This is a One-on-one Virtual Conversation Page. Within Wikipedia, "One-on-one Virtual Conversation Pages" act to simulate the effect of a private email conversation, while combining that effect with the effect of the open transparency that is found within the general WP environment itself. The hoped for outcome, is a new form of communication within the Wikipedia environment that might act to combine some the best qualities of both worlds, thus creating new opportunities for hopefully better communications, and better communication outcomes.

Background and overview

This simulated-email-conversation is a conversational-followup which evolved out of an earlier portion of this conversation between editors Scottperry, and Sphilbrick, held at Jimbo Wales' talk page. This is a "virtual" Conversation page, situated under a "Talk page" tab above.

The virtual Talk page for this virtual Conversation page can be found at this page's Post conversation talk page (same as the "user page" tab above.) As it turns out, in this experimental conversation, the "talk" tab and the "user" tab have ended up effectively or functionally being "flipped."

The following simulated-email-conversation is intended to initially be a conversation between only two individuals. These two conversation participants have agreed in advance to participate in this conversation, and to abide by its rules. Simulated-email-conversations may operate under the following six conversation-ground-rules, which may have been agreed to by the conversation participants in advance.

Proposed conversation ground rules

1. No ad-hominem, means that both conversation participants have agreed with one another in advance not to make any personal attacks against the other, either explicitly or implicitly, during the course of their one-to-one conversation. Specifically, this means that both parties have agreed in advance exactly what the subject matter of this conversation will be, and unless the topic happens to be any "potentially critical review of the specific abilities" of either editor, then both parties have agreed that the topic of the conversation will be limited only to the agreed upon conversation topic, unless both participants might first agree to discuss another topic. Both participants reserve the right to politely redirect any part of the conversation that either participant might perceive to be in any way digressing from the original intended conversation topic, back towards the stated and agreed upon conversation topic.
2. Intention of agreement, means that both parties to this conversation have previously agreed that each party will be willing to attempt to seriously consider the ideas being presented by the other, with the ultimate hope for the conversation being that the conversation might end with some mutual explicit agreement between the two parties having been reached between the two participants, before the official end of the conversation.
3. One to one, means that both conversation participants have agreed with one another in advance that one or both participants will politely dismiss any third party who might try to join in on their one-to-one conversation anywhere on this either this "simulated email conversation" page, or on this conversation page's own Talk page, before they have both agreed that they are satisfied that this conversation has finally reached its logical conclusion, after which this Conversation page's Talk page will become open to public comments. Any third party comments made before this conversation has concluded may be subject to deletion. The conversation can be concluded according to any one of the three means of concluding the conversation as listed below:
4. Process for concluding the conversation:

a.Agreed to agree, means that both parties have at any point completed each of the following thrree items:

• They have come to some kind of an agreement, based upon whatever the initially intended purpose of their conversation might have been.
• They have made a good faith attempt to put their agreement into writing, as best they are able.
• They have both explicitly agreed to the wording of their agreement, after the last edit to the "agreement wording" was made.

b.Agreed to disagree, means that if at some point both conversation participants may weary of attempting to convince one another, both participants have agreed in advance that they will each release the other once both have explicitly agreed to disagree.

c.Conversation put on hold, means that both conversation participants have previously agreed that if at any time during the conversation, either participant wishes to "put the conversation on hold," then at that point one or both conversation participants can or will end this attempt at agreement, and may or may not agree to continue the conversation at a later date. Once either participant has "put the conversation on hold", this Conversation page's Talk page becomes open to comment by any interested third parties who may wish to comment. Any third-party comments made before the official end of this conversation may be deleted by either one of the two participants, along with a request to please kindly respect the groundrules of this conversation.

5.  Sig pings, means that in the interest of assisting in making this communication as timely as possible, both participants

agree to ping one another each time they complete a reply to one another, with the hope that said "ping" will be the last edit made to each reply.

6.  Talk page review, means that both discussion participants agree to minimally review this Conversation page's Talk page

approximately 24 hours after the conclusion of this conversation, and if so inclined, to respond to any comments there, to which they may feel inclined to leave a reply to.

Conversation segment 1 by Scott

Hi Sphil,

I think that this was a great idea of yours, to create a unique sort of a page for such a 'simulated email discussion.' Thank you for that thoughtful suggestion about possibly creating a unique type of page like this for just such a type of conversation. I hope you don't mind, but I have also attempted to elaborate above on what might be our conversation-ground-rules for this very conversation. The first "elaboration" I did had to do with the ground-rule #1. I think that you made an excellent point about the exact definition of Ad-hominem. I attempted there to clarify how any critical discussion about anyone's "abilities" might be best dealt with in this discussion format, as best as I was able.

In the spirit of our original intention to have this conversation here, I've also taken the liberty to attempt to add two new ground-rules, one of them with some rather detailed sub-sections, which admittedly, you have not yet agreed to at all. So the very first point of our conversation might be our attempting to agree on what might be the best types of rules we could use in order to productively continue this conversation. If you wouldn't mind, might we start by first trying to come to some form of an agreement as to how the rules above might best be expressed (assuming you agree with the need to express them at all)?

Thanks,

Scott P. ( talk) 22:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

Conversation segment 2 by Sphil

I prefer to just start and see what happens.

You said some things I find intriguing and might be fruitful to explore.

I don't know whether you have seen the community health initiative. I bring it up for two reasons. First, I get the impression that one of your areas of interest is treatment of newer editor's by more established editors, which isn't a perfect overlap with the health initiative but there is enough overlap to make it relevant. If nothing else, I wanted to bring it to your attention because you might be interested, and if not, it will mean I've misjudged your interest. My second reason for mentioning it is that you can see I'm active on the talk page which I mentioned only to show that my interest in the subject is more than casual.

I do think it is possible for establish editors to take advantage of their experience in disputes with newer editors. They will know how to avoid hot button issues, and how to selectively quote policies and guidelines if they are more interested in winning an argument then honestly striving to improve an article. It would be nice if that were rare, but I'm sure it does happen. In fact, I can say that with more certainty. It is been a few years, but I spent some time, unsuccessfully I'm sorry to say, attempting to defend an editor with whom's views I personally disagreed but in a situation where I thought the community was unfairly dumping on the editor.

On a related note, I wish we had a more established mentor program. New editors are often at sea and if we had an established mentorship program, we might forestall certain types of negative interactions, any cases where they do occur, the might be an established editor at least attempting to see the world through the eyes of the newer editor which is often useful.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Scottperry:)

Hi Sphil,

Thanks for your offer to try this probably rather "rickety little proposal" of mine out here. I accept your preference to pass on my request to do a "rule review" first, but only if you might first be able to agree that you would at least be willing to do one with me at the very end of this "conversation."

I certainly agree strongly with your concern for what I have often seen as the very poor mistreatment of Newbies. I also like the idea of getting a better Yin/ Yang balance at WP, with a better representation of the now lacking female energy in our articles, and editorial environment. I feel that this type of creative energy is unfortunately sorely lacking at this time around WP, thus unnecessarily degrading what I believe could otherwise be a much more harmonious, productive, and thought stimulating atmosphere. I have no doubt that there are many women out there who are excellent editors, who wouldn't mind coming into this "old joint" if we "slobs" around here would just tidy up a bit, tuck in our shirt tails a little bit better, and shave. ("Speak for yourself" you might say here, and unfortunately I must admit that I actually do.)

The phenomenon of the largely absent female editors at WP is a major indicator, kind of like the canary in the mine, that there may still not be enough "creative oxygen" in the WP atmosphere. For myself, it points towards some fairly major systematic issues in the way we do things here, and I agree entirely that this needs to be better addressed in a major and possibly radical way. I do truly believe that this little "rickety experiment" here may be one of the many things that might be able help remedy this major problem. The treatment of Newbies here is something that I would love to hear your concerns and theoretical solutions on, and I might hope that you would like to hear mine too.

But, all of that having been said, before I would be willing to pursue this discussion any further with you, I think at least minimally I would like to know, two things:

1. Do I have your agreement on your at least being willing to do do a "rule review" with me before the end of this conversation?
2. Do I have your agreement that at least for this one conversation, you will try to abide by the 5 rules I have proposed, unless you will at least inform me of which rule you are about to "break" before you actually break it?

Thanks much for your thoughts, concerns, and input here thus far,

Scott P. ( talk) 04:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

I'm actually in favor of having some rules governing conversations but I'm getting a little uncomfortable with the emphasis on rules and the lack of emphasis on content. Let's just stipulate I'm fine with your rules. If I accidentally break one because I didn't read it carefully enough, just politely let me know.

More soon, when I get back from the dentist.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Scottperry:) reply

I understand, I think. I also agree with that philosophy entirely. You know what they say about laws vs: content? The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. I'm a Jeffersonian Christian myself. Jefferson took a razor blade to the Bible, and cut out only those things he treasured. He came up with a new Bible, about 40 pages long. That saying, "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," was in his "new Bible." All of the miracles, including the resurrection, were gone. He was so afraid he'd get politically "crucified" himself if the supposed "real Christians" found out what he'd done, that he had to swear his whole family to secrecy for the next 75 years. Sorry "real" Christians, one less crucifiction for you. What a great man/ evil heretic, my kinda guy. But I apologize, I digress.

It seems to me that this is exactly the problem around here. Too many good Wiki-Lawyers, and not enough good Wiki-editors. I have to go to work myself. Will look forward to your fuller reply tonight. (I live on the West US coast in Pacific Time.) I'm a bad speller by the way.

Thanks,

Scott P. ( talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

PS: I apologize. I think I may have just broken the first (unwritten) law of Wiki-quette etiquette, never say what you really believe. I may get hammered somehow later on for this, but I don't give a flying rat.... Please don't feel obligated yourself to be as crude and rude as I'm being here in this special-talk-space. Please just be comfortable here, as you can see I might already overly be. :-) Scott P. ( talk) 15:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

PPS: The more I am using this new experimental simulated-email format, the more I like it. Again I thank you for coming up with the fundamental compromise idea of having this conversation on a special-talk-page. Marvelous idea in my humble opinion. Scott P. ( talk) 15:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

PPPS: I've set up this page now so you can now simply leave your conversation comments here by using the normal "new section" tab button above. I felt that in order to be as fair as possible to all, this required having to add new rule #6 above. I hope this might be OK with you. Just a structural sort of adjustment, having really nothing to do with the "content" of the conversation that I am looking forward to, as far as I can see. Scott P. ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I am supportive of initiatives to improve the gender imbalance both in terms of editors and subject matter. I already contribute on the subject matter front, while any individuals edits amount to a mere drop in the bucket, that you majority of articles I work on our biographies of women or related issues.

I trust you are familiar with WP:WOMRED

There was a flurry of activity in 2014 (as an aside, I'm stunned at the timing, I was going to guess a year ago.) A number of people identified a variety of resources which I felt were going to be unused if not organized so I made an attempt to pull together a crude sortable list of resources. Gender Gap resources. Unfortunately, while there was some interest at the time, it didn't turn into what I'd hoped it would become.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Scottperry:) reply

I hope you dont mind the purely "structural" formatting things I've been doing around here. I just moved your last text down so that it might be easier for anyone (including us) to follow the flow here. This communcation-format here is entirely new in WP, and I believe it may have some great potential in and of itself to help resolve some very longstanding communication problems that WP has seemingly had since the beginning. I'm hoping to take care to keep all of our posts in chronological sequence for both easier reference, and easier posting by us and others. Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 18:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

The page has now been enabled to allow for a perhaps more "user friendly" and easier posting method using the "new section" tab above. I must confess, I hate it when I feel it sometimes takes me 15 minutes just to find the right spot to place my post on Jimbo's Talk-page. With this setup here on a one-to-one conversation, by just using the "new section" button above, it can now happen almost automatically. But enough on structure.

When you said, "stunned" by the timing, what did you mean? Perhaps the coincidence that it was almost exactly one year ago, today? Or perhaps something else? Regarding what I feel is an absolutely appalling imbalance of energy around here, I feel that it will never be fixed, unless we are able to first identify root cause of the actual problem, and then finally vigorously address it there. What might I believe is the "root problem?" It is this casual toleration for subtle male aggressive energy around here.

Whoops, just violated unspoken rule one again. How dare I call a friggin spade a spade!? How dare I actually say what I actually feel!?

Scott P. ( talk) 19:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

"Stunned" only in the sense that time is marching too quickly. I was guessing it was something I put together last summer or fall and I was stunned to find that it was three years ago.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I see. Yes, as the years roll by, the problem only seems to have gotten worse and not better over time. Clearly all effort to date has unfortunately come to naught. Perhaps its time to think and be rather bold, before its too late. I'm 60, and I still believe that this will be solved before I go. Perhaps the root problem, merely due to the fate of circumstances at the time, was simply resulting from the reality that this whole website was designed only by men, and I will bet that there were never any women involved in the decision making process at the WP-project's initial formative stages. Also, there is the consideration of what type of "energy" this site officially evolved out of. It is called "Bomis"? I would assume you are familiar? Scott P. ( talk) 19:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

PS: I blame nobody for the initial formative circumstances which surrounded the initial forming of WP. In fact I remain quite in a state of admiration for Jimbo and Larry for having pulled off what they did, despite all odds seemingly against them in many ways! I don't think blaming people ever really gets anyone anywhere. Blaming circumstances always works better. By blaming circumstances instead of people, the people whom you could have chosen to blame, thus forcing them to play the role of "enemy" can be left free to make up their own mind whether or not they might want to play the role of "enemy" or "friend." I'm a Will Rogerian Christian too. Will Roger's most famous quote, might you be familiar with it? Scott P. ( talk) 19:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

PPS: Out of respect for where Jimbo and Larry have taken us, please allow me to tell you a little story. I once went back in the old archives to the very first few months of this site. Amazing that anyone still interested can still even do this to this day. There I met a past incarnation of Jimbo, trying to convince some lady who made custom painted beads, of all things, to please help us by letting him help her to personally edit together on an article in Wikipedia describing her wonderful painted beads!! Of all things!!! Jimbo took this site from out of his brain, Larry's brain, and various unsung software engineer's brains, and gave us what we have here today. Is it perfect? Far from it. Is it the best encyclopedia in the world? Without a doubt. Do you and I have the privilege to sit where we do, and to possibly aid some major decisions in mankind's greatest repository of all knowledge ever? Yes. Scott P. ( talk) 20:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

PPPS: (Trying to get back on track again, sorry.) So might you have any new ideas about how to address this problem in a new way? Would you agree that it may be directly caused by an over abundance of shall we say the "energy of aggression" at WP? Scott P. ( talk) 20:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Now we're getting somewhere, although I'm coming to realize we are not quite on the same page. I've been involved in a number of organizations over the years, and almost invariably, there's a nostalgia for the earlier days with the belief that it was better then. Fine enough for a casual conversation, but if one is planning to make changes, it is my opinion that we need more solid data than casual and likely flawed recollections. I accept that this isn't the same place in 2017 as it was in 2002 or even 2010, but while I think it is more formal I don't buy into the notion that it has gotten worse.

I don't buy into the notion that the root problem is that the website was designed by men only. Part because it isn't true, although I don't dispute that the early development depended on far more men than women. While I don't buy into it, more importantly it is not a useful observation unless you can identify flaws that can be corrected. And if you can identify flaws that can be corrected than they should be corrected and it is hardly relevant whether the flaws arose because of male domination in the early years.

Yes, I'm familiar with Bomis.

If I'm not totally sympathetic to your views, it's because while I fully recognize that participation in Wikipedia has been and still is predominantly male, I've seen so many examples of strong women playing significant roles in Wikipedia development — moonriddengirl, Diannaa, SandyGeorgia, Adrianne Wadewitz, Risker, Sarah Stierch, Lila Tretikov, Sue Gartner, Katherine Maher and many others, that I don't think of Wikimedia in the same terms you do. That doesn't mean there isn't a need for improvement but your characterization sounds like the project is fundamentally flawed as opposed to flawed in a way that can be addressed. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Re Rogers, supposedly he never met a man he didn't like to which the usual retort adapted for here is he must not of been a Wikipedia editor. I've always preferred his "I'm not a member of any organized party; I'm a Democrat".-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hah! :-) Scott P. ( talk) 20:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Never heard that one before. Sorry about that, didn't mean to interrupt.

Irreparably flawed, no. Flawed to the point where something never tried before might now be warranted to try, yes. I do hope you aren't afraid of breaking molds. Scott P. ( talk) 20:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ok, I have a rather serious question for you. I hope you don't mind. What is the most maverick mold-breaking project you've ever attempted? Not necessarily succeeded in, but just seriously attempted? Scott P. ( talk) 20:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

Ok, let me rephrasemthat a little...

OTTOMH, within Wikimedia, I tried creating a concept I called Tour of Duty. I still think it has merit but it hasn't taken off. I've also tried to change the way we assign usernames User naming convention proposal. If we don't do something, we will eventually run into a significant problem. Outside Wikimedia, I tried to reform the NCAA basketball playoff approach from a traditional single elimination tournament to a double bye format. A little interest but obviously hasn't taken place.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

It sounds like you are very much one who likes to try to think outside the box. I feel that "outside of the box" type thinking is probably the only type of thinking that has the potential to get WP outside of the "box" on this one major point.

At this point, please let me tell you a little about some of my self in this. I think it might be safe to call myself a bit of a Quijote dude. Here are a few things about me to give you an idea about some boxes I have, or am attempting to work on. My whole life seems to have been drawn over the years from one maverick thing to another. Some of my maverick projects have succeeded well, others not, and some mediocre. Here is an example of one: The Jeffersonian Church of America. I happen to be the owner of that website. That's what I will call a mediocre project right now. I simply haven't had the time that I know that project really requires to really get it going, but I have started one other website, which served and still serves as the biggest website for the former followers of my former Guru, enabling a bit of recovey for them from their brainwashing. That website is one of the older continually operated sites on the web, operating since 1993. I am a person, who often drives over the lines, when I know it is safe. Do you drive over the lines very often? Scott P. ( talk) 21:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

Over the top of my head (OTTOMH)? You mean my question was not a good or perhaps fair one, or some other thing? Scott P. ( talk) 21:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh, Off the top of my head....

(ec)Off the Top of my head, meaning I didn't thoroughly research my history, I picked a couple things that occurred to me.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Somehow I " grocked" you on that before you told me. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I Googled the acronym and that was what the "all wise and powerful Poohbah" told me. It was all the Poohbah's fault!

At any rate, I am enjoying this conversation with you a great deal. Um. I sincerely do believe I have a fairly radical plan, that I don't think will require very many folk's permissions, probably only one person's permission, and that person would not necessarily have to be (but preferrably would be) Jimbo. I personally have a strong belief that this plan is the new lifeblood that WP now so sorely needs. You really have nothing to lose by simply taking a look at it. This plan, to the best of my knowledge and belief, wouldn't break a single WP: policy. I am not sh*ng you. This radical plan would incorporate the type of transparency you see here, but unfortunately I guarantee you it wouldn't last more than 60 seconds in the highly conservative aggressive wikilawyeral world that I see WP has become today. It would require at least three months of safe incubation outside of the WP-fishbowl. After say a year, a policy could be that each and every transcript of the foundational dialogues would be made public, and after that all internal transcripts would have what I will call an opacity limit of 180 days. This is way shorter than the indefinite opacity at WM. Interested in learning more? Scott P. ( talk) 22:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

One final concession I would be willing to make to you....

If you might have any reason to believe all or any of the above is not true, you will have the full right, for the first seven days to both say no, and if you want to even fully share every detail of it here at WP, you would have my absolute blessings. Scott P. ( talk) 22:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ok, might it be possible that a part of this "box" that needs to be gotten out of for anything truly new, life giving, and innovative to happen in WP might happen to be the bowl/ box of the WP-fishbowl? Why are all of the fish so afraid of new waters? The answers, I think you already know. I will leave this conversation open for 1 day. I will fully trust whatever decision you may take on this. Thank you for hearing me out.

Scott

Scott P. ( talk) 23:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply

May your own integrity and peace of mind be your guide in your choice. I have been a WP editor for many years, and I have found that Will Rogers' vision is a choice that can be true if you want it to be, but not enough may yet have the courage to take that step. Fear always induces blindness, induces lameness, induces the dark. Trust and mutual respect induce strength, induce agility, induce vision, and induce the light. Always.

Just to give you the "barest edges" of what I am talking about. It would be a colleagial organization of editors operating entirely within the existing system's rules, but independently, transparently, and in tandem with WM. That is as far as I can go to explain it to you here, but I have every reason to believe it would be the best thing to happen to WP since 2001. Scott P. ( talk) 23:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

Now that you have in some way "forced me" to show my real hand here, I would like to "call you" on this and ask you to please give either a yay, nay or maybe. Scott P. ( talk) 00:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

It would transform WP from a functional monarchy, into a constitutional monarchy. My only hesitation is that we serfs, being told that the briars of agression, being sown everywhere into the wind, are simply to be swollowed whole, may not have yet choked enough to find our own voice. I'm not for palace coups, only for the voice of steady reason, being given a chance to be heard and to thrive, and slowly and incrimentally inducing a greater understanding amongst all. That is all.

When I first came to Jimbo's talk page about this two days ago, every single editor appeared to me to be in a complete state of denial that any such aggression could possibly be going on here. It remains my hope that maybe not all. Scott P. ( talk) 00.41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed conversation conclusion

Sphil,

As you have not replied for quite some time now, I must make the assumption here that either one of two things have occurred:

1. You are wanting to "sleep on it" and then possibly tomorrow to reply here with a "yay, nay, or perhaps."
2. You have now stated nay, in the most polite language of all, "Wiki-speak."

Being the sort of eternal optimist that I am, I remain hoping for option 1 above.
Being also a pragmatist, I am also prepared for option 2 above.

So to summarize this conversation as I see it standing now. It will either have minimally at least some breif interaction at some point before 05:00 UTC tomorrow, or else around 05:00 UTC tomorrow, unfortunately I will be here by myself, merely officially "Putting this conversation on hold, and thereby concluding it" by myself, along with all of the ramifications which that type of conversation-conclusion would obviously imply. As per the agreed upon rules, at that point this conversation's Virtual talk page would then be officially open to comments by anyone, or nobody, which ever the case may be. Also as per the agreed upon Conversation rules, we have both agreed to minimally review that Virtual talk page ourselves approximatly 24 hours after the official conclusion of this conversation. Neither of us is obligated to reply to any comments that may or may not be there, and lastly, I can only assume to speak for Sphil, but I will guarantee that I will minimally follow through and personally review any comments listed there the day after the conversation conclusion (Thursday).

So Sphil, there we have it. Please correct me if you might wish to. Which ever the case may be, I do truly thank you for your obvious bravery in being the only one in all of Wikipedia who was willing to even dare to hope here. You were so far the only one who knowingly permitted yourself to be on a page where such a bare-edged proposal might ever so briefly be floated. I wish there were more brave souls here in Wikipedia who could do as she has done on this day. I do sincerely commend you for that, without any reservation.

Thanks to all observers too, I say there is never any harm in observation, we all do it all of the time, with the ultimate hope that it will eventually garner truer and better understanding for ourselves, and therefore for all.

Scott P. ( talk) 04:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:) reply

Unfortunately, if the choices are "yay, nay or maybe", I'm going to have to go with "nay". You have something in mind but as you will no doubt agree, you shared only the barest hints. Your statement " transform WP from a functional monarchy, into a constitutional monarchy" pretty much sealed the deal. I accept, more than you might realize, that we do have some problems which might fit into your characterization of "aggression". I am also supportive of actions to combat that problem. However, I have two issues with what I perceive, based upon very limited information, to be your view of the Wikipedia world. One is that while I would list aggression or harassment among the problems facing Wikipedia, it is one of many, and I'm not convinced it's the most important one. Now, I'm not saying that only one problem can be addressed at a time, but you seem headed toward an approach that would be a sea change in the way Wikipedia works primarily to address this issue. Maybe that's needed, but unless it simultaneously addresses some of the more important problems, I preferred to allocate my energy to the more important problems. Second, and arguably more important is your mindset that the current organization is a functional monarchy. While you did not identify the monarch, it could hardly be anyone other than Jimbo. While I believe even he has analogized his role to that of the English Queen, the emphasis is on the lack of power not on the concentration of power. To the extent that we have on aggression problem in Wikipedia, it is because some editors failed to live up to the ideals espoused by Jimbo, not because of him. In other words, any change an organization that reduces his role, while possibly justified for some reasons, will do nothing to address the problem you've identified, and if anything is likely to make it worse.

I have no doubt you'll disagree, and it is entirely possible I've misunderstood your current view of the world or your (as yet very murky) approach to change.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 12:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sphil,
I do so very much appreciate your very thorough analysis of our conversation thus far, and the very insightful questions that you have voiced in your last "post" here. Please first allow me to slightly rephrase what I see as the two legitimate concerns which you have just expressed:

1. You are concerned that I may have only but one real perceived issue for which I am apparently proposing a solution here (my perception of a systematic aggression within Wikipedia), and that whatever I may be proposing, being (apparently) but a "single pronged approach" may not be able to sufficiently address the multiple issues that you feel would require being addressed, by any such comprehensive strategy at "reforming Wikipedia."
2. Despite the fact that Jimbo has often described WP as a "monarchy" you do not personally see it that way. Additionally you feel that Jimbo's role is "diminished enough" as it already is, and are concerned that any further "diminishment" of his role here would be counterproductive.

Since you have been kind enough here to ask more specifically, I will now enlarge slightly on what I can say here about this "bare edged proposal" of mine:

1. It would specifically have as its central feature, a feature that would be very specifically designed to address WP's obvious needs-to-abilities-matching-communication-problem, where currently WP's specefic needs are not always well communicated to its editors. This would be its central component.
2. It would also have a component regarding the improvement of username selections. This would be a component that would inherently cause users to tend to automatically select more useful and helpful usernames.
3. It would have a component specifically aimed at enhancing the "language" that I have called Wiki-speak, namely a component that assisted editors in better understanding how to be more effective editors here, by more clearly communicating with each other the values of mutual respect and fundamental good-faith in one another, more than they tend to currently do.

All of these components (and more) would be presented in Wikispace as "options" as opposed to "requirements."

Regarding the question of monarchies and constitutional monarchies: By in some sense "codifying" the exact relationship between us and our "benevolent king," I do honestly believe that it would:

1. Enable him to more efficiently advise us, as he already does so well, by removing the many current ambiguities that have been allowed to persist to this day, regarding our relationship with him.
2. Most likely actually enhance his image, by changing the current image of WP as a miraculously ordered quasimonarchical anarchy, into one of a sustainable constitutional monarchy. Much more respectable, predictable, and credible in the eyes of all.

Sphil, you have been prying my cards from my hand one by one, you sleuth!

Do we still have a "nay," here, or perhaps have I yet succeeeded in raising the status here to a "maybe?"

I'm afraid I do not believe I could be any more specific here than I have just now been, unless you might contact me directly. There have been some "email issues," but you could still email me at [email protected], or else call me at 831 224-7695. Due to such things like "email issues," direct contact would probably be the only certain manner to go further. Due to the "email issues," any email would have to be confirmed somehow, both when sending and when received.

Thank you for your so well explained "nay." I hope that I might have earned a "maybe" here.

Scott

Scott P. ( talk) 15:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

(@ Sphilbrick:)

Proposal: Conversation conclusion timing to remain at 05:00 UTC (1:00 AM East coast time, 10:00 PM West Coast time.)

Personally, I am at a position of "hold," probably until around 05:00 UTC.

As I have requested of Sphil that she might consider "upgrading" her reply from a "nay" to a "maybe," in the interests of all I will clarify my interpretation of what may transpire:

No response before 05:00 will count as still "nay." Any other response before then will count for whatever it may be.

Unless I might hear otherwise from Sphil before 05:00, I will continue with the currently scheduled conversation conclusion at 05:00 UTC, in approximately 9 hours.

As noted earlier, the Virtual talk page will be open for comments at that time.

Thanks to all,

Scott P. ( talk) 18:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick:)

One thing that puzzled me is your goal to transform Wikipedia "from a functional monarchy, into a constitutional monarchy". We achieve that goal many years ago. In 2010, Jimbo said "In the English Wikipedia we have a system of 'constitutional monarchy,' " It wasn'r written as if it were a new concept. You've been around longer than I have, but that description matches my view of WP in 2008, and if anything has changed, Jimbo has less power. I don't want to leave the impression he's powerless, but much of his remaining power arises from the fact that his ideas are well thought out and sensible rather than do as I say because I'm the boss. There are issues that need addressing, but I don't see changing the role of Jimbo as any meaningful part of them. Did I misunderstand?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Until there can be some real involvement, and back and forth feedback between editors and the boardroom, it seems to me that this is no real "constitution," balance of powers, system of checks and balances, let alone a system designed for a democratic transition of administrations on the day Jimbo, God bless him, will have to finally leave us in one way or another. Real constitutions are negotiated amongst true equals, how many of us editors were sitting in the room, with equal access to all of the same info, hashing it out with WM, when any supposed constitution was written? I have not carefully studied their every move, and I apologize for this. I also believe that they, Jimbo, and all here are doing the best we can. (Even those here who still might like to keel-haul one or two of their "esteemed" colleagues if they could, here at this point in time.)

My experience comes from thirteen years in the editorial trenches, one significant ANI experience regarding WP policy changes where a secretly made decision was arbitrarily handed down that completely baffled me, with no explanation given. Even that, I am sure had it's well founded 'hidden' reasons. I'm not faulting anyone here. Only asking for you and perhaps Fortuna if you want, or any one person you might want for that matter, to merely look over my proposal together with me in a quiet and initially private space, with due time to reasonably consider it, with the promise that all three will enter in with an open mind and a desire to better truly understand one another.

In edit-space, certainly Jimbo needs more authority, not less. I see him getting "dissed" by newbies way too much there! But I feel that what I see as a new low in our current level of tolerance for such "misbehavior," has only occurred because of the general structurally chaotic atmosphere in the fishbowl. By in some sense setting up a minimal "structure" of respect (not fear) amongst editors that I am proposing, I strongly believe such incidents would be significantly reduced across the board, and will ultimately lead to us being able to have our own real presence in the boardroom. Until WM is able to minimally have a "sunshine rule" where say, after any of their boardroom records have aged 10 years ( the US government default), they are released and made public, how much accountability is there? Same with ANI.

The US government (which has to deal in some very 'dirty' places) does make some exceptions. WP, so far as I know, doesn't have to run the CIA, so I can't think of why it would have to make any exceptions. Your choice is always your own with me, and nobody should ever feel obligated to feel uncomfortable. In fact, my rule is, if anything ever makes me feel ill at ease, I probably shouldn't do it myself. I thank you for all you have done.

And Jimbo's role would not change one iota. I'm not proposing to take anyone's power away. I'm only proposing to add a purely optional structure, that would not require anyone to give up a single thing (except maybe one or two bad habits, to be reformed by their own inner wisdom, which behavior "sunshine rules" tends to engender.) The only two reasons that I say that "eventually" I believe my plan would probably get true Wikipedians actually and functionally sitting on the board, not just as the obviously failed but well intended inital attempt of Dr. James, are these:

1. With an increase in good faith in one another that I believe my plan would naturally inculcate, our minds would then naturally gain the wisdom needed to get Dr. James back on the board and really make it work the next time. A win win for all that we all truly need around here.
2. As far as I can think, the only one element of my plan that might require a "perceived" loss of power by some, would be the "sunshine law thing" but even that would come about only when enough on both sides can see the wisdom of it. I'm not advocating for any fierce power-play debates here. Merely for wise, cool headed discussions, as we seem to be seeing in this newer format here.

Actually whenever the board does agree to the accountability that such sunshine-rules would require, they will actually "increase" their true power which actually lies in the true increase of respect that we here will then have for them. But such "wisdom" would require time, the light of a system geared towards accountability, the warmth of good faith, and the water of kindness to grow to that point.

Scott P. ( talk) 16:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (@ Sphilbrick: notify) reply

This conversation is now concluded Scott P. ( talk) 05:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply