This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For a variety of reasons, becoming an admin in the English Wikipedia has become something like becoming a member of the House of Lords, in the sense that it is quite rare to be deadminned without some kind of particularly outrageous behavior. It happens, but rarely. A proposal to allow a more liberal granting of adminship would necessarily, I think, require a companion proposal to allow a more liberal loss of adminship, to control for the possibility that a more liberal system would make for more frequent errors in appointments.
Jimbo, I'd say it's more like a beauty contest in some ways; you can be a great vandal-reporter, but if you haven't contributed much to articles, some people will object; conversely, if you have written GA's and FA's, but haven't done much anti-vandal work, some people will object. If you haven't been seen around WP:AN or WP:ANI, some people will object. We do need specialist admins, particularly in relation to WP:NFC, and this should not be held against candidates. It would be interesting to know the criteria you applied when you personally granted adminship in the early days, and whether you think the community has strayed significantly from those criteria, or indeed if you think they are still valid? --Rodhullandemu14:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I had not even considered a companion proposal, and I do believe at this juncture my proposal is premature. The project has changed from 2003, and perhaps I'm looking at the system oddly. I'll continue to look. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Propaganda films category
Hey, Jimmy. I asked you a question here, but it was archived before you could chime in with your opinion. Can you give me your thoughts? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm also named in there because I expressed my opinion of Kmweber(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log)'s disruptive use of "Arbitrary Committee". I've been told in no uncertain terms that I may not block him for it, so I won't -- I'll let him take the free pass that the community has given him.
Meanwhile, I'm on notice that my editorial contributions here aren't worthwhile. None of my contributions matter -- it's only my screwups, mistakes, and fiascoes that matter here on Wikipedia. Nobody cares about a shipwreck or a grain elevator all that much. --Elkman(Elkspeak)19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Bedford says: "Jimbo Wales arbitrarily removed my sysop bit in a prejudiced manner, and demanded I grovel to him"
Jimmy, if I grovel in his place, will you grant me sysop?
Quote;""And finally, I just wanted to throw in that "the Community" must never mean "whoever happens to show up". "The Community" must always mean "the community of good editors who are dedicated to our mission."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I have an idea about the growing animosity between Good Faith Editors and Other Editors. I am not sure My Project is in/on the BEST place in WIKIworld for project developement.
I humbly request your (or your staff's) quidance in the earliest stages of this positive project. The goal is improved communication and less wasted time by editors when caught in "the bull ring" of WikiEditing. My idea needs wikiwork, wikiwings, wikiadvice, In other words it need WikiJimbo to put in on the "right" road to success.--Buster7 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
External Links to the Jimbo Universe
Do you want the directory of all your press clippings that are on your user page under the above section to be there? Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Please check the restoration of an information that you removed
I see that you removed certain information due to poor sources [2]. I have recently made a draft to include certain information, without being aware that it solapated with info that you had removed. Please check the RFC I started.
Also see the section on the bottom of that talk page, talking about sockpuppetry concerns. Is the subject of an article allowed to edit his own article to correct factual errors, even if he was banned? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I can only recommend that you be very careful. The sources appear to me to contradict each other in many details. That doesn't make them useless, it only makes this a minefield.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you very much for the good advice. I already skipped over many details, now I'll go and make a version that skips over even more details to avoid that pitfall. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Porn actors' birth names
Dear Mr. Wales, if you find the time, please consider making a comment here.
Maybe you, or some fellow editor reading this, can also point me to the right place to propose a flagged revision editing system on biographies of living persons? Thanks. ;) -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello WAS 4.250 ;) thanks a bunch for the links! I had no idea we are so close to launch already oO, guess I need to read up on the lengthy discussion first ;)
I'm only a passerby on the German language Wikipedia (though they have the best visual arts portal I've seen), what I have in mind pretty much resembles the flagged revisions system on the German Wikipedia, however a little stricter when it comes to which revision of a biograhpy (article) a visitor sees first place and much more deterrent to editors who try to use article histories as "data dump" for privacy right violations, which is currently one of my pet peeves with biographies on adult actors. -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Flagged revisions seems to hold a great deal of promise in stopping the kind of trolling that we have had to routinely deal with over the years. In this particular case, I think it quite clear that the names in question should not be in Wikipedia. I wonder what agenda is being pushed by the desire to include them, because it's a hell of an obscure thing to fight for, for no reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Truth in advertising / the sum of all knowledge
Have you considered correcting your statement to say, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge contained in articles whose presence on Wikipedia either escaped deletionists' notice, or was permitted due to the subject matter's being deemed notable and "encyclopedic" by what the closing admin deemed to be a rough consensus of those who showed up to the AfD discussion." That's what we're doing."
I think it would be a more accurate description. However, I can see that some might object that it's not quite as catchy and elegant a turn of phrase. I'm not quite sure of a more succinct way of summing it up. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with you at all. Remember, an encyclopedia is not a data dump. The word "sum" has a purpose in that statement... an encyclopedia is not "all human knowledge" it is the "sum" of all human knowledge. It is specifically delimited for very good reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Aldrich, see the message I left on your talk page. You seem like a great editor and I want to find out how I can help you. --mboverload@05:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
G'day Jimbo - hope you're good. As you'll see from the above, we've begun discussing December's Arbcom elections well ahead of time, and hopefully a wide ranging community discussion will ensue. I wanted to swing by here to let you know, and hear your thoughts... best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Greetings
Jimmy Wales, well I cannot believe I am talking to him (I'm not talking on a strict semantic sense).
Nevertheless; thaks for everything and, well, I did not know of your objetivistic ideas, I have recently started to study Rand's work so I cannot really define wheter I agree with her or not.
Nevertheless, have a nice day and I hope you answer soon, even though I am sure you are a busy man.
Good bye.
Cristian Cappiello (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Email
Hi Jimmy. Did you receive my email, I sent it a few days ago. I just wanted to let you know that the situation has been handled. Thanks, Steve Public (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You must not have seen it. It's in regards to the ArbCom mailing list. The issue is largely resolved, though I still have some issues. Might be best if I send you a revised email. Steve Public (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Mr. Wales, and thank you for all you have done for the encyclopaedia. You might not be aware of it, but User:Amerique has made a proposal here that users such as administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers and so on have their rights recalled by the community if there is significant consensus that these rights have been abused. I am wondering what your thoughts on the principle of the idea are, and if you would care to share them with us. Regards, Skomorokh15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It basically sounds like an expansion of Administrators open to recall. Please don't take this as an attack on your position, but I think that if Jimbo didn't want it to happen, he would have said so. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:24 31 July, 2008 (UTC)
I'm mainly tossing ideas and strategies around at this point... brainstorming, as it were, to develop a fair and equitable process for all concerned. I was going to wait for the ArbCom RFC to reach some kind of finished state before attempting to finalize a version for possible "ratification" as a policy in project space. At that point, my intention is to leave it in the community's hands to decide if they want it or not, and if so, how they want to implement it. But in the meantime, I welcome all constructive comments on the idea, pro or con. Ameriquedialectics08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The principle seems clear enough for anyone to form an opinion on: should the community have the right to recall these rights from these users, or is this a privilege to be reserved for the Foundation? Thanks, Amerique for all your diligent work. Springeragh, assumptions aren't helpful, and Mr. Wales is a busy man who can't be expected to notice all the goings-on of the encyclopaedia. Regards, Skomorokh10:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I see that my good faith comment wasn't welcome; however, assuming that I made an assumption isn't really, either. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 23:34 31 July, 2008 (UTC)
I understand your time and attention are limited, but are we to interpret your silence as tacit consent? If community recall becomes effective, the need for your interventions may become less. Any response appreciated, Skomorokh13:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think any such process should be voluntary, and that there are some good reasons to be deeply concerned about such processes in general. The problem is that we actually want people in positions of trust (the ArbCom for example) to be significantly independent of day-to-day wiki politics. And I am unaware of any cases in which this sort of process has been needed. Perhaps the pointed question has to be asked of the advocates of making this sort of thing mandatory: who do you want removed, and why? If the answer is "well, no one, this is 'just in case'" then I would suggest that this could be an instance of process-creep. And if the answer is "well, this particular person is a good example" then we might want to look at that case a bit harder and see what went wrong... if anything did go wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We currently lack working processes for "looking at cases a bit harder and seeing what went wrong" when it comes to established editors; whether admin or not. I don't have a solution. But we do have a problem. Research at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia has led me to a preliminary idea that maybe the solution has something to do with ethics consciousness; but I'm just guessing at this point. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we have processes that work quite well for the most part. I note that neither you nor the other contributor has stepped forward with any cases where there is an actual problem. It is easy to scream that the sky is falling. It is much harder - and more honest - to note that we have a very sophisticated and functional set of processes. Most of the screaming about those processes comes from people who don't like the outcome... which usually means... don't like that their bad behavior is not unchecked. That isn't to say that there are no problems, but rather to say that there is no particularly dire state of affairs, and a great many things that are going in the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we differ about whether Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV represents a "lack working processes" or "processes that work quite well". It is too common for innocent people to be blocked, who then become quite emotional about it. It is too common for established users to be quite uncivil with no consequences. I agree that Wikipedia is very useful and every year more useful. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that ethical awareness would make Wikipedia even better than it already is. I agree with you that "there is no particularly dire state of affairs, and a great many things that are going in the right way." But we can be better. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Mr. Wales. Me personally, I'm not developing this with any one person in mind... and also, I'm designing it to be ungameable, so recalls would be impossible against members who have the wide support of the community. The process in development, if ever implemented, would allow this support to be demonstrated. Using a high proportion of the inital support "votes" for a user's RFA, RFB etc, to qualify a recall motion achieves this, makes light hearted or "heat of the moment" recalls impossible, and fulfills the WP:CON mandate that: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale." Community recall provides a way of achieving that with respect to trust positions, as current process only allows "suitability" for recall of community-granted positions to be determined by yourself or the ArbCom. Ameriquedialectics23:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Mr. Wales. It is interesting that you frame the matter as one of politics and process creep; as a proponent I would argue it is a case of accountability deficit – those in positions of power have no incentive not to abuse it as long as they don't step on the toes of their "superiors". It's a question of poor organisational economics; it's relatively easy to earn a position of trust, very difficult to be removed from it. If you have the formal structures of the Portuguese civil service, don't be surprised when you get its performance quality too. Or, to take the opposite view that the positions of trust are "no big deal", it should be "no big deal" to remove abusive users from them also. Regards, Skomorokh11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Corruption in management is "behaviour that may involve fraud, theft, misuse of position or authority or other acts that are unacceptable to an organisation and which may cause loss to the organisation, its clients or the general community. It may also include such elements as breaches of trust and confidentiality. The behaviour need not necessarily be criminal."[1] Corruption management is an integral part of good governance and management practice. Executive management needs to be committed to the pro-active prevention of corrupt conduct in a systematic way in order to enhance the operation and reputation of the organisation.[1] Corruption is a major drain on the effective use of resources for education and should be drastically curbed by improving transparency and accountability in education. Corruption "increases transaction costs, reduces the efficiency and quality of services, distorts the decision-making process, and undermines social values."[2] - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/OverviewWAS 4.250 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to write something that will define the meaning of "Free" in "The Free Encyclopedia". See the discussion here: Talk:Main Page#The meaning of Free.
Knowing what was your intention as the founder will help move this discussion forward. You user page is also somewhat ambiguous on the matter - it mentions GFDL, "write and give away a free encyclopedia" and "free speech".
It makes me wonder whether it is intentionally ambiguous. And then maybe you really want to keep this ambiguous, although i would disagree.
There was no information in checkuser, presumably because he had not edited for a long time. Why do you ask about Frederick, Maryland, though? I just wanted to be ahead of the curve in case this turns into a story, but it seems that there really isn't much of a story here. At Wikipedia, he was focused almost exclusively on a women's sorority, and never edited anything about Anthrax. I just wanted to make sure he didn't also have any sockpuppets, etc., but then I realized it was silly for me to be checking since he had not edited since a long time ago.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The court documents on The Smoking Gun which JayHenry astutely brought to the Signpost's attention [3] state that Ivins, who lived in Frederick, was probably Jimmyflathead since that was the same name as a Yahoo email account that Ivins used. The significance of the sorority is that two of the Anthrax-laced letters are believed to have been mailed from a postal drop box located about 100 yards from a Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority storage building near Princeton University. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm that Jimmyflathead (talk·contribs) was Bruce Ivins, and that the incident referred to in my user warning did happen. Having already had an edit war that lead to stalking however, I don't plan to comment further. For what it is worth I now strongly support the model that wikipedia never require real names....ppfleiger (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
They're all 500 pixels ore smaller. >:( Searching for whale graphics kind of sucked. If you ask Sceptre to make you one, though, I'm sure he'd be happy to. He's a whiz with Photoshop and that type of stuff. ;) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 03:30 8 August, 2008 (UTC)
I'm not Sceptre, but I made it an SVG version that you can scale as much as you want.
If you can use your Founder (I presume that is the status with that option) status to provide yourself with Checkuser when you wish to use the tool, why remove it subsequently? The access to the tool is now apparent, even if you just need push a couple of extra buttons, so why not have it listed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to believe it's so we know Jimbo is not habitually using Checkuser, and we know as and when he does choose to use the tool. A good development. Neıl☄14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't consider myself "a checkuser" in general. This was a very unusual circumstance. I believe in a very libral use of checkuser in general, and so it is probably better if I don't use it often. It would seem like a Very Big Deal if someone were to be checkusered by me in most cases, and I believe in minimization of drama. In this case, this was about a potential press situation where I might find my phone ringing off the hook with journalists asking for information, and I felt a need to be prepared. As it turns out, his Wikipedia edits aren't that interesting, I didn't find any socks. I just thought, hmm, what if a checkuser showed that this guy was editing articles about Anthrax or whatever... no way do we need the disruption of claims like that surfacing without me being prepared. Fortunately, I found nothing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy, speaking as a journalist here, just to nail something down - I don't put a lot of credence in the following myself, but given some history (lots of history ...) I want to ask - can you give a straight denial that the FBI or other government investigators have contacted the Wikimedia Foundation or you asking about Bruce Ivins's Wikipedia edits? Thanks. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there has been no contact from anyone official at all. Certainly, no one has contacted me. I have not specifically asked the Foundation, but I am reasonably sure I would have heard about it. The first I heard of any of this was when someone sent a link to the Smoking Gun website where the documents were published about the guy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I assume you do not use Oversight overmuch, yet the permission is noted in your Rights log, whereas you have demonstrated that you have access to Checkuser (by having the ability to change the permissions) but it does not appear in the "current" Rights listing. Generally, those who care are aware that you have access to Checkuser while those who don't... don't. I am uncertain what benefit there is in not indicating a facility that is available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
As thse who know me know, this is a rare thing for me to say, but I think Jimbo's 100% in the right here. I wish every checkuser would log every use of the tool publicly. – iridescent14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's misleading to claim that they are using his criticism of the arbcom as a reason to deny him. Rather, they are pointing to problematic actions he has taken... recently!... to point out that the behavioral problems that led to his troubles in the past seem not to have been solved.
The issues of injustice associated with offering a cash bounty for a fast decision in an ArbCom case are the issue, not criticism of the ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that was his way of saying the committee was slow. I'm sure he was not seriously employing for cash a temp arbcom. This is valid criticism. I don't think the committee should have help it against him. I believe PM has learned so much that even tho I executed his block, I'm willing to mentor at your appointment if you would lift the restriction. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Are there any "problematic actions [...] recently" that weren't directly related to criticism of arbcom? It's curious that the two examples cited both were. --Random832 (contribs) 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I was commenting in an afd and I was pondering our remit and how we might somewhat mirror John Reith's, vision for the BBC. He coined the idea that the corporation would "inform, education and entertain... [and] bring the best of everything to the greatest number of homes", which later head Dyke modified to "inform, educate, entertain... and connect". Perhaps we could adopt a vision, a remit that we "inform, educate, engage and connect, and so bring the best of everything to the greatest number of people". I think this was probably the ideal espoused at the beginnings of Wikipedia, indeed mirrors a lot of rhetoric from the earlier days, but perhaps we're stumbling away from that idea and maybe their needs to be a reconnection with that touchstone. I would hope we aren't merely seeking to replicate Britannica; I would hope we are seeking to move beyond them, to inform people on whatever it is they seek to be informed of, to the highest standards possible. Anyway, just a thought and potential soundbite, (suitably accredited). HidingT17:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:Email from sierra@wikia.com
Hi there Jimbo.
I emailed Sierra a few weeks back in relation to a project that I was doing at college and mentioned that I wanted to have a possible email question and answer session. I gave her all the details about the College that I am at and the purpose of the project, but have yet to hear back.
If you aren't aware of the email it was sent on the 16th July 2008 and was in relation to an ICT project that I am doing on the development of websites and why they are set up and how successful they are and seen as this is a very popular site and very successful I decided to contact your secretary.
Yes, I agree with you completely. That's one of many reasons why we should not. That quote does not misrepresent me, but it was part of a much longer conversation about the reasons why that desire is unattainable. I hope that quote doesn't become some kind of classic in favor of radical inclusionism. :) One of the key things that I talked about is human dignity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the quote above may already being taken to signal something that it absolutely does not mean. I am a very strong supporter of WP:BLP, and indeed I think it should be radically strengthened. I think we should be actively reducing the number of people we have biographies about in Wikipedia, and I think to do so would help to resolve a large number of longstanding problems that we have had. That quote was taken from a wide ranging discussion about my thinking on questions of deletionism and completionism, and my point was that if we could have a good (high quality, respectful of human dignity, neutral, appropriately respectful of privacy) article about everyone, then why not? But the real point is that it is thoroughly proven that we cannot. Biographies of even very famous people are routinely in a disgraceful state. For people who are only marginally notable, my feeling is that we could do a lot more to improve the situation -- and we should. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I've never read any statement on Wikipedia with which I agree more strongly. The project's biographies on marginally notable individuals, many of which are not regularly watched for vandalism or axe-grinding, are legal and ethical time bombs waiting to explode. Raymond Arritt, now occasionally editing as Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Please
Hi, Jimbo. You is Steward on Meta-wiki and GodKing of Wikipedia.
Please, check sockpuppet of serious vandal, troll and puppeter on Russian Wikimedia wikis. This sockpuppeteer - Afinogenoff, also has more sock puppets on Wikia.
F: Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community
Supporting evidence: Please, check Afinogenoff and sockpuppet Innv, and IP Range 83.149.52.0/22. Innv = Afinogenoff, is 100% correct information, see evidence: Afinogenoff is strong and serious sockpuppeter. Afinogenoff@ruwiki has more 28 sockpuppets. Afinogenoff inclined to create a "female" account.
83.149.52.0/22 - is official IP Range of Afinogenoff, sockpuppeter using this range on spam-listed resource (wiki.traditio.ru), and on Ru.wiki (provocations / vandalism / trolling)
Puppeteer use this ip range for trolling and provocations on RuWiki. See trolling, trolling, delete text, trollind on Arbcom vote page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, request for arbitration: trolling, UPOV-pushing: 1, 2.
This is sockpuppet of serious vandal Afinogenoff, see Pauk'squote in LJ: [russian:А разве Таллирдиева фотки публиковала? И тоже УЖЕ не в Википедии.][english:How Tallirdieva photos published? And also not ALREADY in Wikipedia.][comment:Tallidieva is Afinogenoff's indefblocked virtual] - they wrote this on livejournal community ru_wikipedia.
Answer to this post: 1) [[[:ru:User:AndyVolykhov|AndyVolykhov]]:1) публиковала; 2) нет, в Википедии, под другим логином.][english:1) published; 2) No, in Wikipedia, under another username.]. 2) [AndyVolykhov:Фотка уже удалена, видимо. А ник сейчас, как писал админ меты на IRC-канале - Innv.][english: Photo has already been removed, apparently. A nick now, as the Meta-sysop wrote to IRC-channel - Innv.][comment:Innv=Tallirdieva=Afinogenoff].
There are similarities of style Innv and sockpuppets Afinogenoff:
Non-standart signature, with links to discussions, and contribution and anywhere. Please, compare: signature of T-tok, indefblocked virtual of Afinogenoff: t-tok, and Innv: --~Innvs: and Afinogenoff (on listed in the spam list resource, wiki.traditio.ru): — Afinogenoff§, and Dream (renamed Afinogenoff on spam listed resource): Dream.
See almost two entirely back-phrase: in user talk Innv on Meta-wiki: Всегда пожалуйста! Если что обращайтесь :) and phrase on spam listed resource: Всегда пожалуйста, если что — обращайся.
Innv similar to AstroNomer-ru its activities - he also was productive with the party elected writing articles, but has been blocked for similar reasons - sockpuppetry.
Also, sockpuppet T-tok participants was very positive, even had received permission "patroller", but it was blocked for sockpuppetry - Afinogenoff was puppeteers.
Note: approximately July 11, 2008 Afinogenoff (as Dream on spam-listed resource) wiki-break and Innv also a thing of the Wiki-break. The appearance of activity Afinogenoff on spam-listed resource coincided coincides with an activity Innv on Wikimedia wikis.
Requests for checkuser on multiple wikis should be addressed to a steward here. Jimbo doesn't generally handle such requests. If you want a checkuser on the Russian Wikipedia you will have to ask a local checkuser. Hut 8.518:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia now ReputationDefender Internet Alteration Services
...and the fact that I'm just a casual observer and editor and have little effect on your opinion.
Here is a company whose sole purpose is to remove unwanted information from the Internet.
You've said yourself in another talk page of yours that:
The problem with the Ronen Segev article is that there is a non-notable event that people keep trying to insert into the article, a serious problem with undue weight.
Well, the situation has changed. Ronen "Ronnie" Segev is no longer just some musician who had a customer service dispute with priceline, but the new posterchild for a new type of orchestrated infromation cleansing. Enough people think it's relevant for the article to have appeared in Wired, the Washington Post as well as several other publicaations.
Call it censorship, a conspiracy, whatever you want. The simple fact is that this idea, that someone with enough money can purchase the information which appears about them on the internet is one of the highest insults to the reputation of not only wikipedia, but of every other site on the Internet.
Interestingly, a search of Wired turns up one mention of Mr. Segev - in the comments section of a 2006 article. Washington Post site doesn't turn up any mentions of Ronen or Ronnie Segev. Segev himself turns up mostly references to his academic and musical career. I'd say there's no reliable sources to indicate that the above is actually the case. Besides, this policy trumps everything; give it a read. Tony Fox(arf!)16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly your response is irrelevant and typical bullshit posted by Reputation Defender which removes such information from the Internet. When the Washington Post was asked to remove the article about Segev, they did it, so much for our great American Media. So dumbass, just shut the fuck up, and keep your 'interesting' comments to yourself.
P.S. Why do I have to keep signing my comments, when an automated bot goes and does it for me? Seems a bit superfluous, no?
and by "shut the fuck up" I mean, it's not necessary for you to post your irrelevant responses. Do you have some sort of quota of replies you need to make on a daily basis, or are you just really this dense? --Vancedecker (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. My response was posted to suggest that you were lacking in reliable sources to back up your statements. I suggest a good read of this guideline and encourage you to provide references to prove your above comments. Tony Fox(arf!)17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Let me ask you this? Why do you think it's necessary to preserve this poor guy's act of frustration in an encyclopedia? People get arrested every day for this type of harassment, it's simply not notable. Would you include the arrest in a page about him if it had been for failing to pay parking tickets? The problem with the digital age is that every foolish or foolhardy thing that someone does which would normally only bring them Fifteen Minutes of local or regional fame (or infamy), is now preserved forever on the Internet. Wikipedia shouldn't be a party to this.. We shouldn't have articles on individuals who's only notablity is from a single tabloidesque incident, nor should we add everything that hits the tabloids (or the internet) to the pages of individuals who do meet our notablity standards for other reasons. --Versageek18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Question
My understanding was that the hierarchy of authority on wikipedia went (in ascending order) "Jimbo Wales; Arbcom; Community; Foundation; Core policies like NPOV". Was my understanding incorrect? --Random832 (contribs) 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The Foundation would definitely be ranked above NPOV, given they have complete control over the servers and can in effect do whatever they like. I would suggest that it's "Community, Jimbo Wales, ArbCom, Core policies, Foundation" (given that ArbCom source their authority directly from the Foundation, see m:Foundation issues, yet that charter doesn't empower them to break core policy so it remains above the Committee; and Jimbo below ArbCom per this). Daniel (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel's ordering of the "hierarchy". But I would like to add that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and this heirarchy of power has little to do with everyday editing on Wikipedia. The vast majority of work on Wikipedia is done by people who just want to make a great free encyclopedia, and neither Jimbo, ArbCom, or the Foundation is involved. Even the core policies don't directly relate to every edit. We don't require editors to learn all the policies before editing; if they think they are improving the encyclopedia they are encouraged to jump right in. I have always believed that the greatest power on Wikipedia is not Jimbo or ArbCom or even the Foundation, but is freely given to anyone with internet access and the motivation to click 'edit this page'. Jon513 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Naturally. My list was in the hypothetical situation that all five wanted to get involved. Some kind of very odd wiki-orgy should that happen, no doubt :) Daniel (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no more a "hierarchy of authority on wikipedia" than there is a hierarchy of authority between the President, Congress and the Supreme Court in the USA. There are varying responsibilities and powers designed in a checks and balances structure. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The USA in theory, or the USA in present-day practice? (I was under the impression that the Prez intimidated or ignored both the Congress and the Supreme Court.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Recently I have discovered the fact that there's instruction creep in notability guidelines. Most of the notability guidelines, such as geographic locations, are not necessary since we do have WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:N, and the so-called "non-notable" places are in fact inherently notable since they have the research value. There must be some scholars studying it. And there're VERIFIABLE sources for the places. Also if the geographic location notability guideline becomes formal, there may be the circumstance: One Somali Wikipedian creates an article about the village he lives in and does not reference it (he does not have the habit of citing sources), then one American Wikipedian AfD it, plenty of Wikipedians agree with the nominator since few Somali persons are willing to join English Wikipedia and the village is quite obscure to them, the Somali Wikipedian does not have enough time to find reliable sources to reference the article, and the article gets deleted. He later have plenty of time to find sources, and when he finishes looking for sources and prepares to add them to the article, he finds the article deleted. Though he can use Wikipedia:Deletion review to request undeletion, he might not know the page or fells troublesome to do the request and get frustrated, then leave Wikipedia and tell other Somali persons not to join the project, then effect great loss to it. I have pointed out the issues on the discussion page, but the proposers are still quite eager to formalise the guideline. Hope you can intervene with it. --RekishiEJ (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Even for towns, we need reliable sources that the town exists. As long as you can provide those, there's a presumption that any inhabited place (towns, villages etc) are automatically notable enough to be included. – iridescent19:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
But the fact is, many editors do not have the habit of citing sources. Also, an editor might create an article about the administrative region he lives in, and since it is so familiar to him, he just types all the knowledge and information he knows about it and submit the article. Later another editor finds that the region is so obscure to him, then he may add the {{notability}} tag, but he should add {{Unreferenced}} instead since administrative regions are inherently notable (can determine it by search engines). Though Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions does mention that inherent notability can not be used as an argument for a keep vote, in this situation inherent notability should be applied to it. --RekishiEJ (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ideally that's how it should be, but if we've no way to verify the place exists – which isn't unusual for places in developing countries which won't necessarily have websites, etc – we have to assume that it might be a hoax. When (if) WP:GEOBOT is activated, that should solve this problem worldwide (albeit by creating a new potential problem of 1 million+ stub articles). – iridescent21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, this relates to something I posted about, the usage of 'relevancy' as a new tool for censorship. This idea of notability is ambiguous and itself highly biased towards the users perspective. If administrators would for a second, try to leave their 'group-think' convention, they would realize the tautological catch-22 that these concepts of notability and reliability of sources presents. It's interesting that the "Somali Villager" will have problems proving notability, while a posting about something which doesn't even exist, such as the article on Warp Drive, has no problems at all since it has been popularized by Hollywood. This is one of the overall problems with wikipedia, in that simple statements of fact, are often deleted for no evidence. I think editors need to start exercising a higher degree of abstract thought and common sense rather than engage in these literalist games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancedecker (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
there are likely references to Somali villages in the old imperial records and pre 1950s travelers references.Geni16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Does this response have anything to do with the actual meaning of what I just said???
No, it doesn't. Are you twelve years old? Did your teacher not have the lesson yet on reading comprehension?
It's almost as if admins are chosen for their ability to completely not understand concepts such as 'context' or 'analogy" --Vancedecker (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. However with a bit of diligence sources on things like african villages can be found to an extent.Geni17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Who cares what you are, the 'somali village' in my comment is an analogy, hence the quotes, and doesn't require a literalist comment from you. If you have comment which deals with the concept then post it. --Vancedecker (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I know the project I've had dealings with it from time to time. The assertion that we need to lower sourceing standards in order to adress systemic bias haws not at this time been proven.Geni19:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with the citing sources guideline, and acknowledge that verifiability is the key to solve NPOV conflicts and eliminate abusive article creation of non-notable topics. I just want to point out that an article without sources and is obscure to Westerners does not necessarily mean it is a hoax. I do understand that what Iridescent concerns, but I'm afraid that articles about places whose official website do not exist will be massively deleted in the near future, even if there are non-English reliable sources about them, whether official or unofficial, and this effects wiki-bullying, as mentioned in Wikipedia Review. And the problem that once WP:GEOBOT is activated there will be more than one million stubs can be solved by banning article creation by bots. --RekishiEJ (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see the point or meaning of your posts. English speakers don't speak Swahili, and therefore can not verify claims written in that language. This is a problem with humans and the universe, not Wikipedia. Go setup a Universal Government and Universal Language and get back to us. Until then I don't know how it's physically possible to meet your demands. --mboverload@23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Translate is far better than machine translation, it is much worse than good human translation though, since so far it has not received enough statistical data. And WP:V does not prohibit the use of non-English sources; it just encourages editors to use English sources and add the original quote on the footnote while translating non-English quotes. In some situations we must use non-English sources to write articles, such as Bhutan culture or Thai Buddhism. Also the above statement "English speakers don't speak Swahili" is totally wrong. Some English speakers can speak Swahili, so if a Wikipedian uses Swahili sources to add some statements to a certain article, they can verify it. And in fact most readers do not verify the article at all; even if the sources are on-line, they do not completely read all the sources. They only read part of them (including me). And though peer-reviewed jounals are verifiable sources, they are not accesible to general readers since the diction, the terms, the jargons and the mathematical formulae in them are quite hard for general readers to understand, thus unable or barely able to verify the claims "supported" by the peer journals. Remember, WP:V is just the tool to solve NPOV issues and improve reliability, not the purpose. Hope Jimmy Wales can intervene with this situation and deny this guideline. After all, English Wikipedia is a system combined with various political ststems, not just authortarian, democrat nor anarchist. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
For Your convenience I would be more than happy to make available the pywikipedia jobs I used to do this for my own id, either posting them, or sending that code by email to any place You wish.
A kind and knowledgeable steward has informed me that since May when I made my first request, wiki software has been changed and this second step is no longer necessary for the protection I was worried about. So... never mind. :-)
I am asking a question. It seems that some of my edits for today, August 14th, don't appear in my contributions. How did that happen? Did I update my status too late? SchfiftyThree18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just thought you'd like to know. Remember that WP:BLP policy we used to have? Doesn't apply if an editor can find a Stephen Colbert jibe to use against a living person in a Wikipedia article. I assume the same will apply to Jay Leno and David Letterman jokes. At least not under the current state of this discussion at the BLP noticeboard. If you hate some public figure, don't bother putting a direct attack on the page, just go to Letterman's Top Ten List archives and pull a disparaging quote. You can call it "criticism" from a "satirist". Anybody can drive a freight train through that hole in the policy. Real gem of a website we're creating here. Let's jazz up the name, though. How 'bout Juvenilopedia or Attackapedia. Or maybe Encyclopedia Dramatica. I just spent three hours in a library confirming the reliability of a source for a particularly sensitive BLP edit I'm contemplating. Why the hell should I bother when administrators and other editors won't bother to apply BLP policy? Certainly Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. would be a dead letter. What shortcut should we use for this new exception in WP:BLP -- WP:MOCKATWILL? And if you think I'm too angry, tell me, why the hell shouldn't I be pissed off at this complete abdication of responsibility? Noroton (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The responsibility for enforcing policies lies with the community, not with Jimbo. Have you also taken this issue up at WT:BLP in the hope of strengthening the policy? (And if so, have you remained cool while doing so?)
You should also probably keep in mind that inappropriate or excessive inclusion of mocking or satirical comment runs afoul not only of WP:BLP but also of WP:UNDUE, part of one of the five pillars. So if you're looking to get satirical content removed, you have multiple angles from which you can address it. --jonny-mt05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews has been hacked
[5] has been hacked with a message saying: "This is the Zodiac speaking. Do you think you cowards can run from me? No you cannot, for I am above mortal things. ЕНКЁШКААНЛЁПЕЦЦААЭАН ДАЛЫЧЫНВКЁШКАШЕАНЦА АМЫНЮЛЛЕЯЬЦЦЫМЬЫНЕ НКЫЫЪЕХЦЫЬЕНДЁЪПХЫ НЦЕХЁККААМПЫАКЮЫНКЁ ЛМЕЦЮХАЦЦАЁЪВАШМЕЯ АШЕЁННЫЫНХАЮШКААШ ЫНЮНПЫЦЬЫШЫЙЪЫЦЦ ЬЬЦЕХДЬШЕНПЙШЬККЫЁ НЦЙПЕЪЫЬШЫКЁЯА!
" and more not included. Please notify the appropriate person. This is message is going to all system admins. Calebrw (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, yesterday, I have located the copyright law of Kosovo. I am not sure what processes are needed in order for Wikipedia to recognize it. I still need to have the text translated in order to figure out what it says, but any advice is welcome. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, English Wikipedia follows United Statues copyright law. Wikimedia Commons, though, has a policy of also respecting the law of any country that has a local claim of jurisdiction. Whether or not Kosovo would be handled an independent country now (I'm not sure), it may become one in the future. So a translation of its copyright law would be a good thing to have. Commons lists copyright laws at commons:Commons:Licensing. Suggest you open a discussion at the talk page there. Best wishes, DurovaCharge!07:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if we ever had a discussion like this before on Wikimedia, so that is why I am asking the tough question. The Albanian copy of the law is here and while typing the message, the English law is here. It was passed during the UN period in Kosovo, but still enforced as law in Kosovo. The term is 70 years PMA and Article 12 has the works not protected by copyright. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly recommend bringing these links over to Commons and opening a discussion there. These are excellent questions for that project. DurovaCharge!23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have put a speedey notice on this wildly inappropriate page and removed the attack on another user. Wikipedia space is not to be used to engage in attacks on other users. Thanks, SqueakBox15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
SwisterTwister (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
This is not the place to be making such allegations - and allegations I hope you can back up, given the newspaper you describe as a "tabloid" is considered the de facto British newspaper of record George The Dragon (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I wrote the MJ article and got it to featured states with 3000 edits to it, I'm making the allegation too. Although it's not the end of the world as we know it. — Realist200:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't get steamed about it, it happens all the time. Journalists tend to be lazy. GFDL requires attribution, IIRC, but only to the 'pedia. If I'd been misrepresented, that would be an issue, but it's unlikely to arise. --Rodhullandemu00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh cheap shot, fluff piece (it's a featured article), disgraced (he's still selling more records than you)?. I don't understand what Jackson's standing has to do with this anyway, you under minded your argument a little. — Realist200:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The Times: In a collaboration with Lionel Richie, he co-wrote the charity single We Are the World released worldwide to raise money for the needy in Africa and the US. We Are the World became one of the best-selling singles of all time, raised millions for charity and earned Jackson charity credentials.
Us: With help from Lionel Richie, Jackson co-wrote the charity single "We Are the World", released worldwide to aid people in Africa and the US. Jackons was one of many music celebrities who performed on the record. Released in March 1985, the single became one of the best-selling singles of all time, with nearly 20 million copies sold and millions of dollars raised for charity. It was the first time Jackson was seen as a humanitarian
Also while I appreciate your concern, GTD, I am sure this is something worthy of attention from the community at large. I have nothing but concern for our cause of free information and my work on the Jackson article was with education in mind for those that cannot afford costly proprietary books. :)--Manboobies (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The example is, in my opinion, different enough for them to get away with it. They are stating a fact, backed-up by reliable sources. It's either true or it isn't. And it is. Assuming the Michael Jackson article is well-sourced, there is no real way of proving someone hasn't gone to all the same sources and independently produced similar copy George The Dragon (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The Times: During a spectacular fallout with Sony, which saw Jackson successfully leave his recording contract, he accused CEO Tommy Mottola of being a “devil” and a “racist”.
Us:Jackson made allegations in July 2002 that Mottola was a "devil" and a "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, using them merely for his own personal gain.--Manboobies (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's not plagiarism either. The only part exactly the same is the mention of "devil" and "racist," as would be expected as they are direct quotes. The comments Jackson made regarding Mottola made headlines across the globe at the time. But anyway, my opinion is just that of one - if you really think the project has been wronged, complain at the appropriate place, there is a process in place for such situations. George The Dragon (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Us August 14: Jackson issued the double-disc album Thriller 25, a 25th anniversary edition of Thriller. The set contained the original nine tracks from Thriller, re-mixes and a new song called "For All Time". Two singles were released to moderate success: "The Girl Is Mine 2008" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008".
Them August 15:To celebrate the 25th anniversary of Thriller, Jackson issued the double-disc album Thriller 25. The set contained the original nine tracks from Thriller, re-mixes and a new song called For All Time. Two singles were released to moderate success: The Girl Is Mine 2008 and Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008.
That appears to be a direct lift in the sentence "The set contained the original nine tracks from Thriller, re-mixes and a new song called For All Time. Two singles were released to moderate success: The Girl Is Mine 2008 and Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008.". :).--Manboobies (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Us August 14: a nickname conceived by actress and friend Elizabeth Taylor when she presented Jackson with an "Artist of the Decade" award in 1989, proclaiming him "the true king of pop, rock and soul"
Them August 15: The nickname was coined by Jackson’s friend the actress Elizabeth Taylor when she presented him with an Artist of the Decade award in 1989, proclaiming him "the true king of pop, rock and soul".
Us August 14:It is a 2,700-acre property complete with Ferris wheels, an exotic menagerie, a movie theater and a security staff of 40.
Them August 15:To the 2,700-acre property he added a Ferris wheels, exotic menagerie, and a movie theater, guarded by 40 security staff.
US August 14: Jackson founded the "Heal the World Foundation" in 1992. The charity organization brought underprivileged children to Jackson's Neverland Ranch, located outside Santa Ynez, California, to go on theme park rides that Jackson had built on the property after he purchased it in 1988. The foundation also sent millions of dollars around the globe to help children threatened by war and disease.
Them August 15: Jackson founded the charitable Heal the World Foundation in 1992 which brought underprivileged children to Neverland and sent money to children threatened by war and disease around the globe.
US August 14:Forbes placed his annual income at $35 million in 1996 and $20 million in 1997
Them August 15: His annual income, according to Forbes had reached $35 million in 1996. In 1997, it fell to $20 million.
US August 14: Released in 1997 and premiering at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival, Ghosts was a short film written by Jackson and Stephen King and directed by Stan Winston. The video for Ghosts is over 38 minutes long and holds the Guinness World Record as the world's longest music video.
Them August 15:Ghosts, a short film co-written with Stephen King was premiered at Cannes. At over 38 minutes it is the world's longest music video.
US August 14: He received eight records, among them "First Entertainer to Earn More Than 100 Million Dollars in a Year" and "First Entertainer to Sell More Than 100 Million Albums Outside the United States".
Them August 15: He received eight records, among them First Entertainer to Earn More Than 100 Million Dollars in a Year and First Entertainer to Sell More Than 100 Million Albums Outside the United States.
Jimbo is generally easygoing about this sort of thing, but generally speaking plagiarism is a very serious matter in the journalism world. People have lost jobs and careers over it. DurovaCharge!07:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Will be interesting to see what happens. I've had images of mine used without credit which is in breach of the license terms but still hard to fight. If it had of been an an Australian media outlet Media Watch (TV program) would have had a field day with the plagiarism. Bidgee (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a serious issue in some ways, the only name I can see as an attribution is "Zoë Blackler", but I swear that Zoë Blackler did not write this material, I did. All the info from her piece is found at Michael Jackson from August 14 or before, she's just trimmed sections (often leaving out pro Jackson parts). Even with her trimming I have shown that a number of direct lifts and near direct lifts have been made. I can see my own work a mile off. This will affect me as an editor greatly, thing's I write are likely to be used elsewhere and often not in a neutral manner. Zoe Blacklers article had a lot of cherry picking in it. I've heard people say that wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source, yet the Times is prepared to copy us. If people knew our work was being used maybe we would be taken more seriously. — Realist207:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to spoil the indignation party, but if you look up any famous person on the internet you will see lots of web pages that copy Wikipedia articles completely. These sites have advertising on them, which they earn from, even though Wikipedia doesn't. This is a free encyclopedia, which means they are allowed to do it. (Anyone can alter or copy free-use photos as well). I was also shocked in the past when I read something about Mimi Smith that was a 100% copy. The only good thing about this is that that particular newspaper can not complain about the quality of Wikipedia anymore, can it?--andreasegde (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a crucial difference: under GFDL downstream uses are acceptable as long as the source is credited. The distinction between copyleft and plagiarism is a very serious one in the world of journalism. DurovaCharge!23:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I should also say that "cut & paste" has been used for years by people writing cheap books, and by journalists in articles. The question is, how do we get the information to put in the articles? I paraphrase books all the time, as well as web pages. We're told to do it, as original research is a no-no. I know it's shocking, Realist2, but be proud that some hack journo thinks your work on Jacko is better than he/she could do themselves. Ever thought of a career in journalism? :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not a case of OWN at all, if the Times is going to go around just copying us, without even saying, how can we continue to use them as a third party source, it's effectively a mirror image. I've seen bad sources copy my work on other subject matter, but I don't expect to see it passed of in a major publication. I under stand the ethos of the project entirely, if everyone just copies us we have no reliable third party sources, just a bunch of mirror images. On the other hand we should be proud that we were used, I'm tired of hearing complaints about wikipedia, yet this supposedly good source copies us without crediting us. Try to avoid person attacks against me and BLP comments about the subject. — Realist215:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supported by volunteers -- largely underage -- uploading dubious content for free. Considering how often Wikipedia itself plagiarizes other material and the fact that its founder is a supporter of copyleft, why should anyone be upset when Wikipedia itself is plagiarized?
A polite note to the editor of the Times would seem to be a reasonable first step. Most editors are genuinely shocked and upset to find out that one of their staff has plagiarised material from Wikipedia (or anywhere else, for that matter). A courteous approach and a bit of patience on our part will usually lead to apologies and full credit to Wikipedia; the article may also be withdrawn. (Be clear, concise, and friendly in your approach, and in your explanation of the problem and preferred solutions.)
Gross plagiarism can lead to severe sanctions, up to and including termination of the reporter. I was involved in the discovery of a case of plagiarism by an entertainment reporter a couple of years ago (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-16/Tim Ryan dismissed) where the journalist in question was ultimately fired. (While the single instance of plagiarism might have gotten by with a warning, other Wikipedia editors investigated his other work and discovered a number of other cut & paste jobs from other sources.)
Remember in all cases to document your claims carefully, be utterly civil, and to be aware that – even though you're not an official representative of Wikipedia – your actions (good or bad) will reflect on all of the rest of us here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the comments above seem to indicate an incorrect understanding of the terms involved. Plagiarism is the passing off of work done by others as if you wrote it yourself. It doesn't matter if the material is public domain. It doesn't matter if you have explicit permission from the source. It doesn't matter if you altered it a little. Even rephrasing the entire thing doesn't matter if it is still recognizably derived from someone else's work (e.g. all the facts are in the same order). If you present it as entirely your work and part of it came from someone else then it is plagiarism. Copyleft is a concept underlying the GFDL and other types of content licensing which basically waives virtually all provisions of copyright, but requires any reuse of the material to cite the prior source(s). If you re-use the material without attribution then you are violating copyright. The Times piece is very definitely both plagiarism and a copyright violation. Which historically hasn't been a big deal to us... but has been to the newspapers who've discovered such cases. That said, a number of years back The Times published a review of The Lord of the Rings which was mistakenly drawn from a web-spoof of the story which some friends and I had put together... resulting in them explaining that 'Frodo was captured by Galadriel's evil sister Queen Beruthiel' and other nonsense which appears nowhere in the book. Since they didn't cite the source that was plagiarism too, but my recollection is that they just printed a slightly embarassed retraction rather than firing the culprit or the like. --CBD13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:AN
I hope this is the right place to ask for help around this issue. A topic ban is being proposed around my editing at here because it is thought I am not following WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and other arguments presented at the AN page.
I believe that I am following all of wikipedia's guidelines. What I need if possible is a neutral party to look at the issue and carefully research the Satanic Ritual Abuse page and corresponding talk page and any other pertinent pages. It is very difficult to find a neutral editor to look at this issue. The other editor's edits involved at the SRA page would need to be looked at also, since I believe they have caused a large part of the problem at this page.
I believe that the proposed topic ban is in essence a way to control the content of these and other pages related to the child abuse issue. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring that the admins who supported the topic ban were uninvolved with the SRA talk page and
Ignoring the numerous reliable sources that explicitly demonstrate RE's interpretation of the current discussion of satanic ritual abuse is undue weight and POV. When I say "explicitly", I mean five sources that say the emphasis on satanic ritual abuse in the 1990s was excessive and the moral panic is now over. Some even say that ongoing interest in SRA is only maintained in a minority of scholars, which makes it unambiguously a fringe topic. No paraphrasing or interpretation required.
The above party is directly interested in outcome of the above matter. His edits are the main ones that pushed the extremely skeptical POV that does not allow any additional information on the page to counter a couple of sources promoting the extreme skepticism of the idea of a panic. There are many (30 to 40) reliable sources that counter this idea. Yet, most of them are not allowed on the page and the page is written as if they almost never existed. The reliance of interpreting the writing of the entire page on the basis of a couple of sources is ridiculous. I am asking for a full evaluation of the process that occurred the last month at the SRA page. How some editors were intimidated into not posting on the talk page and how only one POV is allowed to stand on the page itself. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And the above is not a violation of WP:PARENT. "For instance, if you're blocked you can ask for an outside review of said block..." this is what I am doing, asking for a review. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Trouble looming with MyWikiBiz?
There appears to be an article-in-vitro brewing at User:Neil/mwb. Are you going to allow an article about MyWikiBiz in Wikipedia, after all the trouble that MyWikiBiz has given you? - Wet Floor Sign (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that this is Mr. Kohs speaking. As he should know, whether an article appears in Wikipedia is decided through editorial processes that do not include posting here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad is right. I will have nothing to do with it. Indeed, although I have not kept up recently with whatever Mr. Kohs has been doing, I suspect he should be allowed a fresh start in Wikipedia. I would hope that eventually he can make his peace with the community and all will be well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Since he's still actively evading his ban (to say nothing of attacking numerous Wikipedians offsite) I don't think that would be a terribly good idea. I also don't think it's entirely fair to expect volunteers to trail round after him checking for the bias in edits he is being paid to make. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I would note that the MO of this requester, with a user page in the usual style to create a bluelink and the very next post being more drama whoring, means that it is almost certainly either Kohs or someone pretending to be Kohs in order to create drama. Neither is welcome. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would want to get involved. The cities may not be interesting, but maybe you like American Dad!. So, I just informed you if you are interested. There is only 1 member in 1st and 3rd WikiProjects (which is me). There are 2 members in 2nd WikiProject. I am trying to get members because they may like some of WikiProjects. It's just a message. If you would like to join, it would be AWESOME!!! Emir34 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Other Projects
Jimbo, I've been looking around other projects for some time.
I still believe this project is one worth trying to make something of.
However, imagine my surprise when I saw, over on Simple Wikipedia, a user trying to become an admin without knowing about the basic rule of WP:OWN. Given only a few people over there make decisions, could you please bring yourself to read the RFA and the talk page and do something about this blatant violation of the Wikipedia ethos. Kind regards George The Dragon (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
With the best will in the world, individual Wikis within the WMF umbrella have their own rules and standards, subject to WMF policies and guidelines. WP:OWN is a policy of application here but may be differently couched in other Wikis. Whether a candidate for an RfA on another Wiki is in breach of that policy is ultimately an issue for that Wiki, not here. Even if the wording of the policy is identical, it is (IMO) a matter for the contributors there to determine whether it is relevant to the candidate's RfA, and to what extent. That is one of the essences of this project, that even though there may be few contributors, consensus is the key. My reading of Jimbo's role and function is that at this level, even an advisory input might be outside the scope of that particular project, and even be seen as unnecessary. Of course, if Jimbo wishes to say otherwise, that's his prerogative, but I see it as a scoping issue in that Jimbo cannot, and should not, be the ultimate recourse for issues that could be solved locally. --Rodhullandemu23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiVersity, a WikiMedia site dedicated to providing a place to do research and create learning resources, is very interesting in this regard. NPOV is accomplished there by allowing everyone to create learning resources that communicate their OWN point of view. There is no three revert rule there - don't need it - just create your own page. They also allow original research, but providing evidence is encouraged. So far so good. It makes for a far more mellow atmosphere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Oneness of Humanity Club
Hi, I just finished an edit on Vivi Nevo and found your name in the history. Back in 2001 we set up an on line club named above, at Waikato University, New ZealandAotearoa. It was designed to be an online undergraduate acedemic journal, with translations into other languges, that PhD students peer reviewed.. The original web site is still present to look at. RoddyYoung (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ps wiki is great
I am sorry to address you on this, but maybe you need to revisit this guildeline. It is not, under any circumstance, grounds for deletion. The guildeline tells us we may need to move the article to another title reflecting the event. If the event fails the guidelines for inclusion, it should very well be deleted. Otherwise, the text of the guideline is very clear about how we should cover the subject. To do otherwise would lead us down the slippery slope of whitewashing articles that we have no business hiding from our readers. You completely misread policy, and misdirected our editors who have an obligation to preserve material when you put forth your argument in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tjandamurra_O'Shane_(2nd_nomination). Jim MillerSee me | Touch me02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
BLP1E is a perfectly valid reason to delete. Indeed, it is a perfect valid reason on my view to speedy delete, and the guideline is likely to be updated soon to reflect that. There is no danger of 'whitewashing' - if someone wants to move some portion of the content to an appropriate place, they can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
A change to the CSD policy would require consensus, I doubt that including BLP1E in the CSD criteria would get any such consensus. Or do you intend to impose your will upon the community? RMHED (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course I don't intend to do that. But I do intend to be a positive force for ethical treatment of biographical subjects, and it is clear to me that current policy does not go far enough. The real question is: how can we identify the minimal changes needed to make for positive change?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
There are no doubt several answers to this question, not a single solution. I myself would recommend that pushing the community for a strong flagged revisions, where it definitely is dragging its feet, would be a strong, fast area to make a read impact. Some bits of noindexing are being done these days, probably lead by Newyorkbrad, and he would be a sensible person to chew a bit of fat with. Moving Rodney King to Beating of Rodney King, which is more or less what BLP1E says to do now (and is effectly the practice where anything happens at all) is not that helpful. Other measures are probably worthwhile, but will take much more time to implement. WilyD12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the outcry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tjandamurra O'Shane (2nd nomination) indicates that bringing in such a speedy deletion reason would be foolish and horribly divisive. (Incidentally I pity the admin who has to close that discussion.) There is no reason not to take a few days and discuss such articles on a case by case basis, whilst current BLP rules already cover removing the most egregious cases. Of course if you wish to delete articles by fiat, that is your prerogative. the wub"?!"12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I would not advocate for deleting any of those. Those are not violations of BLP1E, though. Rodney King is notable for a number of events, so "cover the event, rather than the person" can't be applied. Lee Harvey Oswald, famously, is not a living person. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, while I agree that's not the intent, we come precariously close to deleting that kind of thing in the current situation when the only difference is that the subject is not an American (and that second example was sloppy, I agree). While your sentiment is noble, you really need to appreciate that some people will overreact to whatever you say, given your position. WilyD04:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, you might be interested in Wikipendium (to be renamed Epistemia), a proposed independent alternative to Wikipedia that will be democratic instead of dictatoral and anarchical, and the first announcement and second follow-up on Wikipedia-L. It's time that dictators (pardon me) like you stop claiming power over the community, project, and project's content. And why not give up your new Community Founder's Seat? It doesn't seem very democratic. – Thomas H. Larsen00:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Call me naive here, but at 55, perhaps I'm a bit young for all this. "dictatorial and anarchical" would appear to be contradictory; nothing can be both. I've seen various forks of Wikipedia start up even in my short time here, the most notable being Veropedia. However, when I search for a topic in any of the four (or maybe 3.5) search engines, I see no links to there; but I do see links to here. That tells me one of two things; Veropedia is too small to attract attention from the search engines, or they haven't got their SEO together. So starting up another fork has at least those problems to address. Pious hope seems to be inadequate here. As regards "democracy", I'll give you an example from my own experience: I arrived at a UK University and joined a society of interest to me; a small but loud minority argued that it should become a "co-operative" with fluid rules, total "democracy", no hierarchy, and no individual responsibility. The rest of us left and started a different society, and while we complied with Student Union rules, the original one went the way of the dodo. Lesson 1: If you're going to take a direction, make sure it's one that others might follow; Lesson 2: Don't underestimate who pays the bills, and Lesson 3: Make sure your PR does what you think it should do, and not the opposite. --Rodhullandemu00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The Rodney King example raises an important point about WP:BLP1E: It is not an absolute, blanket policy against articles on people who are famous for their involvement in one event. It is much more nuanced than that and allows for exceptions. Therefore, even if Rodney King were considered to be notable for only one event, it was such a famous event that I think he would qualify for an article anyway. I tried to think of a better example, and I think I have one: Valentina Tereshkova. She is notable for exactly one event, and yet I cannot imagine anyone arguing that she should not have an article, and BLP1E does not signify that she should not have an article. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Recent hijacking of wikipedia?
Yesterday I was using wikipedia, and searched "Ebay" on the searchbar on wikipedia, but redirected me to a horribly mutiliated wikipedia page (with the wiki logo on top left, search bar (with nothing else), dark blue background), with the message: "This is the Zodiac speaking. Do you still think you can stop me? Do you still think I have a soul? I do know that you people do not have souls, for I have destroyed them." Below this message was a bunch of numbers, which appears to be a coded message (highly likely as this person calls himself the zodiac), along with the image "CelticCross.svg" from wikipedia Commons in the bottom. Although I constantly tried to go into the Ebay page, this page kept opening, until a few minutes later the wikipedia page I wanted opened. I do not think this should go unnoticed, as you can still find the affected wiki-pages if you google search the message above, which is from the pages affected. This list of pages seems to change over a period of time I am not sure of. The most recent articles affected are: Ebay, List of Playstation 2 Games, Vallfogona de Riucorb, Space Race, Cookie Monster, Akita Inu, Bloodhound, OAO TMK, Honduras, International Superhits!, Final Fight.
Well of course I keep an eye on all this sort of thing, so I have been involved in talking with the ArbCom about it. It's a strange case, and disappointing. The one piece of the puzzle that I still don't get is *why* or what the point of it was. I mean, nothing untoward seemed to be going on. Just routine stuff. (At least as far as I know.) So... whatever. Poor judgment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Request for copyright permission
I am requesting permission to use the following image: wmf:Image:Wiki.png on my blog. All content is about the foundation and its projects (mainly Wikipedia) and the logo would be used in the position it is currently.
I would happily remove the image or amend the copyright notice at the bottom. Please notify me on my talk page when you reply (although this page is on my watchlist, I often miss changes). Thank you very much for your time Mr. Wales Dendodge|TalkContribs09:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is more of a trademark issue than a copyright issue. It is about branding and making money from deals the Foundation is now making with billion dollar corporations. The Foundation people need to make this sort of decision. I am aware that we have been liberal in the past in this regard, but the Foundation is getting more and more professional and creating complex strategies for maximizing income from its brand. I know that doesn't answer your question, but the point is that this is not Jimbo's decision to make. He does not own Wikipedia or the Foundation or its assets like its trademarks. He can't give you something owned by another. You do have Fair use so far as copyright claims go, but I don't think that covers your intended use. The point of trademark law is to ensure people are not mislead. Your intended use could cause some people to think there was an official relationship between the Foundation and your blog. So this is probably a bad idea. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"deals the Foundation is now making with billion dollar corporations"? Could anyone elaborate on this? I hope their strategies for spending income wisely are at least as complex and well thought-out as their strategies for maximizing it.
Dendodge: Since they're simply using trademark law to avoid frauds from passing off (pretending to be Wikipedia), I don't think they'll mind if you use the logo provided that there is a visible disclaimer, "This website is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation". The reason is because your blog would be made in order to promote Wikipedia, which benefits them.
Similarly, when Bungie Studios heard about Red Vs. Blue, although technically Red Vs. Blue violated Bungie's intellectual property, Bungie didn't sue them. Bungie supported Red Vs. Blue, because it helped to promote their game series. How it impacts Wikipedia financially is a part of fair use and, in this case, there doesn't seem to be any actual harm. Provided that it's clear you're not an official site or affiliated with the Foundation, using the logo is harmless. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I wasn't sure if any trademark existed, which is why I referred to copyright, and I couldn't be bothered to send an email to a mailing list and wait days for a reply so I simply asked Jimbo. Dendodge|TalkContribs16:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo is not responcible for manageing the foundation's intellectual property. He cannot legaly give you permission.Geni16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You said "I couldn't be bothered to send an email to a mailing list and wait days for a reply so I simply asked Jimbo" and "[Jimbo can forward the request is] why I asked him". WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well, as several people have pointed out now :-), this is the sort of thing that should be handled by the Foundation office, not by me personally. Please email Mike Godwin.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Informing you of a grounds of user banning
In would like to strongly request that you review the current situation of Fasach Nua . I am hereby officially filing a complaint against him. I am amongst the only users who has noticed him completely, and luckily so because it is becoming evident that he is deliberately ruining the process of Wikipedia.
First and foremost, he is blatantly disrupting the Featured Article candidates process. He seems to have developed a hatred for me and has deliberately opposed my nominated articles on inappropriate grounds. This is resulting in a nomination process turning into an unnecessary and unfriendly argument; solely due to his sparking. His main issue seems to be with image use. He has proven that his personal criteria for image use cannot be satisfied. Wikipedia:Non-free content review will show such. His section titled 'These Logos' started his issue. He is arguing that national flags can be used to replace the copyrighted national logos of a sports team. The section on that page clearly shows he has been opposed by almost everyone present, and his other mentions at different places have also been strongly ignored and opposed. Yet despite such, he goes around raising the issue wherever he can; he has once again found himself Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatia national football team|at my nomination for Featured Article]] and raised it again. He was opposed as usual but still went on to oppose the FA candidate. After I attempted to resolve his argument, he kept mentioning the same issue and ignored all replies to him. He then went on to oppose the candidate again due to another one of his crazy issues which was also clearly resolved, yet ignored by him.
I think ruining the FA decision process is clear grounds for a ban: or at least some kind of block from his account making edits to any further FA candidate pages. His crazy arguments are turning all pages into an unnecessary argument which keeps feuding. Even after they have been resolved, he brings the issue up again. He is blatantly ruining some very significant talk pages in a deliberate attack on me and some other users. You should really review such and issue a warning/block/suspension or ban to him. Anyone will tell you he is clearly walking on grounds for such. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note, but appealing to me is really the last stage of the dispute resolution process. If he's being really disruptive then any admin can hand out a short block, otherwise you could bring the matter to a more formal process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment please
There is a bit of an arguement going on about an admin's deletion of images whilst they were nominated for deletion and the issue was being discussed.
The discussion about the admin's actions can be found at WP:ANI (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?), and the discussion about the deletion of one of the images can be found here (Chillenden one - It is an image I uploaded, acknowledging it is a copyright image, appropriately attributed and with what I believe to be a valid fair use rationale). Would you please take a look as it seems to me that a lot of arguement is going on without anything getting settled one way or the other. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't normally get involved at the level of detail of individual image or article deletions, I am more interested in the broad improvement of policies and process. In this case, it looks like the process is working well. I actually agree with the deletion, but that's not really my point. My point is that it looks like the process of AfD and Deletion Review is working here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your time. I've still got more to learn about Wikipedia and how it works. I try not to get into disputes etc. but I feel the Chillenden Windmill article is poorer without the image. Am trying to source an image that is not from a Press Agency in the hope that it will be allowed to be kept. 15:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Mr Wales
I sent an email to you about interviewing you via email. I recieved an email back from Sierra but when I replied didnt hear anything back. Can you please confirm if you have seen this email or have heard about it? BountyHunter2008 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on a proposed decision in this case. I posted a set of 22 proposed principles about 10 days ago, and started on the findings of fact tonight (I was planning to post an entire draft tonight, but I ran out of gas around midnight). Please note that I have posted the proposals on the /workshop page so that they can benefit from public comment by arbitrators, the parties, and the community before they are finalized and voted upon, so it's possible you might not have noticed them (although I have kept the status updated on the proposed decision talkpage). Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Article voting in the German Wikipedia
Yesterday, a new feature was implemented in the German Wikipedia. It allows IP users and users without "sighting rights" (that is to flag articles as vandalism free) to vote for the quality of articles. This is done in the form of a box below the article. Users can vote for the reliability, completeness, neutrality and presentation on a school note scheme from "insufficient" to "very good".
Why was this feature implemented without a previous discussion of the authors of the German Wikipedia? Almost nobdoy even know about this feature before it went live yesterday night. Currently, there is a "Meinungsbild" (popular vote) if the authors want the feature to go on or not. Currently, there are 40 for the feature, 121 against it and 21 who don't think that this "Meinungsbild" is a good idea (for various reasons). A "Meinungsbild" is widely regarded as the definitive measure to settle side-wide formal and technical disputes in the German Wikipedia. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
is it the new Foundation/Developer/whose ever policy to use German Wikipedia as a guinea pig for new experiments without saying us a word about it? The community on de.wp isn't very happy about that...TheWolf (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe I should. Sorry, I was just pretty mad yesterday about the way we, the contributors, the ones who spend their time on this project and keep it living, are treated. TheWolf (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
when WP:BLP collides with WP:V, which one trumps the other?
Hello Mr. Wales, there is/was an interesting long discussion going on about a German court decision to suppress the birth names of two persons in future media coverage, who where suspected of murder and convicted but released early not least because suddenly a new suspect appeared.
Sorry about the long delay (I switched jobs and went on vacation in between). To respond to your question: I actually didn't vote in the recent election for the Board!
I will eventually get around to signing up for Gmail and figuring out how to use it (along with several other customizable Google services which all my friends keep telling me to try), but that will take time as I am adapting to a new area of law, new litigation support software, new co-workers, new office, etc. But when I get a new email account set up I will get around to emailing you to discuss what happened with the Wikimedia Foundation photo in detail.
Hi Jimbo, can I ask you a question about your stance towards speedy deletions of non-free images. Some time last year, you personally speedied Special:Undelete/Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg as a copyvio (i.e. an invalid fair use claim), cutting short an ongoing controversial IfD discussion (Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 28#Image:Il-76 shootdown.jpg). It was a case of a news image owned by a commercial news source. Would you support the view that news images of this type are prima facie violations of our non-free content conditions (particularly WP:NFCC#2, presumably), and would you support administrators speedying them even in view of IfD opposition?
(Background disclosure: I recently did a batch of speedies of a similar kind and am currently heavily criticised for it.) Fut.Perf.☼10:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was a long time ago so I don't really remember the details of what was going on. In general, I do think that except in very rare cases of unique photos of particular historical importance (in which the photo itself rises to the level of important historical artifact) (See: famous Elian Gonzales photo), we should be very cautious about using news photos, and I think eternal vigilance is important to prevent people from getting lazy about it.) I have not reviewed your speedied and so I am not offering any specific guidance on that case, but in general I would say that people should remember that images can be undeleted so there is no reason to get too bent out of shape. There is always DRV, and since reasonable people can differ, people should try to relax and assume good faith of each other always. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You might also look at the threads here and here to get a more nuanced understanding of the context of FPS's question, should you have time. --John (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Adminship of user:ChrisO
I'd like to question the adminship of user:ChrisO. This after arrogant behaviour concerning this template, such as pushing controversial edits through while ignoring discussion, using page protection tactically to consolidate his own edits and changing policy for specific purposes. In my view he is using his adminship to further his political views. . --83.249.240.108 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Just so you're aware, Jimbo doesn't go around desysopping people just for the hell of it. If you have a legitimate complaint against an admin, bring it up on WP:ANI, not here. J.delanoygabsadds00:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be true that ChrisO misused admin tools, by protecting (and unprotecting) the page in February 2008[9] and April 2008,[10][11][12] but I have seen no recent abuse of tools on Template:Countries of Europe, and ChrisO hasn't even edited the template since April (though he is still active on the talkpage). Asking Jimbo to de-sysop, based on something that happened a few months ago, seems a bit extreme, not to mention that Jimbo prefers that the community handles these kinds of situations (except in very very rare cases such as with the de-sysopping of User:Bedford). I do agree that ChrisO should not have been using tools at that template though, since he was not an uninvolved admin. Other than that, this issue is fairly stale. If there are other cases of ChrisO abusing tools, the best way to handle it is to bring them up (with diffs) at his talkpage. If the problems continue, a thread at WP:ANI or a Request for Comment would be the proper way to proceed. If there was community consensus that ChrisO had abused tools, he could choose to resign, or, as a last resort, the community could request de-sysopping via the Arbitration Committee. --Elonka00:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
For transparency I would like to add that ChrisO opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. This was followed up with an administrative recall request,[13] started by me, that gained support of 31 editors asking Elonka to resign or stand for reconfirmation. She has not complied for reasons stated. Criticism of ChrisO by Elonka should be understood within the context of these events. JehochmanTalk07:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been informed, though I'm displeased that Elonka didn't bother to ask for my side of the story or apparently do more than the most cursory investigation. The short story is that back in February, two IP editors were edit-warring on Template:Countries of Europe; I semi-protected it, they resumed as soon as semi-protection expired, Ckatz re-semi-protected it, they resumed again, I semi-protected it again for a longer period. Nothing improper or exceptional about that. The complaint is essentially malicious. My offence seems to have been to argue against the complainant's view on Template talk:Countries of Europe that South Ossetia and Abkhazia should be added to the template. This is really nothing more than an attempt at harassment by someone who disagrees with my advice on the matter. I've certainly never intervened against him or his POV in any way. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Body of Pelosi letter sent out is now online
As a follow-up to the full letter to Nancy Pelosi sent on the 23rd, I just wanted to let you know that the body of that letter is now on my user page and in the Wikipedians against censorship page. I also told the censorship page that you said "Bravo" in your response. Chris (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Just wanted to notify you and everybody else who monitors this page that AOL ip addresses have been indefinitely blocked. I've used them to edit for 2 years. It would be nice to have edit privileges restored. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Which IPs? You need to post the {{unblock}} template on the talk page of the IP involved. There are 4 billion IP addresses and we are not good guessers. Thatcher04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what's wrong with people, blocking all these IPs *solely* because they are public (I.P edits are anonymous anyway - right? If abuse happens, I.P. can be blocked and appealed later if nessecary.) But, I think when an I.P. is blocked for being public a user should still be able to create an account, etc. Some users don't have their own copmputers - or may have simply forgotten a password. I.P. is irrelevant in password recovery because the password still goes to a personal e-mail address.Rayvn (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Public IPs that are abused by vandals to create accounts and to vandalize will be blocked until the vandal gets bored and goes away. Thatcher04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Stable versions in German Wikipedia
Hello there!
Now as the German users' voting on stable versions is drawing near its end, it is quite clear that there is a majority for stable versions as default. Quite a large part of the community though is voting strictly against this, more precisely about a third of those who partake. The arguments between traditionalists and quality managers are fierce, the gap between the groups is easy to spot.
I'm a traditionalist. I actually believe in 'You can edit this page right now'. If the changes come in the German Wikipedia (yes, we just love to be the guinea pig here...;)), something of the free spirit will be lost. Already there are huge prejudices encountered by IP-users, these will ultimately congeal into a class system of edits, where some are deemed more worthy than others according to who entered them. Not to mention the huge amount of work which has to go into checking articles to not only provide stable, but also up-to-date articles, as well as the pressure on everyone to chime in to the new sound. In a nutshell, a principle considered 'sacred' is about to fall, and the community seems to be cleft.
I feel like the Wikipedia is closing its gates, and I am not certain it will be able keep its spirit along the chosen way. Is this really what you intend? When will you change your statement of principles then, once a new user, an IP user is not able to edit a page as they want any more, but can only make suggestions to someone who's got more rights than them in 'here'? Cheers from Germany, --Gabardine (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And I think that, done well, stable versions allows a lot more freedom for anonymous ips, not less! The front page of the site can be edited by the general public for the first time in years!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If this change gets through, absolutely nil can be edited directly by IPs and newly logged-ins anymore. Everything will need confirmation.
Concerning the main page: Suggestions can already be made on the discussion page. If one really thinks editing the main page is such a juicy treat to everyone, it would be logical to assume lots of people will try to do that. You'd then of course have to check each and every one of these edits. I presume you'll get a jumble of information and huge edit wars, and the outcome will be that the main page would have to be virtually closed again, as after a hundred non-confirmed changes made by IPs hardly a user will be able to confirm all this, no-one will have a clue what to keep and what to delete. Honestly, I think this is way too big a price to pay. These changes are immensely time-consuming and to me seem apt to cleave the community, as well as killing the very core idea of Wikipedia. --Gabardine (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Last I heard, stable versions can be configured in a wide range of possibilities and further can be applied selectively to some articles and not to others. I'm sure we can figure out some configuration that will wind up being an asset to our mission. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The configuration which is imminent to be implemented in the German Wikipedia has then obviously not been done well. I'm not sure how everything will develop there, especially how keen the editors, who voted (or are) against it, are to put any further work into Wikipedia or to go with the decision. Personally my guess would be, that in a couple of months the lag of non-sighted articles will grow too big and the feature will have to be cut down again. No-one will know how many users will have been frustrated by the complexity to work on one or the other version of the article, or by not seeing their changes in an article for days. So, sit back, watch, and maybe draw your conclusions from the spectacle for this Wikipedia. --Gabardine (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Where the Wiki fails
James,
all respect and gratitude to what you have created. Please do not feel that I am in anyway denigrating it in what I wish to post today. If I did not passionately support the project, I would not waste my time doing so.
You and the Wikipedia have had, and deserve, all your praise but, after several years and countless hours of involvement, I would like to briefly address the matter of "Where the Wikipedia Fails" because, in my documentable experience, I can honestly say there is a dangerous vein of unaccountable systemic failure that appears to run right the way up even to the bureaucrat level. And one, specifically, that in any other more accountable environment, such as academia, would be racial hate crime.
Given the responsibility of the Wikipedian community as a provider of education to entire generations of world internet users, I wish to put this very seriously to you, purposefully knowing that it will be read by many including those currently abusing its open, goodwill system. To do so, I am going to require some degree of amnesty as since June I have been working on a project Documentingabuse which has incurred me considerable wrath. I am also going to have to ask for "good faith" from certain admins that certain histories are not "disappeared" in the meanwhile ... as I have seen happen.
In June of this year, after watching the scenario going on the highly political Korean-Japanese related topics for over a year, I decided to engage with one of the main proponents, a Korean-American Caspian blue (talk · contribs), and document the modus operandi of control and manipulation that is being fairly widely used across more fringe, nationalistic or passion inducing topics. I am neither Japanese nor Asian. I have no reason to have any anti-Korean bias but it does seem arise often as a Korean issue which I cant understand from a cultural perspective.
After 4 years or more involvement, and having "cut my teeth" working on a topic about a cultic religion which wished to engage in concerted media control, I have encountered in the broadest manner how the system can be abuse by "skilled" individuals or small "tag teams", how content can be easily manipulated and, ultimately, not just how powerless the system is against such dedicated efforts but how probably over stressed admins actually support it.
Given Google's love affair with the Wikipedia, and hence its influence upon the young and future generations, I feel that it is seriously failing in its responsibility in such contentious areas. By allowing willfully abusive practises to go not just unchecked but even to be rewarded, especially those which have an inherent race hate element, the Wikipedia is spreading not knowledge but planting and encouraging seeds of racial hate for the future.
What I set out to do was to document the experience of a new and reasonably balanced and informed individual coming to the Wikipedia to contribute. What I think I have now sufficiently documented is how such individuals go about destroying the goodwill the Wikipedia depends on from not just newcomers but also exactly the type of contributors it needs, informed individuals with access to academia and other archives rather than just Google and blogs. In my opinion, the Wiki should be academic and rise above racial disputes not be used for propaganda.
Your response is welcome. Despite being an adult with responsibilities, I am willing to put in more of my time and effort documenting and discussing such cultural obstacles at the slightest evidence of reasonableness.
Thank you, --118.16.163.13 (talk)
First posted 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC) - censored and removed from talk page history.
Dear Jimbo,
There is currently a delicate discussion on the administrator's board on the French wikipedia.
This follows the undefinite block of a user decided by a big amount of sysops (18) while a minority opposed to this (5) and after one of these unblocked him...
The case has been taken in front of the ArbCom... It sounds as if the undefinite block will be (much) reduced (but this is not the issue).
-> some sysops claim that they will not obey to the CAr if it requires the modification of this undefinite block. One of these sysops is a steward, member of the Association Wikimedia France, another one is checkuser.
I think this is not anecdotical and important enough so that you intervene. My understanding of the fragile equilibrium based on consensus with some "committees" elected (or chosen by the community) to take decisions could collapse...
Ceedjee (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
NB: Feel free to ask me any translation. There also some contributors of wp:en, who do not participate to wp:fr, who could help you and support. As involved, while I didn't take part to the debate, I think I am not neutral either, even for a translation. Ceedjee (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia we have a system of "constitutional monarchy," and some longstanding traditions around that. I would personally desysop any admin or group of admins seeking to defy the ArbCom, because the ArbCom is a valid part of our longstanding traditions. There are other ways, more proper ways, to seek for change. (Including, for example, an appeal to me and a nonbinding community poll requesting me or the ArbCom to reconsider a decision. There are lots of civilized possibilities.) In French Wikipedia, I do not believe I hold the same role at all, because it is not part of the community tradition there. So therefore, all I can do is advise you: admins defying the ArbCom in any language ought to be prepared to accept the consequences, but I do not know what those are, and I can't personally help you. My point is, I do not know what power I have in French Wikipedia at all, however as an elder of our community, I would suggest that random admins overturning ArbCom decisions is a serious mistake. Justice can only be achieved through thoughtful process, and an admin war of all-against-all with no agreed upon conventions for settling things sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo.
Thank you for your comment. Of course you are considered as an Elder (wise) on wp:fr too. :-)
I will permit myself to leave a link on wp:fr to here. I assume some people will come here to discuss with you. But I think it is an important issue. Ceedjee (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well. It seems there is no consensus around an Elder position you would have or could be expected to have, on wp:fr.
But Anthère wrote in French something that sounds a little bit like what you write.
Thx anyway for your comments. I think they helped to make people think about the situation.
Jimbo, really? "I would personally desysop any admin or group of admins seeking to defy the ArbCom"? Are you aware that at least two arbcom decisions have been vacated by the community of admins simply refusing to enforce them? (Admittedly it was some time ago.) Or, supposing one were to have principled concerns about certain regarding which Arbcom has declined to/refused to/been unable to act? Thatcher04:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Refusing to enforce a decision is quite different from taking an action that contravenes the decision. If ArbCom says, "Block Thatcher forever," and then somebody unblocks you, they will be desysopped. If ArbCom says, "Any sysop may block Thatcher on Tuesday," and nobody does, who can be blamed? There is no obligation to enforce, but there most certainly is an obligation not to obstruct. JehochmanTalk04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
So user:Smith is topic-banned from editing article:Foo; but continues to edit, and no admins enforce the remedy. Where does this rank in your schema? Thatcher05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A more interesting question: ArbCom bans User:Smith from editing Foo and I tell Smith, "Bah, go ahead and edit Foo". I think that would be pushing my luck to the extreme. JehochmanTalk05:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably the most you could realistically get away with scot-free is to say "I will no enforce your topic ban on Foo." It's pretty clear to me that one of the "unenforced" ArbCom decisions in the footnotes BLP randomness, I'm not sure what the other is though. Footnotes BLP is totally useless, so I think it's unfair to say it's not being used when it's being used to maximum efficiency. WilyD14:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that neither I, nor any other admin ever threatened to defy the ArbCom of the French-language Wikipedia. The straw-man summary provided by Ceedjee is highly deceitful. I believe the community, the ArbCom and the administrators would never let a bunch of administrators overturn an ArbCom decision. That said, this is purely a fr.wikipedia matter, and I think Jimbo has much better to do. guillom09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Guillom, on wp:en, we apply : wp:NPA. (you reverted me). -> Jimbo underlined here above it was not good to start an edit war between editors.
I just want to point out that the summary I made is not straw man argumentation. Just because I pointed out I didn't think Anthère (and I) were neutral and that you (as well others) were involved. But also and simply because I provided to Jimbo the diffs and that he could check (or have checked) everything by himself.
I think Jimbo gave his mind. Not we should all think about what he wrote, why he wrote that and just try to take his (Elder's) mind into account and put if in the context (or from your point of view, in the right context).
If this issue should come to WP:dispute resolution, I will provide the diff and we can discuss all this but please, do not delete my comments here. This remains Jimbo Wales's page and if he think all this discuss should be archived, he will proceed (alone).
I didn't revert you, I moved your comment to my talk page, as it was addressed to me and not to Jimbo. I don't see why Jimbo should endure agressive discussions on his talk page if they have nothing to do with him. guillom14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, even you will agree I rarely, if ever, come onto this page and have a "pop" at you, but I cannot ignore you saying "In the English Wikipedia we have a system of constitutional monarchy." This is blatantly not so. A constitutional monarch submits without argument to the choices of the electorate. A constitutional monarch expresses, publicly, no opinion. A constitutional monarch never goes contrary to a decision of his appointed government. A constitutional monarch can take no personal action against any individual. A constitutional monarch may advise his government he may not direct. Now, bearing all of that in mind, do you still feel "In the English Wikipedia we have a system of constitutional monarchy"? Now I don't personally care if you see yourself as the Tsar of Russia, the Emperor of China or the Omnipotent Autocrat of La La land, but please don't say this is a constitutional monarchy when your own words on this page suggest otherwise. Giano (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Giano, when Jimbo says "In the English Wikipedia we have a system of "constitutional monarchy," "; he is surely referring to his idea of "constitutional monarch" and not yours. I can not say what all is entailed in his conception of it; but I can tell you that my conception of it bears no resemblance to what you just said. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Not anarchistic, merely nonfactual. For example investigate the case of Thailand. However Jimbo's meaning is better understood from his references to him progressing down the path that the British monarchy has progressed - meaning less and less power until all he does is wave. He has not claimed to be at the "just wave" stage yet, but he believes he will wind up at that point at some time, which makes sense to me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ceedjee missed accidentally some small details, like the banned user publicly stated he was non longer on wp: to edit but to discourage people to edit wp:. - phe17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phe,
I wrote : "It sounds as if the undefinite block will be (much) reduced (but this is not the issue)."
Do you think this is not a fair summary of the point you underline ? I think I took numerous cares in the way I introduced context to wp. If not or if he had some questions, Jimbo can ask more to Hadrien (referee) and Gribeco (main involved sysop).
The most important, I think, remains Jimbo statement. Put it in any context you like, give it the due weight you consider it must have but I think we have the Elder's mind and we could live with it.
Sure, it's normal you take care a lot about Jimbo's point of view and I too, but pointing out you get this point of view through misleading information is fair. - phe07:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
G'day Jimbo - in the discussions about the elections to arbcom at the end of the year, I'm hoping to be able to confirm how our constitutional monarch will be deciding whom to invite for tea, and to form a government! - I've written up my understanding of how we do things, and would really appreciate you taking a quick look, and offering thoughts :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, I'd recommend keeping an eye on the Sarah Palin article and the associated talk page. The amount of libel and POV-pushing going on there is pretty astonishing, and Wikipedia could end up getting a major public black eye if it's not brought under control. Most sensible editors seem to have thrown up their hands and left. Kellyhi!07:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Although Kelly and I disagree about what exactly are violations I can join with her in urging you to keep an eye on the matter. We have have at least 15 news articles (I've counted, including TWO in the NYT) in major publications watching the progress of that article. We are the #1 RESULT on google for her name. If you see _anything_ wrong I highly encourage you to lend your opinions in the matter. At the moment I don't think any decrees from your are nessasary. Just to have people know that you are watching and have expressed an interested will be a big help to editors like Kelly who are just trying to keep it a good article. --mboverload@02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, according to LexisNexis, I count 22 articles already. The Washington Post even ran a little something on it yesterday. But if you think that's a concern, the foreign-language journalists seem to care even more. Factiva searches indicate that German-language publications have already run 10 articles on Palin and her Wikipedia page; the Italians have published four articles; the Spanish-language newspaper, El Mundo, discussed it in a piece today. The list goes on and on. It seems like journalists worldwide are expecting some POV-pusher somewhere to make a move on Wikipedia in the next few days. Everyone is watching. It's becoming the story. Astonishing, really. J Readings (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your interpretation that it is becoming the story. Incredibly interesting and a testimate to the power of, and interest about, Wikipedia. This is amazing. Jimbo, please make your presence known. Or perhaps this is an expiriment. See how well Wikipedia governs itself without you. hmmm --mboverload@04:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kelly. I've got the page watchlisted, but the traffic is so massive and there's so many redlink editors, IPs, and SPAs running through there that it's really challenging to try and figure out who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. I personally think that it's at least slightly under control at the moment, but with the growing number of potential problem editors, it could spiral out of control in a hurry. More admin eyes of all kinds would be appreciated. Tony Fox(arf!)05:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Relax, guys; the higher the profile of the article, the better we do. Jimbo getting involved would be the worst thing possible. It would inhibit some people. It would indicate that the system does not work without hierarchical power controls. The media will supply published reliable sources for all appropriate claims for this article. It is the cases where only a tabloid here and there publish something that are problematic and can use Jimbo's deft BLP touch. Be cool. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Having newspapers comment that Jimbo is storming around WP with an iron fist is far worse than having them watch the page for POV stuff which will quickly be reverted anyway. Sure there may be a lot of people trying to add stuff that's not wanted, but I suspect there's twice as many people waiting to remove it. And Hi Jimbo! First time I've commented on your talk page! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You've generally taken a hard line against wheel warring in the past - would you like to comment on what has recently happened at this article? --Random832 (contribs) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The cavalier attitude toward BLP violations, inaction by admins despite numerous requests for help for editors trying to maintain the article, and complete disregard by Jimbo is pretty sad. I don't think this will play well in the press. (I've been contacted - what should I say?) Kellyhi!04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A modest proposal (that does not involve cannibalism)
Hey there.
I'd appreciate your toughts on a simple proposal I have made to tweak AC policy. Obviously, committee procedure is within the remit of the committee itself, but I'm sure your opinion would be valued. — Coren(talk)17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A couple weeks ago; i discovered TinEye (http://tineye.com). it basically is a search engine for images that recognizes pixels or somethign like that to find the image you submitted or a similar image.
Now, my time here at wikipedia; i've noticed alot (at Least 10) of copyvio images that somone uploaded claiming they own the image and are releasing it into public domain. Or sometimes they would fool people claiming it is fair use album cover; but it's not an album cover. If you use tineye, you could find possible copyvio images much easier.
Here's my question.. is ther any way Wikipedia could partner up with Tineye and scan all images uplaoded?; if an image is uploaded and it appears on other sites; it could be placed on a list of possible copyvio images; where it could be reviewed by an administrator to be determined if it was a copyright violation.
as a side note; back in my early wikipedian editing days; before i knew the rules and stuff; i foolishly uploaded several copyvio images; most of which were deleted; but some of them lasted a couple of months.
Technicaly posible if there wasn't the problem that the bandwidth requirements would put a heck of a lot of strain on tineye with little benifit. There are however a number of people who already use tineye to try and find the source of suspecious looking images.Geni04:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Should we allow an editor to edit here who calls for the celebration of the deaths of thousands of people?
Yes, I reckon so. But probably when he comes back in 7 days he won't behave any better and he'll be indef blocked soon enough. Such is the way of the world.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be worth making a distinction, lest anything be cited as a precedent: such conduct should not be allowed on-wiki, but we should not prohibit editors from expressing their personal political views, however extreme, outside of WP. Everyking (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo! I'm Soccer5525, and I'm a user on your Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could possibly sign my autography book and shoutbox on my userpage. You can do it anytime, when you get the chance. It would really be an honor if you would sign them, and I would feel extremely thankful. Thanks, and happy editing!! --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me!21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
G'day (again!!) Jimbo....
This one's a 'two for the price of one'! - I'm unsure if you spotted my previous note, asking you if you could take a look here just to confirm how the upcoming arbcom elections work, before a hungry archive bot ate it.. so I thought I'd mention it again...
Also, in regard to the block mentioned above (which I have to say seems fairly clear to me) - would you mind uprotecting the talk page - which I think would be a good location for discussion of any issues relating to PD. Thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)I'll drop a note on the admin's noticeboard too...
Umm how come Jimbo says we can edit this page? what is the point? isn't this like his own self-created profile page or something? Jacq9 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
How can the creator of a universally editable encyclopedia claim to be an Ayn Rand Objectivist? Or I guess you feel that trapping the world into a Collectivist dependency on information furthers your own goals?--TheRaven7 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo... Do you ever visit this site and write stuff? :)
If so could you respond to this?
Thanks,
Anonymous
I read everything posted to my user talk page, usually. Sometimes if I am traveling and away for a few days, or similar, things might get archived before I read it. If you really want to be sure that I see something, email is best.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OUCH!!!
Who is Grawp and who let him in? And, if he can do "it" to Jimbo (ouch!) can he do it to anyone else? Is anyone safe? Thanks to the graffitti-bots. They do a great job. With all the attacks at Sarah Palin and the constant barrage of dim-witted vandals here and at all the articles
(Belgium is vandalized constantly) it makes me wonder if we don't need more guards at the gates of WikiWorld...maybe a pass to get in? Or do we trust Freedom and our ability to protect it from the attacking horde's?--Buster7 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that Grawp guy is not only a single person (judging from the myriad of IP addresses used), but a mob in Encyclopedia Dramatica determined to litter the wikiworld with nonsense and indecent humour, probably motivated by the phrase "we do it for the lulz". I also do certain comedy stuff for the lulz, but not by posting or vandalizing WP like "X'S BUTT IS...BY Y'S..." or something like that. I'm not sure if the Communications Decency Act in the US has a section regarding indecent content, but if there is, those Grawp lunatics (excuse me for what I said, but that what my dad calls them, which is true of them) will one day be bust... Blake Gripling (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to create another Wikimedia? cause it would be nice to have a Wikipedia-like site for fun and fake stuff, it be like a storage for Vandalism, but made into a highly stylized article used for fake and cheapness, and we are gonna need to have SysOp for archiving and stuff. And if possible, then can you create one, I'm patient, you can take like two years and I don't care, but if I know how, then I'll do it myself, since I don't that be your to do, not to be rude or anything like mean. Anyways, it is possible? [[ Demon Hunter Rules ]] (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no place for vandalism in nearly all Wiki-projects. Most admins already know that it causes distress and annoyance to readers doing legitimate research. What worries me is that if a vandalized article with a seemingly convincing title ends up on the top of results of reputable search providers it would be annoying to readers who are actually doing real research. --Marianian (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It may not be a free world but great parts of it are and you are free to create a rival encyclopedia, the trick is getting volunteers to do the donkey work, the problem is that wikipedia already exists, and with almost 2.5 million articles there is plenty to dop for the genuine encyclopedia writer. Thanks, SqueakBox22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly vandalism projects, more likely a fanon Wikimedia, and Fiction, thats what it be about, and no vandalism. And thanks for the ideas for me to head to those sites, but I don't like Uncyclopedia, at all! [[ Demon Hunter Rules ]] (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are looking for repositories of in-universe information, you might want to look at Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha as very nice examples (the former is a Wikia project, even), probably good models to emulate. I would venture to guess that comparable projects probably exist for all fictionnal works with sizable fandoms. — Coren(talk)17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
ISSUE WITH DATES on WP
Good Afternoon Jimbo its been awhile since I posted anything here but I thought I would make you aware of something going on if you hadn't already heard. There was a decision made by a few users that dates would no longer be linked (see WP:Dates) and now there are litterly hundereds of conversations and edit wars over whether that was the right thing. In my opinion a few users voted on the issue repeatedly over a period of about three years until they got the vote they wanted in support and then began delinking hundreds of articles and temples to remove the date links. I have left 2 seperate notes on the Administrator page with no solid response except for the one that is pushing this. Personnally I am on the fence about it and can see both sides of the coin, but I think that delinking millions of dates from hundreds of thousands of articles is going to do more harm than good. I would have linked to it from here but there are so many conversations on the subject right now you can look just about anywhere and find it being discussed. Cheers--Kumioko (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is an overview here and it seems to have been widely discussed; the problem as I see it is that such major changes to consensus do not get wide publicity, leading to the edit-wars to which you refer. Given that editors appear when they can spare their time, it might be useful to issue a notice on login, but that would rely upon editors actually reading it. I've seen similar issues with Image placeholders, although that seems to be less of a hot potato. I would suggest that Jimbo does not need to issue a ruling on this, because it is a community consensus issue, although he is free to express an opinion, of course. If it's really causing problems, may I suggest that a Request for Comment be opened? In the meantime, editors may wish to be directed to the first link above. --Rodhullandemu22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have no opinion about this really, other than a general request that people try to relax and treat each other with kindness. That might sound useless and trite, but really, I think it's pretty important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought about doing a request for comment but I have decided to let it go, although I don't agree with it, it has met concensus and after trying twice knowone else seems to think its a problem so I'll get behind it and proceed editing.--Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
True, dates are overlinked on articles and there needs to be some cleanup done, but some dates are significant enough that, although they might be generally unrelated to the article, might be worthy of linking. Birth and death dates on biographies for example or the date that a military unit or operation started or ended. As it is currently worded pretty much all dates would be removed. Additionally, dates have been linked for so long to so many pages that to remove them all, I believe is more taxing to the wikipedia servers and more difficult to view than to leave them be. If you look at just the articles that link to January 1 you get about 40000, if you also pull in 1 January and other variations of 1 Jan you get another 400 or so. If you look at what links to a certain year (2001 for example) you get a such a huge number (over 68000) AWB took ten minutes on my computer to bring the page list in. Plus if we are no longer linking to dates what is the purpose of having an article for January 1 for example if nothing is allowed to link to it. We are essentially creating a rule that will orphan 365 days and potentially hundreds of year articles.--Kumioko (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, Jimbo has no authority except what the community allows him to have; he should be accountable to the community and explain his actions (and shouldn't be acting unilaterally in the first place). Everyking (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope my explanation there was helpful, and I am in thus far pleasant discussions with the user in question. I would anticipate a favorable resolution in short order, which may or may not involve a lifting of the ban. In any event, I think the point I wanted to make has been made: it is time to stop allowing for personal attacks. It cheapens us all. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't much care for personal attacks, either, so I was a little annoyed when you implied that I was a troll enabler and a "wikianarchist". It's all well and good to preach civility, but you should practice it, too. I don't feel your explanation was adequate, because it didn't address Peter's apology, the fact that the personal attack in question occurred on a different website, the need for dialogue with the community in these matters, Peter's long-standing record as an excellent contributor on philosophy articles, and the possibility of other methods of resolution. These "pleasant discussions" sound promising, although I cannot see how the resolution could be favorable if the ban wasn't lifted. Everyking (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if you feel that my comments reflected poorly on you. If you don't like our civility policies, you should feel free to find another website more to your liking - there are millions of them. My point stands firm: it is time to stop coddling people who are disrupting the site and attacking good people. I would hope that this would not include you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, my point is that you violated the civility policy while at the same time trying to justify a block on grounds of incivility. Anyway, you are still ignoring the various factors in Peter's situation that I listed above. As for your other comments: while it has long been clear that you'd prefer that I not work on this encyclopedia—no need to be subtle about it!—I am not particularly interested in having your approval. Everyking (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Although Jimbo seems intent on portraying me as someone who dislikes the civility policy, in fact I like it very much and I would like to see Jimbo leading by example in this regard. Everyking (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Lets not make mountains out of mole hills. The block log doesn't have a personal attack, cuss words, or anything that can be construed offensive. There is a clear difference from those who act in a blatantly offensive manner and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, I have a conflict of interest question, explained here. Some people have probably been desysoped or worse for less. Do you see any problem? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. The sysops took care of it of storing your mail for less than a millisecond so they could spare EFF (cite) time to what? Well I hope someday to earn enough to be a donor, based not always on agreement. You're welcome for the $200. But that's about it until that tin cup jingles. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Time
Hello, Mr Wales. There's a problem I need fixing. My wikipedia signatures are always exactly one hour behind the actual time. Why is this? Chris Wattson (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask you a few questions regarding the make your own wiki project. My friend here has started his own wiki off-shoot, and I have correspondingly made an account there. Yet, it seems to lack an edit counter for the members. Why may I ask, do sub-wikis lack an edit counter for their users? Is there any possible way to install one? Thank you for reading, hope you will reply soon.
Regards, A Prodigy~In Pursuit of Perfection~20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia
Hello Mr. Wales,
As a new user of Wikipedia, I just wanted to commend you on your fantastic work. Wikipedia is truly a splendid concept--a readily accessible wealth of information on seemingly everything imaginable.
I don't read Arabic, but it is a much more aesthetically pleasing language to me than English; I've occasionally viewed other wikis, and they look so much better in other scripts. I particularly like the Telugu version. Long may they thrive. --Rodhullandemu23:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo. I hope you are monitoring what is happening at the Sara Palin article and, of course, the discussion page. The importance of your ability to see thru the clutter has never been more needed. I am quite sure that these two sites are the most important, most visited, most in need of a monitor, sites in the short history of WikiPedia. Please protect what you have built. It is too special to leave in the hands of partisan politicos (both sides). --Buster7 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I know you're very a very busy person, but if you have a chance, can you look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Furco? I'm not fully conversant with OTRS policy, and I sure don't want to Wikilawyer. But I can't understand the proposed conclusion that the AfD should be blanked upon resolution (assuming it's deleted...) I figured a quick, "Yes, the AfD should be blanked," from you would at least help me understand that such things are normal and/or good. Sorry to take up your time with this. LaughingVulcan02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Since this is an AFD on a living person, I suggest to blank it as a nice gesture. If the admins need to see anything, we can just see the deleted history. Plus, I had to delete the article anyways due to it being a copyvio from [15]. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that does address the meat of my question. On the one hand, there is no info in the AfD that is not publicly available. OTOH, I know that there are issues involving spirit of BLP and there are other related issues which are properly not in public view. And on the other, other hand there are the issues about Admin vs. Editor stuff that I sure as heck don't want to get into, doubly especially on Jimbo's Talk. ;) I wouldn't mind hearing Jimbo's views on this, but I also understand if he doesn't want to get into this at this point - for whatever reason. Thanks again for the reply. Best, LaughingVulcan04:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed your comment on the Colloquium on the Wikiversity site sounds reasonable, but removed both of my comments -I don't want any problems on that site so I had both of my comments removed - just in interest though was it you who posted the comment, if I understand correctly someone created that username Jimbo Wales on that site and it was blocked for impersonation a few years ago. Terra20:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If it was an impostor, it would seem strange that the impostor could instantly grant himself the ability to block people. Furthermore, Bastique renamed the impostor account, so I am quite confident in the authenticity of this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
An article on a person with the same name as an already-existing entry?
Hey Jim. I'm working on a Wikipedia entry about a former newspaper columnist named John Boston, and observed the rule about searching for the person first to make sure there isn't already an entry on them, but I found this:
Now, that John Boston is an Australian settler, so how do I create an entry about that other John Boston since the settler one comes up?FilmBuff90 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A number of user's on Wikiversity are either against or supporting the block which you've done towards Moulton - some of us on the Colloquium have expressed that they should have been informed of this earlier, one of the New Probationary Custodians was going to do a peer review with Moulton before the block happened but they're still doing it - after viewing the reason why you blocked Moulton I'm now beginning to support the block, I don't know why Moulton kept on revealing both personal/private information but this goes against the foundation's policy and if I'm right the law also applies (e.g. Data Protection Act) - I'm glad though that you've took action before things might have got out of hand. Terra10:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Moulton did nothing illegal. But his insistence on posting a real name on a WikiMedia owned web site when that person did not want that done appears to be against the spirit of the WikiMedia privacy policy even if it is arguable that is does not literally break it because that policy limits WikiMedia Foundation behavior and not content contributor behavior. But because the WikiVersity custodians were not then censoring a link to a page that was not on WikiMedia servers but contained the same information, his behavior can be seen as clearly designed to provoke a reaction and could be expected to continue escalation until he did provoke a reaction. He got what he was asking for. The community is allowing him to prove himself on his talk page and so far he is playing nice. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That's more or less right. I talked to a lot of people, and listened to a lot of advice. I do not agree with WAS that "so far he is playing nice". I think he has completely confirmed the reason for the block, which was not specifically about "posting a real name" but about that plus a whole pattern of all-too-familiar disruptive behavior. Wikiversity is a young and small community; such growing pains are normal. I hope that this sparks some conversation about problematic behavior. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, "so far he is playing nice" is half truth and half hope. I did have a final sentence that was unhopeful, but I deleted it as I thought it not terribly useful to not be hopeful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right. It is not terribly useful to not be hopeful. I should have tried, in what I wrote above, to sound a more hopeful tone. I do have hope. But, I do have little hope.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
BLP
Hi Jimbo,
I have on occasion noticed you voicing the thought that you take BLP problems very seriously, and that Wikipedia itself needs to get more serious about not tolerating violations of its BLP policy, and not succumbing to the temptation to reduce an encyclopedia to a repository of tabloid "information." I utterly concur that when Wikipedia allows itself to propagate sensationalism, salaciousness, gossip and allegation, it commits unnecessary harm on living people in a way it should strive to rise above. It is, in my opinion, one failing of many Wikipedia editors (and even some administrators) that they have not grasped the crucial importance of this policy both for the individuals written about in Wikipedia and for Wikipedia itself, and that there are some editors who continue to see it as a positive virtue to include any scrap of supposedly "sourced" negative information about living people.
That said, it seems that the actual BLP policy is a well-written document which, if followed strictly and correctly, would eliminate the problem. I also have the slight impression, although I may be mistaken, that Wikipedia is very slowly moving in the right direction in relation to BLP problems, becoming less tolerant of those wishing to perpetually add negative and tabloidish information to BLP articles.
Even so, I tend to agree that more needs to be done in relation to this problem. I am writing because I don't myself have any answer to how that could be achieved, other than individual editors acting together to make clear that BLP violations have no place here. Do you have any clues about changes that could be made to Wikipedia that would more quickly improve the situation in this regard? I have the impression that some indication in this regard may be necessary to prompt more decisive action. If the vast majority of WIkipedia editors could be brought to a clear understanding of where Wikipedia stands and what it expects in relation to these matters, I think the encyclopedia would benefit enormously in terms of quality and reputation.
Finally, let me just add that I continue to be utterly impressed by your own sensitivity to a wide variety of issues in regard to Wikipedia, and that I believe your own role here is one of the most important reasons Wikipedia is as good as it is. Even though I know you like the idea of slowly decreasing your own influence here, I must say that I hope you do not do so for quite some time, as I think there is quite some way to go before the general editing culture reaches a level of maturity such that your influence would not be beneficial. I commend you for both your ethical sensitivity, and your good judgment about when and how to act here. It is remarkable good fortune for Wikipedia that it has a founder who is so thoughtful and committed in relation to all matters Wikipedia. BCST2001 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has created an article on Joseph H. Wales, an American ichthyologist. Since Joseph H. Wales has the same surname as you, I thought that you might like to take a look at the article. --Eastmain (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Although the both articles have got the same surname as Jimbo Wales - you are aware though that they may not be related to him, since Wales is a common surname both in America and Britain. Terra19:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales, I have a conflict of interest question, recorded for the most part on my talk page. Is this edit within Wikipedia behavorial guidelines? Apologies for what have been a subtle misquote on my part ("or his publisher" is significant and its omission is POV on my part), and apologies in advance if my edits caused any problems. I am happy to answer any questions you or others may have. Otherwise, "Who cares?" might apply, just like the last time I felt it necessary to bother you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Library of copyrighted materials
Hello Mr. Wales. I did not know if something like this might be of interest to you, so I thought I would post this here in case it might. This thread originally was written in the Scriptorium at Wikisource. Thank you. Emesee (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Topic Ban appeal
Hello, Jimbo, I would like to appeal the indef topic ban of a good, established editor. User:Benjiboi. I do not believe that the arbitrators(in the recent ArbCom request that was declined) reviewed all the evidence without prejudice, and I do not believe that they completely read through all material, as some have called the editor obsessed when he is not, and others have said that they might be willing to change their vote on the matter if the user in question exhibited several traits, but, despite the fact that the editor in question did show the requested traits, the arbitrator who initially requested the traits did show that they noted the change, or follow through with any sort of support in the matter. Please see this link, as it is the last diff before the page was cleared of this request. Thank you for your time in hearing/reading this.— DædαlusContribs /Improve06:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As one more note, when I asked questions of the reviewing arbitrators, I was never given a reply, such as when I asked Flo how it would benefit the editing of the encyclopedia that this editor be banned indef from this topic.— DædαlusContribs /Improve06:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I think this is the diff you intended. Jimbo, I really don't know what to say at this point. I don't feel good editors should be caused undo grief especially when reasonable alternatives could be utilized. I'm sure there are editors who earn permanent topic bans but I simply don't see where I've done that - nor had I been approached about such a concern would I have continued in a way that would cast me in such a light. I've been rather stunned at the sweeping lack of good faith towards me regarding these issues and I hope that no one else gets treated in this manner. -- Banjeboi10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have seen this, and I am looking into it. Benjiboi, are you intending to edit articles on this topic if the ban is lifted? From what I have seen so far, it does not look like overturning the ArbCom on procedural grounds makes sense. So it seems we need to turn a bit toward the content issue, which looks to me to be complex, and it will take me a few days (at best) to study it (and a couple of weeks is more likely). --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The topic is only one BLP; the subject of which is an editor who violated NPA, against myself and others; they are currently community banned after Arbcom.
During the initial stages of this topic ban I had intended to continue editing that article and had agreed from the beginning to follow policy and requested feedback/dialog if indeed I hadn't. Then the only compelling reason for keeping the ban was that the subject didn't like me on the article talkpage, likely because I tended not to agree with them and worked to resolve discussions on uncomfortable material. The article archives are pretty evident of what the atmosphere was like and that I worked to keep discussion focussed.
Others involved in the ongoing drama of the article and witnessing what happened to me contacted me and made me aware of some ... personal issues of the subject which have made me want to do nothing with this user or the article for my own safety. It would be nice if my Arbcom appeals could be oversighted or mitigated online if this is resolved as well so that I become less of the focus when this user returns in some fashion, even if they continue socking.
I agree that technically we can ban editors with poorly formed process as such but I think it's unhelpful when frank and clear communication could have calmed a situation. It takes diplomacy and energy but how much of the same has been used up as a result of, IMHO, using a hammer when a conversation would do. I'm also alarmed at the concept of banning good editors based solely on the subject of a BLP not liking them - that seems like a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi18:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Before I begin, let me say, Jimbo, this is not directed at you. It is directed at the arbitrators, which IMHO, I feel did not review everything that there was to be reviewed. Yes, they made their votes, upon opinions of the current situation, and said if the editor in question was to change, or show that he had changed, they would re-think things. After the request was met, there was nothing. Not even a note that they had gone over the most recent of material. No response to the user's current editing behavior.
Yes, I know I can be repetitive at times, but I just strongly feel they were only reviewing past material in regards to the editor's behavior, when they should have been viewing current material. Their judgments were of a Benjiboi that has since disappeared, not of the current one that travels through these texts.— DædαlusContribs /Improve07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready.— DædαlusContribs /Improve 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready.— DædαlusContribs /Improve19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would like to comment on the FA review. I'm done there, because I feel that the people who brought it and are trying to defeature the article had less than good motives. The reason I'm posting something here is that I'm a strong supporter of a democratic encyclopedia. And I do think that, over time, it will produce better results than any other kind of online resource. But, there is a tendency for bureaucracy and grudges to obstruct. There is a tendency for people without knowledge to tell people with knowledge what is right and what is not. Another reason I ask is that this article is currently the only featured article in the Social sciences, which is listed as "[ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Social_sciences vital]". That, I believe, is because the others have not had enough attention from people familiar with their subjects. It is very easy for featured article reviewers to tell what reads well on an article about a computer game. It is not so easy for a university level subject. Feel free to send me an email. Wikidea20:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo,
I have a question for you. I need to delate a page that I write today, because I will improve it, and then I prefer to delate it, an user told me that any admin user can do it, could you do it? thank you for your support. Wikiuser9 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
I am a user Silesian Wikipedii. I have the request to you. Can I be an appearance overcome from you the user sides? Greeting, Ozi6413:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can be an appearance overcome from me the user sides. :-) Actually, I am only playing a little bit, because I don't quite get your meaning. Are you asking if I would come and say hello on Silesian Wikipedia?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude, we do not know what you are talking about. Please present a concise and full account of what issues you are having. --mboverload@23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually think that "notability" is problematic. It's a shorthand way of speaking, but it leads people to think about the issue in an invalid way. The real work can mostly be done by "verifiability", and "verifiability" is much more amenable to consensus. The Simpson's anomaly is probably my own personal fault, because way back in the day before I really understood the limitations of the medium, I said something like "We should have an article on every episode of The Simpson's, why not?" Whereas now, if I were voting, I would vote to delete. (That's not a decree or anything, I am just saying that my own views have changed substantially.) My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following your argument. Do you think it is impossible to verify the contents of those Simpsons articles? Zagalejo^^^20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, I would be interested to know what you meant when you spoke in your above comment about "the limitations of the medium." Which limitations did you have in mind there? Thanks. BCST2001 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Wales, I have a conflict of interest question again. If this and my previous edit from which most of that edit is copied are not within Wikipedia guidelines I hope you will let me know. Again, I can't imagine any problems but competing news outlets might, or who knows. Thank you for listening. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Too bad, but due to my own clumsiness the circuit breaker here that was hanging on by a thread when I moved in has stopped functioning and now there is no way I can listen to that debate. I hope they remember to write down everything that happens, though. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Made it there but missed the debate. I will try to refrain from using your talk page so often in the future. Thank you again for your help once last winter, hope to be fine by sometime in October. Take care. Now I can consider making another small donation in January. P.S. On second thought, it is probably a better idea to keep questions about Wikimedia donations separate and unrelated to conflict of interest questions. Sorry for the error. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy, I think you are aware, a month ago, there was discussion regarding me on the Administrators noticeboard (link). The situation that I am in is difficult for me to handle. I have contacted the committee recently requesting a review, however, they have not responded to my request. I have been an editor on Wikipedia for quite some time, and I've done a lot of good work for the encyclopedia.
I am asking that my situation be reviewed. I would agree to any restrictions that you may have for me, such as restriction to a single mentorship, mentorship, or whatever else you could think of. I have also asked for a review on the Admin noticeboard, however, I do think this is something you may need to act on, instead of the community. I would appreciate a chance to correct my mistakes, and if you could give me a second chance, I'd appreciate it a lot. Steve CrossinTalk/2411:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I echo steves request and note that an arbitrator just blocked him (Arbitration Enforcement), even though the discussion as it stands at AN shows a consensus to lift the ban early. I think you would know by now that the Arbitration Committie are pushing the boundries by not only acting on the discussion at ANI instead of listening to the community of which most said "Let it be" but also by blocking him just now during a community discussion. I believe that the ban is a punitive measure and that steve would never do something as silly as he did again. I would ask for you to review the situation. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)13:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no consensus to lift the block early, and we can't even do that since the rulings of Arbcom are binding, with the exception of Jimbo. CenariumTalk14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom didn't have the authority to act the way it did in the first place. Jimbo, please, review this situation. You are our only form of checks and balances for arbcom. -- Ned Scott04:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Catalan wikipedia
Cat-er-pillar 130.000 (cat... er... five pillars?) Que visquin els Països Catalans!
I really thank, thank you for oppening the catalan wikipedia. Thank you for thinking about us the catalans and open a project that we have improved with more than 130.000 articles like an answer for your big Confiança!!! Thank you, thank you, I will never be tired of thanking you for it!.Visca Països Catalans--ca user:ssola--83.58.251.130 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
And thank you Jimbo for thinking about them, the englishmen, and opening the english wikipedia. Tahnk you, tahnk you!--Owdkitalk04:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Social networking?
Flixster is a networking site focused on films, Buzz.net is a networking site focused on music, Flicker is a networking site based on photos... why not Wikipedia become a social networking site based on the encyclopedia? AlexT/CGuest Book19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is trying to provide an open-source encyclopedia for the world, "the sum of human knowledge" as Jimbo puts it, well written and sourced, that anyone can access or edit. A social networking site by nature cannot provide any of that, because people will be too caught up with networking with each other to work on the encyclopedia. If people want one of the world's greatest and most comprehensive encyclopedias, they turn to Wikipedia. If they want a social networking site, they go to Facebook. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~17:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
frisians are very happy with the fact you created wikipedia. we are happy to write about our subjects both in english and in our native language. thanks a lot! Last king of Frisia (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Arjun MBT page
Hello Jimbo, I would like to point to you something interesting happening in Wikipedia. The Arjun MBT page. This may help the policy makers of Wikipedia, to frame rules that protect the truth in the articles. Also there need to be a relook into the Admin misuse of powers. What need to be done in this case. All know the real issues (including the Admins) from multiple sources debates etc but the rules and regulations of Wiki are utilized to project a wrong viewpoint. Why?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
G'day Jimbo - I thought I'd pop round once again to ask if you have a spare moment to take a look at the discussion of the upcoming arbcom elections - the rubber stamp of a constitutional monarch would be much appreciated - as indeed are any further thoughts. I think confirmation of how the election will be judged is timely, and it'd be great to get you engaged if poss. :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
an interesting question about Foundation involvement has come up too - my understanding was that this was one of those 'constitutional monarch' things, and not at all related to your role with the Foundation - but thinking about it, I can't remember why I have that impression! - it'd be great if you could clear it up :-) thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, I really think you should clarify one way or the other: do you want to retain veto power over ArbCom candidates who receive community approval, or would you be willing to allow the community to make the decisions without requiring your approval? Everyking (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
/me parries the archive bot with another short post - although I have a feeling it can keep this up longer than me :-) I should just add that someone mentioned to me the other day the fact that they felt you'd made yourself very clear previously - that you would certainly select the arbcom election 'winners' based on the highest percentage support - apologies if I've missed this (we couldn't find a diff. with our cursory search) - but confirmation would be sincerely appreciated :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with his actions; he's merely disputing that a cited reference justifies the contention; this is a content dispute, he is not using his Admin powers, and this matter is more aptly discussed on the article's talkpage, or if that fails, by some form of dispute resolution. It's not normally the sort of thing Jimbo would get involved in. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
An advice, or even assistance, for a gross problem in the Greek Wikipedia
I apologize in advance for taking your time to talk to you about a grave issue that has arisen with the Greek Wikipedia - I would not have done so do, if things had not deteriorated to an unacceptable extent there. Actually fayssal - wiki up® advised me to consult you for our problem. Thus I am turning to you as our last resort.
There is a considerable number of users of the small community of the Greek Wikipedia who would like to report the administrators' team for abuse of their authority - which has resulted the reduction of contributions to the Wikipedia, as statistics reveal.
To give a recent example, a user was banned for three months because he used the expression "fundamentalists babblers" in a talk page, which the administrators thought to be a personal attack, while, on the contrary, a few days ago an administrator called the way of editing by some users, including the one banned, as poustrilikia, which means "to behave like a faggot/catamite", a swearword that is strongly offensive in Greek. Personally, I do not find the behavior of this particular administrator as sad as the fact that no other administrator reacted to this incident - on the contrary they covered him. Personal attacks and threats have repeatedly taken place on the part of administrators. Some days ago one other administrator said in a talk page that if someone has criticised the administrators that they are authoritarian, he may be banned, and this has happened in some cases. I believe the last statement is the epitome of the situation.
If you decide to act on this and subsequently need more details on the events, more incidents, or the testimony of other users, they are available.
I want to make clear that I do not ask your assistance so that you may "ban" the administrators in some way. I strongly believe that some of them, even some of the offensive ones, have much to offer to Wikipedia, but I also strongly believe that they are neither as discreet nor as neutral as they are supposed to be because they feel, for a number of reasons, that nothing can stop them in what they do in our small community.
I think that if we could hold elections for administrators every year in our small Wikipedia community, this would motivate all the administrators to be more productive and more attentive in their behaviour to the other users, so that they may be elected again over the years, and this is my proposal as a possible solution of the ongoing sad situation.
I would really appreciate your advise and help in our problem, and I say "our" because I know that what I write here is endorsed by others too.
I always recommend that admins hold themselves, and each other, to the highest standards of civility, and to be the first to apologize and work to set things right if someone feels offended. I can't read Greek, so I have no way to review the specific question at hand, so I offer my advice in a general sense. Everyone should try to find a way to work in harmony to bring light to the world, and that can be done in large ways and small.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Jimbo for your answer. Do you believe that my idea for annual elections could motivate admins to improve their contribution to Wikipedia in this case?--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The proposal for admin reconfirmation is a pernial one. Whilst I obviously can't speak for Jimbo, the community has generally been in agreement that any benefit would be outwayed by the sheer effort involved. With around 1,600 admins it would require just over four reconfirmation RFA's every day. With each lasting a week (or even if they were shortened to say four days) this would be a huge ongoing task. In addition admins aren't "elected" as such (or at least not in theory) but granted the role through community discussion. Pedro : Chat 15:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe he's talking about requiring annual elections for administrators on the Greek-language Wikipedia, not the English-language one. I would guess (although I might be wrong) that the Greek Wikipedia has less administrators than on English. – Thomas H. Larsen04:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I am talking specifically about the Greek Wikipedia, where we have about 50 active users and 10 active administrators. Among the active users, 4 are in a long term ban (3-6 months), including me (being banned for the expression "while I am on vacation, I hope you will be a good boy"), and other 3 abstain from editing as a protest to the administrational abuse.--Vassilis78 (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, apologies. Obviously with such a small base that would be different though I can't speak for local politics. Alas I'm also not literate in Greek so can't offer any assistance. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding. Pedro : Chat 06:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It's ok, my friend. As you may imagine, when you have 1,600 admins, it's not difficult to ask for several opinions. But when you have a dozen of people that possibly know each other personally (and this has been acknowledged by some), things may become difficult as regards the impartial application of the policy.--Vassilis78 (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
hi you are the owner of Wikipedia aren't you? Just to point out something:
If you see my last edit I replaced the names Khalistan with India. This is because there's no country called "Khalistan" and Punjab stated there are today in India. Although many Sikhs fought for "Khalistan" there's no such thing as a land called that, or there has never been. Moreover the flag next to it is an Indian flag. These people will just revert my edits and I'm new here. Can you please help? There's misinformation in Wikipedia. Any unfamiliar reader would think where's Khalistan. It's only a conceptualized state. Please look into it. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.28.100 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I posted a proposal that would dramatically reduce vandalism and earn the foundation money, all by costing users practically nothing here [16]. Tell me what you think. Regards, Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of value to thinking about "costs" but I don't think actual money is a good way to do this. The way this works in Wikipedia is that users build up "reputational capital" over time and this encourages good behavior because you don't want to squander it. A good reputation in a community like this is worth a lot more than 10 bucks to most sensible people. Still, other than the introduction of cash, I think that your thinking is generally in the right direction: how can we make it slightly more costly for people to engage in vandalism? That's a tough question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe once you seriously start thinking about the money on interest with the funds in trust that the foundation can earn, you might, and I wholeheartedly appreciate you saying that I have the right idea about this, even more strongly feel that this trust fund idea can only redound to not only your benefit, but to the benefit of all wikipedians. Thank you. Bilodeauzx (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia and Wikipe-tan
I think the wikimedia foundation should create a 30-minute bi-monthly anime webcast show available on wikimedia commons. It should feature the Wikipe-tan with the power to master syntax, which she uses against her enemy, the wiki-troll. She would scower the globe for information to put in articles and be given barnstars by administrators for thwarting the efforts of vandals and spammers. --Ipatrol (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Good concept. Make it multiple trolls to make it more exciting. Try using more of the wikiFauna. Work on a couple of good story lines. Take care! Last king of Frisia (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, what would they say if this was an FA and put on the main page for his 40th birthday? lol. There is always 45 and 50 to shoot for. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
George Esayas (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Done under WP:CSD#G7 - sorry you had to end up with me doing it rather than Jimbo :) Pedro : Chat 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
