User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 18

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

not that tiny
My guess is 5 to 10% have that problem in the general population. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse the Wikipedia population for the general population. I might go as high as 5% on Wikipedia, but that's because Wikipedia selects for certain kinds of personalities, and that particular mindset gets concentrated on-project.  In the real world, very few people will publicly advocate for offending others, and not that many would do it privately. We wouldn't hear about them at all if they didn't occasionally try to take over the world.
 * I was talking about people with impaired judgment with regard to offensiveness, who believe it's "too hard". I agree those who advocate the view that offending others is unimportant comprise a smaller percentage. But they are two different traits. -- 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * oh, that… I don't really think that's an impairment, I suspect it's developmental.  Not that many people get past Kohlberg stage 4 in their lifetimes - even people who are otherwise very intelligent don't necessarily make the leap to universality. I mean, they understand the principles of stage 5 and 6 as abstractions, but generally can't see the path to implementing them as practical worldviews.  There's nothing to do about that except to keep the conversation focused on the bigger principles (which, honestly, you and Jayen are better at than I am; I lack your tolerance for more aggressive attitudes).  Universalism always wins out in the end, but it's never an easy or smooth process.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's an impairment. Why do some progress further than others? Some have measurable deficits in the ability to judge or predict others' feelings. That's a significant deficit. I believe it's a biological deficit, the consequences of which can be modified by experience and environment. Like colour blindness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh… that's a fruitless discussion.  we end up pitting social-psychological research with weak evidence against socio-biological research with weak evidence, and it all boils down to opinion and preconceptions.  I prefer the social-psychological explanation mostly because the socio-biological explanation seems to call for us either to give up on ethics as a concept or try to foster it through eugenics, and both options are highly disturbing.  Yes, some people are too set in their ways to change, but half of the battle is making convincing arguments for unseen third parties - the next generation, as it were.  Note that people like Tarc and Robert are very aware of this; that's why they phrase everything in that absolutist, 'everyone-agrees-with-us' mode, which is specifically aimed to invoke conformity fears in readers and convince them through peer pressure. This is just one of those situations where you have to keep your eye on the mile marker but keep your feet going one step at a time.  Things will eventually change.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's a biological deficit at the bottom of most social blindness, knowing that will not inevitably lead to eugenics. Necessarily. Probably not. I think. :/ It would more likely lead to a better understanding between different types of people, and, if it's pathological, possibly a cure. I'm pinning my hopes on neuroscience. Psychology's tolerance of Freud, embrace of Skinner, and finally obsession with cognitive science to the exclusion of feelings leaves me with very little hope for it ever achieving anything useful by way of improving the human condition. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But yes, assuming the biosocial perspective involved, for me, a complete reassessment of the will and moral responsibility. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ordinary evolution requires traits to be generally inherited, with occasional mutations. Similarly, sociocultural evolution requires most people to follow the tribal customs most of the time, with just a bit of independent thinking now and then. And lo and behold that's exactly what happens. Peter jackson (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to put on my professional hat for just a moment. Everyone underestimates the complexity of the human psyche. We have certain biological traits that persist because they are effective traits for preserving the lives of individuals, and certain biological traits that persist because they are effective for advancing the interests of the social group, and layers of cognitive learning that balance, generalize, and integrate the raw material of those biological traits. What happens on wikipedia (on any internet site, actually), is that the balance is changed: we lose the immediacy of non-verbal feedback, so social needs become become less salient and the mind naturally emphasizes the needs of the self. In fact, the only place where there is any 'social' cohesion on wikipedia is around issues of legitimacy and scholarly authority, and so the breakdown we consistently see on project - individuals fighting to express their individual perspectives, cliques gathering around sources and policy statements with an almost religious dogmatism, intense ego involvement and the concomitant fight-to-the-death mentality - these are natural occurrences of minds that have lost track of part of their expected environment. The internet 'primitivizes' people, so that even people who (I assume) are perfectly reasonable and moral individuals in their daily lives can easily turn into ravening trolls. None of the idiotic disputes we have on project would be possible in the real world; sheer shame would prevent half of the arguments that are made from ever being made, and rationality (backed up by the need to have to look each other in the eye) would take care of the rest. But shame is a biological condition that inheres to social contexts, and rationality is a tool designed to suppress individual urges in favor of higher social purposes, and with the loss of a salient social environment neither applies. or better put, one has to put the effort in to assuming a non-visible social environment otherwise shame and rationality are rendered meaningless. Few people on project are aware that they need to make the assumption consciously, and fewer still are capable of doing it easily without the immediacy of social feedback.

Why do you think I inspire such intense anger from people I confront? It's because I consciously and deliberately invoke a social context that's otherwise absent on-project, and thus trigger all sorts of social responses that people have become unaccustomed to (with consequent emotional volatility). Effectively I smack right into any left-over, unresolved psychosocial issue (See Erikson's stages 1-4) a given editor has; unresolved issues that are normally masked by higher social cognition in the real world, but which come out here because the salience of the social world has receded.

It's actually a very interesting occurrence, one which I would normally love to study. It's not one I particularly like living, however.

I'm just being clear about this: I don't think the problem is insoluble, but it's not something that's going to be immediately resolved by an appeal to rationality and common sense. somehow we need to build a new social context in which normal social controls exist, and then the situation will right itself. It's just a question of how that can be accomplished. -- Ludwigs 2 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think rationality is more than just a tool designed to suppress individual urges, it is also composed of at least working memory and attention control. So you're asserting when the average human comes into an internet community like this, the absence of eye to eye interaction reduces their shame response and the impaired shame response induces impaired self regulation. Or relinquished self regulation. Have I understood you? If I've understood you I have to say that never occurred to me. I've been assuming this frontal lobe dysfunction, because that's pretty much what we're talking about here, was driving these editors to the internet because here they can enjoy a sense of community.


 * But, regardless of etiology, we both see the same problem and hopefully we and others can work up a strategy to deal with the situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Stopping by to see how you were doing, I read the above. Cogent analysis, to be sure. I especially like this summary of the WP social milieu:
 * "... individuals fighting to express their individual perspectives, cliques gathering around sources and policy statements with an almost religious dogmatism, intense ego involvement and the concomitant fight-to-the-death mentality..."
 * An apt assessment. I note that you precede it with the comment that the only place where there is social cohesion on WP is "around issues of legitimacy and scholarly authority" and you see this as causing the breakdown often seen here. I would agree with that if you removed the qualifier "only." It seems likely that there are countervailing forces—breakdown and renewal. This is evident in ecosystems (communities of plants). How would it work in human communities? I think it might have something to do with perceived status in the "community." In forums where we reward people for their analysis and policy savvy (i.e., a debate on the finer points of consensus, say) ego will reign, no doubt. On the other hand, if we set up conditions where leanness of expression, ability to conciliate and collaborative problem-solving are rewarded, there can be a different outcome. I admit that such forums are all-too rare. But surely they do exist and perhaps one can even, at times, create them. Sunray (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'breakdown and renewal' in this context, possibly because I don't actually see this as a 'breakdown'. It's natural.  In the absence of an overarching culture, humans will resort to a kind of pre-tribal band organization; that's essentially what we have here, with a few loose tribal structures.  And in fact, band organization isn't intrinsically bad - often bands reflect the kind of liberal egalitarianism that's idealized in more sophisticated cultures.  But bands are inherently group-solipsistic (having an all-encompasing worldview that excludes outside ideas as irrelevant or false), and so we end up with lots of people who cannot distinguish between "My group believes that…" and "It is true that…".   I suppose that might be a breakdown, at least from the perspective of a universalistic worldview.  Is that what you mean?


 * In fact, what we actually get is not a breakdown per se but rather a kind of ideological 'hunting grounds' phenomenon. So long as there's no real ideological competition, editors of different stripes can work around each other peacefully, but as soon as there's a perceived threat to the resource (the resource being hunted here is the belief structure of the reader), then each side is compelled to absorb the other side or drive them out of the 'hunting grounds' utterly. and so we end up with standard band conflict - unsystematic but vicious skirmishes and ambushes involving small groups over a broad range of intellectual territory.  As they say, there is no cabal; it's more like the opening scenes of  A Space Odyssey.


 * Yes, I know I've switched from psychological language to anthropological; Think of it as psychogeny recapitulating anthropogeny…


 * the odd thing is that it's not a difficult problem to fix, particularly since we're mostly dealing with relatively high-functioning, already-acculturated adults: we just need to convince people to adopt and police a culture of rational and civil discourse (similar to what you see in academic contexts) and the system will improve rapidly. However, trying to set up a system of universal discourse freaks out anyone who cannot currently distinguish between We believe that… and It is true that… because they will invariably see universalism as relativism (in which what they know to be true is placed on a level with what they know to be false), and that will invoke trust, authority and ego issues in spades.  and unfortunately, on wikipedia a dedicated band can and will stonewall anything that frightens them; tthe well-known dimensions of inter-band conflict are far less troubling to them than the unknown promises and threats of universalism.


 * but I think I've babbled on a bit excessively - I do that when I'm avoiding work (and when I'm not avoiding work, truth be told).  my apologies.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "psychogeny recapitulating anthropogeny": teenage culture seems to have a lot of similarity to those of primitive tribes or the Dark Ages. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. The culture of the average high school, based as it is on gossip, factions, scapegoating, banishment and so on, has much in common with tribal cultures.
 * Ludwigs2, it was you who first spoke of "breakdown." You said: "so the breakdown we consistently see on project..." I was just reacting to what you said. I don't actually see it as true breakdown either, because, like ecosystems, there is a constant process of renewal. But, returning to the anthropological metaphor, I like your "ideological hunting ground" analogy. So my question is: How can we create conditions where editors rise beyond the primitive in their relations? Sunray (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, you're right. my apologies.


 * There are a couple of different avenues for how we could rise above that primitivized behavior, depending on how high we want to reach and how exactly we want to conceptualize it. the key in any case is to create and enforce certain behavioral norms - basically require the bands and individuals to conform to a consistent over-arching mode of interaction (simulating cultural norms and constraints).  A mid-level approach to this would be to take existing policy about civility and enforce it stringently: that's basically a penalty box approach where being rude, hostile, or otherwise acting out in socially unpleasant ways gets one blocked from the project for a day (a purely corrective, non-escalating block).  When people are faced with the choice of discussing things civilly or getting in a zinger and then cooling their heels for 24 hours, they will rapidly learn to be civil.  That will allow talk page discussions to progress in a much more calm and rational manner.


 * A higher level approach would be to flesh out a proper set of procedures for consensus discussion and enforce those. If we had proper discussion procedures there would be no interminable talk page discussions, because all of the tricks that get used to prolong talk page discussions (variations of IDHT behavior, ridiculous exaggerations, fear-mongering, etc.) would be impossible to pursue.  that's a far more complex task, involving a number of principles that people are not easily going to accept (e.g. proper rational discussion generally prohibits 'non-responsive' responses, so that people can't avoid the flaws in their own reasoning by shifting the topic), and would probably require an extension of medcab to act as moderators for structured discussion.  It's a really cool idea, IMO, similar to a lot of efforts at direct democracy that I've seen, but it would be almost impossible to sell at this stage of the game because there has to be a consistent appreciation for universalism before direct democracy is conceivable.  at the current social level of the project direct democracy would be interpreted by the vocal minority as an attempt to impose an authoritarian regime that will suppress them.  madness...


 * The first-step problem in all of this is finding some way to rein in the the people who are going to scream bloody murder at anything they interpret as a limitation on their freedom. The act of making the project a civilized culture simply requires certain infringements on personal liberty for the good of the project, and that's going to be a very bitter pill for some established editors.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, some kind of order needs to crystalise if we want to approach the ideal of "sound argument trumps !votes." In reality, because of the chaotic nature of "debate" here, consensus always boils down to counting !votes.
 * I have a proposal that I'd like to try out at WT:NOT, to see if we can't boil off the noise there and refine the argument/s for and against change. It was ignored on that page. What do you think? "Once it's clear no new arguments are being put forward here by the same handful of editors for and against, then I'd like to see proponents and opponents of change compose a succinct statement of the case for and another of the case against, and lead the new RfC with those statements (as proposed here by AerobicFox)."I envisage both teams working simultaneously on their statement, honing and revising in response to the others' statement as it evolves, until both teams are satisfied their case is as solid as it can be, at which point we take them to a widely advertised RfC. I'm inclined to at least begin the RfC as a simple unstructured discussion, and follow with... not sure; possibly another revision of the case for and against, possibly a !vote, as you might after a formal debate. I think this model may have merit and, since it was proposed by someone mostly arguing for the status quo, there's a chance editors on both sides of this "debate" may be willing to give it a try. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm saying I'd like to work with you to achieve some shared aspirations for the project. We disagree, I think, in our attitude toward Freud, and probably psychoanalysis too - but I know little about the two so may well have it wrong. I'm not sure where we stand with regard to acupuncture. As far as this project is concerned, I'd like to see ordinary human courtesy being exercised here, both in inter-editor behaviour, and in the way we deal with our readership.
 * I can't begin to express the seriousness with which I take this aspiration. I believe that impoliteness between editors makes this a toxic social environment, and I'm not a bit surprised we're converting fewer readers to editors; and impoliteness toward our readers (that is, the rest of the human race) will cost the project dearly.
 * Jayen, I think shares this aspiration, and there are others. I'd like us to construct an argument, an essay, really, about what we see is the problem and what are our options, and present it to a well-advertised RfC, along with the argument from those advocating no change. Would you be interested in collaborating in that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, with no snide remarks, and nothing intended as directed at either of you, I hope you don't mind if I make one little observation. There is a third category. There are people who are highly (or to some decent degree) against offending others, but understand that the only way to come as close as possible to creating an accurate encyclopedia means people (often including themselves) will be offended by something they find there. I've fought against removing things that offend me for that very reason. History has become a jumbled mess of half-nonsense over the centuries, with entire classes of historians trying to make the records more accurate and remove candy-coating and biases inserted because of compromises to prevent offense. I hate offending anyone. But I understand the need to not consider it in making an encyclopedia (which, btw, is vastly different from those few who seem to enjoy offending others). Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Robert: I wish I could get you to understand that the difference between your position and mine is merely a matter of degree. You treat me like I want to give carte blanche to every halfwit with a per peeve when in fact I'm just more cautious than you.  I want to make sure that if we're going to offend people's faith we have a good encyclopedic reason to do so, and aren't just stepping on their toes because of some bureaucratic nonsense.  that's all.


 * Anthony: I missed your last post in the shuffle. yes, that sounds like an interesting idea.  the only question is…  where to start?!?  lol  -- Ludwigs 2  03:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, I wasn't talking about our positions. And I wasnt mentioning you or your actions, not even through implication. I even agree with your last sentence (to me) above. I've never disputed that. My earlier comment was intended to help you. If you paint the "opposition" in a black and white nature, you'll push away people who would possibly otherwise support such an initiative - thus my point above was to remind you it isn't a black and white situation - don't alienate other editors by making such claims once this thing gets going.
 * Earlier, I'd offered to help you with an RfC of a similar nature, and I truthfully meant that offer. I think one of the biggest problems you have (not that I don't either - but I'm not the one pursuing an RfC or similar attempts) is that when you paint opponents and supporters into one group or another, people stop listening to you. AND, (second problem), when you bring up your personal feelings, that may happen to coincide with legitimate reasons for adding or removing things, you ALSO hurt your chances of people listening. If policy or guideline says "Y", then leave it at that... don't bring up your personal "Reason Z" as people will suspect your motives. Gotta remember, let's assume your motives are 10000.999% pure, regardless of your personal feelings; we both know there have been numerous editors who've tried twisting policies to fit their agenda. So, don't put yourself in a position where people will suspect the same from you.
 * As for the RfC proposal, I've actually been giving it a lot of thought, but I've been working 16 hour days (till yesterday). As I said a while back, I think I do have an idea that may gain some level of support. It actually addresses (specifically) what you wrote above, what I've been saying, and what the resolution, policies and guidelines say. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  05:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Robert, I don't know what you're talking about. the only thing I do that resembles 'painting opponents and supporters into one group or another' is to point out when people use bad reasoning; that pisses people off, I know, but bad reasoning is bad reasoning.  And I almost never talk about my personal feelings (you still have no idea what my personal attitude about those Muhammad images is).  The only reason that I'm talking about people here is that you collectively represent a curious social problem: I cannot for the life of me figure out how to communicate what strikes me as very simple and basic reasoning.  The problem is actually the diversity of issues I'm running into: You and I (I think) are simply talking past each other; Tarc has an uncompromising worldview that's hard to crack with reason; Kww and Thryduulf are reasonable, but start from a set of assumptions that are odd from any normal socio-cultural perspective.  one-on-one with any single one of you I could reasonably quickly reach an understanding, but the mob atmosphere of these pages makes reasoning almost entirely futile: what I say to convince one person is instantly misinterpreted by someone else, and round it goes.


 * I'm content to let you and Jayen hammer out the details of the compromise: you seem to communicate better with him, and there's of the knee-jerk hostility that people display towards me. If there's anything I can do to help without getting in the way, please let me know. -- Ludwigs 2  06:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah... let me clarify briefly... it was one simple point to you and Anthony: painting those who oppose as (both your statements combined) "[...]offending others is unimportant comprise a smaller percentage. But they are two different traits" - "oh, that… I don't really think that's an impairment, I suspect it's developmental.[...]" is what I was saying I'd avoid, hence I brought up another group - the one I fit into. It wasn't meant as anything more or less. Just a suggestion that I'd avoid blanket characterizations; people might take it personally, and we both know that hurts one's position even if that position has merit.
 * As to the topic at hand, I've got no problems working with you. I think our conversations have been rather civil of late - and even if they weren't, I'm still not the type to dismiss an argument because of feelings towards the person who presented it (though, honestly, I've got no ill feelings towards you). And perhaps, because as you noted, you've got strong opposition towards you (as opposed to the specific idea or ideas you present), we can hash out something here for one of the others of us to present. So...
 * I'm seeing a few categories that need to be addressed. (1) offense and the repercussions (this I see as the tough one - even for people like me who don't like offending, but see the need to ignore it as rationale), (2) reasoning for including or removing content - and how to judge the validity of such, (3) the resolution, its applicability (and in some areas, lack thereof), (4) touching on other related policies and guidelines, and (5) special case exceptions - or lack thereof.
 * On one of the other pages, Thryduulf and Jayen had a conversation about penises and moles. I think it is a good example of dealing with "offense", "censorship" and other such topics properly. To summarize (in case you didnt see it), the conversation was touching on (paraphrased summary) "Here's an article on moles. Here's a picture of a mole on a penis" - part of the criteria I suggested should be applied, which alleviate the need to look directly at either offense or censorship as removal/inclusion criteria is "when someone looks at this, what's the first thing that comes to mind?". I posited that if I were to look at such a picture, I'd see the penis, and then note it had a mole - thus it wasn't a picture of a mole that happened to be on a penis, but instead was a picture of a penis, that happened to have a mole on it. Inotherwords, wrong picture. The key element of the picture; that which the eye and mind are drawn to, is not the mole. Deals with sidestepping both censorship and offense in one blow. In the case of Muhammad, I personally think we should have one or two unveiled pictures of him (ie: not discussing historical event pictures). There isn't a need for more, since the pictures available are not sitting portraits or photos of "here's Muhammad at 18... and 32... and 38..." - if those were available, I could see a greater reason for including more - but they don't exist.
 * Here's the problem I've run into with dealing with this. Wording. I'm not always the best at such (the problem part), but I *do* know that the wording cannot create a scenario where any fringer or any POV pusher can use "objection" or "offense" as grounds to remove what they don't like. This is also a double edged sword, as we've noted, because there are those improperly trying to apply wp:censor in similar incorrect fashions. I'd like to see something written to fix both censor and offense so they can't be abused. And I'm stuck on the wording. I'm pretty decent at copy editing or even entire rewrites of others content (and co-earned a couple GAs doing just that), but not so good to start.
 * So, those are the issues I see that all need to be addressed to have any chance of gaining support - if you all cannot finish such a proposal on your own, I'd be happy to polish up something if you all could throw out thoughts on wording. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Robert: Without disagreeing with what you say too strenuously (because as I said, I think we are talking past each other more than disagreeing). please allow me to make a couple of points:


 * With respect to the 'development' issue… it's an unavoidable fact that people have different levels of cognitive development. We may be created as political equals, but our understanding of the world develops constantly over our lifetimes, and everyone is at a different place.  Real world contexts accommodate these differences and (for the most part, with some glaring exceptions) foster more rational cognition.  Wikipedia ignores these differences and tends to foster lower-level cognition.  I'm sorry to say it, but some of the people on your side of the debate have an unwaveringly dogmatic attitude that puts religious fundamentalists to shame, and for pretty much the same reason: they have decided that they "know the truth" (that's what the talk about 'secularism' boils down to, and why their's such a strong tendency to cast all opposition as fanaticism), and they respond to challenges to 'their truth' with intensely thougthless and rigid opposition.  we talk about religious fanaticism and the problems it poses for the encyclopedia all the time; why shouldn't we talk about secular fanaticism as well?


 * As for the point about offense: I agree with what you say about penises and moles, but I need to point out that you are just 'coding' offense in different terms. Objectively, a picture of a mole is a picture of a mole, and it shouldn't make a difference whether it is on a penis or a finger.  But as you say, a picture of a mole on a penis draws the eye to the wrong object, and it draws the eye to the wrong object because the other object in the picture is easily recognized as causing offense.


 * just to be clear, we're talking about this and not this, right? because the second is significantly more weird…


 * However, if you really want to go with this 'key element' approach and get away from the 'offense' terminology, then I'd suggest we pull out the old psych concept of 'Salience'. That would be something like: "Material should not draw the reader's attention to secondary issues, but should directly support the text of the article. Care should be taken that the most salient aspect of the material is directly appropriate to the topic at hand."  Thus, with the Muhammad images we'd have to acknowledge that the controversy over depictions of the prophet makes the 'depictive' aspect of the images highly salient and draws the reader's attention to the secondary 'controversy' issue.  we would then use such images only where there is a more salient direct-content point (such as demonstrating an art-historical tradition that's discussed in the text).  does that get closer to what you're thinking about?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed close - though I suspect, in the case of images of Muhammad, you will find the exact opposite effect. The number of Muslims affected here is very minor. The number of editors here who are aware of any such "controversy" here is very minor. As a for instance, many people have (erroneously) pointed out that we are offending billions of Muslims. Demographics are available for Wikipedia, and the true amount of Muslims who read Wikipedia is staggeringly low. Before you think I'm going in a certain direction with this, let me clarify. I'm not passing judgement on how many people are a valid number to offend or ignore. My point is (a) I agree with your wording but (b) I believe that, on Wikipedia, the results will not be what you suspect because of the small number of people who are of the Islamic faith or even know anything about it. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, hm. I'm curious if you know what response I'm going to give to this.  By all rights you should, since it's something I've been talking about forever, but it may be that you just don't see it yet, and it would be helpful to me to know which is the case.


 * The problem with what you've said is that we don't write the encyclopedia for Wikipedia editors (or for any specific group, for that matter). The encyclopedia is written for a general audience - that means (ideally) that we write for a broadly multi-cultural audience.  It doesn't matter that Wikipedia's historical Muslim readership is small; we need to write with the potential Muslim readership in mind, and that is a very large group indeed.  Please note that the number of female editors is comparatively small as well, but I doubt that you would suggest that Wikipedia can offend women with impunity.


 * Setting that aside, however, you've misunderstood the notion of salience. Even though we have a small community of Muslim editors, any reader who is not a hermit living on a remote mountaintop is aware that there is a controversy of depictions of the prophet (if only because of the media frenzy over the Jyland-Posten cartoons).  Any editor who spends more the 10 minutes around the muhammad article is immersed in the issue.  Whatever one's religious beliefs or feelings about the issue, an image of the prophet will call to mind the controversy, and the controversy will become salient.  In fact, it will inevitably be the most salient aspect of the image for a significant portion of our readership, unless the image is connected solidly to something in the text, so that the readers' attention is drawn away from the image to the text.  As you say, there is room in the article for a couple of images of the prophet (precisely because there is a controversy and an art-historical tradition to be discussed).


 * Honestly, Robert, the main issue I have with your perspective is that you seem to be defending the right to use the images without justification. I respect you wanting to have the right to use the images where they are appropriate and useful - that's an important principle - but you all go to far in trying to assert the right to use the images without question.  Every image choice should be open to discussion, and efforts to block off discussion (or parts there of) in an unthinking, programmatic manner are antithetical to the spirit of the project.  I don't understand why you feel the need to hold out for that more extreme 'no discussion possible' standard.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you confuse my responses on that talk page over there with others. I've never implied or stated such (the "without justfication" part) - hence I've even suggested an image be removed (Black Stone) because it had no relevance (or a section on it be written if that section would be relevant to his biography). I've stated numerous times that policies and guidelines need to be properly applied everywhere including the Muhammad article in deeming whether content (image or otherwise) should be included or removed. As for justification, I posted numerous numerous paragraphs on why myself (and many many others) found such images educational, relevant, informative, etc. On the "no discussion" part, I've never held that position. The closest I've held is "If Person A has said this 4 dozen times and gotten the same answer, then it's time to end the discussion - things aren't going to change". And the only part of discussion I want to block off is "it's against my (pick any) religion, political beliefs, personal beliefs, corporate policies, etc" - that's not relevant, as policy is currently worded, as criteria for deeming the relevance of content. Policy needs to change, or those conversations need to be ignored. And if you spend the (ugh) days it would take to read that whole conversation, you'll note that's the only thing I ever bring up wp:censor for... religious censorship, governmental censorship or censorship based on personal beliefs.
 * I think if you re-read all of that, you'd even note that I address every other concern you bring up. You say (grossly paraphrased) "it offends millions of Muslims, and they provide no value to the article" and I tell you (gross paraphrase again) "I don't care about religious offense and dictates as criteria (trump out wp:censor), and as for the value part, here's why I find value (educational, relevance, etc, with some level of explanation)" - most who want the images removed stop at the "I dont care about religious offense as justification (wp:censor)..." part and pretend I didnt address the portions actually covered by policy.
 * Now as for the numbers, I agree Wikipedia should be written for the world. I was ONLY pointing out that the "billions of offended Muslims" statements I've seen trumped out are ridiculous nonsense. Even if EVERY Muslim who comes to Wikipedia was offended, it would still be a tiny percent. The point was thus, such grossly incorrect statements by others "offending billions" dont help the argument and are the wrong road to take.
 * And the only other thing I'm against are silly attempts to substitute something for what it is clearly not - calligraphy is not a representation of how a human figure was perceived to have looked. It is a calligraphic representation indicating the person - but not their perceived looks. The same goes for images (many of which were defaced) that specifically were intended to not show how he was perceived to look. Substituting something that had the exact opposite intent is rather silly. No one intended either such category as a representation of what people thought Muhammad looked like - and us attempting to use them for such is ludicrous. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  20:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated
Hi. Would you mind concisely summarising what you think the image use problem is here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you
It's up to you, of course, but I thought you agreed to stay away from Talk:Muhammad/images. It looked to me like they were doing fine there without you or me. It looked like they were staggering towards a reasonable consensus. I fear that your engagement there may derail that process. I may be wrong. But would you consider stepping back for a while longer and seeing what happens? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I said I'd stay off the page for a month. what's the problem?  Do you think my posts are unreasonable?  are they hostile?  I cannot help the fact that some of the editors there want to cast me in a negative light (some people just can't help personalizing), and if my mere participation is enough to prevent a compromise from occurring then, well…  trust me, that compromise was never going to occur.


 * I'm under no obligation not to post there, but I'll give it some thought. -- Ludwigs 2  17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Decisions on WP
A while back you engaged with Martin Hogbin about the way WP arguments are handled. You made the statement that "The nice thing about consensus systems for Wikipedia is that it places power where it ought to be for an encyclopedia - on reason and informative sources." Of course, I am dragging this remark out of context. I just wonder if it actually expresses your opinion about how WP works, or instead, if it is a statement about how a consensus system is supposed to work in principle?

My personal experience is that the decision process on WP sometimes works when a few editors on a Talk page can come to terms over subject matter (a rare event). If that does not happen, and recourse is made to ANI or to ArbCom, or perhaps a strolling Administrator decides to settle matters themselves, then the result is entirely arbitrary and the actions taken will have no necessary relation to the problem or its resolution. Any connection to fact or reason becomes accidental. Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd add to this a conjecture that a contributing factor to the malaise is that Administrators are presently immune to any consequences to their actions, except from other Administrators. This ingrown community that rules with impunity for life has no incentive to improve the content or conduct of affairs on WP. Their motivations are a subject for speculation. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I just read your contributions to this discussion of Attrition and find myself in complete agreement with your observations of WP activity. Brews ohare (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The comment you quoted refers to how a properly designed consensus system would improve the project. As of now (and as you point out), Wikipedia does not have anything resembling a consensus system except in the margins ('the margins' meaning articles that are entirely non-controversial and attract attention from very small numbers of editors).  For the most part, 'consensus' is just a word editors use when they want someone else to shut up, which is fantastically ironic.    Doing something about it, though, is a hell of an uphill battle; no one seems to want a better Wiki.  any suggestions?  -- Ludwigs 2  16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The figure to the right shows the number of formal arbitration cases has dropped to about 12 per year. To me, that indicates formal arbitration has proved unsuccessful and is no longer a factor in WP activity. Which is fine: the process was no good because it suffered from the same squabbles as everything else. Which is not fine: now arbitrary decisions by single Administrators govern many disciplinary actions without even a pretense of fact finding.
 * Fixing things? It is not an uphill battle, it is a lost battle. With no mechanism to unseat Administrators that are derelict, no way to motivate responsible behavior, nothing can be done within the system. It remains for editors on Talk pages to engineer some methodology for forming consensus by inventing their own sub-domain where their own rules apply. That was tried with success for a brief time on the global warming pages by adopting a consensus procedure. Maybe something like that can be worked out. If so, it will surely come to the attention of Administrators that they have become simply the lackeys of Talk page requests to enforce sub-domain rules. I don't know how that will play out. Brews ohare (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that such a Talk page consensus already exists among some editors, possibly informally or possibly engineered by e-mail or personal contact. Unfortunately, some of those that have formed cabals to enforce their views so far have been motivated by a kind of video-game entertainment and have little interest beyond their own amusement. Others are motivated by fanaticism or politics. Brews ohare (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It may come to pass that certain groups of Administrators will band together for the good of WP. In view of the "no revert" rule, a pre-emptive ruling by one Admin precludes any action by others, without a protracted hearing of some kind, so such a group by being diligent could strongly affect the course of events.
 * What I am forecasting I am afraid, is a balkanization of WP into fiefdoms. Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Such generalizations! "Formal arbitration has proved unsuccessful..." "Fixing things... is a lost battle." As if arbitration was ever better than now. As if there was anything to fix. When was Wikipedia better than now? In the mythical early days after it was initiated? Back in 2007 when you began editing articles on electricity? Or was it in the months prior to the time you wrote Jimbo in 2009, believing that there actually was a "benevolent dictator" who would fix things? It seems to me that fiefdoms are what people create when faced with the vagaries of primitive social behavior. Can positivistic prescriptions help us back to the mythical kingdom? The presumption of creating an encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Is that not Quixotic?! revision as of Sunray (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were to make a prescription at this point (given pages of discussion here, at Wikipedia talk:Consensus, Talk: Jimbo Wales, and elsewhere) it would be a Gandhian one: WP:CIV, WP:CON, and all the fine behavioral policies and guidelines should be taken to heart by each of us. We can, and should, encourage others to do so, but if we try to dictate the change, we will likely fail. In other words: "Be the change..." Sunray (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Brews is annoyed, and understandably so: the current system on project really sucks. But with respect to your prescription…  While I would normally agree with the Gandhian way, it relies on presence, which is something that simply doesn't exist on the internet.  Very difficult problem to get around…  -- Ludwigs 2  21:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that there needs to be presence. Gandhi had millions of followers, of course. But if there are enough people who believe that WP:CIV is essential guidance and practice it. And if we could come up with some simple groundrules for the application of WP:CON, things might look very different around here. In the meantime, Brews can take heart that his work has made a difference. He can continue with that work and tune out the background noise... Then things might not look so hopeless. But humans are a capricious species and panaceas are generally not available. Sunray (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sunray, I guess by your handle that you are an optimist. The notion that WP:CIV and WP:CON can serve as vehicles for improvement is a stretch in an environment populated by bullies seeking self-validation by seeing their weight thrown about. If that group consisted only of lowly editors, it would not be critical, but they also include Administrators. WP is a study for psychologists to figure out just how a stodgy project like an encyclopaedia can become a magnet for such behavior. While one might see the public face of WP as interesting if real people were running things, its hard for me to understand how promoting a pseudonym like Headbomb or Elen of the Roads as some mythic figure contributes to self-esteem. But then, I don't play Dungeons & Dragons either. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thanksgiving
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thanksgiving. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

AN
I've broached the idea of an article ban for you on Muhammad, here. This is very hard for me because I think, apart from Hans Adler, you're the person with whom I most agree on this issue. I certainly won't support any other sanctions based on your present or past behaviour, I have no doubt about your good intentions, or the rightness of your position here, but I can't engage on that talk page while all that bickering is going on. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Que sera, sera. If people want to topic-ban me for being persistently eloquent, reasonable, and ethical, well… that would be interesting. However, allow me to point out that if I were worried about posterity I'd write articles and books - I'm more than qualified to do that - and I wouldn't bother trying to gain glory by posting pithy comments from an anonymous user account on articles at the ass-end of an ego-ridden internet project.  As I've said before, the only reason I bother with this is because I think wikipedia is a good idea that ought to be done well.  If you're going to psychologize me, at least give me credit for what's obvious.


 * You ought to be careful what you wish for. What you really want on project is more people who think like me, not less of me in particular.  Having one of me is a pain (for you and me both), because I have to stand up and take endless lumps until a critical mass of rational editors develops - very unpleasant for everyone involved (except the people dishing out the lumps).  If it were more the norm, that critical mass would develop quickly, this kind of entrenched nonsense would never develop, and life would be far better all around.  But, whatever…  -- Ludwigs 2  08:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Question for you at FTN
. My apologies if it comes across as snappish, the discussion sprawling across four sections of two noticeboards is maddening in it's collection of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Not particularly surprising since the pure volume of text and unnecessary repitition is daunting. The page itself hasn't changed in substance since December 10th. At this point it would be quicker to simply ask people to read the sources, their use in the page and judge based on that. A very reasonable request since the total volume of text would be on the order of perhaps 500 words. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries; responded there. -- Ludwigs 2  21:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will look over there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Redact
Hi. I nominated redact for deletion here: Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 22. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you've made a procedural error. This is the second deletion nomination for this template, and that should be reflected in the request.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to fix it. I tried to follow the instructions, but the whole deletion nomination process is so horrible and hackish that it's apparently nearly impossible to nominate anything properly without the assistance of user scripts. Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South Asia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images
If any editor states that their position has an unassailable consensus please just ignore them. They are only making themselves look more unreasonable by doing so - and replying over and over doesn't achieve anything beyond making you look unreasonable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not paying too close attention to this case, but in general, I agree. Repeatedly responding to everyone's posts - even if you are right - just makes you look argumentive.  Sometimes, less is more.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * noted. -- Ludwigs 2  18:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom etiquette
I am a listed party in the current ArbCom case, so I would be grateful if you could refactor the comment you added referring to me as a stalker. Stalking does exist on wikipedia: if you want to see an extreme example, take a look at the archives of Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason you are a participant in this arbitration (which is something I'd forgotten, incidentally; sorry) is that you showed up out of the blue at the ANI case to try to drum up sanctions against me and stuck around to make a few productive comments. You may not be a worst case stalker, but you have clearly been hunting me. Tell me,  when I look, am I going to find that you fed NoFo those three-year old diffs that he entered into evidence? I'm pretty sure you've entered those against me yourself in one of your numerous assaults on me over the past year, and I don't see NoFo as the type to go digging around in ancient history looking for dirt.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, your comments about stalking have been redacted by the clerk as unhelpful. Please don't do that again. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. just go back to editing the encyclopedia (which you do well), and get off my back, and we'll be fine.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know where?
You have been through admin contests before. Can you tell me where to post a request for clarification about sources. I am thinking that two old arbitration cases apply. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science Principles: Prominence and Advocacy

And Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal Principles: Neutral point of view, Basis for inclusion, Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content; Finding of fact: Advocacy, and after looking around at who is still editing, Chilling effect

I am attracting a host of Skeptics in the Mediumship article who are rejecting the Journal of Scientific Exploration. They prefer a mediocre article using references from the likes of Carroll and Shermer. I tried to include Super-psi Hypothesis and psychopathology as criticisms of mediumship and they think I am just pushing psi. Tom Butler (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice
Take a 24 hour break from the Muhammad images workshop. There is nothing crucial about the workshop, and it appears that you are letting yourself get too worked up about it. Everything will still be here in a day's time. NW ( Talk ) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, seemingly true and probably wise. thanks.  See you there in a day or two (or maybe three…)  -- Ludwigs 2  00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Thank you for reinforcing my point. It's not limited to Wikipedia, as similar control-freak work has been done at various other internet collaboration projects, all in the name of "consensus". The term is worthy of support in theory, but in actuality it only works with a stable group of people, all of whom are involved in, or at least invited to, all discussions. Not at all like Wikipedia. So far Jimmy has acquiesced in all the steps down the primrose path. Admins are encouraged to run wild, with no consequences. Project rules, reached by an actual consensus of members, are freely ignored as being irrelevant to any article. "Discussions" are supposedly limited to those currently working on an article, with inviting others being a blocking or banning offence. In reality that often means two people, or two people plus the "friends" on one of the people, who contacts them by means outside of Wikipedia. "Consensus" may be proclaimed after only a day or two, when it's clear to any disinterested observer that no consensus has been reached at all. For something like deleting all instances of a template, it can be quite time-consuming and discouraging to replace them, but that's only one example. This is the sort of thing which kills collaboration projects, and I don't understand the determination to gloss over the obvious problems and pretend everything is working perfectly. Jimmy goes ballistic over Bell Pottinger, but only because of the people doing it. Others do the same thing, for who knows what reason, but he has no problem with that. Odd. 99.50.186.111 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You forget (as does almost everyone) that the internet is still in its cultural childhood. Yes, it's mostly gotten past the (pardon my Freudianism) anal-expulsive phase where you couldn't go anywhere on the 'net without tripping over someone spewing out disgusting material for shock value, but it still isn't a 'grown up' place.  we can badger Jimbo about it all we like (and there's an 'issue raising' value in doing so), but that will only have marginal effects.  Right now the dominant attitude on project is peri-adolescent (a near-obsessive concern with establishing the self as authoritative, without any of the authenticity that comes from acknowledging socio-cultural interdependence); it will still be the better part of a decade (at minimum) before places like wikipedia start developing cultural maturity, and maybe as much as twenty years before it becomes a largely mature, civilized place.


 * Yeah, twenty years is an eternity on the internet, I know, but try as we might cultural changes only happen generationally. -- Ludwigs 2  04:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Is a tailored parsing template useful?
About intricate parsing templates. I want to use, and I know the hex string length is 6 value positions max: 0x0 -- 0xhhhhhh. Is it useful to specify the hex input, or even create some tailored template, to reduce resources needed? The input to expect are Unicode code points, which actually range to 0x10000 maximum (so the first position of six can be either 0 or 1). Zero prefixes can be present, all up to 6 hex characters total. Omitting the "0x" prefix may very well be required (by the template). -DePiep (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a complex issue. obviously, more complex templates require more raw processing power, but templates are usually cached on the server - only creating a drain when the template data is changed - so unless you expect a particular template to have its data changed frequently (or possibly are working on a page with a high volume of edits) resources should not be a huge issue.  It doesn't hurt to make a simplified template for your particular purpose, but it's probably only valuable if expect the template to be used on a lot of different pages (and that's mostly for the convenience of editors, not so much a resource issue)


 * I'm also not certain what advantages you'd get by making a dedicated template. the processor-intensize element of this template is the weird process by which it extracts individual letters, converts then to decimal, and sums them.  You'd still have to do that even if you knew the length of the string before hand; all you'd be saving on is a single switch (the subtemplate Hex2dec/1).  without knowing more about what you're trying to do, it's hard to judge beyond these general comments.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the string length issue is not that heavy, so it is not worth a specialised template. I can use the regular template then. What I want to do is convert the hex to dec (of course) and then use the decimal value to map the number to a block range (using ">" &tc. numerical comparision in decimals, which is not available in hex). I already used this in to determine the General Category of a code point. In that set of templates I have already organised that the calculation is only done once for multiple uses (by using subtemplates). Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant sexual assault case
If you could make your view on WP:BLPNAME known at Talk:Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case, it would be beneficial to that discussion, since Wnt, who has disagreed with you on Jimmy Wales' talk page, has joined that Bryant talk page discussion as well. Nightscream (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I really appreciate your participation in the discussion. One thing, though: can we please restrict the portion of the discussion dealing with whether to include the accuser's name to the article talk page (where a discussion on this has been ongoing since December 9), so that we don't have it in two different places? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment on Jimbo's page was general, not specific to that issue. -- Ludwigs 2  00:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh?
I don't understand And hello! Did you really just say that it's intellectually dishonest not to argue against images aren't offensive to anyone? You might want to think that point through a bit… Too many negatives for my limited recursive faculties. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you asking me to clarify for you here, or to revise it on the case page? or both?


 * I'm sure you understand what I mean, even though what I said was convoluted - you said much the same thing yourself. Resolute's odd logic is as follows:
 * He notes that we suggest the images are not images do not actually depict Muhammad or his deeds, and that this is why we claim they are of strictly limited value
 * He notes that there are other images (Edward I, Jesus, etc) which are equally non-depictive, and the we do not object to them
 * He refuses to acknowledge that offense plays any role whatsoever in the issue
 * Because he believes 3, he asserts that case 1 and case 2 are strictly equivalent
 * Therefore, he claims we are intellectually dishonest because we want to treat 1 and 2 differently
 * It's a complex variant of the fallacy of four terms. He asserts we are using a syllogism of the sort:
 * Trivial images should not be used
 * Images on article X are trivial
 * Therefore, images on article X should not be used
 * and complains that we only apply the logic on some articles X. But his first premise effaces the primary distinction that we're trying to make, so his conclusion (and subsequent complaint) are logically invalid. -- Ludwigs 2  15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I get it now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't really fair Ludwigs. Of course we acknowledge that offense plays a role, insofar that your camp believes that these images are offensive and should be restricted on those grounds, and I at least fully acknowledge that many Muslims find these images offensive.  My point (I don't say "our" because I'm not sure if they would concur with both my points) is two fold: 1.  That policy is specific in regards to religious consideration and 2. That offense shouldn't play a role in this decision making.  I know you think it should - that's totally fine and I respect your opinion on the matter.  I also know that you think policy should change - and again, I completely respect your opinion and your right to attempt to modify WP into your vision.  Let me phrase it logically


 * If offense is irrelevant then depictions of Jesus are equivalent to depictions of Muhammad
 * Offense is irrelevant
 * Therefore depictions must be treated equally


 * And


 * If offense is relevant then depictions of Muhammad are not equivalent to depictions of Jesus
 * Offense is relevant
 * Therefore depictions must be treated differently


 * Obviously the contentious aspect is whether offense is relevant. I say it isn't, you say it is. Cool, we disagree, np.  No intellectual dishonesty involved there at all.  I think that any accusations at you of dishonesty come from what many perceive (rightly or wrongly) as an attempt to skirt the issue and I personally find that your arguments begs the question:


 * Depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many people
 * These images are trivial in that they are not pictures but depictions
 * Pictures of Jesus are equally trivial but
 * Depictions of Jesus aren't offensive to a large sect of the population
 * Offending people is wrong and/or against policy
 * Therefore the images are not to be treated equivalent


 * The controversial premise is premise #5, of course, as many of us do not accept it. So here's the deal: if pictures of jesus and Muhammad are to be treated differently, then that difference must come from the fact that people are offended by the images.  If you argue that triviality is the only criterion then there is no difference between the two.  However, you have been perceived as attempting at times to obfuscate premise #5 and without #5 the conclusion is non-sequitor.


 * I honestly believe that the entire debate comes down to this one premise, because without this premise there is no difference between the two.  N o f o rmation  Talk  00:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty clear summary of my position, and Ludwigs2's comment below clarifies it further. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You've misinterpreted my perspective, I think. Or at least, you've drastically convoluted the problem (which is nothing to do with you, particularly, but is typical of wikipedia arguments: people get so pit-bullish over tiny details that they lose the real issue).  So let me make my perspective clear.  first, a few pointers:


 * I'm not really concerned about offense to Muslims (or anyone) in general. If the encyclopedia has to do or say something that offends some group in order to be a decent encyclopedia, then the encyclopedia should do or say that thing.  I think we agree on this principle, if not on the details of it.
 * This issue of 'triviality' has been vastly overblown and over-worked. It is a matter of obvious common sense that these images are not vital to the page, but no one on your side wants to acknowledge that moment of common sense, because they are fearful that if they acknowledge it they are going to lose traction in the debate.
 * I'm sick to death of this policy literalism. That clause was added to NOTCENSORED eight months ago with no discussion, and it would have disappeared just as easily except that you guys are clinging to it like drowning men cling to a board.  You're not going to get anywhere by telling me I have to obey policy that is so obviously partisan and so obviously short-sighted; that's not the way policy works on wikipedia.  Until we have a rational way of creating policy, we're going to periodically find this kind of garbage sneak into policy, and any such garbage just needs to be IARed until it can be dealt with properly.


 * What this issue comes down to for me is simple. We are doing something on the Muhammad article that we simply do not need to do (not for any reason related to the encyclopedia, at any rate), but which basically amounts to flipping off an entire religion.  It's the kind of thing I would expect from some bone-headed adolescent - you know, that kind of kid who wears a t-shirt with a picture of dogs humping because in his head it shows how much smarter and cooler he is than adults.  No one thinks the article is going to suffer if those images are moderated a bit, and no one thinks the images are inherently bad; this is all about image, about how Wikipedia is "that cool place where nobody gets to boss us around and we don't have to be nice to people if we don't want to be and those people aren't the kind of people we want in our group anyway so they can just go find another encyclopedia to edit."


 * And yeah, people from your side of the debate have made all of those ridiculous comments, more or less (except for the part about wikipedia being cool - I added that for emphasis)


 * I want Wikipedia to be a grown-up encyclopedia, and part of being grown-up is being considerate of others by default. Grown-ups don't walk around flipping each other off for no reason; though of course they may do it when they have a reason that makes the consequences worthwhile.  Grown-ups are socially cognizant, and (with obvious glaring exceptions) they know better than to get in people's faces when there's no benefit from it.  This is the standard I'm reaching for; clear?  I understand your desire for that bubble-of-detachment, but be sure you're reaching for the academic bubble (which is truly dispassionate and universal) and not falling into the bubble of adolescent solipsism (which callously disregards anything it considers 'less-than').  it's easy to confuse them - they look the same to the unpracticed eye - but we don't want to go there.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)