Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FormerIP (talk | contribs) at 02:04, 24 March 2011 (→Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Open_Letter: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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  

RfA is a horrible and broken process

Thanks, Jimbo, for coming out and saying it so clearly. Perhaps those of us who populate WT:RfA can now move faster forward with getting some changes made. --Kudpung (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't really need Jimbo to tell us that. About the only thing you can possibly get consensus on at WP:RFA is that it's a horrible and broken process. After that, the cats run wild. Anyone who has tried can attest to the utter impossibility. I for one won't be making another attempt. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am seeking feedback via email for some ideas of an alternative process to run concurrently with the existing process with an eye toward easier confirmation for highly experienced editors with no history of troubles who don't want to run this silly gauntlet. While we have no evidence that the current process actually works, we can design and implement a new process for a few months and see how it goes. The goal should be to have a lot of happy and kind and thoughtful admins. To the extent that the current process is emotionally draining and not obviously achieving that goal, we should consider adding a new process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, I just sent an email too lol. Dusti 20:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest making liberal use of admin-use-only accounts available to well established uncontroversial editors with knowledge of the connection known only to those with privileges that would let them find out anyway. (not for me; I wouldn't want that thankless job if you paid me) WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about a role account? If so, it is not feasable, both for licensing concerns and especially security risks. Also, I would suggest that the kind of admins we need more of - the ones willing to get involved in the dirty disputes - won't remain uncontroversial for long, simply due to the battleground mentality that exists in such places. Resolute 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised actually what Jimmy said about this. I've long thought it it a rather spiteful process and it seems the more you've actually contributed to[REDACTED] and said to more the grilling and the more the number of opposes. Most of the people who get given the tools through RFA are those which have kept a low profile so do not have a dramatic history for other editors to pick up on and point out every error they ever made. Reform is certainly needed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree with that, Blofeld - from my own recent experience. If you have been around long enough to have a couple of dusty skellies in the cupboard, all sorts of people come out of the woodwork to shout you down. Kudpung (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent, the gist being that if a person has X level of service the presumption should be that she can be an admin if she wants to be. X being some reasonably high number of edits and time in harness. Vetting required, but this can be done without drama I think. Herostratus (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent. Short version if we're goung to loosen up the process we need to be able to separate the routine tool use from areas like the minefields of arbcom enforcement and discressionary sanctions as well as some means of reining in those we later learn lack competance, but do not rise to arbcom level misconduct.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent, along the same lines. I said something similar to the above back in my "A little more radical" post ... although we've had more people promoted in February and March so the situation isn't as dire. But I still support the idea, and apparently more people are getting on board. Misplaced Pages works well as a participatory democracy, not so much as a representative democracy. (This isn't a jab at Arbcom; they do a good job, and I haven't heard any good alternatives.) RFA will be a much nicer place if we start electing admins because they're competent at geeky, grindy jobs, and not with the idea that we're going to hand off tough, wiki-changing decisions to admins so that we don't have to make the calls by consensus. No wonder many voters feel a need to put candidates through the ringer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent, along the lines of keeping the same basic system but making it a more welcoming experience by introducing minimum candidate requirements and nolinations, more control over !voters, questions, and discussions. Kudpung (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent. I am interested in a new method, and have put forward a couple of concerns and ways of dealing with them. I know RfA being a "broken" process is a popular turn of phrase, but in general I do think that people who should become admins do and people who shouldn't don't. The problem I see is the vitriol, causing editors to feel like failures for not passing - and I've offered some solutions there too. Worm · (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

By using Strat's RFA as his illustration of the "horrible and broken process," Jimbo sacrificed a little credibility. Strat was as pugnacious as it gets at RFA, picking fights in the oppose section with anyone who was game. That RFA reached the right result, for obvious temperament issues if nothing else. Perhaps Jimbo would favor us with a better example of what he considers the evils of RFA to be, because there is little disagreement that the process is imperfect, but what exactly is wrong is a subject of perennial dispute. Townlake (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat was clearly stressed by the pile on RfA proceeding, as others have been, and we don't know what their temperament would be in the face of individual attacks as a working admin. It's crazy that we attack non-perfect candidates and then sit back and say "see, I told you so" while more qualified candidates sail through. Should we stress test all candidates, regardless of any actual objections, just to see if they can take it? What a perfect example of just how broken the process is. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am aggrieved by the comment from Townlake. This is not the place to expand further on that sentiment. I am optimistic that this discussion is advancing interest in improving the RfA process. A new danger has just manifest, whereby a failure to demonstrate a requisite admin quality during RfA, extrapolates to negative characterizations being attached against my character, outside of the RfA. The statements are not valid conclusions, they are POV, and should not be hurled as in an accusation. I will seek a retraction. I will also email some thoughts that I will offer for consideration. And I look forward to following the progress. I am glad that strong opinion exists to improve this process. I am in fact; Optimistic! My76Strat (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Much of the problem lies in the fact that adminship is a lifetime appointment, so people are wary of the tiniest hint that someone could turn out to be unsuitable. Term limits are the obvious answer, since this would assure people that admins who were nasty and overreaching though not quite to the point of full-blown Arbcom action would eventually age out. But the admin corps is implacably opposed to any such proposal; the prevailing attitude is "I'll give up my adminship when you take it from my cold, dead hands." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that RfA is a horrible and broken process, I think we're missing the elephant in the room: the fact that adminship itself is no longer what it appears to have been a few years back. I don't have email enabled, but have elabourated here. —WFC— 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent, included are a few suggestions for allowing qualified editors to pass without being picked apart by !voters and filtering editors not quite ready yet with civility and courtesy. Tyrol5 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just admins who were against your the proposal, SBHB. You They weren't just proposing term-limits, youthey were proposing enforced time off from being an admin. That was just fatally flawed from the start. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is untrue. Perhaps you are thinking of the recent VP proposal, where I supported the idea of term limits but not enforced time off. I am unconvinced of the need for enforced time off; I can see both the merits of an enforced break as well as the merits in the arguments against it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent, expanding on what I have said on-wiki. —WFC— 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Support statement didn't make that distinction. Though I did misremember, it wasn't your proposal, you just supported it, so I've corrected my statement above. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that none of the admins abusing the current system are actually giving their touths here... FkpCascais (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That assumes admins are abusing the system. Care to provide some evidence of that? — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the time or place. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh-huh. But it's apparently the time & place to make snide remarks without evidence? — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The comment is related to the subject. Jimmy probably knows what I am talking about since we already discused here some of the issues in the past. If not I gladly explain them to him. I don´t understand you attitude. I give some clues further on, so I don´t understand if you felt personally "touched" by my comment, or is a genuine interess... FkpCascais (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

More like concern. It's not exactly kosher to play games with accusations of wrongdoing like that. I don't want clues. I'd prefer you make specific claims with diffs to back them up. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but again, not the place or time. FkpCascais (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how or why this could or should be done by email, but I've jotted down a few thoughts at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform, some options are old chestnuts, I think at least one is new. The advantage of creating it on wiki is that the talkpage is open to all. ϢereSpielChequers 22:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Roughly paraphrasing Scott MacDonald on this: Everyone knows who the abusive admins are, and everyone disagrees on who they are. NW (Talk) 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven´t seen anything regarding this anywhere, so I can´t resist not mentioning it: I think the voting being open creates many "groups" or possible animosities between admins, thus being harmfull. The result is many times that we end up having groups of admins supporting each other against the ones that "oposed" their RfA´s. If the voting sistem continues it should become secret. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible yes, actual I hope not. The disadvantage of secret ballots is that the rejected candidate would not know why they were rejected, would not have the chance to refute misconceptions about them, and would not know what they needed to do to change the community's perception of them. As someone whose first RFA failed and who was able to resolve the concerns of some of my opposers in both my RFAs, I think that a secret ballot would be a very bad move. ϢereSpielChequers 01:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see the advantages in being open. I also touth about the doubts that could possibly exist in such sistem, and if accepted, it would certainly implicate a number of other modifications. I just touth it as possibility and as a way to solve the "groopies" problem inside the sistem. And to see opinions and reactions. Many thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding open efficiency: It seems more proper to have a screening process which identifies some quick fail criteria and closes per NOTNOW prior to transclusion. By the time a candidate has vested energy to produce the nomination statement and initial answers, they are already emotionally attached to the outcome. Whereas if step 1 was to request an RfA, step 2 may produce a quick fail preempting step 3; Which would be: If sufficient clue determines a reasonable possibility for success, they approve the candidate to complete the RfA and transclude. Just today I saw a user of about three months tenor pleading to be given a chance, while his RfA came to a SNOW. Perhaps there must be some level of requisite evaluation. My76Strat (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I agree entirely with your thoughts. My I add a few things? A less daunting process should be accompanied by easier ways of giving admins a rest from it when they get stressed, repeatedly make bad judgements, or themselves elect to have a break from it. Easier entry, high expectations once there, and easier down-time or desysopping, if it comes to that. Gotta have both ends of the pipeline freed up, don't you think? A bit more of the revolving door would mean that it's not such a big deal to have time off for an admin. At the moment, time off means you face the daunting process again to come back: aargh. One might consider a bigger role for the crats in the process. I'd like SecurePoll (I know that would be controversial, but the herd behaviour has a lot to do with the drama, and it seems to have played out well for ArbCom elections). Tony (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It may have worked for the ArbCom elections, but remember that its use in the CU/OS elections was partially responsible for only one oversighter CheckUser and no checkusers Oversighters being voted in. (It's largely because SecurePoll adds an additional layer of anonymity, allowing a user to oppose for more ridiculous reasons without being rounded upon for it.) —Jeremy 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What is your specific, documented evidence for this conclusion? I would argue that SecurePoll allows people to oppose for legitimate reasons without fear of later retaliation, or being labeled "ridiculous" for expressing good-faith concerns. But I can't prove this, any more than you can prove your argument. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election. That election used SecurePoll, and the end result of it was that, compared to the prior year, nobody except Amalthea (who was promoted to CU, not OS as I thought) was promoted via voting. The situation was such that the Arbitration Committee had to intervene and appoint new CU/OS without voting. The general consensus was that SecurePoll was one of the main causes, if not the main cause, for this, as it allowed for tactical voting due to the increased anonymity. —Jeremy 21:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Appointing administrators for life is a most serious error. Many of our administrators have become mandarins, an all but untouchable elite, in some cases an obnoxious and contemptible elite. There is no longer any real truth in the notion that being an administrator is not a big deal, or that administrators are there to serve. Administrators now wield seriously disproportionate power over content editors. Being a content editor on Misplaced Pages is now, all too often, demeaning. And I am talking here of the content editors who deliver the real content. Administrators are not required to demonstrate that they have any real competence in content building. Nor should they be, since most administrator functions don't require that competence. But incomprehensibly, they are given power to block content editors, which does not make sense. Many of them seem unable to distinguish between vandals and content editors. There should be a separate group which has the power to block content editors, and they need to be a group held in some respect by content editors. The danger now is that being blocked will be seen as a badge of honour by content editors.

As Tony says the process needs to be loosened from both ends of the pipeline. Many of the more suitable candidates for administrator status are excluded from entry, while many of the most destructive and dysfunctional incumbents seem untouchable. There is no point in opening discussion about these matters with the community as a whole, because as we have seen in the past, the administrator corp dominate proceedings like that, and ensure that nothing happens that doesn't further secure their own ends. It can be argued that that is the fault of content editors, because they do not properly represent their own interests. But it is in the nature of things that dedicated content editors tend to immerse themselves in trying to improve content, and are therefore at the mercy of administrator types, who in many cases are focused on process and power.

There is no properly formulated policy on Misplaced Pages to identify, facilitate the development, nurture and protect dedicated content editors. Instead, time and time again, we see administrators and administrator wannabes asserting that it is not their business to stoop to such matters. I do not know how many valuable content editors Misplaced Pages has now lost, partly to placate those administrators who demand a stream of sacrifices. How many experts in specialized fields have now left Misplaced Pages in despair and disgust? Many of these exits would not have happened if they had been handled in more skillful ways. These loses can be irreplaceable and permanently diminish what Misplaced Pages could have become. The future of Misplaced Pages depends largely on the degree it nurtures and protects able content editor. The future is not about enabling users focused on process and power to become administrators and ride roughshod over the project. Already, the damage that has been done to the future of the project must be immense. Is there no better way? --Epipelagic (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I always feel sad to see this elite "content editor" banner, it is as bad as the elite administrator mentality (probably worse because it often tries to justify it). I come across content editors all the time, the vast majority produce good content without causing any sort of waves or risking any form of block. Some of those individuals are pretty prolific, some are less so. Then we have others, particularly those who like to brand themselves "content editors", who produce awesome content but also get involved in the other background stuff, usually to decry the admin corps at every turn. Let's be honest, yes it does have/face significant problems (hence this discussion), but their contribution is often just attacking the institution and rather than being constructive/helpful. It's not a new phenomena; it happens in the real world too (simplest example; the extreme ends of political divides). My point being; can we avoid making this an "us versus them" dispute between elitist admins and "content editors". They're all as bad as each other and should, IMO, largely be ignored (unless, of course, a sensible solution to either problem can be proposed). Our contribution here should be measured on three things;

• Our ability to contribute to the actual encyclopaedia (and I include cleanup tasks on an absolutely equal par to content creation here)
• Our ability to contribute in a collegial way and to get on with each other, accepting other points of view
• Our ability to understand and follow the basic rules & guidelines

Where those abilities are met, and where an editors style of contribution requires it, the admin bit should be granted. The rest is just politics.

On the other hand; initiatives to foster content editors (and I mean the real spectrum on content editors) is a brilliant idea. --Errant 13:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me what you are trying to say in the first half of your comments above, Errant. What is this talk of yours about "us versus them" disputes between elitist admins and "content editors" and how bad elite content editor "mentalities" are? You seem to be the one who is trying to polarise things. It's nice that you come across content editors all the time who "produce good content without causing any sort of waves or risking any form of block." But you go on to say "Then we have others, particularly those who like to brand themselves "content editors", who ... get involved in the other background stuff...", and that such people are largely to "be ignored". What are you getting at here? Are you saying content editor should know their place and keep their mouth shut? I distinctly get the impression you are saying a content editor has no business expressing the views I have here, and that such behaviour is "risking a block". --Epipelagic (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I distinctly get the impression you are saying a content editor has no business expressing the views I have here, and that such behaviour is "risking a block".; ouch, no not even slightly. Particularly the comment about risking a block :S not sure where on earth that came from (if it came from the mention of blocks earlier in my comment, that was a direct reply to your thought: "but incomprehensibly, they are given power to block content editors")! In fact you've sort of proven my point by so quickly jumping to an extreme conclusion - your comment could be read along the lines of "see, the admin corps are already trying to stifle this debate" (although I suspect it is more to do with the fact I am not expressing myself well :)). In fact, I am simply commenting on the recent spate of editors coming out with "well content editors like myself..." lines, followed by some diatribe about how put upon they are by the admin cabal. My conclusion being that both of those sorts of editors are at the table to snipe at each other, so it is more constructive simply to ignore them. I'm not including you in that clique at all, on the other hand your comment pitted "content editors" vs. the admin corps, which is a view I think we need to step away from because it does creating a polarising argument (and one of the big roadblocks to this sort of discussion in the past has been the more vocal minorities on both "sides" derailing things). Admins, non-admins, content editors, gnomes; you name it, there are a lot of different classes of contributors here. It is not always the class of an editor that causes the problem, it is simply that they somehow "hate and despise" another class and take every opportunity to tell everyone how awful they are. My point; there are problems with the way adminship is handled and issues with how adminship is viewed in the community, it is possible to address that problem without sniping at the "admin corps". Going back; I distinctly get the impression you are saying a content editor has no business expressing the views I have here not at all. In fact I'd much prefer we stop using such classifications - it only causes divides and gives the less rhetorically adept editors ammunition to try and invalidate the views of others. And indeed it leaves those editors who do other things feeling a bit left out :) But that is, I understand, something of a pipe dream. But this is the crux of my suggestion; don't come at this debate as a "content editor" or "admin" or whatever, and simply come at it from the perspective of "is there a provable problem?" and "what can be done?" :) -Errant 16:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That observation is accurate, and the bullet points are ones that I endorse. But I don't think the resulting criticism is fair. In real life, when you want to demolish and replace a building, you would ordinarily submit a planning application, and only think about demolition once that is done and dusted. The inherent inertia of Misplaced Pages means that, for our equivalent of buildings (processes that are not set in stone but are certainly long term), planning only ever starts when a proverbial wrecking ball and angry mob are taken to the front gate.

There may be editors of the type you describe; I might well be one of them. But the sad fact of the matter is that it is currently the most effective mechanism, as RfCs invariably either fall down on semantics, or collapse when the structure balloons out of control. I'll cite two examples of pro-active behavior prompting change. BLPPROD would most likely not be in place were it not for the deletion spree the January before it started. And the FLC/FAC criteria tend to be scrutinised roughly twice a year. Not because we're not happy with them on the whole, but because where a specific criteria causes a problem, editors at those places are minded to do something that will pre-empt change. —WFC— 14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent---basic idea is for some sort of admin lite process such as Misplaced Pages:Adminship coaching with tools RfA reform proposal---but not exactly as described there. Let it become a mentor/mentoree process. Also, with any process to make it easier to get the tools, we need to have a process to remove the tools. As long as removing the bit is a big deal, then adminship is a big deal. It should be easier to move in and out of than it currently is.---Balloonman 16:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jimbo, since it is impractical-to-impossible to desysop bad admins on en.Misplaced Pages, our RfA process could certainly benefit from significant improvements. Misplaced Pages being as much a behind-the-scenes social network as it is a copyediting room, what we see on the official surface of RfAs is often much the product of gamemanship and tribal maneuvering. In a recent RfA, a rapid stream of “support” votes (I won’t use the more PC “!vote” for this post) came in with only a smattering of “opposes” before it eventually slipped out that the nom had edited with less-than-stellar conduct under a prior account. The voting balance changed significantly but it was too late. I’m concerned about this sort of thing because all too often on Misplaced Pages, being politically correct with “good-gosh-golly, can’t we all just get along?”-reactions can masquerade as true wisdom and maturity. All one has to do is dish out a consistent track record of that sort of baby pablum for six straight months and being anointed an adminship has become a well-greased proposition.

  Being ostracized by one’s admin-peers behind the scenes is a big dissuading factor in just hammering persistently disruptive editors. So after maintaining a six-month-long facade of PC baby pablum and getting through the RfA process, maintaining ones standing as an admin with his peers is best accomplished by meeting out mere slaps on the wrists to editors who specialize mainly in being tendentious and disruptive.

  You, Jimbo, probably have a better feel for the social nature of Misplaced Pages than anyone else. In addition to what I call “practical power,” you also serve as an important figurehead and are in a greatest of leadership roles on Misplaced Pages. I wish you would put some thought into the base, human desires of our admins and think of some way to align their natural tendencies with the needs of the project. Somehow, it would be nice if admins could simply cut through the facade of beating around the bush on ANIs and WQAs, look at what’s really going on that disrupts the collaborative writing environment, and meet out remedies that acknowledge who is truly contributing to the project and who is just getting in the way and trying to be a pain in the ass. Improving the RfA process is a start. Greg L (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The ACC Tool Server model

• If the administrative right were handled the same way as Stwalkerster and other interface heads manage the ACC Tool Server user rights, this whole issue could be simply resolved. Give away administrative rights to all trustworthy users (and not necessarily those who're 'enough' experienced); yet, have a zero/low tolerance policy for mistakes (ergo, take away those administrative rights for a limited period of time - one, two, three weeks, whatever - at the first or second instance of mistakes), but be open to giving back the rights to the same individual post that period of suspension time getting over provided the user recognizes and learns from the past mistake. That's as much as how the ACC Tool Server usage rights are disbursed and taken away (and disbursed again...). My experience with administrative rights leads me to be convinced that the ACC model could be replicated here without an issue (perhaps as a parallel procedure that Mr. Wales is suggesting?). Wifione _....... 18:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Tools-wise, that's a very interesting suggestion, one that I'd be totally on board with. But the reason RfA has evolved into what it has is that there is (or more accurately, is often) more to adminship than the tools. The sorts of issues that arise reasonably frequently at good article nominations are the sorts of issues that would no doubt arise at XfD and RfC closures, if this approach were extended to the judgement side of adminship. —WFC— 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • One suggestion I have had for a while and one that seems to be already happening incrememntally is to modularize the various admin tasks into smaller task specific groups. Examples are the Rollbacker and File mover. This would allow a user to get used to using one group before using the next. We don't give a doctor the ability to write prescriptions and perform surgeries on the first day of medical school so it seems like we shouldn't do that here either. This would also allow one set of tools to be revoked if abused while still allowing the user the ability of using other tools. As the editor learns each set then they can apply for the next. Since most users even in the admin roles typically specialize this would allow people to get the abilities they need to do the things they are interested in without all the extra fluff. I also think that we should have some rules in place to revoke the access if either abused or if the account goes dormant for a while (6 months maybe). --Kumioko (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wifione, you have, I'm afraid, somewhat spectacularly missed the point (or rather the issue). You say "Give away administrative rights..." ........"but be open to giving back the rights ". Forgive me but who exactly gives and removes these rights? The community? They have the giving but not the taking away in place already. Bureaucrats? They grant per consensus at RFA and many are firmly (and rightly) opposed to any extension of their remit, and have no power to remove in any case. ARBCOM? They take away and have no power to grant (and rightly so). So maybe an action by the WMF? I doubt it. Your noble and honest solution is in fact not one at all, as it dances the issue but does not address it. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

British heraldry

Hi Jimbo! I need some help regarding British heraldry. The article Charles Edward Stuart, Count Roehenstart is currently at DYK. May I know how the heraldry title should be at the DYK hook? Should it be Count Charles Edward Stuart, or Charles Edward Stuart, Count de Roehenstart? Bejinhan talks 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am not an expert on British heraldry, but I do know that "Count" is not a British title. The British equivalent is "Earl". So probably you'll want to ask around. A natural assumption might be that the title of the article is the natural title to use in the DYK, but that can be a tricky thing. Although, I don't know much about Continental conventions, I note that in the article we say that his headstone reads "GENERAL CHARLES EDWARD STUART COUNT ROEHENSTART".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, but the article also points out that he wasn't actually a General (but he was "sometimes" called that). Sources vary in the way they state the name;

Burke's Peerage says "...more commonly known as Charles Edward Stuart, Count de Roehenstart"; The Complete Peerage says "Charles Edward Stuart was styled as Count Roehenstart, self-styled" and then, there is a book entitled, "The pedigree of Charles Edward Stuart, Count of Roehenstart". So plenty of choices; probably none definitive.

I'd be inclined to go with Burke's - Charles Edward Stuart, Count de Roehenstart - pending any other info, because it sounds about right. But yes, we could ask around. incidentally, I suggested asking you, Mr. Wales, because I remembered reading that you were interested in articles on English nobility articles - but if I remembered wrongly, or the press was wrong...sorry - Mea culpa.  Chzz  ►  16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Keenly interested, but not an expert.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, cheers.  Chzz  ►  17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The article itself seems somewhat weak. It wasn't clear to me on first reading whether or not the guy actually was a "Count" (a Continental title) or was, as your quote from Burke's suggests, "self-styled" - i.e. he made up a meaningless title for himself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a bit unclear. Bejinhan has asked on refdesk.  Chzz  ►  11:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo: Thanks for the reply! I have asked in RefDesk. According to the article creator, the title is self-styled but I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article. Bejinhan talks 11:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is extreme opposite of censorship: cluttership

Some reactions to the talk of deleting, or rather hiding, text, for particular user groups, leads to the opposite concern: what if a user group wanted much more information to be displayed, as their preference about an article? Of course, that would be more rare, and I have had a difficult time trying to find a common word for this viewpoint, such as the non-existent word "cluttership" (or "data hoarding"), to describe people who want tons of information to be revealed about a subject. In this extreme view, some users might want the discussion about nude portraits, by a particular painter, to describe virtually all forms of nudity painted, and could be expected to include a rough count of those paintings and perhaps the titles of almost all nude portraits created by that painter. In reality, I have rarely seen that level of requested detail for art. However, in the sports articles (yup, currently exceeding 1.5 million? pages), there is a similar type of cluttership, with navboxes linking to every game played (complete with home-visitor scores and probably also listing the major game maneuvers). This would be akin to articles for all "87" episodes of "9,000" TV shows, or a similar level of detail, viewed as cluttership. Anyway, the main point is to beware people who might want a user group to view a greater, in-depth coverage, than the general public would prefer. Isn't it a relief to have a rare problem to consider? -Wikid77 02:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Cluttership" is rightly known as Misplaced Pages. Everyone who builds it wants something to be known. Wnt (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be looking for the term fancruft. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Humourous revision

Looks like someone wants a personal apology off you. page. Oh, and he says he will unleash an army of Orcs on Misplaced Pages if you don't comply. By the way, please don't take this seriously. --123Hedgehog456 : Create an account! 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

At least it was only orcs. A gnome invasion would've been truly frightening. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary, we can be quite helpful. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A Mothers view....

Mr. Wales,

I would like to take a moment of your time to discuss my view of this apparent issue of the Horrific Meredith Kercher Murder, and the Amanda Knox case. I am first of all a Mother. Secondly, it is forums and discussions that I hope and pray, when my very own children use them for reference they are as complete and correct as possible. I at this time would like to verify and validate, that the issues upon the page are as the letter written my Joseph are very real and accurate. I myself was previously blocked in a single first posting sometime back. The issues continue to arise, of anyone not agreeing with the moderators appears to get black balled,. This is not an acceptable form to work in, nor is it of any value to reflect the name of yours in the hard work and effort you have put in to make this site. I have sat back and watched and watched at the ways of them tormenting of others within that page and as A Mom . I find it totally unacceptable. I am aware of many Lawyers, Doctors, Forensic Scientists and all of those things who have taken the time and do have the expertise to form a valuable article and page regarding this situation. I sincerely hope that you take the time to look into this issue very deeply.this has been going on for sometime. This situation is not of any value to any involved in it especially Dear Meredith the victim of this brutal crime. This is not a playground for admins to act as wild children within.. this is a murder case, as well as an injustice. This needs to be corrected and represented correctly.

Thank you. I will check back if I can figure out how to see if you responded or your welcome to email me if you would like.

Thank you kindly, AMom Truth Mom (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth Mom (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• In fact, Mr. Wales had already begun investigation to this matter, with 2 message streams begun 6 hours before the above request. See the 2 topics he initiated, with multiple replies, at the WP:BLP noticeboard and at the MoMK talk-page:

• WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
• Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Open letter - talk-page issue about rejected text from reliable sources

You can join the discussion, on those pages, if you wish. Misplaced Pages has some formal processes which can be used to allow balanced, WP:NPOV-neutral text to be re-added into articles, and allow whichever blocked users to be unblocked to continue to make further edits. The re-trial of murder suspects, U.S. college student Amanda Knox and her 11-day boyfriend, Italian student Raffaele Sollecito ("So-Lay-cha-to"), is currently underway, in Perugia, Italy, with evidence being re-examined by a university in Rome and re-questioning of a homeless witness from the town square Piazza Grimana; the new forensic DNA-test results are expected to be presented in trial hearings during May & June 2011.
No one has claimed that the Open Letter is not real, nor is there any attempt to deny the signatures of the more than 160 people on the petition:
     • www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?qbcrt64w
However, investigation of this matter will require several days to determine a plan of action. It might be of interest to note that one of the admins, indicated above, resigned from Misplaced Pages in January 2011, due to family illness. So, there will be less resistance to changing the direction of the article. In general, Misplaced Pages must discuss issues, among all interested volunteers, before deciding on future plans, and that takes a much longer period of time than directing a staff of paid editors to re-write an article. -Wikid77 01:31, revised 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

hi jimbo wales

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.130.168 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience v NPOV v Pseudosketicism

Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Open_Letter

Jimbo: I've refactored the thing about farting.

To my mind, an accusation of censorship normally implies an accusation of malfeasance. I simply don't think it is fair to be throwing the accusation around in a way that appears casual without providing a clear explanation of what you mean or what evidence you are basing your assertion on. What specific material are you saying has been excluded from the article? Why are you so confident that this exclusion was improper? What do you mean by "systematic"? --FormerIP (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have given specific examples, and I will give more. I'm sure you can appreciate that I'm not the type of person to make random demands, and that I do my homework. I won't apologize for that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any specific examples and I'd like to be able to consider them. Would you do me the favour of posting a link to those? --FormerIP (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you join me at the talk page of the article? As I said here, I think that this edit should not have been reverted but instead improved upon. This particular edit is not the point, though. What is important is the broader principles and the weak and transparently POV arguments that have been used to exclude reliable sources. I continue to research the article, and my disappointment in how people have been treated, and how the article ended up, continues to grow.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I replied to that yesterday, Jimbo. No big deal that you missed it: . The edit you talk about wasn't reverted. It was (arguably) improved upon by me. This is a content issue about how much weight we should give to different points-of-view, how to arrive at neutral coverage and how not to be drawn into a depiction of events with an overly US-centred POV. I think you should be open to the possibility that the there may be more to the issue than the complaints of a blog. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Wales, I have been told this is not the place for the discussion so I apologize if I am out of line posting here. I am hopeful that you will take a moment to explain to me why Misplaced Pages refuses to allow a page for Amanda Knox. Her case is one of the biggest news stories of the decade. The explanations I have received have come from the group currently controlling this article. I feel their opinions are heavily biased. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Do you personally feel that a page detailing a major news story, such as the Amanda Knox case, should be forcefully ignored by Misplaced Pages? BruceFisher (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It might surprise you, but I have no very strong view on whether we need a separate article on Amanda Knox, the person, although I am inclined to say no. Please read WP:BLP1E for an understanding of our usual approach, which I strongly support. In many cases like this, we should have an article about the event rather than a biography of the person - simply because, apart from the event, the person would not be notable at all. There can be reasonable exceptions to this general situation, and this may be one of them, but I am much more concerned that we straighten out the article about the event first.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, Thank you for the response. I agree that resolving the issues on the current article are most important. I understand the usual approach that Misplaced Pages takes. I think an exception should be made for this case. If an article is allowed for Scott Peterson, I see no reason to not allow an article for Amanda Knox. http://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_Peterson. Hopefully this can be addressed after the issues with the current article are resolved.BruceFisher (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article is inaccurate and incomplete. Many credible sources have been omitted. PhanuelB did an excellent job of detailing the excluded information. He organized the information and sourced everything. He was banned from Misplaced Pages for his efforts. I agree with Mr. Wales. My blog should not be looked to by Misplaced Pages as a credible source. It appears that fact may be clouding the issue. The open letter asks Misplaced Pages to take an honest look at what has taken place here. No one is asking Misplaced Pages to use an advocacy blog as a credible source. The fact is credible sources have been provided to Misplaced Pages that are currently being ignored. That is the issue. Please read through the credible list of sources and take a look at all of the information that is currently non existent in the current "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article. You can read through PhanuelB's excellent work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APhanuelB&action=historysubmit&diff=405159511&oldid=405089368 BruceFisher (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link! I am continuing to research the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant to link here, rather than to that single comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is exactly right and I hope he gets that there has been a clamp down, not just limited to reliable sources and not just limited to not allowing a page for Amanda Knox. The people who have been blocked don't want a this or a that page, just an article that is neutral. As it is, it is not. That is not attributable merely to exclusion of reliable sources or any other specific limitation that preserves the integrity of the bias, it is an agenda for the page, which is against Misplaced Pages's rules. Perk100 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Perk100

I was intending to respond to a comment you just removed, but with all due respect Jimmy, I think you really needed to spend more time researching before wading into this debate. Right now, you are pointing to an entry from a blog that is dedicated to pushing a specific POV, and telling the community to "look into it". The implication is that you expect the community to slant the article in the direction the blogger wishes. Whether or not that was your intent is immaterial, as already the SPAs are jumping all over your words. My read is that you saw that post, and while you don't know what to do about it yet, you want to be seen as doing something. That is often dangerous, especially when done by someone with as much influence as you have. I've hardly been involved in that article at all, but I have little doubt that fresh eyes are always a good thing for such a topic. Your eyes are as welcome as anyone else's, but it would have been far more helpful if you began that discussion with the results of your research and left the community with concrete proposals and suggestions. "Look into it" is not constructive. Resolute 21:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it is valuable for me to ask people to take a second look at something, even as I take a look myself. I should not wait until I have results. The only important thing here is Misplaced Pages's quality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of a##-kissing, "look into it" means, look into it--evaluate whether the claims are backed up by reliable sources, and if the article in fact matches up with NPOV and other policies. 'Look into it' should not be seen as a codeword to blindly follow dictate. Those who interpret it as such are really just misinterpreting it or misusing it for their own purposes, as SPAs are wont to due anyway. Ocaasi 21:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Everyone should always be willing to look into things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into the situation since SPAs will use anything to promote their cause, and they just need to be politely told how things work here. Jimbo can't be expected to thoroughly research everything he thinks might need attention, and anyone who thinks "Jimbo said it deserves attention" is a mandate for some kind of slant is mistaken. To understand what he meant, just read his words. Johnuniq (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq, and to be clear. I don't want the article to have any particular slant. I want it to reflect what reliable sources have said. I am concerned that I have seen a block placed on someone for one edit to the article, an edit that was clearly uncontroversial and contained an NPOV description grounded in a reliable source. I am concerned that NPOV and high quality sources have been excluded from the article. I am concerned that since I raised the issue, even I have been attacked as being something like a "conspiracy theorist". I would like to bring this issue to the attention of the wider community, and I continue to do my own research. I normally edit in the area of the UK peerage, and so it will take me some time to get up to speed, and I will not comment prematurely on issues that I know nothing about. But as I learn more, I will comment accordingly. I do not expect my comments to be taken as gospel truth or as commands from on high, but - as you will see if you check the history of this page and some insults that I deleted - I do hope and expect that I will be treated as a calm and sensible person who is raising legitimate issues.

Whenever we see outrage in the face of mere questions, it is good to wonder where the truth lies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mere accusations, Jimbo. That's where the sting is. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fears of quoting libelous sources: As I saw the events unfold, User:PhanuelB remained blocked because he seemed unwilling to accept any limits. His research was, in fact, highly remarkable, with "95%" excellent sources, but then he went too far over the limit of WP:BLP, with a few derogatory quotes about some people, as "too close to the line" on the other side of that line. Misplaced Pages cannot post every quote someone utters, even from reliable interviews. We wondered if he really understood why Misplaced Pages has rules preventing calling someone a "drugdealer" even if 3 bartenders said it in interviews. As a result, he remained blocked, and the article became controlled by the opposite extreme, of trying to remove all direct quotations, and leaving the article to become a hollow sketch of events, despite numerous sources having a myriad of details about the case. There were even sources which give the locations of items, in the murder room, down to the fraction of a meter. The article had quoted sources about telephone calls, to the precise second the calls were made, and the seconds they lasted. However, those details were removed, and because of fears how people wanted to "spill the dirt" on anyone mentioned in the article, then an extreme clampdown occurred, as the opposite of posting potential libel about personnel in the trial. It was safer to have a hollow article, then allow numerous people to quote unproven accusations about the people in court. Does that help explain the situation? Instead, the article needs to have a middle ground, of more details and quotes, but not quoting insults about people in the courtroom. -Wikid77 00:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Without endorsing (or disagreeing with) any particular detail of what you have said, I would say that I agree with your broad understanding of the issue. When an advocate behaves badly, it is very easy for people - good people - to get into a siege mentality that results in (as in this case) blocking someone for a single perfectly unobjectionable edit. And further on, a cascading series of unfortunate events that lead to an article ending up extremely one-sided.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/03/23/news/wikipedia-founder-jimbo-wales-reviews-page-about-

I suppose the blog post is now a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the blog post is not a reliable source. In my preliminary assessment, neither is West Seattle Herald. I think it's super annoying when what I view as routine work in Misplaced Pages accidentally causes headlines (*sigh*) but I have found that the only solution is absolutely hardcore dedication to the principles of thoughtful dialog and conversation, serious attention to reliable sources no matter where they lead, and that we as Wikipedians should always, no matter the bad behavior of any advocates of any particular point of view, be prepared to rise above it and seek to write the best encyclopedia possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Those sentiments are fine, Jimbo. But I'm still concerned about why you think it is OK to accuse editors of censorship and not provide any examples (I know you claim you have, but I can't find them). --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)