User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for User:Jimbo Wales (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 > 37 >>

Contents

By Permission Only Images to be deleted

I Do not understand other admins interpretations of your decisions. [1].

This seems to be talking about how if you can find an alternative you should replace the image, However, I have seen this Policy being applied beyond when a free alternative is impractical and Offends the Copyright holder even more.

Specifically in the UserSpace Zone in combination with fair use. Please see the talks of these images for examples.

Image:User browser firefox.png as a replacement for Image:Firefox-logo.png

and Image:Uncyclopedia_logo.png When a free alternative is not practical and

Is their some policy about misinterpreting what you say?

I feel Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for this very reason. I am sorry to involve you in this issue but I can't stand when people keep quoting everything you say and claim it means something unrelated. You are a reasonable person, however some of your followers will take what you say unconditionally with the least respect to the our community. I am approaching you because this is about what you said. I can't reason with somebody who say Jimbo say this or Jimbo said that. It seams Impracticable to involve you in every dispute. Can you make some statement so we can free the minds of people who are encapsulated by the belief that you have the final word on everything. PS. Don't you also own Uncyclopedia? (outside of the sense that everybody owns the wiki)--E-Bod 03:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the images you link to are {{permission}} or {{noncommercial}}. The Listserv post you quote is totally irrelevant to them. —Simetrical (contribs) 04:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They cannot use the template because they are uploaded after May 19, 2005. And yes. That is my Point. "The Listserv post you quote is totally irrelevant to them" however admins are assuming this is the rule. I need a statement from Jimbo because i was told

Wikipedia does not accept specific permission to use images (Jimbo has personally intervened on this matter), so it is only usuable under fair use. ed g2s • talk 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Quoted by --E-Bod 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My Point is that this Listserv post is being misused and only Jimbo himself can tell Ed this. Image_talk:User_browser_firefox.png May be a bad Example but Image talk:Uncyclopedia logo.png uses this list server as evidence and refuses to discuss the issue because he believes Jimbo said XY & Z. Personally i do not believe a Listserv is a policy. I totally agree with you. This issue is irrelevant and that is exactly why I need Jimbo to make some statement about misusing his listserv. I don't think their is a template to allow special permission for use on user space. I will be more than happy to make one but I need some grounds to defend the template or else people who remove fair use from user space will jump all over me.--E-Bod 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am really upset with Ed now. He holds others to higher standards than he hold himself as i will talk about on User_talk:Ed_g2s#Fair_use_Disgrace I Might regret this latter I do regre this i am pponting to an old issue several yers ago but Numerous people have had issues with this user removing fair use images in questionable situations but now i find out he still hasn't removed all fair use images from his userspace after i told him about it(and I was blocked for WP:POINT without a warning or a notice i was blocked by a arbitrator who met him at a wikimeeting in real life). I have not yet given him a chance to respond yet so my opinion is very one sided. This user is very bad at confronting fair use violators yet is is one of the biggest Fair use Violators to date. This is unacceptable and i think he should lose admin privileges. He has received numerous complaints already. I take back my first statement. This is the only User I have heard miss quote your e-mail.--E-Bod 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Permission to use an image only on Wikipedia is not sufficient for its use, nor is permission to use an image only for noncommercial purposes (yes, even on userpages). The relevant permission for Image:Uncyclopedia logo.png is (currently) "I'd like to allow the logo to be used for Wikipedia userpages, userboxes, etc. - in other words, as "decoration" for Wikipedians." That's {{permission}} and thus unacceptable; unless it's released under an acceptable license, it can't be used except under fair use. Likewise for the Firefox logo, etc. I don't understand what your difficulty is.

I misspoke when I said the Listserv post was irrelevant. It's entirely relevant, insofar as it indicates that the images must be fair-use. I just glanced at them, saw that they weren't {{permission}}/{{noncommercial}}, and figured it wasn't applicable; I was incorrect. It is, and I'm not sure why you think it's not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets put this whole episode in historical perspective.
On 5 January 2006, the Policy tag was added to the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria page. There was no debate about this. The one user who added this vaguly mentioned he did this because of a conversation with Jimbo, but when pressed, avoided the question and provided nothing. This one user did not follow: Wikipedia:How to create policy#How to propose a new policy.
The first debate, to my knowlege, about fair use was with TSBY regarding Time magazine and fair use images. He took an email from Jimbo and overstepped the bounds of the the email, deleting the images without using the normal channels. This caused a firestorm and a RfC found here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2.
Then there is the case of Ed. Ed began deleting images from user's userpages. When I asked him to provide where he was getting this authority to do this, he ignored my question.[2] At least TSBY had an e-mail from Jimbo (albiet he was interpreting wrong). Ed doesn't even have this. It is as if admin one day decided to delete thousands of images with no consensus and no direction. Ed is creating discontent and anger on wikipedia.Travb (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry For the report on ed. That actually was an out of date report. Back to the issue. I have not seen on any policy page that we are not allowed to obtain permission. Infact most pages just say it would be a waste of time but does not forbid it. secondly this this quote from Jimbo is the only place i can find the issue please point me to it and this quote says (This is a standard photo of the Mission District in San Francisco -- getting a free alternative will be simple.) If you fallow the spirit of this post and not the rule I interpret what Jimbo is saying as When a free alternative is easily obtained their is no reason to use an image with permission.

However I infer that when an alternative is not possible to obtain then permission can be granted for the use of the image past fair use. I can't make an alternative Uncyclopidia image because it would have to have the same rights as the origin because it would be a derivative. an image. When the user says we can use it and the spirit of the rules do not forbid it there is not reason for use to get caught up on the technicalities of rules that are not addressing the issue.--E-Bod 21:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the bigger picture. Images that only Wikipedia have permission to use is not compatable with the GFDL license Wikipedia is released under. We simply can not accept content that is more restrictive than GFDL with regards to who can use it for what (that's my understanding anyway). Aparently (properly used) fair use content can be compatable with GFDL to some extent, but not always wich is why we have a fairly strict fair use policy too. Your permission wold make the image legaly free to use on Wikipedia, sure, but Wikipedia is not a project to build a great website, it's a project to make free content available to anyone, this Wiki is just the tool we use to make this content, and in that context it makes no sense to add content that can only be use on the Wikipedia website, and I don't see why it would be worth complicating our license situation by starting allowing it either. --Sherool (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. You are the First person I have encountered to actually address the issue I am bringing up. However Your Legal concerns do not address the 2 instances I am talking about. My particular Issue is For use on User space. The issue is that Images listened free for Non Commercial Purposes [3] are not allowed on Wikipedia Despite Wikipedia being a Nonfor profit image. I am talking about General Permission that would apply to sight beyond Wikipedia. For instance The Uncyclopedia logo has permission to be used as decoration and is licensed uner [4] so we have every legal right to use it. Now if your concern is if we or somebody else wanted to sell the Encyclopedia then we may have problems, however Userspace is not going to be included on a sold copy of this encyclopedia. The Issue Is that the image is licensed for me to use it a certain way. I want to use it that way. If it wasn’t licensed I could still make a Fair use Claim. The user has Given permission. And the only thing stopping it is this That Wikipedia has put additional restrictions past the legal ones saying it won’t use Images licensed for non Commercial use and so the image is put into the Fair use category. I can’t make my foar use claim because we won’t allow it on userspace and I have permission to use it but we won’t accept that ether because People are Quoting Jimbo saying we can’t obtain permission but we fail to quote the whole thing that continues to add when No free alternative is obtainable. We are 100% legally allowed to use it. We just Have People who will not take the spirit of the rules into consideration. The problem is that several rules that should not apply to all circumstances are baing miss applied. Of one of these rules were clarified I would instantly be able to use the image on my userspace--E-Bod 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"People are Quoting Jimbo saying we can’t obtain permission but we fail to quote the whole thing that continues to add when No free alternative is obtainable." Jimbo never said that. He said "As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use"." No provisos, it's unconditional. It happened that the two examples he gave could be easily replaced by free images, but that's not a requirement.

User pages are licensed under the GFDL as well and must be just as free as articles. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have since found something that Does not Quite work as an alternative but is a temporary fix until this fair use Thing gets clarified User:Yskyflyer/save My clam is that this Image is used for Identification purposes. Mirror sights would still be allowed to use the image--E-Bod 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Quick clarification of image commerciality

If we receive permission from, say, Mozilla to use the Firefox logo for any nondisparaging purpose that does not compete with Mozilla merchandise, is that a "no commercial" license unacceptable for our use (outside fair use), or is it a free license? It would mean that in the context of any kind of mirror, reproduction, modification, etc. of Wikipedia, the image would be usable; you'd have to actually do something like print it onto a T-shirt and sell it to violate the terms of use. Should we use that or fair use? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And how would we enforce the bit about "nondisparaging purpose"s? The policy as I understand it is that such permissions don't matter; it's still an unfree image, usable only under fair use. Yes, that means that combined with the strict fair-use policies, you can't use them on user pages. Yes, that has deeply hurt many people's feelings. I'm not sure why they don't get some free web hosting space to build the home page they really want, but that's just me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this a userpage or a Village pump? My question was about not allowing permission. Your' telling me I am not allowed to use images with permission is exactly what I want Jimbo to Clarify. I asked Jimbo as a last resort. I expect him to answer.--E-Bod 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Why would I want to talk about
  1. Relevant wikipedia articles
  2. How I edit wikipidia
  3. Where I have a Conflict of interest when editing a wikipedia article
on a free web hosting space. My userspace is to help me use wikipedia. I can't edit wikipedia on a free web hosting space. Anyway this is the wrong place to talk about this issue. I know what WP:NOT and your comment is irrelevant.--E-Bod 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want I can Explain how I can use Permission company logos in each of these examples. Don't take one policy and claim it says something different. That is the point i am bringing to Jimbo about a point he made that may be misused by admins. You are simply a user with tools. Policies should be stated outright without room for interpretation or lack consideration for unaddressed issues.--E-Bod 05:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's unlikely Jimbo will answer you. He doesn't answer most talk-page questions. Mostly, yes, this is a village pump.

Anyway, on consideration, I've retagged the image as {{logo}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Tdxiang's song!

My song, sir! Hope you guys like it. :D-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


AfD reform

Hi. I don't believe as many people review Template:Cent as they do this page, so I'm using it to bring attention to my proposal for AfD reform. El_C 12:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Free wiki host stole wikipedia logo

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to present this information, but the free wiki-host ElWiki uses the Wikipedia Globe logo combined with the text "ElWiki Knowledgebases" as the default Wiki.png file on new wikis. Basically, they're taking the copywritten logo and not attributing it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here's a direct example of what he's talking about. GarrettTalk 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If that wiki changes the logo, I can get a copy... which reminds me: I really should change my ElWiki logo about now. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Reported to the Trademarks committee. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Similarities

Between your talk page and Fraggle Rock#The Trash Heap are uncanny! Just an observation... Cheers -- Samir धर्म 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)



Wikipedia:Fair use criteria being policy

Do you approve of the current Wikipedia:Fair use criteria being policy. I know you are busy. A simple "yes" or "no" would be great.

Thank you for your time, Travb (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A simple "yes" would be great if that's your answer, but if your answer is "no", it would be nice to know why not. (For example, do you think the policy is too strict, or too lenient?) Angr (t • c) 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Also A clarification On Images used with permission when a free alternative is not possible to obtain as in the case of logos. Any free alternative would still be a derivative.--E-Bod 21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Game guides on Wikibooks

Given the harmless nature of such guides are you sure that they should be banned from Wikibooks? They are contained in their own section, the distinction between games such as Doom and Chess is debatable and, in the last couple of years it has become possible to actually trade inside games see Business week story. The users at Wikibooks are definitely uneasy about the ban. My userid is RobinH at Wikibooks.

Drawing the line seems very easy to me. There is a simple question: can you point to a course at an accredited institution which uses this sort of thing as a textbook? I think there are college courses on chess. I think there are not college courses on Doom. Simple. Some people may not like that Wikibookians do not want Wikibooks to be a dumping ground for whatever doesn't fit in Wikipedia. But we have a charitable mission, and we need to respect that. --Jimbo Wales 21:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you totally boss.(Considering I don't edit on Wikibooks), but your statement there might get met with controversy, as there ARE some college courses based on pop culture, like video games. All I'm saying is I don't want that to be another CSD T1. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!) 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there are courses, then there can be textbooks. :) --Jimbo Wales 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note on the Staff Lounge has clarified this debate. I, for one, had not understood that there were legal constraints. Cheers. RobinH

We have the Doom Wiki with plenty of room for Doom strategy information. And if there isn't a Wikia about your favorite game, you can go there and start it. As much as I like games, game guides just aren't part of Wikimedia's mission. Fredrik Johansson 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, which I put up for deletion? Gerard Foley 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I imagine it would depend. Are there classes that would use an annotated look at Harry Potter? If so, it would be valid. If not, it may need to go. On a side note, we gonna ask Jimbo on every book we put up deletion? ;-) --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a major change to Wikibooks, I don't think it's asking too much to get a few examples of what's OK. Gerard Foley 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as was discussed on WP:CVG, "the StrategyWiki team (including myself) have made preparations to import all suitable videogame guides. This is not going to be a half-hearted history cut-'n'-paste like transwiki bots do either, instead the authentic full edit histories will be imported directly from database dumps thanks to the excellent MWDumper." (Comment was made by Garrett). I think that this would be an ideal situation. If at some point in the future colleges do start to give courses teaching students to become "professional gamers" or something, they could always be re-imported using a similar technique. jaco♫plane 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Details of 501(c)(3) are given at: Tax exempt status for your organization. The charter for Wikimedia is at : Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Please could you point to where these exclude documents such as game guides, or have I missed a crucial document? Robinhw 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Idea

Jimbo, I'm testing out an idea and I'd be interested in your feedback. Wikipedia has many great and long articles. Many vistors to the site however may simply be looking for very short snappy summaries. I've created an infobox called synopsis which could be placed near to the table of contents, to contain a two or three line synopsis of the article. For example


Synopsis of the article
Jimbo Wales
Jimbo Wales is an American entrepreneur who co-founded "Wikipedia", one of the world's biggest encyclopaedias. His success in founding Wikipedia, with its unique open-edit formula, led him to be named as one of the hundred most influential people in the world by TIME magazine.

Any opinions on the idea? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what the lead section is supposed to do? --Carnildo 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. On most pages here the lead paragraph is merely an introduction before delving into the topic, rather than an overview of the topic. Take a look at Pope for instance. In this case the intro is a good one, but it certainly doesn't cover everything below it. It doesn't even tell who the current Pope is! GarrettTalk 11:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case, the lead section should be fixed. Fredrik Johansson 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuntately all too many fixes produce edit wars from those who think their rambling openings are OK. In addition many articles are (correctly) written in a detailed style that younger users mightn't be able to follow. The infobox can be written deliberately in simple language as an opener for young users, to tell them in simple language, in one or two sentences, what the article is about. for example,

Synopsis of the article
Abortion
Abortion is a medical act by which a doctor can end a pregnancy before birth. Two groups, who call themselves Pro-life or Pro-choice disagree as to whether abortion should be allowed or not allowed in law. Abortion is a controversial topic worldwide with women's groups and religions disagreeing on whether it is right or wrong.
Synopsis of the article
Head of state
A head of state is the top representative of a country. He or she may appoint the prime minister, sign laws and be a symbol of their country at home and abroad. Kings, Queens and Presidents are all heads of state.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what we have simple: for. I'm against this. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


quv!

Image:Klingon Jimbo Wales.png

There's your name written in a Klingon typeset. tlhIngan Hol 'oH HoS, rur SoH! vIHHa' SoH SoQ tlhIngan Hol Wikipedia! :P Computerjoe's talk 20:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)



Apropos of your note at Talk:Jimmy Wales

For what is it worth, I think it is in my rational self interest to care about what happens to kids in Africa, and far from being destructive of my self-interest, it is beneficial to my self-interest. Even as "destructive of" isn't likely the locution I'd have employed, I must commend you for having made a point so often overlooked by those who criticize objectivists (or even, in some cases, libertarians), viz., that one may, for whatever reason (inculcation by parents/society, apprehension of religious obligation, preternatural disposition, etc.), find pleasure/relief in helping others, such that he/she may act in a fashion consistent with his/her self-interest but ancillarily (or even primarily) be concerned with acting salutarily vis-à-vis others. I take as axiomatic that humans, as all living creatures, act wholly self-interestedly, but I also believe that humans (perhaps unlike some other living creatures) sometimes derive joy from helping others, such that an individual's self-interest may correspond to the interest of another. (I realize the point of your post wasn't to illustrate this, but I was happy to see it in any event; your criticisms of the article were, to be sure, accurate as well) Joe 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have digged through your comments, fact checked and changed accordingly when I think the facts where not supporting the claims in the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Q.E.D.

Logic Logical argument Rigour Causality Necessary and sufficient conditions Logical fallacy Fallacy Validity Soundness Logical consequence Psychology Sociology Political science Anthropology Groupthink False consensus effect List of cognitive biases Conformity (psychology) Herding instinct Herd behavior Collective hysteria Crowd psychology Stupidity Pack (canine) [5] Pack Psychology Argumentum ad populum Propaganda News propaganda Spin (public relations) Trolling Internet troll Troll-friendly Evolution Natural selection Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures Prometheuspan 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


The best response is no response?

It seems that every time i try to talk to anybody around here, things end up deleted or changed. Chronic problem. At least this time it was actually apparently you who did it. Nice change. Are you just going to delete and ignore the people who are trying to get you to see the problems that exist? How about fixing the problems?

Your social experiment can't work under the weight of political warfare. Abuse is rampant, the abused have no real recourse. Gaming the system is too simple, and enough people are doing it that it is now part of what is simply required to be here. You don't have a creative or collaborative encyclopedia; You have a psycholigcal war zone.

Example one; Depth Science encounters political ramifications. [6]

What are you going to do about it? My suggestion, as an Expert in Sociology, Psychology, Systems Theory, Communications Theory, And Political Science is that The problem stems from the sheer quantity of ignorant pov warriors versus the smaller number of available experts, and the techniques and tactics that can be employed against reason, fact, knowledge, ot sense. I see the same problem Larry Sanger Saw, But i know that the solution isn't to become elitist, it is instead to create interactions that are meritocratic instead of based in pack psychology and mob or riot group movements.

LOGIC, which is what ANY serious educational or informational service has to eventually use, is the only solution to your problems. Logic ends most of the tools used by pack psychology, ends psychological warfare tactics, exposes ignorance and lies and misinformation, as well as bad reasoning, and levels the playing feild enough so that an Expert has a chance to actually confront that mob.

Unless you ban me, or I am blocked, I'll continue to attempt to talk with you about this problem, and it will start to pop up in as many places as i looks like it needs in order to get the attention it deserves. Avoidance isn't going to solve the problems, and, to be truthful, blocking me is only getting rid of the one thing that could have bailed you out; A lucid whos Agenda is to help you write the best encylopedia ever; who nonetheless understands the facts of the entropy you are experiencing and who knows how to deal with it and what the solutions to those problems are.

It will be better for you, and for everybody concerned, if you adress the problems, and work with those who are capable of being lucid relevant to those problems to solve those problems. Unless your goal is to have entropy and pack psychology dominate the world, and to be yet one more example of how politics and pack psychology enforce intentional ignorance and doublethink propagandas.

Lets start with square one. Knowledgable experts ought to be able to as much as float an outline on a talk page without having it deleted by pov warriors whos agenda is to keep the conversation in drama. People who are seriously abused by others ought to have realistic and swift recourse regarding that abuse. People should not be allowed to stack RFCs with their freinds. People should not be allowed to stack votes for deletion with their freinds. People should not be allowed to attack others and then cite them for personal attacks if they as much as respond with a simple mirrored reflection of the original attack. Pov warriors should not have pet rogue admins blocking people on trumped up charges to silence them for making noise about serious abuses. Wikipedia should not be psychological combat. And Yet, it is.

Since it vanished into the ethers, lets recap the more angry and to the point message you failed to answer.

Wikipedia IS "Evil" [23]

It is host to the same big political groupthink game that goes on in all of the rest of civilization. It is a battleground for propaganda warfare, a lawless game in which anything can be said as long as its in "neutral" language even if its a propagandists lie, and even if it exists only to dispute a known fact. It is a place notable mostly for what it conspicuously lacks. There are in general thousands of articles which tell us about as much as a High Schooler might, and which then devolve into factoids and rhetoric. The expertise of depth knowledge is missing. No expert would submit themselves to a situation of patent pack psychology informational riot. Wikipedia is Evil. And You, Jimbo Wales, are the guy who created it. Maybe you should try some Formal Logic in the mix. Maybe this "Randian" Environment could use some controls on its chaos vectors. Maybe even a realistic and functional methodology for dealing with abuse might be in order.

Nice graphic box at the top of the page says to go post at the admin desk,. Funny, i tried that, and got less than no result. Abusiveness is rampant and the organization is headless. I can tell Wikipedia in fifty places what its problems are and how to solve them, but wikipedias nose is in the air, and the God king doesn't seem to read his talk page. What you have here isn't an encyclopedia, and in pretending, all that it offers a legitamate participant over the long term is abuse. The admin desk won't help you if you are being attacked and baited with ad hominems; they don't even know what one is. They aren't required to pick up any education to become admins; they come with the standard prole "opinion" fully intact, and no knowledge to back anything up.

Good luck with your social sciences project. Let me know if you want any help to fix it. Prometheuspan 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Larry Sanger has the same diagnosis that i do. I have more to offer in terms of how to solve the problem. But not whilst being blocked by trolls and their pet admins for making the effort.


"Wikipedia has, to its credit, done something about the most serious trolling and other kinds of abuse: there is an Arbitration Committee that provides a process whereby the most disruptive users of Wikipedia can be ejected from the project.

But there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation, let alone arbitration. A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project.

The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem--or I, at least, regard it as a problem--which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist (which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.)

I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered and died. Ultimately, it became very clear that the most active and influential members of the project--beginning with Jimmy Wales, who hired me to start a free encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimedia--were decidedly anti-elitist in the above-described sense.

Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best).

This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now. And so much the worse for Wikipedia and its reputation.

This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second problem, because again if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, there would necessarily be very little patience for those who deliberately disrupt the project. This is perhaps not obvious, so let me explain. To attact and retain the participation of experts, there would have to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet. As it is, there are far fewer genuine experts involved in the project (though there are some, of course) than there could and should be.

It will probably be objected by some that, since I am not 100% committed to the most radical sort of openness, I do not understand why the project that I founded works: it works, I will be told, precisely because it is radically open--even anarchical.

I know, of course, that Wikipedia works because it is radically open. I recognized that as soon as anyone; indeed, it was part of the original plan. But I firmly disagree with the notion that that Wikipedia-fertilizing openness requires disrespect toward expertise. The project can both prize and praise its most knowledgeable contributors, and permit contribution by persons with no credentials whatsoever. That, in fact, was my original conception of the project. It is sad that the project did not go in that direction.

One thing that Wikipedia could do now, although I doubt that it is possible in the current atmosphere and with the current management, is to adopt an official policy of respect of and deference to expertise. Wikipedia's "key policies" have not changed since I was associated with the project; but if a policy of respect of and deference to expertise were adopted at that level, and if it were enforced somehow, perhaps the project would solve the problems described above.

But don't hold your breath. Unless there is the equivalent of a revolution in the ranks of Wikipedia, the project will not adopt this sort of policy and make it a "key policy"; or if it does, the policy will probably be not be enforced. I certainly do not expect Jimmy Wales to change his mind. I have known him since 1994 and he is a smart and thoughtful guy; I am sure he has thought through his support of radical openness and his (what I call) anti-elitism. I doubt he will change his mind about these things. And unless he does change his mind, the project itself will probably not change. "

It isn't the people per sey, its the way that they manage to interact, the simple lack of Logic and the defensibility of ignorance in a vaccuum. Prometheuspan 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Prometheuspan, have you tried filing an RfC or and RfAr against whatever or whomever has offended you so? Coming to Jimbo with a long rant may not be the best way to try and advance your cause, so to speak. Repeatedly posting long comments such as "Wikipedia is evil" and "Good luck with your evil science social sciences project" is hardly trying to find common ground and "it will start to pop up in as many places as i looks like it needs in order to get the attention it deserves" reeks of WP:POINT. Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 02:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it does reek of making a point, and the issue is that the point needs to be made. I sat in on somebody elses rfc; one instigated by nescio versus merecat. I have never seen such a travesty of justice in all of my life. Merecat stacked the rfc, and managed to come off as the victim of the evil nescio. The problem is much bigger than that. The RFCs don't work. There are no real methodologies for handling abuse like merecats or inshanee etc. I tried the admin board and i tried a arbitration request; which was denied. "Mediation recomended" AS IF that would possibly help in abusive behaior where the abuser is deleting materials, gaming the system, stacking rfcs, running a talk page via ad hominem and stram man attacks, etc. The problem is systemic, the problem is much bigger than me not following process. There is no reasonable or rational process to follow. Following all processes so far, it still comes down to merecat is still running rampant, inshanee is still an admin operating from extreme bias to help along his pov warrior pals, and theres nothing to be done for it. Prometheuspan 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Your main problem isn't anything systemic, it is with merecat and InShaneee. Well, merecat has been blocked indefinitely, so that takes care of that. Next, onto InShaneee... have you filed an RfC against him for his behavior? I'm not sure having a POV is enough to get someone de-sysopped, but you need to take the appropriate steps in dispute resolution if you would like to be heard by Jimbo. You can't just jump right to ArbCom, so I would suggest taking the advice of those who told you to try mediation. If you are right about it being a systemic problem, rather than a simple disagreement with a couple of editors, Mediation/RfC followed then by an RfAr, may help correct the problem. And again, I urge you not to remain brief and refrain from cross-posting long blocks of text. Thanks. Hope this helps. If you need some help with the dispute resolution process, don't hesitate to ask me for further specifics. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) No, I am sorry, I don't need to sit through any more RFCs to know that they don't work. The one opened by nescio became a Nescio roast. Dozens of Ad hominems, and not a single intervention against any of them. Lies, misinformation, and apparent ignorance. Most of the people commenting had obviously not even bothered to read the article. Same thing with 4 total VFDs. 3 of which were started by ad hominems, and which should have been closed on that as grounds alone. 3 of which had delete votes which were usually and generally composed of ad hominems, which should have had those votes disqualified. All four of which demonstrated that the people voting had never bothered to read what they were voting over. I am not here to be roasted by all of inshannees freinds for bothering to confront his abusiveness. An RFC as is is only a popularity contest, and nothing more. I am new here. How many people do i have to go running to to side with me when the RFC starts being stacked? Sorry, no., duh, i don't need to play that game. If i wanted abuse for abuses sake i'd hang out in chat rooms, not wikipedia.
As for merecat being blocked indefinitely? So? Whats your point? Merecat stacked two VFDs and got caught double voting with sock puppets and stacking VFDs with sock puppets. If wikipedia had listened to me,and bothered to do something about my complaints, merecat wouldn't have had another extra month or so to disrupt wikipedia and game the system. My initial, off the cuff judgement that he was gaming Nescio with ad hominems and straw men arguments should have been more than enough to get the ball rolling. If WP:NPA and WP:PAIN were applied evenly, instead of only by admins with axes to grind after setting somebody up by attacking them first, Merecat would never have been present for me to meet on Wikipedia in the first place. So long as the rules are applied unevenly and so long as nobody knows how to identify a veiled ad hominem, there are hundreds more merecats still operating with impugnity on wikipedia, gaming the system. At least as many as one of them is an admin. Having a pov shouldn't be grounds for de-admin ing. Obvious abuse of admin priveledges to promote a pov, and to harass somebody who is just stating the simple facts is another matter. I have a strong pov. I also have logic and use it and know when its getting in the way of neutrality. The best ad hominem i have had so far is that i was a "straw man"; ie, a plant set to make a weaker argument than anybody who actually held that pov would make. Its a reverse compliment; the reason why that person made that attack against me is that i was making real compromises, and using de-escalation techniques. I was working for the _middle_, not MY side. If a person can't do that, then they have no business being an admin in the first place. Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Please learn to indent. Also, signing your name BEFORE your post is unnecessary. Sorry for the advice, but I would have thought someone like you, who's been here since January (an "old timer,") should have learned this by now. - Nhprman 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, no problem about advice. If its useful advice. Indenting is a protocol i should pick up, its just that i am not used to it. Signing before my name seems like a good way to make sure things don't get confusing with answers and questions and who said who. That i might still do once in a while.

Prometheuspan 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Be Brief. Your first six words, The best response is no response, were great. After that, the good points were lost in a massive pile of verbiage. We all get angry at the foolishness here (such as the pointless and unneccessary "Userbox War,") but it's best to not let it get to you. - Nhprman 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your ad hominem or your useless advice. I am interested in adressing the serious problems which will otherwise forever doom wikipedia to be a pov soapbox, a prole feelgood warmfuzzy goodbellyfeel double plus good propaganda toy, instead of an encyclopedia. Prometheuspan 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't ad hominem, but it was advice. Blathering on for 800+ 2,037(!) words when you could do it in 200 or less obscures your message, which isn't entirely incorrect, I might add. So stop burning bridges. - Nhprman 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Instead of making ME the subject of your communications, why don't you try talking about what i am talking about? Otherwise, you can be accused of using veiled ad hominems. I am the not the subject here. The subject is Wikipedia, and its problems. If i am not entirely incorrect, then spend the time to support what I am talking about where you feel that is warranted, and, maybe even talk me into a more chilled state by being the first person to make me have the impression somebody is actually listening, for a change. As long as we are exchanging advice, I figured you needed some. 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I do appreciate the advice, and I am listening. You do make some sense, as I said before, so it's not what you're saying, but how you say it, and occasionally how LONG you say it. Many people will simply tune out long posts, even if they make sense. As far as admin abuse goes, I think everyone recognizes it exists. There are problems with WP that can’t be fixed under the current assumptions and yes, they are systemic. The Mobocracy cannot solve things with endless proposals and endless votes that fail to overcome the impossible hurdle of a 66.6% "consensus." Systemic changes have to be wanted by the leaders, and probably started there. Call that elitist, but that’s what’s got to happen IMO. Complaining too much doesn’t seem to get much attention - or gets the wrong kind - and I think I'll focus on coming up with positive solutions. - Nhprman List 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well we are finally making some headway then. If you admit that there are problems, and that they are serious, and that they are systemic, It seems that the rational thing to do is to begin working together on solutions. How i say things is a product of how i communicate and how well people are listening. This section is nice and long now, and its getting to be really almost too long. I can see that

as well as anybody can. Solutions include taking our conversation to my talk page, and anything else you can come up with. I'm not here to break Wikipedia for faulting me, I am here to fix Wikipedia if it can be fixed and eventually to build a better system independantly if it can't be. My sole primary driving motivation is that I want the threshold of the hundredth monkey to be realized; I want the age of propaganda to end by the power of bringing on a real and genuine age of information. Wikipedia might be able to accomplish that IF it can get its act together. Otherwise, Wikipedia is rapidly going to become a lumbering Dinosaur. There is no question in my mind that I could generate a better rules system to organize social energies for co-creative and co-operative writing adventures than what Wikipedia could even dream of. I'd be starting from zero, but I would be moving foreward faster, and closing the gap in areas of my expertise very quickly. I had a similar warning for beliefnet. When I was a participant, they had hundreds of participants a day. Now their numbers are dropping, and the only people left are the brainless fundies in general. Nobody takes Beliefnet seriously as an equal opportunity resource of information; its been proven too many times that Bnet is pro-christian and masquerading as a big tent. Bnet is slowly dying a tortured death brought on by its own obsolescence. It COULD have been the transformation point, or flashpoint, for a new kind of global consciousness. But only if they had listened to me (and others like me). Wikipedia is in its prime of life as the system that it currently is. All it takes for that to change is for somebody else to start something up that is similar but which guarantees a civil atmosphere instead of just paying lip service to one.

When it comes down to it, Jimbo can't save Wikipedia from its own demise. The admins can't save Wikipedia from itself. There is a forked Road. Down one lesser taken path, I and people like me await to transform This troll infested caterpillar into a glorious butterfly. Down the other road, lies only a caterpillar carcass and another TrollHouse. Jimbo and Wikipedia gets this one chance to make a choice. The real prize real estate isn't Wikipedia or Beliefnet. The Real prize is the right and priveledge to be the playground (and labor of love) of Genius. And that isn't something Wikipedia has earned. Beliefnet has become a Dinosaur, and Wikipedia will become a Dinosaur, unless it now realizes its unique opportunity to transform itself by the light of truth which it has collected. To be even more frank, Here I am. A Sociologist, A Psychologist, A systems Theorist, A logician; I have the answers Wikipedia must have if it is to succeed long term. It can take my hand and we can make this easy. Or it can reject my help, and then at best, if it is fortunate, pick up stuff from others elsewhere. Yet the difference between me and Wikipedia is that as nice as it might be, I don't need Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs me, or somebody with my knowledge and insight. It needs the solutions to its problems, and that is something I am uniquely qualified to offer. If you think you can express something better, feel free to snag things and refactor them on my talk page. Otherwise, I'm doing things my way until i get a wiff of motion and response. I'll be happy to do this even by Jimbos playbook, but he has to answer me first. Prometheuspan 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) It isn't up to you to decide which parts of my message are relevant and which are not. Do i need to show you the formal logic that renders your comments a veiled ad hominem? As far as burning bridges goes, I reserve the right to set anything on fire if its a path to attack me. Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop being paranoid. You don't "own" logic. I know some people think they do, but they don't. It's community property. So play nice. - Nhprman 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not being paranoid, thats the fourth time you have made me the subject instead of the subject matter. I never said i owned logic, only that i understand it, and that its use is the solution to the problems that will either doom wikipedia, or define its sucess. So Far I HAVE played nice, you should see me when I'm REALLY POed. Prometheuspan 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In a nutshell:
Wikipedia's anti-elitism discourages contributions from experts. Experts are not recognized or acknowledged, and often have to defend themselves against non-experts.
There are people in Wikipedia who gang up on others, such as by voting together in an RFC, or have pet rogue admins who ban people who oppose them.
It is very difficult for victims of the ganging-up to seek help at Arbcom or Meditation.
Wikipedia is too tolerant of disruptive edits.
DISCLAIMER: I am simply summarizing the above user's points. These do not reflect my personal beliefs or opinions, although I agree with some of the points.--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Hey now, thats a very appreciated and useful comment. 50 extra points to anybody who can convert my above noise to a NVC version. Anybody know what NVC is? I don't mind the anti elitism, I'm an anti elitist. However, there has to be sufficient compensation for the ensuing entropy, or what you have is an open ended entropy machine. Prometheuspan 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • LOL. Just to be clear, I was simply exhorting the poster to be more succinct, like you were. I actually did slog through the long original post, and I did understand what he was saying. Some of it did make sense. Thanks for proving it could have been said in far fewer words, though! Nhprman 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I am actually well known for making long posts, especially in forums. This is just a summary, and isn't intended to elaborate on all the main points. It's just to give people an idea of what you are writing so they will understand your long rant better. And I agree with some of your points, especially anti-elitism. I wrote the Google Groups article. As an experienced Google Groups user who owns a successful teen chat group and moderates several other large groups, I am more than qualified to write the Google Groups article, even if I am not the most knowledgable Google Groups user in the world. However, much of my information was tagged as unsourced. This will discourage experts from contributing their knowledge. I have also seen complaints about rogue admins abusing their powers --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is twofold, there are no means or measures by which an expert is identified, and no means or methods by which they

are given the wider berth they deserve to do things like post obvious things. Obvious simple stuff from an expert oughta be like sourced info; You folks don't need a reference for this stuff, Because >>I<< am a sufficient authority. And admin power abuse is rampant because again there are no clear rules for use of admin priveledges, no standard tests or quality control efforts for making admins, and thus the only things that really count are the number of posts made and the political expediency of choices made to the voting body. In other words, adminship has become a popularity sport in teh absence of better defining guidelines; So anybody can become an admin, and of course the position is highly prized by 2nd generation "Trolls" or, Trolls with Brains. Prometheuspan 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) That level of filter obviously cut out even some of the more critical and salient points of the argument. I'm not here to be easy to read, I am here to make the points that need to be made. My cognitive style is stream of consciousness. That works very well for me, and it was more than enough for me to slip into the college debate team when i was still only 16. I am not here to be easy to read, or brief. I am here to make the point. I will use whatever words at whatever length i find necessary to sate my sense of feeling finished, and self expressed. Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I have found the hard way that when you ask and beg and chittle away politely, and get ignored and deleted, the way to fix it is sometimes unfortunately to make a bigger noise. Thats unfortunate, but the reality is i did try every other option available to me, including much calmer adresses to Jimbo, and have gotten zero results. So the fault here goes to the system which forces me to roar when i'd rather discuss. Prometheuspan 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 2

I have a lot of things to say on this page, And no answers. Heres a segment;

Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) I find it disturbing that anybody could actually say that an ad hominem attack is useful or that it is necessary or required in any situation. Logic allows us to solve these confrontations without using ad hominems. Blunt communication of the kind you seem to be a proponent of will actually drive groupthink to create an idiotified and imbecilized encylopedia. I am here because i have expert level knowledge on several subjects. I have been looking around to see how things are handled around here. So far the reality tests mostly show that wikipedia is being gamed as a system by people who believe in psychological warfare. I can tell you right now that i am not interested in psychological warfare, and that my edits will continue to be pretty low so long as psychological warfare here is legal. I can tell you that ANY expert is going to feel the same way. I am not here to argue with the ignorant pov warriors and have them reference their right to free expression as an excuse to cut me down. I am not here to face down mobs operating only from knee jerk political programming. Wikipedias general current quality is sophomoric. In topics such as psychology and sociology and civil engineering and ethics, its high school level at best. There is a reason for that. Anybody in sociology, for instance, knows that the republican and democratic parties both operate only by the continued ignorance of the general public regarding sociology. Trying to tell the truth on wikipedia regarding sociology thus becomes mob confrontation. I am not here to face down the footsoldier proles of mind control paradigms. No expert in any of the social sciences is going to subject themselves to the kind of abuse that for instance, merecat has bestowed upon nescio, or, to the kind of "VFD" s that go on around here. Wikipedia will not be taken seriously by the science community until and unless it forms a strong policy regarding abusiveness. Right now, the situation is rediculous. In an vfd with 80 some odd delete votes, 2/3rds were based on ad hominems. The VFD opened with an ad hominem. To be clear and to be frank; My participation at this point in wikimedia will be decided upon by one primary factor; whether or not Wikipedia can develop very quickly a realistic methodology for dealing with abusiveness. Otherwise, what is going to happen is i am going to cross that magical threshold where science becomes political because there are implications some group doesn't want to face. And then I’ll be arguing with the ignorant, and facing VFDs based on abusive and illogical arguments. EVERY science has that threshold. Something as hands down practical as mechanics? Why don't we have engines that get 300 miles to the gallon and rotary turbine prop internal combustion hybrids? POLITICS. Not science. Facts can be easily assembled to show that American Car technology halted in the 60s and hasn't progressed significantly from the 50s. If I write that article, what would happen to it now? Republican foot soldiers would launch an ignorant offensive based on personal attacks and straw man arguments. I'd be drowned out, and if I managed to stay afloat amidst all of the noise and not get myself banned for screaming down at the mob, I'd finally have the article deleted out of a vfd grounded in bile and ignorance. ALL of the Sciences are like that. At advanced levels, Science invariably implies things that political factions must keep silenced in order for said factions to continue rule by ignorance. Wikipedia is either a hostage to ignorance, abusiveness, and illogic, or it rises above these by creating useful rules to prohibit abusiveness, correct ignorance, and operate via logic. Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Be Brief. It works better. Also, you say you don't believe in ad hominem and personal attacks, but then you say, "Republican foot soldiers would launch an ignorant offensive..." Simply amazing, and audacious to attack someone in an attempt to prove attacking is wrong. Also, if you wrote in an article that that American Car technology halted in the 60s, it would indeed be reverted because it's factually incorrect and a clear attempt at POV-pushing. - Nhprman 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to be brief, and, that call isn't up to you. I thought we had covered that allready? As for the "Republican Footsoldiers" comment; Are you upset because I am stating a fact that you don't like?

Are you upset because i didn't mention "Democrat Footsoldiers?" Are you naive enough to think that people aren't being controlled and manipulated by propaganda? Do you understand that behavior that is in accord with belief but not fact and which follows a leadership blindly is factually understood to be a political footsoldier situation? Whats your particular beef? Maybe you should have read the page of comments. The difference between an attack and a factual evaluation may be a grey space to some people, but its a thin line to me, and one I can tightrope walk comfortably. Prometheuspan 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, I've just read through this entire section. I would find it a pity if you gave up on Wikipedia so soon. It's an incredibly big place - can you be sure you're not operating on findings obtained from too small a sample? Just my two cents.
To whom the shoe fits: please remember this is Jimbo's talk page, not article space or your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the sampling size; I picked some pretty good samples,

and they show Wikipedia to have serious flaws and unworkable errors. I don't need a larger sampling to know this. Scientific method worked fine; Experiments 1-10 demonstrated factually that there are problems and that theres no point continuing to make an effort here unless those problems are seriously adressed. Regarding "Jimbos Talk Page." Yes, I am trying to have a conversation with Jimbo. So far, not much for answers, FROM HIM. I'd move the whole lot of answers to my own talk page, If Jimbo gave me the impression that a conversation between us had started. Till then, this gets as long as it takes to make the point. Which may be quite a bit longer than would otherwise be prudent. Prometheuspan 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I often find that I either get ignored or violate WP:POINT. I think I have not made enough noise about the repeated blocks to 202.156.6.54. I find myself unable to edit a quarter of the time. It's like discrimination against 4 million Singaporeans, all of whom use StarHub. What must I do next? Vandalize the userpages of admins who block? If the need arises, and only if, I will. My WikiStress levels are rising. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
To whomever it may concern: User was blocked shortly after this for vandalism and WP:POINT (or more to the point, WP:HA). NSLE (T+C) at 09:40 UTC (2006-06-03)
Another user blocked for criticism - see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Tolerance_of_Criticism - Xed 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See now then? Its like a big battle. Somebody complains that they are becoming "civilian casualties", and ploof! They are in trouble. The whole point of this is that Wikipedia should not be a big battle in general character. It should be a collaborative and cooperative environment in general character. It has become a war zone because it lacks the back bone to make the rules that it has to in order to protect itself. Exploited innocence. IF the world was a perfect place, we would need no more rules, and anon editors would just come in and add two cents and leave to the sound of harps and Angelic hymns. It isn't a perfect world, and the assumption of Good faith is an absurd abstraction when facing POV warriors with Admin Priveledges. Prometheuspan 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Music chart information in relation to fair use

I've never written here before, and I apologise if this is the wrong place to bring up this issue, but I was curious about how "fair use" guidelines may apply to the many articles on (mostly contemporary) songs and albums. Organisations such as Billboard magazine and Nielsen SoundScan collect and publish chart and sales information, but to access such information you would need to pay for subscriptions. (I'm confident the same can be said for similar organisations outside of the U.S.) However, a lot of Wikipedia articles end up replicating such information in sufficient detail that somebody would not need a subscription to find what they were looking for. For example, I'm Not Dead provides SoundScan sales figures and Billboard chart positions for every week since the album's release, Hung Up has week-by-week chart trajectories for more than half-a-dozen different countries, and Check on It lists no less than fourteen Billboard and six UK charts (some of which are simply used to calculate the larger ones).

Aside from the viewpoint expressed by many editors that such excessive coverage of chart performance transforms articles into "indiscriminate collections of information" (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts), there's a potential problem involved here in that this level of coverage could easily be interpreted as a copyright violation, or at the very least straining the boundaries of what constitutes "fair use" on Wikipedia. I may be wrong, but doesn't adding a week-by-week Billboard chart trajectory to an article essentially have the same effect as uploading a photo that originated from an organisation such as the AP without scaling it down? Because the information is on Wikipedia, people will be less likely to pay for it, and while this may increase the popularity of this site, I doubt the same can be said for those organisations like Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan. I believe this is also the same reason we avoid quoting wholesale from song lyrics or any other texts. Note http://www.napster.com/terms.html states, "All Billboard chart data are the copyrighted works of VNU eMedia, Inc. Billboard chart information may not be published, broadcast, displayed or redistributed without the prior written agreement of VNU eMedia, Inc."

Again, I apologise if this is the wrong place to be leaving this message, but your (and anybody else's) opinion on the issue would be much appreciated. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that chart information is based on numbers and fixed formulas, it constitutes facts, and facts or collections thereof cannot be copyrighted. --Carnildo 23:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Article Deletion/Recreation Policy

A certain article about a person with the last name of Merkey was deleted and restored with very little information -- certainly none of the items of controversy which interested the people who created the article in the first place. The stated reason was that the previous article was "unpleasant", not that it was inaccurate, had original research, etc. This deletion followed months of editorial discussion, changes, disputes, arbitration, sock puppet modifications by the subject of the article, etc.

If the article can't contain any "unpleasant" information, I do not believe it should exist because it is an inaccurate reflection of the subject being discussed.

Jimbo, is there an official policy here, or was this a special-case situation?

Thanks.

71.145.157.217 04:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unpleasant" is a euphemism, and not the only reason I gave. The problem was that the article was inaccurate, had original research, etc. All those months of editorial discussion produced an article with glaring errors and omissions, unsourced opinions, etc. So, a fresh start seemed warranted, and I have tried to bring the article to wide attention of good editors. The article is also semi-protected temporarily, in hopes that we can keep down the trolling while experienced editors rebuild the article. The process seems to be going well!--Jimbo Wales 17:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there was a lot of abuse in the talk pages, and that many of the editors and discussion participants seemed unreasonably pleased to post some of the worst items, and that they were often provoking the person in question, but that was really more a problem of process as I didn't see much of it leak into the actual article -- and if it had, addressing the individual failings in the article would have been a less drastic measure. If you are calling the LKML posts (the Linux purchasing offers, the NYC offer for "help", the posts about judges and religions, etc.) original research, opinions, or factual mistakes because they are disputed, then I have to strongly disagree. It may sound reasonable to say that he could have been the victim of a troll impersonation (as he has been on the Yahoo message boards), but that ignores the source: the posts were done at a time prior to his fame with the Yahoo SCOX crowd. The headers were entirely consistent with messages sent before and after, and he communicated frequently on the list at that time, and said nothing about there being forgeries. The person in question has has a history of claiming such abuse, and when pressed for evidence, has said outrageous and self- contradictory things which were at odds with evidence in IP logs. Later, right here on Wikipedia, he has both claimed he did and that he did not write those messages in posts minutes apart, which I personally pointed out to him and did not receive a response. Certainly those actions destroy any credibility to his recent claims that they were forged -- claims not made on the mailing list in question, but here at Wikipedia. In any case, I worried that you made the change without consideration or that you were not paying attention, because the action made it look as if you belive the subject of the article participated in good faith during the discussions about that page -- something which seems to me unreal. The current page is not a reasonable or complete reflection of the subject in question as it leaves out most of the items the individual is "famous" for, so I do not agree it is going well, though I admit with time it may improve. This is my last post on the subject. Thanks for listening.

71.145.205.23 08:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


I will file suit

I will if my freedom of speech is denied! 24.131.63.39 04:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, of course, we must remember that the First Amendment provides that Jimbo shall promulgate no policy abridging the freedom of speech of any user, even where such speech is disruptive and even where the website on which such speech occurs in privately-owned and -operated. Joe 05:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC) My sardonicism wasn't particularly disruptive, but I don't want to bite the new user, so I'm striking it out; the user appears to be editing in good faith. Joe 06:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The user has apologized on their talk page. Mak (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Legal threats are a indefinately blockable offense. Can someone please explain the seriousness of it to the user before he shoots self in the foot with a rocket propelled grenade?--Cat out 00:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The US government wants to get rid of the first amendment. For instance, the FCC fines people for free speech. DyslexicEditor 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't clutter up Jimbo's talk page with hysterical claptrap trolling. Thanks. - Nhprman 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


http://www.wikipedia- watch.org/hivemind.html

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales:

Why aren't people allowed to discuss http://www.wikipedia- watch.org/hivemind.html within Wikipedia?
--Markhacker 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It has been added to a spam blacklist due to a history of linkspamming to that address. -Mask 20:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Read http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&st=20

Evil behavior

WAS 4.250 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with revealing the truth. It's all about the free flowing of information, baby.
It's called freedom of information!
It's called Open SOurce!
Agnosticso 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


For more data about evil by these same people read Philip Sandifer. WAS 4.250 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the mighty wikipedia spam blacklist, otherwise known as the "censorship list of death". http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist 128.100.31.152 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should links from a website basicaly dedicated in harrasing wikipedia users and administrators should be allowed? Tell me one logical reason. --Cat out 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
by itself, they should definately be allowed just due to the fact that censorship in an encyclopedia is wrong. The blacklist follows the same philosophy as the blocking policy: preventive, not punitive. It was blacklisted because its users spammed it everywhere. You don't (or policy says you shouldn't) block to punish someone, but to prevent further damage. If WikiWatch instituted an active policy of encouraging it's users to add links only where appropriate and to refrain from spam, I'm sure it would be allowed, just as a blocked user will be reinstated if he demonstrates reform and willingness to help build an encyclopedia. -Mask 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting "censoring", but wikipedia review is unencyclopedic to all but one article, Wikipedia. Wikipedia review mostly exists as a mean to harras wikipedians... And links from this site mostly is criticism against wikipedians... We should make efforts to minimise such trolling --Cat out 14:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What about WikiTruth? WikiTruth is notable enough to have its own article? Looks like double standard. Agnosticso 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


WikipediaReview are terrorists. Wikipedia is having a war on terror. 70.48.250.32 05:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Move all zig! </sarcasm> --Cat out 14:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I think it's time I explained the definition of assault to them according to Black's Law Dictionary.--MONGO 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Tolerance in the Wikipedia community

Tolerance in the real world is a principle I feel very strongly about, and it is my opinion that standards on Wikipedia should be at least as high. There is an unfortunate conflict between this principle and the aggressive campaign against permitting user boxes that suggest that a user has a viewpoint. This conflict has been made apparent to me because I chose a userbox that indicated my personal preference for using green energy, (a little piece of information that helps to create a picture of me, influenced by 14 years of work aimed at improving energy efficiency in buildings in the UK and Europe), only for this userbox to be deleted by someone who thought such a preference was "inflammatory". (By the way, I find the separate argument that user boxes use a substantial amount of server resources difficult to believe - are there statistics on this?).

I see two possible consistent alternatives. One is to forbid any material on user pages that expresses any degree of personal opinion about anything. The other is to tolerate any such material, except where it is generally agreed to be offensive (confrontational viewpoints, for example), and to suggest that user pages should be designed so as not to alienate those who read them. The problem with the former policy is that it is intolerant in a way that reminds one of totalitarianism. User pages are not articles (although they have some attributes of articles by a user, about that user). Many users who have contributed a resource worth many thousands of dollars to Wikipedia for free have spent a small amount of time creating a picture (sometimes slightly whimsical) of themselves on their user page. There is a balance to be made between an idealised desire that all Wikipedia editors have no personal views (so, in reality, should hide them), and the freedom of expression of users in a space away from articles and discussions about them.

The main argument I can see for the aggressive policy against certain userboxes is that it has a tendency to characterise a certain user as being motivated by pushing a certain viewpoint. I would disagree with such a attitude by a user, but I do not think opposing the use of certain user boxes has a significant effect on this phenomenon. It is worth noting that in many cases, a statement or a user box on a user page that expresses a viewpoint performs a useful service to Wikipedia by declaring an viewpoint of a user to other users, even though such a viewpoint should not be allowed to influence the content of contributions. Elroch 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You've missed the main opposition point on userboxes, actually. Userboxes are templates, but templates were designed to help write articles (and as such need to be NPOV). --Cyde↔Weys 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I would state the same point as Cyde, but slightly differently. The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. We actually are extremely tolerant about this, and I see no reason for us to change that. However, the issue with userboxes is that they are templates, and as such, they are categorized and easy to replicate and easy to use for campaigning and so on, and so they turn individual advocacy behavior, which is bad enough, into group campaigns. The pages which list userboxes, in the template namespace, make it seem as though putting these things on userpages is a normal and accepted community behavior, when in fact it is not.
There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.--Jimbo Wales 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo, I'm both pleased and puzzled to read your words here. Simply saying "they ought not" isn't a policy that ends the abuse of Templates space, and I think you know it won't end the unforgivably endless debates, which are chewing up editing time.
Your Statement of Principles notes that "Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." I urge you to follow this principle and keep this a matter to a mailing list for you and the Admins to sort out.
Leaving it to the "parliament of billions" to it sort out has led to tribalism and factions. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written - not in articles, but about boxes. No consensus seems immanent, other than they’re "cool."
Like all Web collaborations, WP needs clear policies. It’s the site owner’s job to sort out policies of this magnitude and make the fairest decision possible to protect the integrity of the project. Direct democracy can’t solve it. Gentle persuasion can’t solve it. A half million more words written about “Userbox policy proposals” can’t solve it. But you can, and I hope you do. - Nhprman 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm also surprised that you seem to be labeling many/all ("the problem with userboxes is...") POV userboxes as actually advocating/campaigning the view represented, when I don't think the majority of them are doing so. Most are probably being used to describe the editor with no subtext or intent of actually wanting that bias to slip into article-writing. In my opinion, it's not likely (though certainly possible) for someone to view something like "This user is a Christian" or "This user is Jewish" as advocating or identifying with that religion. What if they were reworded to avoid any such interpretation, like "This user has a bias favorable to Christianity" (with "bias" linked to WP:NPOV or some other explanatory page)? --AySz88^-^ 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Or we could simply end this debate with a new policy from Jimbo moving all boxes to user space, then focus on writing articles instead. Problem solved. (I also can't resist commenting that a box saying "This user has a bias favorable to Christianity" has no place on Wikipedia, and is symptomatic of the problem with Userboxes in general, but with Templated boxes in particular.) - Nhprman 05:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Placing a statement of affiliation on your user page is hardly "running a campaign". That's hyperbolic. Placing a statement of affiliation on your user page is just that -- exposing your affiliations and convictions. This is not only not a bad thing, but a manner of openness that is essential to responsible and accountable contributing. This openness and honesty should not only be permitted, it should be explicitly encouraged. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
There is zero conflict between your ideals and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. See Wikipedia:Divisiveness. The solution is to expand your free speech rather than limit it to a bumper sticker slogan. Express yourself! Please! Just don't blindly label yourself with some divisive unthinking slogan or category. We are all complex enough to deserve better than that. WAS 4.250 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Elroch, there's a problem with your suggestion that we "tolerate any such material, except where it is generally agreed to be offensive (confrontational viewpoints, for example)". This plan requires that we make a bunch of decisions about which views are offensive and which ones aren't. That would force Wikipedia to take all kinds of political stands when it comes to questionable cases. How can we condone declaring your membership in one ideology with a history of violence, but not another one? Near the boundary, there are countless such decisions that would have to be made, and that's not how we need to be using our energy; it's enough trouble deciding with topics are encyclopedic and verifiable, without having to worry about allowing some Irish nationalist party's userbox that a group of users claim is horribly offensive while another group screams about how we allowed a userbox for some Irish unionist party that also killed people... and so on and so forth.
That's so far from the project of writing an encyclopedia; we've got no business going there. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to Wikipedia:Userboxes states, "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." When I initially read this statement, I felt confident userboxes were a reasonable tool to support collaboration and community building within the online community dedicated to building this encyclopedia. In that spirit, I added a few userboxes to my page (just as Jimbo has) and joined the related WikiProject. About the same time, I started to notice the highly contentious userbox deletion wars, along with several active and failed attempts to resolve them. Assuming good faith, I joined in many of the discussions, attempting to clarify the web of issues for myself and possibly others in hopes of finding sound and equitable resolutions to these issues. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Instead, what I found as a major obstacle was what appears to me to be a relatively small group of administrators attempting to zealously enforce what they perceive to be the de facto policy on userboxes established through various comments made by Jimbo Wales. While it makes sense to listen to Jimbo’s comments, it makes even more sense to follow established policies and guidelines. I find it unfortunate some administrators are using Jimbo’s words as weapons in attempts to stifle the current processes intended to clarify policy on this issue. As a professional evaluator, I am well acquainted with issues related to characterizations, appraisals, neutrality, points of view, bias, factions, campaigning, policy development and the like. What I see occurring here is very troubling in the sense that many unintended consequences are plaguing this protracted userbox debate. For example, while Jimbo may well be acting on this matter in a spirit of tolerance, the actions of some of his representatives are perceived by many as personifications of intolerance, souring them to participating in the voluntary activity of encyclopedia development. If, in fact, Jimbo has a clear policy position on userboxes, then it should be communicated as such, not as a posting here and there on a discussion page, and subsequently used by some in attempts to bully their colleagues. I strongly urge Jimbo to further assume his leadership in Wikipedia by making an official policy statement on userboxes that addresses the outstanding issues on this matter. Rfrisbietalk 05:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The circumstances that allow some users to say (perhaps with some justification) that the Admins are acting on what they think Jimbo is saying, and may be misinterpreting his comments, are the very reasons why his "non-statement statements" about Userboxes are a huge problem for the project. Though - if I may spin this just a bit differently - I think Jimbo's tolerance for the situation is actually the core of the problem, and I don't blame the admins as much as some seem to for thier zeal in taking at least the FIRST half of every statement Jimbo makes against Templated User boxes at face value. It's the "but this isn't a real policy" part of these statements that drive people mad. - Nhprman 06:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've no idea who wrote that userboxes were "to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." You were grotesquely, obscenely misled. --Tony Sidaway
"Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." Really? Somewhere along the line userboxes got terribly terribly off-track, then. Most userboxes don't even pretend to be even tangentially-related to writing the encyclopedia. (Dammit, edit-conflicted with Tony) --Cyde↔Weys 06:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." Prescriptive versus descriptive. You should see what that wording replaced. WAS 4.250 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone seems to have added userboxes to Jimbo's page, which seems to have misled the above editor to think that sticking a load of pastel boxes expressing belief in all kinds of causes is the way to be a good Wikipedian. That's a little sad. I've removed them from Jimbo's page so as to avoid further misleading other users. --Tony Sidaway 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to Jimbo and others for your views. Firstly, it is worth making analogies between userboxes and real-world equivalents. A userbox may be seen as being like a T-shirt, or a badge, but may also be seen as being like a category which people belong to out of choice (for example being a Muslim). When one buys a T-shirt or badge or becomes a Muslim, one is to some extent aligning oneself with someone else's viewpoint. Personally I think such behaviour is acceptable in society (although in some workplaces, employees may be prohibited from any such personal statements, even if they have no effect whatsoever on their performance. It has just come to mind that in some societies, certain such declarations have been made compulsory, which is also an attack on personal freedom). I consider that the "clothing policy" for the "Wikipedia workplace" should err on the side of personal freedom.
My second point is to correct a misunderstanding. The user box that led to this discussion did not advocate anything - it expressed a personal viewpoint. Saying "I like Mozart" after editing a few hundred articles on pure mathematics (or "I support the use of green energy") is not the same as saying "You should like Mozart" or "All music but Mozart sux". However, there may well be some fans of death metal who would find a userbox saying "I like Mozart" inflammatory and delete it if given administrator privileges. Should they condescended to, or encouraged? Elroch 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing in Wikipedia's mission or policies to suggest its goal is to somehow foster freedom of expression, democracy, personal freedom or anything of the sort. Jimbo's statements and WP's policies are pretty straightforward on at least this point. Further, in addition to banning T-shirts, an employer may say, "No banners or posters are allowed in your workspace about politics, religion or even your favorite music. They're not appropriate for work, and are distractions." Same goes for clothing, and for WP, and honestly, even most "chat" boards have rules and ban those who don't comply. Why is WP so holy that it must not have rules against wanton, off-topic expression? I'll never 'get' that, I guess. As for inflammatory boxes, why not just write "I like Mozart" on your User page, avoiding the problem of deletions altogether? Better yet, let your numerous positive edits on Mozart's article speak to your love of the man and his music. - Nhprman 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the huge imbalance between the freedom to express an inoffensive opinion in a visually appealing way, and the freedom to express a single person's prejudice against many others who have done so, by destroying the userbox template that they chose to use. This latter action is offensive to a community of people who generously provide their own time for the improvement of the encyclopedia. In doing so, Wikipedia loses out, because people who have considerable experience and knowledge feel alienated by someone unconcerned (or motivated) by the irritation to many users that this causes. In the case of User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy the prejudiced decision of one user to delete this without review, using the false premise of it being "divisive and inflammatory" damaged around 250 user pages. I am sure the majority of Wikipedia contributors would agree that expressing a preference for green energy is not divisive or inflammatory, any more than a vast number of other personal characteristics are, but that the deletion of a template like this is a form of large-scale vandalism of user pages which does not provide a net benefit to Wikipedia. Elroch 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not guarantee freedom of expression, offensive or not, where it does not directly relate to editing the encyclopedia (see: WP:FREE). What you also don't understand is that having a "green energy" template means users (admittedly snarky ones) then feel perfectly free to create an "anti-green energy" template, thus making it divisive, because then those 250 pro-green energy users are encouraged to go and "gang vote" during the deletion reviews for both of these templates. Again, Wikipedia is not the place for any of these discussions, arguments or battles. - Nhprman 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the best example of a real world society where even the most selfless distinguishing characteristic is frowned upon as divisive and prohibited, and must be concealed due to the paranoid sensitivity of others who do not share that characteristic? There must be some powerful regime with a strong, autocratic leadership to which Wikipedia can look to as a role model. Elroch 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to look to a society, per se, as a model for solving this problem. On the other hand, if we walked down the street in a hypothetical society and everyone automatically greeted everyone else with the words, "I'm a liberal" "I'm a Nationalist" "Abortion is murder" "Republicans are evil" "Your race stole my land!" then we'd have a pretty nasty world that would inevitably lead to conflict. That's what we have here - the start of something really nasty. And as Jimbo says, the Userbox phenomenon has attracted the wrong kind of people and that's not what this project is all about. And yet, if the boxes were simply unhitched from templates, and the entire "social/clubbing" aspect of the boxes was eliminated, many, if not most, people would have no problem with someone saying "I like editing..." or "I know about..." or whatever, on thier user pages, either as a box or as a line of text. - Nhprman 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the line should be drawn somewhere between pandering to bigotry by avoiding anything that bigots object to, (a policy I cannot subscribe to), and permitting overtly antagonistic viewpoints. Analogies might be the policies of prohibiting any religious alegiance (as the Chinese government once did) and permitting people going around with sandwich boards saying "republicans must die": I disagree with both of these policies. My line would be drawn to allow things that might appear in a pocket biography, but not things that amount to soapboxing. So "I am a member of the Republican party" would be in (and a possible warning of bias) but "Republicans are evil" would be out. To those who would say drawing a line is impossible because it requires judgment, I would say so do many other things. The result of an open discussion should help where this is unclear. What is definitely wrong (and more offensive than most wacko viewpoints) is an editor with a clear political bias going through the list of userboxes deleting the ones whose views are on the opposite wing to his or her own (anyone spring to mind?). Elroch 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There is probably a lot of common ground between us, but we have different ways of approaching the issue. You seem concerned about free speech, whereas I'm more concerned about the demonstrated and damaging effects of templated Userboxes. "I am a Republican" is fine written on a Userpage (though there are still good reasons not to) but if it's a template, used a means to gather ALL Republicans together and gang-edit or vote stack, it's very bad for the project. And it's not a question of banning everything a bigot might find offensive. Again (and this is the Practical objection to these templated boxes) an employee might say "Hey, let's start a Democrats at Work club!" and gather all Democrats together. Then, a GOP club starts up. Then a Socialist club. Pretty soon the boss says, "ENOUGH. It's distracting you from work." So this is a multilayered problem, which makes it maddening to see the Tfd review process boil down to hundreds of uninformed "voters" saying "Keep. I like boxes," a statement which is beside the point and doesn't address either the content problem or the problem of how the templates are misused. As for admins deleting boxes they don't like, yes, that's not ideal. But as long as there's ambiguity on the policy, factions will continue fight the war this way. - Nhprman 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that user boxes are fine. I also think that if all editors force themselves to be intellectually honest with themselves about their own biases and preferences, virtually all user box disputes would cease to be. Finally, I'll point out that that it's a good thing to hone our consensus editing skills and the discussions about user boxes, if approached correctly, would facilitate that. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think Userboxes can work, but not as templates, and simply ignoring the corrosive social networking these templates create (as some advocate doing) will not make the problem go away, it will just increase divisiveness, POV, and POV-pushing here on WP. And debating the numerous "solutions" to the issue is taking hundreds of thousands of User hours away from editing time. - Nhprman 03:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The current system could be improved by being replaced by a directory of graphics suitable for users to find a logo to illustrate an attribute, plus a single generic userbox which would allow the user to specify the graphic and the text. The only reason I personally use userboxes is to draw on the graphical skills of others, and I imagine most others do the same. Elroch 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a good idea. It's probably too simple and logical to ever be adopted as policy, though. ;-) - Nhprman 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What I find frustrating is the constant rearguard campaign against the essential point that was stated by Jimbo, and should have been taken on board by everyone, months ago - userboxes expressing views on political, religious, etc., issues may be acceptable on userpages (if frowned on by some), but they are not a proper use of template space. When some of us tried to write that into formal policy, originally as an expansion of T1 and then as T2, many people opposed it. The way I see it, there has now been a long time for users to adapt to this idea by userfying their userboxes or whatever else they have to do. Jimbo's latest words are pretty clear: template space "is not for that" and "we do not endorse this behaviour". I want to write this into formal policy somehow, though I'm cautious about doing so after the dificulties a group of us encountered last time we tried.

I'd appreciate Jimbo's thoughts on this. Please note that many of the userboxes concerned cannot truly be described as "divisive and inflammatory" because they say no more than "this user is a Christian". That may be "divisive" in some broad sense, but it is stretching the English language beyond its limits to describe such an anodyne statement as being also "inflammatory". We need something more than the bare words of T1 as they currently stand. Changing the words to "divisive or inflammatory" might help, but I don't think it's enough to make the position clear, and even that attempted change to T1 met with a lot of opposition. We really need to write down in some formal policy that admins can point to, and rely upon, that all political etc userboxes are an improper use of template space and that after all this time it is surely proper for admins to gradually delete them. Metamagician3000 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I also wonder whether you are aware of this. I was tempted to delete it on sight, but I could find nothing in the CSD categories empowering me to speedy it. If it were taken to categories for deletion, it would probably receive a lot of support and survive the process. Admins need more authority at the moment to deal with this sort of thing. Right now, it's not worth the candle trying to oppose the large number of people who think that political, etc., userbox templates are "cool" and must be preserved as a component of Wikipedia culture. In this case, they have actually organised themselves into a category of Wikipedians. Metamagician3000 02:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That "Anti-T2 Wikipedians" club is outrageous and is an unwittingly excellent illustration as to why all Templated Userboxes should be immediately eliminated and why they are divisive by their very nature, regardless of what words they use. It's mindboggling to me that Jimbo has allowed this Userbox nonsense to go on this long, and why he thinks the very scenario you envision - the Anti-T2 Template being deleted, then everyone scampering to Review to write "Keep. I like it. Free Speech." so it can "survive" - is preferable to simply instituting a clear policy that will get these people back to EDITING and away from all this process foolishness. I really want an answer from Jimbo as to why a laissez faire approach, leaving it to an uninformed mobocracy to debate policy they clearly don't understand, makes any sense at all at this point, when all evidence points to a collapse in the process. - Nhprman List 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
In Jimbo's defence, his approach several months ago of not doing anything drastic was probably the right one. Indeed, I posted here asking that nothing drastic happen, and I don't think that the mass userbox deletions back then helped matters. But that was back in about February. There's been plenty of time for people to understand the aim of getting these things out of template space. What we're now seeing is diehard resistance to that aim by folks who should know better. I think the time has certainly come for stronger action from the top to support those of us who support the aim and are prepared to enforce policies that will achieve it. Metamagician3000 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Though I have to say that I'm detecting a sense from his carefully parsed wording, above (28 May entry) that he still believes friendly, gentle persuasion is always preferable to taking the that action you, me and many, many others feel is necessary to solve the problem. It's a bit unrealistic and I hope he corrects me if I'm misunderstanding this point. - Nhprman List 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia in Spanish is going really bad

Hello Jimbo, I'm sending this message to you becaus I'm really concern about the way Wikipedia-es its going. Reviewing some articles and the bibliotecaries (administrators), i notice that there is a really anti-american presence there, and that its reflected in articles like: Cuba, URSS, China, USA, etc,etc. In which there is a tendency to publish false information against the United States by the administrators. Also the same administrators are blocking people who want to edit those articles to present the real information with evidences.

Im telling you this because Wikipedia in Spanish its going into a really bad way, and inevitably it will carry critics from the media...

Sincerely, Carlos.--69.84.124.246 09:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Greetings Earthling, Jimbo,

Dear Jimbo,

I hope you can forgive me for disturbing you, that was not my intent.

I just noticed we might have one or two things in common. I am a member of Mensa and am self-taught. In 1991, I helped my best friend make a million dollars trading S&P 500 futures. He didn't share much of his success with me. He said, if he had lost money, I would not have shared in his loss. My only revenge is that I always give him white, and still constantly beat him in chess. Every time I visit him to play chess, I feel like Sebastian visiting Tyrell in "Blade Runner." My friend moved from the back room of his father's roach infested house to the 16th floor of a luxury condo.

I have a hard time because I have no credentials. I can pass any test, but most licenses require proven experience. Though, I have considerable experience in many fields, I can't prove it with W-2 forms. I will soon inherit a little bit of money, but can't figure out what to do. I have a lot of business ideas, a lot of inventions I would like to patent, many blue-collar skills, and exceptional talent in one or two areas, but I also have disabilities.

I would like to start a community called EMPATHY. You can find a description of it here: http://directory.ic.org/records/?action=view&page=view&record_id=20445

Maybe, someday I could discuss my ideas with you, and ask your advice.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

Michael D. Wolok 15:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo isn't an oracle that can just tell you what to do with your life. Your best friend made that money because he took a risk with the assets he had. You should do the same. 70.17.41.123 05:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Awareness (and also meta:Meta:MetaProject Awareness)

I've recently started a project to increase the awareness of Wikipedia and to recruit expert editors from universities and the like. It's been suggested that we ask you to take a look and perhaps give some strategies since it's something that you do all the time, and we're only doing it at a lower level. Thanks for your time. --Xyrael T 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Brian Peppers, again

After months of discussing issues on the Talk:Brian Peppers, an admin took the liberty of speedy deleting the talk page today interpreting you saying that the article shouldn't be created until 2007 as saying it shouldn't even be allowed to be discussed until then. It has been undeleted, redeleted, and undeleted again since then. Is this what you intended? VegaDark 22:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On this note, and in view of the erstwhile discussions about the article, would you be amenable to our redirecting to Internet memes and then protecting? Joe 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The talk page used to have links to off-wikipedia sites about Brian Peppers. DyslexicEditor 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Your point? If this was a concern (Which it shouldn't be, as the page was deleted as recreation of previously deleted content) then what is so hard about simply removing the links? VegaDark 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't state my opinion about whether it was good or bad. Actually, I was the one posting the links in the talk page to people who complained about there being no article about brian peppers. Basically, there are other sources of info on it. I'd like it if the article says, "try these links for info" and they may have various wikis (wikitruth, uncyclopedia, damatica), and YMNTDs, and other things that have info on it. DyslexicEditor 04:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for misinterpreting your comment. That certianly sounds like a better idea than what we have now. VegaDark 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


defamation ala Seigenthaler at Les Aspin

I found an unsubstantiated allegation on Les Aspin's bio. It accuses him of shoplifting while he was Clinton SecDef. There was no source. I removed it per policy. The tidbit was added by an anonymous IP in March. I have not been able to verify it so I removed it. It is disturbing that it could have been up there for that long (and with many subsequent edits) without challenge. I am not sure if Wikipedia can take any actions that would help cleanse the mirror caches or Goolge searches.

Diffs are here. --Tbeatty 00:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

An administrator has apparently deleted the 68.14.190.169 contributions. This is actually worse since it makes it seem another editor is actually responsible for the edits. Now the diffs are here but the edit that actually added the material is now deleted. --Tbeatty 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tbeatty's concern. I do not know the best solution, but the current look of it is just wrong.--Jimbo Wales 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


rampant state-endorsed copyright infringement by Baidu Baike

Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.

(As an example of lifting, see this versus this, articles which discuss Sun Yat-Sen. Our version at zh was much earlier, with last edits in January, while Baidu Baike has only made minor excisions and modifications.)

I think we should give up any hope of negotiating with the PRC entirely, as they obviously have taken a hostile and insulting stance to us by lifting material wholesale, then saying it is their copyright. This is such a gross violation of Wikipedia's philosophy, and PRC being a member of the World Trade Organisation (with compulsory ratification of the WIPO), some form of action *must* be taken. I do not think this is a time for lega pacifism.

If you could initiate any attempts I think the whole community will cheer on. The right to sue is clearly there, perhaps the tediousness is in collecting copyright holders, but then again I think we can make a point of this case. The PRC is required to comply, because such a gross violation can mean PRC's expulsion from the WTO. If anything I think we should treat Baidu Baike as an enemy, and drop any pretenses or hopes that the PRC will ever willingly unblock zh. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What can you do? Wikipedia will declare war on PRC? LOL! Your so called copy violations mean nothing in PRC. PRC being a member of the World Trade Organisation means absolutely nothing. You should just give up because there's nothing Wikimedia can do about it. 70.48.250.191 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily a war, I think legal action is entirely justified and necessary. Otherwise any further legal standing will be suitably eroded. Besides, we have plenty of evidence and we have a good case: and the defendant has a lot of funds to compensate. The PRC is a signer of the WIPO, and if they don't respect copyrights from Wikimedia then that says a lot about other corporations' willingness to invest in the PRC. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
So who's going to go to China to sue them? 70.48.250.191 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There's no need - they have assets in the United States. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What we need to ask ourselves is: would the costs of a lawsuit (and the risk of losing) be justified by this alleged copyright infringement? Especially since Wikipedia makes no money from its content, and the amount of damages would therefore be minimal. Cynical 14:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
But the server where the data are stored is located in China. This is similar to the situation in Germany in which a judge ruled that he could not shut down Wikipedia.de because the server is located in Florida, USA. 128.100.31.166 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That was an injunction. Seizing of assets could follow. Cynical: damages arises from the philosophy that everything was meant to be provided free as in freedom - damages could follow from damage to this philosophy, damages due to censorship, etc. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You think any judge care about your free as in freedom crap? 70.48.250.251 03:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Not the smartest thing to say on Jimmy Wales' page. WP:CIV, or you will be blocked. NSLE (T+C) at 03:35 UTC (2006-06-01)
The GPL has been upheld in court. Arguing a case for violation of the GFDL is very similar. In fact, I think we can bring this forward to gpl-violations.org if they are willing to do GFDL as well. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, why are you trying to sue the PRC? Baidu (although it has substantial CPC investments) is a corporation. You don't sue the PRC government because a company that some of its members invested in is infringing Wikimedia's copyrights. If anything, sue Baidu. They're big, listed and rich. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And they're located in China. 70.48.250.251 03:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And they're still subject to international treaties. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
nope, they're not. 128.100.31.170 20:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying they're not. But you don't sue a state because of one of the companies from that state violated Wikipedia's IP. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


A couple questions regarding the immutability of CSD T1

Hi Jimbo. I don't think I've written you before, I know you must be flooded with all sorts of things that need not directly involve you, but I think this really does. There's been as I'm sure you're aware a lot of discussion involving criterion for speedy deletion T1, which you added (mostly moved out to Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates now). Concern has arisen that T1 may not be worded in a way that best expresses its intent, often admitting an interpretation that is either too broad or too narrow and encourages fighting over the policy and borderline templates rather than eliminating the especially provocative userboxes it was intended for.

So my question concerns the immutability of T1: since it was handed down "by decree", many users feel like it cannot be modified, even with consensus, even for clarification. Is this accurate, and if so, is this immutability something you would consider modifying, to allow limited types of changes? Finally, if you wish to keep it fixed, could you at least consider clarifying its specific requirements and intent? Thanks a lot for your help. Deco 12:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter what the precise wording is? If deletions adopting a certain meaning to the wording are supported by the community on review (which seems to be overwhelmingly the case at present) then there is no need to change it. --Tony Sidaway 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No offense, Tony, but my question is for Jimbo. I'm disappointed that this page is so flooded with comments and arguments that need no involvement of Jimbo - maybe he needs a secretary or something. :-) Deco 04:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Can't Jimbo just respond without your belittling everyone who disagrees with you? Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


NPOV vs "mainstream"

Hi, Jimbo! I am not quite sure whether this issue worth your time, still I would be very pleased if you could comment on it or suggest anybody else who is experienced enough and can assist to clarify the point. Thanks.--AndriyK 16:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Quasi protection

Hello, I don't think you'll have much time, I wondered if you have a second to take a look to Wikipedia:Quasi-protection_policy, it is a proposel to create a new type of protection, to prevent sleep users (many of them are vandals) and it was proposed to create a new user status, "trusted users", to have some editors between the "commons" and the "elite" (admins). I proposed that trusted users could be a mor "free" type of user acsess; I proposed that, to be trusted someone has to be elected by 7 other trusted users, and to be "dis-trusted" somenone needed 7 oppose votes of other trusted users. I seemed a good idea to me, because of a milion users only 300,000 are active and less than a thousand have sysop powers, so for each admin there are 300 users, and you say in your page that "there must be no elites". I feel there is a very well determinated elite, wich is adminship. As it is insane to give sysop powers frely, I beelive it good to change, what's your opinion? If you have time answer me here —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia rocks

Wikipedia rocks, thank you for a great resource! :D sorry if this is in the wrong place, if some tells me the correct place i'll move this message) Matthew 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Poems?

Alas! Where did the poems on the main user page go?!? Verloren Hoop 03:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the edit history, Jimbo feels embarassed to have odes dedicated to him. Mak (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of giving offence, I think the poems owed more to McGonagall than to Longfellow. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, Tony, I think you're right...but they made me grin. They were, if not spectacular literature, at least well-meant. I suppose my Ode to Wikipedia will have to go elsewhere. (Even though it's more Dr. Seuss than McGonagall OR Longfellow) Verloren Hoop 19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The poems have all been moved to User:Jimbo Wales/Poems, where they should stay. I think Jimbo's user page links to that. Factitious 07:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
-shakes head- No linkage that I could see. Not that I'm really complaining...I was simply amused. Verloren Hoop 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


thank you for making wikipedia encyclopedia

i like your encyclopedia even if it does have some rough patches--F.O.E. 13:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for talk page note

This is ancient history in Wikipedia terms now, but thanks for your words on my talk page. I appreciated them very much. Elizmr 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Appeal the Arbitration Committee decision

Please help: where can I appeal against Arbitration Committee (in ru-wiki) decision? --Vlad Jaroslavleff 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)




Tolerance of Criticism

I have read somewhere that Jimbo has said that criticism of Wikipedia is good for Wikipedia, and that it should be welcomed. The evidence for this welcome approach is hard to find. I would like to know of there are any instances on Wikipedia where serious critical opinion has not resulted in the critic being blocked, or threatened with blocking, or accused of being a troll etc. - Xed 11:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide some examples of editors being blocked after making "serious critical opinion" within Wiki policy. I am a newbie as well(see below) so I would be happy to review this and support you if it's true. Thanks! --Tom 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wiki policy doesn't mean much in these matters. Karmafist is being threatened now (for spreading dissent..). Other users have restrictions imposed on them, like Everyking. I was threatened with a block of a year, the reasons for which are yet to be officially resolved. (it turned out Jimbo was behind it) - Xed 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide links? You know what? Never mind, I really don't care right now, I got to get something to eat, I am starving. Later --Tom 16:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I couldn't give you an example. But I can tell you why most of the criticism is rebuffed. I think most people do it the wrong way - the criticism is either rude, unsupported, or in the wrong place. Though, I'm rather new, so you might have to take my opinion with a shaker of salt. Verloren Hoop 12:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Xed still posts to Wikipedia on a regular basis. He also gets blocked on a regular basis for breaking the rules, of course, but that is a matter entirely unrelated to his serious criticisms, which as far as I know, are widely listened to as being serious. Xed's question is asked the wrong way around, of course. The serious question is: are there any cases of someone being blocked for a serious and thoughtful critique? --Jimbo Wales 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a sadly symptomatic response. I think my last block was for saying to Wales - Take criticism seriously for a change. Wales insists that the question must be phrased his way. - Xed 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I would serve as an example of someone who has seriously criticized Wikipedia and has not been blocked, threatened with blocking, etc. I continue to believe my criticisms are valid. I continue to participate in a competing fork which has different policies. While here I follow Wikipedia policies and even enforce them, citing the Wikipedia community's arguments for them. There are a few who gave me a little flak at first, but generally this situation is accepted. One thing I don't do. I don't keep harping on the differences; I pitch in and help move the project forward. I think Xed's criticisms add value to Wikipedia. I have certainly taken them to heart. His troubles have little or nothing to do with those criticisms but with his editing behavior. Basically he is asking for an entire group of people to suddenly see the light and instantly change their behavior while the best that can be hoped for is that they will gradually do better. Fred Bauder 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would never in a million years regard you as a critic, never mind someone who has seriously criticized Wikipedia ....where? - Xed 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My criticisms were made on the en mailing list several years ago. I attacked one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia, Neutral point of view. I created a fork which not only permits, but encourages articles which are not "neutral". In addition, original research is welcome. In fact, most of the central policies of Wikipedia are turned on their head. I fought with principle administrator of the time User:Larry Sanger, even edit warred with him. When he criticized another user I posted a message, "Pot calling the kettle black". Briefly, I raised hell, but I never took the step of assuming that other Wikipedia users were not doing what they thought was right as best they could. But, then I usually see both sides; just prefer one over the other. Fred Bauder 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A mailing list? I don't read Wikipedia mailing lists. The vast majority of other editors don't either, and shouldn't have to. Why not post on Wikipedia itself? Were you feeling shy? Anyway, we don't all have the resources to create a fork when we don't get our own way. - Xed 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, I would like to know of there are any instances on Wikipedia where serious critical opinion has not resulted in the critic being blocked, or threatened with blocking, or accused of being a troll etc. - Xed 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I know of none. I don't know of anyone who has criticized Wikipedia or Jimbo himself who was banned simply for expressing an opinion. I've been pretty critical of Jimbo for failing to adequately address or solve the Userbox issue (see Tolerance in the WP community, above) and on many previous occasions, including calling some of his assumptions "Utopian." And while he has chosen not to respond directly, I think the words were just constructive enough that - I'm daring to hope - they made him think I may have something to offer the discussion. That, or he hasn't gotten around to banning me. :-) - Nhprman 16:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, your criticism was very mild. - Xed 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So far, other than being blocked for a day for calling strotha and

Inshanne pov warriors, i have not had any problems, and to my knowledge am the strongest critic i know of. As per comments below; The method of criticism and the lucidity of same are key variables here which you seem to fail to take into account. Prometheuspan 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be a hint that methods and behavior have more to do with sanctions than criticisms do. I criticize this place all the time. I don't think open editing is the best way to go anymore as evidenced by the fact that the majority of our articles are terrible and the constant vandalism, etc. The rate at which we produce featured articles would take hundreds of years before we have a complete encyclopedia. The list goes on. But no one has so much as hinted I was out of line for making the criticisms. It's just not that hard to behave and edit nicely with others. Wondering why you get sanctioned if you can't do that is the problem. - Taxman Talk 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipeda, and Wales, accept such mild criticism because it can be easily ignored. A serious criticism would involve going against the vested admin interests by suggesting what to do about it, and then attempting to do it. Soon after, the threats will start. - Xed 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You just have a fixed idea and don't look at evidence. And you keep on and on. Fred Bauder 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting projection, Mr. Bauder. I could say the same of your recent "arbitration". Prometheuspan 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my fixed idea is that Wikipedia can change for the better. I agree there's not much evidence. And I go on and on. The more passive are happy to ignore problems. - Xed 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my fixed idea is that wikipedia can be changed for the better. Against apparent evidence to the contrary, i keep making the effort. Since my complaints are both reasonable and factual, your

answer is only a petty invalidation, and a veiled ad hominem. Of course Xed looks at the evidence, it is others who do not. Prometheuspan 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not criticism Xed, that's taking action after criticism. If those actions are not done in a cooperative manner and violate policy, don't confuse the consequences of that type of action with consequences of criticism. - Taxman Talk 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What part of "trying to make a postive change" are you intentionally misconstruing to be "taking action?" Criticism IS

a form of ACTION. Cooperate with who and what? Pov warrior arbiters? Denial? Systemic bias? Wikipedias brand of doublethink? I agree that some of Xeds tactics are questionable. The important thing is that at the coreof it, Xed is right. Prometheuspan 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Policies are often applied to critics retroactively. Critics are punished, and then a policy is stuck on or invented later. - Xed 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be moving the goalposts, Xed. You ask for examples of criticism of Wikipedia that didn't result in someone being banned, and then dismiss every example given as "not real criticism" or "not harsh enough". And now you state that the only example of criticism you'd accept as "real" would be a user who specifically goes against the interests of the admins and takes action to implement their criticisms before they've received any community support; it's not hard to see why such a user would often be banned, if their actions disrupted Wikipedia or attempted to stir up controversy and factionalism (as you seem to be implying one should do in order to properly criticize Wikipedia) rather than open up a reasoned dialogue. You're not describing criticizing Wikipedia, you're describing trying to stage a minor coup. :) There are plenty of aspects of Wikipedia that merit criticism, and people should feel free to openly discuss those problems and how to improve them; but there's a pretty clear difference between trying to voice valid concerns and trying to start a war against the status quo. Change must come gradually, or it will split the encyclopedia apart. -Silence 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"And now you state that the only example of criticism you'd accept as "real" would "

No, factually, Xed never said that. Straw man argument. "change has to come gradually or..." No, in fact the only useful or realistic change will come suddenly, and the defensiveness here isn't over wikipedia, but really status quo defense. There is no reason to believe that rapid evolution cannot also be fruitfull, healthy, and practical for Wikipedia. Prometheuspan 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not moving goalposts, but you are widening them. I talked of "instances on Wikipedia where serious critical opinion has not resulted in the critic being blocked, or threatened with blocking, or accused of being a troll etc.", whereas you say "ask for examples of criticism of Wikipedia that didn't result in someone being banned". The two are of course completely different. "Change must come gradually, or it will split the encyclopedia apart" - this hasn't really got anywhere. A year ago all the press was positive. Now it's hard to find something which isn't negative. But Wikipedia plods on, afraid of any real change. - Xed 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You were given examples of what you asked for. It's not hard to see where your problems are coming from, and it doesn't have anything to do with leveling criticisms. It's behavior. - Taxman Talk 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've yet to get examples. Do you really think people should be blocked for saying "Take criticism seriously for a change"? That's what's happening on Wikipedia. That's "incorrect behaviour". Of course, Taxman and Fred Bauder are administrators. They actually believe what they're saying here. If they believed something else, they wouldn't be admins. The self-selection of the timid means nothing gets done. - Xed 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Xed, you are running with the wrong ball here. Obviously your criticism is still here- I found it. So the real issue is in fact

having those criticisms taken seriously. Which is a VERY serious problem for Wikipedia. Prometheuspan 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't an administrator then, just another newbie with opinions. Fred Bauder 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. - Xed 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I am back (very yummy lunch). Xed, can you provide an example (link please) of an editor who was banned from Wikipedia for expressing criticism within Wiki policy? Thanks --Tom 20:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I said "blocked, or threatened with blocking, or accused of being a troll etc.", not necessarily banned. You don't have to look too far for such harassment. Just look at the talk page of the user who created the section below - for making a simple criticism, he's threatened with the whole weight of Wikipedia. - Xed 21:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, here's one, then. Was Eequor ever blocked or banned? I know you are familiar with her, and it looks like a clean blocklog to me. (For that matter, she nearly passed an RfA, though not quite.) Yet she was a quite strong critic at times, who rubbed a lot of people the wrong way (and, indeed, eventually gave up and left). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The name is familiar, though nothing else. "Giving up and leaving", or being forced out, is another way that Wikipedia controls criticism. Why bother blocking someone if they give up and leave? - Xed 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Xed, you mentioned the user who created the section below being threatened with the whole weight of WP. Since I am the only person to have talked to him or her, I am going to assume you mean I was doing the threatening. I find this description very unbased in reality. I was merely trying to help a new user. Bringing legal threats to Wikipedia is a reasonable topic to inform a contributor about. I wasn't doing anything wrong. Please do not mischaracterise my efforts to help as "threatening". Thanks, my friend. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 01:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
For a new user, your intervention would seem very threatening, though I don't blame you personally. That's just the set-up- Xed 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Setup to what, exactly? More help? He made a legal threat, I was trying to help him not get banned. Think I care if he criticises WP? Nope, don't really. People can think what they want. I think you labeling my comments as "threatening with the whole weight of WP" tells more about you than the WP community as a whole. See you around, my friend. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't read any legal threat in what he wrote, but I can certainly read a threat in your tone on his talk page. - Xed 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It was in the edit summary. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples? I've got examples. A whole talk page of them. Look at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks in the section about off-wiki actions. Plenty of debate and disagreement with Wikipedia policies, even direct disagreement with admins, and no one's getting banned. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You can create a list and add me and User:Anittas to it, going by your comments in the other section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've often criticised Wikipedia (my userpage carries some of my criticism) and I've only been blocked twice: once for calling someone an arsehole, which I regret because I do value the notion of a civil atmosphere, however far from it Wikipedia actually is, and the other time for removing an image that the blocking admin wanted kept. I don't doubt some editors would like to see me banned but I don't think I ever will be. I have been called a troll though but that's no more than code for "I disagree with you strongly" around here. Xed, it simply isn't true that critics are inevitably banned. Some of Wikipedia's "critics" are either users who were quite rightly excluded for making a menace of themselves or lunatics who would likely be excluded from any website that had the means to do so. Wikipedia is rather intolerant of criticism, that's true, and certainly tends more to disregard it than learn anything from it, and critical voices do tend to be marginalised and treated badly, but I think the whining of Zordrac's trollboard is ill founded on this score and you ought to know better than to repeat it. -- Grace Note.

Anyone who is arguing against Xed here needs to read up on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. The result of that case is that I am banned for one year from criticism of admin actions, for the crime of supposedly not researching things before commenting on them (a patently untrue charge, but which wouldn't be against policy even if it was true). Everyking 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a rare case where I agree with Everyking. I strongly encourage people to look at that case, in particular, the finding of that that "Everyking's commentary often reveals he is totally ignorant of the situations he is commenting on." [7] and the very convincing evidence we used to come to our decision [8] Raul654 07:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Raul's post serves as an excellent illustration of Wikipedia's problems and how the current system corrupts administrators. Kicking a man when he's down. Smugness. Punishment of critics. Even attacking someone when he knows that they can't respond. - Xed 08:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A nice attempt at histrionics, Xed, but unfortunately it's simply not factually true. EK is prohibited from commenting on the administratorial actions taken by others (which my comment was not). He is totally free to respond - however, as at least one other person has noted, Everyking likes to run away when people challenge his patently false statements. Raul654 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I had never realised the case against Everyking was so trivial. - Xed 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
...which says more about your judgement (or lack thereof) than it does about EK's case. Raul654 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Criticism of admin abuses is very serious and must be dealt with firmly. I propose a lifetime ban for Xed for suggesting that it is "trivial". Everyking 07:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Immediately after posting the question at the start of this section, one of my computers (used to view/edit WP) came under a sustained "Denial of Service" attack from a broad range of IP addresses - something which has never happened before. Fred Bauder, via email, tells me this is a coincidence, and he has checked logs and no admin has ever used "Checkuser" on me to obtain my IP. - Xed 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have logs of the range of IP addresses? What sort of attack was it? I strongly opposed any form of harassment of this type, and I am sure that there is overwhelming agreement on this point. I agree with Fred that it was most likely a co-incidence, since after all this has been a quite civil conversation for the most part. Even so, if you have any particular evidence you would like to share, I am sure we could have people look into this more closely. --Jimbo Wales 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Provided. Head-in-sanders will not be interested that I was blocked again for criticism. - Xed
DoS attacks often come from IRC. Maybe you were on IRC? Maybe even the wikipedia IRC (if that server shows IPs). DyslexicEditor 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment This Xed character seems to be very adept at making accusations without any proof. Why are we even discussing this if he refuses to actually present a case? A judge would have thrown this out as garbage by now. I'm all for finding problems with Wikipedia, after all that's how it gets better, but how about actually doing something on your part Xed? Why does Jimbo have to defend against an accusation without proof? Jack Adams stabed Jammie, we don't have any proof, but I'm telling you so it must be true! It's not our job to prove something didn't happen, it's your job to prove that something did. All I want is Xed to find someone who was blocked because he disagreed with Wikipedia. Being blocked because he disagreed with not comming someone a dick face...doesn't count. --mboverload@ 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


the recent attempt at looking at admin abuse

Here's is just a thought and suggestion into the problem at Wikipedia. Consider consensus: from groupthink "An alternative to groupthink is a formal consensus decision-making process, which works best in a group whose aims are cooperative rather than competitive, where trust is able to build up, and where participants are willing to learn and apply facilitation skills." Yes.

Does Wikipedia have consensus? Or does it have group think?

And who's consensus? The community's consensus, of course. But the community..who is the community, exactly. Is it a well rounded representative group of editors with diverse opinions? Or is it an inclusive group, led and motivated by the interests of power hungry admins? Is it maybe a group who use underhanded tricks and ploys to get their way? Like stacking votes at rfa's? Like making sockpuppets of themselves and cloning into new admins that sprout up all over the place ready to multiply their power over articles?

There are thousands of editors at Wikipedia who never get to make real input into very many articles. If they perservere at their attempts to introduce, (amazingly very often fact) into these articles, they suddenly find themselves ridiculed, ganged up on, policy brought conveniently down on them, repeatedly blocked and eventually banned.

Have you read some of the politcal, or many controversial articles lately? Some of them seem to actually rearrange reality and history. It's absolutely stunning.

There are so many editors that feel this way. Are these editors, Jimmy Wales, part of the community? Please listen to what is being said. Listen to what I am saying, listen to the editors that have been banned by admins like SlimVirgin, and Tonysidaway. Look at the actual edits of many that have been blocked and banned and tell me that something so deeply and disturbingly wrong isn't happening here.

And then ask yourself this. Do you want an encyclopedia? Or do you want a comic book from hell? Because in the end, this is what Wikipedia will be. Metrocat 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has learned nothing from AoL and Zone.com. Both of those sites tried to have volunteers that would help the other members, but got rid of the program when realizing that the abuse could not be stopped. It took Zone.com 10 years to realize this. Once you give people some kind of power, they will try to put it in practice. Wiki has gotten a lot of popularity during 2004 and I think Wales lives with the impression that the site can only grow to the better. Because Wiki has no competition, Wales has the right to think this way; still, the abuse from the admins makes progress a very limited task. --Candide, or Optimism 13:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is stopping you from forking the project if you think you can do a better job. Please, go ahead and do so, competition within the scope of the GFDL can only be a good thing. jaco♫plane 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
While thats an interesting reverse invitation to leave,

it doesn't solve any problems, its an evasion of the problems, and its not really thus helpful or useful. Of course anybody can fork the project, and, that may be what it will come down to, but we should try to fix serious flaws in the way things are managed, not spawn dozens of new project forks because of abused or otherwise disatisfied potential contributors. Prometheuspan 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't administrators given powers under a social contract? I thought the whole idea was that if they have the mop, it is because the community agrees on giving them that power and that an abusive administrator's power can be revoked if the community decides that the administrator is not using the power according to the "terms of the contract." After all, we certainly don't select administrators that appear to want to abuse the mop, do we? I don't advocate a fork, but I do think that we should have some method of making all administrators responsible and accountable. Ideally, the community should be allowed to fully cross-examine all aspects of administrative actions (no more administrative discussion outside of WP), and we should also be able to consider taking the mop away from any administrator at any given point in time. Does it make sense that we rigorously examine every single bit of a user when we nominate them for administrator, but afterwards we assume inherently that they will do the right thing? I'm all for assumption of good faith, but the mop is not part of good faith, it is part of a social contract, and as such the rules are different. Administrators may have their good faith when they edit. It's when they use the mop that we must be vigilant and watch them. (XFD, I can just hear everybody poking at me saying, "Corbin, stop saying strange things. They hurt my head.") - Corbin Be excellent 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying above, only stop for a moment. You said "Aren't administrators given powers under a social contract?" and "the community agrees on giving them that power"... Don't forget Who is the community? When the admins, etc. say the word 'community', it is not always the same as when you or I or regular Wikipedians say the word 'community'. Community in our book would be a well-rounded representative sampling with a diversity of opinion. Often when they say the same word they mean a small elite group that includes power-hungry admins, their chosen spies, and the ever widening group of editors who seem to be incapable of real thought. This if often how they get elected to begin with. Another thing I've noticed is, there are admmins among this power structure who walk a thin line and don't really like what goes on, but are afraid to openly protest it for fear of getting exterminated themselves. Metrocat 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee deals with user conduct in general, and admins have had the mop taken from them by ArbCom action. There are some discussions going on at the moment regarding a community desysopping procedure, however there is a lot of disagreement about this and it is not ready for the light of day. Other Wikipedias, such as the Dutch and German ones, already have such procedures in place, with rather mixed results. jaco♫plane 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, God forbid there should be a transparant government where it is clear what is going on, and people aren't afraid to say what's on their mind. How about that? Metrocat 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Metrocat, are you Mediacrat by any chance? DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Community desysopping would fail because the admins could just ban anyone who wants to desysop them claiming they suspect them of being sockpuppets. And votes could be rigged by being filled with sockpuppets, and meatpuppets (more meatpuppets than sockpuppets). Actually right now, I think we have somewhat of a system where if an admin is hated, they have to change their username. DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds nice, but its simply not true. What you actually

have is sets of cliques that have formed pseudo cabals, the more powerful of which have their own admins and arbiters. Prometheuspan 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


AOL's Guides although there is some Christmas song about how they "term you for saying 'turds'", when AOL replaced them with CATWatch, CATWatch was worse. CATWatch and TOSAdvisor just came into chatrooms and termed everyone in there, then they would sit in the rooms as bots, terming all who entered. TOSAdvisor also would make rooms as "questions about AOL TOS" and if you asked any questions about bad activities of AOL's TOS people, TOSAdvisor termed you in a second--faster than guides did. Also the battle.net forums (I haven't been there for a long time), but back around 1999 to 2001, their paid members just like to delete posts and ban people on whims, while other posts stayed--this only changed when their abusers failed upward and got promoted and new people moderated the boards, but the company sure didn't care. DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the only reason Jimbo is not doing anything is because he feels it's in his best interest to not do anything. Afterall, Wiki is dependent - more or less - on these admins; may they may abusive or not; and a general strike would harm the site. At least that's what he thinks. To make it short, this image shows how it works. --Candide, or Optimism 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am glad to see that others are talking about the problems.

What I would like to see, now that we have defined the problems, is some work on potential solutions. I have mine in mind. What about you and yours? Prometheuspan 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For a start the discussions could be out in the open to begin with instead of in secret. They could include all the unranked millions of editors that don't get to say anything about how things go around here and invariably get the raw end of the old editing stick. As long as these discussions are kept in secret, nothing will change. Metrocat 09:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i agree, transparency is a primary component of any real

solutions to the problems that wikipedia faces. Prometheuspan 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't know if Anittas reads their talk pages of banned accounts, so I will tell them here that I copied their image and put the image up on http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Wikipedia If they object they are free to take it down. 12.72.93.52 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


the recent attempt at looking at admin abuse (2)

Here's is just a thought and suggestion into the problem at Wikipedia. Consider consensus: from groupthink "An alternative to groupthink is a formal consensus decision-making process, which works best in a group whose aims are cooperative rather than competitive, where trust is able to build up, and where participants are willing to learn and apply facilitation skills." Yes.

Does Wikipedia have consensus? Or does it have group think?

And who's consensus? The community's consensus, of course. But the community..who is the community, exactly. Is it a well rounded representative group of editors with diverse opinions? Or is it an inclusive group, led and motivated by the interests of power hungry admins? Is it maybe a group who use underhanded tricks and ploys to get their way? Like stacking votes at rfa's? Like making sockpuppets of themselves and cloning into new admins that sprout up all over the place ready to multiply their power over articles?

There are thousands of editors at Wikipedia who never get to make real input into very many articles. If they perservere at their attempts to introduce, (amazingly very often fact) into these articles, they suddenly find themselves ridiculed, ganged up on, policy brought conveniently down on them, repeatedly blocked and eventually banned.

Have you read some of the politcal, or many controversial articles lately? Some of them seem to actually rearrange reality and history. It's absolutely stunning.

There are so many editors that feel this way. Are these editors, Jimmy Wales, part of the community? Please listen to what is being said. Listen to what I am saying, listen to the editors that have been banned by admins like SlimVirgin, and Tonysidaway. Look at the actual edits of many that have been blocked and banned and tell me that something so deeply and disturbingly wrong isn't happening here.

And then ask yourself this. Do you want an encyclopedia? Or do you want a comic book from hell? Because in the end, this is what Wikipedia will be. Metrocat 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has learned nothing from AoL and Zone.com. Both of those sites tried to have volunteers that would help the other members, but got rid of the program when realizing that the abuse could not be stopped. It took Zone.com 10 years to realize this. Once you give people some kind of power, they will try to put it in practice. Wiki has gotten a lot of popularity during 2004 and I think Wales lives with the impression that the site can only grow to the better. Because Wiki has no competition, Wales has the right to think this way; still, the abuse from the admins makes progress a very limited task. --Candide, or Optimism 13:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is stopping you from forking the project if you think you can do a better job. Please, go ahead and do so, competition within the scope of the GFDL can only be a good thing. jaco♫plane 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Aren't administrators given powers under a social contract? I thought the whole idea was that if they have the mop, it is because the community agrees on giving them that power and that an abusive administrator's power can be revoked if the community decides that the administrator is not using the power according to the "terms of the contract." After all, we certainly don't select administrators that appear to want to abuse the mop, do we? I don't advocate a fork, but I do think that we should have some method of making all administrators responsible and accountable. Ideally, the community should be allowed to fully cross-examine all aspects of administrative actions (no more administrative discussion outside of WP), and we should also be able to consider taking the mop away from any administrator at any given point in time. Does it make sense that we rigorously examine every single bit of a user when we nominate them for administrator, but afterwards we assume inherently that they will do the right thing? I'm all for assumption of good faith, but the mop is not part of good faith, it is part of a social contract, and as such the rules are different. Administrators may have their good faith when they edit. It's when they use the mop that we must be vigilant and watch them. (XFD, I can just hear everybody poking at me saying, "Corbin, stop saying strange things. They hurt my head.") - Corbin Be excellent 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying above, only stop for a moment. You said "Aren't administrators given powers under a social contract?" and "the community agrees on giving them that power"... Don't forget Who is the community? When the admins, etc. say the word 'community', it is not always the same as when you or I or regular Wikipedians say the word 'community'. Community in our book would be a well-rounded representative sampling with a diversity of opinion. Often when they say the same word they mean a small elite group that includes power-hungry admins, their chosen spies, and the ever widening group of editors who seem to be incapable of real thought. This if often how they get elected to begin with. Another thing I've noticed is, there are admmins among this power structure who walk a thin line and don't really like what goes on, but are afraid to openly protest it for fear of getting exterminated themselves. Metrocat 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee deals with user conduct in general, and admins have had the mop taken from them by ArbCom action. There are some discussions going on at the moment regarding a community desysopping procedure, however there is a lot of disagreement about this and it is not ready for the light of day. Other Wikipedias, such as the Dutch and German ones, already have such procedures in place, with rather mixed results. jaco♫plane 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, God forbid there should be a transparant government where it is clear what is going on, and people aren't afraid to say what's on their mind. How about that? Metrocat 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Metrocat, are you Mediacrat by any chance? DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Community desysopping would fail because the admins could just ban anyone who wants to desysop them claiming they suspect them of being sockpuppets. And votes could be rigged by being filled with sockpuppets, and meatpuppets (more meatpuppets than sockpuppets). Actually right now, I think we have somewhat of a system where if an admin is hated, they have to change their username. DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


AOL's Guides although there is some Christmas song about how they "term you for saying 'turds'", when AOL replaced them with CATWatch, CATWatch was worse. CATWatch and TOSAdvisor just came into chatrooms and termed everyone in there, then they would sit in the rooms as bots, terming all who entered. TOSAdvisor also would make rooms as "questions about AOL TOS" and if you asked any questions about bad activities of AOL's TOS people, TOSAdvisor termed you in a second--faster than guides did. Also the battle.net forums (I haven't been there for a long time), but back around 1999 to 2001, their paid members just like to delete posts and ban people on whims, while other posts stayed--this only changed when their abusers failed upward and got promoted and new people moderated the boards, but the company sure didn't care. DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the only reason Jimbo is not doing anything is because he feels it's in his best interest to not do anything. Afterall, Wiki is dependent - more or less - on these admins; may they may abusive or not; and a general strike would harm the site. At least that's what he thinks. To make it short, this image shows how it works. --Candide, or Optimism 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am glad to see that others are talking about the problems.

What I would like to see, now that we have defined the problems, is some work on potential solutions. I have mine in mind. What about you and yours? Prometheuspan 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Unblock

My account User talk:Hoof38 has just recently been blocked, because someone mistakenly thought it was a sockpuppet. Since I've just recently created an account here and haven't used any sockpuppets, I request that it be unblocked as soon as possible. 205.188.116.70 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page is generally not the forun to go to when this sorta thing happens. I'll talk to the blocker for you, though. I'd reccomend using the "email this user" function of Wikipedia to contact them. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Editing Re-Design Suggestion

Have you considered the option of making the editing of Wikipedia, a bit tougher for users? For example, IMDB has a wonderfuls system of updating their pages. Basically you click the update button, add or delete from the listing, and submit it. A staff of editors view the submission within a couple of weeks and if it is varifiable, then it's accepted and posted. Why doesn't Wikipedia work this way? It would cut down on all of the bad press and the bad rep that seems to be growing larger and larger. Livin' Large 06:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Who would be the staff checking everything? --Carnildo 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
To cut down on the two things that seems to make Wikipedia fallible, 1. Vandalism, and 2. Credibility. There is a lot of information on here that's not credible. Livin' Large 08:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
that does not answer the question (remeber total staff is about 1). In any case being open to editing is a key part of wikipeidia sucess.Geni 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider Wikipedia as much of a success as I used to. The views of the media have given the public perception of this site a major downfall. Of course J.W. would have to hire more people to do the edit approvals--but with his annual budget, I don't see why that would be a problem. Livin' Large 09:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Imagine having him approve edits to a million articles. That's tough. Besides, Wikipedia has frim policies on citing your sources and no original research, so info that's added without a citation or made up is either cited or deleted. Wikipedia works great on this system; it's almost as accurate as Brittanica. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


My suggestion is to hire a staff to approve the edits. Not have him or his 1 employee do it--that would be nuts! But eh, it was a suggestion to help cut down on vandals. Livin' Large 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The English-language Wikipedia draws more than a hundred thousand edits per day. If each edit received five seconds of review, you'd need a full-time staff of about twenty people. It ain't cheap to hire that number of people. (Figure $25,000 per year per person, plus 30% overhead, and you're at $650,000 per year. And it gets worse as Wikipedia grows.)
Of course, the obvious vandalism is already caught fairly effectively and rapidly in most cases. Going after the subtle but insidious stuff (changing names and dates, misquoting sources, inventing people or stories about them) takes more time. If Wikipedia decided to review all of its articles – giving each and every article a five-minute once-over – that would be a staff of more than fifty to get the job done in one year. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Nice page

Nice page hehe. :D --68.97.69.115 06:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)User:Mitternacht90 to lazy to log in


Elitism of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an elitist community. Especially as a notable part of the elite (admins) is a classical rating community. I think it is inevitable since each bigger community somehow evolves in this direction. I also think that, in principle, nothing's wrong with that. However, I find one of the aspects of the development a bit disturbing. Admins start to set up their own communication channels (for instance English Wikipedia admins channel, Dutch Wikipedia mailing list, Polish admin list with unknown server and status). Again, nothing's wrong with that. There is a good rationale for this kind of communication channels. To forbid that would be an action against the freedom of association. Still, this kind of move clearly makes more apparent that admins are a special subgroup of the community contrary to what's presented on the page which defines their function. This group has certain powers which are not available to all the users and establishing such a channel makes much easier to reach admins only consensus around certain issues.

To be honest, I think that admins are or will become a substantial power within the Wikipedia community anyway. The only way to control the power is to assure

  • active education in the morality contract admins should adhere to (that means NPOV and civility),
  • the access to the group to be as much open as possible, and
  • transparency (to see the way the contract is realised).

In this light, it seems that the admin mailing lists or IRC channels should have publicly available information on who is signed in and, in case of the mailing lists, publicly available archives. What's your opinion on that? alx-pl D (alx on the Polish Wikipedia) 16:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Alx opinion and question, despite the fact that they are very soft and polite. Ency response? 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
So do I. Hope to learn what your thoughts on this issue are. Bansp (Bansp@plwiki) 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo has used the English Wikipedia administrator channel as a way of discussing confidential matters with administrators. Publication of logs is strictly forbidden. It has proven very useful for coordinating administrator activities; the main channels are open to trolls and others who want to damage Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Open to trolls? Wow! How thoughtful to be open to trolls. Imagine that. 64.191.172.254 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Umm, yes, I'm sure that must be true. And after all, anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a troll. Metrocat 02:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Logical fallacy. In no way was that implied. We've had visits from the GNAA. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that I did not mention the logs of IRC channels. I only mentioned mailing list archives. I understand the rationale behind non publishing IRC logs. alx-pl D 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to come from the outsider view, what I would like to ask you is, to imagine that you are an admin, and you deal with an extreme abusive troll. Would you feel as free to discuss the case when you know it is going to be public, also for that same abusive troll? It is a needed thing, and the stuff needs to stay were it is, in closed channels. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
How about people that are not trolls, that are called trolls and even turn into trolls because of extremely abusive admins? 64.191.172.254 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that some of the material discussed probably falls under WP:BEANS. That is, making that information and discussion public would almost certainly provide trolls and vandals with detailed information on how best to damage the wiki. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It is really "security by obscurity". This opinion sounds strange on wiki based on OS not CS. Ency response? 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The more so that a clever troll (and that is the kind of troll we should be afraid of) will find his way through this rather thin veil of obscurity quite easily: there's lots of places to pick bits of critical info from: bugzilla, wikizine, wikipedia-l, the regular mailing list and the regular IRC channel. Admins aren't under an oath not to reveal stuff; often it is a question of how mature one is and of sensing what's appropriate when and in front of what audience, but admins aren't chosen as top moral figures -- they are chosen as people to whom the mop can be trusted, and not the fate of others. Bansp 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Public officials, who must abide by Right-to-Know, Open Meeting or "sunshine" laws in various U.S. states that govern are specifically excempted from releasing the minutes and transcripts of meetings in which legal matters or matters that deal with personal issues and/or conflicts are discussed. I expect it makes common sense to exempt releasing such material here, as well. Even more so, since as a private entity, Wikipedia has no obligation to release private meeting minutes or online chat transcripts, that I'm aware of. As for the elitism allegation, the time for Admins to evolve into a formal, structured Policy Advisory Board is long overdue, and would end/minimize any perceived abuse. If those policy discussions are held publicly or not is up to them, but just establishing it would bring a bit more clarity to the policy-making process, which right now is chaotic and disjointed. (and no, I'm not an Admin.) - Nhprman List 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If/When such a formal, structured PAB becomes inevitable then -- unless the open-society basis of Wikipedia is abandoned, which I hope will not happen -- it should recruit its members from all of the users, according to criteria different from (= in many respects, more demanding than) those used for choosing an admin. What you suggest is a free ride from a (good or bad, moral or power-trippy, effective or sloppy) mop wielder to a community leader. That would be an easy move indeed, but with a new name comes a new set of responsibilities, for which many non-admins may be much better equipped than some admins (not because they are bad admins -- they may be great at what they do now; but although the community trusted in their skills regarding creating templates, running bots, etc., it did not explicitly entrust them with the steering wheel, i.e., policy-making powers). What I think Alx-pl may be talking about -- and what I myself fear as well -- is that settling behind a convenient wall of a secret and elitist mailing list is a very serious step in the direction of turning the mop into the steering wheel. It bends easily, especially in the heat of battle against trolls, real or imagined. Bansp 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about mops, but I don't suggest anything like a free ride for elevating bad Admins to any new status. Such a new position would more than likely draw from a wide pool of users and have strictly defined standards for selection. As far as secrecy, I would suggest that only a certain number of topics, as noted above, should ever be kept secret. About a "steering wheel" I submit that someone needs to be driving (or helping Jimbo drive) and that strictly vetted, honestly devoted Admins should be trusted to help create policy. They can certainly be trusted more than the Mobocracy, the most vocal of whom seem composed of users who arrived here just a few weeks ago and are unable to grasp even the most basic policies and why they were created. Call that elitist and anti-democratic but as you know, Wikipedia is not a democracy. - Nhprman List 04:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

I think some issues need to be clarified.

  • I know the price of the openness. I admit also that I can be wrong with this proposal for one or another reason.
  • Still, I think there are benefits of being open.
  • I also understand that openness requires sometimes a good lot of difficult diplomacy.
  • Trollness is a dynamic relation between an individual and the community. No one is natural born troll. It is a very delicate question when it's proper to say that somebody is a troll and to react accordingly. I agree 100% that, at some stage when there is suspicion that somebody is a troll, some of the communication concerning the user should be held in private channels. In this light, an implicit part of the question I posed is if the admin mailing list is the proper place to discuss in full the suspicion and to devise the countermeasures.
  • I think there are some bodies on Wikipedia which must operate on some level of secrecy (for instance the Arbitration Commitee). In the real world, even very secret dealings are at some point made open to the public (like for instance in this case or that case). However, I'm far from proposing to introduce such a policy for the ArbCom.
  • The main question is if wikipedia admin lists are bodies of this type.
  • I agree that an admin list can be useful in organizing the work of admins. I'm not proposing to forbid such lists or to admit everybody in their exchange. Only admins or people they trust could post to such admin lists.
  • I don't agree that admins are the only ones to decide in this case. This is a case when the value of openness is in conflict with the value of security and admins will always tend (in their good faith) to take a decision to make such a list undisclosed based on the urgent evidence of the current threat and the vagueness of the future benefits of being open. If the decision is to be taken with fair judgement it must be done by someone (or by a group of people) educated enough to understand the both sides of the story.
  • alx-pl D 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Trolling is something planned and set out, like GNAA. People expressing their own opinions, viewpoints, facts, arguing are not trolling. Most trolling is actually not like GNAA, but most trolling is falsely calling other people trolls--even trolls like GNAA falsely call people trolls as their trolling tactics now.

Very well put and thought out. Thank you. Excellent as a matter of fact. It's sad that this is the norm for internet communities and it's even sadder that it is the norm here. Because this is, after all, the organization that claims to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Calling people trolls, I can see, is a very common practice in abusing unwanted editors. And by unwanted editors, of course, I mean editors that openly criticize the structure of admin abuse and the censorship of many controversial and political articles. Theyshallsee God 06:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia quote from internet trolling article, Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset him is to falsely claim that he is a "troll." In forums where most users are similar to each other, outsiders may be perceived as trolls simply because they do not fit into the social norms of that group. And then another wiki gives as its second troll definition (it has just two), A person that throws around the troll insult to: anyone who defeats them in an argument, anyone points out facts the real troll doesn't want people to know, or someone the real troll picks at random to stick falsely with a troll label for sheer lulz.

There we go. Most trolling nowadays is falsely calling people trolls if they don't agree with their opinion or the real troll is beaten in an argument. DyslexicEditor 21:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah so? Troll Calling is the obvious ad hominem. The solution is to use real logic to dtermine the difference between ad hominems and factual evaluations. And how did we digress from the elitism problem? The problem is that the Admin body on Wikipedia is put in place with no testing, no morality questioning, no serious test to be certain that they will use neutrality and civility, or that they are intellectually and emotionally even capable of that. The rules that exist are Utopian minded rules, set to be the least possible rules to afford the maximum amount of stretch in what is supposed to be a beneficient and near theocratic Anarchy. (All praise be to the God King and His Creation, AhmNN) Those rules are patently insufficient to cover the simple problem that second generation Trolls create. IF >I< was a troll, do you think i would go vcandalize a few pages and get blocked? No, thats kids stuff. A Sophihsticated Troll gets themselves a Mop, AND THEN the trouble starts.

Every feature of the system can be gamed. Sure you can use private meetings and secrets in a dirty and underhanded way, and sure, that is what is going to happen if Second Generation trolls form support groups for their activities. Once the door is open and the fatal flaws exploited, every rule on Wikipedia becomes just another way for an Admin Troll to cause havoc.

The only solution is to use Logic and psychology to keep second generation trolls from becoming admins, and to identify second generation trolls who have become admins. Prometheuspan 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Sources for comicbook articles and movies

I would like to know if one can really use a comicbook as a source for an article about the same comicbook. The same goes for movies: can someone use a particular movie - say Pulp Fiction - to write an article about Pulp Fiction and use only the movie as a source? Another admin whom I corrosponded with said that in the Plot Section, there should be a third-party reference and I agree; elsewise, it's the author that must interpret the plot and then the article falls under Original Research and reads as a review, instead of an encyclopedia article. --Candide, or Optimism 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the work itself is a valid source for strictly factual matters, such as the name of a character, but anything involving more complex interpretation should be based on outside sources that have conducted such analysis in a peer-reviewed manner. *Dan T.* 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, can we then do anything to fix these articles that are solely based on comicbooks and the interpretation of the author? --Candide, or Optimism 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


merge

Hallo. i want to merge my two useraccounts. who can i ask, or wath can i do? De:Benutzer:Robinhood and De:Benutzer:Robinhut --58.84.79.95 01:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Benutzernamen ändern might be the right place for German Wikipedia accounts. Longbow4u 23:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Talkpage protecting

A while ago I went under the alias of Freestylefrappe. Shortly before I switched over to my current account, User:KI, I was warned when I protected my talkpage - in response to personal attacks - and I was told that this was "never done." Now my talkpage has been protected, and I have been blocked for 24 hours after I reverted copyvio vandalism and spamming of talkpages. I tried to contact the administrator Anonymous Editor, but his talkpage is also protected so I have no way of reaching him. I would try asking another administrator for assistance, but everytime I say who I am, I am immediately blocked. So I guess my question is... when can you protect your talkpage?... and can someone unblock me? Tchadienne 16:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. You sound like you're not an admin but you say you protected your talk page. DyslexicEditor 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I protected his talk page for abusing it and REPEATEDLY removing warnings. He was blocked for incivility under that account (such as swearing at Jacoplane). He refused to serve out his block so I extended it and will block the sockpuppet that comes up. Sasquatch t|c 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
To explain the seeming discrepancy; the Freestylefrappe account was an admin. Shortly before being de-admined by the ArbCom he protected his talk page (to prevent people repeatedly re-adding warnings after he removed them if I recall correctly) and was told this was a 'bad thing'. Now he is objecting to the talk page of his new(er) account, KI, being protected... to prevent him from removing warnings. Technically there are no grounds to force someone to keep a warning displayed on their talk page... either by repeatedly readding or protecting so that they can't remove it. Either strikes me as unnecessary provocation and borderline harassment to no good purpose. If they remove the warning they obviously saw it... purpose of warning accomplished. Forcing them to keep it displayed as some sort of 'Wiki scarlet letter' is excessively vindictive and disruptive IMO. In any case, the talk page has been unprotected and he's got a one week block on his new(est) account, Tchadienne, for the incivility which led to the warnings in the first place. He hasn't been particularly willing to consider alternatives to the 'yell 'vandalism!' and revert' method of 'dispute resolution' so I think that's not an unreasonable period. --CBDunkerson 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


can arbitrators put words in other people's mouths?

Please take a look at this: User_talk:Kevin_Baas#The_election_arbcom_case, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Election/Proposed_decision#Position_of_Kevin_baas

In the arbcom case "proposed findings of fact", an arbitrator wrote: "It is the belief of Kevin Baas that...". Can arbitrators really vote on what, in "fact", my beliefs are?! Kevin Baastalk 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh ... they're merely establishing what your beliefs are based on the evidence, not trying to say you believe something totally different than what you actually do. --Cyde↔Weys 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't they just ask me instead of presuming them, and blurring the line between fact and belief, them and me, epistemology and ontology, etc.? no evidence can establish someone's beliefs but that person's own mind, and nobody has the right to pronounce them but that person. They are saying that i believe something totally different than what i actually do, in plain english. To allow a judge (or judges) to define a plaintiff or defendant's beliefs would be to set a dangerous precedent. Kevin Baastalk 23:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, courts and tribunals make such findings all the time. Metamagician3000 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Not all courts are just. I'm talking about justness and reasoning. Are judges allowed to insert statements for the plaintiff or defendant that the plaintiff or defendant did not make? Are they allowed essentially, to tamper with the evidence? That's why I am saying that it would set a dangerous precedent - it would abstract the evidence and findings from the actual events that transpired, providing opportunity for the judges to make arbitrary rulings. I'm not talking about courts or tribunals, I'm talking about logic and prudence. Kevin Baastalk 14:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Courts can and have attributed statements to people, they are called summaries. They can even state you said something when you didnt, see Saddam Hussein's not guilty plee. I think what the user was trying to do was summarize your feelings, not overwrite them or treat them in a manner anything close to disrespectfully. Clerks in RFCU's summarize everyone points for essjay to go through. Is your arguement about the symantics of what they wrote or that you just didnt take it as a summary. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think either position could adequately characterize the relation of what i believe in to the actions of fred bauder. obviously it's not a summary of my feelings. a summary of my feelings would be more like "outraged", and fred doesn't really seem to care what my feelings are anyways, or what my beliefs actually are, for that matter, though he has no problem setting up a straw man in an arbcom "findings of fact". i don't think he was trying to summarize my feelings. numerous other users have done a much better job at that without any visible effort. he hasn't asked me my feelings and i haven't offered them - except to ask him to recuse himself because he had expressed prejudice - which he refused to do. so he has no basis upon which to summarize my feelings. he overwrote my feelings, i told him so, and he doesn't seem to care in the slightest. he misrepresented my beliefs. multiple people have told him so. and he doesn't seem to care in the slightest. if he respected my person, he would at least seem to care, in the slighest, when i tell him that he's misrepresenting my beliefs. if he respected my person, he would at least seem to care, in the slighest, when people involved in the matter tell him that he's misrepresenting my beliefs. if he respected my person, he would at least seem to care, in the slighest, when people whom i have never interacted with before tell him that he's misrepresenting my beliefs. Kevin Baastalk 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Kevin. Sorry to hear about things as they are. Of course they can do that, there are no rules to stop them from it. Of course there should be rules to stop them from it, but we don't live in the world as it should be. I think the obvious problem you are facing is that once again, pov has hopped the fence, and any claim wikipedia might have had for npov is just noise of a propaganda infested project. I'd like to invite you to join me in seeking a complete redress of all of the policies, since they are obviously insufficient to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a mob psychology warfare event. The best solution in this is for us to stand together in the truth and demand reform. Prometheuspan 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


In light of Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll

I think it is about time you give up your quest and impliment this policy as per majority support (62.8%). Here is an oppertunity for the two sides to reach a compromise. Do not pass up this opertunity, it won't come again. --Shell <e> 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.--Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Boss, I think the reason for the Userbox namespace is for formatting only. I myself wasn't totally in favor of the creation of the new namespace, but for right now, it's about the only possible sollution that won't tick everyone off. --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 21:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I really do not understand this userbox controversy. Regarding your comments above, the fact that I have homemade userboxes on my page expressing my like for sushi and playing music is looked down upon by the community? That's lame. --kizzle 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, this policy would solve the problem. Also, wikipedia is against POV in articles. Userpages are not articles. --208.59.132.30 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Jimbo, this policy would solve the problem." The problem is POV. Moving the namespace won't fix it. Ashibaka tock 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As per Jimbo's May 27, 2006, comment, "the German solution" is starting to show some promise. Any additional feedback would be greatly appreciated. :-) Rfrisbietalk 04:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Darn it, Rfrisbie, you beat me here by half an hour. I agree with what he said. This is a solution that doesn't require any policy proposals or polling or anything other than, hey, people are doing it. It seems to be supported by people from both sides of the so-called userbox wars. I think that those of you who are still focused on the May Userbox policy poll might want to shift your focus to something that's going to work. We're still ironing out the details of just how to make the move as smooth as possible, but it's happening. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what "hey, people are doing it" means? Does it mean that that these boxes are just being physically moved from Template space to Userspace en masse by the admins, and users are then being encouraged NOT to use them at all? If so, that's the logical, reasonable way to end this time-consuming debate. If it consists in only gentle persuasion to stop using them, but neglects the moving part, I fear that will not work, either. - Nhprman List 05:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you physically move a webpage? Ashibaka tock 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this was a question relating to physics or a practical question, but I'll concede that only the electrons need to be moved, though it's usually done with a few mouse clicks, so a bit of physical work needs to be performed in the process. - Nhprman List 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Jimmy Wales will you please answer me?

The present discussion by the board concerning admin abuse needs to be held out in the open rather than held behind closed doors. They could include all the unranked millions of editors that don't get to say anything about how things go around here, often can't make edits that stay more than a minute, and invariably get the raw end of the old editing stick. As long as these discussions are kept in secret, nothing will change. The abuse will inevitably remain. Metrocat 09:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The board is holding no private discussions about admin abuse.--Jimbo Wales 10:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Disputes on corporation articles

Just based on the question you asked the IRC channel, I did a quick analysis of a few corporation articles to see if they were frequently disputed. The short answer is "not really, but the methods were probably flawed", and the full answer is at User:ConMan/Dispute in corporation articles. Browse at your own leisure. Confusing Manifestation 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Print Version Probably Not Feasible

This was posted at Talk:Jimmy Wales by User:218.218.61.59, but I guess here is a better place. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While this might have satisfied the founder's notions of legitimacy in the frame of thinking he probably grew up with as to what an encyclopaedia should be, it overlooks many of the strengths of a purely web-based entity. Traditional publishing by necessity puts limits on how many topics can be included or how many pages can be allocated to certain topics for the encyclopaedias they print. The shelf space or rooms of shelves those books will fill are not limitless in space. The virtue of the Wikipedia is that it is not constrained in this way. Nobody is saying that a new entry for this or that topic can not be included. At a traditional publishing company this would always be a concern. For those in doubt, please sketch out your business plan for us here. At the Wikipedia main page there are statistics on the sharp growth curve in the number of articles. You can make rough projections on however many pages you think Wikipedia will be several years from now when you think it might be "mature" enough to begin publishing. In addition to covering costs of production, calculate how much space all those volumes would take up, the cost of distribution, and they size of the market for dozens upon dozens of volumes each set would probably take up, and I think you will begin to see my point. It is like comparing a large physical lake (traditional print encyclopaedias) to a vast online ocean (the Internet combined with Wikipedia). Some wondered why Amazon just didn't open up physical bookstores to display all the books they wanted to sell at. Those people failed to realize that the number of titles to sell would take up so much space that this would not be feasible. This was the shortcoming of traditional physical bookselling that worked to Amazon's advantage. In the physical world, you have to limit yourself whether this is in display space for books or in the amount of space you allocate to an article in a printed encyclopaedia. The web is not absolutely limitless as there are issues of memory and servers, but it is relatively limitless when compared to the cost and space constraints to which books are subject. WC 6 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.218.61.59 (talk • contribs)

You can make a print version by choosing a subset of articles and limiting each article to its first section. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The way this was described as attributed to the founder (from the article about Wikipedia) was that he "intends for Wikipedia ultimately to achieve a "Britannica or better" level of quality and be published in print."[9] This likely means something beyond merely printing out the first section of a few selected items. It isn't so much act of printing out a hardcopy, but rather all of the business that is involved in the publishing, marketing and distribution of a physical Wikipedia. (Unless someone would like to argue that what he meant was to simply, for the sake of vanity, to have just one published copy of, or a very limited run of copies, for certain collectors.) My comments had originally followed those by another writer who mentioned something about Wikipedia in book form. Subsequently, someone moved my above comments to this page. WC 6 June 2006

I don't think you can have "Britannia level or better" *in print* because we don't have the editorial facilities. On the other hand, some organisation could pick up the content, edit it down to something reasonable in size and print it. Whether you'd want to do that is a matter of economics. However it's now possible to produce palm format computers with gigabyte-sized memory, and such devices could easily carry an entire edition of Wikipedia. They'd fit most of the useful functions of a paper edition. So unless we want to fetishize paper (and I know that's common in discussions like this) there isn't a big problem. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice just to be able to one day download the whole Wikipedia (in a reasonable length of time) into some very portable storage device that allows for making your own personal annotations. And that allows you to wirelessly update your "version" up-to-the-second any time you like. I'm not obsessed with paper editions myself (as they seem better for things that have clear project end points whereas I perceive something like Wikipedia to be more of an endless work-in-progress, and I mean that in a good way!), but understand how as with any transitional stage like this other older or let's say more traditionally minded members of the community may have very strong reference points in their own experiences for how information ought to be handled (that is, in this instance, on paper in published books) that lead them to make the very strong statements they do. I am optimistic this thinking will naturally change over time, though, especially as ever smaller devices with even greater memory capacity (and hopefully easier on the eyes) become ubiquitous.

Also, with a print edition, you lose the value of the instant access to all those hyperlinks contained in the current articles. Sure you can go online while or after reading the paper version of the article, but I think the point is that the value is not merely what is on paper, but the whole experience of using the links and even making your own independent searches for things not linked to in the article or things that come to mind simply by association while reading the article. I am sure there are many less passive users for whom the article, rather than being a primary destination, is just a starting point or homebase for their further more active investigations and who spend most of their time on a topic at one or more of the linked sites or sites they discovered in their own searches which came to mind as a result of reading part of the Wikipedia article. Some advocates of a paper version tend not to appreciate the high degree to which Wikipedia is a more interactive use of information than traditional media. It isn't so much the text of the article that might be transferred to the printed page, but rather reaction on the part of the reader and how he uses the links or what he does with his own further searches. Rather than a encyclopaedia-like entity, then, Wikipedia can be seen as the intermediary or launching pad that together with its articles, but not exclusively just with the articles, enables users to access information on the web in way that is in some ways like using an encyclopaedia, and in other ways goes beyond this by enhancing what one can do with interactivity and the speed of this interactivity, with speed (wiki quickness) being the operative word.

While the current way of using Wikipedia is free or donation-based, something tells me that there will be those in power who will see offering such a service whereby the whole database can be quickly downloaded and constantly updated as a profitable enterprise and they will then come to a point where changing the non-profit model is considered, or a for profit entity will fork off in that direction, as opposed to an advertising model which the critic last year on Talk of the Nation suggested. I'm not saying I hope something like this will happen, but simply that I won't be surprised if it does. WC 7 June 2006.


Breaches of UK laws

I am appealing to you regarding the deliberate and illegal postings of Gregory Lauder-Frost's legal problems in 1992-3. These are today protected from publication because the ten-year limitation period has passed. I absolutely assure you this is correct. Wikipedia Foundation is not immune to prosecution in the UK and I feel certain it is something you could do without. Why you permit administrators with such a clear and fantastic bias towards those they despise is a question many are asking. Lightoftheworld 10:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to Jimbo: This user has been locked per WP:NLT, so no need to worry about it. --User:Shreshth91 12:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because he has been blocked doesn't mean his complaint may be ignored. I've looked at the article and, although I agree that it needs a cleanup, I don't think there are any legal issues under UK or US law. But I could be wrong. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Not under UK law anyway, as far as I am aware. The 'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act' that he mentioned simply means that after a certain time, people do not need to mention certain convictions if asked 'do you have a criminal record?' on e.g. job applications. It does not in any way (that I am aware of) prevent third parties from writing about that conviction. IANAL etc. Cynical 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Act is a bit stronger than that. A person can be found guilty of libel if a spent conviction is disclosed "maliciously" - although the claimant has to prove malice. Of course, the Act was designed to allow ex-offenders to integrate back into society and avoid stigma; it is not supposed to be used by controversial public figures to suppress historical details about their public pasts which they would prefer to be forgotten. Hopefully, if a case ever came to court the judge would recognise this, but so far I don't think it has ever been put to the test. Until then, this Act will remain a useful instrument of intimidation. R Bartholomew


Bringing this to your attention (urgent)

I think this thread [10] on WP:AN/I is something you should have a look at. All the necessary technical steps have been taken, but I feel that this matter might require further attention off-wiki, and that's your purview. Canderson7 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Important legal stuff, Wikipedia's responsibilies here, etc is what Canderson is trying to say --mboverload@ 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Brad Patrick, for one, will likely note that there's no legal obligation here (inasmuch, for one, as the untoward remarks didn't seem to suggest any intended contravention of an applicable criminal law, but for many other reasons as well), viz., that any civil action essayed for Wikipedia's having negligently breached a duty to report would fail and that, for reasons we all understand, no criminal prosecution against, well, any editor/sysop/designated agent for failure to report (which isn't explicitly criminal in all jurisdictions anyway) wouldn't be commenced (and surely wouldn't be successful). IMHO, as I explain here, now that the quasi-disruptive editors have been indefinitely blocked and that Wikipedia is no longer being used inappropriately as a message board/chat site (the content of that chat, of course, is altogether irrelevant; WP:NOT does not, and ought not to, distinguish between unencyclopedic chats revolving around chess and those revolving on prospective child sex), we ought to return to the encyclopedic project; where the project is no longer harmed or imperiled, we certainly should not be concerned with the extra-Wiki undertakings of departed editors, even if those activities were facilitated on-Wiki. Joe 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to comment on this on AN, but I do think you should consider whether these users really need to be blocked. There was no warning and they were not actively disrupting the encyclopedia in any way, just talking to each other. If the conversations are deleted from the histories of the pages and the users promise to keep their discussions off-wiki in the future (apparently one has done so already) then blocking is just pointlessly reactive and harsh. They made the mistake of not realizing we run a tight ship around here; there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the writing of the encyclopedia because of this. Everyking 10:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There's scant evidence that they have any interest in contributing to the encyclopedia.
  • Pn355 has made no contributions in article space.
  • Mcdudley2 appears to have made three edits in good faith back in early May; the edits have since been undone because they were a copy-paste of a table of contents plus an external link.
  • JamieAdams has given us a full 23 contributions in mainspace, which includes a mix of childish vandalism ([11], [12]), dubious edits ([13]), minor edits ([14], [15]) and reverting a half-dozen or so vandal edits on June 9. This discussion with Firefox doesn't exactly show promise, nor does his habit of removing the headers from the sandbox ([16], [17], [18]).
If any of these editors would like to contribute in a positive way to Wikipedia, they should be glad to have the opportunity to do so under new usernames that don't have the stigma and controversy attached. JamieAdams appears to be an experienced contributor anyway, albeit under another name—genuinely new editors don't typically jump right in to replacing infobox templates as their second non-vandalism mainspace edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The very fact that they have accounts and edits to their names suggests to me they have some interest in contributing. You are just trying to justify blocking them for no good reason by pointing out that they weren't doing much good anyway—but I think it's stupid to block them for having taboo conversations without any warning beforehand. Remove the edits, warn them not to have those discussions on-wiki, they most likely would do as told, and then the problem is solved. I fail to see any point in blocking whatsoever; it's only evidence of an unthinking and unfeeling approach to dealing with the situation. Everyking 18:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Everyking, but I think Ten makes a fine point as well: an indefinitely blocked, if not banned, user who wishes to contribute positively may simply create a new account and go about his editing. If he wants his past contributions credited to his new name, he may, having contributed in a non-disruptive fashion for a while, make a request at WP:CHU to have each of his old and new names changed to a third name (or, at the very least, may note on his user page his past identities, so that past edits are associated with him). Because blocks are prophylactic and not punitive, no admin should, upon learning that a contributor is an editor previously indefinitely blocked, if not banned, block that user if he is otherwise productive; there may be questions as to whether an editor has really changed his ways, but that's where the good ol' AGF comes into play. Joe 18:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyking, there are reasons you're not allowed to comment on it. In fact, what part of "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration" fits with the above "then blocking is just pointlessly reactive and harsh", etc? I really don't want to bother with this at all, but you're so far from even trying to comply with the spirit of your restrictions it's getting tired. It seems every day you're criticizing, so what reason is there not to block you under the terms of the agreement? - Taxman Talk 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Need Help

Since no one else can help me, I need to ask you for help.

I'm trying to request a wiki over and over, but I never get an email. Why? Also, does it cost money to get a wiki?

Footboy

Are you referring to Wikia? Wikia, Inc. is a business like any other so there's no reason why you shouldn't have to pay. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, Wikia derives its income from advertisements, such that the creation, reading, and editing of new wikis is free (although wikis may only be created if they are likely to be well-trafficked, in order that advertising might be sold); in any case, these directions might help. Joe 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I was blissfully unaware. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


User:Jimbo Wales/In many languages...

Now avalible in 101 languages. Now, care to pronounce them all? ;) --Cat out 19:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see your attempt at pronouncing the ones in braille! --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That's easy. Since Braille is simply a tactile way of writing the Latin alphabet, it's pronounced exactly the way it's spelled: "Jimbo Wales". --Carnildo 19:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't spoil my fun :-P --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is proving to be a great idea

I would like to congratulate you for coming up with this idea and making it work. You know that I showed some people at work Wikipedia, and they thought the articles were written by professionals. When I told them it was members of the public doing this, and that they too could just change the articles, they couldn't believe it. I am also sure that what we are going through now is "baby steps". Imagine what the future holds. Wallie 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


"Outing People" (Moved from WP:AN/I)

"We are not in the business of 'outing' people, and we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies." --Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(I found this quote on Zero's page...)

Are administrators trying to frustrate this dictum?

This is a subject close to my heart. I have had most of my battles with admins over what I consider is a disrespectful, indeed sometimes hateful tone in some of the biographical articles. Michael Jackson's article is a case in point. When someone points out the fact that this type of article is "unfair" the response from other editors, typically admins, is that the person is "trolling" or "sad". In addition we are told by admins that the word "unfair" has no place whatsoever Wikipedia, you only have to be "NPOV".

I would contend that given the above, admins are attempting to frustrate this dictum. Comments please. Thank you very much. Wallie 11:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Respect does not mean violation of our neutrality policy. Respect means writing in an encyclopedic tone of voice and avoiding defamatory statements. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well under those criteria, regarding many biographical articles, Wikipedia is currently failing badly. Wallie 13:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: This section. I did not move this here. I put it on the Administrator's Incidents notice board for discussion. Zero moved it, as he probably thought it was important to do so, and the quote is taken from his User Page. What I said about WP in the previous section, I really mean, and this is an attempt to continuously improve it. Thank you very much. Wallie 20:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


User:HOTRvs Gregory Lauder-Frost

I am of the opinion that HOTR is acting with utter malice towards GLF and will bring Wikipedia into the legal arena. This is not a threat. His total obsession with GLF is nauseating. 81.131.13.57 16:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The ArbComm decision against User:Robert I found that, in all likelihood, he and the 81. anon ip above is Gregory Lauder-Frost. There are also allegations that User:Sussexman is Lauder-Frost as well. We shouldn't be relying on Lauder-Frost's own interpretation of British law or its impact on a US based entity. The question of whether and in what manner Lauder-Frost's past legal problems can be mentioned in Wikipedia should be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation to determine. Homey 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have inquired regarding the legal matter but have received no definitive response. It is conceivable that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does apply in Britain. Fred Bauder 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think one needs to determine how it is applied. For instance, contemporary articles on GLF's matter have not been removed from the electornic archives for the Independent newspaper (the internet archives only go to 1999 but there are other electronic archives available by subscription that extend to the period) so it doesn't seem to be against the ROA to publish the title of an article republish an article in its entirety that refers to an old conviction. We really would need someone who has access to UK case law to determine the Act's application and interpretation and its possible impact on wikipedia, not just for the GLF article but on any article on anyone who has had a brush with the law in Britain.

Also, if the act does apply what does this actually mean for wikipedia? Does it mean that Wikipedia is breaking the law if it refers to an old conviction or does it mean that UK servers would have to block certain articles (in which case perhaps a tag would help that states that this article cannot be published in the UK?) or is wikipedia completely immune because it is not based in the UK? If a certain wikipedia article was in violation with Chinese or Saudi Arabian law, for instance, we would not ban it from wikipedia. I seem to recall that last year during the Gomery Inquiry, when Judge Gomery issued a temporary publication ban on certain testimony Wikipedia (or various editors) published a description of the testimony as Canadian law was thought to be inapplicable to Wikipedia. (And in the Karla Homolka case, before Wikipedia's time, a publication ban was ignored by US media without any consequences) Canada is not the UK but our legal system is similar and I suspect that British publication bans (which this essentially would be) are not extraterritorial. Indeed, I recall that in the Spycatcher case international media ignored a British publication ban without any consequences.Homey 06:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Legalities aside, there are consequences. They would not be passing laws or issuing bans if there was not some reason. For example not publishing information may assure that a defendant has a better chance at a fair trial. Or that a person is not embarrassed by a indiscretion that they deeply regret. Fred Bauder 14:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All the references I can find on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 say only that once a conviction is "spent" an ex-offender is not required to disclose his or her conviction when applying for a job and cannot be refused a job because of his conviction[19] see also [20]. I find absolutely nothing that claims the ROA bans media from mentioning spent conviction or has any other type of publication ban. There is something like this in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 but that is legislation passed by the Isle of Man[21] and has no jurisdiction in the UK. Perhaps GLF or his friend is confusing the Manx legislation with the UK legislation?Homey 17:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: [22] "The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) is the specific piece of legislation affecting ex-offenders' employment opportunities. Under certain circumstances, it enables them to 'wipe the slate clean' of their criminal record once a period of time has lapsed from the date of conviction. Provided they have not been re-convicted for another offence, their conviction is said to become spent and for the purpose of employment it can be treated as though it never existed. This means that if the ex-offender is asked on an application form, or at an interview, if they have a criminal record they are entitled to answer 'no'. It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against the ex-offender on grounds of their spent conviction." Homey 17:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: [23]

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 enables criminal convictions to become ‘spent’ or ignored after a period of rehabilitation. After this time, with certain exceptions, an ex-offender does not normally have to mention their conviction to prospective employers when applying for a job. If you are asked whether you have any previous convictions you can answer ‘no’ if the convictions are spent and the job applied for is not excepted from the act.
In 2002, the Home Office published a review of the act. Their report, Breaking the Circle, made a range of recommendations. These included replacing rehabilitation periods with shorter disclosure periods and reviewing the rule that convictions involving sentences of over two and a half years are never spent. However, there are no immediate plans to amend the act.

Homey 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Refer privacy and unauthorised disclosures here: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-to-privacy/spent-convictions-and-rehabilitation-of-offenders/unauthorised%5Fdisclosure%5Fof%5Fcon.shtml 81.131.62.179 10:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not British officials nor did we obtain information by bribery or fraud. Our information comes from a public newspaper report. I'm going to copy this conversation to Talk:Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it has proved so useful. Fred Bauder 11:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The public officials is one side of the coin, the other is the right to privacy etc., which has been quickly passed over.

HOTR has attacked GLF's article since December. He constantly tried to cast GLF in the foulest light and attempted twice to get the article deleted. Now, almost single-handedly (virtually every attack above is from him) - but fully initiated by the venom of User:Edchilvers - he has resurrected matters which were buried over a decade ago for the world to click on to. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Is HOTR a good example of unbiased administration? Smearing, denigrating, and even possibly destroying rebuilt lives? Small wonder people have been making "legal threats". 86.129.79.148 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Jacko

Is the unfair being too harsh on Jacko or giving him too much praise in the article? Oh most trolling nowadays is calling people trolls. DyslexicEditor 19:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Abosolutely correct (regarding trolls). Wallie 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


What do you think?

pt: has articles like Lista de nomes populares para o ânus (List of popular names for anus), with several extreme pejorative terms, and its sysops agree with having this kind of page.

This is just an example, because there are many issues at :pt. -- 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


A metaproblem: WP:V isn’t verifiable, and WP:RS has no reliable sources cited.

Okay, let me be more clear. I understand and admit that the current NPOV, V, RS, and NOR policies and guidelines don't apply to themselves or their describing Wikis, under current policy. I get that now, and didn't before. Mea Culpa.

I propose this current policy be changed. I think it's a bad policy, and I have explained my reasons for it. In brief, Wiki policy currently emerges from disparate and difficult-to- document places, and a policy of V and guideline of RS "where possible" would help things tremendously there. As for NOR, it's probably not reasonable to suggest it for POLICY Wikis, but I find it highly amusing that most for the formal reasoning given in the WP:NOR Wiki for why this guideline exists and what horrors it is meant to prevent, also applies to the processes that created the WP:NOR in the first place--- and yet that article was writen and took shape without protection of NOR, and none of the forseen disaster happened to it. Evidently common sense and collective editorial oversite can at least sometimes substitute for NOR. Perhaps we can consider the idea that this may be true in general, and not only in namespace n.4, where NOR does not exist?

What I am NOT proposing is that all aspects of POLICY be applied uniformly to all namespaces like TALK and USER and so on. Please don't use that as strawman. I fully understand why this would be disruptive and not helpful. I do not think the same is necessarily true of items in the WIKIPEDIA POLICY namespace n.4.

Now, the above three paragraphs are short. It has been suggested that most of what preceeds it in this heading is useless trolling, and correction of trolling. Re-reading it, I sympathize with this view. If you all like, I'll just delete it from Jimbo's page as clutter, and leave only the proposal above. I don't think that what remains it's too inappropriate, since this page also contains requests for deletion of the NOR policy as well.Sbharris 18:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Anonymous editing

Hi Jimbo. Please, please, please can we disallow anonymous editing? I waste so much time reverting and contesting anonymous edits. It's a lovely idea that it shouldn't matter who is making an edit. But back in the real world, reputation and accountability do matter. I firmly believe (based on my nine months experience) that anonymous editing undermines the project. It is frequently the cause of an article getting out of hand in terms of quality and verifiability. I mean what exactly is the problem? Nobody need provide their real name!—Laurence Boyce 14:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

From the main page...

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

This is the ethos of the encyclopedia, and perhaps the main point of it. Anyone can edit it. You are of course welcome to request this, but I find it unlikely that Jimbo will concur with you and disable anonymous editing. Also, were we to make it so only registered users could edit, I imagine a great many people would just create accounts purely to vandalise. Nothing solved really, and we've lost a great many casual editors who edit exclusively from IPs. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes, but as you have just pointed out, anyone can edit Wikipedia by simply registering for an account which takes all of a minute. If an account is created purely to vandalise, then we can see just that. At present, an anonymous ID could be a one off, an experienced user, or somewhere in between—there's no way of telling. If I am prepared to stand by my edits/comments, why shouldn't others be? In practice, I have found anonymous editing to be a huge time waster.
It's often the more controversial articles which attract a large number of anonymous edits. This is just where we want sensible and accountable discussions to take place. The fact that such articles are frequently barred to anonymous editors anyway as a practical measure, says it all. But surely the same principle applies to the whole of Wikipedia? I have taken a number of articles off my watch list, simply because I don't have the time to keep up with all the anonymous edits they attract. Is that a good thing? I firmly believe that the net effect of anonymous editing on the project, is simply to act as a resource drain.
—Laurence Boyce 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Most verily, I agree. Cough, cough. ~ Flame-viper 12 (20:49, 13.06.06 UTC)

I don't have stats to back it up, but it seems as if 75% of all vandalism is done by anon editors, if not more. So Mr. Boyce's suggestion is a sound one. I don't see how requiring two minutes to register violates the idea that Anyone can edit. If someone can edit responsibily, surely they can master the task of registration. It's not a barrier, except perhaps to those who want to hide behind anonymity to perform "hit and run" vandal edits IMMEDIATELY. When they face the consequenses for those actions, usually an entire ISP is blocked or banned along with them - one belonging perhaps an entire university, business, or Internet cafe. That strikes me as wildly unfair and detrimental to Wikipedia, since it unintentionally restricts access to the project to those who happen to share a vandal's ISP. - Nhprman List 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, and a million times no. This has been suggested a million times, and each time soundly defeated. If people need an account to edit, they may just not bother editing. Werdna (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the registration process is not an impediment to editing at all, except perhaps to 1) a moron, and 2) to someone who can't wait two minutes to begin vandalizing, and prefers to do it anonymously. So I don't understand the argument you make here. To read here that the mob apparently ganged up during a "vote" and said "no" to the concept (many voting anonymously, no doubt) is not surprising to me at all. The fact that a good idea was defeated is also not an argument on the merits. - Nhprman List 13:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem with that? We've hit critical mass. We don't just need any editors anymore, we need talented editors. Different situations call for different approaches. People will largely now be willing to sign up in order to edit. While anonymous IP editing undeniably draws some users, we don't know how many more talented editors aren't willing to edit here with what we put up with every day. - Taxman Talk 13:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Repeat vandalism by anonymous editors probably drives more people away in disgust than are attracted by editing anonymously. Another line of thought: I also wonder how many subjects of articles have edited their own articles, or sent others to do so anonymously, as in the case of some U.S. Congressmen? - Nhprman List 13:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Taxman that needs have changed. I don't agree that we need to make it as easy as possible to edit, and I think making it just that tiny bit harder would stop a huge amount of vandalism. Preventing anonymous edits would also solve the continual and sometimes severe problems that autoblocks can cause registered users whose IP happens to have recently been used to vandalise. Worldtraveller 14:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that registration should be required because it facilitates consensus building and discussion between editors. You can't leave a message on an anon's talk page and be confident that they will read it. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your support and agreement (mostly). Werdna, to your "no, no, and a million times no," I merely say, please re-consider just one more time. As others have pointed out, it must surely be a case of weighing up costs and benefits. In my albeit limited experience, anonymous editing is at best acting as a resource drain (of which this thread is itself an example!), and at worst is actively damaging the project.

Another point is that I feel allowing anonymous editing also erodes the prestige of Wikipedia when viewed from the "outside world." We've all, no doubt, had to endure irritating criticism of Wikipedia and its methodology. (As if one glaring error in some way undermines the whole project, or as if the "proper" encyclopedias aren't full of crap anyway.) But I see anonymous editing as being a gift to these critics.

All too often an article history gets clogged up with reams of farcical anon edits and reverts, completely spoiling the appearance of an edit history, which in itself should be an important indicator of article quality. In general, Wikipedians bend over backwards to encourage new users. Surely now is the time to close the door to a significant body of time wasters. My heart sinks every time I see that silly list of numbers.

Why not ban anonymous editing for a few months? My guess is there would be no turning back.

—Laurence Boyce 19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Angela's page?

Your user page currently states "Since this page is so simple and ugly, my ultimate dream is that some person who thinks it is fun will come along and make it look as perfect as Angela's user page." I looked, and I'm confused. What is "perfect" about Angela's page? I'm not insulting it - just pointing out that it is very simple, and that "some person who thinks it is fun" would need very little time and creativity to make your page look similar. - Slow Graffiti 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It used to be quite nicer. --Banana04131 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
People have slowly improved Jimbo's page per his request. It looks quite pretty now. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I always thought this was added a long time ago as a joke by Angela and it was just overlooked. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Banana. It was on of the first fully developed user pages. -- Zanimum 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Question

Is a developer an elected rank or a job? If it's a job,can a normal editor get the job or do they have to be a steward? Gangsta-Easter-Bunny15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

it's a jobby. 128.100.31.172 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Then answer the if they have to be a steward or not to get it.--GangstaEB & friends 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 15:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Devs are seperate from the normal userside stuff. You become a dev by codeing.Geni 01:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Is this you?

[24]? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


A penny for your thoughts (on the german userbox solution)

Hi,
I don't know if I'm supposed to grovel or not but still I'd like to ask you for your thoughts on our 'project'. Since you mentioned it we took a look at how the German wikipedia handeled their userboxes, and tried to implement it on the English wikipedia, not as an policy, but rather as a collobarative effort within existing policies, to solve the userbox issues.
So I wondered if you could take a brief look at "The German userbox solution" and perhaps tell us if we work into the direction you intended or not. Best wishes! CharonX/talk 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Doing a quick cut/paste of the text, the "German Userbox Solution's" talk page has generated nearly 29,500 words - and that's just since May 31! And bear in mind, that's just ONE proposal out there. How many completely new articles would that have created in the same time period? Jimbo has made it clear he sees this debating as a waste of resources, time and effort. How sad that yet another non-solution solution has generated so much heat. Simply write the text, "I'm a liberal, Catholic, Labour voter who likes chocolate, loves Spiderman and watches CSI" (or whatever) on a Userpage, and let that be the end of it. Fighting to the death over these Boxes is NOT worth all this effort. - Nhprman List 05:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Suprisingly, I agree. The userbox wars were a big waste of time and resources. In fact they could have been completely avoided if there were no hardliners on both sides. Sadly there are, and it is part of human nature to fight tooth and claw if they feel their freedom if threatened. "This is a waste of resources for both of us, so just give up" is not a very convincing argument, no? We have listened to reason, sought alternatives that keep both sides satified and peaceful, to stop this waste. Taking a hardline position won't change anything, only compromise will. CharonX/talk 10:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Any solution that deletes any Templated boxes (though a welcome move) won't be "peaceful," and I think you see that in many of the comments there. My solution isn't to "give up," it's have Jimbo delete all but a few encyclopedic Templated boxes. I do contend that spending time arguing about where to store little colored boxes describing our personal preferences on a site that's supposed to be an encyclopedia really is a waste of time, as is seeking 'consensus' from people who clearly do not want it or even understand what it is. - Nhprman List 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to say it, but still your argument boils down to "Let's agree on my position (delete all but encyclopedic userboxes) since we won't be able to agree on a compromise" in my ears. I'm certain that you would not agree if I said "The whole issue is dumb. Let them keep the boxes in userspace (even allowing transclusions) and be done with it, instead of endlessly arguing about it." CharonX/talk 16:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that a real policy that deletes most userbox Templates and moving them into userspace is the only true way to solve this problem. Ignoring it and saying "Pretty please, play nice and don't use them as templates" is not a solution, or a laughable one. What it all boils down to for many editors is, in effect: "Let's keep arguing over bureaucratic nonsense, because that stalls any real action, and allows userbox Templates to stay as-is indefinitely." This is a game that's worn very thin. That, and the thousands of "Don't delete my userbox templates. They're Kewwwwl" type of comments. That misinformed mindset is what's blocking any consensus on this issue. - Nhprman List 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The main issue was and is that many ideas look nice on the paper, but don't find sufficient support by the community for one reason or another. Many aspiring policies have been shot down by hardliners on all sides, and as a result, the space for new policies regarding userboxes is now swamped with their slowly decomposing carcasses. In fact, Nhprman, I came he with the request to Jimbo to take a look at what we made out of his suggestion as a solution. And perhaps, if he found it matched the middle way he suggested, I might have gone forward and suggested that WP:GUS might be put forward as policy instead of a simple suggestion (even though it already works, based on the cooperation of several wikipedians), emboldened with the knowledge that it is on the right track. I am not entirely sure if you appreciated the idea or not (your first sentence was a bit hard to understand) but if you do, join the discussion, state your concerns, and we will try to heed them. CharonX/talk 21:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the rotting carcasses called Userbox proposals and that many of them look nice in theory. I probably won't add to the 30,000+ word debate on the GUS talk page, but suffice it to say that if it was adopted, it would probably be a great step forward. But good luck with that. I also have to point out that Jimbo's comments, cited in the proposal ("merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns") - a rather bland non-interference policy, which prompted my "pretty please" comment above - is at odds with the GUS idea of continuing to regulate offensive userboxes in userspace, which is clearly necessary. Simply asking for "cooperation of Wikipedians" is a Utopian and ultimately ineffective way to address the huge waste of time and space called "userbox templates", and highlights a misunderstanding of human nature. - Nhprman List 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Just to know

I have requested removal of my sysop rights on sl:Slovenian Wikipedia (and also on Slovenian Wiktionary) since I won't edit it anymore. My understanding of what's right and what's to be avoided is just contrary to the opinion of other users:

  • respect fair use (this image is not used anywhere and still they do not want to use it in the appropriate article and give all the relevant information or just delete it; they rather quarrel)
  • avoid overlinking articles; they accused me of vandalism because I removed links to unimportant dates and duplicate links [25]

[26]

and then someone just reverted me using the 'revert' button. It's a common practice in Slovenian Wikipedia to revert other admins using the revert button and without any explanation

  • BUT! When someone promotes another user to a sysop and another one to the bureacrat status without the consent of the community (see [27]), this is just fine and he gets away with it without any problem. He even said he did so on purpose and wanted to be punished. If you can believe that!

I'll probably continue to edit WikiCommons (where I am sysop too) and English/French Wikipedia but not the Slovenian one anymore. --Eleassar my talk 16:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in less than a month, three good administrators (of 20 minus me; I have given up the status yesterday) have left Slovenian Wikipedia: Igor some days ago, me yesterday (I still edit it but almost zero and have focused instead on editing MediaWiki documentation on meta) and today sl:Uporabnik:Tcie. Another one left Wikipedia till autumn with hopes that the situation will improve till then. That's all due to the awful atmosphere there. I'm sorry I have to tell you such things. --Eleassar my talk 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


hey

It's the grat Jimmy Wales, hey dude come over for a 4:20--Cowboy From Hell 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)DJ BatWave


Good article project

Hi Jimbo, I'll let you decide if the GA project should be seen in a good light or is it deemed to fail on wikipedia as a rating system for the articles in a way to let the readers know what is the quality of the article they are reading. The thing at the present is taht FA people don't believe in it and all the others, well, don't seem to care. Your opinion would be appreciated. Lincher 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC).


User:Rovoam

Hello Jimbo. I hate Rovoam alot, and came up with this template to put on the blocked pages that might be him:


Template:Rovoam


What do you think?

Micoolio101 12:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101


About Trolls

How about people that are not trolls, that are called trolls and even turn into trolls because of extremely abusive admins? 206.225.145.34 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How about that?

Then you are a troll!! .Angela. 01:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


I need an advocate and help with mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD professor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition. Please note that I have supported everything I wish to add on the talk page of the article, and nothing I wish to add is original research. I only wish I had the ability to do original research in theoretical physics. What I wish to add is necessary for the article to have no point of view. As the article stands now, it would be hard for anyone to understand why Hugh Everett's theory has so many adherents.

For a good explanation of Hugh Everett's Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics please see Michael Clive Price's Hugh Everett FAQ: http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Hugh Everett's Interpretation does not add one equation to quantum mechanics. An article filled with equations only obscures the significance of his theory.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who reverts all my edits without commentary, and refuses to read what I write on the articles talk page.

I have tried reasoning with him on the article's talk pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It does away with Bohr's "principle of complementarity." It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. Einstein mainly objected to quantum mechanics because it was not a deterministic theory, and it required doing away with classical realism. Hugh Everett's theory automatically eliminates both these objections. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and to Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle resolves the fine-tuning problem, and how our universe started with such low entropy.

John Wheeler, a famous physicist and Everett's thesis advisor, put his name on Everett's thesis, but later criticized it as "carrying too much metaphysical baggage." Hugh Everett left physics because of the poor reception his theory received. It initially attracted no followers and was largely ignored. It gained adherents in the 1980s, and today is considered a mainstream interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Its popularity continues to grow.

Michael D. Wolok 03:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


'edit this page'?

Mr Wales, you say that you trust me and I can edit your user page but I see no 'edit this page' button. 193.238.72.1 11:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

His userpage had to be temproarily protected because it was being constantly vandalised. The protection only stops anonymous and new users from editing it, so if you register and hang around for a few days, you'll be able to edit it. The page history says that the page was vandalised 15 times in the space of a few days. You can, however, edit most of over 1 million other pages on Wikipedia. --james(lets talk) 12:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)



Re:Sam Vaknin et al.

I created a template for articles about living people that may be borderlining on verifiability, it's Template:living. Of course it probably needs some better wording, but I'd like to hear your input. Thanks.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted this template. It's yet more metadata pollution in articles and it is redundant with the living persons category. Raul654 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Raul, you don't think new or anonymous editors should be aware of the special parameters of biographical articles?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no such special parameters. The verifiability policy applies to all articles, not just biographies of living people. Raul654 06:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's much more strict in biographies of living people. See WP:LIVING. It is not acceptable to have any unsourced information. If you look in articles about mathematical equations, teen subcultures, and books, you will find that the policy is much more relaxed. I watch the recent changes page often, and many anonymous users will add data to an article without a source, and somewhat ignore the policy. Nobody really challenges the edits (for example, the article on Baldassare Castiglione has no sources at all, but a quick look at Britannica's entry on the same person shows that the article is quite accurate). So you see, there is a double standard, which needs to be addressed.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Putting a huge, ugly template at the top of article is not an acceptable solution. Raul654 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well Raul, I didn't think it was that big. But perhaps it could go in the article's talkpage, or its editing window somehow. I don't want to get rid of the contributions to these articles by editors aloof to the policy, and I'm sure you don't either, but if we do nothing, we're gonna have Jimbo going around to each crappily created bio, having to request a recreation of each one. We could stop that, or at least reduce the process by warning editors in advance.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE

After having read all the related material I could find about WP:OFFICE, there are still elements to it that I still find very unclear. The main standard that you seem to have set forth is the idea that WP:OFFICE will mainly apply to articles about a living person that the person finds libelous. Clearly, this doesn't mean that every time a living person objects to his/her Wikipedia article, the article will be stripped down to a stub by WP:OFFICE. But how is the distinction made between an OFFICE-worthy objection/threat and an unworthy one? Who makes that decision, and what criteria apply? I would really appreciate if you could help to clarify this issue, for me, and for other Wikipedians who feel confused by this policy. --Alex S 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales makes the decision. And WP:Office also applies to other things, such as articles about companies or organizations. 67.70.57.26 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Category:Wikipedians by politics for deletion

I have nominated Category:Wikipedians by politics and all of its subcategories for deletion. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19/Wikipedians by politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Wales, Hopiakuta 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Wales,

Hello.

Just today, I've created a screenname.

I have been led to Wikipedia by various searchengines in the last three years. I have, increasingly, specifically searched your website in isolation.

So, yes, there is very much that I do like about it.

However, it is largely a compilation of negative experiences that have resulted in my registration.

Yesterday, I'd encountered something that I'd perceived as racist. It had not been the content; it had been the manner in which the content had been assembled, organized, arranged, employed.

Well, I had interpreted it as insulting. A photograph of two men had been placed near the title "Communism vandal", where they were not.

There are, as well, many issues of disability-access, much like elsewhere on the internet, & throughout Earth, in all circumstances.

I do advocate a disability-wiki, in order to attempt to resolve these sorts of issues.

Someone is encouraging me to try

< http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia >,

which I shall attempt.


Regardless of what degree of success I might achieve there, or in other efforts, do, hereby, plead that you, Mr. Wales, would be supportive, directly supportive, of efforts to improve disability-access, & encourage disabled-persons to participate.


A disability version of

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_bite_the_newcomers >

should be scribed.

Thank You. Hopiakuta 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Debate: Notability requirement vs No notability requirement

User_talk:Snugspout has an interesting debate over the issue of Notability as it applies to Biographies. ---J.S (t|c) 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Grave Injustices at Wikipedia

Many users have been banned from editing at Wikipedia with no good cause, no chance to defend themselves, and no attempt at all of solving the problem to begin with. These many editors over the course of the last year or so, particularly the last year, are now the unheard voices of the world. I say this because of the obvious power and readership that Wiipedia has in the world.

These editors, once singled out, are routinely harassed, picked away at, intentionally confused, ridiculed, and driven from Wikipedia with a vengeance by the enoromous power of watchdog admins on Wikipedia. This I know for sure. Not to be rude or presumptuous, I am wondering if you might know anything about this. Does this endless struggle to censor articles and numerous editors come from higher up, maybe than just the ruling admins? Is it possible that the Beaurocracy of Wikimedia Foundation might know something about this? Or even some members of the board?

Because of the vast level of abuse that has been noted so often lately, I am wondering if my forthcomng proposal be the only fair and upfront way to go. I am requesting straight up that we open every case of banning from editing at Wikipedia for the last year for an open review by the entire community. Every member be allowed, with no fear of being blocked themselves, the chance to ivestigate each case and openly and honestly vote on the outcome of the decision of whether to allow these banned editors a chance to edit at Wikipedia again.

Please consider this, Jimmy Wales. I know you know in your heart, that this is only fair and decent thing to do. 70.159.21.50 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this has anything to do with User:Anittas. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
or any OTHER banned user, for that matter, including User:Beckjord, or someone else. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to present any bans with which you disagree to the Arbitration Committee—a body to which the authority to review such decisions was delegated through an open and honest vote by the entire community. I strongly encourage any request for review that is accompanied by clear and detailed evidence, a concise summary, and an absence of personal attacks and incivility. (Otherwise, please don't bother.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what this person is saying. I believe that he or she is saying that the arbitration committee is not trustworthy in it's current state. TenOfAllTrades says that "a body to which the authority to review such decisions was delegated through an open and honest vote by the entire community", is a fallacy. There is a real important distinction here and let's not confuse fact with more confusion with unfact. This person makes some valid points here. I believe that this person is saying that it is literally impossible for a banned editor to have an honest review of their case. And it is impossible for unwanted editors to have a legitimate and fair dispute resolution to begin with. Indeed, there often is an entire bypassing of the policy guidelines at all. Jimmy Wales, can you answer this person's questions? They were clearly written to you, not the very admins or any other editors at Wikipedia, that may or may not be involved in question. 66.218.28.71 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, factually, almost any given rfc, vfd, or arbitration

could be shown via logic to have some serious problems. I have tested this and picked them at random. Vfds are typically opened with ad hominem or straw man attacks. RFCs are now standard stacked popularity contests. Arbiter Bauder is a right wing anti leftist pov warrior, and refuses to recuse himself from single handedly running arbitrations which are about political issues raised by the "left." There is no real justice on Wikipedia, because the system and its rules as is are a playable game. Prometheuspan 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo usully doesn't answer questions, because he is way above you mere mortals. 70.48.250.17 10:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfair characterization. Jimbo doesn't answer questions because

the theory he is using shows that the less he intervenes, the closer wikipedia comes to being a democracy. You and others including myself are in essence appealing to the "dictator" aspect of wikipedia government. That has become increasingly more neccessary, as entropy has gotten worse and as pov warriors have risen in ranks and increased in brazenness. Jimbo doesn't answer questions, probably, because he believes that the best solution is for consensus process to find smarter answers than a single person can provide. Unfortunately, Jimbos theory fails to take into account tyrany of the majority and other such similar problems. Prometheuspan 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Jimbo doesn't answer baseless accusations. Come up with some evidence. Thx. --mboverload@ 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond evidence. Pick any 5 arbitrations or rfcs at random, and I'd be happy to show serious problems. >Any< cursory investigation into the goings on at wikipedia reveals systemic bias

based in admin and arbiter pov warrior generated entropy. The persons trying to deal with this problem are overwhelmed and outgunned. And seriously outnumbered. The problem is completely self evident. As i said, you pick any 5 and i'll pick any 5 (Rfcs, Vfds, arbitrations, etc) AT RANDOM... and it will be easy to show that entropy has slid us into a mess that can only be fixed via Jimbos intervention, or high level internicine netwarfare. Prometheuspan 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


There are some editors that are banned from Wikipedia who are not allowed to appear at all anywhere on Wikipedia. If so much as their names are mentioned their comments are immediately deleted. This is a fact. What do you have to say about that? 211.48.147.154 04:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thats an important and neccessary final step in the worst of abuse cases. It should be reserved for those situations where all other measures have been tried and have failed.

Prometheuspan 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


User:Willy on Wheels

Speaking of banned users, I'm surprised Jimbo hasn't banned the notorious vandal, Willy on Wheels, (who is, currently, under a de-facto community ban) - I thought he'd be of a level of infamy worthy of a Jimmy Wales ban... — Rickyrab | Talk 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Your attention please

Could you review the Gregory Lauder-Frost note, above.Sussexman 07:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


The beginning of the end of userboxes?

Jimbo,

I know I've e-mailed you about this before and not received a reply. I've also posted at WP:VPT, WP:BOTREQ, #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en and #mediawiki; nobody there has been able to help either.

I have a plan that I think might lead to many Wikipedians abandoning their non-babel userboxes, but I need some technical help before I can bring it to fruition.

The idea is to copy all userboxes to http://personals.wikia.com, and encourage Wikipedians to move their profiles, and create a link from user page here to user page there. Since user pages on personals.wikia are much less restrictive with respect to social networking and blogging, I expect users will do this enthusiastically. Then, userboxes will start to become orphaned, and we'll be able to delete them.

I already have the support of the personals.wikia community for this proposal.

I've figured out a way to get an XML of the boxes themselves, using AWB and Special:Export. The problem is that I also need to batch-copy all the images included in the boxes, and their description pages, and I haven't been able to figure out a way to do this. Can you advise me as to how I might do this? Seahen 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. This should probably be addressed before the German userbox solution gets too far underway, lest we have to move too many userboxes back into template space on personals.wikia (which probably won't follow the GUS). Seahen 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't the userboxers get a myspace account...? -ZeroTalk 15:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea with personals.wikia is that:
  • The userboxes can be used, in combination with text searching, for automated matchmaking to find both friends and dates. (The software script needed to do this hasn't yet been written, but I'm sure it would be once the userbase was there.
  • Anyone can create new userboxes, which creates an effective folksonomy. In this respect, userboxes are better than keywords because each one is a full sentence. (Imagine trying to fit {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/clean_fuels}} or {{User french spacing:no}} into one or two words each!) Also, the fact that some userboxes take parameters means that the database structure can easily change.
  • Wikipedia's userbox library already contains more tags than we'd be likely to find on any other site. See my user page for an example of how 150+ userboxes allow one to describe everything from music to food to philosophy to grammar to politics.
  • Wikipedians can copy their profiles over with virtually no effort, rather than having to convert the userboxes to prose. Then, (a) the user page's userboxes will become redundant and can be removed, and (b) Wikipedians can create profiles faster, making them more likely to join, creating an instant userbase.
  • Personals.wikia will become a free-of-charge, open-source alternative to Myspace, Orkut, Lavalife, LiveJournal, Friendster and all those other over-hyped social sites.
  • Some people just don't seem willing to give up their userboxes.
That's why. —Seahen 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I already have a Myspace account. But it's nice to know what Wikipedians are like. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Crystal Gail Mangum

Various requests have been made to have this page unprotected (currently office protected), due to new information. (See Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum). Requests left on Danny's talk page have not been answered, I have had to deny a request at WP:RFPP. Could you please make a decision on the matter? Thanks, Prodego talk 16:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. We now have a reputable, reliable, verifiable source which lists the accuser as Crystal Gail Mangum. We would like to have the WP:Office removed from her page. Leaving it locked gives Wikipedia the image of being biased based on ethics and morality.

Danny has unprotected the article, disregard. Prodego talk 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


HighwayCello (talk · contribs)

User:HighwayCello has engaged in personal attacks, harassment and vandalism (and possibly copyright violation), he has violated almost every policy and guidline in the entire encyclopedia. He has vandalized and attacks users, especially me, but some other users as well, and trying to gain ownership over Pokémon articles by reverting all edits that doesn't please him, harassing other users, and just doing anything that violates the policies and guidelines. He has been working hard to get other innocent users blocked from editing, by doing bad things, getting other users so angry as they do bad things back to him, sometimes just moaning at him, but sometimes other things. HighwayCello reports users, gets them blocked, using the thing they said as evidence, ignoring the fact that he got them angry, and then eventually getting them blocked. It got so serious, I had to change my username to Cute Minun (it was Iloveminun before). HighwayCello reported me as a sockpuppet, even though I had changed my account permanently. HighwayCello eventually got me blocked for what he had done. He also changed an image license HighwayCello changes an image license to something that totally does not fit the image. [28]

He eventually got me blocked for a week for everything thathe had done, and now im reporting problems using my IP address. Please reply as soon as possible. 81.153.148.8 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This user has been stalking/harassing me for weeks. His repetitive sockpuppets were used for evading blocks and voting in crucial TfDs that could have lead to a major advertising problem in Pokémon articles. He also reverted me revert vandalism to try and prove a stupid point. Could this IP please be blocked, I am on wikibreak because of everything, and if being called before the ArbCom in a case will not make this user snap out of his harassment, blocking his IP until the case be dealt seems the only viable option. Regards, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
NO, HighwayCello is the one doing the harassment, im just reporting him for what is true, and he was obvioulsy following me again. Since your the head of Wikimedia, is there any special way to find out. And I recently checked HighwayCello's contributions, it appears he was only removing things. 81.153.148.8 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't exactly the place to report this sort of thing. Take it to WP:ANI as stated at the top of this talk page. Cowman109Talk 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, i'll try that 81.153.148.8 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, that template HighwayCello says I nominated for deleted, it only had an external link. Template:Serebiidex 81.153.148.8 19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, you haven't really given any evidence, and I'll be a character witness for Highway: he's a nice, dependable wikipedian.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You have plageurised, harrassed, made personal attacks, used sockpuppets wrongly, shouted at other users for giving you warnings, blanketed pages, removed IfD messages and been blocked for incivility. You then created a further two accounts to get around this block and you are now blocked for even longer. You are the subject of an ArbCom case, I can't stress how much harm you are causing. Stop now, and stop aggravating people who don't care, Wikipedia is a bleeding hearts club, and Jimbo has bigger problems than you and me alone. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for one week for block evasion. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


POLEMICAL AND INFLAMMATORY USERBOXES

It seems that the situation about this is not clear. Many people believes that it is OK to have support this / oppose that userboxes, as long as these are not a template (I think they call this "userfied"). The thing is that these are still offensive and divisive. Please help to clear up this. Why should people be allowed to use Wikipedia to push their own ideological agendas? This is not about freedom of expression but about having a civil and objective encyclopedic environment. Having a clear answer on this problem will in the long term stop edit wars and divisive bickering. Thank you very much, TheCooler 19:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because people like to have identities, thank you very much. So long as they keep their biases away from the articles, what's the problem? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Of interest?

In order to encourage the development of communications technology (in particular internet technology), a new page has been started on the Scratchpad at Wikia.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Wiki_DX-QSL

Any comments? ShakespeareFan00 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Sexy Jimbo

Hi,

I am unsure, if you are aware that you are one of the participants in a beauty peagant on the German Wikipedia. Don't worry, you're doing fine, breaking into the upper third of the current ranking table. The reason, why I am telling you this, is the following: You are not the only person that has been entered into this contest w/o his or her knowledge. Many people have been entered into the contest without their prior consent, most of them are not celebrities, who would expect a discussion of their physical features. I think such a contest is creating an atmosphere, which repels a lot of women (regardless of their looks), not so good looking men, and older people from Wikipedia. These are the people who are anyways underrepresented here, which further excarbates a bias towards "young, techy males". I'm aware that you are aware of this bias, so maybe you could make your voice audible (I'd gladly translate). I did voice this problem myself, but since I have become some sort of enfant terrible on the German Wikipedia, few people would openly agree with me. Best, Fossa 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

First step: Relax. The photos are selfportraits, uploaded voluntary by users, who are not afraid to show their face in the wikipedia. And this 'contest' is a friendly ironical joke. There are only pro-votes and no con-votes. Unfortunately I got just one vote. *sigh*. --80.132.6.56 10:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC) = Logograph
It is, in my opinion, simply a matter of courtesy to ask people for permission before exhibiting their photographs on a “beauty contest” — be it “friendly” and “ironical” or not. And so far, nobody bothered to do so. (I know, a few few people have been notified afterwards.)
But apart from that: The crown of martyrdom doesn’t suit you at all, Fossa. --89.58.14.40 12:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with martyrdom: This is Wikipedia, nobody's gonna die. It has something to do with the fact that a number of editors have identified me as a "Internet_troll", mainly because I am highly critical of the project (for a variety of reasons, one of is that social networking is more important for article content than the validation of "facts"). It's a simple fact that many people are judging my statements primarily by their authorship. I am not gonna whine about it, I just put my statement into context, so that one can see why posted this message here, rather than raise the issue myself. Fossa 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I also don't think, that "asking" is a proper way to recruit contestants, as many might be too shy/afraid to say no. You enter yourself into such a superflouos contest. And most people that have been notified after the fact were notified by me. Which is the reason why I received nasty emails, why I entered people. Fossa 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Apart from that I really don’t think these people needed to be protected from themselves, I sincerely believe that someone who is “too shy or afraid to say no” has much bigger problems than the possibility of anybody making fun of his photo. It is — as I said — a matter of mere courtesy to ask people for permission, but aside from that, I don’t see the whiff of a problem. As far as I survey, you are once again making a big fuss about nothing here. 89.58.51.182 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I have hit a soft spot; otherwise, my comments on the German Wikipedia and here could simply have been ignored. Instead, my post immediately stirred up people both on the German Wikipedia, and now even over here, with most IPs again posting within German IP ranges. Insofar you are right, I'm a "troublemaker". I simply expose that there is a lot of networking going on on the German Wikipedia (on the English as well, BTW, but to a lesser extent), which influences article quality quite a bit (more than I expected, BTW). This networking is one of the reasons, why article quality is so poor both left and right of the pond (I am speaking of articles in my areas of expertise, mainly sociology, the Balkans, cults/sects, popular music, nationalism, social movements: All hotly debated topics to be sure; I would use Wikipedia, if I was interested in some computer science topics, which I am at times). Fossa 23:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
(…) You’re a dead loss. --89.58.58.184 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realise the German Wikipedia was no longer an encyclopedia, but a social networking site. Or do beauty pageants help build an encyclopedia in some way I am missing? The whole thing should be culled, if you ask me (which you didn't, but I think I make a valid point). --LV (Dark Mark) 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. To some extent this is a "cultural issue", as I do not believe that such distasteful peagants would be possible in the Anglo-Saxon context. Fossa 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OH MY GOOD - that's not possible! They have a little fun with there with Wikipedia. What shall we do now? Yeah! We go to Jimbo...: "Dear Jimbo - at de:Wikipedia they don't like me. They call me troll or more other worst things. Please Jimbo go there and take their toy! They don't let me play with them *cry*".

Jimbo - come over and give your vote (for Elian, I bet?) ;) - And please don't react at Troll Fossas rubbish.

PS: Was nice to hear you at Göttingen. Kenwilliams 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What you call "fun", Kenwilliams, might in fact not be "fun" for some of the persons that are not interested in their physical features being discussed. Fossa 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, don't care about Fossa. He's a feminist and hates everything that could be big fun! --85.178.218.56 10:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear Jimbo used to date Carrie Underwood and Princess Di. --D-Day I'm all ears 20:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear you're hearing incorrect information? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I hear this. --D-Day I'm all ears 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Enjoy also our critical grasshoppers!

We're just beauty queens & nice guys und want to apologize our eternal spiritual and physical beauty. Pure IQ is beauty. Pure beauty means in our cases of course extreme IQ's. But we are also proud of our critical grasshoppers. So enjoy everything. Yours πenτα --84.149.202.63 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[29]


'Censoring' on fiction related articles

There is an ongoing 'merging campaign' of articles related to fiction such as the ones about fictional characters and episode summaries. It is leading to an unhealth flamewar which as I see it, only you can extinguish.

If I recall correctly, you have a comment about "Hard dives being cheap" allowing articles about episode summaries and about fictional characters, however I could not manage to locte the quote. --Cat out 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Well, it is not really up to me to intervene in such things. It is all part of the normal editorial process. I trust that we can figure it out as a community, with a minimum of edit warring and fighting. Rational discussion is the core value which makes things work in the end. --Jimbo Wales 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless one or more people are truly committed to something wholly unrational. In which case rational conversation by itself is totally useless and generally circular.

Prometheuspan 20:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wales' definition of the word "rational" may differ from most people. See here. In the Randian context, "rational" means loyalty to the Leader at all times - anything else is puzzling and irrational. - Xed 11:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That seems unfair xed, I understand your frustration, and,

its certainly true that Jimbos faith in mere process is itself irrational, however, as i understand it, rational in the randian context means simply looking out for ones own interests, and knowing that compromise is an essential component to getting other people to come on board any given bandwagon. Prometheuspan 20:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your remark means in this context; a superficial reading suggests that it's a very clumsy jab at Jimbo, but I'm hoping that you can elaborate and clear up my misunderstanding. The Leader seems to have stated explicitly that he's not getting involved and that we're supposed to resolve the issue ourselves through reasoned and rational discussion—where did Rand come from? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just drawing attention to Wales' philosophy, which lies at the heart of his motivation for Wikipedia. The Rand cult idolises selfishness and celebrates venality and indifference to others. Hence Jimbo's opposition to allowing Wikipedia be part of the effort to help victims of the Asian tsunami - a decision which must have caused plenty of suffering. Not that he would care of course – that would be weak. As for not getting involved - he recently personally intervened on behalf of Ann Coulter (he is a clearly a fan) - who rants on at length about ragheads, camel jockeys, jihad monkeys etc - to get her article the way she wants it. His sycophants soon complied. So – the claim of "not getting involved" can be dismissed – indeed, he even edited his own article to make himself look better. Such grandiosity leads him to call all criticism of his actions "personal attacks", as he does again below. It's rare for someone to have so little integrity, and this makes Jimbo at least slightly interesting, but I don't think he is the right person to run an encyclopedia. – Xed 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Offhand Xed, i'd agree that Jimbo is not overall speaking the

right person to run an encylopedia. Which is irrelevant, since he does. The success of wikipedia as is hinges on at least some amount of wisdom on his part. The discrepancies and problems and abusiveness of wikipedia also hinge essentially upon the lack of rules and order which he set up. The order is his fault, and the degree of entropy is also his fault. Now that we have assigned blame, how does that actually help us to solve any problems? Prometheuspan 20:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to write something strongly worded here, but stopped myself. The above is a perfect example of the phrase: "dont feed the trolls". Easter rising 13:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo strikes me as being too decent to be a fan of Ann Coulter. She is, how shall we say, divisive, inflammatory, polemical, and she doesn't use verifiable or reliable sources in her books ... exactly the kind of person Jimbo doesn't like :-D Cyde↔Weys 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I mean nothing very special or unusual by "rational discussion" and Xed's personal attacks are nothing new. I do not expect nor ask for people to be loyal to me, at all times or otherwise. Xed knows this; he is hoping that others do not.--Jimbo Wales 19:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir Mister Jimbo. I sympathize with Xed on the one hand and can readilly identify ad hominems on the other. You have put before Xed and others an impossible quandry. Your essential basic premise is only valid if one assumes that the participants are rational. Without real criteria to evaluate rationality and to deal

with irrationality, what you have is an accidental madhouse, increasingly run by irrational people who have evolved over time to play your game otherwise well enough to become admins and arbiters. Denial and evasion on your part would drive me to make similar comments if i did not have the tools of logic which makes my actual approach possible.

Perhaps if you made a new base assumption that Xeds complaints are real, and that they warrant your attention, Xed would be able to work with you and others to come to a rational outcome. As it is, rational outcomes are becoming increasingly less and less possible, because of the aforementioned problems. Prometheuspan 20:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


A recent example is User:Anittas - dismissed for disloyaly, or at least for criticising the Leader. - Xed 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Xed, there is a fine line between criticism, and screaming semi prophetic inanities into the wind. You are certainly crossing that line. Did Anittas?

Prometheuspan 20:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else but all other things being equal, I have more loyalty to a leader who doesn't expect it than to one who does, and you're the former kind rather than the latter. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not censorship. Wikipedia has a multitude of articles created about minor characters at very consistent intervals. This is quite against the process of article creation at wikipedia and is something the German wikipedia handles altogether more sensibly on my opinion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
When such things become too common, we merge them into lists for proper form and easier accessibilty. The WP:FICT policy clarifies a bit more on this. -ZeroTalk 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikimania bash scholarships

I couldn't find a place to comment on this so I hope you dont mind if i just put it here. I wish there would be a possibility for sponsorships for research in libraries and museums so that it leads directly to content on Wikipedia. My feeling is that it would be better value for the jet fuel spent. Shyamal 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Sj might be able to answer some of your questions. GChriss 06:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Funny

Hey, Jimbo, have you read this [30]? Is this true?--GorillazFan Adam 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not good. These are: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedophiles and http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikiphrenia DyslexicEditor 07:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Mark Simone page

Hi, Jimmy. I've emailed Danny (as he requested) regarding what's been happening on the Mark Simone page. I saw your reversion, and tried to strip the article of any PR/Advertising/Cheerleading that has been somewhat endemic there. If you haven't seen the Talk Page yet, you may want to stop by. Thanks. Eleemosynary 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Kanuri Wikipedia

It appears that Willy on Wheels (or an impersonator of him) has moved the Kanuri Main Page from Main Page to Main Page ON WHEELS!. As I don't know how to move pages, can you please take a look at this? I am also very sorry if I have bothered you, as I don't know who else to contact. Thanks in advance. Sahmeditor 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Autogragh

Please don't block me for this, I just think you are a notable person. May I have your autograph? 'sed

10 bucks per autograph.70.48.250.195 07:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Your Opinion

Hi, I have never interacted with you before, but as the founder of wikipedia I just wanted to know your opinion of what's becoming a major issue on wikipedia: the level of detail in fictional/pop culture entries. Many users have advocated for, and are writing articles on individual TV episodes, or making articles for charcters, or fictional concepts. Many users recently have strongly opposed in depth fictional entires, and are deleting pages and projects on them. You are probably aware of ths issue already, but I would like to know your take on the issue. Also, an offical policy statement from the founder of wikpedia could probably have it resolved. Thanks -- Tobyk777 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If I could butt in, not to preempt Jimbo giving his opinion.
Jimbo only very rarely makes "official policy statements"; he prefers the community (that is, us) to sort things out for themselves. Although it's tempting to try and get Jimbo to cut the knot on any contentious issue, this is not how Wikipedia generally works. It's unlikely even the community itself could work out policies that are clear, easy to apply, and widely supported, aside from the trivial "mention that the topic is fictional in the first sentence" rule. An edict from Jimbo probably wouldn't help.
WP:FICT is the present guideline on covering fictional topics. If you haven't already done so, you may also want to read Wikipedia:Fancruft and its talk page, which describes the issue (but isn't really trying to offer solutions). Then there's wiki is not paper as the oldest page that raised the point of a wiki having much more room for stuff than paper media, and it mentions the "an article for every Simpsons episode" statement that neatly summarizes the original take. You may also want to try the village pump to start a discussion, but don't expect any quick results. JRM · Talk 18:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Ugonna Wachuku

Dear Jimbo:

This article does not violate Wikipedia verifiable content principles asUser:Dlyons493 suggests. The quoted letter from Kofi Annan is verifiable. And a copy can be faxed to wikipedia's Jimmy Wales if need be. The letter was written and signed by Kofi Annan himself and not his secretary. Kofi Annan himself can be contacted by Wikipedia. So, I don't see why my fellow editors are saying that the Ugonna Wachuku article is not verifiable.

The facts in the article are verifiable wen looked at closely with an open mind. Webcity Resources, Ltd that Wachuku is Chairman of is also verifiable in Lagos, Nigeria - except that the Web site of the company is currently being upgraded and is not available for the moment. If that company is a problem, then as the contributor of the article, I can remove that sentence. Also, The Great Place a book by Ugonna Wachuku is also real and verifiable - if only User:Dlyons493, Coredesat and AdamBiswanger1 would be objective and not cynical. Lets do the right thing and keep the article, my good friends. (Lord777 11:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC))


The Great Place

This is another case of User:Dlyons493 and Coredesat not being object in nominating articles for deletion at will. That a book is a "Non-notable" book as User:Dlyons493 said does not mean that it violates any of the Wikipedia principles and rules; including the three cardinal content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). [[The Great Place]] by Ugonna Wachuku is out there and can be bought.

The author spent years of research and toil writing The Great Place. So, I'd advise Coredesat and User:Dlyons493 to buy a copy of the book and read for themselves before they start referring to it as a "Non-notable" book. This article should not be deleted. I therefore humbly call for the removal of deletion notices on both the Ugonna Wachuku article and The Great Place article. Please, let us not just nominate articles for deletion without being objective and realistic in our views. Thank you and GOD bless you all abundantly with wisdom. (Lord777 11:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC))


Driving out Ed Poor

You shouldn't have done it. The same group of corrupt Beaurocrats that ran Ed Poor out of here about a year ago harassed him so that he left again. Or if it was just admins and their watchdogs, rather than Beaurocrats, it doesn't matter. It's the same evil stinking corruption that happens in every secret CABAL in every state that has happened in every form of government since the beginning of civilization.

Wake up Jimmy Wales. They're trying to take over you. And they're winning. 211.48.147.154 04:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought Ed Poor was part of the Cabal and somebody complained about him (FuelWagon?) and I read FuelWagon was banned and Ed Poor was not de-anything'd, but he resigned. DyslexicEditor 07:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Hernando Cortez

I have restored the sockpuppet notice on the user page of Hernando_Cortez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which you had earlier removed citing his right to vanish.

I believe that Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) forfeited any right to a courtesy blanking when he came back to use his sockpuppet to again try to evade his article ban at Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


pov Encyclopédie morally superior to npov

Dear Jimbo:

Recently I was involved in a serious RFAR dispute where two editors were abusive to me. Wikipedia should not be abusive like that. Prometheuspan was kind enough to come to help me out against a lot of personal attacks. I think Prometheuspan’s solution was a good one (he pointed out that as a newcomer I didn’t understand “due weight” policy quite well). I hope that you’ll listen to, at least, some of his ideas about how to make Wikipedia less abusive.

However, I read through the entire section “The best response is no response?” above and don’t agree with everything that Prometheuspan has written there. His proposed policy of deferring to experts raises questions. How can a so-called expert be identified? I’ll take an example from the recent RFAR in which I was surprisingly dragged.

I believe that establishment defenders are the biggest threat to Wikipedia. The RFAR case was about psychiatry [31]. Well: like millions of children Prometheuspan himself was falsely diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD —and the Wikipedia main article on the subject doesn’t fully expose this shrink pseudoscience. Like other articles it doesn’t do justice to violations of human rights by “experts”. Any psychiatric claim can be said here as long as it’s in “neutral” language or according to so-called “due weight” policy even if it’s a propagandistic lie.

Furthermore, Prometheuspan’s project to make Wikipedia less abusive through mere logic isn’t radical. My proposal is indeed radical, but totally at odds with the current Zeitgeist since I’m against the very notion of NPOV. To put it in a nutshell: Neutrality in crime subjects, such as the ADHD lie, is a crime itself.

I don’t believe in Wikipedia or any paper encyclopedia. I believe in encyclopedias that debunk the lies and are written by society’s dissidents. But after Diderot and Voltaire’s POV Encyclopédie, which changed the worldview of Europeans for the better two centuries ago, nothing similar has happened in the West. Hence among many other abuses millions of healthy children will continue to be psychiatrically drugged by their parents with Ritalin or other controversial psycho-stimulants. And unless the silly NPOV policy is questioned and the spirit of Diderot implemented, like other encyclopedias Wikipedia will be replete of groupthink ideologues, status quo defenders and double plus good quack speakers.

Wikipedia is not “evil” as Prometheuspan wrote above. But there are certainly lots of moral primitives and even evil people with editorial power here. Assuming good faith from such scum is to be out of touch with reality. For example, a status quo’s warrior who doesn’t condemn the ADHD mega-fraud has been stalking me since I arrived to Wikiland. His behavior is so obnoxious that tempts me to self-exile myself from this land: a concern expressed by Prometheuspan about many other editors.

Only a latter-day Encyclopédie would transform a wiki caterpillar into a glorious butterfly.

—Cesar Tort 03:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Suggestion

As a teacher I'd very much like to see a Junior Wikipedia - written for a younger audience and with a more carefully selected set of articles which would be useful to high school/secondary school ( or lower) children in their homeworks/prep. Wikipedia has many problems for children - but one is often over long and too in depth articles which stray from the basic points. What do you think? Robertsteadman 09:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out:
Seahen 16:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Meeting in Brazil

Hi, Jimmy! You probably won't remember me, but we talked by phone last month. I'm a reporter, I was doing a story about Wikipedia censorship in China. Remember? I've heard from Ronaldo Lemos that you'd be here in Rio, and I've just read your "invitation" on Wiki-pt. I hope we can meet. Yes, dinner on Monday would be fine. If you can, please reach me at pedreco@gmail.com, MSN peterklausz@hotmail.com, ICQ 7077191, or cell phone (+55-21)9924-0551. It would be just great. Friendly, --Pedro Aguiar 16:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pedro, in general, personal e-mail addresses and phone numbers should not be posted on Wikipedia, unless they belong to an organization or business that expects to deal with the general public. I suggest you send Jimbo a private message at Special:Emailuser/Jimbo Wales. Or, use his press inquiries number, which is given on User:Jimbo Wales as +1 727 231 0101. Seahen 19:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


OzWrestlemaniac

I would like to complain about the treatment of Venables and his company "OzWrestlemaniacs" User:MoeEpsilon <personal attack removed by Moe Epsilon @ 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)> in the Professional Wrestling Area. <personal attack removed by Moe Epsilon @ 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)> I don't completly understand how it's done, all I know is that <personal attack removed by Moe Epsilon 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)>.

Venables001, Extreme_Championship_Wrestlemaniac and the other "OzWrestlemaniacs" were all framed as sockpuppets because they used the network as OzWrestlemaniac. If you have as much power as ur profile says, please dispense justice as quickly as possible and <personal attack removed by Moe Epsilon @ 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)>.

This is just one of the 2587 blocked users that MoeEpsilon <personal attack removed by Moe Epsilon at 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)>.

ThankYou

Hey Mr. Wales, my name is Normy132 and I was apart of this user's blocking as he delivered various threats towards myself and Moe Epsilon as well as using his sockpuppets to attempt to gain administratorship. He was blocked indefinitely for a reason and I would ask that you ignore the above message as all of the above accusations are false. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you. Normy132 08:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Wales. First may I say that most, if not all comments made above were false and/or were a personal attack. The fact he said I send viruses along with the "wikisystem" to disable passwords and frame users is pretty much beyond my knowledge how to do. And the fact he stated number of users this happened to, 2,587, pretty much proves the validity in my statement. I have removed the personal attacks above and if you would like to see the original comment made with the personal attacks, you can view it here. Thank you! — The King of Kings 22:04 June 26 '06


Non-notability: a proposal

Hi, I know you must be busy, but I would be very appreciated if you would take a look at a proposed guideline I helped write - Wikipedia:Non-notability. Especially appreciative if you commented. Thanks! Fresheneesz 07:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The village pump would probably be the best place for getting opinions and comments - what you want is a wider view with a consensus on its contents. Jimbo is quite busy, you know :) Cowman109Talk 14:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


When in Brasil

Regarding your message no Portuguese language "Village Pump", are you planning on visiting São Paulo? If not, what are your plans (cities/dates/meetings/etc.)? I'm interested on your invitation for a meeting with Brazilian wikipedia users (I'm also a sysop for pt.wiki). Indech::alô? 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo-->Admin-->Editor

This image (edited by me), I believe, shows the hierarchal order of Wikipedia. Yes, I know: it's trollish and violates 90-percent of the rules, but is there some truth to it? --Candide, or Optimism 22:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

HA ha ha ha!!! 70.48.250.130 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
No.Geni 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Geni, this is why I've been trying to get rid of this, meaning not only is this extremely offensive but on top of all that, it displays disturbing animal grabbing, so feel free to do a reversion ala reversal of sorts if you want to. 24.188.203.181 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Anittas permanently. Past due.--Jimbo Wales 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Another user blocked for criticism - see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Tolerance_of_Criticism - Xed 15:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's my impression Anittas was blocked for making a personal attack, not for simple criticism. Powers 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't know if Anittas reads their talk pages of banned accounts, so I will tell them here that I copied their image and put the image up on http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Wikipedia If they object they are free to take it down. 12.72.93.52 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you agree with the protection of Anittas' talk page in addition to his banning? Normally talk pages are available for banned users to discuss the situations they find themselves in, and for a good reason. Everyking 08:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always seen them protected. I heard there's a rule (I could be wrong here, though, this is what I heard) that banned users are banned and not welcome back so their talk page gets protected if they do something like talk on it (I've browsed through logs and seen people's talk page protected for asking "why was I banned?"), especially the dreaded {{unblock}}--that tag is just asking for the talk page to be protected forever. DyslexicEditor 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the pages because they were being used, in my opinion, for trolling, noisemaking, or call it whatever you like. It's fairly common for administrators to do this. If Anittas should be unblocked then we can unprotect his pages. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the endless audacity of trolls. This one is a troll surely, because, s/he says something you don't like, heh Tony? Must be a troll. and then that one is a troll too, because, well just because..I said so! Pretty soon, Tony, boy, you will be calling US ALL TROLLS. 64.191.172.254 12:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. GangstaEB & friends 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That is funny but disturbingly true.Cameron Nedland 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Removing sexually explicit images

Jimbo, I've noticed you've removed sexually explicit images from a number of articles with the edit summary "rm useless image". While they were, as I say, sexually explicit, and in one or two cases were extranneous, they are also free license cartoons. A number of the images you removed were specifically related to the subject of the article in question, such as in the article Gape shot. I personally think that a lot of Porn cruft has ended up on Wikipedia, but these images do seem to me to have encyclopedic value (far more than the pictures of the "actresses", which are generally far more pornographic, while being at the same time fully clothed and completely unencyclopedic.) I just wonder about the reason for these actions, and how these removals relate to the idea that Wikipedia is not censored for minors (or the squeamish). Mak (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This page also has some funky image Prince_Albert_piercing 70.48.250.130 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, but neither is it a repository for embarassingly bad art. My edits there were normal edits of any editor, some of them have already been reverted. No reason for excitement. --Jimbo Wales 10:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't meaning to get/sound excited. Since it did seem like you were probably acting like a normal editor, I thought I'd ask you about it like a normal editor (on your talk page). I generally don't like to revert editors when I respect them and don't necessarily know what their intent is. I wish this page weren't such a Village Pump/Church Door. Oh well, cheers, Mak (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Somebody reverted Jimbo Wales? I thought Jimbo used a different account for normal edits. Reverting the main Jimbo account seems like breaking a huge rule, like an edit from the main Jimbo account means it's policy. Also Jimbo, if you want to edit like a normal editor, use another account and do normal editor things like having revert wars and being angry at other wikipedians but not being able to do anything (I don't mean to sound negative in this sentence, it's just that it's happened for many and you really miss out on a wikipedia experience that you'll never achieve if you edit with a name that has a high status to it. To achieve it, you need a name with no status to it. Of course you have power, too, but I primarily mean your status that causes others to respect any edit you make.) DyslexicEditor 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think if you look at things, it is generally clear what is something not to revert (courtesy blankings, blocks etc). But I have to admit, there is a gray area, and maybe a small code in the edit summary, like ne for normal edit, could clarify that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
People have died to have the freedom of the press. NO ONE WILL TAKE IT AWAY!Cameron Nedland 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Trials

I feel that admins should not have the power to ban someone just because they feel that they should be. I feel that there should be trials that will determine if someone is really guilty or not. Giving all that power to biased admins is very dangerous for Wikipedia.Defy You 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ideas

Over at Wikipedia, I have noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have a Latin motto, coat of arms, seal, or even a flag. This may be pushing the limit, but could you organize something to create the said things? Bibliomaniac15 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I (seriously) propose as WP's motto: Veritas non sufficit (Truth is not enough). You read it here first. Sbharris 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Those are some great ideas.Cameron Nedland 02:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


yet another proof of admin power abuse and pov warring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MONGO

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=60765001

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060627173822AAe2p7t&pa=FYd1D2bwHTHwIbtiEe86QcS8jHt.VPrJKNfMa87uC4N3Lw--&msgr_status=

what a pretty batch of proofs you provide. I encourage that...You're not alone, as I and others intend to start blocking POV pushers of nonsense in earnest.--MONGO 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Threats, personal attacks, and a splendid proof that you are a participant in a pov pushing cabal. Prometheuspan 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.

Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.

Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


wow, i just can't leave it alone... its like shooting fish in a barrel. This is the kind of thing non-admins get banned for. I got blocked for a whole day once, and the best anybody could claim was a personal attack based on personal observation. You on the other hand are using trollese. Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...Wikipedia only looks moronic if we post stuff that not a single reputable newspaper will touch with a 50 foot pole. The crap they litter those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft and is about as close to vandalism as it gets....but just a hairline over adding erect penises. Your failure to see the difference between Lulu and a bunch of nitwits is your problem.--MONGO 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets see, thats "moron",1 "crap", 2, "litter articles", 3, ignorant claim versus factual reality, "conspiracy cruft",4, "just a hairliine"...5, lulu nitwits...thats 6 attacks and the best you have for anything left for pseudo content is "those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft " Which simply is factually wrong.Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Maybe you should take a wikibreak.

Do not post anything else on my talk page.--MONGO 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen, we all appreciate Mongo's great work as an admin, your comments here are unproductive, and having debated Mongo before, he's definetely not easy. --kizzle 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Sure, no such thing. So whos going to carry out Mongos Threats? Prometheuspan 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MONGO"

Why do you continue to allow anonymous "editors" to insult people on talk pages?

Why do you allow anonymous "editors" like this guy to contribute to Wikipedia[[32]] In addition to insulting Wikipedia administrators, A.T.E has gotten himself banned from the Seattle P.I discussion board for his annoying and insulting behavior[[33]][[34]]...and now he's continued his relentless insults and trolling on Wikipedia [[35]... since my name no longer appears in the Wikipedia PRT article and since I will no longer waste my time editing the article, I ask you to at the very least, stop allowing anonymous contributors like A.T.E. to continue to insult me (and others) on Wikipedia.Avidor 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is evolving in the direction of being MORE open to encyclopedic contributions and LESS open to unencyclopedic contributions and we are characterizing this as Wikipedia being MORE open. WAS 4.250 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Avidor has vandalism and a ban on his record, among plenty more. Just wanted to say. Fresheneesz 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...and "Fresheneesz" also[36]

Defamatory material at Wikipedia

Dear Jimmy Wales

As you know, I have been a regular editor at Wikipedia since 2003. You may not know that I also work as what you would in the US call a legislative aide for a member of the Australian House of Representatives. In this capacity I have become aware of a serious problem emerging for Wikipedia - the malicious and anonymous posting of defamatory material at the articles of Australian Members of Parliament. I have been (falsely) accused of being responsible for some of these edits, as you can see at this article. This is only a minor irritant to me, though a more serious problem for my employer, who is being held responsible for my (alleged) actions.

A more serious problem for you is that at least two Members of Parliament have now been seriously defamed at their Wikipedia articles, and one has advised me that she will sue the Wikimedia Foundation unless this defamatory material is immediately and totally removed from Wikipedia (that is, from the article's edit history as well as from the visible article). You may know that Australian defamation laws are very different to those in the US, and that it is much more likely that an Australian (or British) politician could bring a successful defamation action against you. I suggest you look at the recent edit histories of Jennie George and Peter Slipper, and I strongly advise you to delete these articles' edit histories.

This, however, will not solve the underlying problem, which is that it is ridiculously easy for anonymous people to commit serious defamation at Wikipedia and get away with it. This problem has been brought about by your policy of allowing anonymous people to edit Wikipedia. You probably know that I have always [opposed this], on many grounds, one of which is that it will inevitably expose Wikipedia to defamation proceedings as the site becomes more and more widely known, as malicious anonymous editing becomes more common, and as such edits are more frequently brought to the attention of those being defamed. The Siegenthaler case should have been a serious warning to you of where this policy will lead you, but your response to it has been basically one of denial.

I continue to believe that Wikipedia is a great and noble project which I am proud to have made a small contribution to. But I increasingly believe that it is heading for a disaster of its own making unless it (which means you) serious address the irresponsible, unethical and dangerous policy of allowing anonymous editing.

I will be sending you this post as a formal letter by email or snailmail if that is possible. I hope you will take this matter seriously and give me a considered reply, as well as immediately taking the action I have recommended above. I fear that you and Wikipedia will regret it if you don't.

Adam 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of removal of articles, denial, and ethics.... I still can't find the article the Adam Carr wrote entitled "Why I Supported the Liberation of Iraq". The article is subtitled "I have left this text as I posted it at the start of the war, so that my comments and predictions can be judged in the light of what actually happened." This would seem to indicate Carr has kept a copy, though it was hurriedly deleted from the internet... for some reason. Can anyone tell me where the original article is? - Xed 12:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Adam, I totally agree, and have raised the issue above. The damage done by anonymous editing is apparent to me on an almost daily basis. But I get the impression that a number of admins/editors have either forgotten the principle purpose of Wikipedia, or would otherwise prefer to remain hopelessly idealistic.
Jimbo, I know you've probably been over this a million times, but please come on again to answer this crucial point.
—Laurence Boyce 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lucky for Jimbo and Wikimedia, they're not subject to other country's laws. --mboverload@ 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia starts to put constraints on who can edit, it will defeat the entire purpose of the project. You may feel that allowing anonymous edits is hopelessly idealistic, but the fact is, in Jimbo's own words: "You can edit this page right now is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." Without this policy, wikipedia might as well not even exist. Easter rising 13:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Without this policy, Wikipedia might as well not even exist. The point is that Wikipedia does exist, and it is what happens now that really matters. Let's put a stop to anonymous editing for a trial period – you can't tell me this will bring down Wikipedia. But allowing anonymous editing to continue, just might.—Laurence Boyce 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a great and noble project if you're a leftist Democrat sort or a reactionary extreme right winger. For the rest of us poor chumps and trolls it is a nightmare. You're far from the only one who has complained about libel spread and deliberatley kept on Wikipedia. 211.48.147.154 04:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My reply

Aside from telling you to sign your posts, just go here http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/MONGO and record your story. Yes, there's already an article about the guy. DyslexicEditor 08:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a "democracy" ?

There is a growing number of editors who usewkipedia to spread political propeganda (such as this article Israeli Apartheid) which is protected for long time since it can not be NPOV.

when your own words were quoted to them (without mentioning the source) the reply was that this is "making staff up" (see below) It seems that any minority of extremists who finds enough diligant people can actually turn wikipedia in to thje greatest toll of propegantting propeganda.


  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. Zeq 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

....Zeq, you seem to have fallen back into the habit of "making stuff up". ..... Homey 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just the opposite, Homey. I noticed that Zeq behaves responsibly for quite some time now but I never had a chance to commend him. In this case, he refers to WP:NPOV policy and you chose to respond with ad hom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested some time ago, a better way to achive NPOV article should be established since current system is not working.

See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy. Deco 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
the article violates all 3 core policies:
  1. WP:RS
  2. WP:Not
  3. WP:NPOV
Still, the vote is to keep it and there are enough editors pushing it. Zeq 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That the phrase in question is used by some people is not really in question, and it appears to allow both sides to weigh in on the accuracy of the allegations implied by its use ("criticism" section). So, frankly, I don't see the problem here, at least on those fronts. As for WP being a "democracy", it becomes an issue if a group of like-minded people GANG EDIT an article to slant it. If one side is filling up this article with 'data' which, while accurate, is slanting it, or giving one side undue weight, that's a problem. If it also violates the rules on sources (and I don't know enough about this phrase to know if it does) then nominate it for deletion on those grounds, if working to make it better becomes hopeless. - Nhprman List 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Gregory Lauder-Frost

I have been attempting, on and off, to defend GLF's corner without success. But I am surprised that you, as the Wikimedia Founder etc., are happy for what is happened on his article page to remain up. I was going to try and do a few more things today but I cannot because of domestic matters. But I am pasting here for your perusal some comments posted today on his Talk Page (no, not by me!). I urge you to consider them:

  • Reds out of control

What smug arrogance for less than half a dozen article wreckers to come along, demonize a well-researched article, and then claim that it was put together by a small group of people.

The pathetic arguments for attempting neutrality, good faith, civility, etc fall on stoney ground when you list a 'Spent' conviction 14 years on knowing full well that the subject has rebuilt his life and that the re-publication of all this, 14 years on, will destroy it. The vast army of family, friends, collegues, employers etc., who knew nothing of this, soon will. Any credibility he may have rebuilt will be destroyed by your actions.

This is by any yardstick deliberate malice to a living person. It is possibly the most chronic abuse of the "right to privacy" in the R of Act I have come across. There may be 999 year sentences in North America, but in Britain we do believe in rehabilitation. You clearly believe the indivudaual should commit suicide.

Some points I have dug up for your consideration:

  • Convicium

You need to acquire a copy of Professor Walker's Civil Remedies (p991). He describes the law of convicium as "separate grounds for action for a pursuer for hurt to his feelings and to his public reputation by being brought into public hatred, contempt, and ridicule by a statement made, either truly, or falsely, by the defender animo injuruandi. Ridicule without hatred is insufficient." Several cases are listed. Proving actual damage is not necessary. In business matters, all that is needed is that it be demonstrable that "the words founded on are calculated to cause pecumiary damage to the pursuer."

Convicium concerns "the wanton and malicious publication of some old scandal or of some physical deformity" (FT Cooper, The Law of Defamation and Verbal Injury. 2nd edition 1906, by DO Dykes, p.210). AT Glegg (The Law of Reparation in Scotland, 2nd ed. 1905, p.145) states "and it is unlikely that such publications today would be regarded as anything other than defamation". Professor Walker adds that this is especially so when it brings someone into "public hatred and contempt", adding that "truth is no defence". The case of Steele vs the Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd (1970) was one of convicium.

In The Stair Encyclopaedia(p.492)Professor Norrie of Strathclyde cites Professor Walker on convicium where he quotes Roman Law (upon which Scots' Law is founded)and says that convicium "consists in reviling and unflattering remarks which, if true, would render a man contemptable".

  • English case

Sweet & Maxwell Ltd's ENT - Legal Review (issue 4, 2003, p.88 - 90) is an English law magazine. It carries an article entitled "The Right to be Rehabilitated - Can You ever Escape Your Past" by lawyers A Melville-Brown (partner at Law Firm of Schillings) and David Burgess, who specialises in Media Litigation. It deals with numerous issues including the R of O Act. You ought to avail yourself of a copy.

It deals with a specific case where the police had released information claiming that it was already in the public domain. The plaintiff claimed it breached his human rights and it would severely damage his prospects of becoming a rehabilitated member of society. His solicitors, Sanders Withersppon, said there were certain inalienable rights guaranteed under English law, and in particular the right to privacy and respect for his and his family's life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Another case was quoted in this hearing where it had been shown that "publication of old information, considered harmful, was an invasion of privacy and completely disconnected to the individual's current lifestyle.

Article 9 of the French Civil Code was mentioned, in terms similar to the European Convention, that "everyone has the right to respect for his privacy, and invasion of which is a criminal offence under French Law. The cruelty and injustice of raking yp offences known to few and by them forgotten is referred to in French Law as the 'droitá l'oubli' or the right to be forgotten, where it is considered wrong to drag up past events."

I put it to you defamers here that you are breaking our laws. User:195.134.6.202 10:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Why am I not surprized thatb there are people behind this article who push a political POV all over wikipedia.

Jimbo : Time to enforce WP:Not as vigoursly as WP:3RR Zeq 14:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have spent some time looking at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Under s8(1) of the Act GLF is entitled to bring an action for defamation. I have put his page up for deletion. Seems the most sensible course of action. Sussexman 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As had been discussed earlier the Act prohibits (British) state officials from releasing information on spent convictions. It says nothing about newspapers reprinting information from old newspaper articles or other media doing the same. Feel free and post the actual contents of the Act rather than your misinterpretation of it. Homey 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 contains more of this (previously copied from this page, in fact) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sussexman and legal threats. User in question has been indefblocked for legal threats. 207.145.133.34 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is wrong to ban Sussexman (who is not Lauder-Frost - Preposterous). Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support the last poster's comments (81.131). 81.129.155.181 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


HOTR

Is there any real control on Wikipedia, Mr Wales? User:HOTR is currently going around as many British right-wing conservatives and sneakily flagging up Deletion notices, as far as possible on the seven day rule. Had these people not been notable in Britain and in Conservative circles the articles would not have been there in the first place. What's going on here? Chelsea Tory 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This extremely biased 'administrator' consistantly attacks articles on individuals and groups on the UK traditional conservative Right. He rubbishes and demonises them, and he is currently running around sneakily flagging them up for deletion. He is largely responsible for a legal dispute on one of them. He needs disciplining.213.122.50.183 09:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you unable to see what HOTR is about? I'm appalled. He is instigating a purge against the British Conservative Right. 195.194.75.209 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Agreed. More like Trotsky and the commune than Jimbo Wales and the community. 81.129.155.181 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Old noncommercial images

It's been more than a year since the ruling that with permission or noncommercial iamges can't be on wikipedia. You mentioned that we have no intention to keep such images on the long time. It's been more than a year, and given that older images from may/19/2005 werre not removed, noone is bothering much nowadays to find free replacements. I've asked on wikien-l for more input, but I've got only one reply. What are the plans for such images n the long time? Can we after a year delete the orphaned ones meeting those criteria? What about images in use? Someone ocmmented that several of such images were in use at featured articles, but that's more the reason for us to find free replacements! but since they aren't being removed, noone is doing so. Alternatively, an approach that may work as well is to provide a deadline (if images aren't replaced within x months, they can b removed as we're doing with the new ones). I know you're quite busy, but can you comment on the issue? Perhaps on the mailing list? -- Drini 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Invitation to Wikimania!

Image:Wikimania-(gil).png

Wikimania is thee event where Wikipedians and others interested in building a culture of information--sharing collide to produce new ideas. We have scheduled multiple speakers, workshops, flash presentations, and discussion sessions.
The top ten reasons to come, and ways to get involved:

Click here to register, and have a look at the main site for more information.
Although I think you have already accepted your invitation, we need to raise awareness as registration is still a bit down. This seems like a dandy place to start. GChriss 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs

On the "Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs" page you entered:

"It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time."

Ok, why? -- Jason Palpatine 07:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC) speak your mind

Read the section right above the new one you just created for this question. --Cyde↔Weys 07:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. That is what promped my question: why? I often ask for the why behind the why. BTW: thaks. -- Jason Palpatine 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I read it as well and I still don't undestand the "controversy." Is there specific space reserved for templates? Why not simply institutionalize userboxes-as-userboxes so there is no confusion? What is wrong with social networking in a system that is supposed to bring people together to reach consensus on knowledge about the world? --StarKruzr 05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Had to see what the big man thought

I was thinking that Wikipedia should have user levels. I think this would be good, since almost all user-oriented sites have them. I hope you look at some examples I made and consider them (I used userboxes, but the they wouldn't be if this happened). Please take some time to look at them. Thank you.

User:Trosk/User Level Suggestions

--Trosk 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You will get more responses if you post your policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This is better http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trosk/User_Level_Suggestions&oldid=61139123 DyslexicEditor 04:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

German?

Does Jimbo have German ancestry? —User:Arual

Not very likely. The name "Wales" is of English and Scottish origin. 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Additional, his middle name, "Donal," has English or Scottish or Irish origins. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 00:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely all that proves is that Jimbo's Dad is at most half english/scottish, and in turn Jimbo's Dad's Dad is at most half english/scottish and so on. Not that I really understand why this is relevant. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

good work here have a che

For your work with wikipedia. Me on behalf of many other users thankyou for your wiki work. As a award we give you the mighty che. F 22 07:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Image:Superche2.jpg

Image:Polpots.jpg
keep on trucking mate

[[

I can't think of a LESS appropriate figure with which to praise the unabashedly Capitalist, Rand-loving Jimbo Wales. Or was a picture of Pol Pot]] or some other less "trendy" Communist butcher not available for Photoshoppping?

As a secondary award due to high request i reward you pol pot. F 22 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Messed up Wikia link on your user page

Jimbo, the Wikia link on the top of your user page doesn't work for me. I see it as http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c: which ends up redirecting me to http://.wikia.com/wiki/ which, well, fails to load! --Gnewf 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it doesn't work for me either. I've fixed it. Icey 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Unified Spelling on Wikipedia

I think it's unusual that there are multiple spellings on Wikipedia. My idea is on the talk page of Wikipedia Manual of Style: spelling. I think it would reduce the necessary edit times.Cameron Nedland 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think if we just say Brittish spelling is wrong, it would make things easier. DyslexicEditor 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, then let's decree all other nationalities' views wrong as well. Brittish indeed. BabuBhatt 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
My idea is actually a set of compromises, not saying one is better than the other.Cameron Nedland 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


some argue

So I was reading another article. It was long and disputed (it was cattle mutilation, but that's not the point) and I saw, "some argue" (it's like reading a misspelled word to me, a slight irritation each time). This might not mean anything, but once upon a time I read this http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Some_argue . Maybe wikipedia should have an article on some argue, or somewhere on policy. A search for it on wikipedia doesn't really find anything. DyslexicEditor 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. WAS 4.250 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?!

I recently got a message saying 'You have vandalism to revert' and I was going to undo it but it just showed me some help page and not the vandalism I had done and now I don't know what I did wrong. Would you help me please?Cameron Nedland 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Concentrating your efforts on adding alternative spellings and changing from a proper spelling varient to an alternative spelling varient is not good. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary and as such we use words to communicate and discuss spelling varients only when it is useful to the article's subject. Your changes are less than helpful when they get in the way of communication by causing the reader to focus on your concern of spelling reform rather than the actual subject of the article. WAS 4.250 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Banning Sussexman

It is wrong to permit a very biased small group to ban Sussexman (who is not Lauder-Frost - Preposterous). Sussexman has valiantly defended the vitriolic attacks made by a very small group upon someone he knew years ago, liked, and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That is not a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Wikipedia which should not be above the law. 81.131.37.101 07:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. User:Sussexman took an auful lot of flak with regards to the GLF article, and did a great deal of work on it, even proving himself to be very willing to comprimise. I am not necessarily suggesting that he was right in everything he said or did, but his banning is based on entirely circumstantial evidence, with the admins who banned him not 'showing their work' so to speak in as far as justification for the ban. This may be an example of the larger, growing problem of overzealous admins, who are bringing wiki to a somewhat elitist level. Sussexman's ban is absolutely unfair, and I strongly suggest that it be reviewed by un-biased admins or Jimbo himself. Easter rising 13:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This business is a scandal. User tells smearers that they are breaking the law and may suffer the obvious consquences and it banned for a "legal threat"! What next. Is Wikipedia entirley anarchic? This is an unfair ban. I hope Jimbo will act. 213.122.50.183 09:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    No, if a person feels that he has been wronged in some way then (assuming that he actually has a case) there is nothing to stop him from seeking redress in the courts. However, where such action is in prospect a public website is not the appopriate place to discuss it - it is not helpful to Wikipedia, nor is it helpful to the proposed legal action (as any lawyer will tell you, having a public slanging match with the person you are intending to sue does not help your cause any). Cynical 13:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be the case but as far as I can determine no "legal action" of any description had been initiated by Sussexman. He merely warned and argued that the law was being abused. Meanwhile the little cabal of demonisers are waiting like wolves to attack again. 213.122.71.45 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Archiving?

I could do it for you. This page is over 361kb :P. Orane (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Should have Werdnabot (talk · contribs) take care of it. — Jul. 2, '06 [18:06] <freak|talk>


An award for you

The Original Barnstar
For creating such a great community Minun (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Searchbastard.com

Is "Search Bastard, the best motherfucking search engine on the net" really yours? What the hell are you thinking? Please ditch it before you get asked about it on CNN. Kthxbye Stunned06 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to have a lot of ideas before you hit on a really good one, I guess. Ashibaka tock 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A brief answer to your Michael Hedges question

A version of Prelude to Cello Suite #1 by Michael Hedges can be found on an album called Essential Winter SolsticeAmazon link. More information about harp guitars can be found at Harpguitars.net including a brief tribute to Michael in the "Players" section. He was a brilliant musician. Hope this little tidbit of info helps you. Cheers and take care! Anger22 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

hello jimbo i need help

kevin1243 is not leting me put a criticims part on the tommorow book series page it is his favourite series and he will not let me put the criticisms on everytime i do he deletes them vandalises my user page or makes up stories to try get me blocked please help jim

The truth about the tomorrow series must be heard

please reply to user talk: carbine (post made by User:Smugface the untrustworthy dwarf)

Carbine, see WP:AIV and Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. It's unlikely that Jimbo will become personally involved in your dispute. (Note that userpage is protected so this comment not added there). Antonrojo 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Statement on elimination of anon voting?

Hi Jimbo, I have a question for you. On Talk:George Washington, someone recently suggested the article should be permanently protected from unregistered users due to persistent vandalism. Terence Ong mentioned that people have suggested protecting the entire Wiki from anonymous editing, but that you had "said no" to previous attempts.

The only reason I raise the issue is because Kaiwen1 has a poll going on whether to ban anon editing, the results of which he's planning to forward to the Board of Trustees. I'm still pretty new here, so I don't know exactly how much authority you, personally, wield over issues like this. Is Kaiwen1's vote a waste of time? I'm curious as to what you have said in the past that Terence Ong remembers so clearly. I asked Terence , but he never replied.

(Full disclosure: I'm against blocking anon editing, and voted so on Kaiwen1's page.)

Kasreyn 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, if the poll is on his userpage rather than listed as a formal proposal, it would not affect policy. The issue of concern with anon editing is often related to 'open proxies' which are shared by many users and attempts to block them also block legitimate editors, some of whom are registered. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal for some info on an alternative. Antonrojo 12:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Business 2.0 names Jimbo one of the "50 Who Matter NOW"

I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere, Jimbo, but congratulations on being named one of the "50 Who Matter NOW" in the July, 2006 issue of Business 2.0 magazine [37]. For those who missed it, Jimbo and Digg founder Kevin Rose are cited at #23 as "The New New Media." Wikipedia, "is user-researched and user-edited, combining timeliness, breadth, and accuracy in a way that traditional encyclopedias can't match." He (and Rose) were chosen, the article states, because they "symbolize the revolution that's taking place in the way that news and information will be compliled in the years ahead." Again, congrats on the mention, Jimbo! - Nhprman List 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Matter most to who, exactly? 69.67.235.127 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Static version: a solution to many problems

Hi - I wondered if you might be interested in commenting on an idea that's been under discussion recently, in which a separation is made between works in progress and finished articles. I've written a piece which argues that a pure wiki model is perfect for creating articles but causes problems when trying to keep articles high quality. Wikipedia:Static version has the details. Thanks - Worldtraveller 11:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense/offence but that ruins the point of a Wiki does it not?Cameron Nedland 02:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not at all - wikis are absolutely perfect for collaboratively writing articles, but not at all suited to being used as a repository for finished articles. The wiki- is the means, the -pedia is the end, and unless we have a static version, I fear that Ward Cunningham will be proved absolutely right when he said that you could write an encyclopaedia using a wiki, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopaedia - it would just be a wiki. Worldtraveller 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

template

There's been a LITTLE controversy, but is the following template alright with you? {{User:Ikiroid/User Jimbo v. Willy}} GangstaEB• ice slides) 13:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is in user space, so I don't really care. It hurts my eyes. --Jimbo Wales 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance of Criticism Continued

discussion found here

Is there ever a case when serious criticism is not met with a ban?

SORRY, NO. Doesn't happen. And how about this:

Is there ever a case when an anarchist or classical libertarian isn't harassed until they quit? Or is there ever a case when an editor shows contempt for communism or socialism or the U.S. Democratic Party or the U.S. Republican Party (the Republicraps) or Russia or Communist China or any of the big boys, without being similarly harassed or given the long term block? 69.67.235.127 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be posing the question in the classic "Are you still beating your wife?" form. One can flip it over and ask whether anybody has been banned, or harrassed until they quit, solely for holding political opinions (pro | anti) (libertarian | anarchist | communist | socialist | Republican | Democrat), or for having substantial criticism of Wikipedia, as opposed to being banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior (which is independent of their political views or substantive criticism). *Dan T.* 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You just said "banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior". If that's the case then we need to start banning admins for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior. And while we're at it, I suppose they should be banned for their harassing, lying, condesending, mean, and breaking all policy behavior. (Or conveniently picking and choosing policy behavior and making up policy that doesn't exist behavior. 203.234.156.4 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I read that NSLE (an admin) who did lots the sort of things you're complaining about was de-sysoped. It was not for what you're complaining about, but for using a sock puppet account in conjunction with his admin account to edit war. That's what I heard from him in the IRC chat at least (I apologize if this is innacurate but that's what I heard). So sometimes they do get de-admined. Mostly, I see admins they do something like cuss or have a vandalbox on their user page get attention just for that and so everyone's real critical of them. DyslexicEditor 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not what I've seen or noticed. What I've seen is a little criticism here or there with no real change. Maybe even an rfc or they pretend to disappear for a while, but they live on, and their abusive behavior lives on. And if this NSLE was de-sysopsed odds are great that he is an admin who goes against the powers that be. Call those powers whatever you like..I betcha that's the case. MulderandScully 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Page Archival

Hi there, just wondering if you were interested in having this page automatically archived by my bot, which currently maintains archives for 53 discussion pages. Let me know if you're interested. Werdna (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that this has been completed. Please note that you *will* have to increase the archive number in the target, as I haven't got around to having this auto-increase -- although this is on the cards since the bot took over archiving ANI. Enjoy! Werdna (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


JumpTV spammer, again!

Hi Jimbo, if you can recall the incident, about on June 21-23, I forwarded you a corporate email from JumpTV's Internet MArketing department, which was responsible for continuous spamming in various articles. You replied to that and specifically asked JumpTV employees to refrain from editing the page. The Director of Marketing apparently agreed to it and mailed both of us that "I already asked every one in the company to refrain from posting any articles / links related to our company or our partners on wikipedia."

Now, they are claiming that you "decided" to allow them post "information" (such as huge cut-pasted content from their business prospectus) into the article talk pages. One of them has opened a mediation case on me, see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-03_JumpTV. I just wanted to get some clarification from you whether you really meant what they claim you did, and whehter pasting such content in the talk pages is allowed.

Thank you.

--Ragib 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Tolerance of Criticism Continued

discussion found here

Is there ever a case when serious criticism is not met with a ban?

SORRY, NO. Doesn't happen. And how about this:

Is there ever a case when an anarchist or classical libertarian isn't harassed until they quit? Or is there ever a case when an editor shows contempt for communism or socialism or the U.S. Democratic Party or the U.S. Republican Party (the Republicraps) or Russia or Communist China or any of the big boys, without being similarly harassed or given the long term block? 69.67.235.127 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be posing the question in the classic "Are you still beating your wife?" form. One can flip it over and ask whether anybody has been banned, or harrassed until they quit, solely for holding political opinions (pro | anti) (libertarian | anarchist | communist | socialist | Republican | Democrat), or for having substantial criticism of Wikipedia, as opposed to being banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior (which is independent of their political views or substantive criticism). *Dan T.* 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You just said "banned for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior". If that's the case then we need to start banning admins for their obnoxious and disruptive behavior. And while we're at it, I suppose they should be banned for their harassing, lying, condesending, mean, and breaking all policy behavior. (Or conveniently picking and choosing policy behavior and making up policy that doesn't exist behavior. 203.234.156.4 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I read that NSLE (an admin) who did lots the sort of things you're complaining about was de-sysoped. It was not for what you're complaining about, but for using a sock puppet account in conjunction with his admin account to edit war. That's what I heard from him in the IRC chat at least (I apologize if this is innacurate but that's what I heard). So sometimes they do get de-admined. Mostly, I see admins they do something like cuss or have a vandalbox on their user page get attention just for that and so everyone's real critical of them. DyslexicEditor 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not what I've seen or noticed. What I've seen is a little criticism here or there with no real change. Maybe even an rfc or they pretend to disappear for a while, but they live on, and their abusive behavior lives on. And if this NSLE was de-sysopsed odds are great that he is an admin who goes against the powers that be. Call those powers whatever you like..I betcha that's the case. MulderandScully 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Search engine

Hi, I was hoping to try to convert Wikipedia's search engine to a Google based one because of Google's higher performance. Is there a reason this has not already been done and where do I go to propose/debate the idea with community? I'm a relatively new user -- thanks for your help! --Jarfingle 08:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This hasn't been and won't be done because Google doesn't search in the current version but in its cache, which is up to four weeks old. Only if the servers are too busy, you are redirected to Google etc. --MarianSigler 12:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories: paradox or inconsistency?

In many cases, Wikipedia categorizes information on a consensus basis that is not supported by any reputable source and reference; this big issue is often overlooked, becouse most of editors are busy with filling articles that have been "pigeonholed" in some templates, but none really check if that template is supported by academic and/or reputable sources.

One remarkable example, that is imho even somewhat dangerous, can be found in the whole set of articles/templates regarding non-academic and popular music: 99 % of those articles should be deleted, and/or merged, they are just original research based upon music fanzines, word of mouth, and temporary fads. Yours sincerely --skysurfer 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The fiction in the Wikipedia?

Sorry for my very bad english. I see some articles as fictive Star-Wars-companies with the sales - things, they are in no one of the Star-Wars-films to see. They are found in some Fanzine-magazines. If i'd find something like this myself and write it into the Wikipedia, it would be called vandalism. If i public it on some website first, it can be a "source" of an WP-"article" without great problems. Do you think, it's serious enough?

You write: "Therefore, these all really MUST be deleted. They are a violation of the educational mission charter of the Wikimedia Foundation! / Take your time, find a new home, but this stuff really has to go. --Jimbo Wales 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)". What about such things as Incom Corporation, Techno Union, List of Star Wars companies, List of minor Star Wars organizations and so one? Not one letter in these "articles" is real. --AN 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to help out, I'm not sure if this is what AN meant, but this is a version you might find easier to understand. Sorry for any inconvenience if these lines should be unwanted -- Hey Teacher 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my very bad english. I see some articles such as fictive Star-Wars-companies that can't even be found in the Star-Wars-films, but only in some Fanzine-magazines. If I found anything similar and wrote an article on such a topic in the German Wikipedia, it would be called vandalism. If I publish it on some website first, it can be a "source" of an WP-"article" without great problems. Do you think this is serious (reputable) enough for an encyclopedia?
Dear Mr. Wales, in the german Wikipedia there are some Users who want to turn the Wiki into a fanzine. Since now we (the admins and all) try to keep this stuff out of our encyclopedia. But now the kiddies and Star-Whatsoever-Fans united to form a front angainst the rule, that things that don´t exist (eg software in developement, Imperial Starships, StarWars technology breakthroughs) are not subject of an encyclopedia. The problems is, that they seem to be in the majority. I would really appreciate if you could throw your weight (do you say it this way in english?!? YES -Gerard Foley 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)) into the discussion. You can find it here. I would really appreciate it if you could reat your point mentioned by my good fellow AN above. Thanks!!! Dickbauch 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry for my english, I´m german. (This ecuse helped me in Canada every time I did something stupid. If you happe to do something stupid just pretend to be german. People will forgive you everything! =;o)
  • Thank you for addressing your concerns in Jimbo's page, but I'd like to include my own comments before he responds. Unfortunately, what was said is incorrect; that information is not from "fanzine" mags, it is from published novels, comics, games, and so on. The Star Wars universe goes far beyond the six movies — is spans 200+ published books that are universally considered part of the star wars universe, over 50 games (many of which published by Lucas' own company). Therefore, all of the information in those articles you cited has more than enough sources to back it up — it's a matter of sifting through the cruft, which takes time. Patience is a key necessity when writing an encyclopedia, for we editors can only work on a few things at a time. Thanks! — Deckiller 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem for those two is that the content is not real and should not be written about as such. According to them sentence like "Alderaan Biotics was a hydroponics company based on Borleias which supplied foodstuffs for Alderaan until that planet was destroyed by the first Death Star." are unencyclopedic. A sentence like that should read something like "Aleraan is a fictional company in the books of the fictional series Star Wars created by George Lucas", after which would need to prove to them, that this fictional company had a major impact on the real world, best with psychological studies and various doctor thesises, otherwise it is completely irrelevant and should not appear in Wikipedia. You just can't write about it as if it were real. --84.184.123.188 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is precicely what the plan is — write from an out-of-universe perspective on all items except for plot synopsis for notable topics. However, like I said, the process takes time without interruption by inclusionists and exclusionists. — Deckiller 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Which is completely understandable, except, that we are expected to write the plot synopsis, etc for notable topics from the out-of-universe perspective, too. And the fact, the things usually get deleted before one can bring them to any kind of standard. But, well, what can one do, it is apparently more important to have over 100 disambiguations for more than 200 non-existing submarine boat articles, than one list on all characters from the Dune series. --84.184.93.5 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out, that anything you will say on this topic, will have a major impact on the German Wikipedia. There currently is a process in motion to determine how the German Wikipedia should deal with articles about fictious works and fictious worlds in general. Both AN and Dickbauch are adherents to a very strict and exclusionist point of view, leading part of the editorbase to feel that especially Science Fiction and Fantasy are considered irrelevant by default. Currently the hurdles for any article dealing with Science Fiction and Fantasy are much, much higher than for any other article in the German Wikipedia. A policy that is currently challenged by the part of the editorbase, partly against the wishes of the two adminstrators AN and Dickbauch, forces every topic of Science Fiction and Fantasy into as few articles as possible without eradicating it completely from Wikipedia, leading to articles like the one about Final Fantasy were more than fifteen totally diverse games (many of them blockbuster games) are forced into one article. The list of characters of Final Fantasy (about one hundred characters) was deleted. While the list was not the best written article and did contain fancruft next to proper entries, it was impossible to change such a complex list into something less crufty in the seven days it got before deletion, especially since there was no previous warning to the concerned portal, which at the time had to channel its energies into fighting similar AfDs. Your current stand against Game Walkthroughs on Wikibooks (as cited by AN above), has been brought up by AN in an AfD as a sign that you are against fictional content in Wikipedia in general.
Nobody wants to turn Wikipedia into a fanzine, the standards expected from articles in question (which aren't given any time or chance before listed as AfD usually several at once so the userbase has to decide which of the large and unwieldy article it will try to save, the outcome is generally delete if Dickbauch or AN are involved) are about impossible to achieve. The staff maintaining such articles are few and far between, since many felt, that it wouldn't matter how much they try to create excellent articles (without even proper guidelines how those should look like), they wouldn't be good enough (the general AfD listing is "Relevance") to survive in any state fitting the topic and thereforestopped fighting a usless battle.
This may have come across somewhat as a rant against the current situation in the German Wikipedia. I would just like to make you aware that your answer won't be only about Star Wars Companies (about which I can't say anything because Star Wars does not interest me), it will be used as a general policy concerning all Science Ficton and Fantasy articles on the German Wikipedia. The question on how to deal with such topics is a long standing and very loaded topics. --84.184.85.201 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC) AN and Dickbauch have given you one side on the matter, I meekly decided to present you another. For a real discurs with all sides concerned you should go to the German Wikipedia, the will talk to you and present how they see Wikipedia and this controversial affair.
  • Unfortunately my english isn't quite good, but an IP gave me notice that Dickbauch and AN, quite a kind of self-elected keepers of the Holy Grail (= the german wikipedia as it is at the moment), are disturbing you with this little problem we have in the german wikipedia. As one of the responsibles for the mentionned Meinungsbild ("survey") I'd like to point out a few things:
    • Nobody, especially not me - wants to turn the wikipedia into a fanzine. And the english wikipedia has become to a example how it shouldn't be: Things that never have been mentionned in a fiction opus have no right to be entered here.
    • But at the moment, in german wikipedia it's (almost) not allowed to give a short bio about fictional characters. And I think it should be one mission of the wikipedia, that an interested reader could read e.g. about Jean-Luc Picard or Luke Skywalker more than the fact, that this is a fictional character from Star Trek / Star Wars. Fictional life, development during the opus, effects on the real world, critical opinions about the character etc. need to have a right of existence in the wikipedia.
    • Furthermore, own articles aren't allowed, too. All characters, races, places etc. of e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the rings etc. have to be combined in one huge article per opera only. Example: [38]. I am fighting against such monsters of articles. How nice would it be to have articles like Harry Potter (character) (with a shorter bio...)
If you would like to have more information, please contact me. --Umschattiger 19:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Jimbo, please ignore this topic. First, The User Dickbauch is not the speaker of all admins in the german Wikipedia, it's pure shit to tell you that. Second there is no reason to discuss that stuff here in the english WP and third there is no reason at all, to cry to you like a helpless baby -- Greeting from Berlin 'til next meeting, Achim Raschka
    • Falls das so rüberkam liegts an meinem miesen Englisch. Dickbauch 10:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Ich mag Deine eloquente Art und Weise Dich mitzuteilen...

It seems to me Dickbauch wants to press his opinion no matter how. Its not like an Admin should behave. The Meinungsbild is there to find a consens in the comunity. Now that it seems the result will be against Dickbauchs wishes, off he goes to you. If every admin who has something against the likely outcome of a Meinungsbild would do this, it would be total chaos. FreddyE 06:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in here (and using German): Solltet Ihr alle die ganzen hier vorgebrachten Argumente nicht schlicht ins Deutsche übersetzen und auf die Diskussionsseite eueres Meinungsbildes einstellen? Das grundlegende Problem scheint mir zu sein, dass die Frage, was nun wirklich in eine Enzyklopädie gehört, nicht geklärt ist (z. Bsp. wurde auf der entsprechenden Diskussionsseite darauf verwiesen, dass Pokemon erst seit ca. 10 Jahren (sic!) existieren, und somit nicht relevant seien). Man könnte natürlich die Meinung vertreten, dass etwas, was seit 10 Jahren existiert und Millionen Kinder gefesselt hat durchaus kulturellen Einfluss hat...aber nun gut. Lectonar 07:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
(rough translation as folllows: Shouldn't all these arguments be brought forth on the talk-page of your Meinungsbild? The underlying problem in the German-Wiki seems to be the question as to what constitutes encyclopedic content (e.g., it was mentioned that Pokemon couldn't possibly be relevant, as there around only for about 10 years, and only known by children anyway). One could think (on the other hand), that sometihng which is around for 10 years, and captivates literally millions of children, ought to have a certain cultural impact (and thus be encyclopedic)..let me cite Wikipedia is not paper. Lectonar 07:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, Wikipedia strives to be neutral. If we exclude information based on its audience (children or not), or its fictional or non fictional perspective (as long as the fictional pages cover the entire work, not just the plot and/or gameplay, which should only make up half the article). This is a difference that is best not overargued, because there are some very well-written and encyclopedic fictional articles. That is one of the major reasons why people actually come to Wikipedia; our coverage of fictional topics (especially those areas where it is covered with encyclopedic style) is almost second to none in some cases. So, it's a matter of cutting out the excess, not cutting out the works themselves. That's how I see it. — Deckiller 11:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"many of which published by Lucas' own company" => many - not all. I have co-published a SF-fanzine as a student. I don't think, the things from that fanzine can be described in the Wikipedia. --AN 14:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"Not published by Lucas' own company" doesn't mean "fanzine", it can be just as official and that's what this is about, articles based on officially produced fiction. Although if the impact of a fan-created work is major enough, say officially bringing a change to the official canon, that fan creation may be relevant and notable.
If your fanzine is notable enough, it does qualify for an entry in Wikipedia. Just like fanzine articles can have a higher writing standard than a Wikipedia article does. A fanzine may contain scientific discurs of the same relevance and quality as a professional scientific magazine. --84.184.106.214 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ich schreibe es mal auf Deutsch: Da in solchen "Artikeln" so gut wie keine Quellen (weder insgesamt noch bei den Ergänzungen) angegeben werden, weiß man eigentlich gar nicht, woher das Zeugs kommt. Aus solchen Blättchen wie unseres? (50 Exemplare Auflage; um anzugeben haben wir im Impressum gelogen, es wären 99). Gehört das in einem Blättchen mit 500 Exemplaren erfundene Zeug in eine Enzyklopädie? --AN 07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Und ich antworte mal auf Deutsch: wie bereits oben implizit angegeben meine ich, dass diese Diskussion nicht hierher, sondern auf die Diskussionsseite eures Meinungsbildes oder meinetwegen auch in die jeweiligen Löschanträge gehört; generalisieren lässt sich das sowieso nicht. Die en-wiki und die de- wiki haben zumindest meiner Auffassung nach unterschiedliche Grundeinstellungen in Hinblick darauf, was "enzyklopädisc"h eigentlich ist; damit muss jeder selbst klarkommen. Nur noch soviel: wenn sich en-user mit solchen "Hilfeschreien" an Jimbo wenden bedeutet dies regelmäßig das irgend etwas nicht nach ihren Wünschen läuft. Lectonar 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Das Problem ist in en: noch stärker sichtbar, ohne ein Meinungsbild. Die Ansprache gilt auch hierfür. --AN 12:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Welches Problem? Das ist genau das was ich meinte: möglicherweise wird ein Problem gesehen, wo eigentlich keines ist... and may I remind you that this is the en-wiki; please conduct future discussions via my en-talkpage if you wish to comment on my contributions. Regards. Lectonar 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ach was! Wo kommen solche Sachen wie z.B. die Tochtergesellschaften von Techno Union her? Ich kenne die Star-Wars-Filme, fiktive Branchenbücher wurden dort nicht veröffentlicht. Darf ich ein paar Top-Manager hinzu-erfinden? --AN 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Star Wars besteht nicht nur aus den Filmen, auch wenn du dich hartnäckig weigerst, diese Realität zu akzeptieren. Trag deinen Händel mit George Lucas aus, nicht mit Leuten, die lediglich berichten. Dass du derartige Berichte als selbst erfundenes diffamierst zeigt nur, dass du an den Fakten überhaupt nicht interessiert bist, sondern hier einen Privatkrieg führst, der mit den Aufgaben von Wikipedia nicht das mindeste zu tun hat. --OliverH 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you insist in arguing in German on the English Wikipedia, at least have to courtesy to post a translation as Lectonar did. Otherwise, take it back to de-Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From the user page: "de-1 Dieser Benutzer hat grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse." --AN 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk:Delete unused username after 90 days

Hi just a note to say that it has reached 200 in favour (with just 14 opposing) which seems to be a good time to implement for most people. Just wondering if you could find out how as you have a position on the board (and if it is allowed) Lcarsdata 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just found out

that you and I share birthdays! Not Earth-shattering news, but a fun coincidence. At least to me, that is. Alan 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales et al

In all due respect... this is a joke.

If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute
Please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead. Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum.

66.218.22.23 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And as an added thought, where did all the criticims go? 66.218.22.23 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


IP Revision of this page

It seems that an IP deleted a few comments on this page. --84.184.98.41 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales et al

In all due respect... this is a joke.

If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute
Please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead. Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum.

66.218.22.23 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And as an added thought, where did all the criticims go? 66.218.22.23 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


IP Revision of this page

It seems that an IP deleted a few comments on this page. --84.184.98.41 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Speaking of Corruption

There were a number of criticisms on your page that have disappeared. May I ask where they went? Almost every criticism is gone. What's up with this? This is a serious question for Jimbo. I certainly don't mind if other editors respond here, (as if it were up to me), but this question is specifically for Jimbo. Please answer this, Jimbo. 69.67.230.13 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all there in the page history. --Cyde↔Weys 19:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyde. But why is it in page history? Why was it deleted in the first place? 69.67.230.13 20:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Cyde. Where in the history are the criticisms? I can't find them. Can you help me find them by pointing me to them? Thanks. 69.67.230.13 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Right here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Tolerance_of_Criticism_Continued. That's probably what you're looking for. If that isn't what you're looking for, then those criticisms have probably been archived. Jimbo gets a lot of criticism (and other requests that he doesn't personally have to deal with), and if it didn't get archived once in a while, it would overflow entirely. That would make the signature debate look like small potatoes. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically-inclined

[Something fun from Jimbo for the politically-inclined]

Is that a joke? Jimbo is a man who hangs around with someone who views arabs as, and I quote, "ragheads, camel jockeys, and jihad monkeys". After hanging out, he then goes out of his way to make their articles more sympathetic, after they have complained about the article. He then starts a website which proclaims that it's starting a glorious new era of politics - a meeting ground for people on all sides of the political spectrum ... and more intelligent.. It's profoundly absurd. No one should take this seriously. - Xed 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Xed is a liar. I do not hang around with anyone like that. --Jimbo Wales 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(The above was reinserted by 69.67.230.13 at 15:07, 7 July 2006, after Jimbo removed his statement under the edit summary (rm personal attack, i decided it is better for me to just not respond to his nonsense).)

You really shouldn't say "Xed is a liar." It may constitute a personal attack. Comment on what he says, not on him as a person. Perhaps: "What Xed is saying is a complete falsehood." Boy do I feel silly telling you this. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Jimbo made a statement and then decided against it. User:69.67.230.13's attempt to stir up controversy and defame Jimbo is either patently dishonest, a smear campaign, or a way of lashing out at Wikipedia in protest of a community ban. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Aaahhh... now I see. Still shouldn't have said it. ;-) Well, guess that's what I get for not following every edit here. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about unblocking him til I found that. Foolish thought.... Fred Bauder 23:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. A good heart is a good thing. And I have a strong feeling that Jimbo doesn't like brown nosers anyhow. Unblock him. This comment is sincere, no sarcasm. I mean that. Old friend 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Robert Steele

User:Robert Steele says :

"I am going to tell you this just once. If you ever again publish anything on OSINT without a reference to my web site, I am going to black ball you where it will really hurt. I consider you to be a world-class dip-shit for failing to credit my work. Robert Steele 23:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)" [39] WAS 4.250 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am learning Lithuanian

I like getting simple messages from people in Lithuania, but unfortunately I am not really ready yet to conduct real conversations in Lithuanian. s. (User:Jimbo Wales)

-) --Enablerecip 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)