User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Petition to Free Wikimapia

Howdy from WikiMapia, one of the map services that pops up when you click on coordinates in Wikipedia!

We are currently running a petition to release the software that we use under a Free Software license, and that all content we contribute be released under a Free creative license, so that we are working under the same terms as Wikipedia contributors.

This has resulted from extreme neglect of the users' needs by the closed Wikimapia Team (the two guys who started it), and spurred by the Free Software add-on that I created to work around Wikimapia's deficiencies. Many top contributors have already signed it.

I thought this is an unusual situation, and maybe you would be interested, or maybe offer some advice on how to increase our chance of success as this point.

Cheers,

--Specious (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea. The ones who work on geography here have long thought wikimapia the best site for obtaining coordinates, particularly on smaller settlements and landmarks. I would like to see wikimapia taken under the wing of the wikimedia personally as it is the mapping project we are missing and of course it is aptly named as a sister project. I would very much like to see wikimapia adopted by wikimedia and to becoming a branch of our project. That would be awesome. It would seem to share our exact same goals, and if we could obtain the funding to run it through our donations we could free the site of google ads and make it part of our own. What I'd hate is for a site that well developed to close down because of neglect. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not support projects which are genuinely 'free' like Open Street Map instead,

a project that Wikimedia is ALREADY in consultation with?

Wikimapia is at best a site with propriatery licensing. Furthermore the exact relationship between Wikimapia and the geo-data providers it uses was when I last checked seemed at best ambiguous. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I also refer you to the disscusion here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiMapia#copyright_and_wikimapia

were concern was expressed about certain things. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development

Could you provide some public sign to demonstrate that the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development is indeed convened by the Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales?

Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See above. JN466 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See what above? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[1]. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, [2] is obviously not good enough. Fortunately Jimbo has now been explicit William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think it's a good idea. It's an advisory body with no power, a more formal way to seek diverse input from a variety of sources. I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down. I believe that a small working group, composed of diverse membership, could be quite useful to the ArbCom, to me, and to the community in general.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• So, were the people chosen selected on the basis that they would "vote down" the "difficult characters or agitants "? Do you know, every time you open your mouth, you seem to put your foot in it - don't you? Perhaps their proposals will not always be voted down, in which case as you say "It's an advisory body with no power" - which should keep you safe on your throne. Now, let's turn to this "small working group" who exactly are they? - The "fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants"? or an smaller group selected from it? Giano (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  That's not the point, Giano. Actually, it's the opposite. It's to allow a more calm forum where the "dissident" voices can be heard and the ideas discussed on merit. I don't think Jimbo meant that agitants would be voted down specifically. I know for a fact that's not the point of the council in general and most definitely not the point of your presence on it.

  It's all about taking the conversation out of the echo box. Venues such as AN end up being unproductive because a small group of more political editors end up being the only consensus by default and its self selecting nature excludes a number of editor cross-sections. — Coren ^(talk) 10:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Coren for clearing that up. Jimbo has an unfortunate turn of phrase. However, he flatters himself, if he thinks that editors such as myself (I presume it was me he had in mind, not Kirill etc as the "difficult agitant") intend only to concentrate on governance issues, quite the reverse - I see my role as highlighting any problem that editors or arbcom may encounter, such as this one here. An important matter that many edotors are unaware of. Giano (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Giano, I had nothing to do with the picking of the members, the design of the body, or formulating the idea at all. Interpreting everything as a power struggle is part of why you fail to correctly identify problems in Wikipedia and viable solutions to them. I think you'd have a stronger voice if you stopped trying to do battle with people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with any particular point there, but it just isn't a decision to be made by ArbCom, it's a decision to be made by the community. Not only has ArbCom created this body without community consultation but they are hand picking the members. --Tango (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is an internal advisory body formed by arbcom for their own purposes, it seems reasonable enough for arbcom to pick the members if they want. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If its role was to advise ArbCom then I would agree, but it isn't. It's role is, apparently, to advise the community on project development, a subject ArbCom has nothing to do with. The community should choose its own advisers. --Tango (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development Durova²⁷⁵ 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The community (or, rather, some large group of editors) are of course free to form their own committee. This one was formed by arbcom, which is why arbcom gets to say who is on it. The lede of WP:ACPD makes it clear the committee has no special powers, and is just a think tank. I think it is a valid principle that arbcom can form ad hoc committees such as this at its discretion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem valid to me. ArbCom should stick to doing what they were elected to do. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The ability to establish ad hoc committees from time to time, at their sole discretion, is part of what arbcom was elected to do. Similarly they can set up their own internal procedures for voting, and they can set up mailing lists for communication as they see fit. They are elected for a certain purpose, but have a large degree of freedom about how to accomplish that purpose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a totally normal thing for a democratically elected body to appoint a think tank or consultancy firm to advise them. That's usually considered prudent. Such people are picked for their expertise. What sets this proposal apart from such advisory bodies is that their deliberations are public – unlike those in a real-life think tank. In terms of transparency, it beats a mailing list hands down. JN466 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm ... the ArbCom is a body of experienced users whose role is supposed to be reactive dispute settlement. They can get any advise they need for this either on the talk page of the cases or by seeking it from users. This scheme forwarded is not a think-tank, but a means to bestow patronage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To advise them, yes. This group isn't going to advise ArbCom since ArbCom don't make decisions on project development. This group is going to advise the community, so creating it should be a community decision. --Tango (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel very patronised, and it seems to me that the Whateveritscalled Council is exactly that - asking for advice from users. As you well know, many of the talk pages are far too noisy, making it impossible to sift the chaff from the grain. Giano (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agitants, eh? Your usefulness to this project grows short. I think it's time we began driving forward change without you. I think you'll find you're the agitant, shortly. rootology (C)(T) 17:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The above editor seems to be jumping to conclusions about who is meant to be included by that term, which I find, well, questionable. Such doesn't help. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Giano, if something generally were to be considered but an agitation, then by definition it would be something that would likely be voted down, no? ↜Just M E here , now 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

God knows, I think it can be assumed that I am the agitant in question, this was our illustrious leader on the subject of me a couple of years ago [3], I had just blown the lid off one of the secret Wikipedia mailing lists to which he and his wiki-friends belong, and made it look rightfully rather silly. It seems Jimbo and I are doomed to grow old together, however, this new open and transparent advisory council was to my mind a breath of fresh air. Giano (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Future of wiki

You proposed, a few years ago if I remember correctly, a scheme for introducing credential verification. This was opposed, and I was one of them, but it is clear now that this was a good idea and that I was wrong, as content disputes have proliferated and as there is no way for forcefully resolving them in favour of respectable view, in the process, taking sides and thus being unneutral. ArbCom can never do this, and isn't qualified to. But we are an encyclopedia after all. As wikipedia has grown in size it's become rather obvious that hierarchy, even of the delegated king, is needed. You set up the ArbCom to deal with particularly behavioural disputes, and this was a good idea. But with our current size and the way process depends more often than not on unachievable community consensus, it is impossible to deal with certain things without expanding this committee's role to something close to government of en.wiki. On that basis, would you ever contemplate setting up other such committees? I mean, committees such as a content committee/enyclopedia review board (with people elected/appointed based on verifiable expertise) or even a policy committee? I mean, in principle, irrespective of what the details might be? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Contemplate whatever you want, but keep in mind that this would be very hard for many topics (how many verifiable experts on European comics are active enough on Wikipedia to be obn a content committee? You need at least three people to have a committee to start with, in my opinion), and may drive away a fair number of contributors who are unwilling to reveal their identity but are not inclined to exchange the current model of consensus after discussion and based on policies and verifiable evidence for "consensus from above". I have had a bad experience with an editor focused on health aspects of different kinds of berries, who was a doctor (MD) (verified) but failed to disclose his job with a berry-as-miracle-cure company. He had the credentials, I didn't, but his edits were not helping Wikipedia, only himself and his company. Fram (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship at David S. Rohde, take II

Jimbo, are you still there? Another user and I've asked you some questions about the censorship incident... but you didn't answer. The discussion has been archived at the Village Pump, but I'm still waiting... Scared, Jimbo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.141.215 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask me here, if I overlooked something at the Village Pump.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've taken the original questions as they were reported on the Village Pump page.

• #1 Why did you use a meatpuppet to perform the action rather than WP:Office ?

I object strongly to the term 'meatpuppet' in this context. I asked an OTRS volunteer to look into it, and he did, acting on his own judgment and quite appropriately. WP:OFFICE would not have been an appropriate tool in this instance, for more than one reason. First, there was no need for the Wikimedia Foundation to do anything, and WP:OFFICE is a tool used by the Foundation. Second, WP:OFFICE would likely have raised precisely the sort of negative attention that it was important to avoid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• #2 Would you please list any other articles that have received or are receiving this treatment?

There are literally thousands of articles and cases in which admins act on their own judgment to deal with issues relating to BLP, ethics, and reliable sources. I am unaware of there ever being a case like this one, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• #3 Would you handle this differently in the future and/or are you planning on taking any action to address user concerns?

In one sense, no, I would not handle it differently. In another sense, I think that every case is unique in some respect, and so of course there is a possibility that something different might need to be done.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this sort of suppression is that we have no idea what else is being swept under the rug. It would help me a lot if you could come clean about any other similar actions and plans for future actions. Otherwise, It is just me and my imagination, which is probably worse than the truth

Hostile terminology such as "meatpuppet" and "come clean" are inappropriate. But in any event, I am unaware of anything relevantly similar to this. And I pledge to exercise my judgment as best I can to protect the integrity and ethical mission of Wikipedia in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions and following comment made by 128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• #4 Is Wikipedia (i.e. you and the admins you control) willing to take similar actions even when it's not a journalist's life at stake whose editor is powerful enough to make a media blackout?

First, I don't control admins, quite obviously. They are volunteers and will make thoughtful and independent judgments. I can therefore only speak for myself, but also to speak to what I hope Wikipedia admins would do in similar situations. First, notice that keeping something out of Wikipedia is really only possible if there are insufficient reliable sources. It is difficult to imagine anyone - even the New York Times - being able to pull off a voluntary media blackout of this scale again. To my knowledge, it is unprecedented in the modern media age. Second, in the event that there are reliable sources reporting something, it is difficult to imagine an example in which it would be important for Wikipedia to not also report it. If anyone can think of any interesting thought-experiments, I would very much enjoy talking through them.

In some emergency cases, I can very easily imagine every tool at our disposal being used, including oversight, WP:OFFICE, and perhaps even more being used if we had credible information of imminent danger to an actual person. But, as I mention above, it is difficult for me to imagine hypotheticals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• #5 What about other articles that may be considered "life-threatheing" in different ways... such as informations about drugs, and so on...? Are we using a double-standard?

I don't think this is a case of a double-standard. It is not difficult to grasp the distinction between a particular threat to a particular individual, including expert advice that a blackout is desirable versus an abstract possibility that someone might learn something from Wikipedia and use it to cause harm to themselves or others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to get an answer from you, Mr. Wales. Thank you.
Questions and following comment made by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.78.169 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, can't we put this to rest and move on? It was clearly an exceptional case that required exceptional, and secret, measures. – ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes, it is better to err on the side of caution, and this was, very clearly, one of those times. Give it a rest.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I would advise giving it a rest. Society has demonstrated countless times that no one can write down precise rules that always apply, hence WP:IAR. Also, have a look at WP:NOTNEWS. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I asked politely two questions when the topic was hot and Mr. Wales ignored (or overlooked) them at the time. I still want answers.
And I quote from the Wikipedia article: "After David Rohde escaped, some people involved, including David himself, indicated that the reason the Times imposed a media blackout was not for Rohde's safety, but to decrease his ransom. An anonymous source quoted by New York Magazine claims that experts involved in the kidnapping never believed that David's life was in danger." So it was a matter of MONEY and not a matter of LIFE-and-DEATH. That brings the whole incident down even more to a disgraceful level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.217.15.245 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Wikipedia article is (I should say - was - since it has since changed) inaccurate in that particular. There was ample reason to believe that the blackout was a matter of life and death, including expert advice to that effect. Rohde was regularly threatened with death while held captive, and whether or not, and in what circumstances, the kidnappers might have followed through with those threats, is unknown. As Bill Keller has said "From the early days of this ordeal, the prevailing view among David’s family, experts in kidnapping cases, officials of several government and others we consulted was that going public could increase the danger." I believe that to be true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I asked the original three questions.( editing from a different ip address) I would like to hear an answer too. I don't want to be rude or confrontational, and I don't doubt that if any situation merited some sort of censorship, it would probably be a situation like this one. Nonetheless, the way it was handled is completely at odds with my understanding of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Perhaps I misunderstand Wikipedia's policies or perhaps it was not handled as well as it could have been. To that end, I feel like answers would help clarify which happens to be the case. Thanks, 75.82.133.73 (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that my answers have been in some way reassuring. None of this is something that I undertook lightly, nor is it something that I would undertake lightly in the future. I very much doubt - although life is long and complex and often surprising - that I will ever be faced with quite this situation again.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A sockpuppet putting a blame

Resolved

 – user blocked as a VOA Rodhullandemu 13:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Zozca. Whoever he is? He doesn't even know how to edit an article in Wikipedia. He is a newcomer and he started putting false blames on others. What proof does he has that I'm a sockpuppet of User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com. I think he is a sockpuppet of that user, that's why he is making me a sockpuppet. He doesn't know, who The Great One is, so how can he make me a sockpuppet. I want a proof. Jimmy, you should control your users and you should block those users who don't have any proof and they start blaming others.--Mark Linton (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, Zozca is trying to replace whatever I have written.

Jimbo, whatever I have written in your talkpage. User:Zozca, will try to remove it. He will replace my names with his name and his name with my name and will try to edit the section, which I have written in your talk page. History of your talkpage will be the proof. Similarly, JuJube also tried to put false blames on me last year when I returned to Wikipedia after a brief hiatus. I request you to do research and inquiry on whatever Zozca and JuJube have done to me.--Mark Linton (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Zozca - the Abuser

Your user, Zozca has started abusing me and has started using offensive language against me. He has started using bad words to me. Jimmy, please prevent him from doing any harm to me. I request you to stop his false things and block his account immediately.--Mark Linton (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The major problem with wikipedia

Jimbo, I used classical encyclopaediae alot over the years prior to the era of the ineternet. My recent interest in wikipedia stems from the fact that wikipedia is invariably the first hit on any google search. At first, I thought that the articles were written by experts. But gradually I heard that wikipedia is written by anybody and can be altered by anybody. Initially the idea seemed rather strange to me and it is a fact which I always remember at the back of my mind when depending on a wikipedia article for some piece of information. But if the subject matter is not controversial, I will always adopt the attitude that the information is probably correct because nobody is going to be wasting their time writing falsely about that topic.

I found wikipedia useful in ways that classical encyclopaedie on the library shelves were not. Wikipedia, with the help of modern computerized search engines gives access to a much wider range of specialized topics. There are many specialized topics that in the past I would simply not have been able to find in ordinary encyclopaediae. As such, wikipedia has helped me to get answers to questions that had been outstanding for many years. In that respect, wikipedia is good.

I have therefore attempted to introduce specialized knowledge back into wikipedia in areas that I have done alot of research in. Examples are the history and currencies of the British Empire. The edits that I have made on those subjects have seldom encountered any opposition. But the situation has been quite different as regards edits to physics related articles. Over the years, I have done alot of research in electromagnetism and I have worked through all the inter-relationships between the quantities. I managed to improve quite a few of your electromagnetism articles, but it was not without a certain degree of resistance. Sometimes that resistance was quite considerable, although discussions on the talk pages in most cases resulted in a beneficial exchange of views and some compromises.

The situation however has been quite different as regards the single topic of centrifugal force. There are some basic well sourced facts about centrifugal force which are simply being vetoed outright on that article, and these are the most important facts of all as regards that topic. There has been an ongoing dispute there going back to 2007 when I first edited using an IP server. What is most interesting is that whenever the argument got to a critical stage last year, the article was split into two. This confused the matter even further because the most important aspects of that topic, which are the aspects which are encountering the absolute resistance, do not correctly fit into either of the two sub-divisions.

Eventually, with the help of an outsider, a unified article was once again created. Things were going well for a short while but then trouble arose again with the intervention of one editor in particular. Editor FyzixFighter, more than any other editor has been repeatly following me around on physics related articles and confusing the topics in question. His style is to do wholesale reverts and then disappear. He will seldom come to the talk page unless a revert war continues or a third party gets involved. His strategy is then to try and form an alliance with that third party. His views have changed quite considerably according to who he is trying to align himself with against me. As you can see, last month he was involved in an edit war to push the idea that there were only two kinds of centrifugal force. Over the last few days it came to the brink of an edit war in which he is now trying to push the idea that there are three kinds of centrifugal force.

At the moment, it is chiefly FyzixFighter who is instrumental in keeping all references to the role of centrifugal force in planetary orbits out of the article. If you look at the debate, you will see that once again the discussion is now vearing into the issue of the two re-direct articles.

The purpose of the split in my opinion is to remove all aspects of centrifugal force that relate to a real outward push or pull, and to put those aspects into the 'reactive centrifugal force' re-direct article. The idea is then to promote the other re-direct article 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)' as being the main article. Until recently, it was indeed this latter re-direct article that got the google hits.

This splitting of a single subject is not in the interests of the wider public readership. It is important to watch carefully the specious arguments which are being put forward by certain editors to justify having two articles. In truth, the main purpose is to create a situation in which the illustrative example of centrifugal force in planetary orbits can be legitimately denied entry to the main article. We are seeing all kinds of reasons for vetoing the planetary orbital example. We have seen the following bogus arguments over the last two years, (1) that it is original research, (2) that it is a special case of the rotating frames approach and hence doesn't need to be mentioned, (3) that it is the reactive centrifugal force, (4) that the main article is only a summary article and that it is getting too big and that there is not enough room.

I would hope that you and some of your colleagues would pay attention to the ongoing debate on the talk page to see for yourselves that there are certain editors who are determined to destroy the article, and they are engaging in plausible arguments so as to look as if they are working for the good of the article.

If wikipedia is to have increased credibility with the public, these kind of editors need to be dealt with. Democracy alone cannot deal with this kind of situation. It is totally unsatisfactory to have a situation in which somebody who is trying to fix up an article is being persistently over ruled by superior numbers. The dispute resolution mechanisms have failed to bring forth any interested administrators.

Because of the prominence given to wikipedia by the major search engines such as google, you have a responsibility to the public at large to ensure that wikipedia is not being abused. There needs to be more administrator intervention. Consenus as a concept sounds very noble, but it is vulnerable to widespead abuse. David Tombe (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Has this not already been dealt with, have channels not been suggested to you? If you have a content dispute there are places to get it resolved. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Darrenhusted, it is alot more than a content dispute. It is about the fact that one editor has been following me around deleting my edits. A careful examination of his latest reversion and the reasons which he has given should clearly expose what has been going on. David Tombe (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then get the evidence and go to ANI. It is unlikely Jimbo will intervene. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] David Tombe has already taken this to wp:ani twice, to wp:an once and to this page once before. None of these attempts to gain an advantage over FyzixFighter in a long-running content dispute came to anything, because no evidence was presented that Fyzixfighter had done anything wrong.

Location / 1st Diff / Completed Thread

Adminstrators's Noticeboard [4] [5]

Ani 1st Ani thread [6]

Ani 2nd Ani thread [7]

Jimbo’s talk page [8] /[9]

Seriously, this is starting to look like forum shopping. Cardamon (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want evidence that FyzixFighter has acted wrongly, you only have to cross examine him on his motives for reverting my recent edit on centrifugal force in planetary orbits. No objective observer is seriously going to accept the reasons that he has given so far. David Tombe (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No one can "examine him on his motives". I think you've been heard and FF has been found not guilty of your charges. Move on. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You maybe can't examine him for his motives. But you can easily examine him on his content. As regards stating that FF has been found not guilty of the charges, I must have missed the court case. David Tombe (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You've taken this to admins four times, and here three times, far from FF harassing you think looks like you harassing him. If there was a problem it would have been addressed by now, if I were FyzixFighter at this point I would be asking for you to be disciplined for wikiharassment. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now hang on a minute Darrenhusted, FyzixFighter has been following me around and repeatedly deleting my edits on different articles. I don't do that to him. So it would take a very twisted judge to come to the the conclusion that I am the one that is harassing him. David Tombe (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir, What Mr Tombe says is basically correct. He has worked hard to observe the rules and work with other editors to get an article which satisfies the others. Then Mr FyzixFighter came in and deleted all of Mr Tombes efforts, turned the other editors against him, and generally created an edit war for his own personal satisfaction. I think your procedures are the problem. You should be banning FyzixFighter from intervening when he doesnt participate in the discussions. His technique is to interveen after compromises have been reached. That is basically wrong. If Mr FyzixFighter has some real arguments to present he should participate in the discussions and not wait until the other editors have agreed with Mr Tombe. This is in my opinion disruptive editing. It is clearly because Mr FyzixFighter has an animus for Mr Tombe. If you guys don't get that, then you are not paying attention to reality. Mr FyzixFighter is a disruptive editor and his actions are reprehensible and are a discredit to the reputation of Wikipedia. If you continue to allow editors like him to act the way he does, Wikipedia will be come what many already think it is, simply an erronous source of information.72.84.68.85 (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• And yet again Jimmy's talk page becomes a forum for everything that's not about Jimmy. This would make me crazy, I could never do Jimbo's job. Eaglizard (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet again, two admins try anything except addressing a credible complaint, deploying every method imaginable to demonize or ignore complainant. Eaglelizard claims exasperation because the user page of Wikipedia's founder is used by some as a last-resort venue for complaint, redress and resolution. And Darrenhusted seems to have exhausted his tactics to demonize complainant and ally with the abuser. Wikipedia's policies aren't working, because too many enforcers of those policies are intelligent, arrogant, hateful and hypocritical. "The British are coming!" to try and break the chain. (BTW I am not the same as ip 72.84.68.85 and i don't know who that is). 70.244.105.46 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that I'm not an admin, and David Tombe has already been blocked previously for his behaviour. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

More drama than usual?

Is it my imagination, or has the level of conflict and drama, on matters of governance and policy, been unusually high for the past few months? Finell (Talk) 21:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to measure, but perhaps a bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we can address this question in a systematic fashion. The level of drama could be quantified using a Hyperbole Index, which would summarize the volume of overbaked rhetoric in projectspace in any given 24-hour period. Take the following markers as a starting point:

• Number of analogies to 1984 or associated concepts (doublespeak, thoughtcrime, etc). Multiply by two for every analogy which makes it clear that the poster has either not read or not understood Orwell.
• Number of references to the Stalinist purges.
• Number of metaphors employing the Ermächtigungsgesetz.
• Number of mentions of BADSITES.
• Number of citations of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
• Number of analogies which invoke examples of serious real-life oppression, implying that these are equivalent to arguments about who gets to edit which pages of a privately run website.
• Number of editors retiring.

Divide by φ (the number of posts which evince a healthy sense of perspective). Actually, let's say (1 + φ), to avoid recurring division-by-zero errors. All of these parameters could be gathered by a bot every 24 hours, and the data could be graphed, mined, correlated, and otherwise analyzed. I am somewhat serious. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

According to a byword (really: Paul of the bible), "Pleasantly, (ηδεως) wherefore, (γαρ) show patience with (ανεχεσθε) the (των) doubting/mindless/egotistic/rash (αφρονων), (your being) more discreet/thoughtful (φρονιμοι)." King James Version: "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise." ↜Just M E here , now 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

More developers

Regarding your post here - I'm sw dev, and there is a joke you may not have heard which seems to apply here: A project manager asked the master, how much time do you need to code this project?

The master replied: two months.

The project manager asked, if I give you six developers to work with you, how long will it take?

The master replied: one month.

The project manager asked, if I give you one hundred developers?

Then, it will never be finished.

-- KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, now, that was funny. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:-) LOL!! very funny. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. At least this way I know at least one person read it. :-D KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

+1 8^D ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of us prefer the way that Fred Brooks explained the issue in The Mythical Man-Month:

The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo!

Thanks for the constructive criticism of our project. I have figured out the inline reference process and now have the first two paragraphs mostly cleaned up and properly referenced. We will be continuing work on the rest of it.Sfrahm (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information

My apologies if this was already brought to your notice. There is a company called Wiki Experts who write articles for money in Wikipedia and the accounts of Wiki Experts company account in Wikipedia and then the account of Spokesperson of Wiki Experts in Wikipedia was blocked both rightly as per my opinion.A editor and Staff of Wiki Experts upset about this they have both Outside Wikipedia [10] and On Wikipedia by Cinagua (talk · contribs) a paid editor have accused Wikipedia of racism, personal vendettas ,restricting free Speech they use the | They use the name Tayzen in Elance and a editor has opened a Ani discussion on this [11].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Thanks for letting me know!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom?

Hi Jimbo, can ArbCom do this?[12]. It seems that ArbCom has snooped on incoming email, and has used it to block an editor of 3000 edits. Is acting "ultra vires", or does ArbCom need its parameters delineated. Can ArbCom snoop on email that is being sent, or is it a "non-judgmental body"? The bottom line is "can ArbCom be trusted anymore?" Tfz 00:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of ArbCom snooping on emails anywhere in that section (the only instance of the word "email" on that page is someone suggesting emailing ArbCom). I'm not sure how ArbCom would snoop on emails, they aren't the FBI, they don't go around seizing computers... --Tango (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No email snooping was done; a routine review and checkuser were done as a result of an unblock request emailed to the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's more the "headers" of the email I was referring to. Tfz 12:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does email headers come into this? They were deemed to be socks due to WP:Checkuser, and similar editing patterns. No email headers were used afaik. Wikipiere emailed ArbCom requesting to have his ban reviewed on the basis of six months without socking. Naturally, we investigated whether he had been socking and we found MITH. Wikipiere needs to stop editing for six months if he wants to be taken seriously. During those six months, I urge him to put his energy into another WMF project. If he wishes, I will be happy to help him settle into contributing to Wikisource. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here [13]. Headers contain ISP address, therefore geolocation etc. There is no problem with ArbCom if it is allowed to pass that information onto CheckUser, but it would be preferable that all private 'ArbCom correspondence' be confidential. Tfz 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUsers can already see your IP address to begin with. That's what the whole point of the tool is. Also, what Nishkid is speaking of there is not an email header. It is a user agent string. Positively identifying someone's real life persona based solely on their IP address and user agent is practically impossible. Geolocation can be very accurate, but usually it is not. For example, the IP I am editing from now is a static IP, and it geolocates 30 miles away. At home, my IP is dynamic, and it geolocates more than 120 miles away. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Recently a couple of editors put together this five-day article writing project with the intention to stay away from drama for a few days and focus more on article improving. Saw the section above and thought you might like to take a look. a little insignificant 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm very excited about it. I'm actually considering closing this page for the duration, since it's a lovely drama magnet, but in any event, I'm think I am going to spend some time working on articles myself, I hope. I have some photos I have been wanting to upload. I wonder if anyone might like to assign me some articles to work on, in areas that I know nothing about and have nothing to do with personally? Maybe like 5 cute but interesting stubs? I can go to the library tomorrow (although my local community library in my area isn't that big) and research something obscure but fun. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about Lincolnshire? Bet you've never even heard about us living here. ;o) --BSTemple (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch there with an edit conflict. I was going to suggest Lecompton Constitution. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :-) Another good one to expand is Lincoln Medieval Bishop's Palace. Plenty to fill out there.--BSTemple (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dale Earnhardt and NASCAR ;-) — Ched :  ?  20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Pacific hurricane season. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 10. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cute but interesting? How about my own stub on the Committee to End Pay Toilets In America? Sure could use a photo or something. ;) Eaglizard (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to begin a new article, please consider Arizona Pioneers’ Home. Some links that could be useful if this option is chosen are [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. --Allen3 ^talk 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll see if I can get my first DYK! --Tango (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between Martin Siegel and Martin J. Siegel

Hi My name is Martin J. Siegel, an arbitrageur who formerly worked on Wall Street. Unfortunately there is, on Wikipedia , a listing for a Martin Siegel who also worked on Wall Street, was convicted and sent to jail for stock market fraud. I am currently an Adjunct Professor at Stern-NYU and some of my students have queried Wikipedia and have come back assuming that I am the Martin Siegel who went to jail. I would like the profile that I submitted listed under his so tht I can avoid this type of confusion in the future. I typed a brief bio but apparently it was not accepted. There is a major difference between Martin Siegel and Martin J. Siegel and I think that the readers of Wiki should see them both when they search. Many thanks for your consideration Martin J. Siegel a copy of what I wanted to post is below

Martin J. Siegel was born and raised in Brooklyn New York. He attended the University of Vermont and upon graduation joined his father’s children’s dress manufacturing firm.. The firm was acquired in 1965 and in 1968 he left the firm to take his MBA at Columbia University-Graduate School of Business- class of 1970. Upon graduation Mr. Siegel joined the firm of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette to run their foreign equity arbitrage department. In 1973 he joined Salomon Brothers to create the international equity arbitrage department. which he subsequently managed for 20 years. Mr. Siegel joined the firm of Long Term Capital Management in 1994 and remained with the firm until October 1998 trading both emerging market equity and debt. In 1999 he joined NYU-Stern as an Adjunct Professor of Finance and International Business and teaches a course on Emerging Financial Markets. He is married and lives in Tomkins Cove New York in the lower Hudson Valley. Mjsiegel (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Mjsiegel offering to help but I'm also making a note here, since not all new users know to look there, and the OP seems likely to check back here. Eaglizard (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support that something useful be done to help Prof. Siegel - this sounds like a pretty unfortunate state of affairs. Even if we choose not to have an article about Prof. Siegel (which might be reasonable, normally we don't have articles about adjunct professors, depending on the circumstance) it still seems like the right thing to do to have a disclaimer at the top of the article). I don't think we should normally do that every time someone has the same name as a criminal, but the similarity of the names, similarity of profession, same city, and the fact that he knows for a fact that students have come to the wrong conclusion, are all points in favor of a disclaimer at least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been bold and tagged the article as certainly a quick Google check leads one to believe in the veracity of this person's issue. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have performed a quick search of news archives and found some additional identifying information on the subject of the existing article. The article subject's middle initial ("A") and year of birth have been added to Martin Siegel as a quick means of differentiation. --Allen3 ^talk 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, I have moved the article and created a disambiguation page. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you participating, Jimbo! iMatthew ^talk at 22:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dcoetzee

Hi Jimbo. Don't feel the need to respond to this, but I would like to suggest that you, or somebody else senior in the project, may want to have a personal chat with this guy. I have been reading what has been going on and it seems that there is a tangible threat of criminal charges being used to put pressure on him (on the basis that they allege he may have circumvented the very basic means used to prevent download of a whole image). My reading of the situation is that he may feel under intense peer pressure to "make a stand" in this dispute, and therefore put himself at possible risk but certainly put himself under intense personal pressure. I am not sure that everyone who is advising him has his best interests at heart. Perhaps you, or somebody else can advise him - not from a legal standpoint, but from the point of whether he should put the defence of the project and the defence of various principles before his own interests. Just a thought. ConcernedCeltic (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is already being handled. --Carnildo (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with WP

The trouble with WP is that thugs rule. The Barack Obama article is under article probation. Yet, people (THuranX and GoodDamon) remove rational talk page comments and collapse discussion into boxes so nobody can see this. Especially when an article is under article probation, ALL editors should be at their best behaviour. Yet when antics like this go unpunished, all the rational editors leave. In fact, I am leaving your myspace type website. I may come back but don't count on it.

Before the drama out campaign mentioned above starts, you should put your foot down and force those thugs who violate the spirit of article probation out of wikipedia or topic ban them. If an article probation doesn't work, how can other non-probated article work? Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You quit for five minutes?, and this is not the place. Your ANI complaint has been answered. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to a peaceful weekend

Hi all, for the next 5 days, I'm requesting that this page be considered closed for renovations during The Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Go read up on it, it sounds fun.

I'll not be answering questions related to big picture policy, people you are mad about, things you're mad at me about, etc. I'm just gonna go write some articles. And I'm hopeful that the bug will infect you too. If you're mad about something of incredible meta importance, I recommend sleeping on it for a few days. There's nothing that I can help with which is likely to be urgent, and I think we'll all have clearer heads for solving longterm problems in the project if we just edit articles for a few days.

Usually, this is not the right page for many of the concerns that are raised here anyway, although I don't mind getting a steady sampling of what is going on. But not during the Dramaout. If you want to comment here, please be sure it's about article improvement on an article that I'm actually seen working on currently.

I haven't actually checked on who invented this idea, but I love it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I might be breaking the Dramaout rules by posting to your talk page, haha, but User:Jayron32 created the Dramaout, inspired at AN/I. User:Berean Hunter and I collaborated on this template (he actually stole my drama image, but did it nicely), which may be of vital importance to your talk page. This is a list of contributions that were done specifically by editors who chose to stay out of contentious areas for the five day period. This has to be an annual event at the very least. Law _{type! snype?} 13:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I am the inventor of this idea. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=301449733 Jayron32 admits that he invented the title of the drive because it sounds better. Others may respond to this comment but I will refrain from further comment in order to concentrate on the 5 day campaign. Best of luck. User F203 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping Mr Siegel with his identity problem. I'm afraid I offered my help without knowing exactly what should be done, but I found you and SqueakBox had already done something about it before I could fumble around with it. Btw, I hope I wasn't too presumptive to assume you'd be too busy to look at something like that. Clearly, I was wrong. :D Eaglizard (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC) PS: I sure hope the comment previous to mine is meant as a joke, tho I doubt it was. Still, you don't any manners! Classic stuff. Eaglizard (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks

I would like to inform you that you may wish to change your babel boxes at the English Wikibooks. You may wish to change {{Babel|en|de}} to the code described below the userboxes. Thank you for your kind attention. Kayau |Jane Eyre| PRIDE AND PREJUDICE| les miserables 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Hello, Jimbo. I'm about to request arbitration of you. Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

The message above indicates he won't respond until on or after the 22nd. –xeno^talk 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Any system of governance based on public participation (e.g. consensus as Wikipedia uses or democracy as the US uses) necessarily incorporates usage of "drama". WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeno..? This isn't the "weekend" where I live. Anyway, any time will do me. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC).

Well if you read the entire message and not just the title... –xeno^talk 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen, if you believe we have a live dispute, then I would recommend following the steps in the dispute resolution process. I would recommend at this point either information mediation (mediation cabal) or formal mediation (mediation committee, though normally they restrict themselves to article content disputes). But perhaps it could be helpful if you could state for me what you think is in live dispute here?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, you (Jimbo) should stay out of this topic until the end of the dramaout. No offense, but when you become involved in something, it seems to create more drama. Just a suggestion. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... if the arbitration is about Jimbo, his simply staying out of it for an arbitrary period of time would increase the drama, not decrease... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to break my dramaout pledge in order to eliminate a possible source of drama. The RFAR has actually been started: Wikipedia:A/R#Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen, that "about to request" message was apparently intended as notification of the case. Jimbo, you probably want to make a statement there, it seems it is too late to recommend mediation. --Tango (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Um...to Jimbo. My suggestion is to keep the pledge and wait the 2 days. Most users will understand. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I will, certainly; if I'd been aware of the dramaout, I would have posted later. However, 2 days isn't much in this context, as I expect the arbitration committee will be busy discussing the case amongst themselves for some time yet. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

I have posted and also emailed the Arbitration Committee. I would like to repeat my request here that if you think we have a live dispute, then let's talk to mediators.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Set up a direct link to Wiki Questions

Hi, there. I had a great idea to share with wikipedia, but I don't know where to post it. I also noticed that one of our sister projects, Simple English Wikipedia, had a place where people could go to list there question and be able to be read and answered by anyone. So I was wondering if you could please set one up for the main page (or in the way Simple English set it up) and if it was already set up, can you make a direct link to it from the main page? Please respond on my talkpage. Signed and regards from --Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Simple English Wikipedia username

Hi Mr Wales. I've blocked a user with your username on the Simple English Wikipedia. Just to be on the safe side, I'd like to cofirm if it is really you. Thank you.--TVBdxiang (Talk) 07:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It was created automatically by SUL [19] so it is pretty clear it IS him. Viridae^Talk 08:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Wales. I am sorry for the error, I was unaware of the situation due to my long-term inactivity. Please don't de-sysop me! =P--TVBdxiang (Talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hell's teeth! Welcome to SEWP, I hope you'll be providing us with an assessment of the project. It's very important, particularly to those editors whose time is spent exclusively there. I'm not suggesting you should give us some "inside line" on the thinking of the WMF but as of very recently, this particular Wikipedia was on the edge of closure. Some comment, direction, advice, or similar, would be very much gratefully received. No drama.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed TRM! As the newest user to be elected bureaucrat on SEWP I'd like to simply thank you Jimmy for even visiting. Simple English projects tend to receive a plethora of bad reviews by editors but I feel they serve a real purpose in providing a place for people with limited skills in English (by whatever cause) to access the "sum of all human knowledge" in language they can understand and in such a format that it encourages them to take part in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"! In summary, cheers for simply dropping in! fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Offer to mediate

Hello Jimmy. Please see my offer to formally mediate your dispute with Bishonen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Ryan_Postlethwaite here. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be very happy with that, so my answer is yes. I hope that Bishonen will agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mike Duke

Sir, I believe an old schoolfriend of mine is being discussed on the board of Biography of Living People. I have been reading about these biographies, and it is currently being suggested that Mike is a homophobe, due to the fact that he once signed a petition opposing the adoption of children by certain gay groups. I assure you he is not a homophobe, and this is by no account a reliable source, especially considering the spurious claims that are being made on the article as a result of signing this petition. Please assure me that this enclyclopedia does not allow such controvercial claims to be made based on such a insubstantial piece of 'evidence'. It has never been reported in any newspaper that Mike is at all homophobic (as he is not), and the fact that your website finds it ok to call him this is disgusting. I used to rely on this website for a source of information, and reliable information at that! Now I am not so sure. I will definately be speaking to my wife and her friends about this.

Yours,

Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When one newspaper defines a competing newspaper's reputation, is it NPOV?

Jimbo, considering your recent foray into journalism ethics, I was hoping that you might weigh in on this particular discussion here on the Falklands War discussion page. Thank you in advance, if you do decide to help out by clarifying how we proceed. -- Thekohser 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking generally and as a Brit, I'd say that the Sun is far less reputable than the Guardian. Remember, the Guardian isn't effectively banned from an entire city on a matter of principle. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good, Sceptre. Then I will look for your support that the Falklands War article should more accurately reflect how the Guardian described the Sun's jingoistic, often reckless, bloody-minded, ruthless, black-humoured, xenophobic, and triumphalist headlines. That's actually my most recent edit to the Falklands War article. I prefer it. Sum of human knowledge, you know. -- Thekohser 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly NPOV unless the other side of the arguemtn is also presented. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Guardian is hoping to prize readers from the Sun (left-wing yuppy broadsheet, versus "working man" trashy right-wing tabloid). Totally different markets. The Guardian is a reliable source for the Sun's headlines during the Falklands. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so then I am curious how, out of "jingoistic, often reckless, bloody-minded, ruthless, black-humoured, xenophobic, and triumphalist", Wikipedia decided to select jingoistic and xenophobic from that list? I'm being told that a book by Robert Harris is the actual reference citation for this, but I haven't seen those two terms in close proximity to The Sun in his book (as I've not at all seen his book). -- Thekohser 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An enemy

Someone, who is making me Zozca. What is the proof of that user. He, should come on my talk page and give me the proof--TZX Master (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone, who is making me Asadaleem12@hotmail.com. What is the proof of that user. He, should come on my talk page and give me the proof--TZX Master (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Giving up the use of block

I voluntarily offered, in my discussions with Bishonen, and as a good faith gesture to demonstrate my good will in trying to resolve all disputes with her, to not use the block tool for 6 months. Upon my own private reflection, I have decided to simply give up the use of the block tool permanently. I don't need it, it isn't important, and it is too widely viewed as a "nuclear option". I simply can't use the block tool normally, because people over-interpret it. No problem, I just won't use it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to annotate Bishonen's block log to void the block that you placed? This would not exonerate her behavior; it would simply say that you are revoking your block without prejudice. Somebody else could theoretically review the incident involving Bishonen and place an appropriate warning or sanction if needed. If you agree, you might offer this to Bishonen. I have no idea if she would accept. Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am offering to enter into mediation with a goal of placing a note into the block log, but the exact wording is not something that I think can be usefully be hashed out in public. The block was valid, and I hope it will be viewed as influential and important in terms of establishing the principle that even influential admins who are likely to complain a lot afterwards may be blocked for egregious personal attacks - just as any ordinary or unpopular user would be. Bishonen has offered to consider having someone work with me to come up with a wording she can accept - she is not willing to work with me directly. I think she's wrong to be so uncooperative, but then, that's no surprise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to do that? It seems a bit of an overreaction. You've made rather influential blocks in the past: MyWikiBiz, DanielBrandt, and giving that up would, for better or worse, remove your ability to break up problems which are too contentious to end in any other ways. Prodego ^talk 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Prodego. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways for me to handle cases like that which I think will be more effective. In the long run, as I have always said, I am opposed to the entire notion of "GodKing", much preferring the model of Constitutional Monarchy where I have certain reserved and rarely used powers, primarily existing in order to deal with constitutional crises of various kinds. Although this is directly an attempt to simply eliminate what I view as a distraction from the real issue (admin misconduct in the form of personal attacks being a blockable offense), it is also part of my ongoing efforts to make sure that my role evolves usefully. Soon, I will be making some announcements about the upcoming ArbCom elections that are in the same general spirit - and which go far beyond the proposals that even some of my harshest critics have recommended. (I think they are wrong about their criticism, but I also, perhaps surprisingly think they are too mild in their reform proposals.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may choose not to exercise certain powers without abrogating the power itself much like the advice given by the Fool to King Lear - he did not listen. Taam (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to have the assigned rights of Template:Founder|Jimbo Wales amended to remove the block flag? As you may recall, I am very keen on having all accessible rights viewable for all (named) accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not. Why would that be necessary? Do you think I'm not going to live up to my pledge?  :-) I am still an admin, I am just an admin who isn't going to be blocking anybody ever again. There are other admins like me, actually, who don't block people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I think there is some value in such an undertaking, I doubt it would be useful. Should we reasonably expect Jimbo to encounter an ongoing and egregious breach of WP:BLP, say, and wait until his report to WP:AIV is processed? I think not. Whereas Jimbo does not necessarily engage in that function, I've certainly seen him/you act to prevent legal damage to the encyclopedia and the WMF by imposing blocks. If "other admins" don't block people, either they are operating in areas where blocking is not an option, or they are not doing their job properly. Either way, an admin without the block or protect option cannot be effective here, and I perceive that that applies equally to Jimbo. An alternative, of course, is that Jimbo voluntarily retains the block option, but reports such blocks to WP:ANI for community review unless the reason for blocking is "obvious and gross". All in all, my view is that one exceptional case does not justify a severe change of either policy or attitude- unless it is part of a pattern of egregious behaviour; and I don't see that here. Rodhullandemu 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that the Queen of England doesn't go around issuing parking tickets? :)  Roger Davies ^talk 04:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rarely done routine blocks of that type, and there are always more people around. It's not hard to find an admin if something needs doing quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's perhaps the point- your blocks, particularly of high-profile editors, are open to more scrutiny than those of us mere horny-handed sons of toil who do such on a daily basis. But if you have admin responsibilities (and I say that in preference to "powers"), you should be able to exercise those; subject to review, of course, but the ultimate object, is it not, is the protection of this encyclopedia? Rodhullandemu 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your block of Bishonen was good. Your giving up the block tool sounds like a bad idea William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Use the force, Luke. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds really positive, good move that may inspire others to follow suit. Perhaps a new voluntary post could be created for those who want the right to delete, unlock pages etc without wanting the power to block people. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to believe that, but that implies a matrix of permissions which seems to me like mission creep, and adding levels which predicates that some users have some permissions, and others do not, is supremely unnecessary. Although admin permissions are a package, I see no reason to split out granting such permissions into what would inevitably end up as "well, I trust X with permission Y, but not with permission Z", and I suggest that would not be constructive as far as WP:RFA, and its inevitable subsets would be concerned. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The power of the block turns one into a policeman; and while policemen are a necessary evil beng able to police isnt a necessary part of being a good encyclopedia editor, and to insist on the only way to get extra privileges is by accepting the role of policeman feels to me completely wrong; this proposal of Jimbo's feels right though and its a shame he cant officialize it by removing the ability to block while retianing it to lock, delete etc. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jimbo, I think you should reconsider. So long as you still have the power to enact a block, there may be a situation where you have to do so to prevent imminent damage to the encyclopedia. Making this blanket pledge will only lead to even more dramaz in the event that necessity entails that it be foregone. I'd much rather see you pledge to only use the tool from absolute necessity and explain forthwith at ANI in that event. You're correct that we have admins who don't make blocks - but none that I am aware of have promised not to ever do so. In effect, you're partly abrogating your role, not as a GodKing, but as a plain vanilla administrator. Franamax (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Carcharoth refrains from using the block button. This whole situation is on beyond bizarre. Jimmy, you damage your standing with the community by being stubborn. You need to listen to the feedback you are getting. There's no need to refrain from ever placing a block. You just need to avoid controversial blocks (as should we all). Because you get less practice than other experienced admins, and because of your unique ability to trigger dramas, you need to be a bit more conservative in using the block button. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think I'm being stubborn. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Its hard if not impossible to imagine any situation in which we are dependent on Jimbo, or any specific admin, in giving a block, and if this were true the project is halfway doomed already; this move would enhance your role not reduce it and the project will only have problems if there are not enough volunteers willing to make blocks. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• As founder of the project, your actions will be automatically in the spotlight. And you do have a history of controversial blocks. Refraining from blocking is one way of avoiding this controversy. Personally I think it would set a good example if you focused more on friendly warnings to users than insta-blocking. a little insignificant 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Generally it looks very bad when a CEO prowls the office chewing out subordinates. It is much better for the CEO to provide avuncular guidance to those in some sort of difficulty. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Using that analogy (admins=subordinates, users=clients), subordinates shouldn't call clients little shits, even if they are aggravating. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe any analogies here are particularly apposite. Roger Davies comments above "For the same reason that the Queen of England doesn't go around issuing parking tickets?"; that misses the point, with respect. Whereas the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom no longer gets involved in the minutiae of law enforcement, and hasn't for over 600 years, all law enforcement derives from regal authority. That is not the case with respect to Jimbo, because that function has been largely delegated to the community and is regulated thereby. Neither do I see Jimbo fulfilling the role of a CEO, because that, to me, implies a day-to-day, hands-on involvement, and again, it seems clear that Jimbo has left that to the rest of us. OTOH, avuncular guidance in the context of the "original vision" is fine as long as it is seen as such; unfortunately, it seems to me that Jimbo's role here has been both overstated and understated for whatever purpose. Clarification, of course, would be wonderful- but I don't see it happening at present. Rodhullandemu 00:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Rod, law enforcement in the England has been delegated too, not that any monarch ever went around doing that sort of thing. That's not where the difference would lie. The difference if any would be whether or not a "fiction" of ultimate sovereignty is retained. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The intention of the godking to hold back from direct intervention is commendable. If he needs to issue a block, it should be clear enough to others for them to issue the block. If his intervention is every needed, he still can. The system of constitutional monarchy is in practice a stable system, with a significant psychological feature: Those who wield the power don’t ultimately hold it, and the one who does hold it doesn’t use it. It is not power that corrupts, it is the free exercise of power that corrupts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

C'mont guys, the man says he ain't gonna block no more. What's there to discuss? Or: Oh, He ain't gonna block no more no more; he ain't gonna block no more; now how 'bout the heck; we give it a rest; cause he says he ain't gonna block no more! (No need to stint on the applause!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the idea of electing a group of administrators whose job is to police other administrators? They would handle issues such as routine misconduct by administrators and be able to block administrators for short durations. They would be able to do this individually, without engaging in the prolonged discussions of the ArbCom. The ArbCom would still be used to address more severe and chronic conduct issues. --Atomic blunder (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving this to a new section. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Future of Wikipedia

Wikipedia has become for me a layer that sits atop google search for ordered information. In this sense it goes far beyond what any printed encyclopaedia could provide. Inclined towards this kind of paradigm I wonder what the implications are for the project as it heads towards the 3,000,000+ articles range. Suspecting this subject has maybe already been talked to death could you point me to any papers or articles that discuss this subject? Taam (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sits atop google? Only if you use google exclusively for search. While google is great for many things there are many other things for which wikipedia and not google is the obvious first port of call in searching, from bios to acronyms to technical information; personally I think wikipdia has underplayed what a brilliant search engine it is for encyclopedic information. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Squeakbox, methinks you nail down precisely one of the issues relating to what Wikipedia is becoming, i.e. it has now gone well beyond the limits of printed page and what was conventionally thought to be an encyclopedia. I use google as an example because, like a lot of people, it comes up in a browser tab and is automatically the first port of call for searching out information. More often than nought it is the Wikipedia entry that comes out top of the list in my fields of interest. I suppose one of the main points relates to the encyclopedia paradigm in that inclusiveness, which I veer towards, has obvious issues relating to resources. In essence my question relates to what Wikipedia is and what it becomes. Taam (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What I glean from this naturally falls to my own view. It still seems to me that Google is better at finding the best Wikipedia page than what Wiki-search can accomplish. When I know exactly what I want to research, I'll just type it into Wikipedia search. When I'm not sure of the exact terms, I'll go to Google to find the right en:wiki article. This is despite the huge, vast and massive improvements to our sesrch engine last fall. It's so much better - but as long as I can still find obvious search terms where the article is not in the "did you mean"s or the first five pages of results, wikisearch still sucks...

I'm commenting here 'cause I'm hoping for various reasons that this will really bug Jimbo ;) and because I think the search thing should be a Foundation-level issue. And I'll say again that I appreciate the dramatic improvements over the last while. But search-wise, we need so much more. Franamax (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Change password

My, e-mail address is mastertahir@rocketmail.com. Please activate the new password,, please give instruction to admins to activate the new password. Someone is using my passowrd.--119.152.6.18 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Block it

Jimmy, I request you to block the account of the vandal, TZX Master. If you don't do it immediately, he will spread vandalism in Wikipedia and will ruin your encyclopedia. He has confessed himself on his userpage that he is a sockpuppet, then his account should not exist. Please, block it for the sake of your encyclopedia, you have created. For the sake of your earnings, your hardworking.--Hell With Arun (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is using my password to prove that I am sockpuppet because he has no prove.--TZX Master (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC), he should signature his name.--119.152.6.18 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can check out the history of the userpages of TZX Master and Asadaleem12@hotmail.com.--Hell With Arun (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this user at WP:Ani#User:TZX_Master_-_sockpuppetry.3F. This is a matter that can be handled by regular admins. There's no need for Mr. Wales to take personal action.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Final block request

Since you have decided not to block users in the future, would you end your blocking history with a final block of 1 hours against me, User:User F203 --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The stated reason would be "Thank you for your article writing drive idea, which resulted in the dramaout campaign. While I supported it, there were a few opposing it. For them, I block you for 1 hour per your request. This block is intended to be my last block though I retain the right to block in the future"

I know that blocking is not normally done because of a self-request so I've provided an excuse above. User F203 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no. But thanks a lot for sure. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

your talk page at meta

You have messages waiting for you here. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Dear Jimbo Wales

I have been on Wikipedia for a year I have been looking for a position in which I can hold a little amount of power here to try and help sort out desputes and help others and the Arbitration Commitee piqued my interest. I would very much like to know more about it (with the possibility of joining) because I can't seem to find any helpful information around here.

Yours Sincerly

The C of E

The C of E (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators are elected, not appointed. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you are welcome to stand for a seat at the next elections, which are going to take place in December. The details are on the Committee page, but you may want to involve yourself a bit further in other areas of dispute resolution first so that other editors have a chance to get to know you and your style.

Also, holding an ArbCom seat is a very draining investment of time and effort; you probably want to get deep "in the trenches" for a while so you get a better idea of the commitment scope involved. — Coren ^(talk) 23:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A disturbing trend I'm noticing, since C of E is doing something similar (seeking "a position") on the English Wikiquote... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiasm should not be stifled, but it should become abundantly clear in due course that it should be tempered by experience. I'd counsel The C of E to get involved in more structural involvement here, whilst maintaining a respectable edit record, if his/her ambition is to progress through the "hierarchy". So far, I feel it's too early for consideration of granting extra responsibility, but I don't rule out that happening in due course. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to control misconduct by administrators

What about the idea of electing a group of administrators whose job is to police other administrators? They would handle issues such as routine misconduct by administrators and be able to block administrators for short durations. They would be able to do this individually, without engaging in the prolonged discussions of the ArbCom. The ArbCom would still be used to address more severe and chronic conduct issues. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Then who watches the watchers? Darrenhusted (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

They (the watchers) could be elected by administrators for a term and be subject to recall elections by administrators to remove them. There is also ArbCom. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why administrators? Members of the community who are not administrators can surely police the admins just as well, within frameworks which are currently under consideration in a couple of places. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The community is surely the ultimate arbiter. Having heard the recent satirical Radio 4 broadcast on "Bigipedia", in which user levels were assigned "tin" or "cloth", that highlighted to me the futility of multiplying entities here. Every contributor is accountable here, and their contributions are visibly open to all. What we have may not be the most ideal situation, but Wikipedia is neither a democracy (otherwise we might as well throw away most of our major policies), neither is it a monarchical despotism, but most importantly, neither is it an anarchy. Admins policing admins smacks to me of cliquery, and I don't support that, because it smells of factionalism at at the very least. My gut feeling is that it's OK as it is. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest letting the administrators police themselves as I mentioned above. I'm not sure administrators would be receptive to the idea of being policed by 12 year olds who are new to Wikipedia for example. Members of the community could participate by reporting misbehaving administrators. Maybe the elections I mentioned above could be open to the community and not just administrators. I'm not familiar with the frameworks being referred to above. I'm convinced that it is not okay as it is. --Atomic blunder (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrators already police themselves, as they police any other editor. As all editors police all administrator actions. We don't need a new "userlevel" for that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it's not clear to me (but it is late here) what you are suggesting. I don't think a superset of admins selected to supervise the activities of other admins is a good idea, because that would introduce yet another layer of responsibility of dubious authority. Admins are already of necessity under scrutiny, because their actions may tend to be controversial, and they wouldn't have achieved that responsibility without community trust in the first place. That responsibility means that aggrieved parties have multiple avenues for protest, starting with the admin's talk page, and escalating through several levels of dispute resolution, up to Arbitration/Jimbo. Bottom line here is that I don't think there's any pressing need to introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy here. We already have too much, arguably. Rodhullandemu 00:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The two process being put forward are User talk:Tony1/AdminReview and User:Roux/RFA-reform, with a recent proposal that the two might be mutually run concurrently should both get the necessary consensus. There may be others that I am not aware. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrators already police themselves? It seems more like they generally ignore or otherwise don't enforce each other's transgressions. Kind of like police officers do. --Atomic blunder (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I recently blocked another admin for 3RR. The 3RR violation was reported by an editor at WP:AN3 just as any normal 3RR violation would be. I knew they were an admin, and I had no problem blocking them for a clear violation of policy. Thus having people 'police' admins is not the answer. I do agree that a better mechanism for administrator recall, where a decision to sanction or desysop a wayward admin based on consensus (as is the decision to make them a sysop in the first place) may be a good idea and take some of the drama out of WP:ANI. However having a group that's devoted to tracking down and punishing admins would not be a good precedent for Wikipedia as a whole, or for the morale of admins. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So why all the drama over the brief block of Bishonen? Seems a bit ridiculous. If someone other than Jimbo Wales had blocked that account then it would have been okay? --Atomic blunder (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Being upset is not a blockable offense. Daedalus was trolling Bishonen, and she snapped. Being blocked does not help a user to calm down, and in this situation, it tends to increase disruption and drama. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So now the block log is the main problem. I have a suggestion on block logs: Show only blocks in the block log that have occurred in the past year or two. Blocks older than a year or two are not really relevant. It would give people a chance to clear their record in time, especially if they were the victim of a questionable block. --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the main problem is the block log. In any event, a proposal to delete or conceal older blocks was mooted at Wikipedia:Rehabilitation of offenders a couple of weeks ago; the consensus was that such a proposal would be susceptible to gaming, as well as likely to increase the drama associated with blocking rather than decrease it. (The talk page has a fairly extensive discussion about some of the likely unintended consequences.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Better recall procedure for admins is all that's needed. Perhaps the ability for ArbCom to make a summary judgement to send a questioned admin to a recall election? -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to review Wikipedia:De-adminship proposal checklist and Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship before encouraging recall votes. In addition to being potent drama magnets, having the ArbCom refer an admin to recall is just a ducking of their responsibility — an admin facing recall under those circumstances is being set up for failure. Would a process that takes place during an admin's most dramatic conflict, immediately after their worst judgement call, be likely to generate a fair result? It's like the manager who only does performance reviews right after you screw up at work. If the ArbCom doesn't have the guts to shoot its own dogs, then it's not doing its job. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The community should have a right to see the blocked logs of administrators. That is, the logs of everyone administrators have blocked and the amount of time they have blocked them for. Those logs would be helpful in determining if administrators are acting justly. --Atomic blunder (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean, Special:Log/block is already open and visible. Kusma (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What is it that you don't understand?. --Atomic blunder (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to be asking for more openness in our logs, but they are already as open as they can be. Kusma (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't born knowing that. --Atomic blunder (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Areas for Reform

Hi Jimbo. Following recent discussions around the WP:Advisory Council on Project Development, Slrubenstein (talk · contribs) created WP:Areas for Reform, a page for the community to identify problems and brainstorm potential solutions. Among the issues currently discussed there are

• editor retention (WP:ARFR#Do we have a problem recruiting new, or retaining current, editors?) and
• improving WP:BLP compliance (WP:ARFR#Is BLP adequately enforced?)

If you have any ideas or other input, please contribute. I imagine the BLP issue in particular might benefit from input from you, or Foundation consultants, to be discussed effectively. JN466 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales

Hello Jimbo. I've gone ahead and filed a request for mediation which will be accepted should both you and Bishonen agree to the request. I've added a number of issues to discuss during the mediation, but please feel free to add more should you think of any. As it stands now, me and Sunray will be acting as mediators. Should this be a problem, we can certainly look at other mediators to take over the role. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Survey 2008

Two questions: do we have plans for Wikipedia:Survey 2009, and when is the data set from 2008 going to be made publicly available? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Rejoice!

For the Encyclopedia Dramatica may well have to close due to a lack of funds!!!--89.168.144.29 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hooray. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}} -- who says? reliable sources? Would rejoice if it were true, but is it? -- 89.52.149.162 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You do know that they do this every month just to coax money from those who read it. 75.131.224.220 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret ballots for arbcom elections

I have raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:ARBCOM#Secret_ballot_for_future_elections. It also appears (without doing a lot of archive searching) that your role in this year's arbcom election is not completely clear. It would be much better to resolve the procedures for the election now, instead of waiting until it is too late for any changes to be made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki cookie

Could someone add a Wiki cookie to Jimbo's barnstars for me. I tried to, but I had a little glitch which meant I could not add one. That was not about blocking, but just I am not very good at wiki items yet. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.242.237 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and comparisons to Usenet

I've seen many people (including you) make comparisons between Wikipedia and Usenet, typically as a justification for civility policies. I think such comparisons demonstrate a marked lack of understanding of how Usenet operated (no offense meant; an understanding of Usenet culture is hardly a sign of superiority.) Some members of the Usenet community eventually discovered killfiles, while others did not. For those that did not, Usenet seemed an anarchic and barbaric place. For those that learned to use technology to filter out the noise, Usenet was a quiet and serene place, full of lively discussion. In an environment that's essentially anonymous (and in which it is thus effectively impossible to truly "ban" anybody) it simply makes no sense to try to enforce behavioral guidelines. The only effective way to deal with unruly behavior in such situations is to ignore it. If the sheer volume of such behavior is an issue (as it was on Usenet and is arguably becoming so here) then it should be filtered out at the reader's discretion. Given that talk pages here often follow a model of threaded discussion anyway, it would seem that the best solution would be to simply modify the software so that they were genuine threaded discussions, which would make it trivial to apply filters. The alternative — empowering some individuals to act as overseers of the others — is fraught with peril and doomed to failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shdfbsjhc (talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the success of Wikipedia is the supreme example of the proof of the failure of the philosophy of Usenet as you have expressed it. As it turns out, communities can come together successfully and set standards of behavior (for example, including rules against admins cursing at and abusing non-admins, and similar). It turns out that it is possible, even in anonymous environments, to effectively raise the cost of abusive behavior in a variety of ways, in no small part as a service to readers who should not be required to do all the filtering themselves. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Guidance on what is WP

As one of the historical proponents of Wikipedia, probably the "Father of Wikipedia", your guidance on what Wikipedia is supposed to be is requested.

The background of this is a minor politician who got fired because the city found out his wife is a pornographic actress, leading to a Wikipedia article read in Finland, United States, and probably many other countries. Whether or not this article is deleted is not the question. I can see what both sides are saying.

What is WP?

The real question is "What is Wikipedia". Here, I quote what I wrote to another editor...

What I want to ask you is what do we want WP for? On one extreme, it would cover very trivial items, news, video games, etc. On the other extreme, only the most scholarly topics like Australia, Charles de Gaulle, Lung cancer, World War II would be covered. Without quoting our rules, what should WP be?

1. Wikipedia should be any topic that anyone would conceivably look up.

2. Wikipedia should be most topics but nothing that would make people laugh at Wikipedia, so serious subjects only.

3. Wikipedia should be most topics but no nudity or anything that the ___ religion prohibits doing or looking at.

4. Wikipedia should be only what Encyclopedia Britannica has.

5. Wikipedia should be #4 plus a little more.

6. Wikipedia should only be biographies of people who will be known 100 years later, major geographic locations, and major wars.

Once we know what WP should be, we can work towards that WP and maybe even fine tune the rules. Should it be 1, 2, or 5? I don't expect a definitive answer only some thoughts that come to mind, Mr. Wales.

One thought that came to mind would be #1 except WP must be seen as honorable so no nasty attacks against mainly people but also topics. This would support the BLP rules but, again, I would like to focus on the product and purpose, not try to think of what description fits our current rules.

Note to others reading this: This communication is mainly to get Mr. Wales' opinion and not everyone else's although you may comment as you see fit. User F203 (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia. Prodego ^talk 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should be as comprehensive as we can be, given the need for and importance of reliable sources and verifiability, and given the need for proper maintenance in the long run. Biographies of living persons provide the most obvious and compelling reason to be cautious. But there are many ways that we might be hoaxed if we reach too far into obscurities. I don't like any of your 6 options, but if I were forced to pick one, it would be option (1) - but with the caveat that we have to be able to do a responsible job of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Again, I was not looking for legal mumbo-jumbo, but just general ideas. Paraphrasing your ideas, it seems that Wikipedia should be about topics that people look up, responsibly written, and not too obscure. It also seems that it is hard to define because you reluctantly chose a numbered choice rather than write up your own choice. If I had to add to "what Wikipedia is", it would be that the editors should/must also be responsible people so bad behavior would be very un-Wikipedian, or at least not the ideal Wikipedian. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Wales. User F203 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Success of the Nodrama

Hey Jimbo. WP:NODRAMA was a success and it was good to see your approval of it. I've just had an idea. We could have an official day in July each year where there is to be no drama for 24 hours. It could be an official event and could have a proper title such as "Nodrama Day." It could be that July 18 of every year is "Wikipedia Nodrama Day". Your thoughts?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it mandatory or would there be a signup sheet like before? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) No reply will be given by me for 18 hours or more

Personally, I'd prefer a signup sheet like before. I'm just wondering what you thought of the idea. I mean, I don't know how many "official" days Wikipedia has but July 18 for a "Wikipedia Nodrama Day" sounds good, at least in my opinion. I understand that something like this may require more than founder approval, but I thought that taking this idea to the man himself would be the most sensible place to start.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would this be in addition to or instead of the 5 day (possibly to be expanded to 7 days) No Drama Days festival planned for 2010? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a "Nodrama Week"!! At the moment it's just basically throwing some ideas around, but I think an annual Nodrama period would be a fine tradition for Wikipedia. And I really do think that July would be a great month for it.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 05:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait CoM!!! There's already plan for another one next year??????--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 05:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think there's a plan to repeat this year's event in an expanded 7 day form. I thought the event was very successful and interesting. Even the drama it caused provided some interesting fodder for discussion about priorities and how best to contribute to Wikipedia. I got some articles done that I had long been wanting to get to, even though I was unable to resist the mighty drama magnet for the full 5 day period. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're on FPC!

Good luck. ceranthor 12:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to notify you, sir. ceranthor 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They think you look like Kevin Costner. Don't see where they get that notion. By the way, you gave a great performance in Bull Durham. Durova²⁸⁵ 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, with Susan Sarandon as my co-star... :-p You're silly. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I thought you did your best work in JFK ... IMHO ;) — Ched :  ?  04:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So who did you vote for? :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

5 out of 10 doctors use Wikipedia.

...according to an article I just saw on Digg, from New Scientist. [20]

Do you agree that it is "disconcerting" for doctors to use Wikipedia as a resource for information? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that most doctors are intelligent enough to use Wikipedia appropriately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes me wonder why doctors are so interested in Stephen Colbert and South Park episodes. Aren't they supposed to be seeing patients? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure many patients use it too, and extremely useful it is While there are areas such as politics where wikipedia is inevitably weak as people hold strong conflicting opinions outside such controversials subjects as alternative medicine versus conventional medicine wikipedia is generally excellent on the medical front, as it is in science generally. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. The recent uploading of all those flat out wrong biology articles (like 900+) suggests that Wikipedia is a pretty poor primary resource science-wise. Crafty (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If Doctors are checking Wikipedia articles and they understand the fact that anyone can edit, then they would very likely be the people to notice (and perhaps fix) errors. It would only really be of any concern if some Doctors actually mistook Wikipedia for an authoritative medical source, or didn't understand that just anyone can have edited any article; which can happen, but I would expect competent doctors check and corroborate their information before acting on it. --Mysidia (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know about you guys, but I don't have health insurance, so I go to the clinic where anyone can practice. It's not so bad. *cough* Lara 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Be ware of the Spanish Wikipedia

The Spanish Wikipedia is run by Drini, Drini the King, please review his actions. Can he reset passwords? How much power a steward really needs? The Spanish Wikipedia is dark place where discussions are censor and any attempt to question an administrator will result in block. The Spanish Wikipedia is running wild, please put some control, ask Drini, he knows.

I believed in this project, but then realized this has been hick jacked by teens in a role-playing game, but dont believe me ask the foundation to run a survey and get the input of the few Spanish WIkipedians that still edits the project. Ask for example, why so few Puerto RIcans edit in that project, ask how users feels about the fair treatment of administrators. Please look into the Spanish project before is too late. My user name is jmundo but Drini reset my password and I dont have a way to get into my account. --71.68.208.166 (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No one suspects the Spanish Inquisition.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

According to your block log, you were blocked for this message on Drini's talkpage. Now, my Spanish is a bit rusty and Babelfish doesn't do too well with your writing style, but unless I'm missing something big, I can't say I'm at all surprised you were blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Translating Carnildo's diff: "because you have time on your hands, product of old money, who knows how many painkillers you shove into yourself each day, you know that this is not going to take you anywhere, no whore will sleep with a Wikipedia volunteer. But you pretend to be the strong boy because you can play bureaucrat, tell me how you smoke weed in Mexico, those eyes of yours have a lot of history, here you don't build anything but a forum that only a few handle, and the symbol of the wiki as the symbol of human trash, you don't get tired, look, go outside and hire a whore, be happy and stop working with those idiots, you have a future, I know, you have something but you're stuck" (run-ons in the original) I think that says everything we need to know about your block appeal. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Drini didn't change your password. He locked your account to prevent you from logging in. SUL (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What JMundo said is actually worse than the above translation, the comment about paja is extremely offensive, anybody would have blocked him for this comment; is it just one person who comes here complaining about Drini. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Im not appealing the block from es.wiki, but where is the evidence to block me from the English wiki. Just check my edits (Jmundo) here and in Commons. where is the evidence? Are we going to let sysops from another wiki control the English wiki?

But hey, I dont care if you don't unblock me, I was in not coming back wikibreak anyway. Wales, I respect a man of great ideas, too bad this place was run over by role playing boys and girls with no respect to due process. --74.249.3.58 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're not appealing the block then why keep spamming Jimbo's page (for the fifth time by my count) and complaining about Drini. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked for two hours, from 01:57 until 03:56, today. You were unblocked over two hours before your first post here. The problem, like you admitted yourself, is that you forgot your password[21], not that you are blocked here, since you aren't. Fram (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Im blocked globally 1, I cant log in any project just because I piss off a steaward. Check my edits in this Wiki, do you find a pattern of disruptive editing? The lesson learned here is not to mess with an angry steward. --74.249.3.58 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

@Darrenhusted, this isn't the same user. The other person was complaining about Drini's blocks on the Spanish Wikiquote. SUL (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Drini must be doing something right then. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why Wikipedia dont require an IQ test, if you are stupid, dont edit! if you dont have anything meaningful to contribute to the conversation shut the fuck up. Darrenhusted, what a terrific post, so deep and philosophical! Oh Jimbo, the wiki software was great, but the humans!!! Wikipedia, and everybody knows this, is a terrific and easy forum no more different than posting in a newspaper article comment section. Im leaving, Im sick and tire of the boys and girls swimming in the shallow water with disguise personalities like softfrog, or killerdog or softyshit, what good can come out from anonymous editing!!!

Dear reader, that wathchlisted this page, get a life. The economy depends on you to go out a produce something, unless wikipedia is new age manifesto for not working and breaking the world wide system, go anarchy from the comfortable living room and the jetta, imagine thousands of jetta and organic coffee drinkers starting a revolution, what a joke! I given my knowledge to Wikipedia, and I'm done working with assholes for that a can keep working wiht coworkers. Good job Jimmy controlling the masses, dont give them too much power they run you over... No constitutional monarchy, just plain monarchy, long live the king. --74.236.128.117 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Know Im free to start over, no more Wiki, Im feel real again, and Im out of this hypereality of edit contributions, Free, I'm free at last......

Sigh, ok. Again. this user has been trouble for months. He's got an obsession about blue shade on puerto rico flag. And when things don't go his way, he launches offensive remarks. He's been blocked before and by a mere bureaucratic thing he got off. He got on a wikibreak and suddenly out of nowhere without me having crossed a word on him, spews his insults.

Now, if it were just me, it wouldn't have been no big deal. But he's been harassing other users crosswiki (like durero, netito777, etc). So I locked globally his account. Someone posted a translation above about what's he's sending users (again, without having talked to him in months and without a provocation). So I gblocked his account. However, let it be noted for the record, those are not the only instances, he's been doing more and more attakcs hiding as IP again targetting other users.

This is not about me. This is about stopping him to harass other users and stop his obsession with a single topic: blue shade of puerto rico flag that it's causing this problems. Thank you very much. -- m:drini 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the blue shade, you asshole, read the english article, everybody discuss about this, but in the Spanish Wiki discussion is not foster, ask people around, the Spanish Wikipedia is a bad latinamerican country has much to learn about democracy.--74.236.128.117 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* -- m:drini 16:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Drini, kudos for your good work. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, although I got wristslapped and he's unblocked and free to edit again. Kudos. -- m:drini 17:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, our Puerto Rican friend clearly has some dedicated supporters here on the en wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI

A new project has been created dedicated to starting and translating missing articles and improving articles from other wikipedias. It is intended to be partly missing encyclopedia articles project and partly translation project. Both the previous projects fizzled out but the main objective here is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from each wikipedia by language and then work towards ensuring there is an article on english wikipedia. If anybody is interested please comment or if anybody is learning a language and thinks it would help them practice by translating an article, join it!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've just protected this page for one hour. Guys - the edit war is stupid. There's no need to start calling other users assholes - discuss things in a more collegial manner. WP:NOTCENSORED certainly doesn't apply to incivility. When the protection is finished, I suggest everyone leaves things how they are and moves on to more important tasks. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The original anon doesnt write good English, clearly not their first langauge, and may not have known how offensive his comments were; those who restored his comment clearly have no such excuse. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The comments were translated from spanish. The comments were worse in spanish. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing me now, whatSpanish? I can see none on this page right now I'd be interested in what you mean by a lot worse than asshole, in British culture, and I assume you are British too from your name, its about as bad as it gets. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Aah, I see the Spanish you are referring to, paja is vulgar for wanker which is about as offensive as asshole. But we dont need any of these words used here in anger, that is what our civility policy is for. Thanks, SqueakBox talk01:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a translation! They were never used here! Sorry about the delay in the response. I had an autoblock on my IP. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I retranslate as "man of straw" or will you revert that too. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What? Don't understand that. About your earlier comments, I have Welsh blood which is what my user name refers to. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"pero te haces las pajas porque" ...... never mind. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's just move on. This is just wasting valuable time, which I now intend to spend trying to get some sleep. Some hope! Rodhullandemu 01:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Jimmy is sick of the new messages bar yet... :) Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 03:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hey Jimbo. I got your message about your wanting me to supervise Arbcom by vetoing the more inane decisions and directing them towards constructive remedies wherever possible. Do you think the community will be okay with your investing me with absolute power as a kind of High Priest of Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, I can only assume you're joking. :) But on the off chance that you're not, can you let me know where you got this obviously impersonated message? :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. Just joking. Busted again. But I did get your message notifying me that I am the most valuable contributor to Wikipedia and that you oppose anyone interfering with my activities here. It makes sense that you can't make that kind of statement public for fear of creating jealousy among the many lesser contributors (even though you obviously feel strongly about it). Have a nice weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

:) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for community discussion of blocking by unsupervised automated processes

I've started a thread at AN to request a wider discussion of giving automated processes the ability to block users. I don't believe that there was ever a wide discussion, let alone an acceptance, of granting admin rights to bots. A recent proposal to allow some abuse filters to block users raised some concerns for me, which I have outlined in the AN thread. Please take a look, and weigh in if you have an opinion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds complicated. I think I'll stay out of it. The only thing I can say that I'm sure of is that policy pages ought to reflect actual practice, and actual practice ought to follow policy. If the two are in disharmony, then one should change. Which one, ahhh, well, that's always the complicated question I suppose. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming holiday

Approximately 36 hours from now, I will go into a remote forest on a camping trip with my daughter. For several days I will have no Internet service nor even cellphone service. I will therefore be slow in answering email or doing anything else online.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy it! —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a good time, Jimbo. =) →javért ^stargaze 00:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your vacation, we'll try not to destroy the 'pedia in your absence ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll be just as usual in your absence. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Jimbo, I'll keep an eye on things here. You just go and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered implementing RFC 1149? It would solve your communication problems :-) --Carnildo (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I now have a new favorite expression: "Other avian data transfer methods".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just watch out for Dastardly and Muttley. ;-P --BSTemple (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, we won't throw any huge parties or take joy rides in the car while you're away. Jehochman ^Talk 05:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's right, we won't. We'll be just how we always are: Building an encyclopedia, serving it's integrity, and ensuring its safety. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have fun! :-) (I put {{wikibreak}} at the top of your talk page, hope you don't mind.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The 36 hours hasn't went by yet, so he probably will mind. I'm not going to touch it though. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from being enjoyable, this type of vacation is beneficial psychologically, provided that you leave Wikipedia behind mentally as well as physically. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion Passed

Hello Jimbo Wales, just noting for the record that the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion relating to you at WP:AC/N.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Birthday

Almost one month away from your 43rd birthday. Are you excited or are you dreading it? Just curious :P SparksBoy (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Number 45

Check this out when you get back and look at number 45. Nicely done :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

What happened about this? I thought you were all for it Jimbo? At the very least we should have flagged revisions on BLPs. What is it going to take to get it implemented? It seems silly to not introduce some form of protection on them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not much is happening. First we were going go get something in place before Wikimania, now that's been dialed back to a test configuration on a test server. Kevin (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

About "Statement of principles" on your userpage

Hello Jimbo, it seems that all our wiki projects have been license-updated to CC-BY-SA-3.0 + GFDL, but your userpage remains showing only GFDL. I don't know for sure maybe this is kept on purpose or just a carelessness. So I came to ask you for some comment. And after all, happy your 43^rd birthday! Jimbo, we love you, man!--Jimmy xu wrk (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just coincidentally changed it to include the CC-BY-SA in there. MuZemike 22:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy xu wrk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

One question

The beta will be Optional right? Sorry about this, but please post a response on my talk page. Thanks! Old Al (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday

Hi, Jimbo. Happy birthday to you. I am working on sh. wiki, and I am friend of Vatrena ptica. I am working on biology and categorization at sh Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great. --Biologinja (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday

Some time in the next few days. I haven't forgotten about the "mystery". :P —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:56 6 August, 2009 (UTC)

I forgot the cake! :) ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springeragh (talk • contribs)

• We haven't talked anytime but when i saw that today is your birthday, i just wanted to congratulate your new age =) I wish you would have a healthy, long life. The humanity needs you ;)--Onurkayabasi (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, happy birthday Jim! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 02:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Happy birthday from me too, if it really is your birthday! I remember there was a mix up of dates some time before :) ≈ Chamal ^talk 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Ha, what are the odds of me discovering you have a user page on your birthday? :P. Happy birthday! Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Happy birthday! I have got birthday today too, and I'm now 11. The administrators of Croatian Wikipedia are something tell you about me on octobar 2008. (as far I know)... I'm the youngest user on Croatian wikipedia. I think you're remember... --Vatrena ptica (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Happy Birthday one more time, i was planning on coming tomorrow, but since everyone is here already. Thanks a lot, Jimbo, Long live the king.Zidane tribal (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday, and wishing you good health and good fortune. After all, we expect you to be editing Wikipedia when you're in your 80s. :) Otumba (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Griffinofwales (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

What's a birthday without cake? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"They say it's your birthday...well it's my birthday too, yea!"...

A Birthday Biscuit

--Buster7 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy 43^rd Birthday!!!

Happy Birthday, Jimmy! Hope it was a great one! Have some birthday cookies.... Ks0stm ^(T•C) 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday from me as well!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What he said. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! --Rosiestep (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Jimmy! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday --Notedgrant (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday. Age is a mentality issue. ;-) --BSTemple (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nude celebrities on the Internet

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  – iridescent 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture notification

A Featured picture candidate involving you has been promoted A picture of you was nominated for featured picture status, File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to provide a better image, please upload one and suggest it at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Congrats Jimmy ;). I remember when I uploaded the original from the Foundation website to commons, and it almost got deleted because we couldn't find evidence of you releasing it under cc-by-sa ;). Its still a great photo though and I'm glad to see it made FP :). Mifter (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New revenue stream?

It's a long-shot, but forewarned is forearmed. An idle thought crossed my mind that AIs being tested on Wikipedia could harm the project, so I proposed this policy Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Artificial Intelligence User Accounts. There is some uncertainty about the seriousness of the motivation, but looking at it objectively, it does make some sense. Even if it at first sounds off the wall. Cheers HarryAlffa (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Javert, Rjd0060, and Jimbo and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

nb: I'm just posting this here because Drew seems banned from this page ;) See diff diff. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear...

This is priceless; see, it wasn't "Drew" — someone else did it. See User talk:Javert#ARBCOM, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Précis

The arbcom case is gone. Drew's blocked, for a week at the moment, but an indef is quite possible once all the cards are face up on the same table. Most of the discussion is on User talk:Drew R. Smith. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Today's WP:RESTATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS

"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell

Today's WP:RESTATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS is brought to you by The International Euphemism Institute. Nasty-twentieth-century-political-philosophy-guilt-by-association update: The article about the recently-coined political epithet Israeli apartheid became Israel and the apartheid analogy because .... mumble mumble mumble. The article about the recently-coined political epithet Islamofascism, however, must remain under the title Islamofascism because ... well, these matters are controversial, and discussion of them is best left to the experts.

BYT (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my day job. Here's my total edit count, now approaching 7,000.

Other than the fact that you know what electricity is, and that you're not familiar with "signing" your posts - may I ask what your point is? — Ched :  ?  12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

hi, happy birthday

		The Hello Barnstar
		This is to say hello to a fellow Wikipedian User F203 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Pedophilia/Censorship

Please, Jimmy, wait. Just, like, don't delete this right away. This is so a legitimate question. To what extent is Wikipedia censored? I mean, fine: I'll ask one question: Are pedophiles allowed here at all? I mean, if pages like: Child pornography and List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors are allowed, why shouldn't they? It's natural, and it's happening in the world even today. I mean, come on, don't just give me crap (pardon the language, if that somehow violates "civility" on Wikipedia) about Wikipedia policies. You're a big part of modern society; respect that and learn from it. You're seriously gonna swear that none of the editors, maybe even sysops, aren't pedophiles? My point is this: If we don't care about it at all, why are some articles marked freaking "controversial", then? It's almost laughable. Some users, it's almost positive they're pedophiles, but say one word to them about it, and you're, like, banned forever; like, who contributes to an article about raping little girls or sacrificing children as Satanists? Well, heck, as long as it's constructive editing, in some people's eyes... But no one effing cares. Cute. Wales, look, I don't want to give you trouble, but this is just tiring me, seriously. Wikipedia's awesome, but, like...See, like, Child Pornography was nominated for deletion a few months ago, give or take, but, listen, the nominator was banned and the deletion template was removed before anyone could give evaluation. But I'm cool with that; none of my business. But, Jimmy, look at User:Squeakbox[[22]]. I mean, an old man with two dogs and who deletes the Deletion Nomination Tag on Child Pornography, like, right after it was posted...Well, I don't know what to say; please don't get mad. I won't talk to you at all after this if you don't want me to. Just give one comment, one response. Even telling me to f*** off and that you don't care could be fine; it is your own personal, honest opinion, after all. Bye, Jimbo. Please, I wouldn't be here wasting my time and yours if I really didn't think it important; there are Anti-Pedophilia agencies, you know. I just don't understand...are you sure your policies about Censorship are unflawed? Because, I personally don't know. Please, just enlighten me. Best wishes, Jim, ArnoldHash (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Background: I'm going to assume Arnold is referring to this prod tag placed by Sparaca12 (talk · contribs) who was indefinitely blocked as a SPA back in July. Interesting that you turned those two edits up on your first day on Wikipedia, Arnold, and that you found the discussion with Squeakbox as well (nice veiled accusation, by the way). And that your writing style reflects Sparaca's so well. Anyone else hear quacking? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a difficult question to answer that requires Jimmy's specific response, because it's already outlined in Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOTCENSORED), however like every organization, Wikimedia must comply with the law which is why they won't host actual child pornography. Possessing and distributing child pornography are both illegal. Discussing child pornography or media involving exploitation of children is not. Suggesting certain subjects should be taboo on Wikipedia is censorship. The fact that NAMBLA supporters may edit Wikipedia is disturbing, but it's not the place of administrators or Wikipedia staff to ban people for having certain controversial points-of-view, for the sake of protecting broader society. The broader effects on society are beyond the scope of the project; it's merely an encyclopedia. So long as users follow the rules and obey the law, their private lives are irrelevant. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the general rule is that anyone who actively promotes a pro-pedophile POV is blocked pretty much immediately and any further dealings with them are handled by the ArbCom (unless something's changed while I wasn't looking). We've had at least one arbitration on such activism, I can't find the specific requirement for this blocking, but it's out there someplace. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you very much indeed for your input, my friends. I have little more to say, nor do I wish to dwell on such subjects any longer. Zenwhat's reply has at least hinted that not all Wikipedians are at ease with such articles, even if they clearly acknowledge them as not violating any rules. "Nice veiled accusation"? Well, I am not sure how to exactly respond to that. Forgive me if this somehow violates Wikipedian rules, but I personally do not believe that I am disrupting anything; no edits have I yet made other than to talk pages, and thus what "disruption" is fairly limited. Do I take it that such someone who regards such a person thus in our modern society is too be condemned, instead of that person? I do not say I am better or worse than any of the said users through my bringing this to notice; that is for you to decide. Obviously a tone of neutrality is to be preferred, but removing the nomination tag so speedily hints at a possible subtle lack of neutrality in itself. If Mr. Wales himself could add just one comment, I would be immensely grateful, though of course I would understand if he chooses not to. Whatever you wish, then, my friends. I did not think Wikipedia would suffer such harm from my messages, but I am unsure what to think now from Tony's response; if you wish me to leave, then say so, and I will likely do so, but frankly, I cannot see a truly legitimate reason. Kind regards, ArnoldHash (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We should no more remove the child pornography article than we should remove the holocaust article; such censorship does little to shed light on real human problems. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree re the Child Pornography article, but there's something really creepy about having an article named 'List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors'. To extend your comparison, perhaps it's a bit like having an article named 'List of photographs showing bodies of people killed in the Holocaust'? I just don't see the point of the article, other than providing a handy wish-list for a paedo's next visit to Blockbuster. Little grape (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much don't like nearly all "list of" articles, as they tend to be a mess more often than not. This one is a case in point: it has no references for most entries, and while some of the entries are likely clear-cut, inevitably there will be a great many which are not, in which case the list involves (unless we insist firmly on sources!) a ton of original research and random opinion.

As to what "the point" of an article like this might be, I would say that it could in theory be useful as a reference for someone researching the subject for legitimate purposes. (How has the issue been treated in cinema? How has that changed over time? etc. There are many legitimate research questions about virtually any topic.) However, I should think that rather than 'list of films' a much more informative and useful (though harder to write well) article would be 'Paedophilia and sexual abuse of minors in film' - an actual article detailing what reliable sources (academic journals, books, reputable magazines and newspapers) have said about the matter.

Having said all that, I should emphasize that I'm just offering my own opinions here without asking that they be given any special weight. (I.E. I don't want to spark any site-wide deletion wars about 'list of' articles.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the lists we have are amongst the most useful and hence best articles such as stat lists for countries of the world (by size, wealth etc); I agree that the abuse list articles are amongst our worse and arguably are also inherently original research as there are not really other lists of this type available out there. If the list abuse article were prodded and the reasons were clear and well intentioned (as opposed to a rant) I wouldn't dream of removing such a prod myself.. Actually anytone can remove a prod because they disagree with it whereas i removed the prod from the child pornography article because it was an inappropriate place for a rant (we have the talk page for that). Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, those lists are quite nice, primarily because they do have legitimate 3rd party reliable sources... and, in my experience as an end user, they also contain useful comparisons between different sources and caveats about the data. And I agree with you completely: the notion of a 'prod' on Child Pornography is not very helpful. Surely we can and should have a high quality article on the subject - and it should be defended quite firmly against pedophile (and any other) POV pushers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I simply wish to make note of this: My user talk page was recently vandalized; After been shown I had new messages and seeing none, I discovered a random IP Address had threatened me on my talk. Heh. No prizes for what kind of guy that was...Hope he's blocked soon, but just my opinion. I do not care much for such users.

Look, I said I wouldn't dwell on this, and I won't; Wikipedia's too...strict, on a first glance, but I personally think in some areas it's, well, rather lax. SqueakBox, I'm very, very sorry to have asked you such a question; I believe the user called Sparaca12 is actually to blame. Certainly, Mr. Wales's perspective is not uncommon here and is of course not to be blamed. After all, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. I was most foolish and immature indeed to have missed that. I still find such people editing here...rather distasteful, let us say, but I shall trouble you no longer over it. I beg you, Jimbo, and SqueakBox, to consider forgiving me for bringing such a point up and wasting your time. Nonetheless, I shall admit I am more relieved now to actually see first-hand at least a few users of strong standing are not actually defending the articles because of their topics, but of legitimate use, and I thank you for that, all of you. However, if there are some here that might still be displeased with the existence of such articles, I only ask this: Wikipedia is truly not the suitable place for such discussions; take act elsewhere if you are so enthusiastic about fighting pedophilia. All in all, I wish you the best in the coming years, Jimbo Wales, and may it be that you and your creation of genius continue to prosper. Kind regards, ArnoldHash (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Invertzoo

I've received considerable help from "Invertzoo". She has been of outstanding support. Giving guidance and direction to me. She is a wonderful asset to Wikipedia.

You recently congratulated Sue for her work on molluscs. Rightly so!

kind regards PETE Poyt448 (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you know what trolling is????????????

Do you? 173.50.150.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

I am aware of the standard definition of the term, yes. And I have seen a few examples in my day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On your own user/talk page, no less. →javért ^chat 01:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I think I know what excessive repetition of punctuation marks is. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Annoying?????--BSTemple (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• You could say that and on top of which, it bears an uncanny resemblance to that hairy creature living below them bridges. Even Snagglepuss could do a better job at proper leaving the stage with a bow... Heavens to Murgatroyd! --Dave1185 (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Less than three hours

I remember when it took weeks for a Wikipedia article to show up in Google searches. Less that three hours after Bonse's inequality was created, it's the second item that appears when the search terms given to google are that sequence of words (with no quotation marks).

(OK, I haven't kept track of that sort of thing. I suppose it's childish to think this might come as news to anyone who cares about such.....) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Unquestionably real uptime updates is where its at, Google realise this, fears twitter for being so much quicker, and I am sure Google aim to get new articles to be placed on their search within 3 minutes. This real time is why misguided attempts by some rather 20th Century admins to, for instance, lock the articles of Pope John Paul II and Michael Jackson as a preventative measure immediately after their deaths were announced is so harmful to the project and the more wikipedia sees itself as an up to the moment encyclopedia incorporating the latets advances and updates as they happen in all areas the better encyclopedia it will become. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Being up to date is good. But being accurate, and avoiding additional embarrassment from obviously incorrect statements in Wikipedia articles, is far more important to Wikipedia's reputation and mission. Prediction: Someday, although probably not this year and maybe not the next, registration will be required to edit Wikipedia. Yes, I am aware of the long history of this issue and the strong community consensus. It may take a few major gaffes in a relatively short amount of time to do it, but the principled objections of many Wikipedians to a registration requirement (which I do understand and even sympathize with in principle) will eventually give way, in my opinion. —Finell (Talk) 23:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree about more important, its surely part and parcel of the same thing; obviously we couldn't report Michael Jackson as dead because Joe Bloggs said so on Twitter but when multiple reliable sources say so then if they get it wrong its not we who would be embarrassed; I think being up to date while "being accurate, and avoiding additional embarrassment from obviously incorrect statements in Wikipedia articles" is a better way of seeing it; being up to date does take extraordinary effort. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

At this stage in the wiki-lifecycle I would expect more embarrassment from registered editors than from unregistered editors. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On locking articles

High profile events will undoubtedly attract new editors, and in my experience, not all with good intent. This is especially so when sources for breaking news are not as we would normally expect as reliable, and rumour is rife. I don't think it improper to wait until the dust settles a little, and if that means protecting an article against poorly-sourced additions, which may well be a breach of WP:BLP, sorry, I can't apologise for that. From my own user page :

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Not my words - Jimbo's. Being up to date may be desirable, but that does not mean we pander to the rumour mill that follows such events. Relevant sourced material should go to Wikinews, but Wikipedia isn't a news service. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a genuine problem articles about critical events such as famous deaths certainly can be semi-protected and problematic accounts then blocked (even briefly). Michael Jackson's death involved far more real time uncertainty than John Paul's because of his youth and the circumstances being unclear; but the fact that when somebody dies people take an interest and then want to edit the article to improve it is absolutely a good thing, to encourage both new editors and good content; and certainly the John Paul II article was transformed in the days following his death. What is needed in these circumstances is level headed admins policing the situations not reckless ones locking the article to everyone else and then editing it themselves. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I should like to comment that I did not edit the Michael Jackson article once I protected it. Other admins may have done so, but I accept no responsibility for other persons mistakes. Nor do I have responsibility for inaccuracies made by others, I just try to limit or correct them when appropriate. To that end, I protected the Michael Jackson article while the rumours of his death were unconfirmed by reliable sources. As an encyclopedia, I rather feel we have a responsibility toward accuracy over promptness - the information we publish needs to be the same 3 years from now rather than on Google in 3 minutes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% on an encyclopaedia being accurate that's why we should be citing more and showing clear references from credible publications or websites. Not gossip columns or news as it breaks that keeps changing every ten minutes.--BSTemple (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

These things are never black and white. If Michael Jackson were dead in reality and according to reliable sources and we were claiming he was still alive we would be inaccurate. Like it or not the 21st Century is incresingly demanding of real time accuracy and our reputation is dependent on our being able to deliver; because of our policy on reliable sources we are able to deliver, its really just a matter of having the will to follow through. LessHeard, the fact that you locked the MJ article and then don't even know whether other admins were continuing to edit seems like an abrogation of responsibility; you could have policed the article but you instead chose a low energy response that then damaged the project. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There were no reliable sources when I protected - the original source (although it was proven accurate) was not considered reliable, but the plethora of good sources making comments were quoting the original source and (mostly) noting the incident was "alleged" - I thought it reasonable to lock down the article while the validity of "good" seeming references were investigated. I noted in my protection edit summary that it should be lifted immediately in the event of reliable sources being made available, and also gave notice of my actions at ANI; I had sufficient confidence in my colleagues to anticipate that my own further close involvement is not necessary for the matter to be properly progressed. Twenty twenty hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the fact that MJ had indeed died diverts us from the fact that it was not known for certain when I protected the article. This leads us back to the three hour Google take up of content printed here; we now have a very short timeframe in which to ensure that content relating to breaking news is to encyclopedic standard when we publish it and, not being a news service, we should not be including alleged current events since the material will need to be re-edited whether or not it was correct. Wikipedia was not, in my view, damaged by not including the allegations as they were made but rather enhanced by being a reference for reliable and accurate details when they were included. Nothing that was included on that page in the following 24 hours regarding the reports of MJ's death needed to be removed because of concerns over its validity. I am very content with that.

I am also disappointed in your response to mine; your inaccurate comment that the admin (me) responsible for protecting also edited the article while locked down was not acknowledged, but only referred to regarding you then castigating my lack of further involvement. I did not wish or require an apology over the claim I had edited the protected article, simply a confirmation that the comments were wrong - and I think it mean spirited that you should then disparage my admin actions in not interacting strongly in the matter once I had protected and advised the community. If the claim I edited the page does not stick, then accuse me of not OWNing the protected article. I usually see a far more considered response by you on matters, and am sad that this does not appear to be the case here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded like I was attacking you; that was not what I meant, I was trying to talk more generally and my comments werent aimed at you specifically; I have seen this locking happen time after time on articles of the really notable recently dead; its always a sign of fialure of other methods at critical times and never lasts long as there is never a community consensus for it; let me assure you the Michael Jackson was locked for nowhere near 24 hours. I know admins arent supposed to edit at these critical times but they can never resist it and that gets everyone off on the wrong foot. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dramaonly

Hi, Jimbo Wales! You are invited to participate in the Great Wikipedia Dramaonly, an effort to end arguments and discussions, and fight vandalism! It is intended to stop discussions from interfering everyone's work in the article namespace. Please sign up here! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why protect the Main Page and about Wikipedia itself?

Hi there. I was browsing Wikipedia the other day and I was trying to edit both the Main Page and the article about ourselves (Wikipedia}. It's not the Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia? article but the casual, public article itself. I tried to edit both articles, and all I recieved was "View source" on the top of the page. Why are these pages semi/protected? Who made the protection? With regards,--ROT9 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is semi protected due to traffic and vandalism levels. Main page is protected due to traffic levels and the fact it doesn't need to be edited due to all the content comeing in from templates.©Geni 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For the Wikipedia article look at the History tab to see the history of vandalism. From there you can look at the 'Logs' to see who changed the protection level and their rationale. William Avery (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is only semi-protected, and you will be able to edit that page once you are auto-confirmed. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But from my point of view, is it true that semi-protected pages are only allowed for several users (admins, those with granted rights, etc.)?--ROT9 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected pages can be edited by autoconfirmed users (all users that have had an account for 4 days and have made at least 10 edits). Griffinofwales (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the first

I am fairly certain that I am not the first casual user of wikipedia to find themselves captivated by your photos. You are quite handsome. Peace. Derekbd (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

O_O iMatthew ^talk at 03:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• And what else is new here? *scratches butt* --Dave1185 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Derek but I feel a little embarassed. I think the photographer gets the credit really, for that main headshot of me that people tend to like so much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, who's your photographer, and can he do the same for me for $20? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, have you seen District 9? The main character, Wikus, looks like your clone. (Yes, his name is WIKUS. That's almost WIKI. Coincidence? I think not.) 8bit (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the words of Craig Ferguson on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson: "Remind you of anyone?". --Dave1185 (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More accurate quote from TV's Craig Ferguson: "RemIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInd you of anyone?". Michael Hardy (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I got a feeling that boss is tickled pink by our ranting here! XD --Dave1185 (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Demint letter as reliable source?

Do you really think the Jim Demint letter is a reliable source for reporting on a vote in the Honduran National Congress. He's reporting on hearsay, just what he was told by supporters of the coup.

• The UD party representatives were not notified of the session and therefore were not present and did not vote, so the vote could not have been 125-3 because there are more than 3 UD party representatives in the Congress.
• At least 13 liberal party members say that they were either barred entry to the Congress that day, or voted against therefore the vote could not have been 125-3.
• The vote was by a show of hands and no count was taken.

All of these points are sourced within the article. Just because he posted the letter does not make it a reliable source. Please rethink your addition to the 2009 Honduran Constitutional Crisis. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the claim of 125-3 needs to be included. I do think that the Jim Demint letter is a reliable source for the fact that it has been claimed. I tried to indicate in my edit that this is a claim which has been made. That the claim is problematic is clear, but I think the fact of the claim is relevant.

Nonetheless, I will revert myself now and I hope you will help me research this further.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How about putting something like this "Senator Jim Demint, in a letter on his website indicates that the he was told the vote was 125-3" , being clear about the source, and the claim. Putting it this way, the reader can evaluate for themselves, if they want, how Demint could know this. Rsheptak (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that sounds fine, although are there other sources, more direct, for the claim? Is this something that anyone in authority there has claimed? Is there an official statement of some kind which would indicate how the vote went? [Amendment: It looks like the claim is quoted widely, and that the claim is quite problematic. So your version may in fact be too generous, as I think most people wouldn't fully wonder quite enough where the Senator got his numbers.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bug

Not sure if it's been covered before, but I think there's a glitch existing between wikias and Wikipedia. I chose a different name on a wikia than to here, but after around a month it wouldn't register my password. This happened after a made a new account. Are you aware of this?Steel Talon (Interrogation room) 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikia and Wikipedia are completley unrelated. If you are having with your Wikia password, I recommend to ask there, thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for permanent ban (if available, tell me)

Hi there. I browsed Wikipedia the other day and I looked at this page called Wikipedia:Banning policy. In the page itself, it clearly states the matter of permanent bans. THere is one question, how can a permanent ban occur? And does that mean that the permanently banned user is no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia for good?. Regards,--ROT9 (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A ban is something that the community decides to do. Yes, it is permanent, unless the user successfully appeals the ban. Griffinofwales (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the definition. I'm asking about the factors that result in a permanent ban.--ROT9 (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be anything. Usually it's something that isn't vandalism, but is against policies. Disruption of the project, long term POV editing, etc. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why impose a permanent ban on such occasions?--ROT9 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocks & bans are meant to prevent damage to the project. If you are disrupting the collaborative atmosphere of the project, you are damaging it. Do you want to move this to my talk page? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some bans are very likely to be permanent from a practical point of view. Traditionally, I have encouraged the Arbcom to stick to 1 year time periods for the most part, although they have (properly) extended a few one year bans to 'indefinite' based on ongoing problems.

The basic idea is that people can reform, and some do. It takes quite a bit to be seriously subjected to a long term ban in Wikipedia, ongoing troubles for a long period of time. (Keep in mind that bans and blocks are different things.)

In terms of factors, I suppose it's pretty obvious. It's about an ongoing unwillingness to co-operate well with others, etc. It is sad to me that it happens, but I have no other solution.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Birthday gift

Hi, Jimbo! Sorry for being late, but I made you this:

The flag of Wikipedia. Happy Birthday! User:Secret Saturdays/Signature (Archiving comment Fram (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

About communist propaganda inside Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo. I am one of those supporters of your gift to all of us: Wikipedia. But I am afraid your creation is in danger: it is being manipulated by groups of communists related to the ex-KGB in the Baltic States. They use "promoters" of their ideology, like for example user:DIREKTOR, inside Wikipedia. Direktor is a pusher of diktator Tito communist ideas inside en.wiki, no doubt about it. I want to repeat what user:Sir Floyd wrote, because I agree with him totally about this medicine student and the way he promotes his croatian nationalism: "While I can’t express my opinion on the all of the disputes between DIREKTOR and the Wiki World, he is definitely pushing his POV. It seems to be very similar to that of the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia (as well as their tactics).Info from M. & Media-18th October 2005 “Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work”. One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. I’m afraid Mr Direktor has taken this to new levels with abuse, reports and inappropriate deletion." Furthermore, I want to pinpoint that en.wiki will be better if Direktor is banned, because a lot of fighting (with Serbs-Bosniaks-Italians-Montenegrins-Albanians et al) will disappear. His discussion page is full of these fightings and his edit page is a clear evidence of this reality, just read it from the times he showed up in en.wiki ! He is supported by members of the group of communists related to the (KGB) hackers disrupting western websites (like user: Miacek and his crime-fighting dog). He is always helped by admin & check users with slav roots and supporters of communist ideology inside wikipedia (like user:Spellcast). You can verify it easily, and so try to save your creation (that otherwise can become a useful instrument of the communist groups centered around ex-KGB members). Sincerely.--Formyopinion (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So these people interested in the Balkans are communists related to the ex-KGB in the Baltic States. Mmm. Do they do their plotting and relating in the Balkans or the Baltics or at points between? -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ 8bit (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now someone's gone and revealed the secret plans to use Wikipedia as a base of operations to build a canal between the Aegean and Baltic seas. I guess they'll just have to move on to plan B and start a Facebook group for the Union of Latvo-Croatian Socialist Republics. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyperion35, please go back to school and learn again geography: the Aegean sea is not the sea of Croatia. It is the Adriatic sea! Now let's forget the jokes and let's pay attention to this serious threat to Wikipedia. I believe user Direktor is only the tip of the iceberg....GPU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.25 (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What, an iceberg in the Adriatic sea? -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "iceberg" is made of many communist (users of wikipedia), who use "useful idiots" (without offense...) like Hoary and Hyperion35 to "cover" their propaganda inside wikipedia. For example, try to write something against Stalin or Tito or communist Jugoslavia in the en.wiki and you'll see how they will attack you and your posts. Just try.GPU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.98 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I've seen us referred to as "Nazis" and "Communists". Those ideologies are absolute polar opposites. So which is it? It can't possibly be both. I'm going to say it's neither. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, J.delanoy, try to post something against communism in en.wiki and you'll see......For example, to give you a clear example, I have just posted on the voice Tito (written in part by user Direktor, in a way that looks like a propaganda of the achievements of this comunist diktator) the research from Rummel about Tito's massacres ([23])......Let's see what will happen.GPU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.98 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is happening exactly what I was pinpointing, J.Delanoy. User Direktor and other communists (BTW, nice photo of Che Guevara on the user page of user:Producer...) quickly erase evidences and data about Tito's massacres. And in Direktor's edits we can read that he is starting to request "help" from admins & check users friendly to him, in order to eliminate opponents to his posts supporting Tito's communism. He, for example, today even does inappropriate deletion on the talk page of another user (he has done this several times, just check his edits):[24]. That is why I want to pinpoint again to Jimbo that en.wiki will be better if Direktor is banned, because a lot of fighting (with Serbs-Bosniaks-Italians-Montenegrins-Albanians et al) will disappear and a lot of propaganda for Tito's communism in Jugoslavia will finish.--Formyopinion (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of the article Mzoli's

Your article Mzoli's is nominated for deletion on August 19, 2009. For further information please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mzoli%27s_(2nd_nomination). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonso McLaren (talk • contribs) 08:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It already seems to be resolved (speedy keep). Jehochman ^Talk 10:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Wiki Academy Mangalore

User:Prashanthns/Invitation prashanthns (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban following non-involvement

Jimbo, I don't want to elaborate on this just yet. I only want the dates checked before the pages in question become harder to access. Basically, there was an edit war recently at speed of light. I wasn't involved in it. But I have ended up as the only person to be topic banned from that page. David Tombe (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is related to this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. --Carnildo (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

That is not why he was page (not topic) banned: It was because of his tendentious behaviour on the article's talk page, not edit warring. Here is the link to incident at AN/I, which David should have given you: Disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light. By the way, Speed of light (a former FA) and its Talk page have, unfortunately become a textbook case of how not to Wikipedia, with lots of guidelines being flouted and several editors who don't understand collaborative. I wonder if something useful can be leaned from this example of how to do it all wrong. David: Asking Jimbo (or anyone) to intervene, but saying you "don't want to elaborate"—that is, give the facts—is useless. This is the kind of nonsense that keeps getting you in trouble, and will only get worse if you don't learn to edit and discuss things collaboratively, and stop trying to "win". —Finell (Talk) 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In any event, after a look at the debate there, I see no reason for me to get involved. I know nothing particularly useful about the subject matter of the article in question, and the behavioral situation does not strike me as in any way particularly special. David, the normal dispute resolution procedures should serve you well enough. I will offer a small bit of personal advice, though, and that is to look for *reliable sources* who make, in their own words, the point that you wish to be made. If there are none, then you might consider presenting a paper to an academic physics journal making the case that the 1983 whatever whatever is something something important. (As I say, I don't know enough about the subject matter area to even attempt to properly and fairly characterize the dispute. The heat of the debate that I read, shed very little light on what it's all about.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you grasped the dynamic of the non-discussion and the nub of the problem perfectly. As for the physics: A few Wikipedians, and a few sources (note the lack of adjective) upon whom they rely for support, insist that they have grasped an important flaw in physics that has eluded the physics community for 26 years (actually longer: the 1983 redefinition of the metre, the source of the "problem", was in the works for years), or that physicists have deliberately suppressed it. One of Tombe's allies just accused me of supporting the "cabal" of orthodoxy. Simultaneously, a few editors are trying to water down WP:FRINGE (one proposal: rename the page 'Minority views'). However, they do not appear to be the same editors who are trying to rewrite WP's physics articles to conform to the "truth". How was your vacation and wikibreak? —Finell (Talk) 03:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a conflict of interest at play - David Tombe is the author of several of the sources in question, and is not in a position to neutrally assess their validity and relevance to the rest of the field and conversation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So that's the problem. I didn't know that part. In which peer reviewed physics journal did Tombe publish his groundbreaking discovery? What are his professional credentials? Where does Brews fit into this picture? —Finell (Talk) 11:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See [25]. The NPA is specialized in "disproving" special relativity. - DVdm (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I didn't see any peer reviewed papers there, and being a retired physics teacher, by itself, isn't enough in the way qualifications. —Finell (Talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is quite peer (and qualified) within the NPA. :-) - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, Thanks for your response. I left a note on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page that may clarify the issue. In summary, anything that touches on the contents of the paper which James Clerk-Maxwell wrote in 1861, at the beginning of the American civil war, tends to ignite a civil war. The speed of light is a highly sensitive issue, and any topic which sails close to equation (132) on that paper is dynamite. The problem is that we still use Maxwell's results to this very day, but we have swept his method under the carpet. The clashes that are likely to follow as a consequence of this dilemma will mainly be be at centrifugal force, Faraday's law, and Ampère's circuital law. I will now bear in mind the trouble that seems to arise everytime that I touch one of these three pages, and I will try to minimize conflict in future. But at any rate, I would be most obliged if you could remove the topic ban, just as a matter of principle. I wasn't actually editing on the page in question at the time of the ban and I don't intend to return to the current stage of the dispute on the talk page. I have also given my advice to Brews ohare to leave it alone. I fully sympathize with Brews, and I see that perhaps even a new editor called 'Abtract' may be beginning to see the point too. But I think that Brews should come out now (voluntarily) because he has made his point loud and clear. I do also think that as a token gesture to Brews, that some other editor should at least make an attempt to neutralize the introduction. David Tombe (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

David: What do you mean by, "Brews should come out now (voluntarily)"? Please explain. Thanks. —Finell (Talk) 11:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Tommorow's gonna be my birthday!!!!!!!!

Hey Jimbo! August 25, 2009 is going to be my 13th brithday! Can you post something on my talk page (about that)?--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ^{Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965} 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For inventing the cookie jar

ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} has given you a cookie for inventing the cookie jar!

ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't fix something that is not broken

Wikipedia is a huge success. Traffic statistics tell the real story as opposed to polls or news stories. By any objective measure, Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites in the world.

A recent poll on Cnet.com asks whether users prefer Wikipedia or Britannica and it was a 50/50 result. That is completely bogus. The real web traffic statistics tell us that people prefer Wikipedia at least 1000 to 1 over Britannica. People will often say one thing in polls and on the news, and in the real world do something else.

As far as requiring edit to be supervised by "experts" or "trusted individual" before being accepted, Don't do it. Of course, talk show hosts and the news make great fun about it, though the reality is that people still trust and want the current state of Wikipedia, because of it's speed and flexibility. Trying to control edits is trying to be more "respectable" or "professional" like Britannica, and that is exactly what people do not want.

The way I see the options are

1) Bad content is put on Wikipedia and remains there for less than 1 day 2) Good content is prevented from being put on Wikipedia for 1 week to 1 month

I would rather take the risk of a short stretch of bad content versus a long stretch lacking good content.

How would you have handled the death of Michael Jackson? No amount of hand selected experts would have been able to handle that flood of edits and the information would have been delayed for weeks before we could find out what was going on.

Wikipedia is a genius idea. Please don't try and make it more like the old centrally controlled systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.239.38 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson article was explicitly protected for over an hour to confirm the rumours of his heart attack / death first. This shows that a) protection of articles to get edits checked by trusted editors and to maintain a more stable version already happens, and b) that this system does work fast when really needed (the info was not delayed for weeks, it was added less than two hours after the first unconfirmed rumours were published). Considering that we are an encyclopedia, not a news site, this worked as good as one can hope for. Fram (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the IP agrees with you that the system works but feels that we don't need this.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that, but flagged revisions don't work fundamentally different to protected pages (in my opinion, it will work faster than protected pages, and the dit history will be more correct), and I don't see why flagged revisions would have e.g. delayed the MJ death to be included for weeks (and as long as the report of his death was not included, it was still an article on a living person). So basically, there are some valid arguments against flagged revisions, but the arguments used by the IP are not among them, and the MJ example was particularly wrong. If there will be a backlog on flagging revisions, it will be either on the more obscure articles, or on contentious articles. High profile articles are watched by many people and will be watched by many flaggers as well. Fram (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions are just another little illusion of safety, but I guess it's about time it happened. Wikipedia as the premier croudsource project has been dying for a while, with exclusionist editors excluding not only content but other authors. Long gone are attempts to include poorly-written material through revision; the almighty revert button has become the order of the day (or the last two years, anyway). It's just another step in the direction of The Encyclopaedia That A Few Select People Edit And Police. Nevertheless, there's no way to stop it, and I can't blame Jimbo and the Elite for living up the straw polls: if Wikipedia wants to be an accepted source, they have to give a fundamental illusion of reliability (even if it is to the detriment of the project despite giving no reliable benefit). C'est la vie. 128.61.23.121 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The myth should be busted that this is being sent down from on high. IPs can't create articles, they can't edit protected pages and in some section of WP they can't vote, and this would be a scandal were it not for the fact that it costs nothing to register, so there is nothing stopping any IP editor from registering and joining one of the "Select People", not that the list is a short one. I'm on that list, why? Because I registered and began editing, and more than anything that is what Wikipedia is about, and anything that makes editing easier can only be goods for the project. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Jimbo and crew have long supported and endorsed this result, and it is his support that makes an extremely contentious issue bound for enactment. There have been dozens of straw polls on the issue, and it was only a matter of time before everyone got tired of it (as did I). You also mistake other issues. IPs cannot create articles, but newly-created account can anyway. Only semi-protected articles cannot be edited by IPs and new users; protected articles cannot be edited by any normal user. Semi-protection is not terribly common and generally exists as a temporary measure for articles which are experiencing a wave of IP vandalism. And if there's one pet peeve I have here, it's voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not vote. "Voting" exists ONLY for the sake of considering the number of supporters withing a stagnant debate. Voting is only ever considered in ANY way if the consensus discussion has come to a standstill, and IP votes are not considered only for concern about socks. And as for registering, some of us still cling to the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, not just those who tout barnstars and edit counts as trophies. 128.61.23.121 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles, high traffic articles, which are permanently semi-protected meaning that IP editors can never edit them, and will never be able to edit them. It was a long time since Wikipedia was truly an encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit", and as for the "barnstars and edit counts", I find being registered is more useful when it comes to editing because it affords extra tools such as a watchlist, access to recent changes and the ability to more fully participate in community discussion because I can be easily identified, whereas IP editors are not necessarily one editor (in the case of school or library shared IP addresses) or they are one editor with many addresses (as in the case of dynamic IPs). And if you look at the poll you will see that Jimbo did not participate and the flagged revisions poll, where Jimbo expressed a preference, failed. Sometimes you need a vote, if only to point the naysayers in the direction of consensus. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bah. The New York Times articles and most of the others out there are rather misleading: so much so that I took the time to write a whole blog post as a primer on the subject. Anyone concerned that flagged revisions is about to lock down Wikipedia in the next few weeks ought to read it and get their facts straight. :/ {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The NYT report would only be confusing to non-Wikipedians. My contention here has little to do with any misunderstanding of the feature, but rather the lack of surprise at the ultimate result. Were the current plan iced, I'm certain it wouldn't stay down for long. It's a matter of human psychology, really. Zero-risk bias meets social identity theory and bears a rather unsightly child. I just came around to see the firestorm that appeared last time the gradual denigration of Wikipedia caught the near-sighted eye of the omnipotent news media (and in that I was sorely disappointed). Everyone seems to have just given up caring. I have been told that Wikipedia has ceased to grow, and my own experience would not contradict this. As for Darren, I don't concern myself with permanently-semiprotected pages. They receive enough traffic that I am unlikely to have much to contribute aside from grammatical corrections and phrasing improvements. But the semi-protect sure does keep pages from being replaced with "nigger nigger nigger", doesn't it? And that watchlist is really wonderful if all you ever do is sit around waiting for people to touch your perfect edits so you can lay down the revert hammer. But if you want to improve articles, well, it doesn't really do... anything. Except maybe remind you of the ever-growing list of articles you have touched and don't have time to put more work into. And then you get a permanent talk page to police where you can receive requests from others to work on this or that article (which you really don't care about and don't have time to edit) or discuss what you think of some other editor instead of actually editing. Oh, and I can be identified with some biased view of what I think. Oh, and I can use some fun little userboxes to categorize my life! Goody! As far as I'm concerned, registration is a burden filled with absurd "perks" (like changing my signature to a name and snarky comment) and benefit only in the eyes of paranoid users utterly convinced that all experienced editors have usernames and this one must just be a really strange kind of sockpuppet who doesn't use the actual username to sock with. But I digress; Jimbo's talk page is hardly the place to discuss the benefits of registration. If you'd like to discuss that issue further, you can leave a message on my talk page, which will be available to me well beyond the time that the discussion dies. 68.211.252.201 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (Same editor as the second IP above)

Communist propaganda inside wikipedia 2

It is happening exactly what I was pinpointing above in "about communist propaganda inside wikipedia". User:DIREKTOR and other communists (BTW, nice photo of Che Guevara on the user page of user:Producer...) quickly erase evidences and data about Tito's massacres. And in Direktor's edits we can read that he is starting to request "help" from admins & check users friendly to him, in order to eliminate opponents to his posts supporting Tito's communism & other communist propaganda articles in wikipedia. May I repeat that he is only the tip of the iceberg (a huge iceberg made of many communists spreading their propaganda inside wikipedia). I am afraid that wikipedia can become a useful instrument of the communist groups in the internet.Sincerely.--Formyopinion (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to start with dispute resolution. I'd start on the talk page of the relevant article. I would suggest you refrain from namecalling and focus your comments on improving and defending the quality of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To perhaps re-iterate what Jimbo is saying, being a Communist or having Communist sympathies is not illegal or even disallowed in the USA and the majority of the rest of the world; it is this little thing called democracy and freedom of choice that everyone in those parts is quite keen on. It sort of happens in Wikipedia, too. Now, there is a possibility that other editors are violating the projects policies and guidelines - and there are processes available to determine if that is the case. You should attempt to engage in some of them, and in the meanwhile resist labeling those whose edits you disagree with in terms you consider derogatory. Namecalling may mean that both your complaints may not be taken as seriously as they might... and you may be sanctioned for being persistently disrespectful - to the point of being disruptive - and get your editing privileges removed for a shorter or longer time. Please consider your options and your approach regarding other peoples sensibilities and beliefs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir Floyd here, I agree with Mr Jimbo Wales & LessHeard vanU that this is not the place to debate this, although there does seem to be in many of the wiki articles concerning the former Yugoslavia the exact POV of the of old League of Communists of Yugoslavia (especially the Josip Broz Tito article). It also could be said that they are dated and belong in the Cold War era, and need updating. I’ve personally decided to take these issues back to Talk pages and move on from there. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I realize this is no place to discuss this but I felt I had to respond. My 2 cents: User:Formyopinion (created a few days ago) is likely someone's sockpuppet. I also have suspicions about User:Sir Floyd and his curious "dyslexia" that manifests in the form of a lack of knowledge of the English language ("Wikipedic article"?). I am not a "communist", and I do not have "communist sympathies" (per the nice disclaimer on my userpage :). These are Balkans nationalists on an agenda, and their additions were removed because they were unsourced and inflammatory. In short, typical stuff around here - welcome to the Balkans ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Userpage of User:WebHamster

I stumbled across this user page at User:WebHamster, and was wondering if you were aware of it? Do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia? Zhebius (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This has already been talked about. See archives. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I think the user should be indef blocked for offensive behavior, and the page speedy deleted. I think if policy has overlooked this, then policy should be updated accordingly. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's you that ought to be indef blocked for offensive behaviour, not this user. For your "If there isn't a policy to suit, then just make one up" attitude. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, two points there. One is that last time this was discussed, it resulted in no consensus whatseover, and secondly, indeffing someone on the spot for something that a previous community discussion couldn't decide was OK or not? Meh. I've had my differences with WebHamster on WP:NOTCENSORED before (Gropecunt Lane as Featured Article anyone?) but this? No. And oh look a dispute between ths user and WebHamster - what a surprise!! (Edit: and another ... strangely the only two AfDs this user has ever edited ... Black Kite 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What an ill-considered suggestion, ignore consensus when it doesn't go our way? So much for the hallowed WP:Consensus. Nev1 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it. Perhaps policy should be updated to remind users that the naked body is only offensive to prudes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that the "article space" in Wikipedia needs to be vigorously defended against attacks on free speech per WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't believe this policy gives the right for individual users to post pornographic images of children on their personal pages. I also wish to raise my concerns that this page may breach California law where the servers of Wikipedia are situated. Zhebius (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that it breaks any laws, and I think concerns about the law miss the point. I don't know what you mean about "pornographic images of children" - I doubt very much if that has anything at all to do with this. For me, the relevant point is that it is simply not collegial, offends some people needlessly, is unnecessarily political, etc. I think it is wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia and reflects negatively on the project.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Jimbo, the discussion is also at my talk page. →javért ^breakaway 04:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am in no way affiliated with WebHamster. I went to look at his user page, and my first thought was, "Well that's just not appropriate, at all..." Then my mind went to "WP is not censorship." Still not appropriate though. I suggest that the image be 86'd. What's the harm to the project? If there is room for such a contingency, please inform me if it can be executed. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm staying out of it. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandwich, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster. (I don't agree with the display of the image in userspace, but unfortunately the community seems to think it's ok). I note that since that MFD, W.H. has kindly included a direct link to his talk page in his signature, so people don't get the image shoved in their face on the way to his talk page. –xeno^talk 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Such a palaver over so very, very little. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A point of fact: the user's signature as it appears now on the user's talk page is linked to the user page. There was a time when it by-passed the user page, I think. // BL \\ (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It used to link only to his userpage. Now it links to both, which is better imo. –xeno^talk 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After ec, and now out of order)I wasn't suggesting better or worse, but a fact. As far as I can tell, having just gone to the user's talk page to check, the signature still only links to the user page. Only the "Web" part contains a link and it is to the user the page. Perhaps your browser is different. // BL \\ (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking from the the talk page to itself doesn't provide a workable link. Try looking at his signature on another page. --Onorem♠Dil 16:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that Onorem, and so much for my "fact". I have made the appropriate strikeouts above. // BL \\ (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Now let's get something clear - Zhebius has made some horrible personal attacks on WH (accusing him here and elsewhere of posting child pornography) and not one admin has thought that merited a warning or a block, let alone selective deletion of the comments. Jimbo's response is first to call for the victim of the attack to be indeffed, and then shuffle off with an "I'd better stay out of this" when it becomes clear that that won't be happening any time soon. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think it was unacceptable for him to make that "child pornography" remark. I regret not mentioning it. However, it isn't necessary to "take sides" in matters like this, so my original point still stands. The userpage is not ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. Don't forget that consensus is against you in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I was going to, but saw that you had already made the point. However, I have now left a note for the editor. Black Kite 16:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly it's ok to turn a blind eye to obvious personal attacks (similar to several IPs and socks that have been vandalising WH's talk and userpage recently) if you don't like the person being attacked. Nev1 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yiwentang, noting the particular interest of certain puppets; Voting on AfD's relating to articles created by... wait for it... User:WebHamster ! Congratulations, folks, we have almost helped a socking troll to get a content creating editor blocked banned over an old issue that the community had already decided upon. I am off to tag Zhebius as a suspected sock and add them to the SPI request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd already mentioned on WebHamster's talkpage that I could detect the faint whiff of socks, and it was only the relative age of this account that stopped me doing it straight away, to be honest. Black Kite 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Don't we all have better things to do than renew this old sore point? I'm working on a restoration for a sixteenth century Spanish royal grant of a coat of arms. We're an encyclopedia, not a social club. Durova³⁰⁶ 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a social club. As unpalatable as mission-focused members might find that assertion, I think it would be helpful to realize it. Your sense of community has been an immense help to WP's success. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Heh, well thank you very much. If only we had half as many people contributing featured pictures as worry about one R-rated photo in user space. Maybe there should be a quota system: contribute at least one FP before climbing the Reischtag about it. This is the current restoration project. Anyone who wants to get started on one of their own is welcome to download GIMP and contact me for coaching. Durova³⁰⁶ 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Durova, I think your conclusion shortsighted. Suppose you and Webhamster were to write an informative article on a serious academic subject. Someone isn't sure if the article is reliable, so she checks the history and follow it to your user pages. Hoping to see a scholarly looking fellow standing before a bookcase and his framed degrees, she sees that.

In sum, it degrades the brand, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute, white contributing nothing whatsoever of value. Even as partisan political commentary, it's crude and vacuous.

And, for whatever it's worth, it violates Wikipedia's userpage guideline (last time I checked,) both as disreputable material and as soapboxing.24.22.141.252 (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

First off, that was his page (referring to WH) on Wikipedia and as I understand it, you can do pretty much what you want with it without going into the specifics of WP:NPA or WP:BLP or WP:SPAM or WP:CIVIL, right? Note that I, too, endorses WP:DGAF and to be honest, WH has chosen to disengage from all the petty squabbles here and focus on what we editors do best — edit and improve article pages. So, without further distraction and I really hate to say this... guys, let us all drop the nonsensical WP:STICK in our hands and do as what Snagglepuss do at the end of a brilliant performance — "Exit, stage left"~! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

People are putting false information into Wikipedia.

They are calling Barack Obama professor when the University of Chicago does not use the term but uses the term "faculty member". Resume inflation is misleading and can result in people being fired. Yet, a host of people are banding together to get fake information into the Barack Obama article. They should all be blocked unless you want Wikipedia to be the joke website of kids. Gaydenver (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Choose one forum and stick with it. This is presently at ANI, but really belongs at Talk:Barack Obama. –xeno^talk 18:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not really the sort of thing I would get involved with. It's a talk page discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But now the President will be fired for falsifying his resume and Wikipedia will become the joke website of kids! --Smashville^talk 18:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But Mr. Wales, those people who prefer to embellish the resume of the President even if it means Wikipedia is less accurate are ganging up to have their way. The facts should be the number one thing in Wikipedia. I am not trying to say he is a rapist or a Muslim or born in a foreign country. We should report things in Wikipedia as accurately as possible. You should at least come out to support accuracy in Wikipedia even if you choose not to comment about this particular matter. Will you do it? Declare that we should strive to be as accurate as possible in Wikipedia? Gaydenver (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stay on one frakking forum and quit going to the other parent? --Smashville^talk 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference. I seek from Mr. Wales only a conceptual answer on Wikipedia, not a specific answer to a question. On ANI, it has been closed. On the talk page, I do not seek a conceptual answer to the purpose of Wikipedia but a specific answer. Gaydenver (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Forum shopping. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• And being a WP:DICK (or was it for being WP:DISRUPTIVE??), the poor gay (no puns intended!) has been blocked~! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Show me someone that doesn't believe we should try and be as accurate as possible. If you can't, then there is really no reason for Jimmy to make a statement saying they are wrong, since they don't exist. --Tango (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I suppose the primary "conceptual" statement I might make about situations like this is simply that people who feel that there is an error of any kind in Wikipedia will be most successful if they Assume Good Faith and take it to the talk page to work in a supportive and kind spirit with others to try to find a satisfactory resolution that balances all competing legitimate concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Userpage of User:WebHamster

I stumbled across this user page at User:WebHamster, and was wondering if you were aware of it? Do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia? Zhebius (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This has already been talked about. See archives. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I think the user should be indef blocked for offensive behavior, and the page speedy deleted. I think if policy has overlooked this, then policy should be updated accordingly. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's you that ought to be indef blocked for offensive behaviour, not this user. For your "If there isn't a policy to suit, then just make one up" attitude. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, two points there. One is that last time this was discussed, it resulted in no consensus whatseover, and secondly, indeffing someone on the spot for something that a previous community discussion couldn't decide was OK or not? Meh. I've had my differences with WebHamster on WP:NOTCENSORED before (Gropecunt Lane as Featured Article anyone?) but this? No. And oh look a dispute between ths user and WebHamster - what a surprise!! (Edit: and another ... strangely the only two AfDs this user has ever edited ... Black Kite 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What an ill-considered suggestion, ignore consensus when it doesn't go our way? So much for the hallowed WP:Consensus. Nev1 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it. Perhaps policy should be updated to remind users that the naked body is only offensive to prudes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that the "article space" in Wikipedia needs to be vigorously defended against attacks on free speech per WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't believe this policy gives the right for individual users to post pornographic images of children on their personal pages. I also wish to raise my concerns that this page may breach California law where the servers of Wikipedia are situated. Zhebius (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that it breaks any laws, and I think concerns about the law miss the point. I don't know what you mean about "pornographic images of children" - I doubt very much if that has anything at all to do with this. For me, the relevant point is that it is simply not collegial, offends some people needlessly, is unnecessarily political, etc. I think it is wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia and reflects negatively on the project.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Jimbo, the discussion is also at my talk page. →javért ^breakaway 04:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am in no way affiliated with WebHamster. I went to look at his user page, and my first thought was, "Well that's just not appropriate, at all..." Then my mind went to "WP is not censorship." Still not appropriate though. I suggest that the image be 86'd. What's the harm to the project? If there is room for such a contingency, please inform me if it can be executed. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm staying out of it. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandwich, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster. (I don't agree with the display of the image in userspace, but unfortunately the community seems to think it's ok). I note that since that MFD, W.H. has kindly included a direct link to his talk page in his signature, so people don't get the image shoved in their face on the way to his talk page. –xeno^talk 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Such a palaver over so very, very little. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A point of fact: the user's signature as it appears now on the user's talk page is linked to the user page. There was a time when it by-passed the user page, I think. // BL \\ (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It used to link only to his userpage. Now it links to both, which is better imo. –xeno^talk 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After ec, and now out of order)I wasn't suggesting better or worse, but a fact. As far as I can tell, having just gone to the user's talk page to check, the signature still only links to the user page. Only the "Web" part contains a link and it is to the user the page. Perhaps your browser is different. // BL \\ (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking from the the talk page to itself doesn't provide a workable link. Try looking at his signature on another page. --Onorem♠Dil 16:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that Onorem, and so much for my "fact". I have made the appropriate strikeouts above. // BL \\ (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Now let's get something clear - Zhebius has made some horrible personal attacks on WH (accusing him here and elsewhere of posting child pornography) and not one admin has thought that merited a warning or a block, let alone selective deletion of the comments. Jimbo's response is first to call for the victim of the attack to be indeffed, and then shuffle off with an "I'd better stay out of this" when it becomes clear that that won't be happening any time soon. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think it was unacceptable for him to make that "child pornography" remark. I regret not mentioning it. However, it isn't necessary to "take sides" in matters like this, so my original point still stands. The userpage is not ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. Don't forget that consensus is against you in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I was going to, but saw that you had already made the point. However, I have now left a note for the editor. Black Kite 16:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly it's ok to turn a blind eye to obvious personal attacks (similar to several IPs and socks that have been vandalising WH's talk and userpage recently) if you don't like the person being attacked. Nev1 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yiwentang, noting the particular interest of certain puppets; Voting on AfD's relating to articles created by... wait for it... User:WebHamster ! Congratulations, folks, we have almost helped a socking troll to get a content creating editor blocked banned over an old issue that the community had already decided upon. I am off to tag Zhebius as a suspected sock and add them to the SPI request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd already mentioned on WebHamster's talkpage that I could detect the faint whiff of socks, and it was only the relative age of this account that stopped me doing it straight away, to be honest. Black Kite 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Don't we all have better things to do than renew this old sore point? I'm working on a restoration for a sixteenth century Spanish royal grant of a coat of arms. We're an encyclopedia, not a social club. Durova³⁰⁶ 16:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a social club. As unpalatable as mission-focused members might find that assertion, I think it would be helpful to realize it. Your sense of community has been an immense help to WP's success. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Heh, well thank you very much. If only we had half as many people contributing featured pictures as worry about one R-rated photo in user space. Maybe there should be a quota system: contribute at least one FP before climbing the Reischtag about it. This is the current restoration project. Anyone who wants to get started on one of their own is welcome to download GIMP and contact me for coaching. Durova³⁰⁶ 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Durova, I think your conclusion shortsighted. Suppose you and Webhamster were to write an informative article on a serious academic subject. Someone isn't sure if the article is reliable, so she checks the history and follow it to your user pages. Hoping to see a scholarly looking fellow standing before a bookcase and his framed degrees, she sees that.

In sum, it degrades the brand, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute, white contributing nothing whatsoever of value. Even as partisan political commentary, it's crude and vacuous.

And, for whatever it's worth, it violates Wikipedia's userpage guideline (last time I checked,) both as disreputable material and as soapboxing.24.22.141.252 (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

First off, that was his page (referring to WH) on Wikipedia and as I understand it, you can do pretty much what you want with it without going into the specifics of WP:NPA or WP:BLP or WP:SPAM or WP:CIVIL, right? Note that I, too, endorses WP:DGAF and to be honest, WH has chosen to disengage from all the petty squabbles here and focus on what we editors do best — edit and improve article pages. So, without further distraction and I really hate to say this... guys, let us all drop the nonsensical WP:STICK in our hands and do as what Snagglepuss do at the end of a brilliant performance — "Exit, stage left"~! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions/advice please

Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid, regarding paid editing issues, and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected. I've done some research including past comments on this talkpage and would like your opinion and any ideas. Some users feel we must include a statement about paid admining. If we do I feel it also has to be accurate. Is there anything on this draft you feel should be changed and if so how:

“ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining may be seen as problematic.</ref> ”

I have a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Opinions/advice please but it may be of only so much interest to most folks. Comments there would also be fine but that thread may expire before this one. -- Banjeboi 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI ..." (emphasis added). This statement is absurdly mild. What doubt is there that it would be a conflict of interest? That is what conflict of interest means. As for "discouraged", isn't it clear that an admin who used admin tools or authority at the behest of some third party would be de-sysoped? This proposed policy would acknowledge that Wikipedia admins are for sale, which I certainly hope is not the fact. This is crazy. —Finell (Talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely would be a conflict of interest, I agree with Finell. As written, the sentence is misleading, that there is no policy against it. Indeed, this page *should become* policy against it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what it means to do an admin action at the behest of a third party. Asking an administrator "Please block User X, he is a vandalism-only account, here is the evidence." seems fine to me, especially since it would be up to the administrator to indeed determine the validity of the person's claim and then take responsibility for it themselves. @harej 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the issue, harej. The discussion is about an admin exercising admin authority in exchange for payment. —Finell (Talk) 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Asking an admin to "block User X as a vandalism only account, here is the evidence, and here is $10 for the blocking" is definitely not kosher. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it is not kosher even if User X really is a vandalism only account. —Finell (Talk) 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposition that today, without adopting a new policy, an admin is permitted to accept payment in exchange for exercising administrative authority or tools. This shows how easy it is to slide from the idea that allowing paid advocates to edit Wikipedia is alright, to accepting the idea that it may be OK to bribe the police. —Finell (Talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Finell offering blocks for payment. I also agree that, even if there's not literally a place in policy where this is explicitly stated, it is so well-understood that de-sysopping would be pretty much guaranteed, and overwhelmingly supported by the community.

The only grey area I can see is this: what if there's a general Wikipedia-related engagement (for instance, providing a training in Mediawiki software) and, related to the subject matter involved with the engagement, the consultant (an administrator) sees a case of obvious vandalism, that happens to be against his client's interest. Would a block be acceptable under such circumstances? I would say "no," but I also wouldn't consider a violation terribly egregious.

What about if the administrative button in question wasn't the "block" feature, but the opportunity to see a deleted version of an article, in order to explain to the client why it was deleted? On that matter, I'm not so sure. Curious what any or all of you think. -Pete (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Paid needs help. It started as a summary of existing policy, however there is no existing policy, therefore all attempts to tighten the language have been strongly resisted. The above text ("[admin payment]...is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI") shows the flavor of recent versions of WP:Paid. A group proposing restrictions on paid editing has started WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the language is off: the problem with paid adminning is NOT that it's a COI, it is betrayal of trust, which is ever so much more severe. There are lots of things that would be betrayal of trust that the policy doesn't have to mention explicitly; "COI" is a euphamism for bribery in the case of admin paid to use admin powers to do a specific thing requested by the payer, such as unblock X user.

No how, no way is it acceptable for an admin to take payment or receive compensation of any sort in exchange for performing a particular administrative action (including advocacy edits, edits to protected articles, using their admin status to support an agreed upon point of view on noticeboards talk pages, private conversations, etc). It would be a huge betrayal of trust, and if caught doing so intentionally, and they are "found guilty", they should be de-sysopped permanently and also banned from WP for a duration.

The suggestion that it might be allowed or allowable is so revolting, that I almost think admins ought to now be required to give and every few years re-affirm an oath of office of sorts, and specifically promise they will never do such a thing. --Mysidia (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a betrayal of trust, but the specific betrayal is a conflict of interest, as that term is used in ethics. An admin has a duty of loyalty to Wikipedia to carry out administrative duties and use administrative authority and tools solely in the best interest of Wikipedia; when an admin is paid by someone else to achieve some other objective, the admin has a conflict of between the bests interests of Wikipedia and the interests of the client or employer who is paying the admin. In law, if you have a duty to a person or organization, you are not permitted to assume a duty to another whose interests may conflict with the person or organization to whom you owe the original duty; if you do, the conflict of interest is called a breach of trust. —Finell (Talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely Mysidia, and you have said this more eloquently than I could have. We might as well say that there is no policy against murder - this is true, no one has ever written it down, because it is obvious and plain. This is why I object and will veto (yes, veto) any purported policy that says something as wishy-washy as this. We need very strong statements that certain things are a total and complete violation of trust and what it means to be a Wikipedian, and the current wording fails that entirely. Much of what has been written on this page is of value - there are complex questions about what it means to edit, when you have a job and a potential conflict of interest... but the core principles are actually very simple and obvious to most people. Johnuniq, I haven't read the alternative text yet, but I fully support people working to codify what has always been obvious, rather than allow for a subtle shift in policy based on specious "there is no policy against it" logic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Murder is considered a crime so I think we're safe on that one. So ... what would be an accurate and NPOV statement. That page has being developed as a summary not a proposed guideline. You have said yourself that paid editing is a misnomer and I agree. Work on banning paid advocacy, strengthen existing policies, drive well-meaning paid editors underground so only the actual problem editors are dealt with - these are the basic building blocks I've read that seem to hold promise. Please avoid characterizing my work as specious logic, I may be thinking down the road a bit but frankly people look for loopholes to justify what they wish to do. If we have no policies against what they are doing then blocks are quibbled about and lengthy debates rage on because ... we have no guidelines and policies to suss out the issues. I'm fine if we state all paid editing is wrong and those who do so will be blocked as long as we actually have that covered somewhere so when people who ask to be unblocked contest we can point them to the relevant policy page. Moving forward ...

“ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is seen as a COI as well as a violation of community trust; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining is seen as problematic.</ref> ”

I've read through the the two major cases and previous threads on this and various other writings. I'm not looking for new policy, I'm looking to accurately reflect the current status. If this version seems wanting or inaccurate what should be changed? -- Banjeboi 04:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do contribute to Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text if you don't like "Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining." Actually everybody is invited, but we're asking that editors follow a WP:1RR policy. Smallbones (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, again, with the statement, "Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining ..." On the Wikipedia:Administrators policy page, the first example under the heading "Misuse of administrative tools" is "conflict of interest", which paid admining plainly is. (The notion that there is no existing prohibition against paid editing, at least in the sense of paid advocacy editing, is belied by the long history of sanctions against editors who violate the COI guidelines.) Also, what other policy page has statements like, "Although there is no policy prohibiting blah blah"? The policy page normally is the policy prohibiting blah blah.

Wikipedia:Paid editing is being written and edited mostly by a very small number of editors, and is of poor quality. For starters, the two hat-notes at the top of the page contradict one another. The first begins, "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." (Typographic emphasis omitted.) The second hat-note contradicts the first in this run-on sentence: "Note: This page is not a policy or guideline, it is an attempt to summarize existing policies and guidelines that relate to the general topic of paid editing." (Typographic emphasis omitted.) Since the premise is that there is no existing policy about "paid editing," and this proposed policy(?) page doesn't purport to create a policy, where is this project going? Further, the page is influenced by the viewpoint that it is permissible to win a content dispute by disrupting the opposing editors' Internet connection (or by an admin blocking the opponents' IPs addresses?) because that does not violate 3RR or any other specific prohibition. The page also treats community approved incentives on Wikipedia itself as part of the subject of "paid editing," along with being paid by an outside party to influence Wikipedia's content. This proposed "policy" page is a mess, and the whole thing is destined for the scrapheap, in my opinion. —Finell (Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo: I urge you to ask a few board members, arb comm members, or stewards, who actually know something about Wikipedia's policies, to look in on this page, before something embarrassing is adopted as policy by "consensus". —Finell (Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the conflicting hatnotes I've removed the "proposed" one as consensus has been that we are summarizing existing rules not proposing anything. The reason the page is a source of disagreement is that our current rules aren't as clear. Even in the recent dysop case and RfC there was disagreement if paid editing is blockable in and of itself. We are a long way to proposing anything and I rather doubt the page would be among the first proposed changes to existing rules. -- Banjeboi 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward ...

“ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is seen as a COI as well as a violation of community trust; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining is seen as problematic. Administrative authority and tools are entrusted solely in the best interest of Wikipedia.</ref> ”

I'm looking to accurately reflect the current status. If this version seems wanting or inaccurate what should be changed? -- Banjeboi 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you with some amount of assurance that any administrator found using his tools for remuneration would be immediately and summarily desysopped by ArbCom as a gross breach of trust. For that matter, we have removed so-called "advanced" tools summarily from editors because they have done paid editing. — Coren ^(talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful actually, we can cite Arbcom then. Can you point me to some (all?) of the cases so we can state this is what has happened in the past? I've only seen one case and paid editing didn't seem to be the core issue for the actions, just a subtext. -- Banjeboi 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo or anyone else, I've seen the Nichalp(spelling?) bits, are there any other paid editing or paid admining cases that were addressed by Arbcom? I think this would help lay groundwork for expressing general disdain or whatever. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)