Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:40, 27 January 2012

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.

Could you ask ArbCom to respond to my question?

I am apparently about to be site-banned for a year on grounds that are barely credible. In fact, it seems that banning me is likely to be the only significant finding about that entire conflict over the images on Muhammad. Would you kindly ask the committee members to make a collective, explicit response to the question I asked about the grounds on which they are making this decision? I know they are busy, but I'd prefer not to be banned on what amounts to innuendo and slander, and if they are going to take this kind of action there ought to be some transparency to it so that it is clear what is happening. Otherwise it seems far too much like a lynching.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not concerned about the ban itself. If it happens, it happens: Misplaced Pages has a long history of driving editors who try to be rational about certain issues off the project, I recognized that trend and gambled that ArbCom would be more inclined towards respecting reasoned argument about project principles than editors in the normal sysop drama-fest. Apparently I lost that bet. . However, getting the committee to come clean about why they are banning me will be a first (small) step in the direction of correcting the glaring systemic problems that run through the project.

Misplaced Pages is a nice idea, Jimbo, but it's abominably implemented. I have a ton of social scientific training, skills, and resources to draw on, and I couldn't make a dent in the obtuseness of this system (though it did allow me first-hand experience with a nearly completely degraded political system, something one never sees in the greater world; the project is a marvelous petri dish for seeing how consensus systems go wrong). It's going to have to be fixed sooner or later - you know that as well as I do - and apparently it's going to have to be later. If you or the board want me to suggest ways to make a rational, functional consensus system, email me (I likely won't be able to respond to this thread).

Either way, do please ask the committee to explain their actions. They're not responding to me, but they may respond to you. thanks. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think ArbCom with its very long discussions on the topic likely has a grasp of the issues involved. I doubt Jimbo will want to wade through all of it, but if he does, he is unlikely to command ArbCom to do very much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Ludwigs is asking that he be told what the suggested site ban is for. No editor should have to go to Jimbo Wales to ask for information on an arbitration. I'm assuming the arbitration committee will answer Ludwig's question. That would be the humane and kind thing to do would it not.(olive (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Don't be too sure of that. In an unrelated matter, ArbCom conducted a secret trial with secret evidence against a productive editor with 2 years and 13,000 edits, a clean record and indefinitely site-banned him. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I just followed your link, wondering if this was real or whether it was one of the zillions of complaints that trolls and abusive users make:

It was real, and I'm shocked.

I'd go to Jimbo's page and ask him what he thinks of it, except I'm already on Jimbo's page. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's all too real. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What he doesn't realize is that he's already on double secret probation---Balloonman 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) That's a very different matter. There are no comparable concerns in connection with Ludwigs2. Ludwigs2's main fault has consistently been playing with open cards and assuming good faith in situations in which it was inopportune to do so. I agree with Ludwigs2 that the situation is absurd, and my impression that Arbcom is site-banning a mobbing victim for no good reason is certainly going to play a role in my current re-evaluation of my activity in this project.

I am now waiting for the outcome of the civility enforcement case. The current public inactivity suggests to me that there is a battle going on privately among arbitrators. Let's see if the Arbitration Committee will finally get around to supporting openly the view that I expressed in 2008 and elevate Randy retention to the most important principle. Hans Adler 20:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Olive for conscientiously summarizing Ludwigs2's request. As for Mr. Wales "commanding" ArbCom, nowhere does Ludwigs make that request. The inference that he did is a misrepresentation (inadvertent, no doubt!) of Ludwigs2's reasonable, understandable and very clearly stated requests ("Would you kindly ask...?" "Do please ask...") that could hardly be more misleading, and it should be disregarded. ("Command" is an antonym of "ask", not a synonym.) I trust ArbCom will now meet Ludwigs2's need for clarity about the grounds for their decision. And if they don't, I hope Mr. Wales will make the request on Ludwigs2's behalf. Writegeist (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Hans, nothing screams "good faith" like arguing people who disagree with him do so as a result of bigotry. Resolute 20:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolute. I knew a guy from Georgia in undergrad (a really great guy, all things considered), who when I first met him had the habit of referring to blacks as n**ers. He wasn't a bigot; that's just the way people in his home town talked, and he didn't really see a problem with it. I explained to him that the word was not really polite - it made him look bigoted, even though he didn't mean it that way - and he stopped using it.

He didn't take the observation personally: he had the sense and grace to accommodate the fact that the word annoyed people, even though he didn't understand why. I do not know why you and your cohort find that same level of grace so challenging. However, that is not my problem except that you collectively became so enraged by the fact that I pointed it out that you turned the discussion into an administrative hell hole. And I suppose that's not really your fault: Misplaced Pages indulges that kind of nonsense. Why would anyone discuss anything troubling when they can solve all their editing problems by mobbing others into administrative sanctions? Sad state of affairs... --Ludwigs2 22:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I just left a rather wordy critique of you on the proposed decision talk page that can also serve as a rebuttal to this comment. But, in short: You are here on Jimbo's talk page behaving like a man with the noose around his neck praying the Governor will deign to offer clemency. Surely there must come a point - hopefully before the platform gives way - that you realize that it isn't everyone else who has gotten you into this situation, but that you did it to yourself. Resolute 00:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That comment reflects more on you than on me. now why don't you just shut up. thanks. --Ludwigs2 03:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments offered by User:Resolute, and I believe I expressed similar words to you several months ago, with the same reaction. Your anecdote above about your racist friend who didn't understand the hurtfulness of his words sounds too contrived and frankly, unbelievable. Considering that the current scientific evidence shows that we are all from Africa, your friend was discriminating solely based on the color of someone's skin, which clearly made him a racist. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's actually a true story, but whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. The problem on the Muhammad article is that multiple editors insist that Muslim perspectives are disallowed on the page, a perspective which (I think we all recognize) is not all that impartial. Maybe there's a valid reason for it, maybe not (a few editors have offered weak arguments in support of it), but editors like Resolute simply refuse to acknowledge that the position even sounds biased. unfortunately, that refusal to acknowledge that there's an appearance of bias does nothing except make the appearance of bias stronger. If I remember correctly, Tarc even pulled out the old "Some of my friends are Muslim, so..." line.

As for the rest of Resolute's comment: I specifically said all I wanted was for Jimbo to get ArbCom to make a clear explanation. I did not ask him to intervene (not that he would anyway), and I'm not really all that concerned about getting banned. So, resolute's "behaving like a man with the noose around his neck praying the Governor" is just Resolute being a complete dick, as is his wont. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we even need arbcom for non-admins? Indefinite community bans happen all the time on ANI these days. Selery (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you just answered your own question, Selery. --Ludwigs2 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It's probably far more legitimate for groups than individuals. The disfunction relative to Betacommand and your case seems to show that fairly clearly. I remember the good old days when I was an IP editor and arbcom was primarily trying to solve geopolitical and religious conflicts. It made good reading back then. These days, in these cases against individuals, seems too much like Salem. Selery (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that Misplaced Pages has gotten too big for this kind of loosely structured governance. the same thing is happening to Misplaced Pages that happened to usenet: it was fine so long as it was a smallish group of more or less like-minded people, but as soon as it grew to a certain size and certain level of diversity all the bad elements of human nature started coming to the fore. unlike usenet,[REDACTED] is striated - there are admins who can rain hellfire down from on high - and so there's this ragged political machine geared towards convincing admins to smite those who are (for whatever reason) on the outs. that actually makes things worse. on usenet, people would have vicious arguments, but aside from occasional flames they were relatively civil; there was no advantage to smearing other people except for the emotional gratification. here smear tactics have a distinct political advantage, and so the first thing established editors do in any dispute is attack character. very sad. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Selery, if you'll look back to the ancient history of ArbCom, you'll see that there used to be tons of cases that were far simpler than the ones we have today. Now, if we have 20 cases in a year, that's going to be a lot. Why? Because the cases we do take are the complex ones that rely on off-wiki evidence, admin misconduct that's not so blatant it can be handled by motion, or long-term feuds where two sides have failed dispute resolution. The community has stepped up and taken over the larger volume of simpler cases, handling them essentially by motion, which frees ArbCom to tackle the thornier disputes in a structured manner. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you've been following this...

I have a bad feeling about http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ScottyBerg&diff=473026075&oldid=473014015 this]... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that specific statement. I think you have misinterpreted it; "compromising Misplaced Pages" means "compromising Misplaced Pages's security", not "compromosing Misplaced Pages's principles".

But I hope Jimbo is reading the whole thing because it left a bad taste in my mouth. As I said above, if I hadn't found out about it here I'd have asked him about it here. It's Kafkaesque. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am misinterpreting the statement, Ken. That still leaves the problem of how the process of weeding out apparent - since I haven't seen the "evidence", I cannot estimate its value - endangers Misplaced Pages's security. Our processes need to be be transparent in order to have any value whatsoever. After the Scibaby, Orangemarlin and other debacles, we need some sort of public oversight, like a random experienced user or two to offer some sanity in what is increasingly appearing to be an insulated environment. ARBCOM is making closed door decisions which affect the lives of others without offering a shred of proof. That's entirely unsatisfactory. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have looked into the ScottyBerg situation briefly (after it was mentioned here yesterday). I read through the ArbCom archives on the topic. As there is no appeal before me, there is not really much for me to actually do. At this stage, all I can say is that if I count in any way as a credible source and "random experienced user", the conclusion that the ArbCom came to here was not capricious, and it was based on perfectly routine evidence. There is a lot of rhetoric being thrown around about "secret trial" that I think isn't really apt - there are issues here of courtesy to the user that mean a bit of discretion is the compassionate course. If he wants to fully waive all rights to privacy, I can say more, but i doubt if he will want to make that choice. (If you are imagining exciting revelations, though, you'll be sorely disappointed.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not expecting exciting revelations, I'm imagining "if this happened to me, what could I do?" To which the answer of course is "nothing". If Arbcom chose to kick you off of Misplaced Pages (and you didn't use your influence as Jimbo, of course) you couldn't prove your innocence, see or rebut evidence, appeal, or even return in six months, because the procedure makes it impossible for the accused user to do so.

I also don't see why the user should have to waive his rights to privacy for the evidence to be presented to himself, giving him a chance to examine and rebut it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jimbo: Of course, this was a secret trial with secret evidence. The accused didn't even know they were on trial for Pete's sake. Even the appeal was conducted secretly. Nobody knows what's going on. Please, this isn't rhetoric; it's the plain and simple truth. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of the fact that the user appealed his block to the ArbCom? Of course he knew about it. He's well aware of the evidence (checkuser data and a consistent pattern of behavior that exceeds our normal threshold for a sockpuppet investigation), and well aware of how to rebut it. If he appeals to me, then I'll assist him as best I can with that process, including sharing with him any information that I rely upon to make my decision.

Look, it is really really really super easy for him to prove his innocence. I'll make the same offer to him that I made to him years ago: if you aren't who the evidence strongly suggests you are, then all you have to do is hop on skype with me and have a chat about it. There are pictures of the person in question on the web, and I can just see for myself. When I made this offer years ago, he got very belligerent with me. I made the offer at that time in a fun way because I thought he was being unjustly persecuted and his protestations of innocence to me rang very true. I thought it'd be a great thing for him to disprove the allegations. (Even offered to meet him for coffee in New York, as I recall...) His unpleasant reaction to the suggestion in the past, and the preponderance of the evidence in the current case, suggests that he won't want to do that because it's actually true, he's a sockpuppet of that banned user.

I think the more interesting question in this case is not about whether ArbCom has done the right thing or not. (That's always interesting of course, but I am talking about what is MORE interesting.) The more interesting question is whether or not we can construct a good protocol by which someone in this situation can "come in from the cold". He's made a lot of perfectly decent edits, some that were questionable, but on the whole in this incarnation (as far as I am aware) he's a mostly ok editor. I would personally be supportive of the community having a discussion to approve him to edit as long as he stops with the sockpuppeting and just edits under his real name.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate this nuanced opinion. But in one case you fall into the same trap. You assume that he has been rightly identified as a sock master, and suggest you would support letting him back in to edit "under his real name". There are two problems with that. First, we don't require real names as a rule. You and I are identifiable by choice, but many others, including Arbs, are not identifiable to normal editors. But the second problem is more problematic. What I and Ken and (I think) several others are concerned with is the small, but non-negligible chance that the editor is not, in fact, the sock-puppet he is taken for. In that case, the editor is in a classical Catch-22. What I want to see is some way to get editors out of this situation. Your proposal, up to (but excluding) "and just edits under his real name" would do that. With that sentence, we're back to square one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Letting him prove his innocence by hopping on Skype would answer my complaint and I agree that refusing to do so looks suspicious. From reading the talk page, however, he was never given a chance to do such a thing. (Someone suggested faxing in a copy of his driver's license, but I don't think that was an arbitrator.) The answer to the question "what can I do to prove my innocence" was "nothing" (or no answer at all), not "well, you could go on Skype or send a copy of your driver's license". Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did ScottyBerg actually ask that question? alanyst 19:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that (at least from what he said) he didn't know what to do to exonerate himself, even if he didn't explicitly ask it as a question, and Arbcom was utterly uninterested in telling him. If they had said "sure, go on Skype so we can see you're not Mantanmoreland", that would be different. (Assuming, of course, that Arbcom then accepted the results of the Skype session. It's always possible to say "well, maybe he got a friend to go on Skype for him".) And someone did suggest the driver's license, and Arbcom was silent on that. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see in his comments a general ignorance of how to exonerate himself, but rather a narrower complaint that Arbcom would not "engage" him in dialogue by giving him details of the evidence against him. Someone who has been on the "prosecution" side of multiple SPIs () could reasonably be expected to know the general nature of checkuser and behavioral evidence used in such investigations, to understand what information could not be disclosed, and to take up sensible ideas (like videoconferencing or providing official identification) for how to verify their real-life identity to an arbitrator. But ScottyBerg rejected even the idea of emailing a copy of his driver's license to a sympathetic third party () and did not reply (at least not on-wiki) to AGK's specific request for him to email exonerating evidence to the committee, just a few comments and a few hours after Hans Adler's suggestion about faxing a driver's license to the Foundation. I think it's erroneous to say that Arbcom was silent or that ScottyBerg was wholly defenseless. He simply seems not to have used the avenues open to him, though I hasten to acknowledge that he may have privately taken AGK up on his offer. alanyst 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I left some updated clarifications at ScottyBerg's usertalk...no need to repeat them here. Also, Jimbo...whatever harm Mantanmoreland did, it hardly compares to the Wordbomb character. ScottyBerg made a few edits to a certain bio, triggering this Misplaced Pages Review based witch hunt. Since ScottyBerg has 12,000 edits and demonstrated no malicious intent in his editing history (generally avoiding Mantanmoreland's old haunts), I think had ScottyBerg simply vowwed to continue to avoid Mantanmorelands areas, the ban could have been lifted under arbcom supervision or similar.MONGO 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The off-wiki activity on this case has been a matter of concern. I sent some evidence to ArbCom on the issue, though it is not clear to me if the arbs are discussing the matter much, if at all. Perhaps you could look at the evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"War of the Triple Alliance"...is a confusing title to English speakers?

Jimbo, As a native English speaker, does the term "War of the Triple Alliance" confuse you? In the article's talk page (Talk:Paraguayan War), this seems to be an issue raised by Brazilian/Portuguese wikipedians (they seem to all be from either place). I am not a native English speaker either, and so perhaps you might have a better perspective on the matter? I don't even know if their argument is even relevant to the move discussion. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 20:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not Jimbo, but I think the phrase Triple Alliance is confusing (or at least ambiguous) for anyone, regardless of what language they speak. When I first saw this heading I thought I was going to be reading a comment about World War I, because the "Triple Alliance" that I knew about was the alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy leading into that war. (See Triple Alliance (1882).) It turns out there are a long list of "Triple Alliance"s listed at the disambiguation page, Triple Alliance. But the guideline (or policy whatever it is) is that if "War of the Triple Alliance" is the most common name (in English-language sources) for the war you are talking about, that is what we use for the title, and if there is more than one of those, we have to disambiguate. Neutron (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"War of the Triple Alliance" was how the subject was titled in a history course on the History of Latin America I took as an undergraduate in US. I don't think there's anything intrinsically "confusing" about it. Wars quite often have idiosyncratic and somewhat colorful names, but these are still their names as used in sources. For example, I think the name "Football War" is confusing (also sort of hooky, in that it makes you want to read about it). Or "War of Jenkins' Ear", or "War of the Sicilian Vespers". etc. "Confusing" (?) is irrelevant here. What's matters is how English language sources refer to it.VolunteerMarek 18:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The context in which the term is used may play a bigger role than language? Just a random thought.--MarshalN20 | 02:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfair block on the German Misplaced Pages

I was apparently blocked on the German Misplaced Pages for reasons that are totally unclear to me, and as far as I can see, there was not explanation given.

I tried to remove several highly POV statements in a few articles, although they were reverted. A helpful user who gave productive suggestions long before the bad-faith admin got involved said that the edits were reverted because I didn't have good enough grammer. I also made suggestions on talk pages for that reason. There was no reason for getting blocked, since even if I had done anything wrong, another user already had it under control by explaining the situation and offering advice. The questionable admin deleted everything on my talk page, left a notice without any useful information, and then deleted my user page that was empty except for a brief comment about how I am German-Russian. Would you be able to unblock me?

Thanks.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, your English seems to be considerably better than your German. The block was clearly for edits relating to Naziism and the Holocaust that are hard to see anything other than either trolling or incompetence to edit Misplaced Pages. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that your description completely ignores the context that I was attempting to remove incorrect and potentially Nazi apologist information. I assume good faith and assume that was simply an oversight; please be aware.

And how exactly am I trolling or totally incompetent? Please apologize for both of your personal attacks.

Also, please read the deleted content on my talk page where a more helpful user explained to me that I should slow down and be more careful when writing.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like admins in German[REDACTED] are lot less tolerant than admins here.

One big problem you appeared to have is that you didn't rely in reliable sources. was not based on reliable sources, you could have said that the article gives too much weight to one source, when most sources say that nothing happened. Here you rely on personal testimony from someone, but[REDACTED] is not based on personal testimony,[REDACTED] is based on reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This guy just deleted my question here when I asked him about it. I can't see how any of that requires a permanent block, without some sort of explanation of policy, or like the one you gave. At this point I'm over 90% sure this was racially motivated.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't edit over at de: often, so I'm not very familiar with their processes. However, I checked your contributions and the block message. The later translates as "Not willing or able to contribute to (lit: tinker with) the encyclopedia". You seem to have very strong opinions and express them in, sorry, very bad, and hence unclear, German, and without providing any sources. I see no element of racism there, although I personally would show more patience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like German[REDACTED] treats incompetent and POV pushing people the way they're supposed to be treated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 14:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail "overtakes The New York Times as the most visited online newspaper"

The Daily Mail is today trumpeting that it has overtaken The New York Times as the world's most visited online newspaper, according to December 2011 figures released by comScore. (Mail BBC Guardian coverage). This is quite a feat for a UK newspaper up against the big American newspapers, although stories like this one, which curiously fail to mention that the Mail published hoax allegations about Philip Mould's private life that were subsequently removed from its website, show why caution is needed when using it as a source. Archived discussion here.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Newspaper"? Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to find out what Kim Kardashian did yesterday, or learn that all paedophiles should be executed, The Mail is undoubtedly the place to go.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If I ever show the slightest interest in what "Kim Kardashian did yesterday", you have my permission to whack me around the head repeatedly with whatever blunt object comes to hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're secretly sweet on this Kim Kurdashi girl, whoever she is. Admit it Grump! Anyways, what's this got to do with Jimbo's page? The world is as it should be: Daily Mail>>New York Times and Misplaced Pages>>real encyclopedias. The kids have won.VolunteerMarek 09:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I thought that Jimbo might like to see this latest news coverage, given his previous comments in Archive 75: "The circulation levels and length of publication of this trashy unreliable paper is irrelevant. It's still trashy and unreliable and should treated with grave caution in all cases - and generally discouraged as a source. Political or editorial stance is irrelevant, too. It's about the quality - which is too low for encyclopedic work."--♦IanMacM♦ 09:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, here is the Mail's Kardashian story du jour, and here is the "Why oh why don't we execute paedophiles?" story. It is hard to tell the different days of the Mail front page apart, it is so predictable.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything is "subsequently removed from its website" because they are too mean to pay for server space to hold all their stories, and recycle the id numbers every couple of years. Another very good reason not to use them as a source. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages routinely lists circulation numbers for publications, and if the information is reliably sourced, it is relevant to the publication. Remarks about the publication do not affect whether the circulation figures are reliably sourced. Web viewership is shown similarly for many websites with articles on Misplaced Pages. If a reliable source publishes web viewership, that it is routinely used in Misplaced Pages articles (though I dislike the use of up and down arrows for Alexa rankings on a monthly basis as being of insufficient long-term value to the article). As for asserting that the site is not a "reliable source" because they remove old stories or, as is very common, paywall the heck out of material - that has been settled on Misplaced Pages in the past - as long as it was publiched, there is no requirement that sources be readable online. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail does not WP:PAYWALL its stories and has a reasonably good archive (if in doubt you can always use WebCite). However, the Mail does tend to have a lot of gaudy banner adverts compared to some newspapers.--♦IanMacM♦ 14:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The animated gif file of a man mastrubating is in a public domain. Do we need it in public domain?

I had to write to you because of the conversation on mediawiki irc this Tuesday. You can read it. The people involved consented for the conversation to be made public. I am natbrown. Natkabrown (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was working on this page of my wiki http://wikitranslate.org/Russian_verbs_of_motion I had to find different images for Russian verbs of motion, so I was searching for "roll over" etc. That's how I found the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have opened the group http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Misplaced Pages/307245972661745 I have invited Sue Gardner to join it. Can you join it? I don't know what else can I do.

I know that you are a charity. A charity in the UK must be for public benefit http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Charity_essentials/Public_benefit/default.aspx I don't know too much about the USA. I fail to see any public benefit in public mastrubation. It hurts. Please do something about it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Natbrown (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages is not censored. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)