been done to me too - it backfires and then all hell breaks loose. However, the truth of the matter is just this: Mathsci has an extensive history of good contributions and an established presence on the project which has earned him the benefit of the doubt from a lot of admins and regular editors; he has (through shared interests) developed a small number of loyal friends who will jump in feet first to defend him when they see him in conflicts (which isn't always a good thing); and he has some decent skills at manipulating emotional frames in discussions. It's all fairly vanilla wikipolitics and there's nothing more nefarious about it than that, except that he (like you) has a hard time letting go when he ought. This is the internet - don't forget that the underlying reality is nowhere near as interesting as people are wont to present on-line.

@ Shell: Mathsci had at that time had tried to get me blocked for mediating at MedCab, and had leveled a continuous and nearly endless stream if insults, threats, and pure fabrications (read that as 'lies' or 'unsubstantiated delusions' as you prefer) against me over the course of a couple of months, and was generally going out of his way to try to ruin my reputation on project in sordid form (at which he probably succeeded, for whatever it's worth to you). If you'd like to understand the level of anger I was feeling towards him at the time, please recognize that 'preening bluster' was the nice, self-censored version of how I wanted to describe his behavior. Plus, within the context of that debate that phrase was entirely accurate and I stand by it, even if I might prefer a more level-head phrasing now. enough said? --Ludwigs2 01:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig: I’m definitely aware of what you’re saying about me, and I think you’re probably right about how this affects me. The problem is, this really isn’t about the articles anymore—it’s about what people are saying and doing about me and Ferahgo specifically. The current issue started when Mathsci posted an AE thread accusing me of sockpuppetry. Should I have just ignored that accusation? And should I have just let it go when EdJohnston sanctioned me, but wasn’t willing to tell me what the sanction was based on?

I have a very strong desire to be treated fairly. When I think that isn’t happening, I tend to protest. If I’m only going to dig myself in deeper by doing that… well, I guess that’s something I need to learn.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you’re saying about Mathsci. Is it that he doesn’t actually have any special relationship with the arbitrators, but just tries to create that impression? If that’s the case, I would still appreciate it if you could link to what Mathsci has said to create this impression with regard to ArbCom specifically. Roger Davies and Shell have both said that claims like this need to have evidence to support them, which is completely reasonable. But I don’t think I even know all of what things Mathsci has said that you’re referring to, so it would be helpful if you could provide diffs. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Occam, Mathsci pumped out what must be 1000+ edits on the R&I issue, over maybe a half a dozen pages (not counting user talk pages and voluminous subpages - now deleted - of his own user account), many of them archived. Finding single quotes is a serious chore that you can do as easily as I, but if you do you'll find that most of the comments are simply bluster of the "This is against the rules and I'm going to write the authorities and demand action!" variety. Mix that in with a lot of strongly worded demands calling for people to be blocked or banned, and a tone of voice that's carefully crafted to sound knowledgable and authoritative, et voila. Sorry, but that's a trick that every college professor learns early in their career - do you think students have a natural inclination to listen to old guys in out-of-date clothing? I think Jimbo's suggestion below is well put, and I think you should step back with grace and accept whatever choice Roger decides to make on the matter. Think of it as a first step in rebuilding the community's trust, and just breathe your way through it. --Ludwigs2 03:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Despire there being no evidence here of anything improper at all, I think that the ArbCom should avoid as much as possible even the appearance or hint of impropriety. The ArbCom is large enough that a recusal or two doesn't affect things. I will therefore recommend (not order) that Roger recuse from this case, to eliminate this as a possible topic for complaint going forward. At the same time, I will note that despite the massiveness of Wikipedia, we are a small community in the end, and Arbs will quite often know people who are involved in cases - that's not generally a cause for recusal, and I'm not suggesting (nor do I believe) that Roger has any conflict of interest here. I'm only recommending recusal to eliminate this as a possible topic for complaint!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Now, whenever an ArbCom-related event looks like it's going against someone, we can look forward to lots of unsubstantiated accusations and insinuations so that arbitrators will have to recuse themselves. Fabulous, more drama, less resolution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What? How so? An 18 arb committee... if three or five or even eight, recuse themselves, how does that suddenly devastate the effectiveness of the committee? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't the deliberative outcome; that probably won't change. The problem is the game playing such a standard encourages. Hurling accusations (and Captain Occam's seem particularly baseless) does not help the project. Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that all Jimbo suggested here is that arbiters should take a somewhat more nuanced approached to considering recusal. It's still up to the arbiter to make the decision, and I'm quite certain that no arbiter will feel compelled to recuse him/herself if they suspect gamesmanship. This is simply a matter of balancing various factors in order to make sure that decisions have the greatest legitimacy in the eyes of involved editors. --Ludwigs2 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well no, he specifically suggested Roger recuse himself based on various insinuations and other claims that have since turned out to be nothing more than misremembering. There's no nuance here that could be a concern. Shell ^babelfish 04:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the facts of the case, but I also know that legitimacy often rests on more than facts: appearances do sometimes matter. If Roger decides that there are no pressing reasons not to recuse, he might do it just as a good-faith gesture so there are no doubts whatsoever. or he may decide not to recuse himself and find some other means to satisfy Occam's worries. It isn't really about Roger or Occam at this point, but about ensuring that the decision itself doesn't seem less legitimate than it is because of lingering shadows over the process. --Ludwigs2 05:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. Roger has explained the extent of his personal interaction with Mathsci, and while I’m not going to claim that it would constitute a conflict of interest, it matters that arbitrators avoid even the appearance of bias. The idea would be that Roger recuse himself not because of anyone’s accusation that he had a conflict of interest, but because this would eliminate even any potential for editors to worry that his recent communication with Mathsci on the phone and via e-mail has influenced his decision.

Xxanthippe expressed a similar concern here, so this also shouldn’t be thought of as something that would be done only for my sake. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As Roger Davies says correctly the phone call was in early September. Nothing about wikipedia was discussed at all. Roger was just fascinated to find another Brit living on his doorstep in France, where he has long had a second home and now a noisy donkey as his neighbour. I've also had a phone calls in the past from another administrator, Elonka, and even an email from Jimbo Wales. Newyorkbrad has publicly hinted that the issues in WP:ARBR&I have not been unresolved and that the case might have to be revisited. Whatever ongoing problems there are do not seem to concern me, since arbitrators of their own volition have initiated lifting my topic ban. So presumably those ongoing problems could involve other users sanctioned by the case. If Captain Occam wishes to resume editing in the area of his topic ban, making serious accusations about members of ArbCom would not seem to be the best way to go about that. Even more so persisting after being told to his face that he is in error. In that respect, Captain Occam appears to be in a serious conflict with ArbCom at the moment. I hope that he manages to resolve that. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Occam, before you respond to this last post of Mathsci's (and this might be a good place for you to practice not making any response at all - perpetuating this argument will do no good whatsoever), please notice that this is a mild example of that 'authoritative manner of speaking' that I was discussing above. No offense, Mathsci, but in this one paragraph you've managed to name-drop two arbs, an admin, and Jimbo, promote yourself as entirely blameless, assert that Occam is in conflict with ArbCom rather than with you, and engage that classic school-marm trick of talking to people in the third person to give the appearance that you're speaking from general principles rather than personal belief (that's an easy trick, to whit: "if Mathsci really wanted to create a civil, friendly editing environment he would find it in his heart to speak to people directly and openly"). I doubt you're doing it on purpose - it's probably an innate stress response to the conflict - but you are doing it. Don't you see how intimidating that can be to someone who doesn't understand the nature of it? --Ludwigs2 15:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, these comments are inappropriate. The confirmed meatpuppetry of Captain Occam has already been described by a member of ArbCom on ANI. You yourself have made a large number of misleading comments on wikipedia with no basis in fact and, as a member of ArbCom has remarked, they appear to be personal attacks, Perhaps now is a good time for you to draw a line and stop making comments like that. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I made a set of observations about your behavior, and asked whether you recognized that behavior of that sort might intimidate new users. It was a good-faith effort at communicating with you about (what I perceive as) a pervasive problem, and I was expecting you to respond in one of the following ways:

• to clarify that I was not describing your behavior correctly.
• to note that I was describing your behavior correctly, but explain to me that no editor (not even a new one) would be intimidated by it.
• to note that I was describing your behavior correctly, and that it would intimidate some editors, but that it was necessary to behave that way for clearly defined reasons.
• to note that I was describing your behavior correctly, and that it would intimidate some editors, and to ask for suggestions about better approaches.

There may be other reasonable responses to the question you could have made, but the response you gave above - essentially resorting to a completely unsubstantiated attack on my character - is neither reasonable, appropriate, nor productive. Not a problem, I'm just clarifying; let's forget it happened.

Now, if you would care to make an appropriate response to my question I'd appreciate it, and if you don't care to make any response at all that's fine as well. --Ludwigs2 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Re political blogs as reliable/verifiable sources when the Big Media aren't

This is just a heads-up on an issue regarding political blogs as verifiable/reliable sources in arenas where the major news media very explicitly aren't, and where blogspace has by necessity picked up the lead on covering facts the major media refuse to or just won't or wilfully distort (because they are affiliated with the ruling party/faction); please see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#blog-originating_news_stories_re_BLP and farther up the same page there's more on "blogs as reliable sources"....because where I live, the major media are NOT reliable sources, not for politics anyway (yeah, dead babies, gang murders, car crashes, sex killers, they'll report on that stuff, but when it's political news theyr'e just shills/advertorialists). I think teh WP:BLOGS/WP:RELIABLE pages/guidelines need addressing to cope with situations like this; whther it's re China, Iran....or Canada. Just because a news page is hosted on a self-publishing source like a blogsite doesn't mean it's not reliable or verifiable; especially when the news broken is eventually, if reluctantly and often in distorted fashion, finally picked up by the major media....Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My other comments on this subject were not higher on that same page; they are here, though say pretty much the same thing.Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a related matter.Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:BLPN but believe it is a wider issue than simply BLP....Skookum1 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would help? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary accuracy

Mr. Wales; I realize that you have a right to control the content on your own talk page. However, I question one of your edit summaries in removing one of the sections. Specifically, you described this removal as "rm trolling, personal attacks". While the IP was certainly just trolling, User:Convenient flag was, at least at face value, not. It's quite disingenuous of you to remove two user's posts in one edit, and describe it merely as "rm trolling, personal attacks" when only one user was engaging in trolling and personal attacks. I do hope that you'll be more accurate in your edit summaries in the future. Thank you. Buddy431 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that I see a problem with the edit summary. I think that a message by a user with a single edit to proxy attention for a banned user could reasonably be called trolling. There are processes for requesting review. The process doesn't begin with posting screeds and then alerting Mr. Wales to them via socks or meatpuppets. --Onorem♠Dil 19:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea of what constitutes trolling differs from person to person. For example, I think having the KKK symbol on one's userpage is equivalent to holding up a sign saying "I am a troll", but others may not agree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems a pretty reasonable summary to me. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess my definition of Troll (Internet) is narrower than yours. I see a troll as someone who "posts inflammatory... messages... with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response". I don't think that the first poster was looking for an emotional response here (unless he's being a pretty good actor about it). I agree with Onorem that this post probably doesn't belong here, but I don't think it's trolling. Sock-puppetry does not imply trolling, nor does attempting to elude a site ban. I suppose DC is right; what constitutes trolling differs from person to person, and I'm on the narrower end of the spectrum. Still, I like to see people be accurate in their descriptions, and I don't think this edit summary was. Just my opinion though. Buddy431 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My definition of trolling is similar to yours. My judgment of the first poster is different from yours. Both were trolling, adding zero value. We are here to build a high quality encyclopedia, not to give people a free speech forum to POV push their ideas.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Christmas to you and yours

Dear Mr Wales,

Thank you again this year for your personal appeal. We will donate as we always do. I hope even more our contributions to the encyclopaedia further it forward to being the fountain of all knowledge that you envisaged. Nobody knows everything I am not pretending that, but I hope just little by little they get better.

Our sincere best wishes to you and your family.

User:SimonTrew and User:Monkap.

Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo

My coleague and I are having a debate about the definition of a sport. Can I ask for verification of what the definition offered by the article for Sport is based upon, as I'd like to know how the criteria is defined and who by. I am particularly intrigued by the difference between a sport and a game. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.43.48.142 (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.43.48.140 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Proper sanctions?

Jimbo I was hoping to get your opinion on something. In response to an AE request by User:Cirt, and in fact in response to a direct solicitation by Cirt to check out the AE request, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise imposed a very odd sanction on User:Delicious carbuncle.

• "I am therefore imposing an indefinite topic-ban for all Scientology-related edits on User:Delicious carbuncle, including but not limited to an interaction ban against bringing forward any further Sc.-related complaints against User:Cirt in any forum." [3]

Overlooking the fact that apparently the sanction should be voided based on improper process, I am wondering what your opinion on the sanction itself is. How can one admin impose a so called "interaction ban" that bars one editor from engaging proper Wikipedia channels to file complaints about the policy violations of another editor? Particularly, how can this be done unilaterally without any community consensus? Cirt took carbuncle to various noticeboards until he achieved his result - including BLP/N, AN/I, and AE. This result has been extremely controversial. Yet now carbuncle is apparently not allowed to file any requests about Cirt? See here how Future Perfect at Sunrise proceeds, on the basis of his/her own unilateral, controversial and probably illicit sanction, to remove an AE request filed by carbuncle against Cirt and then to edit war to keep the request removed - see this complaint on his/her talk page for more reference. I was at a loss for words when I saw that. How can this be allowed, even by the letter of the law?Griswaldo (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• For further reference Delicious carbuncle's appeal is here - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Delicious_carbuncle.Griswaldo (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  The original sanction has now been overturned. un☯mi 13:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like nothing for me to opine upon, then. I was about to say "It is probably premature for me to offer any opinion" but there was an edit conflict. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I was less interested in the technicalities of it, though I'm glad that it was overturned for those reasons. I was more interested in the general principles involved when one admin single handedly bans a user from filing reports about the policy violations of another user. Is there a precedent for that sort of thing, and if there isn't shouldn't we question it when it does happen? or does that not matter because it was overturned, for completely different reasons, but overturned regardless? Setting such a precedent really troubles me, since IMO editors should always be free to report policy violations when they see them. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I filed the request for arbitration enforcement with the belief that I was not restricted from doing so, based on these comments from Jehochman. While I found the sanctions against me somewhat questionable, I was prepared to abide by them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom appointments announcement

1. Precisely as last year, I am requiring all successful candidates to identify to the WMF or to me personally (but preferably to the WMF) before being seated. This is currently in-process or completed for all the successful candidates.

2. All candidates are already in contact with me by email. Risker, as last year, is assisting with the on-boarding process.

3. I am not appointing anyone who gets less than 50% support. Fortunately, the lowest candidate needed to fill all available seats got 56.7%, so we are not faced with any issue there.

4. I have done some due diligence on all the incoming candidates and found no reason not to appoint. I have received no objections from anyone, ArbCom or otherwise, to any appointment. I therefore know of no reason which should prevent any of them from serving admirably.

5. Newyorkbrad, Casliber, SirFozzie, Iridescent, Elen of the Roads, Xeno, David Fuchs, Chase me ladies, and PhilKnight are hereby appointed to 2 year terms beginning on January 1, 2011, and expiring December 31, 2012. (Tranche Alpha)

6. John Vandenberg, Jclemens, and Shell Kenney are hereby appointed to 1 year terms beginning on January 1, 2011, and expiring December 31, 2011. (Tranche Beta)

7. Precisely as last year, in the event of retirements or vacancies for any two year seat (including the seats held by existing ArbCom members), I reserve the right to move any of the one year appointees into a two year seat. I will not make interim appointments to replenish ArbCom unless there is a majority vote of ArbCom that we replenish in some fashion by me calling a fresh election.

Some notes:

1. In a break with past practice, I did not even look at metrics other than percentage of votes. In the past, I reviewed several ways of ranking, and looked at admin versus non-admin votes, but this never made any material difference so I dropped the practice.

2. All 12 appointees have agreed to identify to the Foundation. 2 years ago this was voluntary and unanimous. 1 year ago this was mandatory. This year, and in years going forward, it will continue to be mandatory. I am interested, though, in having a community discussion about the particulars of the identification process, to advise me in detail about what is desired for next year.

3. I was planning to announce today a relinquishment of some of my traditional powers, as I have been doing over a long period of time, however writing that up in a precise manner is proving to be more difficult than I thought, despite my having thought quite a bit about what steps to take next. I will make a further announcement about that soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)