Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:37, 19 December 2010

Template:Fix bunching

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

Personal appeals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, back to the topic: the issue with the fund raising approach and the founder syndrome is pretty simple: by focusing it on yourself, you give "uninvolved" people the impression that it's "your site", which attracts some of them, but alienates others (and I suspect it alienates more than it attracts). This means that the donors (and just as importantly potential new editors) are biased toward those who support the founder. Your position as the "appointer of the elected" supports that impression as well.

The point is this: separating your identity from Misplaced Pages's identity should be something you pursue actively, if indeed your motivations are as purely altruistic as you've expressed to me elsewhere. That separation will be good for Misplaced Pages for sure... whether it's good for you depends on how it happens.

The BLP problem in particular needs above all else an expanding base of new and active editors who can handle the workload created by the (alarmingly rapid) expanding number of BLPs. BLPs are a unique problem that other encyclopedias haven't had to deal with like WP does, after all. --SB_Johnny |  19:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is interesting that Misplaced Pages funding has confirmed that people are still interested in the person, not just the wiki-system. Hence, perhaps we need to promote other interesting people to help "put a face" on Misplaced Pages, as a means to bolster the basic support for Misplaced Pages. Never the less, the pictures of Colonel Sanders continue to sell KFC chicken, even in Jamaica, so I think it is great to have pictures of the Misplaced Pages Founder to provide continuity between the past and future generations. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A question about arbitration

Mr. Wales,

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the advice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have spoken kind words about you, re the importance of your involvement in the never-ending debate on Talk:Communist terrorism. The words I wrote were genuine, as I thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was your natural habitat on wikipedia (possibly—I'm just guessing—it coincides with your RL expertise). At the moment it might be helpful if you recognized that you might have made a misjudgement and leave this as another of your "okie-doke" moments. Enough said? Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've spoken kind words about you as well, in this very thread, and you've made harsh comments about me elsewhere quite recently (in wp:AN, if you recall), so I think our relationship is a bit too complex to tally things up in tit-for-tat fashion. And please, it's 'okie-dokie' - 'okie-doke' is a deeply midwestern variant, and I'm decidedly coastal. Oklahoma would not appreciate my sense of humor. That being said, please refer to my edit summary. --Ludwigs2 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There it was a missing "i" (something very British I'm sure). In other other places it has been a missing "s" (also, something very British). That is wikipedia for you :) Regards, Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a convention in some parts of the English-speaking world that administrators of justice, such as judges and magistrates, distance themselves from the general community and live a socially restricted life. This reduces the possibility of any perception of bias arising in their professional activities resulting from contact with people that they might meet in the course of their social life. The same should apply to those granted disciplinary authority in Misplaced Pages. Roger should have recused himself already. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Proper sanctions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To answer the philosophical question, yes I would consider any ban on a user filing appeals to be rather extraordinary and to be avoided in most cases. I wouldn't say that the right to appeal can never be restricted, but it is basically a declaration that someone is a vexatious litigant, and that should be done quite carefully. I'm reluctant for people to read too much into these philosophical remarks, because I think there can quite often be good cause to ask people (firmly) to just relax and lay off of a pet issue for awhile. I applaud Delicious carbuncle in this case for being prepared to abide by the restrictions and generally taking things calmly. And without having really tracked this in any detail, I'd say that as a matter of personal advice, it might be great for you, Delicious, to ignore Cirt and Scientology-related issues of all kinds until, oh I dunno, maybe after the New Year? (No one should interpret this as in any way actionable! I'm just saying, were it me in Delicious' shoes, I'd find all this drama boring and I'd go do something else for awhile. :-) )--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Jimbo. I agree that there are times when people should be asked to step back and times when the community should ban users from filing reports, but as you say that should be done with caution and only when it absolutely necessary. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom appointments announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some notes:

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

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

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

Have you considered offering Risker a proper and oficial paid job with the foundation?  Giacomo  22:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Giacomo. The WMF can't afford me. (And on a side note, all new arbitrators have identified to the WMF.) Risker (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

New discovery

I would expect you to be the first to know, but I can't find any note of a message related to this on your talk page. Anyhow, Tim Starling claims to have found three archives of Misplaced Pages, the oldest from March 2001. This means that the oldest surviving edit (though not on the Misplaced Pages, but in the archives) would be to HomePage, reading "This is the new WikiPedia!"

This edit is presumed to be you, but I haven't heard anything on it. For more information, see Misplaced Pages talk:UuU. I have not personally opened these archives, but it would be interesting to see what you have to say about it. --67.180.161.183_{00:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)}

It's cool. :) I haven't heard how old the oldest edits found are, though. I know what the first edit was to the main page of Misplaced Pages, because I wrote it: "Hello, World!" I wrote. But there's a reasonable chance - I don't remember - that I deleted that at some point during the first day of testing. The old database was not a "database" really. Every article was stored in a text file in a funny sort of format. Deleting an article could be done by literally deleting the file. So it is very likely that many of the earliest earliest edits are lost forever. It's fun though, that the history has been extended backwards by a few weeks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This got my interest hormones activated and so I tried to work out who did the edit. I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but it looks like the edit has been discovered before, in 2007. There's a barnstar for it here: User_talk:Eiffel and a link on the associated userpage. All the same, think the Time Team approach to Misplaced Pages is very cool indeed. Please keep digging and maybe one day we will be able to accurately reconstruct what life was like in 2001. --FormerIP (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The "UuU" edit was discovered in March 2004. Graham87 04:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Inflammatory essays, again

Two months ago, I started a discussion here on that inflammatory "humor" essay Misplaced Pages:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, pointing out that it has no place on Misplaced Pages, serves no constructive purpose, and will simply be cited by uncivil users hoping to circumvent WP:Civility, under the rationale that hey, it's hosted in the Misplaced Pages project namespace. This occurred with one editor here, and despite this, the result at MfD was Keep, and the discussion here went nowhere.

Now I've discovered another such "essay" being used in this manner, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required. In a discussion on Talk:James Randi, user Steven J. Anderson, who is in a disagreement with User:Kazuba, ended his most recent talk page message by saying, "That policy is non-negotiable and trumps consensus. If you're having trouble understanding any of this, you may benefit from perusing WP:COMPETENCE." The issue, of course, is one of disagreement, not understanding, since editors who understand policy disagree about its proper implementation or interpretation all the time. But that essay allows people like Stephen J. Anderson to level thinly-veiled insults at other users.

Jimmy, as much as I generally respect consensus, these pages need to be removed from Misplaced Pages, regardless of the threadbare rationales offered for them, even if it means a unilateral decision from the top. They offer nothing except fodder for churls to insult others during editorial disputes. Nightscream (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

HEY! Stop being a giant dick! HalfShadow 05:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm ambivalent about the first essay, I think WP:COMPETENCE is important. Editors may misuse it, but it points out the (to me) important fact that while anyone can edit Misplaced Pages, if that person's English skills, logic skills, writing skills, etc., are so low that more effort is spent fixing those edits than is gained from the contributor, then that person may not be an appropriate editor. Similarly, if someone can't, for whatever reason, edit collaboratively (either do to language problems or emotional problems) and engage in talk page discussion as necessary, then that, too, indicates the person may be in the wrong place. Perhaps WP:COMPETENCE should be renamed, but I do think the essay should continue to exist, as people will invoke the underlying principle even if the link itself does not exist. Note that it is not an essay "kept because its humorous," but one that's far more widely used, and I believe used appropriately. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose what we all agree upon is pretty simple: editors shouldn't make snarky comments to other editors, and shouldn't use links to essays to be snarky, and essays are less desirable to the extent that they invite that kind of abuse. One approach might be to rewrite them to be less offensive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's all those essays are going to be used for. Can you give an example of a citation of that essay that won't be taken as an insult by the editor to whom the comment is directed? If there are areas in which an editor needs work, such as a newbie editor, the more experienced editor can simply point them to the related policy pages, templates, resources (Help Desk, Noticeboards) in question. That would offer not only a more precise resolution to the specific problem, but it would be a constructive solution with which a good faith newbie could genuinely improve. By contrast, citing that essay just sends the message, "You're incompetent." How is this beneficial? Nightscream (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The dick deletion discussion on the essay was an epic failure, accept that not everyone (anyone?) sees this in the same dire terms that you do and more on. As for competence.... editors try to be helpful and accommodating for new users, but sometimes there's a basic level of, well, competence, that has to be expected. We're not a teaching institution. One particular case that drives me nuts are those who can not understand 4 tildes to sign a post even after being told multiple times by multiple people. If someone can't string 1~ 2~ 3~ 4~ together, then there's not much one can do with them. Same with having the ability to write basic, coherent sentences, verb-tense agreements, etc... The bar is set pretty low to edit here, and having an expectation that users meet that bar is not a bad thing. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Nightscream that whoever is pointed to WP:COMPETENCE is likely to feel a bit insulted. The essay is specifically targeted at people who "lack intelligence", are incompetent, immature, etc. The essay can almost only be used for personal attacks. If someone really is "incompetent" to edit Misplaced Pages, it's much better to point them to WP:V, WP:N or whatever policy is relevant to the discussion than to this essay. Laurent (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it is possible to gather some empirical evidence. How often are these essays referred to? How often is the reference unhelpful and insulting? I think that an MfD accompanied by a serious analysis of these questions could likely be successful, if it can be shown that these are predominantly causing trouble.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would also be useful to bring to the MfD some input from a social scientist or two, and some philosophers. I'd like to see some discussion of the moral implications and social impact of ostracism compared with patience and mentorship in cases of incompetence. Anthony (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone with qualifications in one of those(citation needed), I found WP:PBAGDSWCBY quite useful as a new editor because it was a quick way of realising that editors who cause disruption subtly over very long periods, do more damage than those that can be swiftly and painlessly reverted, blocked and ignored. And no, I didn't discover the essay by being pointed at it in a dispute. Maybe most people don't. In any case, these essays shouldn't be used to tell people "you're incompetent, don't edit"; that is indeed uncivil and is not their purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can go to the essay and click What links here. We have well established procedures for dealing with insults. I hope we don't have here a campaign for dumbing down Misplaced Pages and replacing clear language with politically correct doublespeak. If somebody's editing is incompetent, it is not an insult to say so, as kindly as possible. Jehochman 14:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this idea of another MfD is pretty horrid actually. If people misuse an essay or cite it in an uncivil manner, than sanction the user, not the essay itself. This is a "guns don't kill people..." kinda thing here. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at article talk pages that link to WP:COMPETENCE. It breaks down to about 50:50 in my estimation: half of them use WP:COMPETENCE gratuitously, and half constructively. Anthony (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's par for the course. About 50% of Misplaced Pages comments are polite, and 50% are nasty, snarky or combative. Jehochman 17:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A social scientist or two and some philosophers to help determine if people feel insulted when they're called incompetent, Anthony? C'mon.

Civility has nothing to do with political correctness, doublespeak or "dumbing down", Jehochman. It's merely a matter of recognizing that there are ways to level constructive criticism that are constructive and useful, and those that are not. The problem with your hypothetical "If somebody's editing is incompetent..." is that what's incompetent is subjective, and there are far less inflammatory ways to describe what's wrong with someone's edits. You don't need an expert in psychology to know that someone will feel insulted if "you're incompetent" is the approach one takes.

When a newbie user began editing some articles relating to The Real World, much of which I re-edited or reverted, he took umbrage at that. I had to explain what I felt was wrong with some of his edits, portions of which included somewhat subjective areas related to good writing that are not entirely detailed explicitly by policy or guideline. Rather than saying, "You're writing is incompetent", which would not provided an avenue for improvement, or induce a friendly atmosphere for discussion, I explained to him my rationale for my edits to his material, citing policy where applicable. The fourth and fifth paragraph of the link I just provided in particular displays my approach. That fifth paragraph in particular pertains to matters of common sense good writing, in which I explain some of the criteria for writing a good synopsis. On another occasion with a different editor, I even related my own personal experiences as a newbie, and provided diffs illustrating the difference between what my overly detailed synopses looked like before and after I was admonished by others to trim them down. This is the right approach to take. Saying, "You're incompetent", either explicitly or obliquely via a linked essay, is not. Period. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice story, but the absence or presence of such essays isn't gong to make people act any more or less civility than they already do. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Period. (See? Everyone can do that!) I've only seen people invoke the incompetence clause when someone has shown repeatedly that they cannot or will not learn Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines. I'm sure people will sometimes misuse it. That's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some people are still missing the fact that the essay is explicitly written as advice to people dealing with potential incompetence, not as a link to be given to people who are themselves (allegedly) incompetent. So anyone handing out the essay link as a way of implying or stating "you're incompetent", is plainly misusing the essay (and being uncivil). That's not the fault of the essay, any more than the existence of a policy about dealing with vandalism is responsible for incorrect accusations of vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I see Chaser has installed this at the top of the essay.

This essay is intended to explain a point about dealing with other editors. It should not be cited to allegedly incompetent editors. That is rude.

It The essay is poisonous, pompous, ignorant, arrogant and mean; it encourages impatience and discord, and is the kind of sentiment that appeals to inadequate people, out to trumpet their own dubious worth. The project needs an essay covering incompetence, but not this pretentious, incendiary, derogatory dross. Anthony (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed it as I found it to be insulting as well, and there's no justification for it based on some stray comments here by, what, 1 person? Tarc (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the presence or absence of such essays will alter people's civility, Tarc. My point is that it provides ammunition for the uncivil, and without providing anything productive on the flipside.

Demiurge, that essay provides little or no advice on how to deal with problem editors. Most of it is simply a description of behavior. We already have policy pages on how to deal with edit disputes or tendentious editors. That essay offers nothing to supplement that. Nightscream (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't provide ammo. If people arguing to be uncivil then they will be uncivil, and should be admonished appropriately. That someone misuses or misquotes...again, how many times have you been told that it doesn't mean what you say it means?...it is not a valid reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It indeed provides ammo to those inclined to be uncivil, as the example I provided at the top of this discussion illustrates. Covering your eyes and ears and pretending it's not there does not change that. This point is not predicated on what the essay as a whole says or means. How many times do you have to be told that? You're not refuting the logic or reasoning of my position, you're just engaging in rote repetition of an counter-position, without consideration of my point of view. Its use by WP:CIV violators is part of the problem. Another is that it does not provide any resource for addressing problems of "competence" beyond the aforementioned policy pages. Indeed, why should an "essay" even be in the project namespace when it hasn't been and has no likelihood of being adopted as a policy itself? It's superfluous. At the very least, let users put essays on their User pages, or better yet, on their own websites, which would reduce the appearance that Misplaced Pages approves of such things. Nightscream (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages does approve of such things, as seen in the last MfD. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How much time should be devoted to tending an editor who fundamentally is not suitable for Misplaced Pages? People who are blatantly disruptive are easily handled, and POV pushers usually are ejected after considerable effort. But what about cheerful editors who do not understand policies like WP:NOR, or who make many unconstructive edits? The approach of giving as much time as is required to such editors is not sustainable, and that's why WP:COMPETENCE exists: it offers the good advice that sometimes it is necessary to get unconstructive editors to disengage from Misplaced Pages. You are quite correct that COMPETENCE should not be invoked early in an editor's career: many people have no clue about NOR and NPOV when starting. However, the COMPETENCE essay is important to show that time is a finite resource, and we are here for the encyclopedia, not to battle with people who will not or cannot follow procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? There is nothing wrong with WP:CIR. You have to draw the line somewhere, and this essay seems to be a good way to explain to incompetent editors why they are being blocked. The message needs to be made, and there is no way of saying "sorry, but you don't have the skills required to edit Misplaced Pages" without sounding a tiny bit rude. But regarding WP:PBAGDSWCBY, that is an essay which should be deleted. access_denied (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"But what about cheerful editors who do not understand policies like WP:NOR, or who make many unconstructive edits?" You point out the particular policy/guideline/consensus in question! What part of this is too difficult for you to understand? "Competent" is a meaningless term, because it's a vague, general catch-all term that does not precisely denote the particular problem in question. If a newbie editor violates Policy X, Guideline Y or Consensus Z, all you have to do is cite them. Those dedicated and industrious enough to continue editing here on a regular or large-scale basis will be inclined to learn them. This has long been the S.O.P. on Misplaced Pages, so what do we need a redundant essay for, and one that's only moderately well-written at that, whose likely effect will be to offend, more than to inform? Do you really foresee an editor being directed to that essay, and then having some sincere ephiphany that causes him or her to leave Misplaced Pages? Why would we even want that? Don't we want editors ignorant of such policies to learn them? Now I know you said it shouldn't be invoked early in an editor's career. But what long-tenured editor needs it invoked? You're obviously not talking about vandals and the deliberately disruptive, because you raised and put aside that type of editor in the beginning of your message. So if you're not talking about intentional vandals and disruptive editors, and you're not talking about newbies, then who are you talking about? Long-tenured editors who still don't know the policies? Who are these? Can you point to examples of them? This is why your message makes absolutely no sense. If "incompetent" editors shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages, and you seem to be genuinely unable to form coherent logic, or convey a cogent point, then doesn't your participation in a discussion like this violate your own stated principle?

"This essay seems to be a good way to explain to incompetent editors why they are being blocked." Again, this makes no sense. Editors are blocked when they intentionally violate policy. These include vandals, or people discovered to deliberately violated policy in a way that is harmful to Misplaced Pages, like Essjay or Brian Chase. That essay obviously doesn't apply to people like this, because competence refers to one's ability or skills, which has nothing to do with the deliberate disruption to the project caused by these people. Violators do what they do because they want to disrupt the project, not because they lack the competence to edit correctly. So what editor would this be relevant and applicable to? Can you provide examples?

The sheer mindlessness of these arguments, and your inability to see such Mack Truck-sized flaws in them, makes me wonder if the only people who need such essays are those who advocate them with such threadbare rationales. Nightscream (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be uncivil of me to point out the couple of editors I have encountered recently who have COMPETENCE problems, and I do not have a record of those I've noticed who were indef blocked. The issue is that WP:NOR (and other policies) rule on what content will ultimately prevail, and they are no help with a problem editor who doesn't clearly and repeatedly violate WP:EW. An editor can cause an immense amount of trouble by repeatedly fighting issues, only to backoff when heat from several other editors is applied. Each of the editor's incidents (per WP:AGF) can be viewed as a misunderstanding, and we hope they will absorb the standard procedures. It's after a couple of flair ups at a noticeboard like WP:ANI that the COMPETENCE essay is sometimes useful to remind those assuming good faith that we are here for the encyclopdia, not to hold the hand of those who are not able or willing to abide by standard operating procedures. Anyone lurking on the noticeboards sees a couple of examples each week. Each violation of WP:NOR or whatever policy is too small to warrant an indef block (particularly since sanity prevails when a few experienced editors remove the offending edits); it's the overall impact of the problem editor that needs to be considered. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One more time: Deliberate policy violations have nothing to do with competence. Unless your operating with a completely different definition of "competence" than the one found in proper reference sources, competence refers to possession of required skill, knowledge, or qualification. A person who edit wars, even after they are cautioned to stop, is not guilty of lacking skill or knowledge. He is guilty of deliberately violating policy, which is a matter of character, not ability. Deliberate intent to violate rules with and lacking skills because of ignorance of them when being new to the project or to a given guideline have NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER. Again, what part of this are you not getting? Did I not state it clearly enough in my previous message? Nightscream (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) You're not getting it. We're talking about people who have a fundamental inability to follow Wikpedia's rules. Your key problem seems to be, "If they aren't following the rules, it's malicious, not inability!" Which is really a non-sequitur. Whether someone is deliberately choosing to not follow NOR or is simply unable to understand why it matters, they are unable to abide by our rules. You seem to be focusing on the former to the exclusion of the latter, and now apparently claiming the latter does not exist. I can only speak from personal experience. I have seen editors who simply cannot comprehend why we follow certain rules, who eventually got blocked because of it. Unless you want to assume bad faith, and say they were trolling, it seems their rules violations were not malicious but based solely on an inability to understand why those rules mattered.

Now, if you want to argue that competence is irrelevant because a rules-violation is a rules-violation... well, that's your opinion, and you have a right to it. But it's also irrelevant to the existence of WP:COMPETENCE. You've made it clear that you don't like the essay, but I fail to see what new reasoning you've given besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I?

Hello,I'm from Persian Misplaced Pages Can I Make your Userpage on Persian Misplaced Pages? Do you permit me? (Faramarz the WIKIpedian 19:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC))

Wikiman of the Year: Bieber

When the pageviews of readers are considered, the "Wikiman of the Year" (in terms of reader interest) has been with article "Justin Bieber" having similar pageviews (57,200/day) to those of Lady Gaga for 2009 (even still, Wikiwoman for 2010). In fact, the trending reader interest, from 2009, had been that Misplaced Pages readers think "YouTube" is the hot topic, while interest in "Facebook" had been declining during 2009. Instead, a nouveau-retro movie gets made as "The Social Network" and the Time Magazine 2010 "Person of the Year" is chosen as the Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg. I wonder when will "they" get the message that YouTube was the Misplaced Pages focus for the future. Misplaced Pages has the real answers, but people are still not reading it enough. Things to ponder. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeez Louise that is a lot of hits. I doubt all my articles together get that, unless it's a day when they've found Natalee Holloway again.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this now "ordinary incivility" on WP?

was reported on ANI as being beyond the pale. One admin unblanked the post saying it was only "ordinary incivility." Where would you draw the line? (I personally suggest, by the way, that it passes the bounds of BLP as well). Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is extremely far beyond the pale. The user should have been indef blocked on site, the post blanked. Admins who don't see this should reconsider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hey bro did you know you are on Encyclopedia Dramatica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.149.183 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)