User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Copyright infringement

Hi. The copyright of your photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbo_wales/143261674/ AKA File:Ann Coulter.jpg is being infringed by http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Ann_Coulter2.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How is that a copyright violation?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it is. The image is cc-by, and they do attribute you by linking to the Commons image page that says you made it. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I think, too. It's a shame that the best (only?) freely licensed picture is a bad cellphone picture.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That image description page on Conservapedia does not directly "make clear to others the license terms of this work" per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en and more specifically, it does not "include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform" per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode section 4a, and it does not "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode section 4b.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It links directly back to Wikimedia Commons, which I think is sufficient. From there you can look up changelogs. That's a lot more than I can say about MOST websites who pilfer the free images off of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Usually there is no credit, no link back, nothing. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if we want to get really technical here, under your interpretation of Creative Commons, we violate the same licensing schema. I've seen countless examples where tons of corrective changes are made to a photographic image uploaded to Wikipedia, then it gets deleted by an administrator and moved to Commons. The uploading admin in effect is essentially stealing credit for the work, at times not even crediting the primary uploader but most often failing to credit all changes in between. Is that a violation as well? If so, what are you going to do about it? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, uploaders should be using or emulating CommonsHelper, which copies the image description page, including the upload log. When I see that such info was not copied, I copy the appropriate information from the source project (if I can still access it).   — Jeff G. ツ 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that Jeff G. never contacted Conservapedia, or me, to complain, but brought this here. I reached the same conclusion as JBsupreme long ago, and to the best of my knowledge I have always credited Wikimedia Commons and linked back to the source. I am lax sometimes :-( and don't copy over everything, but always at least link back and credit Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Jimbo, if you have any concerns or requests at all, please email or call me, and I will do all that I can to accommodate you. Enjoy your summer! --TK-CP (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's all fine with me. I'm not uptight about the details, although I agree that - in the abstract - they should be followed scrupulously. I'm just saying that for my work, I am happy that people are able to reuse it, and not very concerned about getting credit for it. But in this case, I did get credit for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! I did go back and add that it was licensed under the CC Generic 2.0....anything else comes up, just let me know. Sleep is overrated, isn't it? --TK-CP (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I notified the copyright holder (and via talk page watchers his authorized agents) the best ways I knew how (here and via Flickr), and replied to replies. Takedown notices and other legal remedies are the responsibility of the copyright holders and their authorized agents. I am sorry for any inconvenience.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I did find two instances of images that you uploaded to Conservapedia ([1] and [2]) that only cite Wikimedia or Wikimedia Commons w/o providing a link to the source or anything more. Their sources are this and this, respectively. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin, I will look into it. In the future, please contact me via email or through CP, as I dislike being infringed upon here for the business of another site. And in fairness to Jimbo Wales, the "issue" wasn't one according to him, and he had no problem, so that is between the two of us, not the general population of Wikipedia/Wikimedia and their respective "wiki lawyers". My email link here is enabled, and my contact information is very prominently displayed on my CP user page. Thanks. :-) --TK-CP (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

All right - I did so since we're on the topic of discussing your image uploads, but you definitely have a point. I'll do so in the future. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#We_need_another_User:WebCiteBOT

Hey Jimbo. We're trying to solve the problem of online refs that go dead after a while. Could you comment with your thoughts at the discussion I've linked above? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility

Hi Jimbo. I would ask to stimulate and stimulate the use of alternative (alt=...) text on images in the Wikipedia and Global projects. In Wikipedia in Portuguese is difficult. My son is visually impaired and want to read the texts. My Wiki-pt adjustments are being reversed. I'm stop edits now. Please help...help. Congratulations, Wikipedia is good for world. 189.65.177.161 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disappointed that this post hasn't had a reaction in nearly two days. I feel we are somewhat unaware, if not dismissive, let alone intolerant, of those users who are not fully able as regards the full Wikipedia experience. I cannot understand why pt:wiki should be doing this, because it seems to be unhelpful. Meanwhile, some specific examples would help to identify the problem at least but since I don't speak Portuguese, and my Spanish is extremely basic, I would not be able to intervene directly but I may be able to pass it on to someone who can help you. Rodhullandemu 01:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Estou um pouco decepcionado que este post não tenha tido uma reação em quase dois dias. Sinto que estamos um pouco inconsciente, se não desprezo, muito menos intolerantes, daqueles usuários que não são plenamente capazes no que diz respeito a experiência completa Wikipédia. Eu não consigo entender porque pt: wiki deveria estar fazendo isso, porque parece ser inútil. Entretanto, alguns exemplos específicos que ajudam a identificar o problema, pelo menos, mas desde que eu não falo Português, e meu espanhol é extremamente simples, eu não seria capaz de intervir directamente, mas eu posso ser capaz de dá-lo a alguém que pode ajudá-lo. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Having just spent some time in Brazil and having met a few (though sadly too few) Portuguese language Wikipedians, I can ask in English for more information but yes, diffs would be helpful.

As a general principle, I strongly support accessibility for Wikipedia, but I have to admit that the complaint from an anon was ignored by me because I think it is not likely to be true. I don't know of any Wikipedians who think that accessibility is a bad idea and who wouldn't wholeheartedly support non-disruptive edits in support of accessibility. Therefore, I'm sorry to say, I suspect there's something else going on here, and I get too many emails and concerns raised from all quarters to be able to deal well with them all. Still, if there is a real problem here, I am happy to hear from people and to offer a hopefully-helpful bit of encouragement and coaching.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs (in Portuguese!)

going on the assumption that the editor used the same IP on the PT wiki, i went a looked it up, and... yeah. He's right. John Isner, Avril Lavigne #1, Avril #2 (this one was only up for a couple minutes before being removed), Santa Cruz del Isolte (to be fair this one appears to have been removed by accident with the conversion to an infobox). -- ۩ Mask 17:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't seem good. I note however that other images on pt.wikipedia.org have alt tags no problem, so it's hard to guess what happened here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to understand, even if you read Portuguese, yes. I have looked into this as far as I can, but edit summaries for removal of the alt fields would have helped. I would think if we can find an editor/admin here who is also familiar with pt:wiki values, that would help. I'm not following this on pt:wiki, but perhaps that the editor whose original complaint came here hasn't followed up here might just indicate that the problem is solved. I propose that if there is nothing new in 24 hours here on this topic that this thread be closed. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the editor who reverted the changes isn't familiar with alt texts. They are of course very useful but can look a bit pointless and over-descriptive for someone who doesn't know what they are about. Laurent (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that they are sometimes removed by mistake, through an editor simply not understanding what they are. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox News report

Did you see this? I'm sure you probably have. I think it's just terrible.. everything. Thanks for your time  – Tommy [message] 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't seen it until just now! Thank you for showing it to me. My response is quite simple: the story is absolutely scandalously idiotic, and Jana Winter, the author, should be fired from her job. The story is idiotic nonsense from top to bottom. As in the statement from Sue Gardner, we have longstanding policies that deal with this very effectively, and there is zero evidence for any of the sensationalist and negative claims put forward about Wikipedia. Much of what she writes is simply transparently idiotic: that some message board has hundreds of links to Wikipedia ought to be no surprise, no matter what the content of the message board. That pedophiles think we are bigots for not allowing them to advocate here is no shocker, but neither is it evidence that we are a haven for pedophiles. Jana Winter is a disgrace to the professional of journalism, full stop, and I will complain about her at the highest levels possible.

I do not mind stories critical of Wikipedia - lords knows there are plenty of sensible criticisms that people can and do make. What I do mind is deeply irrational character assassination based on absolute untruths.

At the same time, I note with some happiness that the story is receiving exactly as much pickup and discussion in the general media that it deserves: zero. Real reporters will look at the story, look at our policies, ask real questions, and realize there is no story here. (In fact, if there is a story here, it is simply about how low Fox News has sunk.) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick chime-in on the FOX News bit. If you do not watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (an incredibly funny man and the absolute best of all of the late nite hosts, no competition), you should. At least once a week - and often more - the writers like to mock FOX News for some of the ridiculous things that they say. Also, the current issue of Maclean's (in Canada) has a Scott Feschuk piece regarding "The secret script of FOX News North" (see Sun TV News Channel) in its back pages; it features a suggested "script" for every show. The article, sadly, seems to be missing from the site and his blog and I won't risk any infringement from using my $40 scanner/printer to scan the article into here, nor provide the entire text of the article, but I found some other articles not in the magazine here. So even in Canada, we will soon have some comic news content to shake our own heads at, and it saddens me that Jon Stewart will not see it because he'll still be giving us things to laugh at from the originator of the genre. Hopefully he'll be there to cover the launch, at the very least!

Tommy - thanks for posting this! Reading it made me think of a Stephen Colbert comedy piece from HIS show - this sounds like one of his fake mustered stories, and to think this is actually REAL journalism - I'm disgusted, but this is how "balanced" FOX News is. If "balanced" means having garbage in all the right places. CycloneGU (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I looked into this.

1. There actually was an organized attempt to infiltrate wikipedia articles. This was stopped in 2008 and twenty or so editors were blocked. There was even an ArbCom case about it, but it is a non-public case. However, such manipulation is not new, it happens every day and we stop it everyday. It was caught and corrected.
2. This is just very outdated original reporting by Jana, had he written the article 2 years ago it would have actually had news value and been original.
3. Are there currently pedophiles editing wikipedia. Probably, just as there likely will be murderers and tax frauds editing it. These people are all around us, everywhere in the world doing the same thing. I believe that is why a lot of Fox News viewers build safe rooms.
4. All links that are mentioned are only used in talk pages or in articles very much related to the actual topic (Nambla itself and its founder) [3] [4] [5]
5. Annabelleigh thanks Fox News for the increase in pageviews. Good work Jana, you brought more people to their turf, you put them in the spotlight.
6. "Posts on boychat, linking to wikipedia", probably. So does half the rest of the world. You can also find how to build a theoretical atomic bomb. Everyone can link to Wikipedia, it is part of the free society that Fox News so vehemently 'defends' (yet they profess a closed worldview that is as eary as some extreme islamic views are in my opinion).
7. "Nigam, who is co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Group and sits on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children" Yeash, someone needs to talk to that guy. Either he is misinformed, or he is deliberately spreading misinformation, in which case he is outright dangerous himself.
8. Oh wait, Jana seems to have forgotten to point out a little bit of COI by interviewing Nigam: "former president of Fox Interactive Media" How's that for honesty and transparency.
9. Ah, Nigam is also on the board of FOSI. The same organization that I tried to contact about ICRA labels in our recent dispute, asking for help and comments and who never sent as much as a confirmation of receiving my email.
10. Wait a minute, he is also on the board of NCMEC ??? Isn't that the organization that we are supposed to report child abuse to ? Like the one we now even mention in our proposed Commons:Sexual content guideline ? The organization where someone like Stillwaterising has already reported a manga image to, and wants to report more to ? I was actually in favor of that, but I'm suddenly a lot less convinced of its neutrality. Can someone please reassure me ?

Jana should be ashamed that he labels himself as a journalist. He is not worthy of being in the profession. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, I spoke with you in London after the first Fox-Pedophilia special. I really don't think that this piece warrants any official response, it's remarkably biased and wildly out of date. I do think however, that some of the points that The DJ make, especially in regards to giving exposure to paedophile forums, would make for a stinging rebuttal. - hahnchen 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

PAN 2010 Lab, Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship, and Social Software Misuse

Hi Jimbo. May I draw your attention to the PAN 2010 Lab, specifically the Social Software Misuse task [6]. According to the organizers 9 teams had submitted the results for the second task and evaluations of performance are going to be available in a several days time. Perhaps Wikimedia foundation (or you personally) may have some interest in sponsoring this research effort. --Dc987 (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds interesting!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative, heating up again

Hi, Jimbo, I wanted you to be the first to see this edit I'm making to Genesis creation narrative, since it bears directly on something I asked, and received, your comment on earlier. I have a feeling it will be reverted quickly, though that would be an injustice because there seem to be no cause for reverting this factual and sourced information I am adding. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to pass judgement on whether that statement should be in the article, but surely it should be in the "Creation myth" section (just below where you put it) if it is going to be anywhere. I'm not going to move it myself, since I don't want that to be mistaken for supporting the addition, but I suggest you move it. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I put it in "Questions of genre" section, because it directly addresses the question of "questions of genre". Maybe the "Creation myth" section should be a subsection of "Questions of genre"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that lasted a surprising 4.5 hours before it was removed by User:Professor marginalia who doesn't think the sources are good enough to indicate that anyone disagrees with the "myth" label. So now we're back to "Genesis is inarguably a myth, because anyone who disagrees doesn't count". I have also been told that I have no standing to object or request arbitration, no recourse or hope of due process, and threatened repeatedly with banishment because I still don't think Genesis is a "myth", and I won't just shut up or go away and accept that there is no recourse. So that's my problem with Wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever told you you can't object and go through the dispute resolution system is wrong. You may not be successful, but you can certainly go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and get more opinions. If it turns out the consensus is against you, then you need to be willing to accept defeat, though. --Tango (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fun, Easy Way to Learn German

Dear Jim, you might find it easy and fun to watch Rammstein Videos! Especially the ones with English - German subtitles. You will find yourself quickly picking up words and phrases very quickly and have fun doing it. Fűr immer und immer...Fűr einen tag..(Helden)--Oracleofottawa (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Some find JFK's speeches helpful too.</sarcasm> – ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the hard part of the german language. It's always easy to learn some phrases. The problem is to find the right words to say what you want to say. Also you will find it hard to use the correct grammar, so that an german will be able to understand you. You should also notice that the content of songs from Rammstein has usually more then one meaning, which could be misleading to only trust in available translation. Das kann ich deshalb sagen, da ich in Deutschland geboren bin und es mir dadurch natürlich leicht fällt Englischsprachige einzuschätzen, die regelmäßig ihre Probleme damit haben, obwohl sie es auf einer Schule gelernt haben. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough is Enough

Don't tell me that you're gonna let muslim fanatics seize arabic wikipedia like what they did with th bbc the last few decades.... it becomes a place for Jihad propaganda, Salafi propaganda and Islam propaganda in general. How could you trust those people like 'Riadismet' or 'Mohamed Ouda' or 'DrFO.Tn' or 'Elmoro' or 'Ali1' or 'Bassem19' or 'غلام الأسمر' or 'Trabelsiismail' who is posting this pic! in his profile to control the pedia? the worst is their proportion.... now you can say Good-bye to neutrality, at least me who should say that... i don't know how to end this and i can't contribute their anymore, and our societies really need something objectively and neutrally like wikipedia but not like that! please investigate... do something. please --الزمخشري (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As regards the Arabic Wikipedia, they have their own processes, and mediating a neutral position might be tricky; but surely you are not alone here? I don't see Jimbo being able to assist here other than in an advisory capacity; and although his advice may be indicative, different Wikipedias have their own rules. Rodhullandemu 01:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"but surely you are not alone here?" what do you mean?--الزمخشري (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This user "الزمخشري" has 7 edits in ar wp, 3 of them in the mainspace, specifically in the article about Hijab in Arabic. None of his edits were reverted, actually, they are at the top of the page history. 62.120.18.9 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

it's not my original account i made it not to be chased like what you've done here --الزمخشري (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You were "chased" because you did not provide diffs. 62.120.18.9 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

People often here the bad things about ar wp (and certainly there are bad things), but I want to give a relevant example of a good thing. They have an abuse filter that tags replacing the word "اسرائيل" (Israel) with the word "فلسطين" (Palestine). 62.120.18.9 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:File talk:No Israel.svg. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That file is one of the worst things I've seen allowed to stay in Commons, no value other than various users using it on their user pages. It reinforces my belief that apparently the only attack pieces allowed in any wikimedia project is anti-semitism; if Judaism was a living person and protected by BLP alot of that crap wouldnt be allowed.Camelbinky (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. 62.120.18.9 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Camelbinky Anti israeli state != anti judaism or being antisemetic. I'm starting to become more and more anti-israel myself over the past 10 years, yet I have nothing against judaism as a people. Regardless, it would be best if people didn't misuse their userpages as political soapboxes of "anti-" sentiments. Why can't they just use a "i'm proud to be a supporter of palestine" userbox instead ? If such activism becomes problematic, at some point someone will have to step in. It is best if it is the community itself that steps in. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Diamond

I've already put it in Talk. But here's another paste:

This is not staged. As per http://www.dogster.com/forums/Behavior_and_Training/thread/552030 Apparently Victoria has commented about it. I am in the process of getting the source of that comment in the link above. Besides, I believe it is better to add, "possibly staged", instead of removing the entire insert. As it nevertheless, is fact, staged or not staged, while people could look into that proof.

I know for sure the page was promoted by Wendy herself, owner of Animal Fair, which was the account used here. I just hope she's not going around threatening everyone who's got negative things to say about her. If you're victimized by her, you have my sympathy, just know you're not alone.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.253.131 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For the IP editor 64.131.253.131, a reliable source for the fact that the Victoria Stilwell argument was not "staged", is Stilwell's own site, posting her own commentary (that has been copied in boundless forums across the Internet). It's difficult to see how and why Wales would jump to the hasty conclusion that a heated discussion that so moved Stilwell to write such a detailed clarification would have been "staged". Perhaps Wales is exempt from Wikipedia policy about original research? -- Wandering Parsnip (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, what do you think of the editorial contributions of User:Luckyanimalfair, as described in this analysis? Animal Fair was founded by Wendy Diamond, and her dog is named Lucky. Perhaps that's a coincidence? By your repeatedly editing (to remove a criticism) an article that has been repeatedly maintained and puffed up by what appears to be a severely "conflicted" editor with a self-promotional agenda, what sort of message does that send to the rest of us? -- Wandering Parsnip (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple. Find a 3rd party reliable source that this is a legitimate controversy, and it can go into the article. Otherwise, it can't. Simple.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but do you have any comment about the "'conflicted' editor with a self-promotional agenda", i.e., User:Luckyanimalfair? Do you approve of their editing the Wikipedia article about Wendy Diamond? - Any old someone (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After about 4 or 5 minutes of searching I found sources in True/Slant and in Entertainment Weekly that covered this heated dispute in some detail. Neither of them described the argument as "staged", as you had described it "clearly". The properly sourced text now resides in a sub-section entitled Dispute over dominance training. This turned out to be a slam dunk "include", no need for edit warring. - Any old someone (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is still very much a slam dunk for not including it. There are no third party sources which suggest in any way that this was a major incident or in any way relevant to her overall career. The mentions you found are much to slim to overcome the WP:UNDUE problem. But, further discussion should take place on the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You still evaded the question about User:Luckyanimalfair. - 24.228.98.182 (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't evade it. I ignored it. I see no relevance to this discussion of my opinions on an entirely separate matter.

I fully support WP:COI in this case as in all others. However, it is not my duty to lambaste everyone who has ever edited any article inappropriately where I'm editing. My view is that User:Luckyanimalfair is likely someone connected to the subject, who ought to post on the talk page rather than editing directly. But I have no knowledge about it really other than what you've pointed out. In any event, none of this has any relevance to the discussion that we've been having otherwise.

Possibly of more interest is that both User:Wandering Parsnip and User:Any old someone have been blocked as sockpuppets.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please make me a founder

Hi, I read that you can change the user access level of a user to any other level. I've also noticed that you are the only member of the usergroup "founder". Please add me to the usergroup "founder" because I want to be a founder too. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I'm pretty sure you didn't help found Wikipedia... :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a novel idea, though...I don't think any user has ever asked to be a part of the founder group before this. Still, the credentials required are doubtfully present (doubtfully rather than certainly because for all we know, he may have founded something...=) ). Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I demand to be part of the founder group. I did, after all, found... Erm... The Alden J. Blethen article? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I can handle this one! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't be right if Jimbo just simply gave the "founder" user access level to anyone he wanted. I recommend we create Wikipedia:Requests for foundership. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it should be called Wikipedia:Requests for jimboship. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! You can go ahead and create it; I'll be the first to apply! :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 00:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows it Requests for Godkingship. -- ۩ Mask 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, that had me laughing in tears! I wasn't here in 2005 and didn't know about that page. Love it! CycloneGU (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Let me try again. *Poof*, you're a founder!!! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty funny thread. I noticed it by just waving over a link with WP:POPUPS and laughed→clicked. It opens up a lot of ideas for new bits, such as a luser-bit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Super Hamster, let's create it! Jimbo can go through and review every request. He'll just have t edit the Wikipedia article to add in each person. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 20:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the "ability to change any user to any other level" theoretical or has Jimbo actually used this power recently to any extent? I would assume from Jimbo's comments that the only time he would ever use the ability to change someone to a Founder would be when he is ready to "retire" and would like to personally have the honor of bestowing upon his successor the title, and even then I assume he would only do so with the blessing of the Wikipedia Community, thereby making the "annointment" purely a pro forma affair. Of course this is just my personal musing based on his previous comments and actions. But of course I would love to be a Founder if he's willing to hand the title out to those who ask! :) Camelbinky (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the Founder flag currently has the ability to change anyone's level. It gives me "read-only" powers for basically everything project-wide, but no rights to actually "do" things. In my view, the Founder flag was an honorary technical bundle of rights bestowed by the developers and not at my request, and not particularly important. Certainly not important at English Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot, then please recommend me to a user who does have the ability to change my user level to "founder". --WikiDonn (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Special:ListGroupRights, the founder right can Edit all user rights (userrights); Make users into Administrators or Bureaucrats (makesysop). According to that, you can change anyone's rights - however, whether "founder" is one which you can change, only you can really tell by looking at Special:UserRight - and I'm not aware of any of the other WMF project where the 'founder' right exists. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiDonn, I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse... create your own wiki, and assign yourself the 'founder' right by adding the following line to your LocalSettings.php file:

$wgGroupPermissions['founder']['founder'] = true;

and then you just assign the right to yourself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@Phantom: Jimbo is right, see [17]. Sole Soul (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So does this mean no Wikipedia:Requests for jimboship page? Darn... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes please! Please make me a founder too! ;-)

Once you're done laughing, let me explain why I'm actually serious, and perhaps you'll even end up agreeing with me :-) :

I've been advocating that experienced admins should retire after ~1 year and then participate in more of an institutional memory kind of role. This would be a powerful tool to mitigate the VestedContributor or founder-effect antipatterns (in the case of Jimbo, quite literally, in fact).

I've put my money where my mouth is myself, but I haven't been able to convince others. The main reason I haven't been able to convince people to copy my "eccentric"[*] ways is because they said they still wanted to be able to read deleted revisions. At this moment in time, the only role you're realistically going to have that allows reading hidden/deleted revisions is *admin*. Hence, no voluntary retirements. :-(

For years now, I've been advocating a limited rights role to fix this. The role would leave peoples deleted-revision-reading intact, but for the most part leave them as "normal" users. I'm not sure what to call it, but something like: "retired admin", "veteran", "be able to see deleted revisions", or (insert your own ideas here).

Now, guess what happens? After the last commons kerfluffle, Jimmy Wales has essentially trimmed down the founder role to the point where it mostly matches my "retired admin" idea. What can I say? Mr. Wales is a wise man, if a bit slow at times O:-)

If we can rename the founder flag to something more innocuous (or make a similar flag with similar provisions), we could actually use it for our institutional memory type people. They could trade in "admin" for "retired", or vice versa . Does that sound like a good idea?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC) [*]It's only eccentric while you're still the only one doing it. If everyone does it, it's called "tradition"

Reference: http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg10788.html --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A similar user right exists called Researcher. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find exactly where to request it. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

From that page...

The 'researcher' group was created in April 2010 to allow individuals explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation to search deleted pages and view deleted history entries without their associated text.

This tells me that you have to be given the permission from the actual Foundation. Maybe someone knows more about how that works? This is the first time I've seen it, and it sounds like researchers "research" deleted pages and logs. CycloneGU (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I reckon since Larry Sanger co-founded the project, he should get "founder" status too.. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Larry chose to leave the project. There is no reason for him to have any permissions now. --Tango (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, can you tell me if I am the first to ask to be added to the founder group? If so, don't I deserve some kind of reward for that? --WikiDonn (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do. It's on your talk page. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. --WikiDonn (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...You're hopeless. :) Only kidding. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 05:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox news is not a reliable source now?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/ - since this is BS I heard, can we start delinking it and other Murdoch papers? His works would be unreliable? Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you're late. Look up a few topics.

Second...when was FOX News ever a reliable source for information? They are so right wing that they're kissing John McCain's feet. Or something far worse we'd rather not know about. I will not say go ahead and delink everything yet, as actual news on the basic FOX station is probably safe, but I would be careful what you use as a source somewhere. CycloneGU (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (Prior comment retracted due to influence of personal distaste)

Such comments are not helpful. All news articles, no matter if its the New York Times, Fox News or NBC should always be carefully scrutinized. Several times in the past few years alone the NY Times has been the victim of dishonest "journalists", so it isn't matter of left or right. Always trust, but just as importantly, always verify. --TK-CP (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Very true, I guess my personal distaste for FOX News got into my comment there. =) I therefore politely retract that comment; my main point was to indicate that Jimbo has already read the article. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess FNC is no different from The Daily Punctilio. I don't think this name-calling that they did to the Grand Theft Auto series - "blood-drenched digital killfest" constitutes a fair and objective news report about a GTA-related incident. Oh, and the original article's from the NY Post, too, another staple of lulzy, dishonest journalists. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is as much of a reliable source as any other in its category (i.e. MSNBC, CBS, etc). It is when particular reliable sources contradict each other or only one reliable source is claiming a particular something that we need to carefully examine its reliability and accuracy. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh so because no other reliable source contradicts Fox News then we should add a section to Wikipedia article about harboring pedophiles?

I agree, if Fox News is a reliable source, then i guess a section should be added to Wikipedia about allegations of harboring pedophiles.--98.14.113.232 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And if CNN is a reliable source, Wikipedia is controlled by big business to make their respective organizations look better. By the way, if NBC is a reliable source, Port Charlotte High School was destroyed by Hurricane Charley and the students were put in portables. I don't care how apparently "reliable" a source is, always take what it says with a grain of salt. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide links to where these news sources report these things. Also, Fox News has a history of this. --Iankap99 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we (as Wikipedians) do a poor job at the commonsense task of distinguishing news from opinion. (To be fair, news organizations themselves have blurred the line in response to commercial forces, with Fox News being a trailblazer in that regard). Fox News is reasonably reliable as a source of news. One should probably be more careful in using them - or, for that matter, any news service - as a source of opinion. The particular Fox News piece on Wikipedia and pedophiles, while superficially framed as a news story, is basically a jeremiad filled out with a few vaguely facty-sounding morsels. That doesn't make Fox News categorically "reliable" or "unreliable" - it just reinforces the need for common sense. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo have any thoughts on the matter?--Iankap99 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He already did. See The Signpost report or diff. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw those, however, no thoughts were stated about removing fox news as a reliable source due to many past cases of false journalism. And if they are a reliable source, then shouldn't a section be added to the wikipedia article about allegations of harboring pedophiles--Iankap99 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)?

I disagreed with Jimbo userbox

Sorry to be such a nuisance, Jimbo, and post on your actual User page, but could I trouble you for one of those "I disagreed with Jimbo" userboxes? I'm not sure if you give these out, or if you have even seen one, but it is sort of a red box with your face on the left side and it says something like "this user disagreed with Jimbo..." or something similar? Do you know the box?

Anyway, we did respectfully disagree on something, so I qualify! You suggested that an article I contributed "almost certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia." Well, I disagree (With the caveat that I humbly accept the concensus to remove, of course).

What do you think? I spent two weeks writing that thing, throw a dog a bone, will ya? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I don't have anything to do with userboxes. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL - WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

People give themselves userboxes. You are thinking of barnstars - I don't know of a barnstar for disagreeing with Jimbo. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a thought! "Awarded to [editor] for disagreeing with Jimbo on [issue x]." Hm... WP:BEANS in action  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango, I'm not sure where I saw it, but it is the greatest userbox ever. It is not a barnstar. I can't remember which one, but an admin had one on his User page. Userboxes are almost as much fun as Wikipedia. I'm going to go try and find it again. I figured everyone knew what I was talking about. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Well, I found one but the code is well protected. It can be seen here on Balloonman's User page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Balloonman

Look under the collapsed "Barnstars and other awards" secton, #27. It is actually called the "Jimbo Finds Me Offensive Barnstar of Infamy," so I was mistaken: it is indeed a barnstar in which case I withdraw my request for one. Sometimes you gotta give me time to catch up, that's all. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that if it's a userbox, you can just add it to your own userpage. If it's a barnstar, then you need someone else to award it to you (although they are just a bit of fun, so there aren't any penalties for giving yourself barnstars, people would just think you a bit odd!). --Tango (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Right again. It wasn't a userbox, I shouldn't have referred to it that way. I remember seeing that it was given to Balloonman but I wanted one myself, selfish pig that I am. I just don't think its fair Balloonman gets to have all the WikiFun. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

You have two choices, {{User reverted by Jimbo}} and {{User The Jimbo Finds Me Offensive Barnstar of Infamy}}. Enjoy!   — Jeff G. ツ 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Informing you of possible areas of exploitation within Wikipedia

Hi Jim,

The following was originally posted by banned user Swamilive under a different account on his sockpuppet investigation page. Some of the wording will appear out of context here since it was part of an ongoing discussion. However, the banned user brought up some very interesting points concerning some of the loopholes that exist within Wikipedia. He appears to want to aid the project, although in a nonconventional way. I just thought that, as founder, you might be interested in examining some of the problems he brings up.

I just want to point out a few things before this account gets blocked. Please bear with me.

First of all, I'm deeply concerned about the checkuser results from some of the investigations against me. On this page a great number of accounts have been erroneously linked to me. Of the 20 or so listed, only 3 are mine. I would suggest that Wikipedia invest in either the technology or the personnel to handle this procedure properly. Far too many non-Swamilive editors are being scapegoated and I don't believe that's fair. It's a bit like imprisoning an innocent man. More wiki-DNA testing must be done to prevent this kind of thing in the future.

Secondly, as Delicious carbuncle pointed out, the account I created (Scottish Coke) after being banned was not started up within Thunder Bay, where I reside. Well, he (I'm assuming you're a he, DelCarb...please correct me if I'm wrong) mentioned an ISP change. Now, Scottish Coke's (my) comment got deleted pretty quickly, and unfortunately its implications concerning the Wikipedia project as a whole were widely ignored as a result of that. This next bit, I know, will take a bit of faith on everyone's behalf:

Let us postulate that although I am a serial vandal, my actual objective is to provide some insight for admins about the exploitable loopholes that currently plague Wikipedia so that they may develop better code or more effective ways of avoiding problems. Hard to swallow, I know. But, that's the beauty of it right there. To think like a vandal, one must act like a vandal. No well-established editor could properly test and exploit these loopholes without getting themselves banned. What this project needed was a relatively crafty individual to purposely vandalize articles in order to attempt to circumvent the blocks and bans placed upon them for their actions. Once circumvented, the user would inform admins about how they got past the sanctions, thus allowing for discussion and action to avoid having the same thing happen again. I am that guy. There's a lot to read, but if you go back I have always come forward with my methods of evasion. For everyone's sake, though, a summary:

Edit Filters
They work well enough if the vandal has no imagination. A few users were working hard to get a few specific terms I was using banned. And, at least one of them got edit filtered. However, I showed that simply adding an underscore or a hyphen or ANYTHING to that term would allow it to pass through the filter undetected. Example: The Garrison_James.

Dynamic IPs
No great revelation here, and range blocks take care of these. Now, I edit from Thunder Bay, so the ranges of IPs I can use are limited. However, if I resided in New York City or Tokyo we'd have a much larger problem. There must be some way of pinpointing vandal IPs without rangeblocking hundreds of thousands of people at once. A determined vandal will keep refreshing his dynamic IP until he's caused the entire ISP to be blocked. Major inconvenience if you have a ton of decent editors within that range. Not everyone will ask for exemption, and it's a problem to prove who you are.

Static IPs
Some of you have probably dealt with a girl named Jean Currie in the past few months. She made up an elaborate story about taking over a business location that Swamilive used to own and being stuck with a static IP that he vandalized from. She tried very hard to get the IP address unblocked. Well, of course Jean Currie was me, but I had a lot of fun pretending to be someone who did not exist for awhile. In fact, many admins got involved in the discussion and the majority of them couldn't tell truth from fiction. Again, a crafty enough vandal could easily sway the opinions and doubts of a whole committee of people. You make a fake e-mail address, you make up a story, and all of a sudden you're as anonymous as anyone else.

Different ISPs
Now, in Thunder Bay we have only a few ISPs and IP ranges that we can create accounts from. So, let's say I got all of Thunder Bay effectively banned from editing. Not a single computer in the area could edit Wikipedia. And let's also assume that I have been checkusered all to Hell and any dormant socks I might have made for such an occasion have been discovered. So, I can't even log in and edit from a pre-existing account. What are my options? Drive or fly out of town to edit from outside the geographical area? No, of course not. Way too much trouble. Instead, you contact someone in another city (old friend, complete stranger, whatever) and request that they create an account for you and tell you the password. Now, even though you're under a range block for editing anonymously, you can suddenly log in to an account created just for you and edit from it. This process is a bit long for the vandal because they must call or Facebook someone to do the initial account creation every time. But, perhaps this out-of-towner could make 20 accounts at once. Doesn't take long. The only possible solution I can see to this problem is to rangeblock every new IP range that the vandal has people create accounts from. But, now that the vandal can do this from anywhere in the world, it could quickly become a big problem since some ranges are larger than others. In short, the actions of the admins are going to piss a lot more people off than if the vandal was simply allowed to proceed with hitting random, revertable pages with vandalism.

So, that's just something to consider. You can work with me or you can work against me. But, much like the game, once you start playing, you can't stop.

Jbfolker2x (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Most people are well aware of "vulernabilities" present in Wikipedia. The blocking policy makes it pretty clear that blocks are a technical measure only and just about everyone is aware they can be evaded. Tools like autoblock and the abuse filter help, but nothing is foolproof. There has yet to be a major attack on the wiki, even some of our most notorious vandels like Grawp and Willy on Wheels utterly failed to do any real lasting damage, and in the end became nothing more than some temporary dramahz on our noticeboards. Most people lack the technical knoweldge to do a serious sustained attack on wikipedia, and most that have the knowledge have better things to do with their time. When you actually look at the numbers you tend to notice that a few thousand organized vandal edits pales in comparison to the tends of thounds of vandal reverts every day. --nn123645 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Still, my point is that this particular serial vandal does bring up some good points. If it is technically possible to make amendments to the underlying code in order to protect against some of the problems Swamilive has outlined, then I say go for it. While the overall level of vandalism is relatively minute compared to constructive edits, we might as well invest some time into making it harder for vandals to edit in the first place. Jbfolker2x (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The solution is simple enough. If someone really becomes a problem, we contact ISPs and law enforcement. Technical improvements are made all the time btw. The editfilter itself is one such relatively new development. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Law enforcement? Sorry, but this seems strange to me. Nowhere that I'm aware of has any law against editing Wikipedia. Perhaps if the individual is advocating violence, hate crimes, etc.., but in most cases our vandals are simply annoyances. What I'm talking about here isn't in the realm of "legal or illegal". I'm talking about someone (like Swamilive) who continues, despite multiple warnings, to disrupt Wikipedia with petty, nonsensical edits. How can we more effectively combat those types of editors who stay within the law, but nonetheless are extremely troublesome to the development of the project? Jbfolker2x (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well like I said above you can't create a foolproof system. I don't think we need to spend alot of time fighting a problem that doesn't exist. If and when a massive attack on Wikipedia happens I'm sure solutions will be deployed to deal with it. --nn123645 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this a bit closer I'm not quite sure why your so concerned. As for your points above:

• Edit Filter - the weaknesses of the abuse filter are well known, it was never designed to be a foolproof system to stop all vandalism. It is just designed to make it harder for vandals with known patterns and drive by vandals to edit.
• Dynamic IPs - the problems of blocking dynamic IPs are well known. Short of redesigning the way the internet works it is impossible to fix this problem.
• Static IPs - this is just plain social engineering and the above vandal abusing WP:AGF, there really is nothing to fix here.
• Different ISPs - This is a pretty lame scenario that already has a solution, if you have to call your friend to register accounts for you ur doing it wrong as that could (and in any real attack would) be totally automated.--nn123645 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I started reading this with great interest, since it seemed to promise that I might learn something new about some strange software loopholes. I learned nothing. The difficulty of using ip-based banning has been well-understood for a very long time. The ability of annoying people to waste the time of others with fake arguments and deception is an inherent part of... well... of being human. I do support, quite strongly, efforts to identify software enhancements that could be helpful in eliminating or reducing vandalism, as well as in better identifying socks and reducing mis-identification of socks. But I disagree strongly that anyone needs to "think like a vandal" and practice vandalizing Wikipedia to uncover new vulnerabilities. They will either be already well-known (as was everything in this present case) or new inventions (in which case, they are theoretical exploits at best).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Have no doubt, I agree that the points outlined by Swamilive are already well-known by the community in general. My point was simply that IF these problems, minor or insignificant as they may be, can be easily avoided without rewriting the entire code of the project, then they ought to be. I fail to see any problem with a more secure Wikipedia. In short, though it's currently tough for any ill-intentioned editor to disrupt Wikipedia on a large scale, why not make it EVEN TOUGHER? If it's technically possible, I say do it. Jbfolker2x (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:AfD

I appologize for the comment on the AfD. I didn't make it to be insulting, or didn't intend to anyways. (Was posting it out of humor, to lighten the mood a bit) Undead Warrior (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For this [18] which is very clear sighted. --BozMo talk 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Citation Barnstar
		Good work Weakopedia (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Libel and no response from wiki

I have waisted a week and a half fighting with your site and its admins and want my page deleted. This page is again for the 500th time in 4 years full of false rumors and libel. I dont want to have anything to do with a site like wiki and want my info and the libel removed NOW! I have also emailed the press email and the other one for wiki countless times and got no response. you can see why i shouldnt have to deal with this anymore and all the problems here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donny_Long and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests Please get back to me through my site http://www.xxxfilmjobs.com or just reply to the 50 emails i sent you today before I have to spend money on a lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.151.61 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donny Long (2nd nomination) -- but this is a legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject) for instructions on dealing with problems like this. I don't know who you have emailed already, but the email address given on that page is the one to use - you will get a response from that address. I'm sorry that you have had difficulties getting this resolved, but I'm confident we will be able to deal with your complaint appropriately if you follow the instructions on that page. However, I must ask that you refrain from editing any part of Wikipedia until you have withdrawn your threat of legal action. You are perfectly entitled to take legal action if you wish, but we do not permit people threatening or taking legal action against us to edit the site (please see Wikipedia:No legal threats for details). Thank you. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

When an IP makes this kind of complaint it is because they are desperate for help in resolving their problem. While it may be obvious to regulars what is the appropriate wiki way of dealing with these issues, it is far less so for the uninitiated. With this guy, we have listened to his complaint, and then told him to go away, to put it politely. This would have to be about the least helpful help possible. Kevin (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is our policy to block people that make legal threats and I doubt you will have any luck changing that policy. --Tango (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and to this guy it reads something like "we know you want help, but we would rather you just fucked off". Your note above might have been more useful had the IP not already been blocked by that time. Don't you understand how it must feel to have a shitty Wikipedia bio? Kevin (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kevin - If it was just this one IP I would agree with you, but you may not have seen the full history. This guy (Donny Long himself) has been extended more than his fair share of good faith by many editors. He has been blocked on at least 15 IPs and 2 named accounts, has made multiple threats to multiple users, and continues to vandalize a number of pages aside from his own. He is not merely trying to have his own page removed for what he claims is libel, but he is trying to insert -BLP info about other people and spam for his website at the same time.  7  23:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Site ban proposal

• Jimbo, there is currently a ban proposal underway against the BLP subject: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_proposal. Now, it is my understanding that editors have repeatedly, over a period spanning several years, inserted unsourced and grossly defamatory content into the man's BLP, and that none of these editors has to date been sanctioned in any way. Do correct me if I am mistaken on that point. But if that is verifiably so, please let us make sure that we first pronounce article bans, BLP bans or site bans against the editors responsible for these BLP edits, before we take any action against the BLP subject. I propose that we should sanction the editors responsible, let the BLP subject know about the actions we have taken, apologise to him, and then revisit the issue to see if any further action such as a site ban against the BLP subject is indeed required. --JN466 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see a little bit of vandalism this year and that content was deleted the same day and the editor blocked -- too hastily it turns out as the edits weren't vandalism. There was vandalism in 2008 and we blanked and protected the article to deal with the vandalism then. If you have some specific libel and specific editors in mind, then - be specific. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, that really was Donny Long. And Donny was really pissed. This is a link to his blog. http://donnylong.com/blog/ 76.177.47.225 (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Special education#Setting is just another term for tracking.

Dear Jimbo,

I am getting really frustrated by this one particular editor. She seems to have a grudge on me and I don't know why. I made one mistake and she took it out on me. I have done my best in good faith to find the sources but she is still blaming me for the mistakes. Can you please look into this? I also would like more editors to look at the dispute in the special education article. Am I being completely out of my mind or are the others being ridiculous? I have provided sources that others have just rejected. I have provided explanations the first time but they didn't understand apparently. I wrote a second time, hoping they will understand this time. I assumed they understood because silence usually means consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't articles on Wikipedia must be written from a global perspective? 198.38.10.1 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that you log in and apologize to the editor personally, acknowledging whatever you did that was your mistake. Don't push too hard for your perspective - step back and listen to others. It is true that articles should be written from a global perspective in the sense that we should make things clear to people from a very wide range of cultures, and it is important to understand that there are minor language differences around the world that should be handled thoughtfully. But that doesn't mean that there is any simple one-size-fits-all solution. Each case has to be considered on its own merits.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I only edit anonymously because there are times I don't edit for a long time. Why should I have an account if I don't really edit religiously like most people on Wikipedia do? That's a great idea; I'll apologize to her right now. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It builds trust and allows you to establish a track record. It's a good thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That marginal porn guy

What I fear has happened is that this person has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Wikipedia. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true at all. The bad behavior of the subject of a bad biography is not sufficient reason to keep it, if that's what you are suggesting (but surely not). There is no way this guy should ever have been in Wikipedia in the first place. WP:PORNBIO is a seriously misguided standard, I think. The entire field is rife with Kayfabe which we tend to mindlessly report.

I think there is a lesson to be learned here: don't write bad biographies full of random trivia about non-notable people - it hurts them and makes them sad and angry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have started another discussion on rewriting PORNBIO, after the last failed to attract much interest - you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pornbio_2. Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a zero sum game. We all win - Mr Long got his article deleted, and we get a better encyclopedia. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not over quite yet, there is a deletion review. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bosch on Our Wikipedia? It's more likely than you'd think!

James,

Some sneaky Hun is attempting to gain Adminship on this most pure of English wikipedias. Is nothing sacred? I believe you have some basic competence in their brutish tongue (largely grunts and clicks, yes?) and so I implore you, take a stand for decency. Put an end to this tasteless farce! Crafty (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bosch means the Germans; he's Danish... --Tango (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Crafty was quite rightly blocked for two weeks for other similar comments. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, confusing da with de is highly offensive.--Milowent (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Images with no ages on

Jimbo,

Despite all the recent furore there remain images available with no proof of how old the "model" is. While this may not be a problem in the US, in the UK the possession of such images could lead to a criminal conviction, intent or not.

Could you give serious thought to this worrying problem?

Thanks

- 92.48.84.227 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC) (IP was a proxy and was indefinitely blocked Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

Possession of images from Muhammad would probably result in the death penalty in some countries... we can't cater to every law everywhere. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban discussions on ANI

If you reread the reason the WP:CSN was retired, it was because ban discussions were being mistreated. Consensus was being achieved for banning people for LIFE in 8-16 hours without proper discussion being held. The user wouldn't even be given a chance to speak, because the consensus for banning was being declared too fast. A user probably wouldn't have even signed in on Wikipedia for a 24-hour period to return and find out his user and IP have been banned after a community discussion at WP:CSN. This was common practice and WP:CSN was eventually merged into WP:ANI after it was nominated for deletion because of the abuse that was going on. However, the same is happening at WP:ANI. I wouldn't pay attention that much before, but now I have noticed that life-long bans are being carried out in less than a day. Even if a user seems like the perfect candidate for being exiled from Wikipedia, they should be given a fair chance to state their case and at least be given a minimum of 7 days for all project members to comment and discuss.

This is banning. This is so serious, I am appalled that the administrators are letting such a discussion take place in less than a day without comments from the user. Even WP:BAN#Community bans and restrictions states that discussions generally take place with a minimum of 24 hours. I would like to know your view on this and see if we can achieve a consensus with the rest of Wikipedia to add to edit WP:BAN and enforce that a consensus to ban someone must only be achieved after a discussion that has spread across at least 7 days of discussion. Feedback ^☎ 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all about Ibaranoff24. I suggest instead of blindly supporting someone you clearly know nothing about, you read all relevant material.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I read it, I'm not supporting him or any other banned editor. I just believe that a consensus for a ban shouldn't be under any circumstances achieved in less than 24 hours. Would you like it if you weren't given the time of day during your own ban discussion? Sure, editors who are nominated for banning are usually ridiculously disruptive, but it doesn't change the fact that they are users on Wikipedia who should enjoy a justifiable amount of time of discussion before being outcasted. Feedback ^☎ 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is not appropriate to ban someone for life without allowing them to comment on it, and 15-16 hours is not sufficient time. I did not participate in the Ibaranoff24/Sugar Bear discussion and don't really care if he was banned or not. What I'm talking about is the process. We allow Chuck Marean (sp?) to vandalize Wiki for years, and allow him to come back, but we take less than 24 hrs to ban someone for life? That is inherently wrong - in a collaborative community we should allow someone accused of wrong-doing to have an opportunity to defend himself. GregJackP Boomer! 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Bans are not for life, not even close. The standard offer limits almost any community ban to 6 months if the user doesn't sock and says they'll abide by the policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected - until recently I never even cared about ANI. My point is still valid, however. Even if the ban is for 6 months, the "accused" deserves an opportunity to defend themselves. Anything else is inherently wrong and unfair. GregJackP Boomer! 22:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That user was already indef blocked and moreover, arbcom is reviewing it. He won't fall between any cracks, so to speak. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. I'm not commenting on this specific case, but on the procedure in general. In this case I don't care if he is banned or not, but every user that is accused of misconduct should have a right to be heard in the original forum. They should receive notice and an opportunity to be heard at the original level. Appeals (to ArbCom) or whereever, have a systemic bias against those that have received punishment. It is a basic part of due process, whether in a judicial or administrative procedure (and we are the later) and more importantly, it is fair and the right thing to do. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a privately owned website. A ban doesn't take meaningful liberty or any property from anyone. A ban is only meant to keep someone from editing text on databases running on Internet servers, mostly as a means to keep the site open to good faith editing by almost everyone who wants to do so. Also keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or a court, most mistakes are very easy to undo or otherwise fix. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware that this is a privately run website, and no property is at risk. I'm talking about basic principles of fairness. And no disrespect, but problems aren't easy to fix. Admins are typically hesitant if not completely resistant to 'fix' something or even criticise another admin. Someone that is accused of something should be able to defend themself - until several editors noted that I should be able to defend myself, I was looking at an indef block at an SPI - merely because I couldn't defend myself, nor ask the CU Clerk to clarify his comments. Everyone was calling for me to be blocked - and I had no voice in it. It is not right to do that to someone without giving them a chance to be heard. There is a current ANI on reversing such a block, because it was determined that the two 'socks' were 3,000 miles apart - but we've probably lost that editor forever. I'm not calling for a court system, or wikilawyers, just that someone that is accused have a fair deal. Otherwise we're just lynching people. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion on AN and ANI about a month ago regarding ban discussion durations etc. The consensus was that a general minimum of 24 hrs should pass during the discussion, and that longer discussions which were productive and not degenerating into bash-on-potential-banee sessions could go longer. But there was no support for a longer duration such as 7 days, though I proposed that as one potential option. If anything is being closed sooner than 24 hrs, please point me to the particular disucussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there was one today or yesterday that closed after about 15 hrs involving Sugar Bear. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

He had the chance to defend himself at the SPI and at his talk page. He denied the sock pages despite the evidence, just like he did the first time, when CU confirmed socking, and I quote: "They must have mixed up the IPs or something." I can find the diff, if you like.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying he didn't get a chance to defend himself - he asked if there were any that were under 24 hrs duration. As far as I know, Sugar Bear deserved to be banned/blocked. My points have been directed at process, not this case. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP, your concerns are exactly the ones I brought up. We are discomforted by the procedure, not the end result of the discussion. Ban policy should be much more explicit than what it is as of the moment. By the way, GWL has opened a discussion at WP:AN to improve the banning policy. I implore everyone to participate. Feedback ^☎ 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hindi Wiki

Dear Jimmy!
Namaskar, I was delighted to see your signatures in my talk page. Really I take it as a compliment on my performance. I longed for an opportunity like this to have some interaction with you, but was waiting for me to be at some higher level of experience & contribution. Still I will be delighted to be a part of the said interview. Thanks once again.--आशीष भटनागर (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

I have recently edited the BBC ambig page. I placed Big Black Cock as a meaning for BBC. This is a well known fetish amongst the swinger community. It is known as BBC. That being said, why does it keep getting reverted if it is indeed factual?76.177.47.225 (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref. BBC (disambiguation)

Wow, this has been added and removed over 30 times, going back to 2005!^[19]

The problem is, a disambiguation page should only link to articles (WP:DABSTYLE), and I am unable to find enough reliable sources to write an article; Google Books only gives a couple of matches, not enough to avoid it being deleted as a dictionary definition (and yes, "DICdef" does seem terribly appropriate in this case!). So, whilst it may be true that it is 'well-known', it doesn't seem to be verifiable as an encyclopaedic topic; sorry. Unless others have ideas, I don't see a 'solution'; a note about this problem on the talk page and/or a <!-- Comment in the article only visible when editing --> might help, perhaps?  Chzz  ►  10:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia

Jimmy, I'm cross-posting from here, since it has been nearly two years since Sue Gardner answered anything on her Talk page.

I read in the news that Sue Gardner said that Wikipedia "has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography". We at our organization are interested in adopting a similar policy. Would you be kind enough to point me toward this Wikipedia policy? The closest thing I could find after many minutes of searching was Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy; however, that page clearly says that it "is not a policy or guideline", only an essay. I have similarly searched WikimediaFoundation.org for "zero tolerance", but there is nothing; as there is likewise nothing about pedophilia. There is also nothing on Meta Wikimedia about "zero tolerance" and pedophilia. -- Calling Occupants (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I searched for the zero-tolerance policy towards racism and towards inciting violence and found nothing also. Sole Soul (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pedophilia: "Pedophilia or the advocacy of pedophilia on the English Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. Editors who self-identify as pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia will be blocked indefinitely." NW (Talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Pedophilia page is only one month old and states that it is it "not a policy or guideline itself". Is there another place where the long-held policy against pedophilia advocacy is noted? Uncle uncle uncle 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The page is mistaken. It is policy, and has been for quite some time. It should be relabeled as such.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, such blocks can typically only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sole Soul: Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy implies that advocating racism, violence, pedophilia, etc... are not permitted. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and anything that detracts from that is obviously not welcome here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC) obviously, each of these things may be described neutrally, and are: racism, violence, pedophilia

I was being sarcastic. Sole Soul (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sarcasm always works really well online! O:-) ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(I would have preferred she had used a different wording though. We tend to be a fairly tolerant bunch. What would happen if israelis were "zero-tolerance" towards palestinians, or vice versa? ) Better to be "taking all due care". --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot fathom what point you are trying to make with that comparison. Steve Smith (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Israeli admins would block Palestinians, and Palestinian admins would block Israeli's, we'd have a right mess on our hands, now wouldn't we?

Hence, normally we're a fairly tolerant bunch. Of course, I'm personally opposed to people identifying their affiliations, just to avoid that kind of confrontation.

• I recall a Hamas-supporter being harassed, for instance. I couldn't quite convince him of my position, so people harassed him further, and I think he eventually left.
• Another instance in which things went wrong was the "Polish names vs. 'Nazi names'" debate. At one point, even a Developer got involved (oops)

In general, advocating (there's that word again) zero-tolerance weakens consensus and NPOV, and chases people away who might otherwise provide productive input.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but what does any of that have to do with pedophilia, towards which we do have a zero tolerance policy? You're saying that it makes no sense to have a zero tolerance attitude towards Israelis and/or Palestinians, which is correct, but you seem to believe that this has some bearing on pedophilia, which is where you've lost me. Steve Smith (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we were to have a zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia, we would not have an NPOV policy towards pedophilia. This is unfortunate. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My memory is that blocking someone just for self-identifying as a paedophile (rather than advocating or engaging in paedophilia on site) was quite controversial last time it happened (although it may have happened again more recently - the last case I know of was at least a year ago). I don't know of any clear policy on the subject. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize:

• Despite the statements of Sue Gardener quoted above, there is no official "policy" (long-term or otherwise) on English Wikipedia prohibiting editing by either self-identified or suspected paedophiles.
• Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia suggests that some members of the community feel that ARBCOM cannot dictate policy - it must come from the WMF.
• There is no policy at the WMF level.
• Editors have been blocked when they self-identified as paedophiles (per Tango's statement above).
• These types of blocks are controversial (again, per Tango's statement) which suggests that parts of the community are unaware or do not agree with any informal "long-term policy" against editing by paedophiles.
• Editors who have been blocked by ARBCOM on English Wikipedia (although not necessarily indicating that they are blocked for any involvement in pro-paedophilia POV-puching or self-identification as a paedophile) are free to edit on other WMF projects (per my own observation here).

Is that a fair summary of the current situation? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Advocacy of pedophilia is strictly banned. Anyone doing so will be blocked on sight and cases should be referred to the ArbCom, rather than having an on-site debate. This has been de facto policy for a very long time. Any pages on Wikipedia which do not reflect this are out of date and should be updated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the policy is that things that are illegal are removed on sight when admins or WMF are made aware, and when needed people who attribute to that content are blocked. That has always been the case and will always be the case. Apparently more and more people have trouble understanding that, so I guess it is time to start copying relevant pieces of US law into separate policies, because otherwise they don't believe something isn't allowed here.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to dispute what you are saying about the removal of illegal material -- although recent discussions show that opinions vary wildly on what constitutes "illegal" -- but that isn't at all what we're discussing here. A self-identified paedophile might be blocked without having edited anything other than their userpage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a practice of the arbitration committee and a de facto policy (though unwritten). Quite a number of accounts have been indefinitely blocked for engaging in PPA or self-identifying as a pedophile, and it's been some time since any such blocks were truly controversial. The practice does in fact amount to a "zero tolerance policy" for PPA or the presence of pedophiles. Nathan ^T 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a project-wide de facto unwritten policy, or does it only apply on English Wikipedia? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be written. There is no reason for it to be unwritten policy. It has been firm policy for a long time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, don't you agree that this should be written down as a foundation policy however ? No reason that this is limited to just en.wp I presume ? P.S. are there other people/groups that are blocked on sight ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

m:Pedophilia --MZMcBride (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is foundation:Non discrimination policy, quoted here (emphasis added):

The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer.

Also it states that "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." Thus banning people on the ground that they have identified them self as pedophile, is pretty much against written WMF policy. _→AzaToth 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AzaToth, you are mistaken. Advocacy of pedophilia is grounds for immediate blocking, and appeals should be sent directly by email to the ArbCom. This is policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different thing here; I'm talking about identification, not advocacy; People should be banned for what they do, not for what they are. _→AzaToth 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Either way: both are banned, full stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo, for your clear statements here. I hope they will go some way to reducing the amount of unnecessary debate by those trying to gauge which way the wind is blowing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is with reference to heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, not sex with children (which is certainly not "legally protected"). Your interpretation of policy leaves me utterly gob-smacked. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba is correct. Advocacy of pedophilia is strictly forbidden.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, policy (whether written or not) is very clear that advocacy of paedophilia is forbidden. The controversial issue is whether simply identifying as a paedophile is forbidden. --Tango (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Aza: This is quite different because the law in most places identifies this activity as illegal, and society in every nation has a vested interest in keeping them from spreading their crap here, that will only be flouted at wikipedia's utter peril and disgrace, you can mark my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.20.3 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• A reference to "sexual orientation," which many U.S. states prohibit discrimination on, doesn't apply to pedos. Pedos can be stomped and are in practice when found. Bickering over the niceities of where it says so will help us cement that things say the right thing where they need to. The fact that a news article is not 100% accurate is the reality of 100% of news articles.--Milowent (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I must admit that I'm pretty dumbfounded by all of this. This so-called "policy" states that editors with certain opinions are not allowed to edit here, no matter whether they have breached our relevant content policies or not. As an open editing environment we shouldn't disallow any type of editor from editing until and unless they show that they cannot edit within our content policies. We don't (nor should we) ban editors due to their personal opinions about racism, national superiority, murder, religion, sexuality, or any other political issues; we freely welcome all to edit unless they act on their personal bias and go on a POV spree and start distorting our articles. We bring bring down the banhammer only after these editors have shown that they as individuals, not as a group cannot edit within our guidelines. We can't just fully ban groups of people we don't care for, that's discrimination and goes against our nondiscrimination policy (which covers both sexuality and mental illness: the two most common rationales for pedophilia). All of the responses by Jimbo above appear to be inspired by his personal moral (ie:counter-POV) opinion of the situation. I have to wonder who else is secretly banned from editing due to "wrong opinions".

• In a nutshell: The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV: editors' backgrounds are superfluous as long as our articles are written neutrally. Editors with extreme points of view have several options, including obtaining talkpage consensus before editing and not editing within the subject at all. ThemFromSpace 04:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I had previously thought that everyone on Wikipedia supported allowing everyone to edit unless their edits were problematic, and that it didn't matter who they are or what their opinions are, so long as their edits are fine. IMO, an editor who is an escaped convict, anti-Wikimedia activist, murderer, pedophile, and terrorist who happened to bomb Wikimania along with several other locations should still be allowed to edit so long as their edits are okay. --Yair rand (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the recent comments, but look at it as if you were Jimbo (not that he does himself). All he can say is no pedos. If he said something else, the media would pick up on it. He knows he's not creating a policy page with his comments. We should probably leave him alone, now that he's said what he has to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A month and a half ago, asked Jimbo for his opinion, as Founder, on the WP:PED page. He gave his opinion which was identical to his position now. I then pointed out that we need to look carefully at the procedure for promoting the page to Policy and left it at that. Jimbo's opinion is invaluable but not binding, as far as I am aware. No need to press him further on this issue, therefore. If he wishes to comment further, no doubt he will do so in a more appropriate venue. Thank you, again, Jimbo, for taking time to comment --Jubilee♫clipman 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't claim to be creating policy, he claims that policy already exists. I would like to see the discussion which resulted in a consensus for this policy or the WMF board resolution creating it - as far as I know, those are the two ways policy can be created. (There hasn't been consensus for policy creation by decree by Jimbo for a long time.) --Tango (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now a policy

I fully support the zero tolerance unwritten policy indicated by past practice, and by Jimbo above. However I oppose the recent promotion of WP:PED to a policy (diff) because that will lead editors to imagine they can and should develop the policy. I oppose a written policy with precise wording because:

• Per WP:BURO we do not try to document exactly what an activist can get away with.
• Whatever WP:PED says is irrelevant to what WMF and Arbcom will do.
• There would be continual and pointless arguments at WP:PED about the ethics of banning a group of people (think of the human rights!).
• People would make claims re pedophilia that could be interpreted as some kind of acceptance or advocacy (they're born with it; they can't help it; we shouldn't discriminate; so long as they don't advocate harm, what's the problem; and more WP:BEANS stuff). Should such comments be reverted?
• Trolls would arrive at the talk page, and we would argue about what a troll can get away with.

My views above are not based on my regard for pedophiles, but on a simple recognition that activists would dedicate their lives in order to push articles, discussions and policies towards a more relaxed approach re pedophilia. Just being seen ("this user supports friendship with boys") may be sufficient in time to cause a grudging acceptance by some people. We are not the law and do not have to decide what happens with activists other than to continue the unwritten zero tolerance policy. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is more of a "behavioral enforcement pillar" than a policy, in Wiki-legalistic-speak.

We can sit and argue how to define it all day; the reality is, the page describes what we do and have done for some years now to handle any on-wiki activity related to this topic. Attempting to overdefine the definition of the policy is moot in light of the reality of the situation. Legalism is an inappropriate response. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you guys even know what "Pedophilia" means?

Pedophilia is a paraphilia that someone has when they are attracted to children under the age of 18 and dream about them [etc.]. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines it as a paraphilia; its a psychological disorder, a disease if you will. Those who act upon those urges violate US law, but a lot of these individuals take medicine, go to psychiatrists and try to avoid ever acting upon these urges. Wikimedia has a Non-discrimination policy that prohibits us to be discriminate towards people who are diseased.

Of course, if we have proof that a user has violated the law by having sexual relations with a minor, its very different. But if we would ban these felons, then we should ban all proven rapists, thieves and criminals on sight. However, we can't say we have a "Zero-tolerance policy" against pedophilia because #1 the Wikimedia policy is against it and #2 Pedophilia is a mental disorder like any other. Pedophilia might cause you to perform a felony, but schizophrenia and kleptomania might also. Will we ban these too? No. Pedophiliacs don't choose to be, they have a disorder that they have to deal with medically and therapeutically, but banning them from here (without proof of committed felonies) is outrageous. Feedback ^☎ 10:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Murderers are free to edit Wikipedia because there is no indication that murderers use the Internet to promote murder. The converse applies to pedophiles. Yes, it's unfair, and yes, the world is not perfect. (Text borrowed from my talk page.) Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Paedophiles are most certainly not welcome on wikipedia, and will be indefinitely banned and blocked if found. But they're free to edit, insofar as there is no way of stopping them provided that they do not self-identify, advocate (actively or subtly) or practise it (actively or subtly). Murderers are in precisely the same boat. WFCforLife (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming a bit silly. Even a self-proclaimed paedophile ought to have the right to edit Wikipedia, provided that the content they submit does not promote or encourage their sexual style of behaviour. A person's actions in RL do not necessarily manifest themselves online. Being a paedophile, or a murderer, or a drug trafficker, or someone who doesn't wait for the walk signal before crossing the street doesn't render that person incapable of contributing constructively to a project such as Wikipedia. If you raped a child in 1994, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that you're a good person in general. However, you might still write the greatest article ever written. Discrimination of this sort is insane. Nothing short. It's insane. Jbfolker2x (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia is attraction to pre–pubescent children. That is NOT 16 or under, it is 12 and under.

Make sure the facts are right before spouting off

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if it's "attraction to pre-pubescent children" then age doesn't really factor into it. Puberty would be the deciding factor. Regardless, you either ignored or misread everything I wrote. The issue here is whether or not acknowledged paedophiles ought to be editing Wikipedia. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I am), but regardless of a person's day-to-day actions, they are nonetheless capable of making positive contributions to Wikipedia. Being a paedophile is a disgusting thing, but it says NOTHING about your ability to construct well-researched articles. Jbfolker2x (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not misread nor ignore you. As you started with "do you guys even know..." I think it is important that we do know and your statements proved that you did not quite know.

You said "under 16", which is wrong, and you said "sexual relations with a minor", which is not pedophilia, and is also wrong. Sexual relations with a minor is statutory rape and is seperate to pedophilia.

Do not assume that being corrected is akin to being ignored. I am not involving myself in the debate on banning them or not but merely correcting you to ensure people know the correct terminology used by you. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you did. This topic was started by someone who is not me. Everything prior to my signed comment has nothing to do with my views or opinions. But, this isn't about your inability to comprehend indentation and signature. There's actually a discussion at hand. Jbfolker2x (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for making assumptions but you said "Regardless, you either ignored or misread everything I wrote." which is directed at me.

As I was correcting the opening statement how was I to know that you were not the same person ? Chaosdruid (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern

IMHO all WP:Fancrufty materia about pedophilia needs to be deleted from the project post haste. E/g, according to the precise dictates as are at present stated at wp:PED, the WPdia article "Lolicon should be deleted and also editors that have contributed neutral or positive information to this article should also be banned from the project immediately.--71.187.173.34 (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A deletion discussion has started here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lolicon_(2nd_nomination)--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Already closed. Jack Merridew 13:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a quick closure w/o allowing a full examination of the issues reinforces an unfortunate perception about the project on several scores.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious points were raised in the debate. Lolicon is a good article in the Arts, so it is unlikely to have clear failure to observe Wikipedia guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The close wasn't for the rationale of the afd's being unlikely to receive consensus; it was for the polemical reason of, I quote, disruption and baiting. Guidelines also say that if we happen to disagree with a particular afd close to initially talk it over with the closing admin. I pinged User:Gwen Gale's talkpage and her only response was to characterize my discussion of her close (presumably here as well as there) as "edit warring." I had reverted noone. The project's carefully drawn up guidelines w/regard careful discussions about issues and assuming good faith on the part of fellow contributors are too often disregarded by those who ought to know better. And I continue to believe it would have been more in keeping with WPdia's culture and long-standing practices to have allowed a full examination of policies vis-a-vis this ostensibly problematic article topic and that this, in turn, would have reflected best on the project.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't revert, it's true, I thought you had done, I was wrong. Nevertheless, nominating an article to bait other editors on that topic is disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerning certain topics, "baitadgering" appropriately draws out bedrock principles, reinforcing our understandings of policies.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ps with regard User:Gwen Gale's charge above:

I believe that when WP approaches heinous things eg child abuse, rank prejudice, murder &c, it has zero tolerance as far advocacy or expression of these things (and such an editing paradigm doesn't render WP "pov", since for WP to pretend that such things are acceptable in some context would be to assert a MINORITY pov, IMO)--whereas "WP:DISRUPTION" should be thought to encompass a contributor's editing at variance to npov, coi, rs, undue &c &c, something I don't think anyone can informedly assert I'd, via my arguements, been doing. Furthermore, as far as WP:TE or "badgering" goes, something like unto my having gone against the grain of fellow editors, continually, can't be claimed at the first instance of my having presented some seemingly contrarian EDITING pov; and w/regard WP:BAIT), I had/have consistently addressed issues, not persons, or even very much to concern others' behaviors.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons

Please take all commons related discussion to commons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

pedophilia policy

Jimbo,
In order to avoid a long running and really annoying edit war over policy, could you _please_ clarify something? Have you or the board, by executive fiat or some other mechanism, made the on-sight blocking of pedophiles policy? If so, does it apply to all projects or just en? Thanks Hobit (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I'm asking. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has commented on this in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Zero-tolerance_policy_towards_pedophilia above. It is unlikely that anyone who openly pursued a pedophile agenda would have a user account for very long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo says there that there is such a policy, but he doesn't say how that policy came to be, or provide any evidence that it exists. --Tango (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that would be a bad idea, from a legal standpoint. Calling people paedophiles? See you in court! The WMF seems to be taking a very sensible policy of not saying anything publicly. Verbal chat 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So we agree neither Jimbo nor the board has instituted such a policy? Hobit (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We're wikilawyering here. Anyone who openly advocated pedophilia would be blocked, but Verbal is right to point out that saying "You are a pedophile" in a block notice could lead to a lawsuit. In WP:PED admins are advised to give a neutral block summary . This is the right policy, unless anyone wants to play into the hands of trolls who could post "I am a pedophile" on their talk pages and then sue for libel, claiming that it was a joke.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing it's a bad policy. I'm asking if the board/Jimbo created it. The only two sources of policy creation, as I understand it, is either from Jimbo/board or from the community. There are claims, both in the comments of the policy and on the talk page that Jimbo has created the policy. I simply want to know if that's true. Hobit (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believes its one of those unalienable rights kinda things, e.g., "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and freedom from pedos."--Milowent (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It falls under the heading of "longstanding existing practice". Administrators have been blocking for that reason, and ArbCom upholds. In some cases, ArbCom itself blocks (or requests a block) when the issue is brought to its attention but no block have taken place. All of it is done quietly for the reasons explained above (branding someone a pedophile, or indeed even discussing the matter in a public venue is begging for legal troubles and is of dubious ethical standing). Jimbo simply restated that this has been, and remains, the case. — Coren ^(talk) 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I will write more about this sometime in the next couple of days I hope, but for now, I trust that no one is seriously going to edit war about it. It's policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples of users that have been blocked for being a paedophile rather than for advocating paedophilia? The discussions on this page over the last few days make it clear that there is no consensus for that. --Tango (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The day he does that is the day he gets hit with a long list of libel suits and his legal team resign in terror. It really isn't helpful to ask for such a thing. Verbal chat 20:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

@Verbal: Agreed. @Jimbo: Thanks. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway the policy doesn't say anything about "being" - it's about "self-identifying", for the simple reason that if someone doesn't advocate or self-identify, we'd never know it anyway. Tango, if you are unaware that people are blocked for self-identifying as pedophiles, I'm afraid you're just out of touch with the longstanding practice of community. There's nothing wrong with that, but rather than poking at me, you should do your homework.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I concede your first point, but your second point in completely wrong. You are claiming that a policy exists. The burden of proof is on you. You can't expect me to prove a negative. --Tango (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tango, I don't know what else you need. There's a policy page, marked policy. Coren from ArbCom confirmed that it is policy. I'm confirming that it is policy. It has been policy for a long time. What else are you looking for?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy page was created in April of this year. You can't use that as proof that it has been policy for a long time. Arbcom don't create policy. Where is the discussion where a consensus was established for this policy? Failing that, where is the WMF board resolution that created the policy? The discussions on this page make it very clear that there is no consensus for this "policy". --Tango (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For the love of spaghetti and meatballs with marinara sauce, and hint of oregano, could somebody please move that policy page over to Meta. It should take it's rightful place along side the privacy policy and other policies promulgated by WMF. This stuff is not up to the Community to decide. Matters that can only be resolved by confidential discussion and evidence are subject to regulation by ArbCom or Office, not by the community. Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been promulgated by the WMF. ArbCom don't regulate, they just enforce policy. The Office takes action on individual cases were there are legal issues, but again they don't create policy. The WMF board could create a policy on this matter and I wouldn't question their authority to do so (although others might - any kind of Foundation intervention tends to be controversial), but as yet they haven't done so. Therefore, moving the policy page to meta would not be appropriate. --Tango (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for a bit of history, WP:Pedophilia was created as a result of this thread at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#Pedophilia_advocacy_on_Lolicon of which I was a participant. In response to my and other's queries about where this "policy" of blocking pedophiles was enumerated, MZMcBride kindly created the current page, which has undergone many revisions and much discussion on the talk page (the archived threads on the talk page help detail the evolution of that page). I initially participated in the discussion, and created a userspace essay to look a bit at the history of this practice, which can be found at User:Buddy431/pedophilia_draft. Note that some of the previous cases related to this "policy"/practice are listed there. Also, as per Tango's request for specific example, a look at Wikipedia:List of banned users shows a few whom I suspect were banned for these reasons, but whom I won't name (but really, "self identified with an activity detrimental to Wikipedia's reputation"?). I have since practically abandoned the essay and stopped participating at wp:Pedophilia (not wishing to muddy my shoes in this contentious issue), but anyone is more than welcome to use or modify my essay as they see fit. Buddy431 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WMF policy or not WMF policy?

Although I agree with and support the policy, I have to back Hobit's request for clarification. Much of the concern about the imposition of this policy, and much of the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia, relates to procedure and the remit of ARBCOM. Most of this discussion would be unnecessary if a clear statement were made that this is WMF policy, applies across all projects, and is simply the codification of a previously unwritten practice. To quote from the recent Fox News article:

In response to a request for comment on this story, Sue Gardner, executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization, said in a statement: "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false."

My support of the way this policy was enacted is based on it being a WMF policy decree. To answer Jimbo's "What else are you looking for?" question, a clear statement is urgently required. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely policy for the English Wikipedia. I will ask the board next week about making sure it is extended everywhere, but the only place I know of for sure that it is policy, has been policy, and will continue to be policy is here. This has my full backing under all my traditional reserve powers in the English Wikipedia, as well as the backing of the Arbitration Committee, in addition to being longstanding community practice. It is just the sort of best practice for creation of policy that we have always used: we document actual practice, practice which has stood the test of time and evolved thoughtfully to deal with nuance. Some people appear to be laboring under the misconception that nothing is ever policy except when we've had a massive project-wide vote - but that's never been true and is not true here. This is not an exception or change to any fundamental constitutional principle that we have had, it is not a change to NPOV, it is not a change to Wikipedia:Consensus and it is not a change to WP:CONEXCEPT. If you are looking for the Wikimedia Foundation board to vote on this as policy, that just isn't the way things are done for the most part. It's possible but very rare and not necessary here in my view. Rather, WMF policy is that the traditional institutions and structures - many of which actually predate the existence of the Foundation - are to be respected.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that long-standing precedent is usually sufficient for a policy to exist, but I don't think that can work when the precedent is made up of decisions made in private. It is correct that decisions on individual cases of this nature be made privately: it is clearly not appropriate to hold an RFC on whether or not someone is a paedophile. However, that means that that precedent cannot be used to establish policy since there hasn't been an opportunity for people to object. The reason precedent can create policy is because if something has happened before with no significant objections, then that demonstrates that there is a consensus for it and there is no need for a discussion to determine that (note, I've always asked for a discussion leading to a consensus, not a vote - votes are a last resort when consensus decision making breaks down, we haven't even tried consensus decision making on this yet). In the absence of an opportunity for people to make informed objections to individual cases, we need to have an open discussion about the general policy. Alternatively, the WMF board can decree a policy - as I said above, I wouldn't object to that in this instance. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means, have a discussion. It is still policy in the meantime. If you think you can or should try to get support for a policy that it is ok for people to post on their user page "I am a pedophile and I edit Wikipedia articles about famous child actresses" go for it. In the meantime, it is important to understand that WP:CONEXCEPT applies here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into this whole fracas, which I have no desire to, that's a classic straw man argument. Perhaps there are people who don't want something that blatant, but would be willing to accept someone who is, say, reforming. Not everyone is completely on one side or the other. Again, I refuse to voice my opinion on this, as it doesn't seem like it will do much good regardless of which "side" I'm on, but there are better ways to state your argument. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone opens a new account, avoids controversy and does not advertise any predilections then we wouldn't know - so we're not unfairly blocking people who may be willing to reform, as we just can't block people - only accounts. Verbal chat 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. Of course, we can't block people, so I'd imagine what you just said happens with some frequency. But to distort everyone's position as Jimbo did above is disingenuous at best. That's all- if people want to have a discussion, making straw man arguments against the other side does nothing but fan the flames. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I recall, this discussion was had some four years ago and, yes, the policy is that both paedophile advocacy and self identification is blockable (on sight, on site) and oversightable. For good faith reasons this policy has not been published/publicised, since it was likely considered to be a potential source of continuing disruptive discussion. The downside is... what we see here; the low visibility of the policy meaning we are having this discussion again (and good faith commentary being misjudged). Paedophilia is simply an issue where Wikipedia, in its constitution and editorship, is not mature enough to be dealt with in a open editing format. The WMF's responsibility is to remove the debate by settling policy in the interests of the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate sketch

Jimbo, do you think it is ultimately legitimate to post this "kid-friendly" Japanese cartoon of minors in underwear on the English-language Wikipedia: File:Lolicon Sample.png?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We are getting into borderline trolling territory here, but as explained in the failed deletion debate, this image is not considered illegal under State of Florida law. As with Virgin Killer, it has provoked debate on many occasions, but has survived because of the context. Please don't keep asking Jimbo about things that belong on the relevant talk pages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is in extremely poor taste, amateurish, and as an illustration on the Hentai and Lolicon entries (a valid subject for an encyclopedia) it is WP:OR of the worst kind. It isn't, however, illegal. I think it should be deleted, or simply left orphaned on commons, for these reasons that have nothing to do with it being tacky and stupid, although I think it is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Jimmy. :~) --FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's crummy artwork, "tacky" also fits and if someone were to rm from the article, it would likely be a help and a kindness to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If this image shows that Lolicon is tacky and stupid, then it is doing a good job. It has survived because it is copyright free, and would not need a fair use rationale for use in an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research as the artist has done other lolicon images as an artist outside of this. It's just a lolicon image done in his style. Simple as that, and nothing more. It was done to provide a free image to illustrate the topic, which it does very well. It's infinitely better than the previous image, which actually was amateurish and in extremely poor taste. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I find that unpersuasive. Is he a notable artist in this field? If not, then an image "in his style" is original research for these topics, plain and simple. It's as if we had an article on Impressionism and had a homemade Wikipedia painting instead of Monet. The lack of free alternatives is never a good rationale for violating the intellectual standards of the encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jimbo, I think you're on a loser with that argument. WP:OR's statement on Original Images states nothing about the notabilty of the image's creator. If that's an issue, why is it not part of policy? Does this also mean that none of the photographs I've taken for WP could ever be used on articles, because I'm not notable as a photographer? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it need an notable artist to illustrate the term lolicon? Anything what is used inside this image is supported by common knowledge about japanese/manga art style and lolicon as genre itself (depiction of minors, around 12 years old). As long we don't state that this image is an typical illustration for an japanese artist, we do nothing wrong, since there is no rule that hentai or lolicon must have an original japanese author. --Niabot (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the principle involved is whether the encylopedia is engaging in some unacceptable activity or is merely responsibly describing it. For example, if we are treating the topic Lolita complex - themed written literature with a prominent quote box giving a representative example of the same, if such literature itself is not legitimate, to showcase the literature would, in turn, be illegitimate also.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything objectionable, because every photography of multiple kids at the beach would/could have the same effect, but does not comply to the art style. Looks like Don Quixote found a new target. --Niabot (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've just stated to Gwen Gale following her deletion removal from the article of this image, it is extremely tame compared to some material on the subject, and whilst tacky, it serves to illustrate the genre without requirement for a license. It's copyright free, and isn't harming anyone. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no defence, but how can Jimbo say this is OR, when we have images of users own genitalia uploaded and in use on articles? This is nuts, guys. What the hell is the problem??? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwen Gale, but I believe this doesn't violate WP:OR... I quote Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, - this does neither. It illustrates the subject in a format which has been published for quite a while. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just another example, that also does not fall under WP:OR

This was discussed hundreds of time. All discussion lead to the result, that it is not affected by WP:OR. Same goes for many other images.--Niabot (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, ok but can you verify that the image supports the sources cited in the article? en.WP is not a forum for original artwork, tacky or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when do we have to verify the use of images? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does. And anyone can proof it, even he might stumble on much more ridiculous content, by doing so. --Niabot (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since "forever," Wikipedia:Image#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) It doesn't have to, to the best of my understanding. The image is there to illustrate the genre and aid in its identification, it doesn't need to support the sources, although as Niabot says, It does. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite a source supporting your assertion that this given image illustrates the genre? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you try to run in circles, looping back to some of the oldest words in history: “I know that I know nothing” --Niabot (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) PS: In other words: You can't proof anything that does not only depend on theoretical thesis.

So cite a source as to that image, which is not something like a verifiable map, mechanical drawing, geometric image and so on. Otherwise, it's the uploader's own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC * 3) As I've said, it's not OR since it was created by a Wikipedian and doesn't violate WP:OR's terms for images. Not does it violate the Wikipedia:Image#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature terms either, since it's both relevant to the article (a quick google image search of Lolicon will show you that the image is drawn as Lolicon) and it's signficiantly related to the article's topic (it's Lolicon, the article is about Lolicon, ergo, it's related). I don't see how a source would help, but if you really want one, I'll go find some which describe the Lolicon format. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how taking a photo and uploading it is original research. I see how drawing a theory might be but you seem to be interpreting the rule in the strictest of interpretations. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a photo. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a photo. It is not original research, eaither. It illustrates the topic very clearly and without being pornographic, too (which is a bonus, IMO). This one illustrates the generally-sexualized nature of lolicon without being pornographic. If you do any research at all on lolicon, you will find this image illustrates the topic very well. As it is a free image, and as you are attempting to improperly apply WP:OR to it (see the quote from the policy, above, from BarkingFish), it is perfectly appropriate for the article. It does not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. If you think it does, then you need to show how it does so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the corresponding articles (Lolicon, Superflat, Manga, Anime, Manga iconography, ...) and the corresponding sources and you have all facts you need, to be sure that this image is not OR. But you play the Don Quixote again. --Niabot (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos are not the same things as drawings and this all looks to me like y'all's own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. There are probably a million unsourced statements on this site. Are they all original research? No. The fact is, most things here are not original research but they lack a citation because it doesn't exist. We tolerate them because not only do we assume good faith but we also understand that not every accurate statement can be sourced. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a photo, to be an original image created by a Wikipedian. It's not OR, Gwen. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it as original research, someone put it back. Still, a citation would be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally someone would say: "RTFM". In this case someone should say: "RTFAALOTEOTP" (read the fucking article and look over the edge of the plate) --Niabot (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, now you fall into incivility (or whatever) because you can't verify the original artwork. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You say, that you need a proof that this is lolicon artwork. What makes you believe that it isn't, after you read the cited sources? --Niabot (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, you're dealing with an obvious field expert here, doesn't look like you'r going to make much headway using logical arguments and whatnot. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It all sounds like sundry OR to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you implying that there is no free-use replacement image for this subject? Because either WP:NFCC is being improperly applied to the article or your interpretation of WP:OI is wrong. Because if all original illustrations is going to be considered original research, then it creates a Catch-22 that causes harm to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 19:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ISBN 978-0-345-48590-8, ISBN 4-88468-008-1, ISBN 978-4-86182-031-1, ISBN 978-4-86238-151-4, ... I hope you don't want more sources. --Niabot (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gwen: please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and stop repeating yourself. _→AzaToth 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't post in discussions like this, but this was one of those instances where I thought I could offer something marginally useful from both a reader's and admin's perspective. First, I had no idea what Lolicon was until someone mentioned in on #wikipedia-en. I thought it was some 4chan meme and thought it was a portmanteau of LOL and "icon"... yeah, silly, I know. Then, I read the article, and maybe it was just me, but the image genuinely solidified my understanding of what the article described.

As a test for images, simply furthering the understanding of the article probably isn't sufficient for justifying its appropriateness when it comes to controversial topics. However, if the overtone of the article is greater than or equal to the overtone of the picture, then as a rule of thumb, the picture might be appropriate if it furthers understanding of the article's text in a significant way. In this case, they're cartoons in underwear, and from my understanding of the article and the various sources in it, it's representative of the form of cartoon anime described within the text of the article.

The image could just as easily be replaced with non-free content referenced by reliable third-party sites and solidly avoid any argument about original research while still serving the same purpose; however, it's my understanding that user-generated content for which an open license is available would be preferable and more conducive to replication of knowledge than non-free images as long as the user-generated content is representative of the style of the non-free content.

...but again, that's just my opinion. I'd say if consensus ends up being that it's original research, then simply replace it with non-free content referenced by the sources describing it. That said, I'd probably argue that it's less a debate about original research as it's a debate about the overtone of the image itself (and thus about WP:CENSOR). Either way, I mainly just wanted to say that in my case the image helped me understand the article and the subject itself. Whether or not that's the case for others, who knows. *shrug*

Most importantly, however, I would suggest to everyone involved that they should take the discussion to the article's talk page, which would be a far more appropriate venue for discussion regarding the article's content.

--slakr^\ talk / 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice': To make all users aware, this thread and the discussion above are now the subject of a posting at AN/I. This message is posted as a courtesy so that persons involved may comment there. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What A confused and messy disscussion. Maybe have a break. Edit: Really! They are bad taste and I also notice the creator made Wikipedias mascot? What!? The other image seems to be...less dis-tasteful. Maybe because she's older. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Gwen Gale and Jimbo Wales are entirely correct here; I made the same point at AN/I, in a similar context, not so long ago, with the same kind of response [20]. WP:OI is phrased in a way which doesn't limit the types of images allowed, but it seems clear to me that it is intended mainly to allow the use of user-created photographs and scientific/technical diagrams, whose appropriateness can be evaluated by the same relatively objective standards that text can be. To interpret it otherwise would be to sharply limit the class of nonfree images which can be allowed. If a user-created drawing or otherwise nonphotographic image of a person is to be allowed, for example, than all but the most iconic non-free photographs of people, living or dead, would be disallowed, since user-created replacements would always, in theory, be available. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Im always wondering why you are so happy with Fair Use Images. Most projects can't use this images and have no other replacements. Now say, that no one should be encouraged to create images, just because you can be happy with FUI on EN? --Niabot (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the issue. Accepting that interpretation of the OR policy would require the removal of thousands of fair use images, which is a really strong indication that there's a consensus-by-practice against that reading of the OR policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This phenomenon only applies to wikis (languages) which have the possibility for fair use. Of course i would like to use a real moviescene (screenshot) or movie poster inside german/french/... articles. But we can't do this and we won't create new images for such cases!⁽¹⁾ Most FUI are used for exactly this case, which shows, that your indication is wrong and has nothing to do with a “consensus-by-practice”. At least if you look at wikipedia in total. --Niabot (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

⁽¹⁾ Last part of this sentence applies only to works, which are genuine.

Sketch used appropriately within the context at "Hentai" then? How broad, exactly, is the guideline at CENSOR? For example, the sketch we've been discussing (which incidentally is by the creator of the WPdia's manga mascot), as noted by Jimbo, is used on the English WPdia twice, the 2nd time in a subsection at Hentai wherein any number of subgenres are discussed, yet the subsection uses this one pertaining to a Lolita complex theme to illustrate the whole subsection. I deleted it once saying it wasn't necessary for the illustration of the subsection to single out children from among the subgenres, yet this edit was rv'd with an edit summary citing WP:CENSOR. ...Which, btw, states:

[...S]ome articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article.

--Reasonable?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How it looks to me: Someone switched from Don-Quixote-Mode to Crusades-Mode --Niabot (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Child protection policy: please clarify

Jimbo --

This morning you tagged Child protection as policy [21] with instruction not to revert policy tag without approval from you or the Foundation. The page you marked as policy, however, was an information page that did not actually state the policy but gave more nebulous information about child safety and pointed to the policy within WP:BLOCK, found here: [22].

Anticipating that you were trying to tag the policy itself, I have moved the text of the policy from WP:BLOCK to WP:Child protection where you placed the policy tag. Please take a look at this diff [23] and indicate if this is the policy you intend to tag or if you want to revert it to the softer, non-policy language. Thanks. Minor4th • talk 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your change is correct, but I don't think it makes a huge difference. There is no reason why a policy page shouldn't be informational as well. :-) But my overall point is that just as we have things like WP:BLP which are policy, and which also have implications for blocking policy, there is no reason to "hide" this very important policy in the block policy page. It's worthy of a standalone page, because it is firm policy and it is important policy.

Ideally, all policy pages should be in agreement with each other, and harmonized from time to time if discrepancies appear. I think it is absolutely fine to have WP:Child protection as a useful standalone policy page, and to re-iterate and emphasize the point in WP:BLOCK as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your speedy response and for the clarification. Minor4th • talk 18:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All of these pages are relevant to the newly tagged policy:

• Wikipedia:Advice for parents

• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Child_protection_issues

• Wikipedia:Child protection proposals

• Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

• Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors

• Wikipedia:Youth protection

The last one, Wikipedia:Youth protection is versed in much more detail and was a proposed policy at some time. This seems like a much better example to be policy than Wikipedia:Child protection. Can you take a look at it? And if not, maybe we can merge them both. Feedback ^☎ 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI - the policy now includes advice to young editors, not in as much detail as the page you referenced, but that page is linked as well on WP:Child protection. Remember this policy page is a redirect from what used to be WP:PEDOPHILIA, and that is how the policy was initially framed. It's a good question though -- exactly how much of this does Jimbo and WMF want to be actual policy, and what is merely advisory or guideline status. My understanding as this was developing was that it was meant to address the pedophile issue alone (somewhat in response to recent media reports that WP is a haven for pedophiles or some such nonsense, coupled with the fact that the policy has been in place for a long time but there was no memorialization of the practice until very recently.). Minor4th • talk 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think all of those pages should be thought about carefully and harmonized. "Harmonized" might mean one of several things: merged in some cases, edited to be consistent with each other in some cases, split into two in other cases, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. A few lines down, it goes on to say she has "two older brothers", meaning she has no sisters and she is the third of three children in her family. Seeing how other featured, high-quality articles like Sarah Palin and Gwen Stefani do not list birth dates and maintain MoS policies of including the in the lead and infobox already, I did not find it necessary to add to the Early life section. ★Dasani★ 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A few lines down where? I've no objection to the change, if it is sourced, and if the d.o.b. is handled in a standard way. Unfortunately the source listed in that paragraph didn't say that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Younger sister of John Jr. and James (Jim) Coulter. Sister-in-law of Pam and Diane. Aunt of Kimberly and Christina." It uses IMDB as a source. ★Dasani★ 22:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You added back inaccurate info to a BLP article

At BLP article, Michael D. Roberts, you added back inaccurate info, His most recent film is in the 2006 film American Dreamz. This is one of the problems of adding unsourced and poorly sourced info to the main-body-text of articles on WP:BLPs, as you have done. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The information is not poorly sourced, as I was working from a perfectly valid source. I made a mistake, but the mistake was not one of poor sourcing. Rather than simply complain to another good-faith contributor, I have now gone back and improved that portion of the article. Thank you for calling it to my attention, but may I suggest that you could have fixed it yourself in less time than it took to complain to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If instead of reverting and adding back in unsourced information to a WP:BLP article, you had worked on the unsourced information on the article's talk page, or on a subpage of your userspace, the issue of inaccuracies you introduced to the article, could have been avoided. In the future, I hope you will consider those alternatives, instead of adding unsourced info to a BLP article. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I added no unsourced info into a BLP article. I added back information, with a source, and then worked through each line of it to make sure that the information in the article was reflected in the source. This is best practice. I do not agree that in the case of routine editing of completely uncontroversial material, it is desirable or necessary to work on a subpage or talk page while in the process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In your hastiness to add poorly sourced info to a BLP article you added inaccuracy. Again, there is simply no reason why not to proceed more cautiously on BLPs, and work on unsourced info on the talk page, before adding it to the article. There is just no rush, to revert against the removal of unsourced info on a BLP page, and add back in questioned material, instead of working it out in detail, first, on the talk page or a subpage. -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You may have the last word. This is too bizarre to argue about. I'm proud of my work to improve these articles. My work was a very good example of best practices.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, nobody's perfect when it comes to writing articles, even BLPs.--Milowent (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem was not that it was unsourced but that it was dated. Despite its uncited nature the fact was correct and a credit to the article when it was first introduced. Time just rendered it obsolete. The lesson here is to avoid time dependent statements, the correct fix was: [24]
IMHO this was in poor form, Cirt. extransit (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"I was working from a perfectly valid source." "My work was a very good example of best practices." No, it wasn't. IMDb is not a truly reliable source anyway, so not a perfectly valid source, and you added two unsourced paragraphs back with your not really reliably sourced one[25]. In the next four edits you made, you slightly rewrote things, removing some "fact" tags, without adding a source.[26]. Your final update was more of the same[27]. Apart from that, you added the imdb link as a plain link, not as a reference, even though the article already had references, and articles should stick to one style. Nothing terrible, nothing to raise a fuss about, but not really something to promote as a "very good example of our best practices" either. Let's just keep things in perspective here... Fram (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB for the record fails WP:RS. It is a user generated database. It is indeed a contraduction that we constantly refer to it in external likns for referral which is fine but where possible it should be avoided in inline citations and replaced with newspaper/more professional sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia:Citing IMDb was a failed proposal, there is an apparant consensus regarding use of IMDb - here are a few discussions about the subject, which are all broadly similar. July '07, August '07, July '08, July '08, July '08, October '08, November '08, August '09 and March '10. There are plenty others.

IMDb makes no claims as to the accuracy of it's user generated content, as far as I can see, yet IMDb seems to be the source for most of the information in this article. In addition the article looks like an indiscriminate list - IMDb may be fairly accurate for film information, but it isn't a good measure of whether someone appearing in pt.1 of a 2 pt. Good Times episode 35 years ago is notable. The few additional references are all movie reviews, and are unlikely to give any insight beyond establishing notability of film appearances, so that means the main source (and only source for biographical information on a LP) is IMDb and an interview with the subject on a Church of the Latter Day Saints commercial website, discussing his connections to scientology. That's the reference for the "Right Track" program and award, which there seems to be no other reference to on the internet. Ia a Mormon newsletter more or less reliable than the unreliable (for biographical info) IMDb? I don't know, but I think this article is a long way from being an example of Wikipedias best practices. Weakopedia (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not an example of "best practices". Agree with comments by User:Fram, User:Dr. Blofeld, and User:Weakopedia. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Believing "Rainman was a hit" not to be a controversial assertion is something careful editors can reasonably disagree about, neither side's being sole possessors of Wikipedia's most coveted ^“Best Practice^”TM designation in the matter. Editors that hold to an ideal of unstinting adherence only to wp:RS, quickly pulling the Revert lever to entire contributions not passing muster? Give 'em a ribbon. Others that read WPdia's most elementary policy at wp:EDIT in its wp:PRESERVE section as saying that, time permitting, sometimes it might be good to refrain from throwing out text entirely in cases where an assertion isn't controversial, their endeavoring to fix the text by either "fact-tagging," inclusion of better sourcing, or deletion of problematic portions to recast it? Give 'em a ribbon, too.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Small Language wikipedias

Dear Jimbo Wales,
I got a talk page massage (Heading "Hello") in my user page by you. Its an honour for me to receive a personal massage from you.
Its unfortunate that my language is having some sock puppets & fake accounts. I humbly request you to confirm the originality of that massage. Will contact you with all my details once originality is confirmed.
Please apologize me if I'm making an unnecessary fuss. Singhalawap (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Agreed with Singhalawap, pls verify that. -- බිඟුවා ^{සාකච්ඡාව} 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not an impersonation. The SUL utility confirms. extransit (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Singhalawap (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales, Sent the reply to you with a CC to your assistant. Singhalawap (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Singhalawap, great! We will both be on our way to Wikimania for the next 16 hours or so, but will respond as quickly as possible!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

James Delingpole

In case you haven't seen it: [28] --JN466 12:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sort of BLP issue with Judith Curry

Several editors at WP:RSN were dicussing whether a particular blog posting[29] was a reliable source regarding climate scientist Judith Curry's opinion on the book, The Hockey Stick Illusion. In the course of this discussion, we discovered that the blog was based on a comment made by Curry at this same blog.[30] Curry is apparently a regular reader of this blog. The question arose whether this was indeed Curry and not someone else just using her name. Another editor performed what I believe to be, a good faith, but possibly ill-judged experiment and created an account at another site using the name "Judith Curry" to see if anyone would notice it was a fake.[31][32] Yesterday, Curry discovered the fake and posted the message, "If anyone spots a post with my name on it at a site other than collide-a-scape or climateaudit, it is an imposter (imposter(s) are afoot)."[33] I was wondering how we should proceed. Should we send Curry a note to let her know that no harm was intended? If so, someone with diplomatic skills such as yours might be appreciated. The full discussion at RSN is here.[34] Thanks for your attention to this matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not be going around impersonating living people for any reason at all. I would suggest you leave her alone as enough upset has likely been caused already. Attempting to contact her and say you meant no harm will likely only worsen her experience, and for what? Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a duty to let her know what happened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

She already knows what happened, an impostor posted a comment in her name on a chat forum, the fact that it was a jolly wikipedia editor testing his theory is neither here nor there, if people are posing as you do you think we should ring her up and say, no worries it was just us wikipedia editors? Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but I think an explanation and apology are probably in order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think a ban of Yoenit would be on the table as well for this stunt. Tarc (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to talk of bans, the guy was just proving a point. I can e-mail judith curry and explain the situation, i have mailed her before mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely think that a ban should be on the table. "Just proving a point" is no excuse.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Has it occurred to anyone to wonder whether it's worth this degree of on- and off-wiki effort and distress to get blog commentary into an article, regardless of its provenance? It's no use arguing over who wrote the blog comments if people have lost the picture to the extent that they think this is what building an encyclopedia looks like. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with you completely. Jeez.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the welcome message!! I'll let you know if I have any questions and I appreciate the help! MissAmericaGirl (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Al Fand training camp - 4th nomintion

There are maybe some clear eyes needed. I would appreciate if you could have a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination) and the previous Afd's. This clearly fails WP:N WP:GNG since many years but continues pushing against policy makes a deletion impossible. IQinn (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania

Jimbo is currently http://twitter.com/jimmy wales at the party in Poland that is Wikimania - Off2riorob (talk) Off2riorob (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A thought about moving admin recall forward

Granted that our problem is getting more new admins and not getting rid of old ones, it has been suggested that if there was a recall process, it would be easier to pass initial RfA, and therefore we could get more people to stand.

Thus: Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall/Alternative process#Admin recall -- moving the process along politically Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania

Jimbo is currently http://twitter.com/jimmy wales at the party in Poland that is Wikimania - Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy discussions

Extended policy discussions should not be hosted here, please continue the discussion regarding the child protection policy at the policy talkpage here Wikipedia talk:Child protection, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Real names now legally required, what will WMF do

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2008/10/123_32121.html

Looks like the Korean wiki now requires real names by law in Korea. Will the WMF comply? Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I very much hope not. Shame to Korea. --Cyclopia^talk 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that it would apply to us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WMF is a US-based organization, that's the answer.-AM ^(talk) 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That article is unclear about whether it is intended to apply to foreign sites as well. If it is, then South Korea has a choice: exempt Wikipedia from it or block Wikipedia within South Korea. I doubt they'll consider the latter to be worth it, but it's their choice (and, of course, many South Koreans would bypass the block in the same way people resident in other countries have bypassed similar blocks). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article suggests that no law is even passed yet, its just "planned". Even if it passes, what it will say is unclear, whether it will intend to apply to WMF is unclear, and whether it can apply to WMF is highly doubtful.--Milowent (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It can apply in as much as the Korean authorities can block access to WMF sites if the WMF doesn't comply. There is no doubt regarding whether Korea can force the WMF to comply: it can't. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That article is from 2008 I notice - has something made it relevant now? Citizensmith (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I should know better than to forget to check the date when given a link to a news article like this... thanks for pointing it out! --Tango (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

eh i think we've been trolled. haha.--Milowent (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldnt go and say South Korea can NOT force WMF to do something, Google tried that position with China, it didnt work out in Google's favor in the end as Google has for the most part backed down, though most China-US relations experts (including a professor I once TA'd for and two I took classes with as an undergrad) believe Google could have won a showdown if they had truly wanted to. The WMF is not Google however (Google is a superpower, WMF would be more like France at best, possibly Canada is better analogy- peaceful and respected) If the RoK really got pissed it could do some damage, though I see no reason why they would care to take the time and money to punish any foreign wiki let alone WMF sites in particular.Camelbinky (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In what sense has google for the most part backed down? Have I missed something in the news in the past few days? But in any event, your analogy is ironic since Wikipedia has never backed down with China. :) The analogy probably shouldn't be to France, but rather to Switzerland, in the sense that we're intentionally neutral. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The only damage it could do is to its own citizens. The WMF isn't a commercial entity wanting to generate profit in China, so it is completely different from Google. --Tango (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the recent series of Fox News stories and the reaction they generated proved (to me at least) that WMF is not immune from pressure. Sole Soul (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Google backed down in response to comments by Chinese officials that Google's actions of automatically rerouting those in China that attempt to use Google.cn to the Google's Hong Kong site (which is immune from the censorship of the PRC "for now") was going to cause Google to not get its ICP license renewed. Google then stopped the automatic rerouting but has put a link on the page letting users know they can voluntarily click to go to the HK Google site which is not censored by the PRC. This is the latest article from today.Camelbinky (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I very very strongly disagree with your characterization of this as "backing down". I spoke with Eric Schmidt last week about this, and Google does not consider it backing down, and in fact it is not backing down at all! Google is no longer participating in censorship in China. At first they put an automatic redirect from google.cn to google.hk (which is uncensored by google but presumably may be filtered by the great firewall, which google does not control), but this eventually proved untenable. "Backing down" would have been to reopen the censored google.cn. Instead they chose to put a link on google.cn telling people to go to google.hk.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see... though Google may want to get their point of view across to the public better, as many AP reports (including the one I linked to above) make it seem (at least to me) that Google's decision to change from a redirect to just a link was in response to possibly not getting a license renewed, and at least one last week said that google.cn was reopened with censorship and all but simply with the link in a corner to go to HK google if they so wished. Some of the reports were, like the one I linked, only hint at that there was a link between not doing the redirect and getting a license, others were more open about a quid pro quo. I understand you have better insider knowledge than they do and I am happy that you responded to let me know that Google did not back down, and I hope you can pass on for me to the people at Google that there is at least one of your Wikipedians who supports Google's position on human rights. I hope that Google continues, not just in China but elsewhere, to have an active voice and I further hope they find ways to contribute elsewhere in the world to allow free access to information for all people, whether they lack it because of government interference or because of lack of money/infrastructure. BTW- the Google as a superpower (and stronger than China on the global stage) analogy didnt originate with me, its one that has been pointed out by professors and the media, and I like yours about the WMF being Switzerland, but please dont launder money and hide stolen works of art for Nazi's. ;) Camelbinky (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

SSL interface to Wikipedia insecure.

Hello, concerned Wikipedia user here. I feel urged to draw your attention to one 2 year old bug ( nr. 16822 ), and two that are marked duplicate of it. In short, users of "Secure" Wikipedia aren't secure - they can be eavesdropped on to see what they are browsing (see 24239 for details), and, similarly, be made to execute arbitrary JS code. From where I stand, it's about as bad as it gets for a "secure" interface. As you may or may not know, IETF released a mozilla addon for secure browsing featuring, among other things, Wikipedia. But it would seem that's only a false sense of security the way things are now. I thought maybe you would be interested to know that and ideally get things moving (resolving the bug). I think it's beyond one developer (we need a secure interface to wikimedia and such) that's why I ask you - and if it's not a sort of thing that you do, at least you know which W body to contact. Thanks --Paxcoder (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would contact Danese at the Foundation to make sure she's aware of it. I never use the secure login system, really, so I know very little about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really much of a purpose or need for the secure Wikipedia, so bugs that compromise its 'security' are probably not very high priority. Prodego ^talk 01:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Prodego - your comment doesn't make much sense. You can see bug nr. 24239 for argumentation, although I think it's common sense that secure Wikipedia should be secure. Jimbo Wales (or anyone), please link me to Danese's user page and I'll be on my way. Thanks --13:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxcoder (talk • contribs)

I don't think she has a user page but her email address is dcooper(at)wikimedia(dot)org. (Not a secret, it is freely available on User:Sue Gardner's page.) 86.145.163.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC).

Website interface issue

The interface MediaWiki:Recentchangestext is broken. It won't load, nor will any of the pages it is transcluded onto. I didn't know who to direct this to. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Maybe it was already fixed?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

loyalty to loyalty

• Loyalty (AfD discussion)

As we all know, some onlookers subject your edits to an inordinate amount of scrutiny. You could perhaps astound and amaze them by editing an article on a rock music album. See my suggestion at User talk:Ihcoyc#Disambiguation. I have to have a rest from typing the "l" word. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa! I am at Wikimania now and so haven't had time but I plan to do at least one article - maybe more!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mimi Macpherson and OTRS

Hello Jimbo. I was asked to take another look at my closure for the DRV of Mimi Macpherson. I was wondering if you possibly had an OTRS ticket or an email exchange with her. If it is the former, could you point me to it? If it is the latter, is there any chance that you could forward it to me? I have full info-en access for OTRS, and I would treat such the exchange with the same degree of privacy that I do for OTRS. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Mr. Jimbo Wales. Please, I understand well that you are a busy man, but I have recently happened to notice something in several articles, and I must confess, I am somewhat curious as to their possible validity. It may be that these are complete fabrications, Mr. Wales, yet I have one query only, and I think it a legitimate one: Are such topics, including explicit content of, namely paedophilia, permitted on Wikipedia? I ask because the online encyclopedia, while very useful to many around the world, places extreme stress on near-total lack of POV, strong opposition of censorship of all kinds, and absolute neutrality.

It may be that such issues are not yours to handle, and that perhaps most users consider doing so beneath them. However, while perhaps some here might argue against this, there is the problem of legality; is such content legal, and what measures, if any, have you taken to stop users from posting such content? As quoted from one of the articles, “Wikipedia's continued interest in child sexual exploitation is troubling not only because the site hosts some questionable images, but because it can easily serve as a gateway to other sites containing child pornography.” I will confess that I personally think that such content should not be posted on Wikipedia, much less any kind of external link to other, even more dubious sites, and that it is indeed possible that at least some of those users contributing to certain articles, such as Child pornography, Lolicon, Shotacon, and many others, may indeed hold a genuine interest in such topics.

I am deeply concerned by this issue, and I would know what you think of this, and whether anything at all should be done. A policy of anti-censorship Wikipedia may have, but at least explain to me if such is legal concerning child pornography or topics involving paedophilia. Can such articles, explicitly gathering lists of books, or lists of films involving paedophiliac relationships or content (such as erotic photographs or comics), benefit Wikipedia’s community as a whole? I mean, I know that projects such as Unencyclopedia might include such topics, with apparently many there finding them humorous, but I did not expect such content to appear at all on Wikipedia. Perhaps you do not think this merits your attention, Mr. Wales, but at least comment once on whether you think such content should remain, and if such content is considered legal here.

Thank you for your time, and I beg you, understand: I truly would not waste my time or yours if I was not truly disturbed by this. Some parents just want to keep their children in a safer environment, and I hope that you can understand that; should the virtual world contain such content, if the real world is already filled with so much true sexual abuse? If you feel that you cannot or will not do anything about this, or that these allegations are completely false, at least tell me, and I will leave. But more people than you or other users may think are growing increasingly concerned over online child pornography, especially after recent scandalous events around the world, and I simply wish to convey their concerns. Whatever you choose to do or not to do, if you respond at all, you have my utmost thanks and gratitude.

Additionally, these are several of the articles I have found addressing this; these are merely articles I have found, and do not reflect my actual views necessarily, but they are indeed interesting, especially in their allegations and concerns; please review them if possible:
[35] [36] [37] [38]

UmaraSon (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have an issue with our Neutral Point of View policy. As writers of an encyclopedia, we must try to be as unbiased as possible on any subject. That doesn't mean we will refrain from posting positive or negative feedback on certain subjects. In fact, the NPOV-system means that when we define terms, make lists, write prose and supply information in general, we will publish facts without ever expressing our own opinion. However, when the facts include negative feedback from others, it is in most cases included. For example, the Plot, Cast and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen#Production sections in the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen are written in a completely bias-free style, however, its Reception section generally points out how badly-received the movie was by critics. In effect, the Neutral Point of View policy allows us to post a biased reaction if (a.) it is posted in a separate section, (b.) the opinions are from notable and reliable sources and (c.) if there is a balance between positive and negative feedback. Because pro-pedophilia opinions are basically non-existent in the media, you won't find such sections in the Pedophilia article. But to adhere with our policy, you won't see a section that bashes and condemns them either. You will find articles such as this one which describes the anti-pedophilia activism, but thats all it shall do: describe. If you believe the Neutral Point of View isn't being maintained in an article regarding to pedophilia, then by all means, point out the situation, because it can easily be corrected. If you instead believe maintaining a Neutral Point of View is counter-productive then you are visiting the wrong encyclopedia. An unbiased outlook on our subjects is necessary for Wikipedia to make sure it is a balanced and correct window of information for everyone to enjoy. Feedback ^☎ 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important that Wikipedia contain valid, neutral information about pedophilia - educating people about the issue is perfectly within our scope. We should not - and do not - allow people who are pro-pedophilia activists to distort these articles, just as we should not allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform for any sort of witch hunt. We are here to present the consensus view of reliable sources, not as platform for those who wish to put forward fringe views as valid.

Much of the press on this issue has been so deeply misguided as to be laughable. This is unfortunate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you or the WMF thought of doing advertising or more publicity events or just interviews with the media that would do more to correct the public's perception of Wikipedia? Alot is talked about on here about misconceptions of the public and the media about what Wikipedia is, and not just regarding stories about pedophilia on Wikipedia or pornography on Commons, but also about what kind of reliability Wikipedia has and what kind of a resource it is. I dont know if the WMF has the money and resources to do a campaign of the size that would be needed though.Camelbinky (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Jimbo, could you semi-protect my page, talk, and guestbook? It's unfair that I can't do that to my OWN stuff.~Wimpy Fanboy ^{t g} 22:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to handle this request. But I'm sure someone will see it here and assist you in some way soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do this, but WP:RFPP is probably a better venue for such requests. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia-PT has become a mafia

Mr.Wales, I don't know if you can help me, but Wikipedia-PT is being used for political attacks, and administrators, silent and complicit, do nothing against the problem. Users who are in favor of the Brazilian political party that represents the left (PT) are editing all pages of policy to attack their opponents and the press in Brazil. User Dornicke is one of the worst in this respect, it acts like an employee paid by the PT to "control" the pages. Block requests have no effect! These users are placing texts without sources, rumors and other nonsense. Is there any possibility that you intervene? I no longer know where to turn. Wikipedia-pt is being turned into propaganda electoral politics. Thank you. 189.4.224.177 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Link Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Many users have asked the block of this user Dornicke before, but administrators of Wikipedia-pt, apparently, protect all nonsense and vandalism committed by this user. He inserts rumors, texts without sources and general accusations about opponents of the PT and nothing happens to him.189.4.224.177 (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to Jimbo or WMF to solve other Wikipedias' problem because there is no 'global administrator' in Wikipedia. In the other hand, the language barrier make it hard to follow the situation. I think you should try to solve this problem yourself in the local community. You may open a vote to request-for-deadminship against these administrators if you're right.--AM ^(talk) 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally impossible, they ignore my requests because I'm a single IP. Registrated users have "superpowers" in Wikipedia-pt and IP are garbage to the administrators. If I registrate, they will put me into a eternal ban because I'm questioning their mafia. I can do nothing. I was hoping you could do something, this is unnaceptable, political articles in Wikipedia-pt are being used to distribute passionality, angry and hate, personal opinions and another absurd to readers. A small sample: This user Dornicke created this two categories now: "Journals that defended 1964 dictatorship in Brazil". and "Journals that not defended 1964 dictatorship in Brazil", encouraging hatred and political division. I'm losing all hope in the Wikipedia project, and I will miss completely if you get me saying they can only watch Wikipedia-pt become a mere blog, that psychopaths do whatever they want and try to take the brain of the population of my country. 189.4.224.177 (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Food for thought

If action is not taken to ensure that your users do not have to endure abuse like this, wikipedia's active membership will continue to decline.

I accept that my actions may have fuelled the comments, and therefore am not necessarily calling for sanctions (beyond preventing this user from contacting me if technically possible, I'm happy to have a similar restriction placed upon myself). But I think it's worth bearing in mind. WFC (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. --Deskana (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed- sorry about that! Regards, WFC (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

definition of an organization-public relationship

Jimmy:

Congrats on some fine work, esp. on the section on rel. man. I have a small problem which occurs not only here but in several points in the OPR literature. A definition of an OPR is cited to Broom, et al.,1997. Well and good. However, our definition of an OPR is cited as in the 1998 article, when I believe it was in the earlier (1997) article. A concern, in addition to facutal matter is that it reinforces the impression some have left that we (Led/Bruning, et al) were writing in reaction to Broom, and I've seen terms such as "responded," "resurrected," and the like used in that capacity, when in fact both 1997 articles were developed completely independent of each other. The 1998 article, on the other hand, did specifically react to some of Glen's observations (in a positive manner) as well as extending our 1997 research by quantifying our qualitative efforts in identifying relationship dimensions.

Appreciate your assistance, Jimmy, and keep up the good work.

John Ledingham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.229.72 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Gdansk

Hello, I was at Wikimania, but we didn't get the opportunity to meet :-(. I'll be in Gdansk 'till Tuesday evening, fwiw. If you're still around, perhaps we could meet up someplace? Else let's do a skype call or irc chat at some point in the coming week. I do agree that it's important to talk! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"This article is a Disgrace to Wikipedia"

Not my words but those of a recent visitor to Prem Rawat. A few years ago this article attracted considerable controversy when Rawat followers (headed by 'administrator' Jossi Fresco) conducted a massive and consistent clean-up operation of all articles even remotely connected to the subject. Most editors then simply gave up in the face of such zealous partisanship. There followed Arbcoms etc and the main offending followers were banned for a year. Most of those with interest and experience to edit the article had already thrown in the towel faced with the mammoth task of reconstructing the remaining mess. The banned followers have now returned with doubled determination to finish their job. Current impartial editors (attracted mainly by the controversy rather than knowledge of the subject) do not see the insiduous extent of misinformation but continue to express that the article appears disgracefully biased (as indicated above). A few exhausted editors think that to leave it alone is a preferable compromise. Their roles are now reduced to endless arguing over minutiae thrown at them by filibustering Rawat followers. No-one can possibly get around to tackling the bigger problems in these conditions. I'd like to but (like many others who've given up) don't have time to get past the 'owners' of the article. It's surely a major weakness that, despite all the mechanisms Wikipedia has in place to assure accuracy and fairness, determined partisans can successfully gain the upper hand over the years in this way. PatW (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, can you give me a list of 5-10 articles in this area to read, along with what you think to be the best 10 or so reliable sources to read? I can't become an instant expert, of course, but I could learn enough about the area to be able to make a more informed judgment and to study this case in more depth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do... after the match :-) PatW (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a match? (Haha, just an anti-American joke of sorts!) I am waiting for the world to get interested in a truly global sporting event like... the World Series!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he refereed to the final Spain vs. Netherlands in the FIFA world cup _→AzaToth 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm another editor from the Prem Rawat article, (I discovered the article as a mediator) and I would like to give you a slightly less extreme version of what PatW said above (no offense Pat, but you can get a bit extreme at times). Essentially, the article is under an extensive review to ensure that it complies with the current BLP policies. While doing this, a couple of editors noted (NickWright, PatW, and one or two others) that the article seemed a bit clean for such a controversial figure. PatW proposed the addition of a "Criticsims" box, but as you and I both know, those are POV and troll magnets that are often rife with poor writing. I suggested that we reivew the avalible sources and include critical content within the main body of the article. That's about where we are at this point in time. I can give you a couple of sources if you would like, but the best person to contact regarding Prem Rawat sources would be Will Beback a longtome editor of teh article who has composed a library of Rawat materials. Also in regards to sources, I am currently in the process of vetting some of the more controversial sources to ensure BLP compliance. Ronk01 talk, 01:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer to check out the situation. A simple Google search leads to a plethora of sites that in turn lead to articles both critical and supportive of the subject. I tried to single out specific articles from these sites but decided it may be more useful to link to indexes on the whole. It's due to such an abundance of obvious critical material that I think many editors agree that the article still appears one-sided to the public.

Anti

• http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm
• http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org
• http://www.rickross.com/groups/vital.html
• http://prem-rawat-maharaji.info/
• http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/
• http://ex-premie.org/
• http://ex-premie.org/gallery/news/index.html
• http://gurumaharaji.info/

Pro

• http://tprf.org/
• http://www.wopg.org/
• http://www.wordsofpeace.org.au/
• http://www.one-reality.net/wikipedia.htm  :-)
• http://maharaji.net/ (Official Website of Prem Rawat apparently)

The reliabilty of sources is historically the major bone of contention in this article. A current example is here where an editor is arguing to exclude the word 'scandal' despite it being used in an apparently reliable source. It's partly this type of constant, tiresome selective rejection of sources that resulted in this Arbcom decision. The 2 previously banned editors are again highly active on the article(s) and no-one wants the Talk Page to revert to a being 'battleground' again.

Recent reliable scholarly sources are rare but there are a lot of older ones, mostly which I don't have, and frankly my head is still spinning a bit as to what is reliable - the arguments never seem to end. At various stages these have been argued as reliable and then some not....

• http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/dlm_social_org.htm
• http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/charisma.htm
• http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/wigm/wigm.htm
• http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/sr/Soul_Rush.html

I have a few more recent in pdf format but don't know where to send them. Some of the more impartial, experienced editors have collections of sources which they are fond of. Hope this helps for the time-being. Thanks. PatW (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if my links have been too general but please understand that my involvement in this article has been necessarily fragmented and mainly limited to Talk Page discussions - in fact I have made few edits. However I am interested to help sort out the wheat from the chaff and will try to assemble pdf's of specific articles here for those who are interested to download.PatW (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll be taking a look at this later today and off and on this week. (I have a slight amount of post-Wikimania down time available.) My first instinct here was surprise that none of the sites you listed appear to me to be reliable sources at all. They mostly look like, at best, self-published websites. Activist websites for and against don't strike me as the kind of sources that are going to get us very far towards neutrality. But that's just a first thought, not a fully informed judgment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum: I see that what you linked to are indexes of news articles as well as self-published sites, so my first impression was mistaken. Thanks, I'm reading stuff.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid that your first impression would be that (in fact I've already been criticised for subjecting you to these links.) My reply was simply that I figured you'd have the wit to navigate to those articles - much as anyone might do who is interested in gaining a general picture of the subject. I agree that to refer to the pro and anti sites is itself potentially inflammatory on Wikipedia so perhaps it'd be better in future to simply go the filesharing route, although historically many of the articles existing sources have been most easily perused by editors via these anti sites.PatW (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I've sent you an email regarding this matter. No response required.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never even heard of Prem Rawat before ... but upon seeing this discussion I went I read the article. From my perspective as a disinterested (and somewhat ignorant) party -- this article comes across as one of the better BLP articles on controversial people that I've read on Wikipedia. Unlike too many other articles I didn't get the sense that the article was pushing a POV. Now maybe that just means that it contains very skillfully written POV -- but my sense was that the article did a good job integrating positive and negative information about Prem Rawat without being sensational. Hoping To Help (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I award you with this Barnstar

		The Excellent User Page Award
		I like your user page.  Polymathsj Talk 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Jimbo did not design his userpage but it was User:Phaedriel who did. Is this true?--White Shadows ^{I ran away from you} 02:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the colors. Do you like the new ones better? Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 04:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

FYI, please see my actions, here: [39]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia... Misinformation is fine, as long as someone else said it first

Wikipedia seems to be an experiment that allows anything to be published and taken as factual as long as it is published somewhere else by a 'credible source'... even if it is factually incorrect. I personally know of information given credit on Wiki that has been published by 'credible sources' which are in fact, total fabrications. To me, that's a pretty appalling state of affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmonstony (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Point them out, and I'll sort them out if there's anything going on. Claritas § 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Simmonstony is apparently responding to my criticism of this edit in which he inserted into an article exactly the opposite of what the source says. In the source, we learn that the subject of a BLP denied a romantic relationship. Simmonstony wrote that the source said that he 'admitted' the romantic relationship. His explanation now is that the further statement of "high school stuff going on" is a confession of a romantic relationship, despite the denial, just justifying his falsification of what the source said. That's patent nonsense, and inexcusable for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, we need to report content in citations carefully and in a neutral unopinionated manner. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

IPs are meaningless

not sure why i got the hate mail when i checked wikipedia article

but it seems that you all seem to think that all IPs are fixed

may i suggest that you REQUIRE log in before editing an article

the IP approach is totally erroneous and bogus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.74 (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We are aware that IP addresses can change, but they are the best way we have of attributing edits to people that choose not to create an account. We don't want to require creating an account because it would result in some people that would otherwise make useful edits deciding not to bother. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And much, much less vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to a systematic study reporting the ratio of constructive vs. vandalism edits by IPs? Anthony (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

too hard to find a person or fix things

maybe wikipedia makes sense to you but to users wanting to fix problems or report same cannot do it unless they already know how

i got your name by accident when you all assumed that my dynamic IP of the day was the same as someone you wanted to ban or somesuch

otherwise i would still be hunting for a way to contact any person or even find a *DIRECT* way to make a correction/complaint that would be read not just disappear onto some "talk" page that noone ever looks at

you all need a direct email that will be read by some honch in a timely manner and for defamation or more serious issues a telephone number to reach someone with authority to fix the problem asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.74 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that you use 'info@wikipedia.org'.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

if editing under an IP is causing you problems why not create an account? Its a common sense move under any circumstance. That is unless you LIKE having the address to your computer posted on a site where God and everyone can see it. ---*Kat* (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Real Clear Politicizing

Jimbo, I've been editing here off and on for roughly 3-4 years. I've yet to become as impatient and frustrated with the lack of help and oversight from uninvolved editors. I even felt it was quite necessary to simply excuse myself from editing the article or articles like it out of concern that my efforts and arguments have been meaningless and ignored, respectively. At RealClearPolitics, a quick look at the history and talk page shows that a quote in the lede has become highly contentious. One previous attempt by another editor drawing attention to possible NPOV violations, and my own request for comment have yielded no help whatsoever from uninvolved editors. I felt the points I've made in regards to why I think this quote should be excluded from the lede were quite clear and reasonable, initially citing a violation of wikipedia policy regarding undue weight. I pointed out that editors were attempting to keep the quote in the lede on the basis that it's the philosophy of their website, which I argued can't be demonstrated. In return, my arguments were consistently misconstrued (several strawmen appearing out of the woodwork). I was also accused of editing tendentiously, wikilawyering, being overly meticulous (okay, I'll cop to that), not understanding how wikipedia works, and misunderstanding and bastardizing the RfC process by allegedly summarizing the debate inaccurately (unbeknownst to me, I wanted to do this to predetermine the outcome of the RfC). While I won't make excuses for my occasional impatience/incivility, I still feel I've been mostly fair to other editors here and that these accusations were baseless.

As I've edited over the years, what's always been in the back of my mind regarding contentious articles like this is that it can become easy for a small number of vocal editors to make nonsense arguments to annoy and exhaust other editors to death in favor of having an article look the way they want it to, even in violation of policy. I'm not suggesting that I can know for sure that this is what has taken place here, but the lack of intervention from uninvolved parties here is alarming. I'd really like to believe in this site again, but it's hard not to get discouraged after seeing this kind of silliness so often that my words become completely useless. Ubiq (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs seem pretty reasonable to me. The opening sentence says it is non-partisan, so excluding note of the owner/ operators views might be misleading. The text suggests that they reacted to a perceived bias to their own views, but have sought to include a variety of views. I suppose other aspects of the website could be fleshed out more in the opening, but the background seems fairly balanced to me. Can you explain how it is misleading, innaccurate or undue? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My issue is directed towards Jimbo, and concerns a lack of assistance from uninvolved editors, even though involved editors went through proper channels to obtain some.

I don't believe the lead was inaccurate, but that there was undue weight given to a quote that editors insisted was part of the website's founding philosophy. I explained why I believe it's undue weight a million times on the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard, but if you want a brief rundown of the issue, just look at my argument under the RfC section of the talk page. I have since unwatchlisted the page, and don't really care about the article itself anymore. I'm more concerned with how easy it was for one editor to get away with making the page his own by constantly reverting others' edits and then providing laughable justification for inclusion, all the while making baseless accusations and blatantly misunderstanding other editors' arguments for exclusion. Ubiq (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One way to get more uninvolved eyes might be to post your concern here if the others venues aren't working. I believe this page gets quite a bit of attention. Sorry about your frustrations. Good luck. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ubiq, I know your comment is directed toward Jim, but I wanted to show my support, which I rarely do. I myself have been involved in a content disputed for a good number of months now and it's impossible to get uninvolved editors ever to comment. I just wanted to say I sympathize. Wikipedia is extremely frustrating when there is a dispute. As long as an editor or two wishes to oppose anything and has enough time to do so- they will prevail, regardless of the content of the dispute or the arguments involved. It's just the way this place is.. Outback the koala (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It may well be that uninvolved editors looked at it, as I just did, and came to the same conclusion that I did - it's fine as it is, it would be fine with that comment moved out of the lede, it would be fine to not have the comment at all, it's basically all fine and a very minor issue not worth fussing about.

I think perhaps it would be better if uninvolved editors looked at a situation and left a comment of this type: "As an uninvolved editor, I just wanted to say good work, everyone, and try to relax, what you are arguing about isn't that important."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Outback. It really is much appreciated.

Jimbo, the article seems to have changed after the remaining editors who initially opposed it conceded that the quote is essentially being forced into the lede, so it appears they have worked to provide better wording and context around the quote, which is much more acceptable than it was. Again though, my main issue is that I'm still quite puzzled as to why there is an NPOV noticeboard or an RfC process if they simply don't work as intended, as was in this case. I wouldn't see a problem with implementation of a system where long-standing editors (who have applied to work within this system) can perhaps be assigned to give input on some articles in cases where there may be an RfC or similar process that has lacked any involvement from uninvolved editors in say, a certain amount of days. I hope something like this can be taken into consideration. Thanks for your response. Ubiq (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Staying in DC

Jimbo, you are a world traveler, and I'm going to be visiting Washington, DC, soon. Someone told me that the Doubletree in Washington is a great hotel. Can you give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down for me? Thanks! ...68.83.188.157 (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We have articles also - Doubletree Hotel. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning policy

When users have a ban, it means they can either have a formal or authoritative revocation of editing privileges on one or more Wikipedia pages, usually in the scope of an article ban or a topic ban, though it may extend to the entire project. I looked up formal and authoritative in the dictionary. Formal means, “done or made so as to be binding and valid”. Therefore there must be a consensus for a formal ban. An authoritative means proceeding from or having acknowledged authority. Therefore a consensus is not needed from the people just as long as the one in authority agrees that a ban is necessary and is protecting the project from harm.

I wanted to put "formal or authoritative revocation" but someone reverted my edit. Would you say mine is more accurate of what a Wikipedia ban is? No one has responded on the talk page, which is why I'm asking you since you are the leader of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowReflection (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hindi wikipedia

Hi Jimmy! please see a message at Help Desk. --आशीष भटनागर (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough philosophical value

Is there enough philosophical value in the sentence “The law is what the majority of the people understand it to be” to be added in the Philosophy_of_law section? Same question for “The law should be what the majority of the people want it to be”. I added those as: In 2010, Florin Horicianu, cautioned the United States government that “The law is what the majority of the people understand it to be”; his deep belief in a true democracy was expressed in “The law should be what the majority of the people want it to be”. Ohnoitsjamie deleted it as being “promotional material”. Fhbrain (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss these issues on the Philosophy of law talk page, please. --Cyclopia^talk 10:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I for one would like to know Jimbo's personal opinion on the issue if he so wishes to respond and I believe that may be what Fhbrain is curious about as well.Camelbinky (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be in Jimbo's best interest to Google Florin Horicianu before answering. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify copyvio policy

Hi Jimbo, I previously noted on your talkpage how some editors don't want to acknowledge that anyone really believes their sacred texts aren't myths. No matter how many published references from theologians and religious scholars etc, are found, they are each and all automatically deemed unsuitable for demonstrating that anyone living actually objects to their scriptures being called "myth", hence by these "rules" no objection can possibly ever be demonstrated as existing in print, as the POV cannot be proved to exist.

Now some editors have targeted my personal userspace where some of these brief quotes from prominent theologians are maintained. The pretext for censoring these published quotes from my userpage keeps shifting, but the latest is someone is seriously claiming that my page should be deleted for copyright violations. I have never before encountered such a strict interpretation of policy that says user pages with brief, attributed quotes from published works need to be deleted as copyvios, and I cannot believe that is the true intent of the policy, since there is no legal copyright violation here. Can you clarify what the intent of the policy is? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The majority of your page is quotes from modern copyrighted sources. There is a difference between having a page that uses one or two quotes and having a user page that is little other than copyrighted quotes. --B (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already heard from you, thanks, I was seeking Jimbo's input. This is an unprecedentedly strict interpretation of policy that you have just come up with, and want to apply exclusively to me, it seems. You have already conceded that this is not a violation of copyright law, if the purpose of the policy isn't to avoid violating those laws, what then is the intent of that policy? To be applied selectively to userpages when a few clearly don't even want to acknowledge the existence of significant, widespread opinions, and would rather do away with them  ? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The intro to WP:FAIR and m:Resolution:Licensing policy should give the answer to your question of why the policy is more restrictive than US copyright law. This policy does not apply exclusively to you. You may also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Removal_of_fair_use_images#Possible_questions_and_responses_to_these_actions, which was written specifically concerning images, but you can substitute in the word "content". --B (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But, there is no such policy page that substitutes in the word "content" - and applies it to short, attributed quotes in userspace: that is merely your extended interpretation of it. That's why IMO the actual policy, and its intent, need clarification. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images isn't a policy - it's an essay to help users understand the removal of their images. The actual policy - WP:FAIR - does say "content". --B (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What I see on WP:FAIR is that we're not allowed to break US copyright law. I'm not breaking any US copyright law. The policy also says to use "common sense" in specific instances. Where does it say, specifically, that properly attributed brief quotes are not allowed in personal userspace -- without your unprecedentedly interpreting it that way, or without your making up brand new unheard-of standards like "well, if over half the page is made up of different quotes, then it's a violation", and expecting these made-up standards to apply...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you should be less combative, but there's nothing that I can see wrong with that page at all in any way, shape, or form. It looks valuable and contains significant helpful commentary. It is not original research, per se, but rather an attempt to gather and explain sources that may be useful for others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"You may edit this page!"

May I add this?. (It's a reference to JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speach). I've been reverted three times. Marcus Qwertyus ^{(signs his posts)} 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know that the American public is really aware that the joke is that what JFK actually said was that he was a jelly donut/pastry ("Ich bin ein Berliner" translates literally to "I am a pastry") when the proper language would have been "Ich bin Berliner" (I am a Berliner). Amazing what a difference "ein" makes... but I thoutht it was humorous. In any event, the German people knew what he meant and were appreciative. GregJackP Boomer! 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  I wonder if many people will get the joke here. Why not put it on Jimbo's German page instead? Laurent (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  There's a thought. Marcus Qwertyus ^{(signs his posts)} 17:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  Joke is wrong regardless, read our own page on the matter. N419BH 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the Germans I know all consider it true. Granted they are from Bavaria, Hesse, and Franconia, not Berlin, but all of them said the same thing, that it was not the correct language to use. In any event, the German people are much too polite to titter about it at the time of the speech - and it does make an interesting story. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a funny story when you consider the alternate meaning. N419BH 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was first told to me in Bamburg, where I kept asking for "any check" instead of "my check," Harold had a hard time understanding my extremely limited German anyway (thick Texas accent, plus I don't speak very much, nor good German) and I always remebered it. I had a tendency to use "ein" a lot more than I should... :D GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A good English equivalent would be to think of somebody saying "I am a danish" instead of "I am Danish".—Chowbok ☠ 01:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if you like this particular edit

"I am proud of founding Wikipedia and grateful to what it has offered to countless people worldwide." It was added by an IP. N419BH 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That IP is a former IP hopping vandal on your's and my userpage might I also add. Marcus Qwertyus ^{(signs his posts)} 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Very nasty attacks too I might add. N419BH 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Jimbo Wales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.225.187 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It was added without permission to Jimbo's userpage. We can't put words in his mouth now can we. Marcus Qwertyus 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

I need help. I want to be a researcher so I can research deleted pages, I only need it for a short time. Sorry if it is the wrong place, I don't want to be an admin. Thank you. AboundingHinata (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought (per this conversation) you were so busy with college that you didn't have time to edit Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I need to look at a deleted article that is important to me. Sorry, I cannot tell you which it is. AboundingHinata (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of June 18

Thanks for underlying the lack of sources for the absence of recording of the speech; I suppose I didn't bother because this is actually a quite well-known fact in France. I added a source from the Charles de Gaulle website (made by the Charles de Gaulle Foundation), I suppose one could find other sources in history books. Cheers, Tazmaniacs (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you restore order?

There was an AFD on Dick Cheney's health. It was closed as no consensus. I actually believe it is a keep since it passes all bullet points of the WP:GNG. Anyway, any disputes of the original decision of the AFD should be handled by deletion review.

As the most important person in Wikipedia, you should uphold procedures and say that is very important. The MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do is to ask that people follow the written rules which is to help write the article or use the deletion review process, not edit war to re-open or re-close the AFD.

Instead, an administrator re-opened the 7 day old AFD and a rush of delete votes came in. I mentioned the problem on ANI and those delete people rushed to close the ANI thread and re-re-open the AFD.

Please restore order. I know the article is unfinished but only a crazy person is going to work on an article that is going to be deleted in hours. I was trying to be so polite that I didn't even vote in the AFD but once people started to re-open it, this is the last straw. I created the article, by the way.

Again, whether you love or hate Cheney is not the point. If you want the man deleted, that has no bearing on the article. There are years worth of articles about him and hundreds of scientific details (not gossip) that can make Wikipedia the only place in the world that compiled this health related topic. MVOO (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's generally helpful to supply me with links. My first instinct is that Dick Cheney's health is not an appropriate article for Wikipedia - whatever is in it should be in the main Dick Cheney article, if it is relevant to anything. I don't know of any cases of articles about the health of individual people. I suppose it is possible, but it would have to be a pretty interesting situation. But you didn't give me links, so it is hard for me to look into it. I'm going to sleep now but I'll look in the morning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Health of Dick Cheney is the article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Cheney's health is the AFD. [40] was the close as no consensus and [41] is the same admin reversing his/her own close. (I haven't looked into it, I'm posting the links as a public service without comment.) --B (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'm really being asked my opinion about the procedure here, not about the content issue. I think it is fine for an admin to close an AfD and then reverse it a few minutes later upon further reflection. No harm done, particularly in a case where there was no consensus and people wanted to talk about it some more. It isn't the best possible thing to have happened, but it's harmless too.

On the content issue, my view (up above) is unmoved by reading the article, which doesn't provide anything other than excessive detail, that couldn't be provided much more effectively in the main Dick Cheney article. His health is clearly an important part of his biography - there is no reason for a standalone article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Upon looking at the article, I agree that it isn't really an appropriate topic for a standalone article. One other note, MVOO, it's hard to tell because it looks like the admin in question is in the middle of being renamed, but it doesn't look like you tried to discuss the issue directly with Ryan Norton (talk · contribs) himself. If an admin does something you don't like, there's a really good chance your questions can be resolved by directly contacting them rather than going straight to ANI / Jimbo's talk page. --B (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was the original closer, and I indeed did reverse my decision after consultation (I.E. I asked his opinion of how I closed it) with another administrator within an hour. There was no secret delete cabals or anything of the nature. Ryan Norton 01:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread is asking Jimbo Wales about the process, not the individual article. There's a huge can of worms done by re-opening it. As far as secret deals, you may have been used and a pawn. Quite conceivable that some people who didn't like it got you to re-open it and then flood it with deletes.

A little advice about life. Ryan (and others), thinking about process and how to do things helps. I've given Ryan some advice elsewhere on how to resolve this mess. Such resolution is not the best for the article but is the best for Wikipedia. That would be to keep the original decision, allow some time for the article to get better (it's a unsightly beef stew now), and then allow those delete people to renominate it after a fair period of time. No sane person is going to edit the article if it is threatened with deletion in a matter of a day. MVOO (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested resolution by Jimbo Wales

Another admin suddenly deleted the article. This is the advice about life in general that I gave him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATim_Song&action=historysubmit&diff=374777261&oldid=374695372

You may resolve this in many ways. One is to ignore and stonewall. If I were Jimbo, I would end the situation at least by commenting here that when administrative actions are done, they must be done with caution and much contemplation. What we see here is a mess created by a re-opening of an AFD and a sudden flood of "delete" votes, followed by a delete vote administrator closing the ANI thread early (which could be seen as trying to cut off any opposition or discusssion) and an administrator asking one person (a friend, no doubt) to delete the article, which he promptly does.

Jimbo, your #1 goal is to uphold Wikipedia, not get into content disputes. By cautioning others in general to be cautious and contemplate every administrative action serves as a reminder but keeps you at a distance, as any VIP in Wikipedia should be mindful of. I am confident that you have the smarts but some administrators seem to lack the managerial talent that admins should have. MVOO (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For any neutral third party reading the above, I feel compelled to point out the MVOO is grossly misrepresenting what happened, as will be clear from the diffs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the supposed "advice". For the record, I closed the AfD first, at 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC), then Courcelles informed me, at 01:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC) that the page has been moved during the discussion, such that my AfD script only deleted the resulting redirects. So I deleted the actual page as well, and lo and behold, it is apparently some sort of indication of top-secret cabal activity by Courcelles and me. Honestly. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The admin decided to revert his close (in effect relisting). It received a few more delete votes, you took it to ANI and everyone saw, which in turn caused more delete votes to roll in. After seeing a now clear consensus another admin went ahead and closed it. There was nothing out of process requiring ANI or an appeal to Jimbo. Feel free to take it to DRV, who knows? It may be overturned. Mauler90 _talk 01:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)