User talk:Aki009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Deletion of images and content

We have a lot of free content so it appears we can get it. The setup on the image upload page is based on the principle that if we give people the chance to tell us the truth they are less likely to lie to us.14:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I appreciate the fact that you are very clear about your opinion. However, it does seem to be inconsistent with the instructions provided to contributors, which specifically imply that there is no deletion in certain cases if clear identification of source and license grant are given. I had asked that you review the matter, but you make no mention of that in your response. I don't believe you have to respond to it, but since it deals with an apparent inconsistency I wish you would speak to it.Aki Korhonen 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You want the exact policy? WP:CSD#I3. The Theory behind it is basically the ideology of the free content movement which wikipedia tends to adopt.Geni 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The policy is poorly written, as it seems to take a long-winded way of saying the obvious: i.e. only public domain images allowed. This is also inconsistent with the instructions given when an image is uploaded. I don't fault you for following this policy, however I wish that you would consider pushing back -- in your position as admin -- to broaden the scope of acceptable licenses. Instead of furthering the concepts behind "free" images, this policy limits wiki to just "free" images. A two-tiered system would greatly enhance the visual appeal of the pages, and provide helpful information. A picture is worth a thousands words, as they say. From a procedural standpoint, such two-tiered system would be extremely easy to implement, and it might spur more content that's freely contributed in response. Aki Korhonen 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
GFDL is in no way shape or form PD. We allow quite a range of lisences. GFDL, various CC, Free art, CeCILL (although I've never managed to figure out how that one applies to images) and GPL (and probably LGPL) under certian condtions.Geni 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It is not PD. However, the current policy excludes images that a copyright holder would like to contribute to wiki, or other non-commercial purposes, yet retain the rights thereto for other contexts. A two-tiered policy would not be difficult to implement, and it seems to me that it is in the common benefit to including more informative content, rather than insist on restrictions based on only a certain type of license.Aki Korhonen 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
So far there are no non-commercial lisences that are not legaly awful. The problem comes with defineing commercial with the result that they are far far too strict to be useful. Secondaly we know that the existance of non free content on wikipedia tends to demotivate people from produceing free content. QF 6 pounders are fired from time to time and at least some of these are public events. Should not be too hard to obtain a free enough photo.Geni 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand this argument. However, I am sure that we could define a non-commercial or wiki-only license language that would be acceptable to many if not most of those who want to post on wiki. You are probably correct that there is other content on pretty much any topic, including the image I posted earlier. However, this case is also a great example of why this policy will greatly restrict wiki, as I have no such image to post, and I can't say where one would be readily available. Thus, this policy is causing the page to go without this image, and I doubt one will ever be added by anyone. So in the end, the policy is not promoting the concept of "free" photos, but restricting illustrations on wiki. Aki Korhonen 06:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
On the basis that we are talking about a weapon system that was used by the US it is pretty much a given that a PD photo exists of it fireing somewhere in some goverement archives. Throw in the issue that these things are still fired at public demonstraitions and obtaining a free photo should not be hard.Geni 12:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a replacement image likely exists. But as I said before, I can't locate one right away. My point is, that since I don't have an alternative that I will be able to use, it's doubtful anyone else will do so either. And hence wiki is an illustration short, only due to an ideologically driven policy that limits the content on wiki. What's worse, this is not an isolated incident. For example, based on your record, you alone have removed quite an impressive number of illustrations, and I'm sure other admins have done the same. Assuming that a good portion of these deletions have the same set of circumstances, then wiki is truly shortchanged by this ideologically driven policy. --- Would it not make sense to have a two-tiered policy, so that while there is a search for a likely existing, but not readily available "free" image, at least some image can be used? Aki Korhonen 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
experence suggests that the existance of non free content prevents the appearence of free content. See also meta:Eventualism.Geni 17:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
However creating and enforcing a monopoly is never welcomed with open arms, and rarely furthers the free development of ideas and content. Unfortunately a quick scan of wiki shows that there aren't that many illustrations out there, and a recurring topic is the deletion of images solely because the owner desired to only license the work for wiki or non-commercial purposes. So do you really want to place an ideology in front of a great useful project? It's obvious that already a large number of contributors are turned off by such ideologically driven policies and ultimately wiki will never be what it could have been. With the current trends being what they are, it's only a matter of time before someone (can you spell G-o-o-g-l-e) begins a competing project without such limitations, and then your hopes of supporting "free" content by refusing any alternatives have merely furthered the demise of wiki, and not the availability of "free". Aki Korhonen 18:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
rming ident
there are 960,552 media files on commons and rather a lot on wikipedia. Competition exists in various forms both in the forms of wikis and images hosts (flickr comes to mind). Some have image lisence policies that are more liberal than wikipedia. We seem to get by ok and have produced significant amounts of free content that would otherwise not exist. Google would be unable to use non comercial use only images so in this case they are not a concern.Geni 19:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The raw numbers are always deceiving. It's the ratios that probably show where the action is. I'd love to know how many images per topic there are these days, compared to before wiki began its "free"-image-only experiment?
Also, a commercial competitor could certainly use non-commercial-use images, as the prerequisite for posting any image is the right for the site itself to carry the image; this is similar to those who want to post "wiki-only" images. It seems that my point is not being noted, which is that there is a lack of images on wiki, that the policy of only accepting "free" images is greatly restricting contributions (based simply on the number of complaints and deletions that I see taking place in just the few days that I have been paying attention to this) and that this policy will over time lead to disappointed contributors who will likely stop contributing. This will make wiki a place with much text and few pictures in the near term. In the long, the fact is that an enforced limitation such as this is a typical spurring element for a replacement to come forth. Presumably such replacement would set aside ideology for the common good, which is a jointly-created encyclopedia, not a only-free-content-may-apply encyclopedia.
I will not assert the topic at this time, but there is a special quality to images that sets them apart from the other forms of expression, which in turn raises even more questions about the "free"-image-only policy on wiki, as the policy is not being even-handed to its contributors.
I think you want Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).Geni 12:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Review

I would like to list User:Geni for review of use of their admin privilages since they seem to be so quick to delete acceptable images. I need someone to second the motion. If I submit their name for review, will you second it?--Twintone 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would say that I don't know enough of the related history. However, in this case Geni is extremely clear about his view, he did not do as I had asked him to (review the inconsistency in his editing and the apparent conflict to instructions provided to conributors), and while I can't tell that it is incorrect, it does seem to be inconsistent. So, yes, I will second it, but with the note that I'm doing so due to the inconsistency. Aki Korhonen 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Fixya from troubleshooting page

I noticed you removed Fixya from the troubleshooting page. The issue was open for discussion and there were no objections. Fixya is a new approach to troubleshooting - leveraging the web2.0 concept. Being an evolution in the concept I believe its place is in the article. 89.138.83.80 08:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but after one click I was offered "buy" links, which doesn't seem to be as much a new approach to troubleshooting as it is to selling. I don't see a big deal with commercial links (and I am an active supporter of business), but I felt that there had to be a bit more separation between Wiki and a commercial site like that. I would have no objection if your company has a wikipedia page, describing what you do and linking to your website, and link to that wikipage from the troubleshooting article; though I readily admit that a potential problem is that some wikipolice might object to such a wikipage. (I find it offensive that some try to limit descriptives of companies that want to have a page to describe themselves, but it seems to happen all the time.)
Since this is a business matter for you, I would offer no objection to putting the link back if you first try to have a wikipedia page describing your company and your site, and some overzealous wikipolice happens to delete it. To make the page helpful, I would suggest being open about the business linkage. It's nothing to be ashamed or secretive about, and makes it clearer how the site is paid for and who is providing the service.

[edit] Regarding "responsibilities of those who cut"

Aki,

It was not my intent to offend you in any way. Since you've been with the community for quite awhile and know how this works, I'm rather surprised at your reaction.

As with anything else, it was my opinion that what you added constituted personal commentary and was not encyclopedic. You're certainly welcome to add the cuts back, reword them, put them somewhere else, or whatever... that's the beauty of this project.

Just to explain in more detail my thought process... your personal, positive experiences with the G1000, while interesting, aren't informative to the audience of the article, as I perceive it. The troubleshooting information is also interesting, but beyond the scope of the article. We could easily have tens (if not hundreds) of full pages of troubleshooting data for the G1000 since it's such a complicated beast.

In short: sorry you felt slighted.

ChadScott 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Images and RoHS content

Sorry, but I deleted your tin whiskers image from the RoHS article as it is already found in the referenced tin whiskers article. Why do you feel this is so important? IMHO the article is about RoHS, not tin whiskers, and the Criticism section loses focus. As stated in the discussion, there is already an overall negative tone to the writing, and this just reinforces it. I'd like to continue to add more balance by expounding on the "Pros" section.

Prosecreator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosecreator (talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in bringing balance to the article. However, this is achieved by adding to the "pros" section, and not removing from the "cons". The image, while arguably duplicative, is a very illustrative example of the discussion at hand. Where else can one find a "with" and "without" that's as clear?
The reason I stated "arguably duplicative" is that (1) not every reader of one page will also peruse the other; and further, (2) the purpose of the image in each instance is different. In one it illustrates the growth of tin whiskers as a discussion topic, in the other it discusses the impact that certain regulation has had; same image, but different purpose.
If we really must make choices (and I would argue we don't), I would move the SOIC whiskers to the tin whiskers discussion, as it fits the whiskers discussion better, and leave the with/without image on the RoHS page, as it illustrates the impact of regulation better.Aki Korhonen 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea as the with/without image shows the whiskers phenomenon and a contrast in material choice. It's a little deceptive, as companies have found ways to mitigate the problem and tin whiskers are not new to RoHS - something we could put in the "Pros" section. Would you do the honors of moving the images? I will attempt to expand on the "Pros" section as time allows - any help would be appreciated.
User:Prosecreator 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That sounds great with me. Do you want to move the images? I'm out of town today and can't attend to it until tonight or tomorrow. As to the "pros" section, the mitigation of whiskers should probably be described in detail in the whiskers article. I wish I would hear more about longer term experiences relating to the criticisms (presumably things not being as bad as it sounds now), but it's probably a few years too early for that. To put things in perspective, few people worried about tin whiskers in the 90's. I don't have data on the total volume of pollution that would be mitigated, which should be mentioned (it would be helpful to state this as a percentage of whole, too.) Also the focus on lead is getting too much attention, as the other chemicals are real nasties (in a way, RoHS would've been a no-brainer had lead been left out of it.) Aki Korhonen 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tin Whiskers

Hi Aki,

I incorrectly stated that the failures in the references were attributable to leaded solder - my mistake. However, if you read the text surrounding the references it says and implies that the *new* lead-free solder formulations resulted in the failures cited. This is incorrect, hence my alteration of the wording. Do you have an idea how to state this more clearly? I would like to either change the context or move the references to the tin whiskers article as it is misleading, in my opinion.

Thanks! Prosecreator 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with making a distinction that the examples are of tin whisker growth in high-tin-content formulations and not in the particular lead-free solders, but it should also say that these examples can provide a good indication as to what long-term reliability can be expected from the new lead-free solders that are also high tin content products.
I can't state this as an absolute as I haven't reviewed every solder out there, but as I understand it, every SAC lead-free solder exhibits whisker growth, albeit at rates that are seen as acceptably slow for consumer applications. The problem is that changes to the atmosphere or chemical contamination even in minute portions can speed the whisker growth to rates that cause premature product failure. Quicksilvers concern is well placed, in that such failures in safety critical applications can be catastrophic. Aki Korhonen 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aki,

Thanks for adding the info on the Swatch RoHS exemption to the RoHS article. Do you know what the outcome of this is? Apparently there's some debate as to whether it was a lead-free issue:

http://www.dfrsolutions.com/Assets/2007_January_Newsletter.pdf

Also, should I eliminate the small business argument in the criticism section? The link is dubious at best.

Thanks!

Prosecreator (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Prosecreator, long time no talk (the reasons for which you probably know from my user page). I don't have much more details on the Swatch issue in form that would make sense to put in wikipedia, but the "word" is that the issue was not only whisker growth, but also the environment in which watches are used -- e.g. vibration and jolts, making brittle joints more likely to fail. This explains why Swatch took the position that they would not accept a lead-free solution for their flip-chip parts. Some additional (but nowhere enough) information is here http://www.pcb007.com/anm/templates/article.aspx?articleid=7121&zoneid=114&v= .
As to cutting the small business side, I'm not completely agreeable. The example is not perfect, with that I agree, but it does reflect the situation faced by many small businesses when it comes to complying with RoHS. I know of one family-owned business (in the US) that struggled hard to make a second lead-free line available next to the SnPb line, and things like that can provide the death to independent operators. The effect is similar to the California regulation for double-hulled gas station tanks from a decade or two ago, when many/most independent operators were forced out of business by that law. It's not so much that I disagree with the intent of the regulation, but the effect was harsh on the independents, and caused a still-continuing spike in gas prices in California due to drastically reduced competition at the retail level. I wish we could find a better example for the RoHS article, but in the absence of it, I'd like to keep it in.
Aki Korhonen (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm glad you're still contributing! If I see a better reference on small business effects, I'll replace it. I sent an email inquiry to Dr. Fischer cited in the reference on Swatch, but he has not responded. Prosecreator (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Aki - I finally heard back from Dr. Fischer of DFR Solutions. He provided Swatch's original exemption request plus the consultant recommendation the EU used to decide against the exemption. There's also no mention of a recall. I can email you the documents if you like. I guess the Guardian made a mistake. The consultants found that another vendor of quartz resonators had a RoHS solution that should work for Swatch. Interesting reading. Prosecreator (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I dug up a related summary (http://www.orgalime.org/issues/RoHS_EU%20Overview%20Exemption_Jan07.pdf) and found that Swatch had asked for two exemptions, and got only one. They asked for the crystal and the fine pitch BGA solder to be exempted. The decision was to allow the exemption for fine pitch components, and is now exemption number 23. Swatch was not named in the decision, but the exemption is reflective of their request and no other request for fine pitch components was present (at least as far as I can tell). Swatch also resubmitted the crystal exemption for the next round. Aki Korhonen (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice find. This is confusing stuff. In the document I have, it looks like HP had first asked for the fine-pitch exemption - so perhaps this is what we're seeing. I have asked Dr. Fischer to elaborate, he implied that both of their exemptions were denied, but the request was in January 2006, so perhaps more has transpired since. What aggravates me is how you can find things on the web that appear to be simply wrong on this - If they assert something often enough, people think it's fact. Someone has already added back the Swatch section. So perhaps once we learn more, rather than removing it, we could change it to reflect new information. Please see the RoHS discussion page for some more detail I found - I feel like a detective. :) Prosecreator (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Aki - thank you for helping with the RoHS article. I've enjoyed discussing it with you and together I think the article is much better than it was just months ago. Prosecreator (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Aki - Thanks for restoring the Cookson Electronics image. Would you like to wager how long it will stay up this time or what other image will be targeted next? :) Prosecreator 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be Civil

What's with throwing random insults at me on the talk page of Fidel Castro? You called me an "anonymous coward", but frankly there's nothing more cowardly than throwing such insults at someone just because you disagree with them. 172.202.16.247 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Several blogs that I follow tend to identify individuals who won't divulge at least a name as "anonymous cowards". While it might seem a random insult to some, this is intended to motivate contributors to identify themselves. I am not asking you to register for reasons that I have explained in the talk page for EJ's IP address. However, I would like to attach a name, and not a number, to an opinion. It would also help distinguish between individuals if they share a single IP address.
I hope that you reread my comment in the Castro talk page. I do not use personal insults to further my arguments, even though regrettably many like to do that.
As to differences of opinion, I don't know if we have them or not. In the discussion I addressed the fact that you -- as an unnamed contributor -- were making what appeared to amount to policy statements as to the content of a joint work. So you know, I have no difficulty in dismissing information that is not backed by published sources, but on the converse, I don't dismiss the effort of finding sources for what would be relevant information.
As to the topic itself, I am under the impression that Castro has been somewhat of a Casanova, but I don't have specific references to it. Once someone provides them, we can all review them at that time. Aki Korhonen (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. No hard feelings! :D 172.202.16.247 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EJ block

I'm on my way to bed, and offline for the night, but I will reply in more detail in the morning. However, to explain briefly, El Jigue was not blocked in anyway for his opinions or his views, but rather for the way he interacts with other editors. I did not block him, and I am obviously not the only administrator capable of unblocking him. The only reason I provided my own email address is because I would not give out another admin's email address without their permission. Rest assured EJ knows the email address of the unblock mailing list, as he has emailed it before (his unblock request was declined). You can find more information about the block here and here. I will give you a more detailed response in the morning. Natalie 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, thank you for opening a dialog on this topic. I read the references (and most if not all of the 2nd and 3rd tier references) relating to this topic. It seems to me that EJ's offense -- if there has been one -- is merely to annoy some administrators.
To call EJ as someone pushing a POV, while at the same time ignoring blatant inaccuracies and imbalanced statements in relevant articles, does indicate to me that EJ is trying to bring balance to the content. Instead of rejecting his view and the information he brings to the table, his input should be welcomed as a very important part of the wikipedia process.
Sadly, what I am witnessing here is that EJ is not only being shut out of the wikipedia process entirely, but now he has even been blocked out of his only outlet, his own talk page. The argumentation for such blatant censorship makes little sense to me. You stated on his talk page that "Wikipedia's blocking policy is quite clear that, while you are blocked, you should not be using your talk page to attempt to edit the article."
All I can say is: how could EJ possibly edit an article using his talk page?
Are you saying that EJ should not even be able to express his opinion on his own talk page, an opinion that others would then need to weigh, and based on their own independent judgment use as basis for making changes to wikipedia articles?
This tends to lend some considerable weight to EJ's claims that he is being blocked for reasons that raise some serious concerns about the direction in which wikipedia is headed.
Aki Korhonen 06:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the best way to continue this dialogue is to answer your questions one by one. Feel free to refactor this if it is easier for you. This is also quite long, so thanks for bearing with me.
You write: "Natalie, thank you for opening a dialog on this topic. I read the references (and most if not all of the 2nd and 3rd tier references) relating to this topic. It seems to me that EJ's offense -- if there has been one -- is merely to annoy some administrators."
In a certain sense it is true that EJ annoys people, but it is not simply administrators and he was not blocked simply because he is annoying. I cannot stress this enough: The problem is not with the content of his edits or with his personal opinions. The problem is with his behavior towards other editors. What I have seen is El Jigue attacking anyone who makes an edit he disagrees with, no matter how minor or neutral. Rather that discuss edits, he simply makes ad hominem attacks, a fallacious form of argument, and revert wars to his preferred version. Once someone has made any edit he disagrees with, he considers every single edit they make suspect, and reverts them blindly. He has done this to me, which is how I became aware of the problem, and a quick perusal of his talk page and Talk:Cuba suggests he has done this to many, many people. This is certainly annoying, but more importantly, is it blatantly and patently against the rules. Ownership of articles is strictly prohibited, both by Wikipedia's internal rules and the GFDL license under which he contributed. Edit warring is also prohibited by Wikipedia's rules.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "2nd and 3rd tier references", so I really can't address that point. Are you referring to the references in the article?
You write: "To call EJ as someone pushing a POV, while at the same time ignoring blatant inaccuracies and imbalanced statements in relevant articles, does indicate to me that EJ is trying to bring balance to the content. Instead of rejecting his view and the information he brings to the table, his input should be welcomed as a very important part of the wikipedia process."
I do not know what biases and inaccuracies, if any, exist in the various articles that treat Cuba. It is certainly true that El Jigue has a strong opinion on Cuba, as he is more than entitled to, and that there are many Wikipedia editors who have strong opinions about the articles they edit. But, as I have said before, the problem with EJ is not the content of his contributions, but the rude and demeaning way he chooses to interact with others. His input was certainly welcomed, until his behavior because so objectionable that the benefits of his input no longer outweighed the detriments of his behavior. Sorry for repeating myself again, but his view is not being rejected. I believe their are other editors with similar viewpoints (User:Freedomwarrior comes to mind, and perhaps yourself) - have these users been blocked along with El Jigue? They have not, because they edit in the spirit of collaboration, good faith, and civility. El Jigue does not edit in a way that is acceptable on Wikipedia, so he has been shown the door.
Sadly, what I am witnessing here is that EJ is not only being shut out of the wikipedia process entirely, but now he has even been blocked out of his only outlet, his own talk page... All I can say is: how could EJ possibly edit an article using his talk page?"
I suppose I was not as articulate as I possible could have been, but what I am trying to say is that he is trying to influence the content of the article from his talk page. He is also continuing his harrassment of his fellow editors, which is the main reason he was blocked in the first place. The blocking policy allows for blocks when an editor's conduct is "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." I also direct your attention to the protection policy, which states that talk page protection is allowing in the case of "disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page." El Jigue has been blocked for continued disruption, the nature of the disruption has been explained to him dozens of times, but he continued the same behavior on his talk page. So it was protected. This protection has been confirmed by other adminstrator's on the noticeboard.
El Jigue has not been completely shut out of Wikipedia, as he is aware of the unblock mailing list - he has emailed it at least once, although the unblock was declined. He also has my email address, and as I said on the Administrator's Noticeboard I would not make any decision myself but would bring the issue to the noticeboard. I only gave him my email address because I would not give out other people's email address without their permission and without an account, he is not able to to the "E-mail this user" technical feature.
You write: "Are you saying that EJ should not even be able to express his opinion on his own talk page, an opinion that others would then need to weigh, and based on their own independent judgment use as basis for making changes to wikipedia articles?
At this point, yes, I am saying that. El Jigue has been given many, many chances to change his behavior. He has been blocked repeatedly, by multiple administrators, and in more than one project. As User:Durova said on the Administrator's Noticeboard, there has been no learning curve. He is either incapable or unwilling to change the way he interacts with his fellow editors, despite having been given numerous chances.
Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", but no one has an inalienable right to do so. The encyclopedia only works when the users are respectful of each other and respectful of the rules and processes that govern this community. El Jigue has shown that he has no intention of respecting these processes and has no intention of respecting his fellow editors. He has been given numerous chances to learn and reform, and he has rejected them. At this point, he is probably considered banned by the traditional definition - I doubt any adminstrator would be willing to unblock.
This is already quite long, so I'll shut up now. I'd be happy to share my perspective of this situation, if you wish. I'd also like to compliment you on your calm, reason, and civility in discussing this matter. Natalie 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the lengthy response. I believe I understand the reasoning you are putting forward, and there is a lot that I am in no position to agree or disagree with. However, I believe your reasoning to be faulty in a two respects:
  1. from the little that I have seen, EJ's comments are being excluded even when the behavior that you are describing is not taking place, and
  2. EJ is being locked out of his own talk page, where none of the things that are stated to be the basis for his "ban" can possibly be taking place.
Of the two, the second is a significant indictment of the actions and inactions by administrators. I would have a much easier time agreeing with your point of view if you (and presumably others) were to act only to restrict the behavior that directly impacts others in violation of collaborative editing principles.
However, locking EJ out of his own talk page removes his ability to have any voice at all. There is no reasonable rationale that I can see for preventing someone from expressing his own opinion on his own talk page unless such expression is obscene to quite an extreme decree. After all, him making comments on his own talk page does not change the content of a single article unless someone else agrees with him.
Hence it is my inescapable conclusion that by preventing EJ from expressing his opinion in any form, including on his own talk page, wikipedia has crossed the line between "editing" and "directing" to pure censorship.
For the sake of wikipedia, I hope that your doubts will be proven wrong when you say that "I doubt any adminstrator would be willing to unblock."
It is my opinion that EJ's access to at least his own talk page should be restored so that his point of view and information that he wants to bring forth will have an avenue for expression. I believe that whose who locked him out of his own talk page owe him that much at the very least, without requiring any further action on EJ's part. If not, those who blocked his access to his own talk page should, in my view, be ashamed of their actions.
Aki Korhonen 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. As to the tone of conversation, I want to assist in communicating on the topics and facts at hand and not something else. I'm also appreciative of the volunteer work that many have put into wikipedia, even if some of that work may have been misguided or plain wrong. Aki Korhonen 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel that locking EJ's talk page is a large detriment to the project. However, bear in mind that he has no inherent right, morally or legally, to edit Wikipedia. You're right that protecting his talk page removes his ability to edit Wikipedia in its entirety, but surely the whole internet is not closed to him. This is a collaborative project at its heart, and his attitude and behavior is antithetical to a collaborative project. To give a bit of idea of what interacting unexpectedly with EJ is like, I'd like to share a bit of my experience:
As far as I can recall, I had not edited any article about Cuba until November 18. As I think I said on his talk page, I read the article carefully because I was doing some research for a class I am taking and we had been discussing Cuba. I found the article to need some copyediting and cleanup, and I attempted to begin that process. For a reason I still don't entirely understand, EJ reverted every edit I made and claimed it was a "pro-Castro POV". Mind you, I shortened a section because it had a main article and removed the massive quotations from some of the references. To claim that this is somehow "pro-Castro" is rather spurious, I think. Despite the fact that I did explain my edit on the talk page, EJ also characterized it as having not been explained at all. At no point did he actually attempt to dialogue with me, and he proceed to revert every single edit I made to the page, including edits which corrected capitalization, removed excessive spaces, and reverted vandalism.
Reviewing his edit history, block log, talk page, and Talk:Cuba illustrated to me that he had been treating all other editors to the Cuba page in this same way. My attempts to start a conversation with him were rebuffed with statements that I was not "qualified" to edit the article because I was obviously pro-Castro. He never did explain what edit made him think I was pro-Castro, but I don't expect him to. From what I have seen in his edit history, any editor who agrees with him about anything is automatically "pro-Castro" in his view.
I have been a volunteer here for about a year and a half, and I have seen quite a bit. I've been called a lot of names, I've been misjudged in many ways, but I've never interacted with someone so unwilling to assume the good faith of his other editors. Considering my own experience despite my thick skin as a Wikipedia editor, I cannot imagine what effect his attacks would have on a less experienced editor. The behavior is, quite simply, unconscionable.
If he had used his usertalk page only to make suggestions about Cuba, I probably would have left it unprotected. However, he used the page to make obviously untrue statements about edits I and another editor made. I suggest you read the opening post at Talk:Cuba#Class_privilege, and then read EJ's representation of that post at User_talk:208.65.188.149#Off_they_go_to_remove_material. His claims are patently false, as well as mean spirited, against an editor he has never interacted with. That he would direct such comments to a perfect stranger demonstrates his unwillingness to assume the good faith of other users. I explained why this was unacceptable, and he continued in the same manner. Thus he no longer has the venue to complain on Wikipedia. If at some point the desire to contribute is stronger than his desire to bash his fellow editors, he will be welcomed back.
As I said before, no other editor with the same viewpoint has been blocked, at least not that I'm aware of, so his view is still well represented in Wikipedia. I would invite to contribute to Cuba and its related articles yourself, if you feel you have something to add. However, the behavior he has exhibited is so basically contrary to the structure of Wikipedia that, he is not welcome here. Natalie 05:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[unindent for readability]
Natalie, there is no need to feel sorry for a difference of opinion on this topic. I respect your position on it, even though I believe it to be mistaken with potential damage to wikipedia in the long term.
I believe I understand your position even better now, and why you and others would see it appropriate to block EJs access to editing pages. To go to the extreme, for all you know, you are dealing with a nutcase using library computers in an asylum. (No offense intended, EJ, in case you read this, I'm using this for illustration only.)
However, in the interest of free flow of ideas and opinions, it would serve wikipedia well to not block user talk pages in these kinds of cases. The similarity to freedom of speech as exercised in the "real world" is striking. While under the banner of "freedom of speech" some make incredibly damaging proclamations, it is tolerated as the repercussions of limiting that freedom of speech are usually difficult to predict.
This is why it seems to me to be reasonable that if EJ were only limited to his talk page, the damage that you describe would be limited to a location that someone would have to seek out, and hence would be unlikely to be as widely felt.
In the end, I just need to ask once more if you (and with this I'm speaking to all the readers of this article, and not particularly you, Natalie) really are sure that this is what wikipedia wants to be known for? Censorship and shutting out of ideas and opinions?
I for myself vote that this is absolutely not what we should do.
As to my involvement, I prefer to limit myself to areas in which I have expertise, which are mainly technical and military historical topics. Though I do believe all of us have a joint interest in making sure that no voice -- almost without regard to the insultingness thereof -- is muffled. And hence you find me making these statements here.
I should add that if I had observed a pro-Castro voice being treated the same way, I would have spoken up for him/her, too. In the end wikipedia needs to provide a balanced presentation of all views if it is to maintain relevancy.
Aki Korhonen 07:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
While I understand your position, in regards to free speech, I think the damage done by an attitude such as EJ's outweighs the benefit of his opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are not contesting the fact that his behavior towards others is unacceptable. Rather, it seems that you are saying that the benefit of his opinion or expertise, if he has anyway, outweigh whatever harm is done by his attitude. Because EJ was given numerous chances, more than many long term POV warriors have been given, I disagree.
As I have said before, the many other editors I presume share his viewpoint are still welcome to edit, and they will always be welcome provided their behavior falls within Wikipedia's accepted standards. This indicates to me that Wikipedia still welcomes all opinions. EJ was also given many, many chances to change his behavior. He has been blocked, under at least two different IP addresses, about a dozen times. His talk page was not protected until he began misusing it, and until he continued misusing it after a final warning. I think, then, that he has given enough chances to make it clear to me that he has no intention of changing his ways.
A famous US Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, is quoted as saying "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I think this is the crux of the matter. EJ has been hitting people with his fist, metaphorically, but when he has been informed of this and asked to stop he has not. Thus, it is acceptable in my opinion to remove him from the community in which he is hitting people. Natalie 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I do need to correct the misimpression that I might have left that I agree that EJ's behavior towards others is unacceptable. I should have stated more clearly that all I have seen is him expressing his opinion strongly, but that I had not myself seen the behavior you (and others) were describing. However, I did not want to use that as a reason to doubt that you (and others) felt that they had -- in some manner -- been proverbially hit or that EJ had been abusive.
I do understand that you (and others) are having great difficulty communicating and working with him. If that is so, I also understand why limits were to be placed on his editing capabilities in shared articles. Without knowing all of the circumstances, I can't say that I support the decision to block access, but for purposes of this discussion I'm assuming that you and others had reasonably good arguments for proceeding with a block.
However, I do believe you are gravely mistaken in using language such as "until he began misusing [his talk page]". It should not be possible to misuse ones talk page, as the content of it should only be moderated by the user himself.
I believe I have heard the quote you mentioned, but I don't believe it fits into this discussion. EJ is not swinging his fist at you (and others), but his tongue (or in this case, letters from his keyboard). He might use forms of expression that you disagree with, and he might feel to be intolerable with personal attacks and verbal abuse.
But you should have more faith in people's ability to weigh the source. EJ will marginalize his opinions if he continues baseless personal attacks and sooner or later nobody will listen. If his personal attacks -- or his opinions -- are valuable enough for others to believe in them, I'm sure that there will be some discussion or helpful edits in wikipedia.
Locking EJ out entirely is not in the spirit of a free community, a free world, or a free project. It is the proverbial, "we don't agree with your opinion/behavior/hair color/cologne, therefore don't let the door hit your ass on your way out".
While I'm assuming that this is an emotional topic due to the attacks you said EJ has levied against you, I also hope that you will step above it to understand the importance of all forms of expression to wikipedia. It is for this very same reason the US tolerates people who give each other the nazi salute, people who talk of the greatness of communism, and people who say incredibly hurtful things about others' tragedies. I could argue that one of the core strengths of the US is the Bill of Rights and the first amendment of the Constitution, specifically permitting such behavior. An open project such as wikipedia should use the same principles to make itself stronger.
This is not to say that I don't believe in blocking users that engage in the proverbial graffiti and destruction of wikipedia. But that's different, as it's senseless destruction. Though I would probably want to keep user page access for such users in place.
I believe there might be some symbolical benefit to you being the person who unstifles him, but I also understand (though I wouldn't agree, but not in a bad way) if you feel too strongly about this topic to make a change to EJ's ability to edit his user page.
I do request that you share this conversation with other administrators to see how they respond to it, as I am not tuned into the various forms of discussing topics between administrators. I am in effect asking that you make my view heard, even though you might not agree with it. (You will find me having done the same in several edits, when the "other view" was being presented with someone inexperienced or unable to properly use the facilities of wikipedia.) I would appreciate it greatly.
Aki Korhonen 17:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. Please don't feel compelled to respond believing that I think ill of you. I don't. I'm appreciative of the volunteer work that you and others do, and I'm merely attempting to make sure that in that process differing views are not shut out. I have also been overly verbose in the hopes of explaining my position and view for the benefit of others. There is no requirement for you to do the same, unless you want to.

(De-indenting again) I believe we are somewhat at an impasse, but there are a few points I would like to address specifically, and I also have some general thoughts on the balance between free speech and protection. Specific points - You write: "However, I do believe you are gravely mistaken in using language such as "until he began misusing [his talk page]". It should not be possible to misuse ones talk page, as the content of it should only be moderated by the user himself."

EJ does not actually own his talk page, as you can see at Wikipedia:User page, particularly the section Wikipedia:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page?. No Wikipedia user "owns" any part of the website, and behavior that is unacceptable in the rest of the encyclopedia does not become acceptable if it is placed on a user page or user talk page. EJ's messages on his talk page after he was blocked do, quite literally, fit the definitions of misuse as per Wikipedia's stated policies. He was made aware of those policies many times, and he chose to continue violating them.

You write: "While I'm assuming that this is an emotional topic due to the attacks you said EJ has levied against you."

This is precisely why the decision to block, and the later decision to protect the page, were taken to the larger administrator community. I would describe my experience with him as more frustrating than anything else, and I can honestly say that I have never before tried to talk to someone so unwilling to listen. My experience with him is more important because it illustrates how he behaves towards complete strangers. I just happen to be a target that is well versed in what behavior is and is not allowed on this website and have actually attempted to fix the problem. The larger administrator community has agreed that his behavior is unwelcome here and that his edits to his talk page, after his block, called for protecting the page.

You write: "EJ will marginalize his opinions if he continues baseless personal attacks and sooner or later nobody will listen."

He has been restricting the content on Cuba for at least a year, possibly longer. A dedicated POV warrior certainly can control the discourse on a page, if they are willing to behave badly enough, which I think he has. It is also possible that people have stopped listening, by ceasing to try to discuss anything on the pages he attempted to control, but that is not an acceptable solution. What would happen if we gave free reign to every random person who thought they should be able to control all the articles about a topic, and said "oh, just ignore them"? How is that keeping with the spirit of a collaborative project. No Wikipedia editor should be able to harrass or annoy other editors away from an entire subject area, no matter how good their edits are or how underrepresented their view is.

Some general thoughts: Wikipedia is not a government institution, so it has no legal requirement to protect free speech. Obviously, just because something is legal does not make that thing right, but it is a common misconception that private institutions are required to uphold the First Amendment. One of the roles of government is to protect its citizens, including the unpopular ones, but this is not necessarily the role of Wikipedia, or of any publication. Wikipedia:Free speech explains the position of the website somewhat. As a private institution Wikipedia makes rules and decisions with its ultimate goal in mind. The goal, or point, of Wikipedia as an institution is to create an encyclopedia - any other goal or point comes second to that. If someone's behavior is interferring with the project, they are removed. Other publications (newspapers, print encyclopedias, even blogs) restrict what they print and what messages are sent using their resources. Why should Wikipedia be held to a different standard? Because it's online? Because the steps to join are so few? As a community, a group, Wikipedia has the right to determine its communal standards, and the right to take action against people who violate those standards. The standards EJ was violating have been rules for a long time and are widely agreed upon, for good reason. I might feel differently if the rules EJ was being subjected to were secret, or completely arbitrary. But they are printed in black and white and occasionally blue right on the encyclopedia. They are easy to find and reasonably easy to understand, and there is a wealth of people who are happy to explain them when asked. EJ was also directed to the rules numerous times, over the course of a year or more. At this point he has no excuse for not being aware of the rules of this community. The balance between free speech and respect has been considered in the making of the various policies that govern the Wikipedia community. These rules are not just random ideas - they were worked out through experience. The original encyclopedia essentially had no rules, but that was six or seven years ago - a multitude of generations on the internet. Legions of Wikipedia editors have learned that, without some policies defining appropriate ways to interact with people, the collaborative nature of the project is harmed. If this is something you feel strongly about, a better place to discuss it is at the policy's talk page.

Natalie 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try to be brief, so that we can all be done with the topic. However, I need to address a few points that you made.

He has been restricting the content on Cuba for at least a year, possibly longer. A dedicated POV warrior certainly can control the discourse on a page, if they are willing to behave badly enough, which I think he has. It is also possible that people have stopped listening, by ceasing to try to discuss anything on the pages he attempted to control, but that is not an acceptable solution. What would happen if we gave free reign to every random person who thought they should be able to control all the articles about a topic, and said "oh, just ignore them"? How is that keeping with the spirit of a collaborative project. No Wikipedia editor should be able to harrass or annoy other editors away from an entire subject area, no matter how good their edits are or how underrepresented their view is.

I understand your point, but you seem to be missing mine. EJ is no longer able to do the things that was used as a basis for his block. He is no longer able to control an article, and he is no longer able to harrass or annoy other contributors away from a subject area. These things do not require blocking access to his user talk page.

behavior that is unacceptable in the rest of the encyclopedia does not become acceptable if it is placed on a user page or user talk page.

This is only true to some extent. If the stated basis for blocking EJ was that he was interfering with contributions of others to articles, I don't see how a block could be extended to his user page on which he is unable to create such interference. If EJ wanted to write another edition of War and Peace on his user page, what is the harm in allowing him to do so?

it is a common misconception that private institutions are required to uphold the First Amendment

I never made this claim. However, unless wikipedia wants to be the playground of an elitist few, where unpopular views will get blocked, there need to be controls. One such control is enabling something equivalent to the Constitutional freedom of speech that allows criticism of those who are in control. This very conversation underscores this need.

If someone's behavior is interferring with the project, they are removed.

I hope you aren't serious when you say this.

As a community, a group, Wikipedia has the right to determine its communal standards, and the right to take action against people who violate those standards.

Yes, and action was taken. EJs access to articles was removed. But how damaging was he when he was writing his opinions on his own talk page?

I just happen to be a target that is well versed in what behavior is and is not allowed on this website and have actually attempted to fix the problem.

I believe that instead of fixing the problem you have created -- or at least contributed to -- a larger one. Perhaps the reason others, at least some whom certainly knew as much as you did, or more, did not attempt to "fix the problem", is the same that I have explained here.
I renew my suggestions from earlier, in particular the one that asks you to take this discussion to other administrators for their opinion. Taking that step on my behalf would be a great sign that you are not engaged in this discussion for the purpose of prevailing, but to make the best policy choice for wikipedia going forward.
Aki Korhonen 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You ask what the harm is in letting someone rant on their talk page. His standard personal attacks were continuing on his usertalk page, and there's nothing special about a user talk page that makes personal attacks and lack of good faith acceptable. This is a rule, and it has been a rule for some time. What is special about EJ that he does not have to follow the rules? He was using his user talk page in a way that is expressly not allowed. His access to articles was removed, because he broke the rules. He continued to break some of those rules on his usertalk page. So his access to that was removed as well. It's really quite simple. A community's standards are meaningless if they are not enforced across the board.
You statement "However, unless wikipedia wants to be the playground of an elitist few, where unpopular views will get blocked" leads me to believe that you still think EJ was blocked because of his views. If this is true, I'm not sure what else I can say that would convince you that this is not the case. I repeat: people with unpopular views may be blocked, and people with popular views may be blocked. Unpopular views are neither a reason to block, nor are they a protection from blocking. The person's viewpoints don't enter into the equation: their behavior is what matters.
I have already discussed EJ's block, and the protection of his page, on the administrator's noticeboard. I'm not sure what discussion you want to be brought to admins. I do not have any special ability you don't have to bring this discussion, or a new discussion about these topics, anywhere. If you are interested in changing Wikipedia policies, the best place to start a discussion would be on the relevant policy's talk page. If you think there should be a wider discussion, I would suggest the Village Pump or, if you feel like it is only applicable to administrators, the Administrator's Noticeboard. I do not feel that a policy change is needed, so I don't particularly care to open the discussion. But as I said, I invite you to do so if you feel it is important.
I am entirely serious in saying that people who disrupt Wikipedia are removed from Wikipedia. I must admit that I am somewhat suprised that you are apparently not aware that removing people who are disruptive to the project is standard practice, as is removing their ability to edit their talk page when necessary. Considering the experience of the Wikipedia community, I must say I doubt that practice is going to change any time soon. This has been determined to be occassionally necessary through experience, and I can say for myself, at least, that banning people is not something I take lightly. But unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary. I'm sorry if this has been disillusioning, but it is the truth.
Natalie 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I will try to bring this discussion to an end, but I'll respond to some of the things you said so that no misimpression as to my views is created.

What is special about EJ that he does not have to follow the rules?

There is nothing special about EJ or anyone who is blocked from wikipedia for any reason. However, I happen to have witnessed some of the exchanges relating to EJ, and I frankly don't see why he is blocked from all forms of access. This lead me to follow his treatment by administrators, and I frankly was very surprised that his access to even his talk page was blocked.

This is a rule, and it has been a rule for some time.

... and it was not enforced in the manner in which you apparently have brought about enforcement until you chose to "fix the problem". I don't mean this to say that you are in some manner acting in violation of the rules, but if I understand this correctly, it now appears to have been your proposal that EJ be blocked even from his own user page.

I'm sorry if this has been disillusioning, but it is the truth.

Disillusionment requires there to have been an expectation in the first place. If you review my argumentation on this matter, it has not been done with regard to what might be the current practice, but rather what would be best for wikipedia now and in the future.
I'm not sure if someone important has said something like the following, but I'd be surprised if not: rules are an imperfect written reflection of our ideals, ethics and morals, and as such our actions should be first and foremost be guided by the underlying ideals, ethics and morals, and we should not allow imperfect rules to keep us from them.
That is to say, those who use "rules" to justify their actions, should be able to name the ideals, ethics and morals that underly the rule. Failing to do so will sooner or later lead to difficulties. What's more, it is on all of us to apply this principle.

His standard personal attacks were continuing on his usertalk page, and there's nothing special about a user talk page that makes personal attacks and lack of good faith acceptable.

This calls for a very powerful statement that USA Today founder Al Neuhart wrote [regarding Imus] (and I'm not saying that I agree with him on any number of things, but this quote is a very good one):

When idiots like Imus make fools of themselves, the press and the public blow the whistle. That's much better than if the government were allowed to make laws prohibiting any kind of free speech or free press.

Just replace "Imus", "government" and "laws" with the wikipedia equivalents, and you see what I'm trying to say.
Aki Korhonen 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have tried, I think, to explain the rules' underlying principles. If I haven't done so satisfactorily, I'd be happy to try to explain in a different way. I agree that merely enforcing the rules for enforcement's sake would be silly, but I think the underlying principles are important in regards to the stated purpose of Wikipedia and should be enforced in this case. Indeed, a case could be made for the underlying principles being a requirement for this project to have the slightest chance of success. A collaborative encyclopedia is harmed by someone who is unwilling to collaborate.
I think your quote about Don Imus illustrates my point exactly. Don Imus was removed from a private organization - his employer - because they found his actions disruptive. EJ has been removed from a private institution - Wikipedia - because his actions are disruptive.
The fact that a rule was not enforced for some time does not make it invalid. Much like crime, sometimes people are able to act inappropriately for a long time without getting caught. And EJ, in fact, has been caught, as his lengthy block log indicates. My interaction with him would have been far less frustrating if his record did not indicate that he had been unwilling or unable to change for at least a year.
You write: "If you review my argumentation on this matter, it has not been done with regard to what might be the current practice, but rather what would be best for wikipedia now and in the future." I can understand your position, although I disagree with it. My interactions with other Wikipedians also indicate to me that the majority of the community disagrees with your position. This is not to say that your opinion is invalid, but I do not happen to share it. I hope I have adequately explained my position, and I am happy to agree to disagree, as the saying goes. Natalie 05:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly satisfied to agree to disagree. As I stated before, I appreciate the volunteer work that you and others are contributing on a daily basis.
However, I do believe that as a matter of principle I am unable to work with an organization that acts in this manner.
In protest I will be curtailing my contributions to wikipedia. A shame, but I might as well use the same time to write more books.
Aki Korhonen 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your decision is understandable, although unfortunate. I'm somewhat irritated by your statement "is the mere disagreement regarding facts and viewpoints a valid reason to block a user" on your user page, since its placement in a discussion quoting myself implies that I blocked the user for disagreeing regarding facts. As I have explained time and time again, EJ was blocked by someone else, and was not blocked for disagreeing. He was blocked for his behavior, not for his opinions. You seemed to accept that conclusion in this discussion, but perhaps I misunderstood. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider how that particular section is phrased, as it comes to very different conclusions then the conclusions you have come to in this discussion. Natalie 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I checked the page this morning. I will clarify the wording (hopefully to your satisfaction), as I did not intend such a misimpression to be created. Aki Korhonen 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. Natalie 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Of My Protest Of Wikipedia Censorship

Please feel free to add any comments you might have here. I will check them every now and then. Thank you. Aki Korhonen 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say briefly that I greatly respect your action in this. I gave up editing wikipedia a long time ago because fighting through cobwebbed policy and oft-self-serving individuals in positions of power (both being inevitable and necessary) was torturous. To see you argue against this blatant censorship for 40 kilobytes in a civil and erudite manner and then graciously move to end the argument so that Natalie can get back to her valuable editing of the encyclopedia and protest it differently is amazing. I strongly agree with you that this policy is misguided but I submit that whether you let things like this get to you completely determines whether you will survive here. Wikipedia is full of people putting their foot down (and it needs to be, because a speedy, well-intentioned, irreverent machine is much more appropriate here than a caring, cuddly bear that makes sure that no-one gets trodden on, for reasons of efficiency) and it sucks to see the various examples of injustice, but these things will always happen in such a big system. I hope you come back and continue to add value to the encyclopedia - or, enjoy your break! ∴corp 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpsious (talk • contribs)
I appreciate the comments. If I were only concerned about my own contributions, I would likely have continued to contribute. However, the pattern that I noticed is the removal of expert contributions, exclusion of some contributions over others, and a selective system of arbitration in which some are more equal than others. I'm of the belief that real expert contributions are not plentiful, and that experts are not blessed with a lot of idle time. Hence asking a large number of expert contributors to keep "fighting the system" is not a realistic expectation. The inevitable conclusion from this is that wikipedia will over time become a container for information driven by ideology and money, created by those who have time to keep insisting on their views, or can pay someone else for their time to do the same. I might just call it propaganda for belief-systems, politics and corporations. That being the case, I don't see any need for me to assist in the creation of a facade of real content for such an endeavor. Aki Korhonen (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Following the Jimmy Wales news that is breaking today -- March 3, 2008 -- it seems that I now understand better why Wikipedia has the problems that it does. Problems can start at the top or the bottom, but addressing them usually takes place from the top. If the top doesn't care it's much more difficult or perhaps impossible to get things right. In case of Wikipedia, I let everyone draw their own conclusions, but there seems to be an awful lot of questionable conduct on part of Jimmy. Aki Korhonen (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear weapon accident

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nuclear weapon accident, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Nuclear weapon accident. -- Pepve (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)