User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Just curious

Dear Sir, I'm just curious as to whether you think it is alright for admins to call users "d*cks" (but with an i instead of a *)? EVula called me this repeatedly on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, but I didn't realize it was okay to be sweared at by administrators in the process. Just wondering whether this was the future of being part of the WP community? Thanks for your contributions towards society. Sincerely, Njsustain (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DICK. It isn't good to call someone a dick, but it is even better not to be one.--Scott Mac 18:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up the acceptable etiquette here on WP, sad as it apparently is. Njsustain (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Context: I said "I honestly think Njsustain is being a bit of a dick here." The fact that you're commenting about this all over the place after saying you were done with the content debate (where you were insulting another editor, for the record) just makes me feel pretty damn sure of my initial reaction. (yes, I just used profanity; oh well) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you keep trying to defend your actions just makes me feel pretty dams sure that your actions were indeed inappropriate. Oh well. Njsustain (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think administrators should never call other users "dicks" under any circumstances whatsoever. It's not the worst thing in the world, of course, but neither does that make it ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be a largely semantic debate, but (personally) I think there's a difference between saying "you're a dick" and "you're acting like a dick". The latter is the correct context for the statement (direct link to the thread can be found at WP:ANI#Disruption by User Njsustain). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but notice the impact here. Instead of focusing on the content dispute, which is a perfectly legitimate one, the complainant has degenerated into anger over behavior. (Notice that in saying that the dispute is a legitimate one, I'm not taking sides on who is right in the dispute.) I still think it is best to avoid personal attacks and language which may tend to inflame a dispute rather than calming it. We all fail in this at times, of course, I'm not blaming you or attacking you for it. I'm just saying, it's best if we don't do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair stance. I honestly didn't think it would incense the situation as much as it did, but then again, I've got a considerably thicker skin than some. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm wondering if the article in question meets WP:GNG and if it does I'm wondering if the policy needs to be fixed. There are millions of restaurants that have similar coverage in local media because they are popular and successful to some degree at PR. I wonder what benefit it is to have articles on them in an encyclopedia. We're not Zagat's, Citisearch or Yelp the last time I checked. I would propose that a majority of articles in Category:Restaurants in the United States by state should not exist here at Wikipedia but maybe my opinion is not shared by others. It strikes me that the type of coverage they get in local media, in the "lifestyle section" type areas of newspapers and magazines, is not a result of the type of notability we are concerned with here but instead local popularity and good PR. Shouldn't there be something other than this type of coverage necessary for a consumer based commercial establishment? I'm curious about your opinion on this.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CORP applies to any business that has an article on Wikipedia. If they fail to meet the notability guidelines, they shouldn't have an article. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this one meet that policy? If it does, once again I pose the broader question, should it meet that policy? Are restaurant reviews and lifestyle articles about popular eateries the types of coverage we want to use to write encyclopedia articles with?Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask a more specific question. Are restaurant reviews considered news, and given the answer to that how should they be considered when we talk about things like "significant coverage" and notability criteria?Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to me to decide policy at that level of scale, and so I offer only a general opinion. I think that having such articles is not within the scope of Wikipedia for a number of reasons, more or less along the lines that Griswaldo has outlined. It should be noted, since it accidentally and foolishly made headlines a few years ago, that I started the entry Mzoli's, but I did so on the premise that the restaurant is culturally interesting, as it has been popular with both whites and blacks in a South African township, and because of various complexities surrounding its impact on the community.

A quite nice local wine bar, unless it has some wider impact, isn't really the same thing.

There are a number of reasons we might not want such articles - the article we have now is a case in point - it reads like an advertisement for the restaurant, and having lots and lots of these would surely invite lots more local businesses to try to get an article in Wikipedia. This will lead to a lot of difficult maintenance issues, etc.

On the other hand, it can be argued, and surely will be argued, and there are valid points here, that as long as there is coverage in reliable sources, why not have it? If, as in this case, all the coverage is favorable, so that all one can really say about the restaurant is that it seems delightful, then so be it. (Note well: I don't think anyone is arguing that this is a restaurant like El Bulli which is famous for having a major impact on how people think about cuisine, etc.)

I think this is a discussion worth having.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is also in the queue to receive DYK hook, wiki front page publicity.Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion here as well -Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability. The first response has been that the article fails WP:CORP because the coverage is all local and regional. The fact that it is in line for Did You Know seems highly suspect to me. The fact that any restaurant would be in line for DYK as a general item of interest, and not in relation to a significant news item, seem completely ridiculous. How is that not simply PR being done on our part? This is exactly the kind of thing that is troubling me.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. I just took a quick look to try to figure out where to object to it appearing in DYK until some issues are resolved, but I couldn't figure it out. (I've never had anything to do with the DYK process. Do you know where I should object?) My view is that this DYK listing should at a minimum be delayed by a couple of weeks - this isn't a "timely" issue and reflecting on it will be a good thing. I will ask Cirt on his talk page if he will support this delay.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hooks been removed Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Original point

Jimbo, I have to say that I'm still a little bit concerned about the reception that Njsustain received when s/he tried to take on this matter originally. I know you are not the enforcer of behavioral rules around here but I wanted to make this comment out loud because the original discussion was about that reception. Njsustain has probably learned something about better ways to handle these types of issues but it is very disheartening to see several admins on AN/I overlook the very clear issues with the entry to the benefit of a fellow admin. Njsustain clearly had a very relevant gripe here, and it would be good to know that admins hanging around AN/I will evaluate these things a bit more thoroughly before jumping to their buddy's defense. I hope they are also learning from this incident as I'm sure Nj is. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, people have different thresholds for what constitutes civility. I have a box on my userpage telling people they are free to swear and curse as much as they desire, because I understand that people sometimes need to vent. I don't mind profanity at all, but there are those who do, and it's sometimes hard to tell who'll be offended by what. If someone told me that my work on an article was a "pile of goddamned shit", I wouldn't have any problem with it as long as they could point to a reson why. I may disagree, but at least I know where they're coming from. Others don't take to that so kindly, so it's a bit confusing. As to calling someone a dick, I suppose if you have someone who hasn't read WP:DICK that it could be seen as offensive, but as someone who's only been around for 5 months, I quickly picked up on the fact that saying someone is a dick on Wikipedia isn't the same as saying that in real life. But that's just my take. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the "dick" comment than the hostility minus any real attempt to look into the situation (the second part especially).Griswaldo (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• - I have sent the article to AFD for discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@EVula, According to WP:DICK, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move — especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." So it makes yourself a DICK if you have called Njsustain a dick, according to the essay that you have used to call him a dick!

@Jimbo: What kind of essays or policies are these things? Are we going to have also WP:ANUS, WP:PUSSY and WP:TIT in the near future?--Policy writer (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BEANS- now that you've said that, someone will do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And now you're a dick for remarking that I'm a dick for saying that Njsustain was acting like a dick. (and now I'm a dick yet again for remarking on this fact) This is a fun game to play. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Internet used to be run by thick skinned elephants. Nowadays it's Eternal September: as more people come online , we have more PFY's throwing out much more profanity than they used to, and also much thinner skinned people coming online too. Ye Olde Elephants tend to flock to new innovations, and were the first to populate wikipedia, hence some of our older users and policies use more colorful language than the newer ones. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC) goshdangit!

These sweeping generalizations are preposterous. I've been on the net since '86. Just because I don't use middle school locker room language and expect others not do so either in polite conversation, doesn't mean I am thin skinner nor a "PFY" just a gentleman (or if were applicable, a lady). Being around WP or the net a while doesn't mean it becomes okay to use impolite language. It's still rude, whether you are used to it or not.Njsustain (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's the point; just because it's rude to you doesn't make it rude to everyone else. I don't consider profanity an issue, and use it quite freely at times; all it means is that you and I think differently. The problem with civility is that it's such a subjective term, and it's not possible to discuss certain things/behaviors without offending people. I do tone my language down around users I don't know; however, I wouldn't think twice about saying someone was acting like a dick if I thought so, because I can't imagine that it offends too many people (obviously it offends you, I just wouldn't have assumed that). Besides, WP:DICK is somewhat humorous (at least in my view), so I'd actually consider it a softer way of pointing it out to someone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. WP is meant for everyone to read, and to edit. It is meant for the general public, and therefore you should act (i.e. use language) that is appropriate for when you are dealing with the general public, not language that is appropriate for when you are hanging out with your buddies, or are in the locker room, or are in your RL workplace where whatever standards of language have developed and are understood by everyone. When you are dealing with the general public, in order to be polite you must refrain from profanity, which is considered rude in that venue, whether you believe you were being rude or not. In any case, what is the point of using this language? Is "You're [acting like] a dick" really a helpful, rational conclusion, or is it just name calling? Would the manager of a restaurant tell a customer, "Well, I'm sorry you didn't you like your service, but you are being a dick"? No, he can say what is the case, "Well, I'm sorry you didn't like your service, but you changed your order four times and are being unreasonable in your expectations." Using profanity doesn't help the situation, and telling people they are "thin skinned" for not believing it is appropriate is immature and just fans the flames. If one believes there is as different etiquette which has developed in WP, one that is quite different from what is considered appropriate when dealing with the general public, and one that permits the leaders (administrators) to use profanity towards users as a way of dealing with issues, then, IMO, you don't "get" what WP is about or for, are unable to deal with people in a manner which leads to solving problems, and, frankly, Mr. Wales has clearly stated it's inappropriate. And, quite frankly, to me, it seems more like admins are backing up other admins for the sake of backing up admins/buddies rather than to solve problems and/or establish standards which lead to solving problems. The purpose of administrators is to allow editing to occur more smoothly and improve WP, not to create an aristocracy of editors who can say, write, and do whatever they want. Njsustain (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But, we don't bend ourselves to conform to your views on profanity. Walking into Wikipedia is to walk into a vast conglomeration of voices, personalities, and mannerisms. Just as you would expect in any other generalized social space. If you go in to such a space not expecting to be occasionally offended, then quite frankly you're gonna be in for a bit of a course correction. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They're not my views (exclusively), they are society's views, and when it involves people in positions of authority, such as administrators here, the ante is upped. They are expected to behave more appropriately, not make excuses for behaving less so. Again, telling people they need a "course correction" is being rude and further fanning flames, not trying to solve problems.Njsustain (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not my society, it isn't. Just thicken your skin a bit and move on. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny that not all societies are the same, but why do you get to decide who needs to be more polite and who needs to have a thicker skin? It seems to me Mr. Wales has already drawn the line on the other side of calling people "dicks" (as does the "WP: DICK" standards). Maybe it's you who should think about using more appropriate language on WP. (For the record, my "society" is the United States, which has a rather uniform standard for what is appropriate language when dealing with the general public.) Njsustain (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do use profanity in public, and I honestly don't give a fuck- I live in the US as well, and that's never stopped me. And I'm no admin here, I just joined in early March. Since when is "dick" profane? I'd JDI and move on. And by the way, you should read WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your profanity and pointing out a littany of "rules" in attempt to state your case speaks for itself. I don't (and no one else does) need WP rules to know what or who is flagrantly inappropriate and impolite. on WP or in public, but if you think it's appropriate, and only if you think it's appropriate for me to say, then please do STFU, MYOB, TCBY, etc. And frankly, "IDGAF" what you do in public, and what *you* do doesn't make something right or wrong. Some people go aroung robbing people, kicking punching people, or raping people. That doesn't make those practices appropriate. Your everyday language may not be illegal (actually, it is in some cases and places) but is inappropriate, and shouldn't be the standard for WP just because it doesn't bother you. Additionally, whether "dick" is considered profane or not, it is still rude and pointless in the discussions here at WP. Njsustain (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we just agree to disagree here? I think we've all got better things to do, like building the encyclopedia, than to keep beating this dead horse. No one's changing anyone's language patterns here, so lets just back off... and get back to the important parts of Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we disagree, but this isn't just about what is or isn't appropriate language (which we supposedly or hopefully learn in kindergarten or sooner). I wasn't just called a dick by a random person over a run of the mill editing matter, I was called a dick (or that I "acted like one"... whatever, as if that makes a difference) by an administrator/bureaucrat in response to another administrator who had a conflict of interest (not necessarily in the article, but in my suggestion that that article may have had a NPOV or COI) asking that another administrator look into my so-called "disruptive behavior." Is this the way that conflicts should be appropriately handled by the leaders of WP? No, it was a totally uncalled for response. A person admits he needs someone to see how a situation can be revolved, and profanity, or at least, less than "smooth" language is used in the attempt to do so? That's not how leaders should act. I admire Mr. Wales, not because he is the "owner" of WP, but because he handles this and other situations not as a polititian, but politely and equitably in a manner that is directed at solutions, not pointless accusations -- my original edit was an attempt towards a solution toward improvement, even if it wasn't originally perceived as such by all. I DON'T expect everyone on WP or in society in general to act and talk like we are at the Ladies' Wednesday Afternoon Garden Party, but I DO expect leaders to act appropriately and civilly, especially when they are trying to address a dispute, supposedly objectively. I didn't see that happening in this case, and in fact felt it flew in the face of the entire administrative system on WP. So, yes, I do think it is an issue that needs looking at, and no, I don't think I'm beating a dead horse.Njsustain (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll say this much; if I ever interact with you in the future, I'll make it a point to avoid profanity. It does say on my talkpage that I'll tone down my language on request. That much I can say; beyond that, I'm not committing to anything, and I don't think you'll get much more out of anyone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm guessing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above; I consider there to be a big difference between saying you are a dick and saying that you're acting like a dick (specifically, the former is a direct insult, while the latter is merely a personal opinion). Sorry if you're offended by the wording of my remark, but I stand by my assessment of your behavior; I'll see your WP:DICK (er, wait, what?) and counter with WP:SPADE. I could have had a bit more tact in what I said, but I didn't, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it now.
I also don't consider what I said to be particularly profane, though as it's been pointed out, profanity is sometimes in the ear of the beholder... er, behearer? Eh, whatever, you get the point. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing up WP: SPADE. So, explain why was it okay for you to call me a d*ck because I was calling a spade a spade? Many people, including Mr. Wales have stated that the piece in question looks like (or just outright is) an ad, spam, puffery, etc., but for my big "crime" of attempting to point that out and request a discussion on the matter (even if this newbie regarding such procedures pulled some of the wrong levers when doing so), I am a "d*ck"? It seems to me my real crime for which I was accused was calling a spade a spade that happened to involve an editor who was also an administrator. For that I am [acting like] a "d*ck"???

Also, conveniently, the WP: SPADE states: "Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review." Forgive me for not having read all of these rules... they constitute an encylopedia unto themselves... but I don't need to read tomes of WP philosophy and become a virtual "WP Rules Lawyer" to see what is clearly inappropriate. However, this quote succinctly states what has happened here: someone was trying to cover his tracks by bringing up a bunch of rules and accusing me of utter incivility. One can admit it and let us move on to real issues, or stand behind one's buddies no matter what through rationalizations and namecalling.Njsustain (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Njsustain, you were acting like a dick upon reviewing the AN/I. Being told you're acting like a dick when you know you're acting like a dick must be annoying, sure, but don't act like a dick in the first place and you won't get told you're a dick. I wouldn't say that it was uncivil of EVula at all, just relax. Worse things have happened. -- Jack•?! 00:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Distortions and bias in scientific coverage

Everytime I come across articles on controversial science subjects I am astounded to see how distorted and disparaging Wikipedia's coverage is about minority viewpoints and the people who espouse them. One example is user:keepcalmandcarryon's ongoing campaign to disparage biographical subjects like Philip E. Johnson, who questioned the HIV-AIDS connection. He misrepresents sources, for example this 1995 letter shows that the subject signed onto the opinion that [1] "Other independent researchers should examine the validity of the so-called "AIDS tests," especially when these tests are used in Africa and Southern Asia, to see if they reliably record the presence of antibodies, let alone live and replicating virus." But it's being used to state that "HIV tests do not detect HIV". Where does it say that? Is questioning a connection the same as saying it does not exist? And why is the present tense being used for an opinion stated in the mid-90s? Here is the article before his disortions were added which I think is quite clear [2].

Of course anyone seeking to correct the subtle distortion and disparagement used to advance favored POVs is labeled as a fringe nutjob and attacked. Frankly, if Wikipedia can't do a better job of abiding by its own BLP policies I wonder if it should be shut down.

The problem of the William Connolleys and the Mastcells who use the encyclopedia to advance their personal beliefs and abuse their roles as admins and editors is widespread. Even dispute tags and citation needed tags from controversial content are removed, and the noticeboards are abused to go after those making an effort to make the accounts accurate.

In the Peter Duesberg article they've gone as far as reordering the chronology of his career so the article focuses almost exclusively on his controversial views on AIDS. I have no objection to being clear and straightforward about controversies and criticisms, they are certainly missing from much of our political coverage, but outright lying and distortions of this sort, misrepresentations of what is in sources, and maligning of unpopular subjects is beyond the pale. There should be zero tolerance for editors and especially admins who engage in these pursuits or aid them in any way. I have never had cause to doubt the HIV-AIDS connection and it certainly represents what I consider a fringe viewpoint, now more than ever, but we shouldn't lie about what kind of opinions those questioning consensus views held or seek to disparage and misrespresent the facts about their careers. I would appreciate your suggestions on how to address this serious problem on Wikipedia. The denialist article was a good example of how terms are being defined in a selective way and then used in other articles to disparage subjects, although I see now it has been improved a bit. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that after the posting of this comment Mastcell has made some needed improvements to Duesberg's article. But the difficulty of a good faith editor trying to get these widespread problems addressed remains, and the tacticcs of obstruction and collusion need to be exposed to the light of day. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made those changes before you posted here, as the timestamps indicate. You've already opened two threads on WP:BLP/N (here and here), edit-warred aggressively and without justifciation on multiple articles, thrown around an increasingly aggressive series of attacks on everyone who disagrees with you (which, at present, is basically everyone you're interacting with), filled article talk pages with attacks on other editors in lieu of content discussion (here, here), berated me for a "BLP violation" on an article I don't think I've ever even edited ([3]), charged your fellow editors with "despicable lies and distortions", and now ended up here at the forum-shopper's final stop. And that's only in the past 6 hours or so. Please, for everyone's sake, chill out a little. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am raising these issues because they are widespread. You helped fix one small part of them finally, but continue to obstruct other improvements even in instances where you acknowledge the distortions taking place. That's not acceptable. Why is a view someone held in the 1990s being presented in the present tense? Why was a disputed tag removed despite an active debate on the accuracy of the article contents? Why are you standing by and questioning me for pointing out obvious mispresentations of what's in the sources? You're clearly part of the problem, and while I did indeed err in my statement about when your improvement came, I stand by my statement that you are one of the editors (and admins) actively obstructing NPOV coverage of controversial science subjects. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today, at MastCell's suggestion, I added a sentence stating that Phillip Johnson's present position on HIV/AIDS is unknown. Honestly, I consider this just a tad lawyerly (and also unsourced). It's like writing that Barack Obama supported health care reform, but we don't know his current position since he hasn't made a statement on it since Sunday. In fact, a 2009 news source cited in the article attributes the denialist position to Johnson. But I was willing to do it in an attempt to calm the situation at the article. It obviously didn't work. In any case, it seems to be a rather minor issue, and one that's been resolved to Freakshownerd's satisfaction. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of damaging slander just added by Keepcalmandcarryoh: (Johnson) "has also lamented the presence of Muslims on US university campuses, ascribing to Muslims a chilling effect on free speech."

The actual statement from the source [4] (in response to a question about 9/11) is: "Now we're seeing how the country is almost cringing in fear of these Muslim terrorists from the Middle East. I see professors afraid to discuss the subject because they're afraid of what the Muslim students will do. They're afraid it won't keep the peace on campus. I never thought our country would descend to this level."

It's a clear and intentional distortion and misrespresentation that is absolutely slanderous. And if Keepcalmandcarryon isn't blocked for the pattern of the malicious misrespresentations he's adding to these article subjects, then my point is really made for me, is it not? And please don't accuse me of making legal threats. If he is allowed to distort article content then I hope someone does sue to shut down the propogation of these disgusting lies, but it won't be me files the claim, I can't be bothered. I'm just pointing out the problem in clear and accurate language. Wikipedia is being used to viciously disparage and attack subjects that aren't popular with a group of powerful admins and editors, and nothing is being done to stop them. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice that I included the entire quote in the citation precisely so Freakshownerd and other editors could confirm it. Johnson states that Muslim terrorists attacked the US and that free speech is chilled on campus because Muslim students are present and professors are afraid of them. Elsewhere in the interview, Johnson states that the US is in the described state of affairs because of the notion that different religions should be given different respect when, in his words, Christianity is the true religion. How is anything I've written a distortion of Johnson's views? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing that the editors of articles about religious or idealogical ideas, theories, or beliefs need to remember is that to help the article be more NPOV, the article first needs to describe, without taking a side, how the person, group, or idea views itself. Then, a "criticism" or "controversy" section can be included, but should not be any longer in length than the description section. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of that approach, because it creates a he-said, she-said structure. I think it's always preferable to integrate reliable sources into a flowing, coherent narrative as opposed to presenting a sympathetic view first followed by a "criticism" section. Certainly, as a reader, I find that approach much more useful. WP:STRUCTURE and Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode are relevant - while the latter is an essay, I think its (facetious) example is on point. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, I would agree with you under any other circumstances. This isn't 1954 and there is generally no need to follow the "Equal Time" guidelines when both commentary and criticism can be made into a coherent narrative and an NPOV BLP, and in which case the amount of both is determined by the amount of information one can reliably source (and not distort) . However, that tactic sometimes fails and I feel it might have here. This subject is a Law professor who in his later years began supporting alternative scientific theories. His biography/notability is not about his work in the field of Law, nor is it his publications or discoveries in the field of the Natural Sciences; His story is his controversial beliefs. Given that, I would in fact advocate a separation of support and criticism as it may or may not be impossible to integrate the two into a BLP that could be considered NPOV. Distortion of sources however, is another matter entirely. Cwill151 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A minor clarification: this law professor hasn't been "supporting alternative scientific theories", he's been actively promoting theistic realism to replace natural science for the political ends set out in the wedge document. He's known for his politics as much as his beliefs. Wikipedia reports on minority viewpoints while giving due weight to majority views, including showing the majority views of the minority or fringe viewpoints. Particularly pseudoscience. Not always easy, and always likely to attract complaints of "bias" from true believers in the minority view or their sympathisers. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist..."

Perhaps you have an opinion to offer in this AN/I discussion involving the activities of an admin, WP:NPA, and civility in general? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why you specifically solicit the opinion of Jimbo in this discussion? Fram (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it would have something to do with him being the founder of a website where admins are threatening violence to people. But thats just a guess.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has publicity expressed a personal interest in the general issue of civility on the internet. I don't expect his opinion, if he chooses to express one, will count for more than anyone else's in this particular instance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Many people have expressed their interest in such things, e.g. by participating in discussions on the policy talk pages of NPA or of CIVIL. You are not contacting any of these. Any reason why you specifically solicit Jimbo's opinion? Fram (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me be absolutely clear on one thing: I think it is absolutely perfectly appropriate for people to come to me with information and concerns about admin misbehavior, and I think Delicious carbuncle for bringing this to my attention. I am concerned, Fram, that you would try to discourage people from contacting me - I can't think of any reasonable basis for doing that. It is important to me that I keep track of what is going on, and it is helpful to me to be pointed to interesting and important discussions of all kinds. Why shouldn't that happen?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Delicious Carbuncle was:

a) trying to make a mountain out of an out-of-context molehill

b) "asking the other parent" when the consensus at ANI was that it was, indeed, a molehill

c) edit warring at WP:NPA to make a point[5][6][7]

--Enric Naval (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I still would like for people to never discourage others from speaking to me. Considering that I don't intervene at this level, it can't really be forum shopping. It does, however, inform my thinking about things in general to be kept aware of concerns that people have. That's important. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue to discourage people to come to you though when it is obvious that they are doing so for canvassing reasons, in the hope of getting an argument from authority. You could easily frequent WP:ANI, WP:AN, and other relevant noticeboards where admin behaviour is routinely discussedn if you want to stay informed. That you don't consider canvassing a "reasonable basis" for concern is in itself telling. You no longer intervene perhaps, but you comment, and people use such comments as having more weight than other people's comments. That may not be how you see it or want it, but it is a reality and the sole reason why some discussions are brought to your attention. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the basis of WP:NPA is respect for others; and perhaps someone who has given their time to improving the encyclopedia should be respected for their efforts, and their unusual lapse in voicing their frustration at a persistent vandal returning to disrupt the project in their accustomed manner, might be shown that respect by not having their intemperate remarks promoted as reason to question both their ability and dedication to the encyclopedia. That same respect should also be apparent that when a majority of commentators opine that there is no grounds for a review of the admin over the one instance, that an appeal to a apparent voice of authority - in the hope of a different opinion - is inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)**Addendum. I have blocked Delicious carbuncle for 24 hours - I have given my rationale at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians are real people. They get stressed, annoyed, curse at people. It's obviously an empty threat. Some things shouldn't be taken so seriously. -- Jack•?! 01:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. A single out-of-character outburst should be noted and forgiven. A pattern of behavior suggests that a break from the project, or finding a new hobby, could be better for everyone. There's no reason to be super uptight about admins sometimes saying the wrong thing - but neither should we accept it as being perfectly ok and thereby empower and forgive behavior that is to the detriment of the encyclopedia. We can both insist on high standards generally, and recognize human frailty. Balance is the key.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jimbo. I'm sure you have heard of Bambifan before now as he is a particulary notorious troll and vandal. PM has been battling this particular vandal for years, and has tried every tool available to him to find some permanent resolution to the problem, including contacting ISPs with abuse reports, rangeblocking half of BellSouth, and even offering to mentor Bambifan. Nothing has made a bit of difference. I fully agree with PM that it is probably time some legal action was taken, but of course that would mean finding out who he really is. Dealing with obsessive people can be very frustrating, in the case of this particular user it can also get exceptionally personal. He will actually create socks to deliberately get the attention of users who have blocked or reported him in the past, like he misses you when your not around. PM is now on a break, and now DC is blocked for trying to edit-war his view of this matter into policy. What sucks is that this sort of chaos is exactly what BF101 wants to happen. If there is anything else that can be done about BF101 in the front office I urge you to do it. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Slander of biographical subjects

I am sorry to say that a day later individuals remain slandered by willfull distortions and misrepresentation of their comments and views in Wikipedia articles. It is distressing to see that you and admins like Mastcell are willing to stand by while the people who are article subjects are denigrated in this way.

I challenge you to find a reliable source that says Philip E. Johnson wrote that "HIV tests do not detect HIV". This is an utter fabrication. It is also false that he has written that "HIV does not cause AIDS". He questioned the relation between the two in the 1990s and called for further study. His article also includes innaccurate paraphrases of cherry picked quotes taken out of context. Nowhere does Johnson say "the US has lost its strength by relinquishing its faith in the 'true God'" Nowhere does he state a goal of trying to return "Christianity to pride of place in US society." And it's also misleading to say that he says "academics are afraid to discuss certain subjects because they fear Muslim students," when in fact he said that professors were afraid to discuss the subject of Muslim terrorism for fear of how Muslim students will react. In each case we see his words and writings being twisted and distorted, misrepresented, taken out of context, and used to denigrate him and his views.

If you take the BLP policy as well as our other editing policies seriously, I call on you to take swift action to empower good faith editors and administrators to take on this epidemic of attacks on biographical subjects and the misguided editors and admins who are carrying them out and encouraging them. There are many more examples of this kind of distortion and abuse and it needs to stop. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This tidbit in the Bradley Manning article is another example: "However, in light of Manning's micro viewpoint of the war, he instead decided he knew better than anyone else and endangered thousands of soldiers lives by leaking the classified information."

Maybe you'll be more responsive when someone subpeona's you? I'm going to keep making you aware of biased, improperly cited, and slanderous content until you respond. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit to Arrest of Bradley Manning was vandalism, made by an account named Goeatadick11 (talk · contribs) which I've blocked for an obvious username issue. Vandalism of BLPs is a real and ongoing concern, albeit separate from your accusations against good-faith editors. I've invoked pending changes protection on the Bradley Manning article since it is, in effect, a BLP and has been subject to inappropriate editing from new users and IPs. It seems like this is the kind of situation for which pending changes was designed. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken action to correct the pattern of slanderous misinformation and distortion being included in the Philip E. Johnson article? Do you think it's appropriate for the lie that Johnson wrote that "HIV test do note test for HIV" to stand? Here's a search for Philip E. Johnson and HIV tests don't test for HIV: [8]. Guess what website is the only one containing that information? And of course it's not in the cites added by user:keepcalmandcarryon to falsely suggest it's valid content. Are you suggesting that individuals repeatedly adding lies to articles with bogus citations are acting in good faith? Is that Wikipedia's official stand? Because my conclusion is that administrators who threaten good faith editors trying to clean up BLP violations are guilty of collusion and improper behavior themselves. You are culpable. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this article, which is cited in Philip E. Johnson? Once you have, let's discuss this at Talk:Phillip E. Johnson. As an aside, if you're able to reign in the aggressive belligerence, it will be that much easier to discern valid points amidst the sound and fury of your posts. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting that this passage "The claimed correlation between HIV and AIDS is flawed at an even more fundamental level, however. Even if the "AIDS test" were administered in every case, the tests are unreliable. Authoritative papers in both Bio/Technology (June 1993) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1991) have shown that the tests are not standardized and give many "false positives" because they react to substances other than HIV antibodies. Even if that were not the case, the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself, much less the virus in an active, replicating state. Antibodies typically mean that the body has fought off a viral infection, and they may persist long after the virus itself has disappeared from the body. Since it is often difficult to find live virus even in the bodies of patients who are dying of AIDS, Gallo and others have to speculate that HIV can cause AIDS even when it is no longer present and only antibodies are left." can be paraphrased into HIV tests do not test for HIV"? And I see that the same editor has carried out his dishonest smeary attacks at the Kary Mullis page as well. Let's keep this discussion out in the open. Is that section what you're talking about in trying to claim that Johnson has stated that HIV tests don't test for HIV? Do you dispute that they test for HIV by detecting HIV antibodies, antigens, or RNA, rather than the virus itself, which was s omething he noted in questioning how accurate the tests were in detecting the virus itself? Do you support these distortions of what he's actually saying to try to make him look silly? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss AIDS-denialist talking points with you on Jimbo's talk page. (OK, just one: what do mean when you say HIV tests detect HIV antigens and RNA, not "the virus itself"? What do you think a virus consists of? How do you think viruses are generally detected in medical practice?) If you want to discuss this further, then I'll be happy to do so on the article talk page, which is the appropriate venue. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that this dispute is a routine editing dispute that ought to be easy to resolve. One of the best ways to improve things, when people are concerned that a summary of someone's view is not accurate, is to quote the person directly, or to propose an alternative summary to try to find agreement. On the specific content issue, I think it fairly clear that "HIV tests do not test for HIV" - as a standalone - is not an uncontroversial summary of Johnson's position. But surely there is a summary of his position that can be found readily which both captures the nuance of what he was saying, and yet would satisfy those who would be critical of him. I don't know enough about the history of this particular controversy (I remember reading about it 10 years ago or so) to be able to write a proper summary of his position myself, but I do know that it is very often that case that scientists who take minority positions, particularly when those positions turn out to be wrong in the end, are often caricatured in a way that's unfair.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnson writes that HIV tests detect, at the best, the absence of HIV, i.e., a past, vanquished infection instead of a present virus. He also states that the tests are unreliable. He repeats the point that HIV tests often detect something else. I'm at a loss to understand how the given summary is a caricature or in any way unfair. But I'm also willing to entertain, offer and discuss alternative formulations. Freakshownerd has proposed no such alternatives and appears to prefer accusing me of slander to discussing the sources.

I'm also at a loss to understand how "routine editing dispute" applies when an editor passes 3RR repeatedly; accuses others of lying, distortion, slander and all manner of nefarious intent; refuses to discuss controversial edits on the talk pages but readily forum shops; and issues a veiled threat about potential subpoenas. It's disturbing to me that nothing has been done to address this behaviour, not even the placement of a single template message on the user's talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Having not read more than the extended quote above, it seems that he does indeed not say HIV tests detect, at the best, the absence of HIV, i.e., a past, vanquished infection instead of a present virus but that he in fact says the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself - I am at a loss to explain how a person who otherwise exhibits above average reading comprehension would so easily be able to go from one to the other. I don't know when the extended quote was made, but I can see that around the time of the journal articles he cites there were issues with false positives noted by the CDC. Unomi (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the difference between false-positive ELISA results (as in the article you cite) and false-positive HIV test results, please stop by my talk page. It's a common error to conflate the two, although the (moderate) complexity of HIV testing has also been intentionally exploited by people with odd ideas about HIV/AIDS.

Re: Jimbo, I think we can reach a consensus representation that will be honest with the reader, fair to the subject, and satisfactory to involved editors (I agree we're not there yet). Personally, though, I'm not going to touch the article with a ten-foot pole until I see Freakshownerd calm down at least a little bit, because I don't think it's worth it until that happens. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Freakshownerd, are you feeling calmer today? :-) Perhaps we can move forward constructively. I would like to repeat that I've not studied the issue in depth, and so I'm not sure that any formulation from me will be all that helpful, but it doesn't seem on the surface to be that difficult. Would it be ok with everyone to say "Johnson argued that the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself" rather than saying "Johnson argued that HIV tests don't test for HIV"? (And this conversation should probably continue at the talk page of the article rather than here.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Frankenstein, I presume?

Thank you very much for commenting on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page. I greatly appreciate not only your logic but your civility.

My heading refers to my observation that Wikipedia has become a monster of sorts. It seems human nature needs checks and balances....and a police force. You are an admirable and rare example of following the rules you make for others, but I see Lord of the Flies playing out here. I'm requesting a stronger regulating authority at Wikipedia--a police force, if you will.

The only other online site in which I participate is FunTrivia, a family-friendly quiz site ruled by a benevolent dictator with a loyal cadre of lieutenants who ensure we adhere to his rules, not least of which is civility. Can you not do the same? I believe we would see much more progress on the encyclopedia if you did.

Here are some of my thoughts: To a fellow editor: Although not designed as such, WP is, among other things, a social experiment, whether Jimbo accepts that fact or not. I've long thought it was similar to the boys on that island [in Lord of the Flies]—a microcosm where human nature takes its inevitable course as the pecking order is established and justice lurches blindly.

To another fellow editor: As you can't help but being aware, I think the article should be titled "Climategate." Nevertheless, we have to work within the framework that is actually present, not the ideal one laid out in the 5 Pillars and the many pages of policy. There are clearly controlling editors who will not even look at the sources we provide, who will not even consider or investigate the fact that "Climategate" is the most common term. Therefore, I think it's in everyone's best interest to lay this issue aside for months--or even years--until history makes this usage impossible to avoid.

To a third fellow editor: I myself find it difficult to let outrageous statements pass, but it seems to be in the best interests of everyone and everything at present. They aren't listening, they don't want to listen, they are entrenched. Trying to convince them only makes them dig in deeper. They're in siege mode, and rightfully so, under an onslaught of evidence they don't want to consider. They are intelligent and, aside from blind spots, informed, so eventually they should wake up and smell the coffee. The article isn't changing right now whether we are silent or adamant, so we may as well try to foster some good feelings that could lead to cooperation later.

Imo, editors such as those to whom I refer in my third comment impede progress, or "keep the article hostage," to use their own terminology. Those who keep arguing against something and who refuse to document their own assertions or investigate the documentation of other editors' assertions should not be allowed to take up time and space on WP pages, again, imo.

Wrt to WP:CIVIL, many times I have seen rudeness such as you addressed regarding "bollocks" allowed to stand, the guilty editor continuing to insult with impunity, and then see that same editor cry "Personal attack!" or shut someone down with WP:CIVIL when the offense was much less or even, so far as I can tell, entirely imaginary. A police force, properly deployed, should be able to curb that kind of behavior.

Thanks for your time, thanks for creating and maintaining Wikipedia, and best wishes, --Yopienso (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple days ago, I suggested that matter be put before ArbCom. In retrospect, I realize the request was largely motivated by my understanding of the stranglehold a few agenda-driven editors have managed to assume in all matters relating to global warming on wikipedia. As far as the Climategate title issue is concerned, at face value, the process is indeed playing out as it should. But beneath the surface, a cancer of manipulation has consumed its integrity the same way it does in all global warming-related matters. The problem is twofold:

1) Objective editors just don't have the patience to police material for objectivity the same way activists do for an agenda.

2) Many well-intentioned editors avoid the subject entirely for fear of being hung in a witchhunt.

Thomas Jefferson summarized the problem best: 'All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.' Too bad he didn't offer any solutions.
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@ K10wnsta, your "understanding of the stranglehold a few agenda-driven editors have managed to assume in all matters relating to global warming on wikipedia" looks rather like a conspiracy theory based on a presumption of bad faith, and possibly on a misunderstanding of the due weight to be given to clear majority views on aspects of global warming. There is indeed "a cancer of manipulation" of mass media information on the subject, driven in part by political ideology, commercial interests and by bloggers with a high opinion of their own rejection of majority expert views on the subject. The political and social aspects of this are not easy to cover objectively, if only because of a shortage of objective sources and a surfeit of polemical sources. Naturally, many editors come to the topic with perceptions based on the mass media and on their sympathies. Wikipedia can give good coverage to such social conflicts, provided editors act in good faith and show willingness to go along with core policies, which become of particular importance when dealing with fringe views and popular pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with your argument is that there has been something of a hijacking of the NPOV policy and a considerable misuse of its UNDUE section, which is now used to exclude significant-minority views, not only tiny-minority ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, a hijacking! The evaluation of significant minority, tiny minority and fringe views on any given topic is of course a matter for evidence from reliable sources and editor discussion on the relevant talk pages. Suitable proposals for specific articles will of course be welcome. . dave souza, talk 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreement

I gotta agree with the spirit of Yopienso's observations even though I have not had that specific problem. The problem I've noticed is that, in our (Wikipedians in general) zeal to enforce some rules, we are forgetting others. FAITH and BITE in particular that are being increasingly disregarded. I think this is partly because it has become so easy to tag articles (and the corresponding talk pages) and rollback revisions that we just do it automatically. We don't stop and think about whether or not the revision was really vandalism (as opposed to just incorrect) or if the editor was intentionally creating a irrelevant article. Tagging articles and rolling back revisions isn't intended to be a personal criticism, but for the person who has been tagged and rolled back, its gotta sting. Does that make sense?

For example, a newbie editor started an article on a local club. But he didn't follow protocol. First he created a redirect, then he created the page, with just the title, then he started writing the article. Well, faster than you could say Wikipedia, the page with just the title had a SPEEDY tag on it. And while I agree that the article, as it stood, was deserving of a SPEEDY delete, the newbie editor, deserved the benefit of GOOD FAITH. But he wasn't going to get it because he was too busy writing his article to realize that it was already up for deletion.--*Kat* (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to not be too quick to shoot first, but an IP or unconfirmed user that has the intention of creating a wikipedia article, should be able to discuss on the talkpage where he would get all the help he required. Or he will find the Wikipedia:Help desk or start a discussion on his talkpage, and a wikipedia editor will assist him as he requests. I think there are plenty of avenues that new users can, and do, go down to get readily available assistance. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page of User vs. Article

I don't get it. - 24.228.98.108 (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page of a user is used to discuss that user's contributions to Wikipedia, while the talk page of an article is used to discuss that particular article. I hope this helps. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)