User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Kazakh press conference

Jimmy, could you please communicate clearly when you became aware of Ting Chen's participation in the Kazakh press conference on June 16, 2011? Then, could you also specify when you become aware that the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation also participated in that press conference? Several people have been curious about the timing of the press conference and the subsequent award of the Wikipedian of the Year prize to a former Kazakh government official in August 2011. Lastly, could you confirm that the Wikipedian of the Year honor included a $5,000 contribution to Rauan Kenzhekhanuly, paid from your own personal resources? And, was that money actually received by Kenzhekhanuly? Thank you for considering and answering these questions. - 2001:558:1400:10:8008:3684:A1BD:682F (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since when did the User talk:Jimbo Wales page become question time? Drop this ridiculousness.97.88.87.68 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe since Wales moved to England and has always described his role on Wikipedia as a parliamentarian monarch? It's not ridiculous. They are simple questions, and their answers would help to resolve some of the cognitive dissonance surrounding Wales' support of the Kazakh Wikipedia project. - 2001:558:1400:10:8008:3684:A1BD:682F (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong questions. The right question is this: "Knowing what you know now, would you still make the award of Wikipedian of the Year to Rauan?" And the answer is "Yes". Perhaps if you could give me some indication of what the hell it is you are driving at, I'd be more inclined to research your specific questions, but I do not understand the point. I don't remember when I became aware of Ting's participation - I'd have to dig that up. I can tell you that the press conference and Ting's visit had no bearing at all on my decision to award Rauan, who richly deserved it. So the timing of the press conference and my awareness of it, is entirely irrelevant. And no, the actual money has not been transferred yet, as the concept has always been that I'd do it ceremonially when I go to Kazakhstan, which I've not managed yet.

There is no need for cognitive dissonance here. I strongly support efforts to bring freedom of speech and a neutral high quality encyclopedia to Kazakhstan. I think that the Kazakh government has a very poor track record in this area. I think it unfortunate that Wikibilim (which is an independent organization not even remotely under my control) accepted funding from the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation, and yet I am glad that the funding came with absolutely no strings attached, and that Wikibilim has good policies in place to avoid editing Wikipedia in an official capacity. I'm glad they have taken the old official encyclopedia (which is most assuredly biased and flawed in deep ways) and gotten it under a free license in an open project so that it can be updated. What they do, 2 of their 25 employees, is hold seminars and training sessions to encourage more people to edit Wikipedia. The rest of their work has nothing to do with Wikipedia but has to do with bringing more information online in the Kazakh language.

I do not wish to be seen as naive or as claiming that everything is perfect in the Kazakh language Wikipedia. They have their problems and controversies as all languages do. When I do visit Kazakhstan, I'll meet with representatives of the government (as I have done in many countries including Russia, China, France, the US, the UK, etc.) and press them on issues of freedom of speech. I'll meet with the Wikipedians to hear their personal stories about editing Wikipedia.

I encourage people to talk to Rauan about whatever concerns you, as well. He speaks perfectly good English.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

He is also seems to be head of the, deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in the other, department. IOW neither his email nor phone appear to be working. John lilburne (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Cluebot is checking his voicemail and email for him? (Sorry, couldn't resist). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy, this is the second time you have been asked these rather simple questions, and it's the second time that you have evaded the questions and tried to reframe or recharacterize the discussion. For example, you are saying now, "I am glad that the funding came with absolutely no strings attached". How do you know this? Did the recipient of the funding tell you this, and his word (as a former government communications official) is good enough for you? It is rather pointless to go into why we would like you to answer the questions presented to you, if you're likely to just dodge the questions once again (because you don't agree with the rationale behind the questions). Will you promise that if we clarify why we want you to answer the questions, that you will answer them? No sense wasting time clarifying if you're not going to be willing to respond anyway. - 2001:558:1400:10:D26:F6:DCDE:54BB (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a question for the above IP address- Why do you care and why do you feel Jimbo has any obligation to tell you when he found out ANYTHING? He, or you, or anyone, can describe his function as a "parlimentarian monarchy" all they want, but in the end he is not, nor is he beholden in any legal manner to you. This is not a US government entity functioning under sunshine laws requiring openness with anyone who requests information simply because they are curious. So basically- I'd like to know WHY you want to know these answers from Jimbo.97.88.87.68 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Scott at the Super 8? - 2001:558:1400:10:51F8:88D7:CDE0:40A4 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, like it or not, is a world-famous "public figure". And there is the appearance of a serious conflict of his financial interest in this case. His continued silence on the issue is disturbing, to say the least. The ordinary people who contribute millions of dollars to the WMF deserve at least a little transparency. 76.191.143.69 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As a public figure, he has 2 choices in these sorts of situations: he can either disregard the problems and stick to his original story, or he can spend a lot of energy giving an honest explanation and an earnest statement of how his strategies will evolve. Both strategies are completely acceptable and/or effective for public figures. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

When I see IP editors constantly badgering Jimbo over this probable non-issue, I have to wonder what they're trying to conceal. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is a "probable non-issue", then it should be painlessly easy for Wales to quickly answer the two plain-and-simple questions: when he became aware of Ting Chen's participation in the Kazakh press conference on June 16, 2011; and when he became aware that the Samruk-Kazyna Foundation also participated in that press conference? Given that the Kazakh government stands accused by international media of kidnapping, silencing opposition media, and massacre of labor disputants, that is reason enough for IP editors to conceal their identity, for their own safety. - 2001:558:1400:10:A5CF:B4B0:1437:348 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless you're using a genuine virtual private network or anonymizer I would highly doubt that posting your IP number to a page like this assures any kind of safety at all. Registering an alternate account for privacy/safety reasons is permissible, and while I would by no means trust it alone to protect you, it would be better than this. I don't see why people find Jimbo's answers here in any way unsatisfactory. I would expect the Kazakh government to have two separate goals - one being to censor and control content, which we absolutely detest, but the other being to promote the understanding of Kazakh language and culture, which we fully embrace. They must decide which goal is more important to them. Writing a Wikipedia in a language has the same importance now in establishing its prominence as printing a Bible in it did in the 1400s. Wnt (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"I don't see why people find Jimbo's answers here in any way unsatisfactory." Really? The fact is, Jimbo hasn't answered either of the two questions that have been presented to him, multiple times. He's dodged those two questions, every time. You find that satisfactory? - 2001:558:1400:10:A5CF:B4B0:1437:348 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your IP address indicates that you're a Comcast cable user in the United States. I have to say I'm sceptical of the idea that the Kazakh government could or would "kidnap", "silence" or "massacre" a critic in the US. Occam's Razor suggests that you're trying to hide your identity from Wikipedia, not from Kazakhstan. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You're asking when he became aware of the participation of each of two entities in a conference. Are you kidding me? Who is going to remember exactly when they knew such a thing? Who could be expected to make something of it at the time? Whether you're honest or not, that you know. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A rather silly question from Wnt, when you consider the following. The press conference took place on June 16, 2011. It was held by Wikibilim, and present in person was the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization Jimmy Wales founded, I'll remind you). Not even two months later, Jimmy Wales announced that the head of Wikibilim (organizer of the press conference in June) was the global "Wikipedian of the Year", and $5,000 of Wales' own money was promised to Wikibilim. One of two things is obvious. Either Jimmy Wales can be "expected to make something of it at the time", given that less than two months elapsed between the press conference and his opening his wallet and $5,000 flying out to the organization that sponsored the press conference; or, Jimmy Wales should not be "expected to make something of it at the time", and we are all to believe that it is a pure coincidence that the chairman of his foundation participated in a press conference held by the organization that Jimmy Wales would donate $5,000 to, only seven weeks later. Another observation is obvious, and that is Wnt's commentary above reflects either a child's level of gullibility, or an adult's attempt to whitewash a question that is apparently touching a few nerves. - 2001:558:1400:10:51F8:88D7:CDE0:40A4 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Might it be helpful to point out that Jimbo has answered one of the two questions you consider to be important, by saying that he doesn't remember and he doesn't think it's important anyway? You don't have to like that as an answer, but it is an answer. Formerip (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll go for the child's level of gullibility, thank you. I mean, from a simple-minded child's perspective, I see that "opening up" a closed society is a good thing. Getting a large, professionally produced encyclopedia out under a free license where it can be mercilessly revised and expanded is a good thing. This Rube Goldberg scheme whereby Kazakh government funding taints Wikibilim taints its member taints the conference taints the WMF person at the conference ... well, maybe it's a bad thing. Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some creepy things going on, I don't know, and probably nobody here knows about - say, maybe those free laptops are loaded with secret government keyloggers and other spyware. But then again, I don't really have much more confidence about that in the U.S. and I had to pay for this laptop my own damn self. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

John Le Mesurier talk page

Mr. Wales, if you have a moment, would you be so kind as to take a glance at Talk:John Le Mesurier. There is a nasty quite unnecessary brutal exchange going on there, which involves the existence of me, the validation of Just William and now borders on elder abuse! I have asked for neutral arbitration, but it would be nice to think you know what's going on down there. Thank you. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If someone is abusing you, you should call the police. If someone is being unpleasant to you on Wikipedia, that's not elder abuse (or unusual). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)as

My best advice would be to first stop accusing people of elder abuse, as DC says above. Please assume good faith from other contributors. Wikipedia works by consensus, which should be arrived at by considering the due weight to place on things per their coverage in reliable sources. Sometimes consensus is against your opinion (as appears to be the case here), and you just have to accept that and move on. It's nothing personal--there is only so much information that we can fit in an article about a widely covered topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, please review our WP:COI guideline; people are generally discouraged from adding information about themselves to Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I just did a quick read of the talk page. It seems that John Clark may warrant inclusion in the article. They have asked for a source. User:JohnClarknew has provided one and they keep deleting the url from the talk page claiming it is promotional of the magazine that he is trying to use as a source. Do we delete links to other magazines from talk pages because they try to sell you copies on their websites?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Canoe 1967. You are the voice of reason and common sense. This article has a long list of the subject's co-stars and co-featured players, so I think it is of interest to the reader to see the inclusion of John Clark as part of that list. Objection was unwarranted from the start. So they say it lacked a source? I have provided one, which includes a photograph of me, Le Mesurier as the character Uncle Noel, and his signature; what could be better? So then they changed their tune, and started insulting me with accusations which you can read. Finally, when one of them used my age (80) as somehow relevant in disparaging terms, holding me in disrepute, that, Delicious Carbuncle, is a form of elder abuse. Not criminal, but actionable. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A photo is not a reliable source IMO, what with photoshop and other clever picture editing software etc doing the rounds. You provided a poor source, for trivial information. I'm sorry, but I do not consider "John Clark" to be a notable actor, compared to the others listed. We are talking of Peter Sellers, Eric Sykes, Terry-Thomas etc. These actors were hugely popular and everybody knew of them and their work. John Clark was less well known, who most would struggle to remember or recognise. Why should we bloat this featured article with the names of actors who played a very minor part in a very minor play alongside JLM. Where do we draw the line? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That is something of a misreading of the situation. The information was originally removed from the article after the COI inclusion because there was no source (which was also a BLP problem). It's not the only reason for not including it: it's a piece of trivia of such minute proportions that if shouldn't be included, source or no source. JLM was in over a hundred films, for example, and we don't even list all of them, so why would we include an obscure unknown from a minor radio play in the 194os? - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(a second brief correction: the information that was deleted was a plug for subscriptions to an obscure society, and failed on wp:notadvertising grounds.) - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, an appeal to Jimbo because consensus is against him... Agreeing with SchroCat that Canoe1967 has misread the situation, particularly in saying that an article about John Le Mesurier ought to include a mention of the name of the actor who played the title character in JLM's first radio show, when that actor is not mentioned in secondary sources about JLM and is not himself a household name (with respect). Bencherlite^Talk 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I stand by the deletion of this text from the talk page. Promoting and attempting to sell the magazine which he has admitted being a member of, is a clear breach of WP:SOAP #4 and #5. I did not delete this because of his desire to use it as a source. It was his blatant attempt at trying to flog me a copy of the magazine, and desperate attempt at trying to recruit me (and others) for future membership in exchange for a small fee I objected to. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you should just be a little philosophical here John. Remember JLM never even recieved a credit in Ben Hur for his beautifully crafted little characterisation of the Greek doctor at the end of the chariot scene. The JLM I recall (vaguely and from a respectful distance) during my time in Ramsgate in the 70s and 80s would have just given one of those slight, almost sad smiles he did. Dont worry about it. You may have a case for insertion, but someone else should do it and the usual WP rules should apply. I think the process of consensus building and discussion has broken here. I hope it is repaired. Its not always a good idea to bring such things to large forums such as this. Some wise advice I got from a fellow Ed. Keep things small and quiet on WP. Irondome (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree on the inclusion: adding the name of a minor unknown really is rather pointless: so much has been removed from the article to make it readable (including the names of most of his films, stage shows and tv and radio broadcasts, that adding this information really adds nothing to the background or understanding of Le Mez, but seems to be little more than an ego trip. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.justwilliamsociety.co.uk/page-willsoc-magazine.htm is the link in question. If the magazine is a foremost authority on Just William then it could be used as a source. Mentioning an editors age on an article talk page probably warrants a revdel as outing. If the magazine is accepted as an RS then inclusion of John Clark in the article could be discussed if the connection between the article subject and John Clark is notable. I haven't looked into detail on the connection.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Society is indeed the foremost authority on the creation of Richmal Crompton's loveable rascal. They meet once a year, and online. The magazine can be obtained for £10, and there's no need to participate in any activity. Back copies for £3.50, members only, and they exist barely as a non-profit, just like WP. They could do with donations too! I and Martin Jarvis who is famous for reading the stories on BBC radio and audiobooks, are honorary members, and we feel honored to have been asked. JohnClarknew (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no outing here, the editor has their own article (which they created), as well as their user page. It's the connection that is part of the issue: it's minor and fleeting at best in the career of JLM. In terms of inclusion of any more info into the article, there are several thousand other actors, films, TV and radio broadcasts which would come further up the chain that this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with this planned copy edit. The article has passed through a peer review, good article review, and featured review and its content was not in question. Copy editing this now could void the opinions of the excellent reviewers who took part. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is irrelevant now. Quite apart from the facts above, I subsequently noted JLM has a seperate professional bio page, so I just deleted my original drone. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

John. Why dont you and some other editors improve the rather shaky (at the moment) Just William article. It could do with clean up reorganisation and a portrayal of William on screen and radio section, and you could it would seem quite legitimately go in there. Based on an old R/T Radio Times listing that could be sourced to everyones satisfaction. I do not know how much the JLM connection means to you, but if you disconnect from that, it looks like you can legitimately be in and help improve a potentially good article, which actually direct involves an obviously very important role in your professional career. In that sense I think notability and other stuff would be satisfied? In the opinion of other Eds and if John was in agreement could this provide consensus for a new direction for this issue? Irondome (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Were you the first to portray William on the BBC? Irondome (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We are talking of Peter Sellers, Eric Sykes, Terry-Thomas etc. Right. We are also talking of Andrew Osborn (who?), Esme Percy, Ernest Jay, Zena Marshall and John Barry (no link) in the article, just below the Just William reference, among dozens of others. WP:NPOV editing? And how about WP:OWN? And Irondome, have a look at this sad state of affairs at the BBC archives department Radio Times archives. Won't find much there, I'm afraid. And yes, I was the first on radio and TV and stage, and there have been several others to come along later, continuing up to the present day. There was a Just William movie in 1940, which starred Dicky Lupino as William and Roddy McDowell as Ginger. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"We are also talking of Andrew Osborn (who?), Esme Percy, Ernest Jay, Zena Marshall and John Barry (no link) in the article": you are quite right, they were superfluous and I've removed them accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

John. Do you remember taking part in any related early media promotions? Because I appear to have found you. It was a British Pathe newsreel. Its on their archive. But it appears to be dated 1946. The synopsis given to the piece is A look at young "Just William" actor John Clark as he relaxes at home. M/S of John appearing in radio show. M/S of John in his garden, he throws a catapault at.. Where it breaks off. It can be found at http://www.britishpathe.com/video/just-william-aka-john-clark/.../radio Irondome (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You will find that external link on the John Clark (actor) article, which is packed with information, including how I got my start with Will Hay. The trouble is, these boys require it to somehow be tied in by direct association with John Le Mesurier. His biographer didn't mention me, didn't have to, and it's from that book, long out of print, from which many of their sourced references come, through page numbers and bibliography. I don't question their expertise with the software, but I do question their use of common sense and their rejection of WP:GF. I am not raising WP:MEAT.

Just William, the magazine, is the only place it is to be found, with JLM standing behind me in a full cast picture, signed by the entire cast including him. There's also a Radio Times scan of a plug which lists him appearing with me in the play, as it was broadcast live from the stage as the BBC Christmas special in 1946. That should resolve the issue. I would rather someone else enter it, in this instance. JohnClarknew (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"these boys require it to somehow be tied in by direct association". John, I don't wish to start accusing anyone of falsehood, but this just patently isn't true. The Pathe link has never been mentioned in any of the discussions on the four talk pages, or in the article itself, so to say that other editors require a direct link just isn't true. As an additional point, his main biography (by McCann) is not out of print, it is still very much available. His autobiography is, (as is his wife's autobiography) but we've tried to use that sparingly. None of those three books mention you. As to the question of good faith, you have questioned our good faith on a number of occasions, and it is something I will refute entirely and without reservation. I have no idea why you are questioning my common sense, it seems to just be another in a long line of cheap gibes we have had to put up with since the various discussions started. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

John, drop the JLM link. It would appear you have enough notability to be included in a much improved Just William article, whicjh is an excellent subject in the English schoolboy fiction genre. The JLM article is mature, the JW article deserves to be improved. You should be part of a actors portraying William section in an expanded and improved article. I cant keep repeating this. Irondome (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not been able to view it because it is taking forever to download. Its prob my old PC. But there appear to be several links relating to the same newsreel. I assume this would be a reliable source to all concerned. But I do advise that this be used in the Just William article as I mentioned above. I suggest dropping the linkage with JLM. Irondome (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I will not drop this one, the principle is too important! There's a double standard at work here in WP. I looked at the article on the life of Richmal Crompton. I see a few references at the bottom of the page, but not one single inline citation to support a fact. I know it to be a well-written truthful article. But some users would destroy it by deleting anything not sourced, as they just did with my ex-wife, actress Kay Hawtrey. Which would be a crying shame.

I have many friends here in Hollywood where I live who are household names, and I can tell you, most of them will have nothing to do with WP because they perceive WP:NPOV editing by fanboys, or haters, depending on who they are, and absolutely none have contributed as I have, because they are intimidated by the software, or they have no interest in real life outside of their performing careers. Mr. Wales needs to know this, which is why I started the discussion here, and I think he does. That is why I believe that ALL BLPers should be not just allowed, but encouraged to edit articles on themselves, always working within the rules of course. I remind them that their obituaries, eventually, will be quoted for free (no copyright) off these pages, wind up at the top of search engines, and they'll be stuck with them. I promote WP wherever I can among my peers, because I think it is a wonderful force for good, but it is always being unfairly slammed in the media. I try to preach for donations. JohnClarknew (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no principle involved here at all John, and if you are trying to turn this into some sort of cause celebre then you are barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid. The unsourced addition of your name to the article of another individual on a matter of such infinitesimally minor significance in the life of JLM is one thing. It has nothing to do with whether we as a project start encouraging the circumventing any form of verifiability on the basis that COI editing is beneficial. It will lead to nothing more than skewed self-written hagiographies penned by PR machines on the one hand and open the door to libel actions on the other. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Clark could maybe have a brief mention in a section about any early variations of the JW play in the JW aricle. And when I say brief, I mean very brief. (I still don't completeley agree with it as Mr Clark is unheard of here in England and his appearance was a non-notable performance compared with, say, Kenneth Williams)). Also, I would strongly discourage him from adding this information himself, and not to advertise his society and magazine in exchange for money. As far as a source goes, the magazine might not be considered reliable unless we can establish the credentials of the contributors and the editor. These credentials will need to be proved. I would justify its use on the JW talk page by leaving a brief note with some evidential links as to the reliability of its founders, editors, contributors etc). There is still no evidence to suggest the magazine is anything other than WP:SPAM or a fansite at this stage. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked the magazine editor if the main authority, the Just William Society, would be so kind as to check in London to see if they could find a source that I (you) required. Their history researcher went to a lot of trouble, and I just got this message of his to the editor:

Went to Westminster Reference Library this afternoon - unfortunately, there was a new-ish librarian who couldn’t lay her hands on the theatre magazine I think I found the 1946 cast list in. In fact, she couldn’t even come up with the title of the magazine, and neither could I (it was a long time ago). So I’ve e-mailed the Society for Theatre Research and asked if they can come up with any possibilities. However, what I definitely did find out was that there NO radio production of the stage play on 29 November, despite what it says in John le Mesurier’s biography. That date was in the middle of the run of the series of half-hour radio plays. As far as I know, le Mesurier never appeared in any of the radio series. (The biography omits to mention the December 1946 television broadcast in the list of Mesurier?s appearances). The reference in the biography should probably have been to the television broadcast - which is not listed in le Mesurier’s biography. Incidentally, I found a lengthy article in the Radio Times dates 22 November 1946 on William, with a photo of John Clark - I photocopied it, and I’ve attached a scan of the photocopy.

So you see what you started? THE BIOGRAPHY YOU CITE FROM IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE! JOHN LE MESURIER WAS NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE RADIO SERIES AT ALL! He was in the stage play, and was in the televised Christmas special of the stage play. And, as an original unsourced comment, I am here to tell you that I have no memory of his being in the radio series at all, but he did become my friend at the opening of the stage play in Birmingham, and at the Granville, Walham Green, London. And it's my opinion, that to use one book as your main source is extremely limiting, and may not be a reliable source at all, as I have proved. And you have caused a lot of people and other users to spend a lot of unnecessary time on your nonsense. And I see you have back-tracked on your argument by removing other names from your list of celebrity actors in which you felt I did not belong. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So how come you've been whining on for the past five days—to the point of being blocked for edit warring—if it didn't exist in the first place? Kinda ironic that really isn't it? I will be able to access the source later to see what McCann shows as the source of his information, although I suspect it may have been JLM's autobiography. BTW, could you stop copying your postings into different locations: I have to say the exact same thing in response to the original posting of this on the article talk page too, which is where this whole conversation belongs. As to your comment that "one book as your main source is extremely limiting", we didn't: multiple sources were used. I'm just bloody thankful we didn't rely on the memory of others to discover what they (mis)remember. - SchroCat (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case. And I don't whine, I bray. Congratulations for getting yourself unblocked. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was unblocked because the admin involved realised I had done nothing wrong: I reverted you for a BLP violation, which was adding something unsourced into the article. Good thing too, as it was totally erroneous: you did not appear on radio in 1946, despite your many and long-winded protestations. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo doesn't want the JohnClarknew memoirs on his talk anymore. It's thread here is redundant. Shall we take it back to JLM? -- Cassianto^Talk 07:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A Lawsuit

A user above says the following:

It has nothing to do with whether we as a project start encouraging the circumventing any form of verifiability on the basis that COI editing is beneficial. It will lead to nothing more than skewed self-written hagiographies penned by PR machines on the one hand and open the door to libel actions on the other.
This brings up an interesting legal issue, possibly a class action. Here's the scenario:

Celebrity vs. Wikipedia, does 1-30 (The does will cover senior editors, founders and 30 users)

CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: My client has been libeled in the pages of Wikipedia in an article written by users who operate under assumed names.
JUDGE: Libeled? Does your client claim privacy privileges which are quite broad?
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: No your honor, he knows that he is vulnerable to general criticism and accepts that. He is what they call a notable, and as such becomes part of a category called "Biographies of Living Persons", and any content may only be changed at the discretion of other users, but not him. That is the crux of this action. He does not accept statements that hold him up to ridicule, scorn, and contempt.
WP ATTORNEY: My client claims immunity as a public website. It merely passes on what is being said elsewhere. All statements are sourced.
JUDGE: Can't the plaintiff remove the offending language?
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: No your honor. Under Wikipedia's restrictive rules, he may not change anything. He contravenes what is known as their Conflict of Interest rule, which is a core principle.
JUDGE: How about the individual users?
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: Interesting point, your honor. They don't always provide a source for their unpleasant remarks, and many are the celebrities' fans, and in this case haters.
JUDGE: Then I grant permission for you to bring any such users into court, as I rule they are not exempt.
CELEBRITY ATTORNEY: But how do I find them?
JUDGE: That's your problem.
WP ATTORNEY: May I confer with my clients?
(A short interlude.)
WP ATTORNEY: I think we can settle this, your honor. My clients are willing to change the rule. They will henceforth include the celebrity and notable BLPers as regular users. Of course, they will then have to conform to the same rules as everybody else.
JUDGE: Sounds good to me. I will sign an order to that end. Case dismissed.

JohnClarknew (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you trying to your own PR work? You're obviously not good at it. Hire someone to deal with this. I recommend Arturo from BP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad you got a handle. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the above a legal threat?--ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, because it's A) a warning and not a threat (arguably) and B) not very credible. It doesn't look to have been written by anyone who's been in an actual courtroom. Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As the archetypal Wikiphilosopher ....

A serving arbcom member believes that admins should carry on editing articles when they are fully protected. Any objections raised on "Wikiphilosophical" grounds" should be ignored. As the original Wikiphilosopher, do you support that stance? In the Boston Marathon bombings article, for example, this would have resulted in about half a dozen admins continuing to write the article, while everyone else stood around and watched.80.174.78.102 (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• The keyword is 'uncontroversial' edits and an editor in that same thread claims that Wikipedia doesn't define the term well. If other editors object to an admin edit then I would call that controversial and then the process of consensus would be needed. If the editing admin doesn't follow consensus then other routes would be followed to correct the article and the admin. See: Controversy. It seems we do have a reasonable definition of it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Admins editing through protection to add content without consensus are misusing the tools. The tools were never designed to be used in that way. It has long been a fundamental, universally accepted tenant that they shall not be used in that way. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Did he harm the article? Did he do anything controversial? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• That seems to be a bit besides the point. Admins are appointed to do adminny things that normal users cannot...block users, delete articles, close discussions. Apart from that, they are supposed to be viewed as and treated like any non-admin when it comes to editing articles. If an article has to be fully protected due to editing disputes, then that should mean full; not kinda full, not sorta full, but full full. Otherwise we have a caste system here, which I believe the project has been quite studiously trying to move away from over the years as that is what it was like circa 2004-2008. The only edits through protection that should be done are those made via a templated request or those that are needed to fix clear policy violations, i.e. WP:BLP. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. This is nothing to do with minor fixes. It's about continuing to write the article while it's protected. NuclearWarfare believes that it is okay to continue shaping the article. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lolwut?! Take his sysop bit and give it to that IP - he appears to be better qualified. Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My first question is why is the article fully protected rather than semi-protected?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The article in question was Boston Marathon bombings, the full-protection was for a couple of hours last week, and the purpose of the full-protection was apparently to prevent editors from inserting reported but unconfirmed names of suspects into the article. There is ongoing discussion, to which I've just posted, on the protection policy talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well, as it only happened for two hours, I think it's pretty uninteresting. I figured with all of the moaning that it was an ongoing issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to that, at least some of the names being inserted were not those of the currently identified suspects, as I understand it. Looie496 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Newyorkbrad'sNuclearWarfare's statement "The purpose of the full protection is not to shut anyone out of shaping the article's content" is false. That absolutely is the purpose of full protection. It's not only false, it's so false. There are no instances of full protection such that "doesn't apply to my edits" is operable, any more than there instances of NPOV or RS or whatever where "doesn't apply to my edits" is operable. OK, NewyorkbradNuclearWarfare made a (fairly minor) error in his understanding of this. OK, we all make such errors all the time, it' been pointed out, I'm sure that NewyorkbradNuclearWarfare has taken the point, and not a huge deal, but an "oops, my bad" statement from NewyorkbradNuclearWarfare would be helpful. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure NYB didn't say the green words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but his fellow Arbcommer NuclearWarfare did. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, right, I meant NuclearWarfare. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• It wasn't about the specific case, it was about the general one, about the policy, and the "wikiphilosophy". NuclearWarfare believes that it's fine for admins to carry on editing a protected article, whether it is protected for 2 hours or 2 months. I was interested to know whether you share that view. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Off topic, sorry. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As one of the individuals who sparked this conflict, I wish to humbly apologize for the grievous harm I have caused the project with my abuse of my admin powers here. I think a total site ban is too lenient for the likes of me, would someone please come to my house and kick me in the balls? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) You cannot be kicked in the balls simply because you do not have the balls. 71.202.120.125 (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC) And nothing says "I've got balls" like anonymous posting on the internet, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Anonymous is the adjective form of anonymity, the state of an individual's personal identity, or personally identifiable information, being publicly unknown. Let me make an intelligent guess that "Mark Arsten" is not your real name, which means that you are even more anonymous than I am. 71.202.120.125 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC) It's "Marcus" actually, so I guess you are kind of right. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with that edit, Mark. However, deliberately missing the point like that is another matter, so what's your address? ;) Formerip (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC) LOL, I'm getting second thoughts now... Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It was only two hours, but this was due to intervening events - somehow the capture, identification and arrest of one and/or the much-welcomed transition from BLP to BDP of the other convinced them to end the protection quickly, but it wasn't clear at the time that this would be such a brief episode. There have been enough ill-advised proposals for using Pending Changes Level 2 or other means to the same end elsewhere that it can't be regarded as purely a fluke. Wnt (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

For those who weren't following things, this BBC story might clarify why the article needed to be fully protected for a period of time. (I'm not trying to justify editing through protection by admins, just explaining why the protection was needed in the first place.) Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the media's complaints about Reddit are overwrought and almost purely self-serving. The real crime committed by Redditors is that they manufactured "news" without a license. So, some guy who was standing at "ground zero" got 72 calls one day. He could have had worse! And I'd bet money one of them ends up with some benefit - fame, job, new girlfriend, whatever, out of the mix. We have to balance that against the very real chance that the Redditors would have spotted something important and saved lives - just as the authorities did not hesitate to balance the risk of a shooting or an escape against designating several complete lifespans of man-days of the inhabitants of Boston spent under "lockdown". Wikipedia would not have touched any putative "suspects" with a ten-foot pole, and if we had, it would only have been to inform people of their innocence. Wnt (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the content was the problem, it was the idea. Admin aren't "super editors", we are janitors. Clearly, admin shouldn't be editing a fully protected article except to administer it. The times I've had to "explain" that to admin have always been with admin who weren't active on the (very busy) talk page and just did hit and run edits, leaving the rest of us on the talk page to deal with a bunch of upset editors. It causes more drama than they realize, since they aren't around to deal with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Howdy all, As a non-admin I would like to reiterate what I said at the first forum that this discussion was brought up on. The problem is that people are seeing minor edits made by Admins as violating a rule, while they can not bring up any specific edits which violated the purpose of the encyclopedia. Many editors, including myself, asked for differences which violated the goals of wikipedia, and none were given (although I think there was one edit pointed out which needed correction). I think that admins job is to perform edits which improve the encyclopedia, and if a wikipedia page is fully protected to prevent mis-information from appearing on the page, and there is a rule which prevents admins from correcting references and formatting then the rule needs to change as it prevents admins from improving the encyclopedia when they could do so. Cheers Coffeepusher (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's wrong from a system dynamics standpoint. The particular small improvements to particular individual articles are not worth the cost in damage to the dynamics of the overall system, e.g. hurting the feelings of regular editors by making them feel second-class. (Whether these hurt feelings are justified or not is not really material here.) Exceptions can be made for screeching emergencies but nothing else. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is absolutely correct from a pragmatic standpoint (James mostly, also Habermas if you want to get modern). Admins are different from regular editors, they have gone through a rigorous examination to be given the trust of the community, and as such have more responsibility INCLUDING insuring that when an article cannot be edited by regular editors because everyone has been inserting false information on the page, to fix references and formatting so that the encyclopedia still works. The ironic thing is that this conflict proves that they deserve our trust. While the page was fully protected, admins respected the communities trust and improved the encyclopedia, and none of them inserted any new information on the page until the article became semi-protected. Now I don't deny that people's egos were hurt, but I am coming from the viewpoint that we are all here to improve the encyclopedia, and if someone else fixes a reference or formatting error and makes the encyclopedia more readable then my opinion is the community should support it.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As I've written elsewhere, this sort of problem would be much less likely to arise if we took WP:NOTNEWS seriously - or failing that, came up with proper policy for handling breaking news. The Boston bombings article was a god-awful mess at times, and had it not been for a large number of contributors (admins and non-admins - myself included) routinely ignoring policy and concentrating on keeping the beast under some sort of control, it would have been a darned sight worse. Our first (only?) duty is to our readers, and if that means that a few people get their knickers in a twist, tough luck. Sensitive souls that are going to get upset about an admin doing something they can't would be well advised to stay away from such articles, along with the bearers of assorted grudges against the World and/or Wikipedia. We have WP:IAR for a reason - because sometimes policy gets in the way of our objective: which isn't to keep each other happy, but to inform our readers. And in this case, to prevent our readers from being encouraged to beat the crap out of someone who looked vaguely like someone else in a blurry image obtained from who-knows-where, while keeping them informed about what was going on, at least to the extent that we had a clue ourselves. It wasn't pretty, and it certainly isn't the ideal way to create articles - but it is better than the alternative. That is the only standard we can judge ourselves by, and whether Jurgen Habermas would have approved or not is entirely beside the point. If your house is on fire, you don't call a philosopher... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Now now, if Habermas personally approves of something, particularly if he approves of something on wikipedia, then that fact becomes the point! Seriously I was only responding to the use of "systems dynamics" as a frame of understanding in the previous comment. Now I do have a serious question, this incident has been raised first on the Boston marathon bombing page, next at the ANI, then at the talk page for the protection policy, which was mentioned at the village pump, and now here, and in each case the same IP brought up the exact same concerns (and started all but the first topic). I'm no expert on forum shopping, but it looks like our IP is a unique WP:SPA in that they are very vary focused on the events of two hours on wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I now only ever edit as an ip, so getting this policy fixed is not going to benefit me at all. If the admins stopped semi-protecting articles for weeks on end at the drop of a hat, that would help me enormously. But that's not going to happen, and anyway it's a different discussion. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"NOTNEWS" is not a policy against covering current events! It combines two things: not to report breaking news as more important than other information, and not to cover routine announcements i.e. obituaries of otherwise unknown people in the local paper as notable events. Almost every time people invoke it they are wrong - and when it actually needs to be invoked, against people who like to "update" articles to always reflect the current status of something without paying as much attention to documenting the history - then people usually forget it exists. Wnt (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• @DennisBrown. "Clearly, admin shouldn't be editing a fully protected article except to administer it". If that's the way you feel, I can't for the life of me understand why you are arguing against having the policy say precisely that. You, Bwilkins and Beeblebrox have all said the same thing, but none of you want it in the policy. You say on the talk page that you "bite off the heads of admins who edit through protection for personal reasons", but the policy allows them to do that, as long as they believe the edit to be non-controversial and in-policy. If you don't want them to do it, then let's get the policy to prohibit them from doing it. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• • As far as we are concerned, it already IS policy, and we should enforce it as such. That doesn't mean I want policy to try to spell out every possible violation, which is overly bureaucratic. The community voted to make me an admin and said they trusted me to block problem editors and protect articles. They did not decide that I'm a "super editor" or that I should get special treatment in a discussion or when editing. In my opinion, using the tools to advantage myself to do work that is purely in my own editorial interest is an abuse of the tools. It doesn't require itemized listings of all the possible ways I could do that in order for it to be against policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

    It would be hard to express the answer any better than Dennis Brown just did. I would also add that it elevates the importance of deciding to full-protect an article to a level where it ought to be. My76Strat (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that post does a very good job of highlighting the difference between the way you see this and the way I see it. You feel that you were elected to block whomever you personally see as a problem editor. Therefore, the vaguer the policy, the better. I feel that you were elected to enforce policy, therefore what the policy says is of paramount importance. I'm not saying it should spell out every last detail, but I am saying we should do our best to make it reflect accepted practice. Look where your position leaves you. You say you bite off the heads of admins who edit through protection, yet they are not transgressing policy. I'm suggesting that we reword the policy so that they would be transgressing. You say, no, as far as you are concerned they already are transgressing it. Can't you self-contradictory your position is? It is truly bizarre.

And with your post, it becomes crystal clear why you don't want the policy tightening. You believe that the policy should be whatever you say it is. If you decide somebody needs blocking, then you should be able to block them. You don't want any pesky policy getting in the way of your God-given right to block whomever you please. The policy is DennisBrown. Or if Bwilkins is dealing with the situation the policy is Bwilkins. Or if a.n.otheradmin is dealing with the situation... That mindset is entrenched in the admins of this site, and it responsible for the appalling state of the relationship between admins and non-admins. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It does look to me like there is a clear consensus that admins are not entitled to continue general editing through full protection. But the situation is that one admin disagrees, and it looks highly unlikely that they will either modify their position or face any sort of sanction or setting straight. And so, any other admin who chooses to behave in the same way will be free to do so. For practical purposes, regardless of consensus or who does and doesn't like it, general editing through full protection will be permitted in future, once the current discussion peters out.

The only options are surely to either accept that or else move to tighten the wording. Formerip (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. Make the change, then watch Dennis revert it. Then listen to him explain that in his view "it already IS policy", therefore it doesn't actually need to be stated in the policy. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• How you concluded that from what I said is beyond me, and stretches credulity. The reason we have admin is so that we don't have to debate every action, the admin is supposed to be experienced enough to determine when the outcome would be certain at ANI, and then do that action, or to know when it isn't certain, and take it to a board. Painting me with the "my way or the highway" brush shows you know very little about what I've written concerning admin actions in the past. Frankly, I've been quite vocal, so it shouldn't be that hard to find out what I actually believe if you only looked. For instance, I authored the WP:RAS proposal to make it much easier for the community to sanction admin or strip the admin bit from admin. It was the community that decided to not do this. Your generalizations of me miss the mark by a large margin. I still file cases at SPI and other boards when there is any doubt as to the consensus, rather than take action unilaterally. And yes, I have gone to admin's talk pages and told them to NOT edit through protection. Had they argued with me, I would have raised the issue at WP:AN. This is a matter of record, see the Sandy Hook article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis, you said you bite the heads off other admins. As the policy stands, you are in the wrong to do that. They are abiding by the policy, as it is written on the policy page. I'm suggesting we amend the policy so you would be in the right. You respond that inside your head, the policy is different, so we don't actually need to amend the policy as it is written on the policy page. How on earth you expect to be taken seriously is beyond me. As I said, this kind of doublethink is why the relationship between admins and non-admins is where it is. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• And WP:FULL and WP:PREFER already make it clear that admin shouldn't edit through protection now. And feel free to not take me serious or blame me for whatever ills Wikipedia. You've already damaged your own credibility here by assuming too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• If it's already clear, show me the diff where NW got desysoped. Formerip (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Dennis, you and your colleagues have made no attempt to explain how NuclearWarfare's interpretation of this policy can be at such variance with your own:

1. Bwilkins: For those who understand full-protection such as this, you'll already know that admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images, or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS discussions on this talkpage.[1]

2. NuclearWarfare: The purpose of the full protection is not to shut anyone out of shaping the article's content. [2]

You've made it plain that you want the policy to be vague and self-contradictory. You continue to argue against having a policy that is easily and unambiguously understood by all. We should have a policy which makes such diametrically opposed interpretations as those above impossible. You want the policy vague, ambiguous, and self-contradictory so that you can choose which interpretation to use, according to your whim. That is your position not just for this policy, but for all policy. Where does that leave ordinary editors who turn to the policy pages expecting to find clear policy which is applicable to everyone who edits this encyclopaedia? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF?

This and this astonish me and my first instinct is that surely these stories are wrong in some important way. Can someone update me on where I can read the community conversation about this? Did it happen? How did it happen?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not an isolated case, I'm afraid, Jimbo. See here for another example. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly the same thing. The articles complain about people (apparently) removing women from the main category to a "ghetto" of a women's category. Categorization that assumes male defaults is a very bad idea. The case you're talking about is a list, not a category (that's not important, and I know you know it, but I mention it because likely reporters will read this discussion). And having a list for women directors, and a list of all directors, isn't the same thing as having a general list (for men only) and a women's list.

There are still valid arguments against it, of course! But my point is that there is a respectable and non-sexist argument for having a category for women and a general category, namely that there are academic studies on female literature, female film, etc. Some might argue that the existence of such academic disciplines is sexist, but those arguments aren't very compelling since these tend to be highly pro-feminist areas of academic study. I do not think, let me be clear, that we should have any differences in the treatment of gender at all. But I also do respect that a person can be in favor of dual categorization of females for academic reasons and not in favor of dual categorization for males.

What is completely and totally unacceptable - and there seems to be strong consensus on this - is to create a general list or category and only include men, and then a special list for women. That's nonsense and sexist. I haven't seen anyone in favor of it, and so I think the Guardian and HuffPo (and NYT) articles are unfair to us in that regard. It seems that most of this came about because people categorized in a haphazard fashion, rather than through any real discussion or policy about this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The main category actually just includes one article and a bunch of subcategories. I have seen some categories created for "Male x", but there doesn't appear to be one in this case. So, really, it is more like women are getting a special category of their own and men aren't.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it is talking about the American novelist category specifically, rather than the general novelist category. It isn't actually accurate, though, as many female novelists are still included in the main category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, there is also a category for men so it isn't only being done to one gender.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Having a main category for an occupation and a subcategory for women with that occupation is the standard around here. It's everywhere in Category:People by occupation/Category:Women by occupation such as Category:Composers/Category:Women composers, Category:Scientists/Category:Women scientists to name just two. Deli nk (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would take the hint, Jimbo, and merge the two lists. It makes no sense to have a list of all of X (which is very incomplete) and a separate list of women in X (some, but not all, of whom appear in the main list). Either have one list or make the lists separate by gender (although one would have to question why we might wish to do that). We have separate lists of male and female kickboxers, not a list of kickboxers (including males and females) and a separate list of female kickboxers. This is a silly situation caused by the extreme gender imbalance in the Community. I'm surprised that you haven't noticed this before. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is just another example of the tendency to micro-categorize pages into sub sub sub categories what makes identifying and finding things via categories almost impossible. If I know X is a novelist and cannot remember the exact name or spelling for some reason I should be able to go to the appropriate category (Category:Novelists) and find the person. However given the policy and practice to shove the article into the most sub-sub-sub category possible it means I must know that the person is a novelist, their nationality and now gender. Getting a efficient category intersection system would make issues like this null. Werieth (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I find those big cluttered categories with hundreds upon hundreds of entries far more difficult to navigate. Dividing them into smaller categories can make it simpler. If you have a particular author in mind, but can't place the name you should know whether said author is male or female, American or British, etc. Should someone only know that x is a novelist then it is going to be nigh impossible to place the person by sorting through any category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to both arguments, i.e. that big categories are too hard to navigate and should be broken down, and the argument that excessive micro-categorization is hard to navigate. I'm interested to hear more about "an efficient category intersection system". What would that be like?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You know two things about a song, it was written in 2009 and written by Sean Garrett. Using WP:CATSCAN link to example you can filter the two categories Category:2009 singles and Category:Songs written by Sean Garrett from 2,029 items and 52 items respectively to just 7. Without the need to create a category called "2009 song written by Sean Garrett" This would enable the ability to find sort and organize articles using large categories and avoid sub-sub-sub categories. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It would probably look like something like Semantic Mediawiki; but you dismissed that years ago as "too difficult" or something. - 68.87.42.110 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it was done earlier this month en masse by a single editor (although I'm not 100% sure, there may have been others doing it). It seems to go wider than just novelists. I've left the editor a talkpage note pointing them here.Formerip (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think editors who do things like that should be banned much more quickly and firmly than our usual relaxed approach to banning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe. These were obviously poor edits. But my general impression is that mass changes to categories are not strongly discouraged or well-policed (hence, undoubtedly, the problem here). This could be an editor who's been caught speeding in a zone with no speed limit (i.e. this may be a failing of the community as much as an individual editor). But I'm not experienced with categorisation, so don't take my word for it, I could just be plain wrong. Formerip (talk)

Unless it is somehow disruptive I fail to see why banning would be appropriate. Dividing a category into sub-categories when the main category gets cluttered (the American novelists cat has 4,000 articles) is a good improvement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, Jimbo, why does the question of banning even come up before it's determined whether the editor in question understands the problem and is willing to work with the community? Is Wikipedia:Assume good faith no longer in effect, or have you already talked with the guy and found him to be intractable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: Maybe, but dividing a category into people and women gives an obvious cause for concern. Formerip (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, that isn't actually what has happened as a cat exists for men and women are still included in the main cat. The lamestream press are just being their old noobish selves, creating an Internet controversy where none would exist if they actually understood what they were talking about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that isn't how it happened. The category for "American men novelists" has been created in response to the NYT piece. Originally, all the women writers had been moved into "American women novelists". What the NYT describes looks to be basically accurate in terms of a description of the situation a day ago. Formerip (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As of last night, very few of the "American women novelists" were in "American novelists," largely due to one editor removing them from "American novelists." Some of us have been re-adding them over the past twelve hours or so, which is why a lot of them are back now. --Elysdir (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think people who actually take the time to look at this more closely will find that the situation described in the press reports (the general category is assumed to be male by default) is more than not the way things are done here. User:Johnpacklambert is an experienced Wikipedia editor and is in no danger of being banned for this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If he can't come up with a darned good reason why he did it - one that is in the direct interest of our readership - he should be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, why not examine his contributions to the discussion yourself before passing judgment? He's not only given an explanation for his behavior, based on precedent, but he's also offering constructive suggestions on how to address the problem. Is that really the kind of editor we're trying to get rid of? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As a meta-comment, it's long been my impression that categories are more trouble than they're worth. As this case demonstrates, they can create a lot of bad feeling and bad publicity. If I had a nickel for every time a knock-down-drag-out fight develops over a controversial categorization, I'd have several dollars. A number of categories - particularly those with the potential to reflect negatively on living people - expose us to some ethical and legal risk. And I don't think they're useful as a navigation aid. I don't have any formal statistics measuring how categories are used by the average Wikipedia reader, but they don't seem very helpful at all; I find them difficult and inefficient to use after 7 years here, so I can't imagine the average casual reader gets a lot out of them. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Shoving people into boxes and labelling them, even metaphorically, is a nasty little habit. It is high time Wikipedia grew up and stopped doing it. And no, I'm not kidding... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Since we aspire to host the sum of all human knowledge, it's probably an unavoidable duty that we involve ourselves in the taxonomy of knowledge. I agree with you both that the way we presently do it, particularly with regard to human and social types, needs improving. I agree with Looie's and Wnt's comments about usability, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that someone took it upon themselves to exclude members of the subset American Female Authors from the universal set American Authors. This should be a learning experience why this kind of thing should not be done. There is nothing wrong with that subset, there is a legitimate academic concern with that subset. But making membership in Group A in any way related to inclusion in Group B creates a ghetto and controversy. A person can be part of categories "People born in 1926," "People from Duluth," "Swedish-Americans," "American female novelists," and "American novelists" — all 5. The last two are not and should not be regarded as mutually exclusive. If there is a structural reason why this happened, it should be fixed. If this was done by individual volition, it should be stopped. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear (because it may get lost) that I do not support the movement of women novelists to a separate category. It is a bad idea, but it is not necessarily a mendacious idea. I've deliberately avoided identifying the editor in question, so that I can comment generically. It is not an unreasonable thought to believe that women are under-represented in many categories: novelists, heads of state, architects, and many others. It is not unreasonable for someone to want to study the phenomenon, to look at the differences geographically, temporally, and by occupation. It is not unreasonable for someone wanting to do such a study, or make it easy for someone else to do such a study, to support counting women in various categories over time. It is a small step to think that the categorization started may be helpful to those who are interested in studies. While the specific approach is the wrong next step, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was undertaken with ghettoization as a goal. The effect is clear and should be reversed, but I urge dropping the banning talk. The problem arises because our categorization approach is deficient in many ways. As Jimbo notes, we should address this more broadly, rather than simply decree that this breakout should be reversed. There must be a better way to approach the categorization problem, so that one can, easily, identify women novelists, yet simultaneously be able to see a list of American novelists regardless of sex, or nth century novelists, regardless of country, or many other breakdowns, without having to resort to assemble micro-categories.

Let's:

• reverse the poor decision
• use it as an excuse to think hard about the right way to do categorization
• avoid riding someone out of town on the rails for what might be a sincere attempt at improvement.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If an experienced Wikipedia editor sincerely thinks that removing women from 'category:American novelists' is an improvement, I sincerely think that we should get rid of him. And I sincerely think that arguing otherwise is missing the point. No matter how you spin it, it is detrimental to the credibility of Wikipedia. And just plain stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't he think that, when the category says right on it that "It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories"? People are encouraged to move articles from these parents cats to subcats. Leon Uris isn't at this writing in that category. Why? He's been subcatted. I don't think it's a good decision to remove women only (or even first) or that it's a good decision to put women solely in categories related to gender (as opposed to the handling of Pearl S. Buck, where she is categorized as an author in several ways...but not at this writing, like Leon, in the parent cat). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, re: Pearl, I stand corrected; she's been added. Possibly in response to an email I sent out via OTRS a few hours ago. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but here is the link to the current discussion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists. I may have missed it but I haven't been able to find the link in the above discussion so I thought it may be important. Carry on, and mind the gap. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There's also Category talk:American novelists#Preferred gender classification style. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Same issue with actors/actresses - Category:American actresses is a sub-cat of Category:American actors.--ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And needless to say, Category:African-American television actors is a subcat of Category:American television actors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

These are also down to the same editor, it seems. Formerip (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And that one will be difficult to justify on the grounds that everyone should go into a subcategory, unless he is proposing we have a Category:non-African-American television actors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, he didn't create these categories, just moved actors into them. Formerip (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, actually he did create the actresses category. But I think we should focus less on the editor, beyond understanding that the problem is about a lack of community oversight. Formerip (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We do have categories for non-Africans by occupation, including for pasty-faced white folk and that editor has created a few of those as well. Still, go on assuming that the editor is a bigot because Lord knows we can't stop and be considerate when people in the press are crying about the ebil nerdy white male privilege of Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"We do have categories for non-Africans by occupation"!!!!!!!!! Holy shit!!!!!! Now I've seen everything. Or rather, I haven't. Could you provide some examples... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Here you go.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. I asked specifically for a Category:non-African..., as the logical subcategory to go with Category:African... - you have merely provided further evidence of Ghettoisation. (Though I have spotted a horrific WP:BLP violation in the entirely obnoxious Category:Chechen criminals, so I suppose I should be thankful...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought you were making a serious request for categories involving non-Africans and not some trolling request for a category that says what people are not. Never mind.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

General rules of categorization would indicate that if we subdivide for women, we should subdivide for men as well. However, given all the attention that "women" get (Women's studies but no Men's studies, not to mention efforts to reward women based on the fact that they ARE women, rather than just on their accomplishments - such as some of our own programs here with Wikipedia) Im not all that surprised that someone made subcategories for women but not for men. To me, its not "ghettoizing" its giving women special status whereas male writers for example are not somehow special because they are men. Similarly, how many times do you see someone noted as a "gay" writer but never as a hetero one. While I agree that we should have a men's category, I dont think the preachiness or self righteousness is really warranted. Make the category and move on.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories as currently implemented are a worthless pain in the ass

This point was made above (by MastCell), but it is worth emphasizing. The value of categories is to expedite searching, but Wikipedia's category system is completely divorced from its search system. If you type "novelists" into the search box, you don't see anything related to Category:Novelists. Unless this can be fixed, the whole category system is a worthless waste of effort. Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is broader than that, but that is a good observation. If the point of categorization is to help readers find things, then it ought to be integrated into search. I know a lot of readers who know about the search function, but have never really paid attention to categories.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the only purpose for categories is to give obsessives something to do. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

They're potentially useful for research. I've used them to quickly find articles in a subject area. But they do suffer from and have long suffered from some issues in consistency, and frankly I don't really understand why large parent cats are a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

They really are potentially useful -- *if* they are implemented with the intention of serving as navigational aides. If I click on an author who has been determined guilty of plagiarism and then want to see other instances of plagiarism, it's helpful to have a plagiarism category at the bottom of the first article. The difficulty is that people start thinking about categories (particularly for BLPs) as identity tags. That's not what I have in mind when I work with categories, but that's where the drama and controversy kicks off. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so long as you don't take the contents of your plagiarism category from a list in a book... Formerip (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC

This is all beside the point. The guidelines specify that "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C". That is to say, if Sylvia Plath is put in the cat of 'American women poets', she should not also go in 'poets', 'American poets', or 'American writers', which are parent categories. That is why all the American female novelists were in the 'American female novelist' cat but not also listed under 'American novelists', which would be a duplication. If this isn't how categorisation is structured, then you should change the policy. Span (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is addressed in WP:Cat gender. Unless "gender has a specific relation to the topic" categories by gender are not split; women are in both the specialist and the "appropriate gender-neutral role category". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so we have a guideline that might have prevented this problem. The question is why it didn't, for over two weeks. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The whole sentence, "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", actually reads more like a suggestion than a prohibition. As in "you might want to consider a gender-specific category if ...". If the intent is to prohibit such categories in most cases unless there is a strong motivation for them (which seems to be the intent of most of the rest of the page), then I would suggest that the WP:Cat gender section ought to be more clearly written to that effect. Dragons flight (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The mere fact that Category:Male golfers does not exist on this site makes that set of guidelines more lolworthy than useful, and probably explains why the guideline did not prevent the current problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.124.60 (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree - we need to fix the category system, period. The limited display sucks, the inability to lump together subcategories into a single list sucks, and just in case someone would be tempted to use templates or Lua to do better, the contents are inaccessible to any kind of transclusion. We end up having these massive 'infoboxes' like Template:The Beatles that spam 200 links into 200 articles because our categories, which should be doing the job, are ugly and unfixable. And yes, we should be able to click on a nationality of our choice and a sex of our choice and a genre of our choice to create a custom intersection of lists. It's something basic the devs should be working on instead of skins and ratings and "wikilove". Wnt (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are long-standing problems with wikipedia categories, as I already tried to discuss on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No basis for crying sexism other than blind assumption of bad faith

I see that the editor who created this category and did most of this has responded by creating similar cats for men. This is not a simple matter of the editor responding to controversy, however as some would certainly claim. He has created categories for men and women well before this. As can be seen in one instance back in February he created a cat for German male dancers immediately after creating a cat for German female dancers. Similarly, he created a cat for male film actors and one for film actresses within a month. He also created the general cat for American male actors a month and a half before creating the cat for American actresses. Now then, we can all stop buying into the scaremongering from some random "feminist" who lacks any amount of circumspection and thus is quick to assume everything is about sexism. Let no one ever claim again that editors on Wikipedia actually assume good faith. No, we jump to conclusions and have the rope ready before the defendant ever gets a chance to speak.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you put "feminist" in quotation marks so that people know to ignore your opinion on this issue from here on in. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A feminist is supposed to advocate for equality and part of that should be giving men the same amount of consideration one would give a women. Someone who is so quick to presume a situation is about men trying to demean women is not acting in a manner consistent with her proclaimed creed. Were a female editor doing this with men you would undoubtedly find certain self-proclaimed feminists less likely to notice, less likely to care, and more likely to consider less demeaning explanations. Most identity politics nowadays is about some person assuming the worst, stirring up a controversy, and calling for heads to roll. It really takes away from the goal of equality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I generally detest using identity politics as a way of whipping up an angry mob to attack and demean individuals without any meaningful consideration of guilt or innocence. If you want to say that makes me less of a person or a person with an opinion less worthy of consideration then fine. However, people shouldn't be labeling an editor a sexist and calling for bans based entirely on some random crap they read in the news.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone labelled an editor "sexist"? Has anyone (other than Jimbo) suggested banning anyone in relation to this incident? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is someone proposing to create Category:non-African-American television actors? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*Points to DC and motions to Andy*--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone labelled an editor "sexist"? Has anyone (other than Jimbo) suggested banning anyone in relation to this incident? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There are zillions of examples of this so-called ghettoization: is another one, which has

Wikimedia Commons has media related to African American film directors.

This is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:American film directors.
It includes film directors that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent.

The following individuals are African American film directors. and as another parent, Category:African-American directors, which is a child of the (presumably) paler Category:American directors. Why people are up in arms about this one particular case quite boggles me - it's just an application of a standard that is somewhat inconsistent but it happens constantly all over the wiki (e.g. the standard is, always diffuse to most specific sub-cats - UNLESS you're dealing with gender/ethnicity/national origin - and then don't - unless the person is already diffused to a child, which means you need to know the parent-child relationships of all of the super and sub cats, or if you are working within a national origin tree, and therefore... ugh!) - so it's not at all surprising that this happens. And this is not all the work of one editor - for example, see [3], which "ghettoized" a writer, by a well-respected and long standing admin with no malicious intent in so doing.

Part of me thinks that the cat system is hopelessly broken especially with respect to people - most articles have a few cats, but bios have dozens. If we could implement category intersection - even in a stupid, simple way - that would be a massive help - then we could just assign each bio as {m/f/etc} {writer/actor/politician} {gay/straight/bi/etc} {armenian/greek/russian/etc} {catholic/jewish/muslim/etc} - it would be much easier to maintain, there would be no more tedious debates about whether we should create cats for Category:Catholic authors from San Francisco of Chinese descent, and everyone could easily find the intersections they wanted. Wikipedia, can you do Wikipedia:Category_intersection for us please?? So many of these arguments and endless debates would just go away in a puff of smoke if we had good cat intersects. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Category check

Category:Norwegian erotic dancers needs a peer review. --Normash (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a historical need for peer reviews for articles created by accounts profiled as sockpuppets at Norwegian wikipedia. --Normash (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WOuld someone mind giving User:Normash the attention they are seeking? Also, would you mind deleting Audun Carlsen? I don't think we want to have redirects in the names of crime victims. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Granted he is not a school girl who has been seriously injured by Taliban sympathizers in Afghanistan/Pakistan. But TV-interviews like this one [4] shows that he apparently does not need your protection from media spotlight. Clearly he is Norway's most famous male escort abroad[5] as far as international media is concerned. And please have a look into the article about Bente Lyon that was speedily deleted today; it was based on this text [6]. A campaign against articles about Norwegian sex workers seems to have started today. A second deletion discussion regarding Tanya Hansen started today—seven years after the last one. --Normash (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible pitfall in Wikipedia governance

is there some reason that Arbcomm cannot even answer its routine mail? even when I posted on 3 or 4 personal talk pages for members of Arbcomm? Is this spring break for them or something? :-)

just wanted to mention this, and to solicit any feedback. I do feel that something about this process might need to be addressed. I appreciate any help, comments, ideas, input, etc etc. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's governance does not have pitfalls—it is filled, instead, with long drops to the mantle and outer core. ArbCom exists only to protect the strong against the weak. Although I am not in favor of its abolishment, I think that Wikipedia needs stronger institutions, including an elected assembly and content review boards, to deal with the cabals which have hijacked our political processes. Of course, most decisions should be local, but legislative and content decisions of consequence should be dealt with by elected officials chosen by the entire encyclopedia, not by ArbCom making every attempt under its establishing policies to legislate from the bench. All this leads to are remedies which are incongruous with the underlying problems that are supposed to be solved, with no other way of solving them.

Wikipedian content builders need to rise and take back the political process. Election of legislators, while it seems contrary to the fundamental precepts of this project, is the only way of giving content builders an (albeit indirect) form of control over the encyclopedia and of reining in the small special-interest groups and POV-pushers which masquerade for the "community". Wer900 • talk 04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason ArbCom takes so long to respond is that an official answer takes a week or two to wind its way through the process. The most common reasons that ArbCom didn't respond to people in my tenure were, in no particular order:

1) The correspondent failed to ask a question, or 1a) the correspondent failed to ask a question before everyone's attention span had expired. ArbCom gets probably a couple of emails a week that fall into this category, assuming the distribution hadn't changed. You've all probably seen things like this, where someone essentially gets in a dialogue with themselves, tacks a question on the end of their assumptions and reasoning, and emails the lot to the committee.

2) The correspondent is disliked, or 2a) the correspondent is feared. These are different--some people are just plain unpleasant to talk to, because they will just miss the point like they have done before, but others have a track record of trying to harass identified people. 2a doesn't actually happen all that often, but 2 happens all the time, especially in ban appeals.

3) The committee is not agreed on the answer. This happens when reasonable people post specific questions, and then the arbs have to find consensus on an answer, of some sort, in addition to all the case work, clarification, amendments, CHILDPROTECT matters, misbehaving admins, and OTHER private correspondence.

The committee has no SLA for private correspondence, such that much of it gets handled on a what-is-the-biggest-threat-to-Wikipedia-right-now basis, by the selected volunteers. You may be ignored not because your question is TL;DR, not because you're disliked, but simply because you've posed a question that needs Arbitrator consensus... and the committee as a whole is working on more important things. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

hmmm, okay. well, thanks for your replies and helpful input on that. Like --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It would mean the World to me

If you could just say hi to me please? You've created the most amazing thing on the internet, It would mean a whole lot to me if you did. I'm sorry if this might be spam (which I hope isn't) and I'm not being too much of a fanboy here. You can just remove this if you like, and I am shocked by the fact that you have 131 archives.

☞ Яǐɱ ^{(Chat with Meh) (Updates)}

04:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo is a leader in the fight against censorship in various nations and subcultures. He speaks regularly to mankind including you. I will try to update you on your user page the next time I discover a future such message to mankind including you. And then I will try to remember to ask you on your user page, in Janet Jackson's spirit: "What have you done for wikipedia lately?" --Normash (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)