Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 30 September 2013

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He is a WMF Board of Trustee (founders seat), and the three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm.

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

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

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 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

ArbCom proposal to further delay the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning move discussion

Greetings Jimbo. As I recall, you would have preferred a shorter time before allowing a new discussion on the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning title dispute. Presently, ArbCom is considering a proposal to extend that time "until October 14 or the closing of this case, whichever occurs first". I think that this would be a bad idea, as the community has already used this thirty-day period to put together the most thorough move request I have yet seen prepared to launch at 03:50 (UTC) Sep 30, 2013. If you continue to prefer that this matter be resolved sooner rather than later, you may wish to relay your preference to ArbCom. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that ArbCom tended to avoid interference with the flow of community decisions, and focused on matters where the community was divided or undecided. Any thoughts? -Wikid77 (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There's something very overreaching and NSA-ish beginning to emanate from the case pages, much of it originating in Arbitrator Kiril Lokshin. If I were to sit here and just point out the ruling that the WMF's non-discrimination policy is applicable to content dispute to ordering that an article title be changed to indefinitely topic-banning a user for a single unseemly edit, one could just dismiss that as sour grapes. But the cherry on top of is voting to oppose sanction for user Josh Gorand. Why? Because he agrees with Gorand's point-of-view on the topic at hand. See this; "While Josh's conduct was not ideal, he was largely justified in his criticism; the discussion was riddled with virulently transphobic comments. A certain amount of excessive zeal can be forgiven in the face of such.". So, I'd like people to really look at the balance of things here; 1 user makes 1 bad comment == topic-ban, while 1 user makes 15-20 bad comments but it's A-OK. Lokshin excuses atrocious behavior if the user was doing it for what he perceives as the right reason. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But what is very important is to gauge if there is a valid basis for what people are actually saying. So, one should at first ignore the precise words used and just consider what Josh and others were communicating, looking at if they were communicating in a constructive way, or trying to derail a constructive discussion. And then you can also look if in such a discussion the choice of words may not have been ideal. But you can't only do the latter and ignore the bigger picture. Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that explains indefinitely topic-banning one editor for a single comment along the lines of "I think Manning's a man regardless of what he claims" while the guy who slurs and denigrates the 150+ editors who voted to move the article back to "Bradley" gets a wink and a nod from Kiril is bias. Pure, unadulterated, disruptive-to-the-project bias. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But that only looks like bias because you ignore the actual content of the discussions. The whole point of the discussions on talk pages is to have fruitful conversations, it's not some Kindergarten playground where in case of misbehavior ArbCom will play the role of the Kindergarten nanny. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But is civility not one of the WP:5P (five pillars) of the project? "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility". If ArbComm is supposed to enforce the rules of the project, then it essentially must be "the Kindergarten nanny" in cases where incivility has been present. It especially should not justify incivility. Letting people get away with insults only encourages them and others to continue abusing the system.--MarshalN20 | 15:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it should actually do a lot more than just being the "Kindergarten nanny" and look deeply into the conflict itself. So, someone can behave in a reasonably civil way but still be extremely disruptive in a discussion while someone else may be less civil but who is actually provoked in doing that in order to prevent the discussions from being derailed. In that case the ArnbCom finding must reflect this. It should not justify the incivility, but it cannot consider incivility as the only relevant factor. Count Iblis (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with you that incivility should not be considered the only relevant factor, in many cases it is a driving factor that worsens problems. I must further point out the incongruence between "provocation" and "justification". Claiming a user was provoked to behave with incivility is a justification. It sounds awfully similar to rape and murder cases where the defendant argues he was provoked by the victim.

This again goes back to Tarc's claim of bias. Justifying incivility as provoked, thereby exonerating it of punishment, reflects a bias. Considering there is always the option to avoid incivility, no plausible justification exists for it.--MarshalN20 | 16:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, I'd like to add that Tarc's perceived notion of people getting away with rampant insults, and getting their actions justified by ArbComm, can be seen in the Argentine history case. You can look at the evidence page (AH Evidence) for further information. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 15:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, what's done is done, so let me emphasize that this is solely for the sake of the discussion. For what it's worth, I believe that there is no justification for editors who "slur and denigrate" others under whatever perception of righteousness they might have in mind.--MarshalN20 | 15:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that Kirill is being extremely biased with regards to this case. Arguing that the statement "One does not become female just by saying one wants to be" is worthy of a topic ban but "it's hard to see any other explanation for someone insisting on calling an individual who self-identifies as female by using their former name with which they no longer identifies, than virulent hatred of transgendered people" can be "forgiven" shows an incredible lack of perspective. I can safely say the latter comment is far more disruptive and offensive than the former.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, the "workshop" page is a tad unwieldy, but YMMV. I posted my own comments/suggestions on the talk page for that page (which I actually read all the way through!) and rather think the opinions of others might help ArbCom in its apparent desire to rush into the netherworld of Dante. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (on Wikistrike as noted previously)

• I think it will work its way through. Salvio clearly understands where his authority stops, and Newyorkbrad does as well. There are a few comments from Risker that seem to indicate that she sees this problem as well.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• In light of the fact that there has been commentary that has been less than civil all around during this saga, the best thing for arbcom to do is simply impliment discretionary sanctions from here forward and refrain from further polarizing the issue by sanctioning only one side of the argument, especially for commentary made a month or more ago. We don't generally block people punitively so the rationale to topic ban people in the same way goes against that norm. Many of those most in favor of seeing sanctions applied seem to have been less than perfect themselves...Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.--MONGO 16:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it time for ArbCom reform?

Normally, I support ArbCom and its mission, but there have been a recent number of screw-ups which are getting increasingly hard to ignore. In one case, ArbCom topic-banned an editor for edit-warring for 4 reverts over 5 months. I opened an RfC and not a single member of the community agreed with it and not a single Arb was willing to defend the decision. In another screw-up, ArbCom sanctioned an editor for ignoring a "sound" argument even though the diff provided clearly showed the editor actually agreed with the argument. Now, we have this current train wreck in progress.

My question - which I ask of the entire community - is how we go about solving this problem? Is it simply a question of voting off Arbs who repeatedly make obvious mistakes? Or do we need a separate body, composed of community members, in which ArbCom decisions can be appealed? Or both?

There is clearly something wrong here and ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The only way for the community to do this (assuming that Jimbo isn't going to intervene here and implement a different system), is for a group of editors to run for ArbCom collectively based on a platform for reforms. Otherwise, simply taking part in the elections of Arbs is similar to local elections in China to elect a few new members of the Communist Party. I've started the WP:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party last year. If one such platform gets elected, then you have a big block of new Arbs who can take over control of ArbCom and implement a new system. Count Iblis (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting option worthy of consideration.--MarshalN20 | 17:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's always time for Arbcom reform. I run every year.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the idea that the "only" way to implement change is through revolutionary tactics, and, honestly, unfortunately, given the, um, "success" of such efforts in governments in recent years, have serious questions whether things might, unfortunately, be worse after the revolution than before them. But I do think that having additional people run, and, maybe, although I myself dislike this idea, introducing some degree of "politics" in, if only a "Vote Incompetent Bastard (fill in the blank) Off ArbCom" party and such efforts which deal more with individuals than revolutionary theories or movements might be reasonable. Unlike Kww, I never run for ArbCom, and the world is a better place for it. ;) John Carter (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Short of cloning NYB and electing the clones, I don't see how we would vote the problem away one arb at a time. Sure we occasionally elect Arbs that turn out to have been bad choices, but I don't know how I would have identified some of them during the election. Really, what we need to look at is the structure of the committee, the complexity of the cases, and how little attention particular issues the committee decides on end up getting as a result. Take the ongoing Manning dispute, between the evidence and the workshop page, not even counting talk pages, there is over 1,200,000 bytes to review. What if instead of creating an appeals group, we had inferior arbitration panels that would hear evidence, decide cases, and then, editors who felt aggrieved with the decision would appeal to the committee itself on the narrow issues still in dispute? While in theory, the community already serves that purpose at the noticeboards, in practice, the most complex cases, the ones that generate the most questionable arbcom decisions, are largely unresolveable at those noticeboards. Lots of details to be worked out, like who would serve on the panels, but that can be discussed if the idea goes anywhere. Monty₈₄₅ 18:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess this makes two members of the "Clone User:Newyorkbrad Party" here. It might be interesting to see if there would be any sort of support for ArbCom to be able to appoint individuals (probably admins in most cases, although a few respected senior non-admins might also qualify) for some ad hoc bodies to deal with disputes before they hit ArbCom, maybe something like mediation as it exists, but possibly with more than one "mediator" in the ad hoc body. Or maybe creation of some sort of unofficial "article probation squad" of such individuals, who might have a bit of a specific task of dealing with topics which have been placed under some sort of "article probation", and thus included in their remit, by ArbCom? John Carter (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that for any sort of pre-arbcom step to work would need to differ from mediation in two fundamental ways, first, participation would need to be mandatory, and the person(s) in supervising the process would need to have the authority to set out a binding result. (to be appealed to arbcom) Otherwise, its just mediation 2.0 and wont help when it comes to the really large controversies. Monty₈₄₅ 18:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That might work. Alternately, although, admittedly, I don't know how many people would volunteer for an "article probation squad" idea, if we could, somehow, sic about dozen senior editors who have earned some degree of broad trust on an article or topic on probation, if we could do that, that might be sufficient numbers to establish consensus on its own. Granted, it is a bit of a pipe-dream, and maybe in some ways a bit underhanded, but it might also be really effective in at least some cases. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• One issue I find with arbcom is that it is above the community in its decisions. While some private issues like ban appeals should stay private, other things like topic bans should be veto-able by the community (by that, I mean a very strong consensus against the decision).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see with that is that for every successful appeal to the community resulting in a strong 80%+ consensus, there would probably be dozens that appeal generate tons of heat, and then fail. Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but Jasper touches on an important matter: ArbComm's power of "final decision". In my opinion, it is too much and largely goes unchecked except for a few notable cases (such as the Manning dispute).

For example, is it really efficient to have the same people who banned you look at your appeal request? Are we to assume they will truly look at the appeal from a neutral perspective?

There needs to be a balance of powers, and the delegation of tasks (mentioned above) could perhaps be a solution.--MarshalN20 | 18:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinions: ArbCom has sufficient power to destroy Misplaced Pages. Thus it behooves us to not only know the candidates "editorial history" here, but also some semblance of an actual c.v. so that we can properly gauge their breadth of knowledge of such processes and procedures in the outside world as are applicable to dispute resolution and arbitration here, IIRC, in the past there have been ArbCom members who were not what they represented themselves as (one problem) or who showed a remarkable inability to act as neutral arbiters of behavior disputes, and, in some cases, actually injected themselves into a prosecutorial role rather than being impartial arbiters. Collect (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• We should get rid of Arbcom altogether, IMO, because it aspires to a sort of committee-of-wizened-sages model that just isn't realistic. Short of that, agree with MarshalN20 that one of the main things that could improve the process would be means by which its decisions can be routinely (and meaningfully) scrutinised. What Arbcom is lacking is any driver for good decision-making. Formerip (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom is a part of the dispute resolution system. From what I've seen, the entire system needs a tune up, at the very least.

1. The system needs to maintain its streamlined form due to the need for efficiency related to the demands placed on volunteers time. So while I think some sort of appeals panel would be desirable, the growth of bureaucracy has to be kept in check.
2. Enhance content related policies, and implement measures to ensure for stronger enforcement at the lower levels of the dispute resolution system. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of bytes--or something like that. In other words, there would seem to be disputes that could (and should) be nipped in the bud before they assume all sort of distorted and contorted proportions. That would not only save everyone's time, but make editing a more predictable and less stressful.
3. There are already provisions in place set forth in the Arbitration Policy that Arbcom is supposed to follow. Obviously there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that Arbcom is following the provisions made in that policy, as that is the Misplaced Pages policy on the basis of which Arbcom exercises authority in the first place--or so one would assume.
4. As far as I can tell, there is already a process whereby a user can launch a petition to amend the Arbitration Policy by obtaining the signatures of 100 editors in good standing, etc., and holding a vote on the proposed amendments and the like. So there doesn't seem to be a need for anything drastic or radical to remedy these problems, unless more robust enforcement of content policy at the lower level administrative bodies for dispute resolution is deemed radical.
   --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of the petition thing before. Like I say, I think Arbcom would benefit from routine and meaningful scrutiny. When was the last time a petition was filed? Formerip (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Plugging my proposal below, I agree fully that the content related policies and guidelines need some work. Making it easier for more people to find and access more reliable sources on a specific topic seems to me in at least some cases to still be one of our bigger problems here. Granted, lists like those I propose below would not in and of themselves make content better, but they might make it a great deal easier for people to quickly and effectively resolve at least some disputes. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In the short term, the crucial reform you want is a right to trial by jury. I've elaborated on this previously. We need to stop having people with grudges against each other dominate the decision making about one another's conduct, with a few Arbitrators thrown into the process at the last minute. Instead, a randomly chosen cross-section of Misplaced Pages needs to provide a sense of neutrality.

In the long term, the only way to stabilize Misplaced Pages is to end the system of central control and have the information scattered throughout the web in a decentralized way. There are other software revision control systems and file sharing systems that have done this to a very large extent, and Misplaced Pages needs to follow this trend. There should be no central administration possible. Wnt (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal. Version-control-backed wiki systems, for example, are not hard to find. So you'd need to explain why they haven't achieved popularity already. I think the hard part of forking a wiki is the community fork, not the content - David Gerard (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The goal could be to fork the community, but not too much; to make the integration of the scattered sites seamless. Could you suggest a specific wiki system you have in mind though? I might not have heard of it and find it interesting, and in any case it would be easier to discuss any flaws. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a system in mind, but I'm noting the idea has been discussed since 1993: User:HaeB/Timeline of distributed Misplaced Pages proposals If it's actually a good idea, you need to set out a proposal that clearly supersedes all those previous proposals such that it explains why they never took - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we just need to put Bish, drmies and/or other good sysops into arbcom. several of the present members have been in there since the first years of arbcom. there is such a thing as being in office for too long, I nean, look at the US congress... -- Aunva6 04:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would be honored to take up that position, especially if no scrutiny of my edits is to take place or knowledge of the process is required. In other words, I would be the last person (well, maybe not literally the last...) you'd want in a position like that. I appreciate the sentiment, though. I have not involved myself with any of the actual cases (as pointed out above, the reading load is enormous, such that I find I have better things to do with my time--like reading real books). By the way, I have found myself in disagreement more times than not with AQFK, but the point about Arthur Rubin's edit warring is well taken.

  I am old-fashioned, I suppose, and I do believe that a centralized system is necessary; I am one of the ones who like kicking the ball up. I'd like to think that in individual decisions I am objective and experienced enough to make administrative decisions, but that's a very different playing field than ArbCom. From where I'm sitting, our system is not irredeemably broken: we're still running and churning out FAs and getting the front page up to date and all, but I cannot possibly judge if that is due to ArbCom (or its current make-up) or in spite of it. My AGF instinct says the former, but given my lack of knowledge it is clear that I am no position to judge. Here's one: if being an ArbCom member were a paid position, I might feel very differently about such an investment of time and energy--I wouldn't want to volunteer to eat the shit that is served to them on an almost daily basis (some of it, as AQFK points out, rightly so). Also, pardon my French. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Bish" stands for Bishzilla, I hope. Bishonen | talk 06:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC).

• @FormerIP The relevant text in the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_policy#Ratification_and_amendment section reads as follows

  Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing.

  --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found that already. But I think it seems more-or-less symbolic, rather than representing actual, routine, meaningful scrutiny. Formerip (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you.

There is nothing symbolic represented in that text. It simply defines a procedural mechanism for amending policy.

I'm not sure where you would situate "meaningful scrutiny", but it would appear that such a petition would point to problems and propose revisions. So there would have been meaningful scrutiny already at that stage.

Presumably, such a petition would be worded in a manner such that if the required number of editors signed it, then a second stage of examining the problems and proposed revisions in a forum such as an RfC or the like would ensue. That would produce a consensus version of the proposed amended policy, which would then be put to a ratification vote.

As you may know, I've already pointed to several issues in the language of the current policy provisions on my Talk page in response to the Tea Party movement case. So that is something along the lines of which I was thinking in terms of amendments that could be implemented to further ensure for due process and equality before policy, so to speak.
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Surely one needs to start by determining what, if anything, has gone wrong, or, whetehr it is deemed to have been wrong from the outset. It has long amused me that Misplaced Pages has, by the alleged wisdom of crowds, created a huge and unwieldy bureaucracy that it has made itself powerless to change. I've never been able to decide whether this is an encyclopaedia or a great social experiment. Probably it is some of each.

Is ArbCom acting poorly, or are those who fall foul of its decisions simply complaining, either themselves or through colleagues who perceive injustice? I am making no comment by asking that question and I do not know the answer. There will be examples of miscarriage of justice in any bureaucracy. It is how those are corrected that is important, not their existence in the first place.

What I do know is that people fear ArbCom. That, surely, is wrong? Fiddle Faddle 09:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• • In my opinion, part of the problem is that what is currently happening is in response to criticism of ArbCom. That is, in the past, there was criticism that NYB drafted more cases than many other arbs, and there was some criticism of case outcomes where no-one was sanctioned. So, we are seeing cases being drafted by other arbs, which are more inclined to be critical of less than perfect editing. Otherwise, in regard to ArbCom reform, in my experience, there has been very little interest. I wrote a couple of essays (Misplaced Pages:ArbCom reform and Misplaced Pages:RfC Committee) while I was an arbitrator, which only generated a couple of comments. It seems that while a large number of editors agree that ArbCom is imperfect, there never seems to be any consensus for change. PhilKnight (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Part of that is probably because the core governing principal (perhaps in the absence of office action, the only governing principal) is everyone just doing the "right thing." There is a slight porous back-stop to doing the "wrong thing" and that is arbcom. Sure, we can elect more bodies to make "bad decisions" but that just means more "bad decisions." And the line between "bad" and just "disagreeable" moves with every editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now it's a just a "size of posse" or "there are no people with grudges from your proper tough stands and decision" contest except worse. As I understand it a person can get elected with one vote. Prepare a short list of important qualities desired, and have the discussions at election time responding to and structured around those. A few examples:

• Has exhibited fair, impartial decision-making capabilities.
• Has exhibited intelligent decision-making capabilities.
• Has exhibited the ability to analyze and understand large amounts of information and complex situations
• Is experienced in Misplaced Pages.
• Has shown a thorough understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.
• Is grown up. As a minimum over 25 which is when adulthood has actually arrived for most people.

And change it to "the most votes wins" or something more in that direction. The good news is that 3-4 strong people meeting the above qualifications with reform in mind could fix arbcom. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Another problem is the level of involvement between ArbComm members and the parties seeking to resolve a conflict. Whether it is because the Arbcomm members were part of the earlier dispute resolution process (in their role as administrators), or had already some sort of interaction with editors in the dispute (which may have cast a bad or good light, depending on he kind of interaction), there needs to be a strong way to prevent skewed perceptions from affecting a fair ArbComm resolution.

I mention this because I have seen plenty of cases (and related complaints) with ArbComm members "involved" in disputes also participating in the ArbComm resolution; and this is without even being aware of what kind of role these "involved" ArbComm members are playing behind the scenes.

Something must be done about these issues. Applying several of the bright ideas presented in this discussion by equally remarkable individuals would be a good start.--MarshalN20 | 16:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel32708 deserves a topic ban

You know, i've been doing my best to stay out of conflicts and just focus on editing for a month now. But I suppose I can't just sit idly by while Tarc and The Devil's Advocate purposefully omit information in their comments (lying, in my opinion) in order to try and get people to only listen to them. I also notice that neither of them actually linked to the comment in question, because they don't want you to actually read it, since it would destroy their whole charade. Here's the comment, by the way. Not only did the user in question compare being transgendered to a person claiming to be a cat or dog, which is bad enough by itself, they also stated "Misplaced Pages is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda".

That alone is reason enough to topic ban. It is clear from that comment that they would be unable whatsoever to edit neutrally in the topic area, so them being topic banned from it makes complete sense. Now, if you're going to bring up the question on whether we should bother and waste our time on a single editor who wasn't involved in the events is another discussion entirely, but trying to act like they didn't say something worthy of a topic ban is being purposefully disingenuous. Silverseren 15:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss this editor and any other issues on the case pages, but please note that Daniel32708 has exactly one edit in the past six months, so I don't really think he is the crux of the case one way or the other. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said in my last sentence. I would agree he is not really a focus or a big issue at all. I was just responding to attempts by Tarc and The Devil's Advocate to downplay the comment made by Daniel. Silverseren 15:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not discussed that editor's comment anywhere. My statement above is referring to the sanction Kirill proposed against Dirac66 for the single comment that "one does not become female just by saying one wants to be" and how that clashes with his suggestions regarding Josh Gorand.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What fascinating insight you have there, Nostradamus. Unfortunately, (or, fortunately for the rest of us) you don't get to convict other editors of thoughtcrime based on what your crystal ball tells you this user may do in the future, nor declare topic bans based on a single isolated edit. A singularly-bad comment warrants an admonishment; if something like it happens again, then you have a sound basis to boot them from the topic area. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: yes, I am downplaying the comment; it was somewhat inappropriate but not outlandishly or grossly so. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We might have been trolled by a 14-year-old passing off as a retired lawyer. What shall we now do?

We might have been trolled by a 14-year-old passing off as a 91-year-old retired lawyer. What shall we now do? I suspect that, given his then young age, at least half of what he wrote are (unsourced) expensive copyrighted law books and other legal materials over the USD $100 price-tag, not available to lend or even to read by laymen, and otherwise out of our reach. If you, Sir, were to believe me, can we not just bypass the usual bureaucratic process, and just simply summarily delete his creations? We cannot possibly debate with crackpots, legal or otherwise, nor conspiracy theorists, nor their friends, readers or supporters. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The diff you have posted doesn't give the slightest clue who this supposed 'troll' is, nor what the problematic material is. So no, 'we' can't 'bypass' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the basis of your claim that the material is a copyright violation, and that the editor misrepresented their age and expertise? Monty₈₄₅ 14:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• This should be handled at WT:LAW. There's no value in having decisions made by people who don't have any knowledge of the topic. Looie496 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

if something is a copyright violation what does the age or profession have to do without? We don't make exceptions for 81 yr old lawyers to copyvio... As for the books being being out of reach of normal people, that doesn't matter, they are ok to be used as a source. We have real lawyers who can verify what is being sourced from them. YOU do not need to be able to verify, just that someone theoretically can.Camelbinky (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for intern or volunteer or maybe even (gasp!) paid work-study-type development of sources lists and article lists

There has been on this page some serious discussion about trying to find ways to get more people involved, and to keep them. To my eyes, one of the greatest stumbling blocks we have right now is that a lot of people, including some of the old hands, want to help develop a lot of content, but don't necessarily have the background to make it easy for them to determine what kinds of sources to use, or what topics aren't covered yet. I remember some years ago one of our admins, a self-described Jew, asked on the article talk page about what books would be useful sources to develop the Eastern Orthodox Church article. I thank and applaud him for his willingness to do so and in effect step out of an area of personal knowledge for the purposes of developing the encyclopedia, but do regret to note that he felt the need to ask such a question. And, mind you, that was an admin, not a newbie, who asked that question. It is all to easy to imagine newbies to any area basically throwing their hands up when thinking "I'd like to work on (not-widely-discussed topic x)," where it can be a real effort to even find the sources relevant to the topic, let alone determine what articles or content we need to have.

There are at this point though, a staggering number of reference books of an encyclopedic type out there, and even a journal whose stated purpose is just reviews of research and reference works. There is also Gale's directory of periodicals and electronic sources, which can be used to find good material on news or current event related content.

As I understand it, San Francisco, where the WF is now based, is probably one of the leading areas in the world for libraries, with Stanford and Cal-Berkeley in the immediate area, San Jose and Sacramento in the near area, and, more or less, general access to all the academic libraries of the California state college and university system at request. Also, obviously, there are a lot of students at those schools, many of whom might be interested in some sort of internship or other type activity, and this might even include (I hope) quite a few in the library and information sciences field. Has anyone ever considered maybe contacting some of the local schools to request assistance or offer internships for the WF? Two specific areas come to mind: (1) developing lists of periodicals and electronic media sources directly pertinent to topic areas, like, maybe, for some of the extant WikiProjects and work groups, and (2) lists of reference works, and maybe of articles in encyclopedic reference works, for those groups or similar topical based lists as well. Right now, I do think most of the major topic areas have at least one such group created for them, and they could easily have pages similar to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles which would provide both basic pointers regarding what related topics we do and don't have yet, and sources which can be used to develop them. Between lists like that, and lists of sources in general, both of which might be able to be linked to in project banners on talk pages, I think we might make it a lot easier for both newer and older editors to develop content in their fields.

Much of this could, I suppose, be done as volunteer intern type work by students, but I think considering the rather minimal pay college work study jobs give, I think it might be possible to get some sort of foundation to offer a grant for development of such. I tend to think that a list of reference sources, like the Gale directory, would probably be more or less a one-time-only requirement, because it could probably be fairly easily updated once the basic starting work is completed. Lists of reference works, and articles in them, would be more of a standing requirement. But, should there not be sufficient new material in a given period, such interns might be able to scan some good PD reference sources, encyclopedic or otherwise, into commons, which would make it even that much easier for some editors to find basic content which could be used to at least start content development in some topic areas. So, even if some of the people were, well, paid to do this, they could be working in areas outside of specific article development, and thus avoid the "pay-per-article" question we really prefer to avoid.

Anyway, any opinions? John Carter (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Essays which suggest sources: See "wp:Find sources" where several people have written essays which offer advice about the acceptable sources. Some lists include:

WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), or

WP:Identifying reliable sources (history), or

WP:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences), or

"List of newspapers in the United_Kingdom" and similar.

In some cases, listing just a few sources could make a big difference, where editors then found the related publications. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Gathering information about alleged irregularities on Croatian Misplaced Pages

Hello Jimbo! A couple of other users & I have, per WP:BOLD, started an effort to gather specific information about alleged irregularities on Croatian Misplaced Pages. We are hoping this information will make it possible to focus on the specifics and provide data for others to make informed decisions. Administrators on Meta have, reasonably, expressed skepticism about this effort, seeing that the associated RfC has, to put it mildly, veered off course.

This is just FYI, so you or anyone else may take whatever course of action you deem appropriate. Thank you! – Miranche 00:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is incredibly valuable, thanks. The ranting discussion that was held here did not give me much confidence in anything. The things that I'm most interested in are allegations of extreme bias and

rewriting of history, and of people being blocked for holding opinions different from administrators. Of course, I'm experienced in the way of wiki, and understand that many banned users will allege such things without much real justification. But there seems to be significant and valid concerns about the situation in Croatian Misplaced Pages, and actual detailed information gathered by calm and reasonable people will be very helpful in the longterm resolution of the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

VE bad links on 22 September

Just in case anyone thinks the VisualEditor (VE) had been "fixed" in late-September, before it was pulled from the Misplaced Pages top menu, I want to confirm garbled text from a VE edit of 22 September 2013. While there were many VE bugs which had been fixed, or reduced, VE was still generating null-nowiki links, as in "Brandon Washington" at 00:12, 22 September (dif095), where 2 simple wikilinks were replaced by 3 complex links, 2 of them as external links to "en.wikipedia.org" and the 3rd null-nowiki as "]". So if anyone claims, "Hey, it was a wrong decision to shut out VE from the menu during the week it was fixed", then the reply should be that no, VE was still allowing people to create garbled nowiki links and external weblinks in the top paragraph, when a smart text-editor should have warned users not to insert those links. VE was making the wikitext more complex than the wikitext editor itself. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

huh, I didn't notice that VE was gone until just now. (unless I just turned it off, which I don't think i'd do)-- Aunva6 06:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Aunva6: this article should get you up to speed on the sudden, quiet disappearance of VE. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.