User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ken Arromdee (talk | contribs) at 04:00, 9 November 2021 (→‎The Signpost: 31 October 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Maybe you and / or your page watchers can help?

    Greetings Jimbo and pagewatchers. I'm told I have submitted too many drafts to the Articles for Creation program I am required to use. Many of these submissions are on African American leaders and related subjects. I would be very glad to have help getting them approved so I can work to include more of these subjects long ommitted from Wikipedia.

    FloridaArmy (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am unable to submit Draft:Frank B. Butler due to these restrictions. Do you think we're going too fast including African American history and subjects or too slow Jimbo? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't yet reviewed any of your links, but in general I would argue that we are going too slow including African American history and subjects. I hope that people will look at your backlog here and process through them with some haste, while of course preserving our notability standards. I don't think it does any positive service to African American history if we try to have pages where there clearly isn't enough information - but when there is (and we should be generous and optimistic where possible!) then we should dig in and start working.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tuskegee airmen are having their articles deleted now. Some are saved, most are deleted. Active discussion now is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert V. Clark. Since racist news media of the day didn't write too much about them, including Herbert V. Clark who was one of the first of them to complete enough fighter pilot missions to be able to return from active duty, is it fair to simply delete their articles? Can they be considered notable based on what they accomplished, and not based on what news media might be found about them? Dream Focus 20:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's agree that this is actually a hard problem. We want to have enough verified information to actually write a *biography* rather than a very simple database entry. I don't know the Tuskegee airmen case in enough detail to comment there, but I can talk about my struggle yesterday with George P. Quigley - one of the articles listed above.
    I am strongly supportive of doing what we can to appropriately increase our coverage of African American history, as well as other aspects of neglected history. So I thought I'd roll up my sleeves and help out. I picked Mr. Quigley randomly from the list and started researching yesterday. I have (paid) access to a big newspaper archive site, I'm good enough at googling, etc. and I thought I could find some more information. I found virtually nothing. We don't know his date of birth, date of death, where he lived, etc. I thought I could find his obituary or some mention in a local newspaper. I found nothing. This doesn't mean it isn't out there - it turns out that George Quigley is a more common name that I would have imagined and so there was a fair amount to sift through. I may give it another run tomorrow. But it's a challenge. If I could find something, I could start searching for family members who might know of some press coverage or some obituary or something.
    Now, there is an argument that we should have the article exactly as it is written so far, and tag it as a stub. It seems incredibly unlikely to attract vandalism or controversy. But of course it would be even better to have enough information to have it be at least a basic biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: Harald Hoyer is in Wikipedia, uncontroversially. In my view it doesn't constitute much more than a database entry - it certainly can't be considered a full "biography". I think we should keep this page and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument of course. But the point is - let's think about this in a big picture way. Are we lenient on Linux developers in a way that we aren't on African American filmmakers?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Its all decided by the random people that show up at an AFD and the personal bias opinions of the closing administrators. And if something doesn't get deleted, they can keep trying until fewer people notice and show up to argue with them. The entire system has always been thoroughly screwed up like that. Leads to years of constant never ending arguments in deletion discussions across Wikipedia. Dream Focus 14:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dream Focus you are complaining here about deletion of a few poorly-sourced Tuskegee Airman pages when we have 172 pages of other Tuskegee Airmen who do satisfy WP:BASIC. We don't decide who is notable, the sources show who is and isn't notable. Just being a Tuskegee Airman doesn't make one notable, reliable sourcing of the individual does. Mztourist (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly read the rest of the discussion. Reliable sources found back then of a black man aren't likely to be found. Does that make them less notable than someone from recent time when reliable sources are more numerous and constantly tossing out as many articles as possible about everyone imaginable? Dream Focus 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I read the rest of the discussion. You are saying that sources don't exist due to racism and so we should just ignore sourcing and have each of them "considered notable based on what they accomplished". It is not our place to judge what they accomplished, the sourcing does that, we just record it. We have 170+ Tuskegee Airmen pages (out of a total 992 Tuskegee Airmen) for whom sourcing exists despite your assumption of racist media. If we reject sourcing as the standard then Wikipedia becomes a blog. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we utilize a little tact, please? I know DF came here to complain but it just seems like they are being followed and their comments, which I believe they genuinely believe, are attacked everywhere they go. I haven't weighed in anywhere else and I won't because I like and care for people on both sides of the discussion, including both of you here even though we have disagreed at different times, but part of civility, at least in my mind, is tone and knowing when to offer constructive comments and when it's best to just let it go. I highly doubt DF's comment here is going to sway anyone one direction or the other in the discussion as most have already formed opinions so maybe just let them say their peace and move on? --ARoseWolf 14:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:ARoseWolf DF has brought an issue in which I am deeply involved to this forum, so I don't see why I shouldn't be able to come here and comment also. What brought you here? Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a watcher of Jimbo's talk page like the title of this section mentions. That's easy enough to see if you scroll through the archives. The fact you are deeply involved is the exact reason why you shouldn't be following DF around and commenting everywhere they post. This is the tact I am speaking about. It's borderline hounding in my opinion. I have a lot of respect for you despite our differences in the past and I have said so. I don't agree that they have to be challenged every where they state an opinion and by the same people that always challenge them. I'd say the same thing if the roles were reversed and the actions were the same. --ARoseWolf 12:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also a watcher of Jimbo's page. As I said previously I am deeply involved in the debate over the Tuskegee Airmen, so if DF thinks they can come here to discuss it (arguably forum-shopping) then so can I and without you criticizing me for doing so. Mztourist (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is the unfortunate problem that with the invention of the Internet that there are far more sources that publish, and a subset of those we deem reliable, that make people that would have been less commonly covered 50+ years ago more likely to be covered today. Atop which there is the added media bias against African-American pre-dated the Civil Rights era (among other minority groups like women, etc.). That's all part of the WP:BIAS that we do need to try to fight against. We can try to be more accommodating to earlier topics, but if we can only get them to stub database entries with bare sourcing, that's not really sufficient and goes against the work we've done over the last decade to make sourcing a strong requirement. The other side, which is going to cause a lot of consternation but would be a viable solution, is to start to demand a bit more from modern bios, more than the simple type of documentation that we can do and showing more in-depth sourcing. That is if NBIO was worked in the same fashion that NCORP was recently upgraded with strong sourcing requirements to try to eliminate promotional sources. (But this would have to be done to all other bio-related notability guidelines too like NSPORT and NPROF).
    It should also be reminded that list articles are suitable replacements for grouping non-notable entries of a notable facet. Eg: A list of the known Tuskegee airmen would be suitable as long as each entry can be sourced (ideally to an independent source), with blue links for those that are still independently notable. As long as the high level topic itself is notable, the individual elements do not have to be, though WP:V still needs to be met. Redirects can be used so that searches still work for these names. --Masem (t) 14:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo writes " I found nothing. This doesn't mean it isn't out there". I think it does mean it isn't out there, at least for the case of George Quigley. There are references in books and one journal article (which I've added to the draft). After over 100 years it is highly unlikely anything will turn up unless a PhD student decides to do some original research and turns up something from a dusty archive. And even then, would we accept it as passing the threshold of notability? In my opinion the only way to tackle the inclusion problem is to have a more nuanced standard that accounts for the passage of time, the lack of written records and historic low coverage in sources. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this last - 'have a more nuanced standard' - is the most productive suggestion I have seen so far. The issue is real, and by that I mean that racism in the media of the past means that people who should have been covered were not, while at the same time a great many people who weren't covered, weren't covered for perfectly good reasons. The solution to this problem can't be "throw all our standards out the window for underrepresented groups" but it also shouldn't be "Oh well, that's too bad, not our problem". A big point of my Linux developer example is to highlight how I believe we have a tendency towards "I've never heard of it" as an incorrect standard for inclusion. Short biographies - so short that they hardly even qualify as biographies rather than just listings - about people on topics that people know about and understand tend to be uncontroversial. I think there's plenty of room for nuance around the notion that NPOV demands that we really understand that our own biases and limitations and blindspots are something that we should work to overcome.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Our coverage of Swayne College and Booker T. Washington School (Montgomery, Alabama) provide more examples how we treat these subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing is, we are a tertiary source. We can only cover what secondary sources have already covered. We can't make up sources out of thin air. If nobody decided to cover any of these things, it's not any of our faults, and times were different in the past. I'd like to add more about my ancestors, like Othere the Dreadful. Unfortunately, old King Alfred was the only person to write about him, and he didn't give us enough to make any kind of biography. What can you do? If it's not there it's simply not there, and the sad fact is that if you weren't Xerxes or Nero or Caesar you just weren't getting good press coverage back then.
    The good news is that there is something you can do about it now; something that many Wikipedians often seem to overlook. Go out and do some thorough research on these topics, and get them published in secondary sources yourself. That is entirely possible, but takes a lot of work. But then we would be able to add it to Wikipedia. You cannot change the world from in here. You have to do it from out there. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think there is some merit in what you say - we can't correct all the bias of the past from in here, that's for sure. But in many cases, I think we can reflect on whether we are doing all that we can from in here in terms of making sure that we aren't ignoring topics that we aren't personally interested in - or worse, allowing them to be deleted just because we aren't personally interested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where I have been for a while. I do believe our personal interest in a subject plays heavily in whether we believe something is notable or not. Because a lot of articles are the borderline type, meaning a stub or slightly better with minimal sourcing, this becomes the area in which we see the most deletion discussions. The policies and guidelines are written in such a way as it allows for a lot of gray area to give and take. It's left up to, in a lot of cases, self interpretation and we tend to gravitate to subjects we like, are familiar with or can connect with. That's human nature. I think I see and agree with your approach to this. It doesn't ring true with everyone because we are not a "one-size-fits-all" but I maintain we all have a conflict of interests and we are all biased to some degree and we tend to push an agenda with which we agree passionately. We've made these things such a negative but, in reality, its just being human and, for the most part, it's healthy when kept in balance. --ARoseWolf 13:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that idea, other than the time and effort to do it, is that there are almost certainly no primary sources with which to create a secondary source. In the example I gave of George Quigley there is already one strong secondary source which discusses in detail the lack of primary sources. If the author of that journal article found nothing, then it is unlikely anyone else will. Where would they find these primary sources? The individual in question is long dead, as are their children (if they had any) and probably even all of their grandchildren. Even if genealogical research turns up a living relative, or relative of a co-collaborator, unless they have a box of papers in an attic there are no more primary sources. The question I think we should be asking is more along the lines of should WP:PRODUCER allow notability to be established for - in this example - an African American filmmaker working in the 1940s, if it can be proven that they held a major role (producer, director, writer, etc.) in more than 1/2/3/10 films rather than insisting the same requirements to establish notability exist regardless of when the person was working and the historical context. This isn't about making WP a blog, or full of made-up stuff, but accepting that in order to more fully document some historical events and people requires a different filter to determine what to accept. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not with that frame of mind. When it comes to fixing policy and creating filters, computer programming and things of that nature, or correcting cultural biases and other noble feats, I'm out of my element. When it comes to biographies of living persons at least, I think we need to have some very stringent standards, and I tend to fall into the camp that there's no point in having an article if there is no chance it will ever be anything more than a stub. But one thing I would always encourage a person to do is go out into the real world and follow their passion, do the digging and make some discoveries they didn't expect, and then get it published in reliable sources. So many people look at it with the mindset, "it can't be done", or "I could never do that". Reliable sources have to written by someone, and you never know until you try. (Not to mention, it pays a hell of a lot better.) Zaereth (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I think your nuanced approach points to a healthy way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The other way, though, is to keep in mind that WP is not a Who's Who; just because these are people of historical record doesn't mean we necessarily need to document them. But this also goes back to my previous commented that we'd have to reconcile that we perhaps are far too lenient on allowing far too many articles contemporary people today that happen to have a few bits of coverage in online sources. But that requires a sea change of thought.
    I will still stress that lists are suitable midpoint solutions in a lot of cases, but we do have to get off this mindset that "every topic needs a standalone article" that seems to persist. As long as we can create redirects as search terms to list entries, this is a completely viable solution to document the people in roles that, today, would likely have been documented to have at least some type of WP article, but at best can only be verified via primary sources then. Just that a standalone article is probably not the best solution until more sources happen to be found. --Masem (t) 13:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We had a discussion late last year about Native and Indigenous people in the Americas which quickly became about the sources or lack of sources. There are a lot of influential Native and Indigenous people in the Americas that you just aren't going to find very much written down about as a lot of their various tribal histories are still orally passed down. The sad thing is that most of what we have written about them is when they interacted with European colonial and early American ethnographers. A reality is that the majority of the descendants of these people don't live on a reservation and they may want to find what history records of their ancestors. Why not come to Wikipedia and why not find something about them.
    While I agree that we can not make something up, I would never suggest abandoning our principled guidelines, we can realize the historical value of their contribution to society, even if it is only their society, and we can record what is known, even if we consider that primary because of the nature of the source.
    That's the basis for how a stub article on a young Native American woman was saved at AfD. It was solely based on a picture by a notable and reliable late 19th and early 20th century photographer and the description they wrote that accompanied the photograph. This was deemed a primary source in that discussion but because the subject was obviously notable to the history of her people the article was kept. A few more mentions were located in sources but the primary source for the article is still the picture. In a lot of cases there will be no further sources that can be found yet we are doing a disservice to both the future and history, as an encyclopedia, if we disregard and fail to include what can be sourced. We can attribute the words to the author of them and let the readers be the judge. --ARoseWolf 14:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty Nose which you are referring to essentially relies on one photo with several conflicting sources as to her tribe, rank/status and involvement in the Battle of Little Bighorn, it is a classic example of retaining a page despite a lack of reliable sources. Mztourist (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An issue though in a case like that, or where we are heavily compiling a lot of primary sources, is that this starts getting into the realm of original research. We should not ever be the first publication of material, and even though republishing material from widely dispersed sources is okay, that we are getting our hands dirty doing that much work to link up all those sources without any other published support can be a problem. And that's an issue for a lot of bios - both historical and contemporary - we're just connecting primary sources with very little secondary information compiled by others, and thus making this approaching an original research problem. (This is still solved by using lists under a notable topic to document rather than fighting on standalones, however). --Masem (t) 15:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that, by what you are describing above, everything on Wikipedia is original research. --ARoseWolf 16:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends, but to explain: if we had a source that covered 90% of a person's life and we used a few other sources for the missing 10% (those sources often overlapping with the existing 90%), that's clearly not 10%. If we instead had to seek out 20 different sources that each contributed a separate 5% to meet the 100%, with no overlap, we may have a problem with this amount of disparate coverage and leans heavily into original research to know how those all connected. Think of it like a jigsaw puzzle, the overlaps are the clues that tell us how those pieces connect and what the overall picture looks like. Without overlap in sources, we have no real sign of the big picture nor how those pieces connect, and that's why I think we can get into OR when we're building articles like that. There's a wide grey area between those extremes, of course but I think the more that we have sources that contribute towards the whole of information about a topic and that provide overlap and confirmation of material with other sources, the less we have to worry about the "original research" of being the first publisher of this type of information. --Masem (t) 23:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to be clear that the coverage, including individual entries in Eric Foner's book Freedom's Lawmakers which is itself based on earlier scholarship, should be enough to establish if someone was a state legislator. Wikipedia considers these individuals notable per longstanding policy. For Native American subjects like Draft:Stella Mason there is substantial contemporary coverage and substantial coverage years later. Yet it's difficult to get approval and inclusion. And it's also difficult to include authors like Draft:Matthew Sniffen who wrote about these subjects. Different standards are applied to the Cariol Hornes of the world. It's almost always a struggle. It should be easy to include these subjects. They meet our standards and they are more notable than your average athlete who appeared in a few games as a professional. That there is an argument over whether we should have entries for all of the films Oscar Micheaux made is embarassing. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, WP:NPOL says we presume notability for state-level representatives. But I will point to take your example of Matthew Sniffen, that you are showing no signs of why the person is notable; you're given info that doesn't help nor leads to showing they are likely notable - appearing in a photo or speaking to Congress is neither of these. Particularly for an historical topic like this, you likely need to make sure you have applied for the Wikimedia Library Card (free as you are logged in here) and search resources like JSTOR in this case for more hits. For example I see the paper "The Indian Rights Association, the Allotment Policy, and the Five Civilized Tribes, 1923-1936", Benay Blend, American Indian Quarterly Vol. 7, No. 2 (Spring, 1983), pp. 67-80 - explains that his testimony to Congress, in part, led to the development of the Indian Reorganization Act. (There's more steps to that). That's the type of information, even if at a bare level, would likely have your drafts accepted as articles, because that shows a why as a reason to keep. --Masem (t) 23:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the "did it for a living for one day" standard in the sports SNG is an aberration from Wikipedia's notability requirements, and should not be discussed as being representative of Wikipedia's notability standards. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not seem appropriate to "appeal to Jimbo" to try and achieve one's personal goals. Do you think we're going too fast including African American history and subjects or too slow Jimbo? is hardly a useful question. It would behoove FloridaArmy to consider why they have restrictions placed on their ability to create new articles, and if they have a problem with it, they should appeal to ANI or the community to have them altered. The problem is, they move too fast in creating drafts, creating things that aren't really demonstrating notability, factually incorrect in a desperate attempt to push a POV, beset with simple spelling and format errors, or simply, well, odd. At Draft:Louisburg High School (North Carolina), FA refers to the racial makeup of the school in the second sentence of the lede, which is a rather strange thing to focus on for a currently operational public high school. FA picks some very interesting subjects like black Reconstruction era politicians, many of which are no doubt deserving of being covered on Wikipedia. The problem is they ought to be more careful in the actual creation of these drafts, almost all of which are stubs. The best way to speed up draft approval is to make articles of such high quality that the reviewer will hardly have to think on if it needs approval. The problem is not an evil cabal of draft reviewers wanting to sabotage articles on African American topics, the problem is the the drafts are flawed. Where the source material is not abundantly available, you have to go digging for it, and yes, that can take days or weeks. John W. Winters took me several different database searches and a trip to the library, Calvin E. Lightner also required lots of scouring of old newspapers. There's not much for Jimbo to do about it. At least, not more than any of the rest of us can do. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That also brings up a good point: unless we were talking about articles at AFD, there is no deadline for these articles to be created, and it is better to make sure they are created at a slow pace to make sure they are of reasonable quality so they can live in mainspace, rather than rushing to create stubs that have problems passing from drafts to mainspace. --Masem (t) 20:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somethings that might help is Wikimedia actively finding out where databases of things like African-American newspapers exist and get us access (even contribute money to the identification and creation of databases). Also, identifying and getting access to long out of print books (and obscure books) of the late 19th early 20th century, which focused on African Americans. And contacting AA Studies experts at universities to identify the corpus of sources (On another matter mentioned above, whole books have been written on Tuskegee airmen, are those being accessed?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So much talking, and so little researching...I suggest looking at the draft pages under (SO much) discussion -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I added page numbers for the sources on one of the drafts. Also, I know where there are some free online NC-based black newspaper archives. I think creating a central library page would be great, and I’d be happy to share the links there. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 31 October 2021

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    "A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life"

    Has Jimbo said anything about this yet? Because it's something I'd like to see him opine on. It looks like Wikipedia's processes seriously harmed a BLP subject and nothing in them is going to change. We're not even going to delete all similar pictures until they can be verified. Major changes were made after the Seigenthaler incident. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Process

    I wanted to ask you a question. When you set up Wikipedia did you envision a forum within the project where volunteers could be taken for 12 days emotional torture. The forum I am talking about is ANI - most editors on the project refer to it as "the community", and editors with grievances are allowed to basically trash any volunteer that they had a beef with, while the admins watch or even join in. And then an admin swoops in with a summary and issues punitive sanctions. As far as I can see there are few rules, other that whoever goes there may be also be tongue lashed or sanctioned. It is entirely based on who lurks around in that forum and has grievances. Is there anything fair about this process? Is there any other organization in the world which allows discipline to meted out by participants with grudges in an unfair process? I was recently the subject of an angry inquest on that board. I have drawn the attention of folks that literally hate the Article Rescue Squadron.

    I do not have friends who watch or float around in that ANI forum; it seems apparent that an editor who has the numbers in that forum can propose that any other editor get sanctioned and it will be rubber stamped by an administrator. Right after this process at ANI I was referred to Arbcom. Perhaps a much more even handed corner of the project. I appreciate that it is orderly and I believe it is the right avenue to get to actual justice. But instead of listening to myself and one other ANI sanctioned editor who called out the unfairness, the Arbcom members all said, ANI worked and the community handled it. One Arbcom member even said they watched the process unfold with baited breath. It may be fun to watch, but is it right and just? So the question: Is this what you envisioned when you started this amazing project? Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTSOLOMON. I have no stake in this dispute. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont speak for Jimbo, obviously, but your answer to your contrived question is no, just as he probably didn't envision getting the founders seat. He probably didn't envision a group of editors ganging together to keep obviously rubbish articles either. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously Jimbo Wales is no Hari Seldon, I don't even think he is a Kreskin. Regarding "can Jimbo give useful advice on how to improve ANI", I suspect not, but we will have to wait for him to know for sure. Jimbo and everyone else have known for years that ANI is unpleasant.
    If this is an "appeal to Jimbo", then it should be clearer why you are appealing: A) the findings of fact at ANI were wrong; B) the findings of fact at ANI were right, but the punishment was wrong; C) the findings of fact and punishment were correct, but because of procedural unpleasantness it should be thrown out entirely. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There were five serious proposals. (That a wiki project be dissolved, and that four editors be sanctioned.) Only two of those proposals were put into effect. It seems unfair to describe that as a "rubber stamp".
    ApLundell (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two serious proposals. One editor, 7+6 made a mistake - obviously not guilty but still generated considerable ANI heat and many editors called for sanctions, the other was DF, there was not ever any serious proposal or debate just meandering digging up an 8 years old diff and looking for something to get him on... and then it was cut short. I prefer not to re-litigate that destructive process across the project, but I am asking questions of Jimbo Wales. Is this how things should be done on the project? Is it fair? is it right? For instance Andrew's proposal, closed in one day. Or the proposal about me, left open to fester four full days until enough editors could break the no-consensus. Yes these are contrived questions. Can this organization can do better? in my opinion it is literally gaslighting to say anything that happens on ANI a community consensus. There does not seem to be any rules or fairness. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Law of Holes, how does it work? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for being snide on a thread that has nothing to do with you. But, also thanks for not ivoting for my Tban. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At risk of relitigating, the '8-year-old diffs' line which keeps being repeated references my edit. I gave 8 diffs showing a pattern of behaviour at AfD/ARS from 2013-2021 taken from a random sample of ARS archive pages. Something happening consistently for 8 years should be more worrisome not less. At the AN/I and Arbcom there was a strong sense from editors and admins that the four principles in discussion should step back and work on other things. It seems that most of the four editors are struggling with this especially by airing grievances on this page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you think that the founder of this website wants to hear you complain about some drama at ANI? Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention? Especially considering Jimbo isn’t actually some special figurehead-supersoldier-deity, he’s just some dude who made an encyclopedia on the internet that people can freely add to. Dronebogus (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Lightburst the consensus among Users was that you and Andrew are a net negative in relation to deletion discussions. If you receive that many !votes against you perhaps you should reflect on your own behavior rather than blaming everyone else. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My concern is that the concentrated effort to cancel many of the longtime and productive contributors to AfD has considerably weakened the inclusionist voice in discussions, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I'm not at all as active as I could be in that sad place which, in way too many instances, attempts to delete well written and well sourced pages. Blocking good inclusionist editors from having a voice there hasn't, and will not, bode well for future discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary: banning editors who would divide us into "inclusionists" and "deletionists" is exactly what AFD needs. It's time to bury that old battleground hatchet. Levivich 14:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Canceling the name for a thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've seen deletionists gloat about their number of "kills" or similar language. Canceling those who try to fix and save doesn't need a name, common sense actions stand on their own merits. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing doesn't exist. The problem is editors who think the thing exists. Their thinking is the problem because it's battleground thinking. It's divisive. Repeat after me: there are no inclusionists, there are no deletionists, there are just editors who have a variety of views when it comes to determining the exact outer boundaries of notability. Levivich 14:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my experience that only inclusionists believe in some mythical inclusionist–deletionist dichotomy. EEng 14:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Note proper use of ndash. Note improper spelling of endash. Note improper spacing of en dash.[reply]
    Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted. Levivich 15:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and many of those editors who identify as inclusionists face the local cancel culture, and not the opposite. An odd coincidence, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a coincidence. The reason they're "cancelled" -- by which you mean sanctioned -- is because of their battleground mentality (the same one you're displaying here). All of the editors who identify themselves as inclusionists or deletionists suffer from this battleground mentality, and if they don't put down the sword, they're all gonna get cancelled. Levivich 15:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole framing of sanctions as "canceling" people is ridiculous. Especially in Lightburst's case since he can appeal the tban in three months. Which, all things considered, is extremely soft. A three month tban sure isn't worth all this nonsense. That's for sure. With Andrew plenty of people who are not "deletionists" voted for him to be tbanned. So it wasn't anywhere near the "deletionist witch hunt" it's being made out to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To appeal, I would need to go to this same ANI. Seems like a non-starter. Regarding this battle of the deletionist, inclusionist. I am clearly neither based on my participation. calling me an inclusionist is assuming facts not in evidence. My main crime is being involved with an organization that Drmies has said is a decade old problem. You saw based on this am...at any moment an editor can be brought up on charges at ANI. This AM if there were editors with an appetite for more sanctions, I would have those sanctions. And therein is the crux of the matter. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. A bunch of editors, myself included, who supported the TBAN against you, opposed any sanctions against you in today's ANI. Speaking of facts not in evidence... Levivich 15:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My apology, Lightburst, for implying that you have inclusionist tendencies. Your crime, as you say, lies elsewhere (being a member of a formerly reputable and apparently hard-working WikiProject). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I take no offense. I can see many useful reductions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lightburst: There was also the proposal for sanctions against Dream Focus. Which were shot down by pretty much everyone because the evidence was poor, despite him being an ARS member and mostly keep voter. You must deal with a lot of cognitive dissonance due to examples like that. Poor guy. Personally, I wasn't that solid on voting for your tban in the first place and I appreciated that afterwards you where willing to take a step back and reflect on your behavior. It's to bad this tripe nonsense is what you took out of it though. If had of stuck to the reflection and followed through on it I probably would have been willing to support an unban in three months. At this point, not so much. It's fully the consequences of your behavior though. Not because your in ARS or vote keep most of the time. You obliviously have some battleground tendencies that should be dealt with before getting privileges back. I say that as someone who had some myself and was forced to do some reflecting to deal with them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Coincidence? That there's a huge amount of overlap between people calling themselves inclusionist, and people who scream abuse at AfD nominators while attempting to deceive people with falsified sources, doesn't seem like coincidence to me. In any case it was the latter behaviour, not the former wikipolitical affiliation, that led to the bans. Reyk YO! 16:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JW. This was think was my first and last post on your page. Last time we even came close to interacting was when you and I agreed on keepingYoast SEO. ARS plucked it from deletion and resurrected it. But alas I see that I have again been called to ANI to face the "community" largely based on this post. I wish you luck keeping good volunteers here with this culture of mean. I won't take it personal that you did not answer my contrived questions, I guess they were soliloquies anyway. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Be assured, the project you gave existence to? continues to ever grow & evolve. A Monolith couldn't have done better. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Wikipedia, it's full of stars! A nice thought, don't know what it has to do with the treatment some good faith AfD editors have faced lately. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And former stars, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Good Day mislinked Monolith. Deor (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=1054284479"