This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In a sense, there is a policy against vandalism, a policy against disruption, a policy against a bunch of things all of which have been violated today. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that policies against vandalism and disruption exist, and that they certainly have been violated in certain parts of the encyclopedia today. However, neither has, to my knowledge, been violated on the page we're talking about. Therefore, protecting it seems rather random. Polotet06:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think today the changes should be left, not reverted. It is a special day, after all. (I particularly liked [1]...) Tomorrow is soon enough for cleanup. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c16:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Administrator abuse... and??
Hey, Jimbo. Would you please take a look at this conversation I had with Tim Starling? I don't think this to be fair at all.
I cannot accept that an administrator makes a mess and I am the one who gets unfairly punished with a (wrong) "dirty" record. Regards, Lesfer(talk)13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: The Encylopedia written by aliens and terrorists. You have recently added {{helpme}} to someone elses talk page (User talk:Hildanknight). That is considered a crime and will get you a {{test-n}} warning. If you don't repend from your crime you will be revoked of your status, namely founder of Wikipedia. Please stop. April on WHEELS15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I added the {{helpme}} to Jimbo's page, to get higher viewership of my question. Jimbo did not add the tag to my userpage. Are you Willy on Wheels? I'm guessing this is an April Fool's joke, isn't it? --J.L.W.S. The Special One15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No I'm pretty sure April on WHEELS is a fake name. DDAY on WHEELS!!! 10:37, 1 April 2006]] (UTC)
Can someone delete the other language links on Jimbo's userpage? They are not alternative versions of that user page, but alternative versions of Jimmy Wales. They should be replaced with just his de user page, and maybe meta, commons and wikimedia if it's possible in that box. BigBlueFish21:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well it's unprotected now so I did it myself. Looks like meta, commons and wikimedia don't count as other languages. Done the German one though. BigBlueFish17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
APRIL FOOLS!!!
Have a good April Fools Jimbo.
The Most Controversial Image Ever Seen Here
Mr. Wales, you decreed that the "User pedo" userbox template was not allowed, and I thank you for making that decree. You thought that was revolting, but wait 'til you see this:
I only linked to their talk pages because someone may develop a second thought before going further to view the image, and may want to turn back.
If such content is allowed on Wikipedia now, what will we see here in, say, 10 years?
I must also add that if the media ever finds that image here, they will have one heck of a field day! You would not want major news outlets to have a story about THIS.
(narrating) Will Jimbo take action and disallow that image? Or will he pass on this notice and allow it to stay? Tune in tomorrow for the conclusion. This is Shultz the Fourth signing off. --Shultz IV21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not a child exposing her rear end, it's the drawing of a child exposing her rear end!!! The image should be kept!!!! The Psycho22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo: I'm going to be blunt. You need to step up on this one, and frankly, on the Userbox issue, too. They are related in that apparently a "vote" was held on this image to determine its legality. That's really pathetic, and calls into question the entire "consensus" Wiki model as it's being applied to policy rather than article content, where it makes sense. How absurd is it, that if Manga lovers all get together and vote "keep," then cartoon porn somehow becomes "acceptable" on Wikipedia? User:Shultz IV, above, is right, this is only the beginning - a test.
The same model of "voting" on offensive Userboxes is also absurd. If we are here to make a point then that's fine, let's all start uploading "whatever" to the site and create Homepages instead of an encyclopedia, but that's not what's written in the policies. I'm talking about this clearly pornographic image (it's labeled "Lolita girl collection" for God's sake!) and also this new userbox: Template:User_against_Iraq_war_of_aggression, which is divisive in the extreme, and takes Userbox abuse (and also size) to a new level. I'm curious: Am I within my rights now to put Leftist leaders in a Userbox and label them war criminals? If I rally enough "votes" behind such a box, will that one be able to remain in place, as this one no doubt will? If so, then that's pathetic.
I'm extremely discouraged at this point and telling people over and over again that this is not a soapbox, battleground or a homepage has no effect coming from lowly users or the few admins who "get it." It must come from you to be effective. NhprmanUserLists00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed all the chit-chat back and forth for the last six months. That doesn't appear to have solved the problem and that's why the process of "voting" on whether something is legal or not is a *bit* flawed. NhprmanUserLists04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we have numerous conflicts here between policies. That's why it's imperative Jimbo clarify things. But frankly, the occassional naughty word used in an article - which is likely the intended meaning of the admonition you've repeated - is NOT carte blanche to post (potentially) pornographic pictures to make a point, or to break the law. NhprmanUserLists04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
By U.S. Supreme Court ruling, child pornography applies only to images made of actual children, not just images designed to look like it. In this case, the image doesn't even particularly look like a real kid; it's clearly a cartoon. Cartoon nudity is not generally considered obscene; if it were, then perhaps the makers of Spongebob Squarepants would be in trouble for their movie trailer in which Bob drops his pants. *Dan T.*18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a logically flawed analogy, like "It's not a child exposing her rear end, it's the drawing of a child exposing her rear end." (i.e. the same thing. A distinction without a difference.) NhprmanUserLists
There is a difference, particularly in the United States where the Supreme Court has ruled that simulated child pornography is protected free speech (largely because there is no victim). Besides, if a 6-year-old's bare butt is illegal, we'd better arrest Bill Watterson for drawing Calvin's rear so often. Powers15:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The girl cartoon in question is labeled "Lolita girl collection." Calvin was never labeled "Sexy little boy cartoon collection." And the intention of Waterston's cartoons were not to arouse his readers. So your analogy doesn't work. NhprmanUserLists17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
So the legality/morality of an image now depends on what you label it? Or maybe what you think about when you read / write / draw / reproduce / upload / download it? Do we have thought crimes now? *Dan T.*18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is (hopefully) not and should never be censored in any way whatsoever. Any image relevant to the article which we are not forced to remove because of legal considerations should be kept. Wikipedia does contain and should continue to contain pornographic images because they are encyclopaedic content. I don't like Jimbo interfering with WP process, let's leave the decisions to the community. Loom9106:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't like Jimbo interfering? What are you talking about? Jimbo refuses to step in and halt the idiotic bickering over Userboxes, as they continue to get more and more divisive; and he apparently refuses to step in when a kiddie porn cartoon is posted to the site, opening it up to legal liability. Far from interfering, Jimbo, needs to tend to his responsibilities as head of a company. This company is no different than any other and I hope people are making him aware of that. NhprmanUserLists14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo was 100% right to remove that image. If the media had picked up on it it would have been curtains for Wikipedia. The media would have had a field day painting WP as a place that is tolerant of paedophiles, and that would have led to a boycott, parents blocking access to WP for their children, schools blocking WP from their computers, etc. The slightest suggestion that Wikipedia was in any way associated with paedophilia would have devastated the project and undermined its credibility completely. The mind boggles at the sheer niaive stupidity of some contributors on this issue. They are like kiddies playing with matches who throw tantrums when someone with sense takes the matches away to protect them. Fear ÉIREANN\(caint)14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the image has not been removed (and if it is removed in the future, it will be due to copyright reasons, not censorship). Second of all, a better analogy would be adults playing with matches who complain when the government takes the matches away to "protect" them. We're not children, are we? Powers15:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
When adults act like children, laws and rules and policies are needed to control those who cannot control themselves. When laws are flaunted as part of a "game" on the Internet to see how far people can go without being caught, then self-control is obviously absent, and the real adults - the site owners, those with legal liability - should be stepping in. If men/women were angels, no government (and no such rules) would be necessary. I fear some of the site owners, and many Users, are under the delusion that people will always do the right thing. NhprmanUserLists17:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see much childishness here, or on the Lolicon talk page. What I do see are people who disagree on several points: the moral issue of whether Wikipedia should be showing material depicting naked children; the legal issue of whether it's legal to do so; the legal issue of whether this particular image can be fairly used or not; and the practical issue of what effect the presence of this image will have on the readers of Wikipedia. What's childish here? Powers18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, looking on some of the comments, here, children would have more cop-on. But this site is used by millions of children. It cannot risk being tainted with paedophilia. Have some cop on and live in the real world. This site is not a game. FearÉIREANN\(caint)15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I very much doubt that that is "the most controversial image ever seen here"; after all, we have some of those cartoons about Muhammad that are such a big international controversy, don't we? *Dan T.*18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
ya, that Muhammad cartoon is probably illegal in Pakistan, but Wikipedia did not delete it, so why should Wikipedia delete this one? The Psycho18:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In your message, you called the image "grossly inappropriate," "outrageous," and "harmful to Wikipedia's progression." With due respect, you failed to justify any one of those three opinions. It should be obvious from the debate that the issue is far from as clear-cut as you seem to think. That said, your point 2, on the fair-use issue, is a different story, and one I generally support, but not as a unilateral action such as this. Powers18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
... not to mention that you replaced it with a cover that is just as questionable from a fair-use standpoint. Powers18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
So you've thrown yourself into the dispute and unilaterally reached a consensus to delete the image, which cannot be revert, without discussion of any type.(Maybe you're good for that?) Well, at least you're being commended as a hero, so maybe it is all worth it. I do hope some action is taken. This is plain abuse of adminstrative power. --Jqiz19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If you like, start an RFC against me. I don't mean this as a challenge – if it is demonstrated that the community disagrees, I shall apologise and take whatever action is necessary to rectify the situation. Sam Korn(smoddy)19:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me justify why I chose to replace it with that image. It was suggested on the talk page as an alternative. I presumed therefore that it fell under the "lolicon" category, and that it was possible that the magazine could be worked into the article, justifying the fair use claim. Apparently I am mistaken. These things happen. I have just been pointed to some free alternatives, and I shall include them in the article instead. Sam Korn(smoddy)18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was really NOT the right move, Sam. Doing unreversable action while pretty much everyone disagrees with it - what the hell were you thinking? Did you read its talk? It survived IFD almost unanimously. Grue 21:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Mmm... Sam has received unanimous support for his decision both at AN/I and the mailing list. "pretty much everyone disagrees with it" is simply not true. Mikker(...)21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
A discussion no one in the lolicon talk page knew about != consensus. If he wanted to argue in favor of deleting the image, he would have voted at WP:IFD. This is what his actions were:
I think this image is inappropriate.
I think it is the best interest of Wikipedia to delete the image.
I will delete it now.
This is ignoring past polls, IFD deletion process, on-going discussion, and anything other process available, because I is what matters? Single man consensus. The whole process of the removal of the image got gutted. Hmm, does the 14 or so people who voted keep on the image does not apply, because we're not on the mailing list/admins?--Jqiz22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I read the mailing list... IN DIGEST FORM. This discussion had (correction - *HAS*)not yet reached the digest. There would have been notices on the talk page for Lolicon, the user-talk pages of people who were involved in the debate and the three wikiprojects of relevence (japan, censorship, hetrostatus' anti-porn project which I mistakenly voted to keep) about the discussion ongoing on en-l, and there would have been a message debunking the many falsehoods that were told on en-l shortly after I saw the consensus of misinformed adminstrators. But the start-to-finish on the deletion was 14 hours, 8 of which were dominated by the erronious assumption there was a good replacement GFDL image (an assumption that both parties to the initial dispute agree is a bad one) Hpuppet - «Talk»22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
By strongly supporting an out of process deletion, Jimbo Wales has showed his lack of respect for the wikipedia community and wikipedia policies. Plus it's not really smart of him taking side on such a controversial issue. The Psycho04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No. You show almost mindboggling niavety in not grasping the seriousness of the issue. Sam's deletion was sensitive and mature. Your reaction is insensitive, naive and immature in the extreme. If he hadn't deleted it, I would have. Anyone who knows the victims of paedophiles, and sees the damage it does, wouldn't regard the issue as some sort of free speech game. Play games on your xbox. This is an encyclopaedia, not a game. Free comes with responsibility, a fact you don't seem to grasp. Instead you act as though it is simply playing with toys. FearÉIREANN\(caint)18:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You on the other hand show almost mindboggling incompetence and bigotry. No one cares about your opinion here. Wikipedia is NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored. Don't like it? Go away. Grue 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, please be civil. If his opinion means nothing, yours doesn't either. It's kind of amazing to say you don't believe in censorship, then tell someone they have no right to express an opinion here. NhprmanUserLists21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
First, Grue has never said Jtdirl has no right to express his opinion. Second, it's ridiculous to claim a drawing like Hikari_Hayashibara has anything to do with real child molestation. The Psycho21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Grue said (just a couple of lines up) "No one cares about your opinion here" then invited him to leave. I would say that's telling someone they have no right to express an opinion. What does it mean to you? Nhprman14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is "censored" all the time. Edits are censored by fellow editors. Pictures are censored and removed from WP if they don't fit up to the legal requirements for usage. Articles are censored by deletion in the Afd page. You clearly know as little about censorship as you do about free speech, the law, or how to build an encyclopaedia. All the evidence shows overwhelming support for Sam's actions, and little for your opinion. You may like playing at free speech as it was a toy, without the slightest grasp of what it actually means. It would help if, before proclaiming your infallibility on a topic, you actually knew the facts about it. If you want to contribute to sites with paedophile content, go ahead: find them. Wikipedia is not one and won't be one and images that promote paedophilia will be deleted, whether you like it or not. Fear ÉIREANN\(caint)20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Images that "promote" something would be deleted because they are POV, regardless of what they are promoting (unless they have some other redeeming features). But from the little interaction that I had with you, I have strong suspicion that you either don't understand what "promote" means, or that Wikipedia articles are not intended to promote their subject, the latter being more likely. The articles should be impartial and NPOV. You however look like a sort of person that incorporates your own opinions as some sort of universal truth and pinpoint of encyclopedicity (see, I'm getting pretentious too). No wonder that with such attitude you got involved in a lot of conflicts. Well, I think I got a little off-topic here. I think that situation was resolved rather well for both sides, although I'm sure some people would be offended by the new image too... Grue 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Grue, please remember WP:CIVIL. There is no justification to tell people things like "Don't like it? Go away." We're not here to create "Wiki-for-and-by-people-who-agree-with-Grue". Johntex\talk14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I've just read the "Statement of Principles", and was wondering when it was written? Was it 3 years ago, 2 years ago, 6 months ago, last week? I couldn't find anything in the history, so I was wondering if anyone knows the date when the statement was first published, and also maybe when it was last updated? Thanks. Carcharoth00:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It still seems a bit odd to rely on people looking at the history to find out how old the document is - I'd only expect fairly experienced Wikipedians to think of doing that. It is normally standard practice with documents like this to make the date visible on the document itself. Well, I say normal, but in fact I come across documents everyday, all across the internet, where people don't date things properly! Anyway, thanks for answering my question. Carcharoth11:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm with the Will fella here ... the /wiki/ does seem unnecessary. And I don't really see what other stuff it could collide with. --Cyde Weys03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose if you are forking off articles (into a "current" version and a "stable" version) then this link refactoring thing might be bad. Although, you could still have all of the current versions at / and the stable versions at /stable/ Cyde Weys03:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
At certain intervals, usually every week or so, every link on Wikipedia is automatically underlined without actually hovering over it, and this lasts for a long period. I was simply wondering if this is a glitch in Wikipedia or if there's something wrong on my end? Any comments?. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have an opposite problem: sometimes links become non-underlined all of a sudden (I have them underlined in preferences). It happens. Grue 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I get it too, both in FF 1.0.7 and 1.5, on two very different machines. I don't know much about it, presumably a CSS style sheet is getting lost or confused. Anyway it's a MediaWiki issue, not a Jimbo issue. :) Stevage16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Mr Wales, I wrote 2 articles on Google Groups (a free groups and mailing list service from Google) and Homerun (a Singaporean adaptation of award-winning movie Children of Heaven). Could you (or any editors reading this page) give feedback on the two articles? I am looking for feedback that will help me improve articles, so don't just say "good". Something like "the article is slightly POV" or "the facts are not well presented" or "your style of writing is unique" or "the screenshots are appropriate" would be helpful.
I'm 14, and although I topped my level in English, and am one of the top writers in my school, I understand that Wikipedia is international (some of the WORLD's best writers are here), and the skills that made me a prolific essay writer may not make me a good Wikipedia writer. Hence I'm seeking feedback. I have found it difficult to find a place to ask for feedback on my articles, hence I'm going to your user page. In addition, I have created the:
Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Desk in an attempt to meet this need. However, the project page is dead. While I understand that Wikipedia is not for advertising, how do I advertise a specific Wikipedia page within Wikipedia? I hope that by posting the Article Feedback Desk link here and advertising it in Wikipedia, the page will get more traffic, and more Wikipedians will post feedback on my articles and post their articles for feedback. I hope that the Article Feedback Desk will become an integral feature of Wikipedia which I will become famous for starting.
You may choose to answer here or on my talk page, but all should follow suit so I can read all the replies in one place. This is not an April Fool's joke, by the way.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One14:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Im cartman4000 it is a pleasure to use wikipedia i would like it if you respond
Bots hidding vandalism
I don't know if it happens to others as well, but the recent heavy activity by robots that format articles has given me a lot of extra-work spotting vandalism in the articles I watch by getting extensive watchlists of modified articles that have only been slightly touched by a Bot.
To illustrate the problem, let me show you this edit that added some nonsense, but at the same time removed the chinnese interwiki link (zh:). Hours later to this vandal edit YurikBot restored the interwiki link, leaving the vandalism untouched. The following day I check for the last changes, and saw tha the page has been edited by YurikBot, thus thought that there's no need to check its edits, but luckily checked it anyway.
Since bots produce a huge number of changes in articles that might have not been otherwise modified in months (and therefore there's no need to check them for vandalism), it might be reasonable to give Bots a special status that would later allow us to ignore their edits when requesting your our watchlist. This way watchlists would be much more compact, and we would have less work doing our everyday check.
Another idea would be the display in the watchlists the number of edits to that page since your last log-on, or something like that. Sorry I'm leaving this here, I didn't find any better place. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 13:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Complaint with regards to User Freakofnurture, and why my account at Jonathan_7 should be unblocked
C & P ed entirely from my talk page at User: Jonathan_7 as a reason why I should be unblocked
The arrogance of Wikipedia (where I am not answered satisfactorily, and User: Freakofnurture appears to freak out and maliciously ban me constantly just because of one harmless typo in which I accidentally called him/her "Freakofnature" (from the Daniel Brandt talk page):
I reverted back to a 4th November version of the page because it is the most fair and NPOV way of presenting the article. I'll let the guy behind the page explain:
Jucifer, I *did* discuss my edits and my reasons for them on here, but there's been no further discussion of them from you.
I fail to understand why you felt it necessary to remove every single improvement I made. You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps. Evidently you prefer the spin.
I give up. As long as people like you are going to hover over this page day after day and remove any constructive changes made by others, there's no point. I can't keep hovering over this page myself, though, because I have a life. Nor do I have time to waste arguing about what constitutes coherent writing with someone who can't even spell the word "coherent".
And what gives you the audacity to not only remove every single change I made, but then request that no one else remove YOUR changes without discussion?? I begin to see now why Brandt and others are blanking the page out entirely.
While there is little to add to this, I should point out that articles such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan articles, despite the fact that the subjects have significant hate proportions, the fact remains that this doesn't stop the articles from being NPOV and not offending them. Why? Because these guys have had no conflict with Wikipedia. Therefore, Brandt gets demonised in the existing article, whereas the proposed revert to 4th November is a great deal more neutral, and if the thing is not gonna be deleted, the least that can happen is that he is painted in a fair light.
Where can you find arguments for why that version of the article should be in place? Why, I would presume that seeing as how back in November this guy was discussing his edits with Jucifer, I think its obvious where the answers are: with Jucifer.
Hi, Jonathan here. I think the difference between the revisions is that the existing article on Brandt does appear to have several negative connotations about it. Too much gets made of Brandt in the existing criticism section. The suggested version of the article is NOT biased, for as the guy originally behind it points out:
"You say you don't understand why some paragraphs were combined and others removed - the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."
I agree that the Brandt article can no longer be in a state of deletion, because he's a notable persona. However, the least Wikipedia could do is to enter into some sort of compromise with Brandt. Create a version of the article that pleases both camps. I do believe he said he would be satisfied with a Stub on himself at least. While the suggested version is not a stub, it's at least not as intruding onto his privacy than the current article.
AND FINALLY, THE ONE FOR WHICH FREAKOFNURTURE HAS MERCILESSLY BULLIED ME ABOUT.
Okay, so Brandt has been involved quite a lot with this article, as the archives do tell us. And he has had a tendency to point out that information published about him is either inaccurate or incompetent. In response his views are often criticised, but he does have a valid point. You see, if I was to suddenly achieve fame for being a Wikipedia user or a famous Wikipedia critic, I would make DAMN SURE that the person who was writing the article was someone I either knew or was able to trust, or hell, I would write it myself.
Let us take, for example, Jimmy Wales. The same principle applies here. I'm going to be willing to bet that the article was not written by Mr Wales for the purpose of NPOV, but was written by someone that he knew he could trust.
In Brandt's case though, I do believe his article was originally written by one SlimVirgin, who, correct me if I'm wrong, has been nothing but critical of Brandt. Isn't it rather odd that despite the fact that people such as Britney Spears, George W. Bush and the Ku Klux Klan have significant hate directed toward them, the connotations of hate towards them are not nearly as addressed as much as in the present article. Hell, even other Wikipedia critics don't get as much negativity as Brandt. His only "crime" it appears is to have set up a website opposing Wikipedia practices.
What are the advantages of this proposed version of this article? Why, I do believe that's already been covered:
"the answer is brevity. My version states concisely in sentences what your version takes paragraphs to do. My version tries not to amplify Beasley and Manjoo's criticisms into seeming more important than they really are. My version tries to balance hard info, without spin, from both the anti-Brandt and pro-Brandt camps."
Plus, Brandt has previously expressed the desire that if there is to be a Wikipedia article on him, it should be restricted to the status of being a stub article. Obviously deletion is impossible because Brandt is a notable persona, but what this proposed version of the article is something that can help to achieve a compromise between both camps, a more simplified version of the article that both Brandt and Wikipedia can be satisfied with. Just keep the current versions of Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch as they are, and of course the reference to Brandt in Criticisms of Wikipedia, and voila! All the basic necessary information on Brandt that you need. Everyone's happy.
Of course, you know, disputes like these could easily be resolved if Wikipedia were to be a reliable source of information. But it's not. The key distinguishing feature of Wikipedia is that it does not have any moderators. While other websites are able to provide accurate information due to the fact that they are strictly moderated, Wikipedia is crippled by the fact that it has no moderators. As a result, exchanges such as when Brandt made an edit labelling pieces of information to be "utterly incompetent". Someone then reverted this by saying "no it isn't" Excuse me? Just who is more likely to hold accurate information in this regard? The man to whom the subject is about, or someone who clearly has something against Brandt?
Finally, seeing as how my previous account was suspended because I was allegedly acting as a sockpuppet or impersonator of Brandt. There were several problems wth this theory:
One: Not once had I ever met Daniel Brandt, nor have I ever had any email correspondence or similar with the forementioned person. Sheesh, it's not so abnormal or unusual that someone can generate support for their cause - even the British National Party gain votes.
Two: Unless I am into to extreme extensive travelling, it should be noted that the IPs that Brandt and myself use are very much different, so therefore any theories that I was the same person as Brandt were invalid.
Three: There didn't appear to be any "evidence" to support the assertion that I was what was being claimed, otherwise the "evidence" part of "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Daniel Brandt. Please refer to {{{evidence}}} for evidence." would have been filled in. Therefore, it was an unfair ban.
Four: From the very beginning, it appeared that Curps must have had some political, social, or absurdly personal agenda against myself to warrant that even now, he has never given a proper reason to revert my edits more than three times, and yet he was not banned for breaching the 3RR rule, thus showing bias on Wikipedia's part.
Five: I already tried to explain that I was not the same person who gained notoriety for randomly proclaiming "WikiFascists!" and repeatedly blanking the page, and yet Curps seemingly has no idea on the concept of "diffentiation" as he appears to enjoy lampooning both myself and the forementioned vandal as being one and the same.
Thank you for your time.
Jonathan 7 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Why should I be unblocked? Because Freakofnurture failed to follow a rule about the process of revert in which you should at least give your reasons as to why you have reverted the edits of the user on either the article's or the user's talk page. Also, Freakofnurture kept restricting my rights to speak and coldbloodedly calling me a sockpuppet even though the above shows I am not so. I feel this was a grossly unfair treatment upon myself.
Plus, trolls don't have any concept of spelling or grammer, and their actions are unjustified ergo - not troll. Jonathan 7 14:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
== Dear Freakofnurture ==,
Please unblock me, for I have finally had enough of the fact that you appear to have something very serious against me, as well as the fact that you appear to lack any reading comprehension. I have told you time and time again that I am not a sockpuppet, and I have explained the nature of my actions. I am pissed off, and I therefore wish to take it up with the higher authority Jimmy Wales on his user talk page. I have more than enough evidence to show that you have abused your admin powers and have had a vendetta against me ever since I made an edit you happened to disagree with on the Daniel Brandt article. You on the other hand have no evidence of any abusive conduct I have had towards you or Curps, and you simply answer only in WikiSpeak, where you use the same old "rv" and "sockpuppet used abusively" which masks the fact that you are incapable of arguing your case.
I wish to chat to Jimmy Wales, and thus request unblock. Jonathan 7 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So my point is that Freakofnurture has had some sort of agenda against me from the very beginning, and has accused myself of all sorts of hurtful stuff such as sockpuppetry for Daniel Brandt and has constantly deleted my talk page. He is abusing his admin powers and it is greatly annoying. Jonathan_7 86.128.14.8617:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
my opinion
The whole debate centers on whether if an account is banned, it can use its IP address or new account to ask the admin who banned them to be unbanned. I have seen basically seen when this happens not only is the account and IPS indefinately banned, but the messages are removed from the admins talk page (often by another admin). In this instance, the accounts and IPs were indefinately banned, but the thread "Your claim is bogus" still remains. Basically, wikipedia needs to have clear policy on this.
And of course comes the question of whether it's bad to complain to Jimbo Wales about admins and not abcom. Well, Jimbo's user page says, "Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk." So that's the policy he (or someone) states. DyslexicEditor03:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
My 2 cents
Freak has blocked me several times for "vandalism, shared IP", and ironically, the first time I discovered I was blocked was when I was trying to revert vandalism to the RuneScape article. At one time, it became so disruptive that I had to leave Wikipedia for a week.
On Freak's user page, I see F-words and various inappropriate content. While I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, this policy is mainly for articles which are likely to contain sexual content, and not for userpages.
There have recently been complaints about admins abusing their powers (the Jebus Christ episode is an example). I am not singling out Freak, neither am I against admins. However, I hope admins use their powers wisely and do not abuse them. I think there should be a crackdown on abusive admins, and complaints against admins should be taken more seriously.
Just my 2 cents. I'll not be surprised if Freak or an abusive admin blocks me, but I hope it doesn't happen, and I hope admins will not feel insulted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The IP you used first 202.156.6.54 has the proper shared IP tag on its user page that it's shared and the blocks are temporary. Freakofnurture only did three blocks and he/she unblocked it two times. The IP has close to 100 blocks from other admins. I agree that there are abusive admins, but I think Freakofnurture has been picked on because of controversial inclusions on their user page. The abusive admins I know of are ones strangely invincible enough that I would not even dare to mention--but they seem bad enough that I have seen a couple of the bad ones change their user names. DyslexicEditor18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with DyslexicEditor, freakofnurture has not actually blocked you, he has blocked the IP address from which you and probably many others edit, because some of those other editors have vandalised wikipedia the block is legitimate, i.e. he is not singling you out personally, you are what is generally termed collateral damage (an unintended "victim") --pgk(talk)18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. As explained earlier, while I am against abusive admins, I am not singling out Freak, although his userpage does contain objectional content. Therefore, Wikipedia should take a stand against both abusive admins and inappropriate content on userpages. In addition, I think that Wikipedia should change the blocking policy, because blocking shared IPs can harm many legimate editors. My suggestion is that when an IP is blocked, established, legimate editors who are logged in should be able to continue editing. Of course, this raises the issue of vandals signing up for accounts, but most vandals are lazy, and we can simply block them from signing up without affecting established, legimate editors who already have accounts. --J.L.W.S. The Special One09:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There are actually two different 'bugs' on wikipedia's bugzilla in regards to this and they have decent support. Someone just has to get around to implementing them. Kotepho09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what, exactly, you find objectionable on User:Freakofnurture's userpage? I have looked over his page in-depth, and, with the possible exception of the "vandalism-space" section he's provided for random users' graffiti, I see nothing whatsoever objectionable, offensive, or mean-spirited on his userpage. In fact, a lot of the page is rather pleasant and uplifting, like his list of "users whom i appreciate". I can think of many much, much more borderline userpages than this, which is why I found using that page as an example bizarre, even though you claim to not be "singling out Freak". Some specifics, please, so we can understand what userspace content, exactly, you are asking to be "cracked down" on? -Silence09:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The last time I viewed Freakofnuture's user page, it contained a pornographic image or something similar, and F-words, and a lot of disturbing catogeries like "Sockpuppets of Jesus" and "Rogue admins". I don't know if it has changed since then or if that was an act of vandalism. With his repeated banning of me clarified (I posted since someone reported the same problem), I think the issue should be abusive admins in general.
I would like to add how important it is that this be dealt with. Perhaps you could get personally involved or help something along. This is a grave invasion of privacy and should be of concern to all users of Wikipedia and the other projects. --Mboverload04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I rather not email you on this matter, but I can if that is preferable. I am not sure about all the issues raised by this situation, but it does appear to be of great potential concern to many editors. Whatever you can advise would be most welcome. Thank you.--MONGO05:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Chinese Wikipedia is banning informatinon about persecution on Falungong
This is the first time I write to you, Mr. Wales. I have the account holder of "Ilovehk1248" of Chinese Wikipedia.
I have just been banned.
I have been banned for saying the FACT that the Foreign Minsiter of Australia Alexander Downer is sued by Falungong members, which is widely published by most Australian media.
I have been banned for saying the FACT that Jiang Zemin is prosecuted in many countries for genocide.
I have been banned for mentioning the RCMP is monitoring 45 Chinese officials.
I have been banned for mentioning that most of the Hong Kong democratic legislators concern and support Falun Gong members in anti-prosecution movement.
I have been banned for saying things which are verifiable.
Administrators are doing censorship on Chinese Wikipedia!!
Is this what you want? PLEASE investigate!! PLEASE kindly TAKE ACTION to keep Wikipedia really a place "everyone can edit"!! I thank you for your attention in advance. I do wait for your answer! I thank you in advance!!Doreme124804:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
He said he was banned from chinese wikipedia by an administrator. Chinese government is not supposed to be able to censor chinese version of wikipedia because it's hosted on servers located in USA. But it's possible that the chinese government is slowly taking over Chinese Wikipedia by having chinese communist party members become high ranking admins. The Psycho06:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You are totally correct! One of such administrator I spot is "SHIZHAO" (Beijing) and "Louer" (USA, but from mainland China). SHIZHAO is a STEWARD and SYSOP. He undid my edit without giving reasons at all or giving unjustifiable reasons. He took an article about a Chinese official who was convicted of persecuting Falun gong members for voting for deletion, TWICE. The Chinese Communist Party know that they must control Chinese Wikipedia. Please kindly read my user page for details, which will be updated frequently. I thank you for your concern!Doreme124807:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be so quick to swallow Doreme1248's summary of what has happened. It may very well be that s/he was doing POV-pushing (which one can do by inserting verifiable facts in a particular manner) or something else that would warrant a ban. --C S (Talk)07:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. Please kindly read my user page for details, which will be updated frequently.Doreme124807:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I have just read Wikipedia: Banning Policy and I am BLOCKED, rather than simply banned. The admin who blocked me is Pubuhan. He did not give a reason for the block. Wikipedia: Blocking policy says: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block ediors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."
The fact is: The MAINLAND CHINESE ADMINSTRATORS are gaining an advantage in a content dispute (Dispute as to whether content involving Falungong or related issues should be put into other articles) by BLOCKING ME!!Doreme124808:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Doreme1248(in Chinese wikipedia known as Ilovehk1248) kept adding information based on bias of Falungong into Chinese Wikipedia, so he got blocked. In my opinion, Doreme1248 deserves what he got. I am one of the administrators and also a bureaucrat in the Chinese Wikipedia, and I am from Taiwan, no relationship with the Chinese government or Chinese Communist Party. This matter is totally not related to any censorship from the PRC government. Pubuhan took his action after discussed with several administrators in an online chatting room with no objection. Please don't get mislead by Doreme1248.--zh:User:Theodoranian17:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As a administrator of both communities, here and the Chinese wikipedia, my impression suggests me that User:Doreme1248 is a new contributor to the Chinese wikipedian community so I wish hir to interpret and back up the information on hir userpage in the Chinese wikipedia to the wikipedians here, who shall aid hir positively. I.H.S.V.(talk)18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for coming!! I have been waiting you for long! I have been waiting you for coming to this relatively fair forum! After all, I am not interested in your real identity whether you are a special agent or not. After all, whether you are not we are equal on the Wikipedia. Are you going to DENY THAT YOU GAINED AN ADVANTAGE IN A CONTENT DISPUTE INVOLVING WHETHER MOST ARTICLES SHOULD INVOLVE FALUN GONG MATERIALS BY BLOCKING ME? Wikipedia: Blocking policy says "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block ediors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Answer me!! You have never answered this although I asked many times!! Can't you answer this!!Doreme124801:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm also a user of both Chinese and English Wikipedia and I'm from Taiwan. What Theodoranian wrote here is correct. Administrators of Chinese Wikipedia are not only from China, but also from Taiwan and Hong Kong. I can tell you that there is no censorship in Chinese Wikipedia. Every banning operation on Chinese Wikipedia is been done after proper discussion amount many Wikipedians in the Skype chatting room. These admins had discussed about Ilovehk1248's case on the Skype chatting room and there is no objections on banning Ilovehk1248. I know because I'm in the Skype chatting room at that time (although I'm not one of the admins). Please do not get misleaded by Doreme1248. FYR.--H.T. Chien (Discuss) 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I refuse admit that I intended to launch a personal attack on Shizhao, although I would be happy to rephrase it to make it more "friendly". Wikipedia:No personal attacks says (Please read): Examples that are not personal attacks: ... Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. If you still insist that the following is personal attack, state your reason. However, I am sure mentioning what a Steward has done is totally OK, other their power can never be challenged, and this is unacceptable.Doreme124802:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Mr. Brian Peppers (and his Wikipedia article)
Dear Sir:
I believe that your decision to remove the Brian Peppers aritcle was indeed a wise one. I happen to have a correspondence with Mr. Peppers and his sister-in-law, Susan, and I know that Brain does not deserve to be disrespected in any way. The pure existance of any article about him and his past would be an insult to his person, and Thus I must, on his behalf, thank you.
P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Below I give a description of Shizhao done as an administrator
The Steward and SysOp Shizhao get the article of Gloria Cheung﹙張韻琪﹚ to be voted for deletion by the reason that Gloria Cheung﹙張韻琪﹚ was of little importance to become a Wikipedia article. However, she was a university student union chairlady of Hong and is an activist promoting democracy. She is well known by most Hong Kong teenages. Eventually the result of voting is preservation of the article.
The Steward and SysOp Shizhao get the article of Zhao Zhifei﹙趙志飛﹚ to be voted for deletion by the reason that Zhao Zhifei﹙趙志飛﹚ was of little importance to become a Wikipedia article. However he is actually a person convicted of persecuting 38 Falun gong members to death. Eventually the result of voting is preservation of the article. Ignoring the result, he get the SAME article to be voted again.
SHIZHAO also seldom explaining his reason for reverting my edit (For example, Jiang Zemin in Chinese Wikipedia), breaching the Wikipedia official policy. When he did, the reasons are almost always unjustifiable.
SHIAZHAO is nominating PUBUHAN, who blocked me, to be a bureaucrat. This may match the situation a previous Wikipedian mentioned: The Chinese Communist Party pushes one personnel to the administrating level, and get him to nominate others of the same back ground, slowly taking over the administrating power of the whole Chinese Wikipedia.
To Deoreme1248, Pubuhan didn't dispute with you in this matter. He was executing the dicision which was made by the community. We have warned you not to keep adding POV material into Chinese Wikipedia for several times before the blocking. Since I am not interested in your real identity whether you are a special agent or not., why you said that I am a special agent from the PRC? You owe everybody you mentioned an apology.--zh:User:Theodoranian02:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
(1)I deny that I keep adding POV materials. Indeed, there are probably no such things in the world called "POV materials", but only "POV description about a conflict". I have said many many times, although I am willing to say it once more, that Falun Gong background media such as Epoch Times, Renminbao, Minghui are Reliable sources, and I described such sources in a neutral way. You may think that they are unreliable sources, but these are your personal opinion, and please keep them to yourself. After all, I have not just put these sources, but also BBC and other Australian media. It gives you no excuse to censor them.Wikipedia: Neutral point of view says policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints However, what most administrators involved was doing is: deleting my description of the conflict, not letting me to describe the conflict, preclude me from the right to describe the conlict. By doing so, it is the one who deletes the neutral description of the conflict breaches the NPOV rule, NOT the editor. If it is in your opinion that my description about a conflict is not neutral enough, edit it to become more neutral, rather than delete it. Editting is what Wikipedia about, not deletion.
(2)I understand that this is a decision made by the community, as you alleged, and I am not going to dispute about it. However, I allege that such community decision is ignoring the Wikipedia rules, and wrongly decided, as I have described above. Such a majority decision violating Wikipedia rules, which are WIDELY ACCEDPTED by Wikipedians, are ILLEGITIMATE. This is just like: A piece of legislation is illegitimate if it violates universally accpeted human right rules EVEN if it is passed by majority.
(3)(revoked due to Wikipedia policy) I refuse to aplogise. If you are interested in listening to my reason of refusal of reply, I am happy to give you one. But due to Wikipedia policy, I cannot put it here.
(4)Pubuhan disputes with me and the Community disputes with me. OK, let's assume that Pubuhan is neutral as to this dispute and the Community disputes with me. So it's the Community blocked me, not Pubuhan blocked me. Well, After all, the rule is not going to be circumvented simply because it is done in the name of the Community. Last but not the least, are you going to answer this? Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. The Community is not going to be priviledged simply because it is the Community. The Community has to observe Wikipedia Rules. Now, the Community (made up of many individual administrators who are in dispute with me as to the content) is in a dispute with me and it gained advantage in this dispute by blocking me, and THIS IS PROHIBITED.
(5)I do not understand why you (on behalf of the Community again?) can give me a dozens of "reasons" HERE why Pubuhan blocked me, while I was given no reasons at all at the time I was blocked. Well, didn't the Community instruct Pubuhan to give a reason? Does he, or the Community knows that, by Wikipedia: Blocking policy he is obliged to give a reason??
I am another ZH admin, I live in America, and I totally disagree with the way how CCP illegally cracked down FLG and subsequently treated the FLG members with no due respect to PRC constitution and human rights. I also declare that I am not a "special agent" of CCP (or employed by CCP or FLG in any way) and I warn that I dislike any personal attacks or libeling.
However, after examining relevant edit histories and the blocking log on ZH Wikipedia, as well as the Skype chat record, I have found that ZH administrators are doing everything in line with Wikipedia's mission and policies, I have also found that Doreme1248 (aka Ilovehk1248 in ZH) has misrepresented the case with false/wrong information and misinterpreted Wikipedia policies.
S/He accused here that Pubuhan (the ZH admin who blocked Ilovehk1248 for 3 days) "did not give a reason for the block". This is a blatant lie, as one can check the blocking log and find the reason (translated) as "violation of 3RR, also allow you time to find proof supporting your accusations that several users are indeed special agents (employed by CCP)".
S/He accused here that Pubuhan violated Wikipedia: Blocking policy by blocking him/her "to gain an advantage in a content dispute" in which the admin is currently engaged with the blocked user. This is a misinterpretation of the policy and a misleading account of the situation. As the edit histories of 羅幹 (Luo Gan), 劉京 (Liu Jing), 亞歷山大•唐納 (Alexander Downer), 孫家正 (Sun Jiazheng), 司徒華 (Szeto Wah), 張德江 (Zhang Dejiang), 夏德仁 (Xia Deren), 李卓人 (Lee Cheuk Yan), 2008年夏季奧林匹克運動會 (2008 Summer Olympics) (and many others) show, all reversions to Ilovehk1248's edits were initiated by several other editors (not Pubuhan) because they consider his/her edits as POV-pushing and unverifiable. Ilovehk1248 simply reverted back without actions to improve the NPOV or supply verifiable sources. For some of the articles, Pubuhan intervened to simply re-revert. I do not think that such re-reversions should be treated as "involvement in content editing". Ilovehk1248 was blocked temporarily (not banned) because of 3RR, not because Pubuhan wanted to gain any "advantage in a content dispute" by misusing his power.
The information and references provided by him/her come from The Epoch Times, which itself is deeply involved in the conflicts between FLG and CCP and related subjects, therefore many Chinese editors (Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Overseas) do not treat reports from this source (and other FLG-sponsored or -themed sources) as verifiable for the reported subject per se (other than the facts regarding FLG's POV), in the same way as they treat CCP's sources or accounts in these matters.
Here and in several other places on EN and ZH, s/he accused and publicly labeled Shizhao/Louer as CCP members without any sound proof, s/he also accused and publicly labeled Shizhao, 3dball, Pubuhan, Theodoranian, 妙詩人, Louer, and Panda as "special agents" from CCP on Wikipedia without any sound proof. Indeed, it seems that s/he made these loose accusations only because these users do not agree with his/her edits on Wikipedia and consider him/her a POV-pusher. Some of the affected users also consider these accusations as defamatory and libels.
I have always used Wikipedia as a reference source and considered it to be an informative and good resource. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that adminstrators such as Jpgordon and JZG roam behind the scenes and manipulate information to their whims through abuse of admin powers. Yet this is exactly what has happened as can be seen on the history page of the gunpowder article. Jpgordon disliked the information I had added to the article and continually reverted my edits. I in turn reverted back. Frighteningly, instead of entering into discussions about differences, Jpgordon immediately banned me based on a groundless claim of the 3RR. Jpgordon reverted my edits more than 3 times himself and then proceeded to ban me to further his edit war.
This experience has severely tainted the image of Wikipedia and unless justice is served I doubt I will ever use Wikipedia again. In fact, I had planned on pointing others towards Wikipedia, but after this horribly disappointing experience I think I will be instead cautioning others on using Wikipedia at all. From this experience, I and those who associate with me, have been forced to face the idead that Wikipedia is no more than a place where a select group of bigoted pseudo-intellectuals push their particular brand of misinformation through the crushing of opposition using blocking and banning functions. Please prove us wrong.
69.194.137.18318:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You're being unreasonable. You are trying to push your own POV in the gunpowder article, that the Chinese were the sole inventors, when in fact historians have varied viewpoints on this. You also are hurling unfair accusations against other editors who oppose you, in violation of the Assume Good Faith policy. It was particularly silly of you to write that you were justified in pursuing arbitration against Jpgordon without prior attempts to resolve the dispute, because it wasn't a "dispute among equals"; you (an anonymous IP address) was "more equal" than Jpgordon (an administrator). That's hardly a way to win sympathy for your position. *Dan T.*23:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ya, annonymous IP cannot be an admin's equal, you have to earn at least 5000 reputation points before you can challenge an admin. The Psycho00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to my e-mail regarding ArbCom
I would like to just point you to some relevant pages in relation to my earlier e-mail regarding the un-blocking of the three named Users. I think that this page is important for two reasons as it shows, firstly, that there is an outside opinion that all three users should have blocks removed, and secondly that it has no response from the arbitrators, and this has been the problem facing my client, in that he has had no two-way communication, and thus the sentiments expressed in my e-mail can be understood. I await your response. --Wisden1720:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello from Germany
Hello Mr. Wales. My name is Sebastian, my user name both in the German Wikipedia and in the Englisch section is The Rain Man. I'm writing you because I see severe things going wrong in the German community. The special problem I face belongs to a general one in the German Section. Over the last six weeks, I put all my time and energy in the study of literatur to set up a new page. The Subject is called "Disorder of Extreme Stress Not Otherwise Specified" (DENSOS). It is the hard form of PTSD, what means "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". The most common Name of this hard and chronic form is "komplex PTSD". Unfortunately, in our country there is poor knowledge about this topic. Even psychiatrists and psychologists don't know about the whole thing. So I got myself ten Books from well reputated researchers, altogether about 30 authors or more. Judith Herman who teaches at Harvard is one of them. I did my best to give a detached and good structured insight into the matter. Anyone should be able to understand it, professionals should be able to enrich their horizon. Not one thing contained by that page is doubted amomg the real experts. Some friends of mine read that page today, and I was surprised about their positive feedback. But they are no community members. As having set up some Redirects after havin finished my work, several administrators began to remove pictures, rather without being willing to talk about. They arrange with each other, obviously just to get that page deleted. The official reason for putting the page on the candidates for deletion is that the content was ambigious, and further this topic wasn't worth an own page. It took just from friday 11:17h, when administrator Nina startet to "clear out the pictures", as she wrote in her Edit summary, to Saturday 18:38 when administrator Southpark (it's interesting to see his page) put it for deletion. Obviously, there is a clique of administrators who practice clear abuse of their rights. No one came out with one reasonable argument to justify such a step. They just bood the page and insulted me by making clear in their postings that I was mentally deranged. No reasonable content-related arguments were brougth out at the discussion about deletion. Any statment containing more than insults and the vote for deletion (in German: löschen) shows clear, that these members, mostly administrators, didn't read the page at all. Now they vote down that article. Only few visitors from outside the community came along to vote for it. The expression komplex PTSD is hardly kown here and accordingly minor requested. Repeatedly, they told I had no believable souces. They couldn`t find the komplex PTSD with Google. Then a pro-voter told that he had found 147 hits with Google for that special expression. It was just ignored, like most of the pro arguments. The pictures are embeded from Wikipedia-Commons. It was brought up as a reason for deletion of the page, that these pictures were not according to the rules. Actually 10 of the pictures are free, the first picture in the page has a tag and another, a quite changeable one, is requested for speedy deletion now (but I thought it wasn't last week). The page is quite big, so it contains 12 pictures, illustraiting the content and the meanings, not glutting the article.
And there is another thing about that page. It is a very sensitive topic. Actually 80% of the concerned by komplex PTSD are women. That Disorder is often caused by rape, and at the most by sexual abuse and mistreatment of children, especially young girls. One thing in the background, I didn't write that in the article of course, is a reliable study that tells about the extremly high rates of such grievances. I wrote that in the discussion. These girls suffer their whole life in an unthinkable way from the resulting damages, including lifetime neuronal damages. Hard depressions, awful feelings, unrecognized partial splittings of their counsciousness, bad fears and various additional burdens come up later in their lifes. The shock is stored timeless in their neuronal system and is always present in their feelings, actions and thoughts. It is characteristic that these victims don't know about that, mostly they can't. Typically, they can't remember the horrors cognizantly. The combination to their bad expieriences is generally not made. These people are often threated wrong, both socially and medically. That boosts the damages in a vicious circle. Many of them die very young. Over the last fifty years, one can count the extimated deaths about several million in Germany. (Of course that is no content of the page.) And all that just because people don't know about the komplex PTSD. So I told the people willing to delete the page to think about responsibility, even Wikipedia is a non-party encyclopedia. I argumented, many concerned could be serious to get the information contained by the article. And there might few administrators to get rid of it, but many people out there to be very interested. Many administrators in Germany are very sure to be responsible to nobody and vote friends for Administrators to join their cliques. I told them, they are. They just bood me. One of them, Administrator Markus Mueller, puts a new citatation on top of his user page every day. Today ist was mine, exactly that statement about responsibility of administrators. Another administrator, Mathias Schindler, has a logo on top of his user page continuing the following statement: "We eleminate the knowledge of mankind - yours too. Relevance is relative." Intrinsically one could think that was just ironic. But unfortunately it seems to be true. These people seem to run free their destructive desire behind the mask of an administrator. I said, besides several human righs organizations and victim organizations Jimbo Wales might be against their attitude. They considered that statement rather as a funny nonsense. So all I can do now is to turn to you Mr. Wales as my first choice. And I want to add, that I am not the only community member beeing dissapointet by such things going on.
I'd be unimaginably moved, if you would bestow consideration upon that matter. Kindest regards and greets from Munich! Sebastian -- The Rain Man03:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do administrators always assume bad faith ? Shouldn't the wikilink assume bad faith be made an article and not a redirect? Take my example
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [2] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights05:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
ContiE does not have a vendetta against Arights that I have seen, and his actions have been appropriate. I've also had to undo some of Arights' "contributions". Arights has a misguided concept of furry fandom and tries to enforce it on the related articles. Coyoty20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I got the message, too. I looked over arights's contributions and his/her talk page and his/her early contributions say you are a sock puppet of ContiE. Arights never told you. You also never come here. ContiE never told you. No one told you. I checked your contributions. I checked your old account, Gentaur's contributions (the account forwards to yours). I checked ContiE's contributions. I checked other things like your livejournal, google for anything by anyone. Arights does accuse you of being a sock puppet. But I am not accussing you. I am not suggesting to anyone here that yes, you are a sockpuppet ContiE. And I certainly wouldn't want everyone to strongly believe that Coyoty is a sockpuppet of ContiE. I'm sure no one would ever come to that conclusion that you are sock puppets. Now, you just act like you want people to think you are the same user. For example, you claim to no live near ContiE, but your website bestiaria.com says you live far from where you claim to. And then ContiE claims to be a furry fox and you use a fox next to your name. I'm sure no one would even consider you to be sock puppets. Admins can never do wrong. Why would an admin have more than one account? SnowConeYellow07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
First, I am not an admin. I'm not sure I want to be, seeing what they have to put up with. Second, renaming an account puts too much of a load on the system, so Wikipedia prefers a new account be created and the old account redirected to it. Third, that's a coyote, not a fox. Fourth, I've been here many times, if you look more carefully. Fifth, my webpage doesn't claim I live anywhere. Sixth, you seem to be doing a very good job of accusing me of being ContiE. Are you sure you're not really Arights? Seventh, this is silly and you are being a doody head. Coyoty18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone suggests "complain about admin abuse on RFC" person says, "If I complained about an admin there I would not just be banned, but my talk page would be protected."
Let's clear a few things up here. He was trolling. Blocked users who misuse their usertalk pages get them protected. Secondly. In October I said I'd be 16 in December. Now I'm saying I'll be 17 this year. Which bit of that is a lie? NSLE(T+C)(seen this?) at 00:31 UTC (2006-04-12)
Let me add that age is not an issue on Wikipedia. I myself am only 15, and a large majority of editors and administrators on Wikipedia are between fourteen and thirty. Claiming that a user is "too immature to handle responsibility and power" is considered a personal attack, and does not help your case anyway. Werdna648T/C\@01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The two proposed policies in my view supposed to be common senese. I think it might be intriguing to hear what you have to say. --Cool CatTalk|@14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Being nice
This comment strikes me like it could be misinterpreted. I think "needs improvement" is a better word choice than saying "it's horrible". Someone did put some work into making the article and it might be kind of disconcerting and offputting to have one's work being characterized as horrible by the leader of the project. You know you're sort of in the media spotlight, so it's best to choose your words carefully and not give anyone the opportunity to latch on and write some sort of negative article on "Jimbo the Slavemaster raining complaints down upon his free volunteers" :-P Kind regards, Cyde Weys23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, I've seen many of your wonderful helpful contributions to Wikipedia, but may I suggest to you that :
"This article was horrible. Now, thanks to my improvements, it is merely awful. :) --Jimbo Wales
should be understood as tongue in cheek, humor, ha ha, :) even, ???? Can we lighten up? Please? WAS 4.25000:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
We may know it's tongue-in-cheek but Jimbo is being watched by a lot of news outlets following the Seigenthaler controversy. Look at all of the silly and stupid statements various politicians have been tripped up for making. I'm just saying Jimbo should be more careful. "Famous" people can get away with a lot less than "normal" people can. --Cyde Weys01:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. :) But I agree with WAS 4.250, I think calling it 'merely awful' after my own edits was intended to soften the remark.--Jimbo Wales01:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I totally misread your original comment. I read up to "horrible" and stopped reading I guess, totally missing the merely awful part followed by the smiley face. My bad. As for more real concerns, what do you think about the Answers.com Wikipedia tool ToS? Nowhere in it does it even mention the GFDL, and it seems to treat all of "The Content" (aka Wikipedia's content) as if it's the exclusive property of Answers.com and can't be redistributed, edited, etc. Here's a quote from your userpage: The GNU FDL license, the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed, proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license. --Cyde Weys02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you send me a link to that? The demo I saw was very good about the GFDL compliance, and I can assure you without any qualifications that Bob Rosenschein, CEO of Answers.com, is extremely eager to get this right. --Jimbo Wales12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's the download page for 1-click answers which I'm sure you're familiar with. Notice the disclaimer: "By downloading our software, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy". Clicking through to Terms of Use brings you to this page, which doesn't mention the GFDL or free licenses at all. In addition, the EULA doesn't mention the GFDL or free licenses either. I'm not a lawyer so I can't qualify on the legality of this, but you'd think that either the Terms of Service or EULA would at least mention the GFDL, as Wikipedia is the biggest source Answers.com seems to be using. --Cyde Weys20:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If you read the contents of the GFDL I really don't think it allows for a program such as 1-click, which relies heavily on GFDL contents, to be distributed without a GFDL note somewhere in it. Just like the GPL, the GFDL is a "viral license" and applies to all derivative works. Answers.com is heavily derivative on Wikipedia, and at least they admit so on their webpages. But the 1-click tool does not admit it whatsoever. --Cyde Weys22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that Wikipedia is data for their software and that their software is in no way derivative of anything from Wikipedia. Database software is not "derivative" of the data it uses. They are legally independent of each other as far as intellectual property goes (unless someone owns a format; but I'm sure that doesn't apply here). WAS 4.25022:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposal for Minangkabau Wikipedia Edition
Hi Jimbo Wales, I m proposing an Minangkabau Wikipedia to be open for everyone because my father is a Minangkabau descent and it is an interesting language. Also Minangkabau is an Austronesian language and Minangkabau too is also a very great race. Can you do it for me and for everyone those who will visit Minangkabau Wikipedia? If you cannot do it, can anyone else do it? — Emrrans10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Jimbo Wales, its a sample from Frank Sinatra song "My way", this is my own word of inspirations as followed:
And now, the end is near;
And so I face the final curtain.
My friend, I'll say it clear,
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.
I've lived a life that's full.
I've traveled each and ev'ry highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.
Regrets, I've had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.
I planned each charted course;
Each careful step along the byway,
But more, much more than this,
I did it my way.
Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
And did it my way.
I've loved, I've laughed and cried.
I've had my fill; my share of losing.
And now, as tears subside,
I find it all so amusing.
To think I did all that;
And may I say - not in a shy way,
" Oh no, oh no not me,
I did it my way".
For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows -
And did it my way
also, my self-made word of inspiration:
"Knowledge is a source of daily human life, so let us work together to free all sum of the human knowledge for the benefits of mankind." :Self-Made Talk
I removed the template you added to WP:TOOLS. It was incorrect. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.
If you think that, editorially speaking, that link does not belong there, I would most certainly love to hear your justification.--Jimbo Wales12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo: Thank you for your message. I am sorry if my application of the template to the section was indeed incorrect; of course, I defer to your better judgement, and am willing to accept I may well be ignorant about the issues at play regarding the Answers.com search tool. It was my understanding, however, that the link was added to WP:TOOLS as part of the contract that the Wikimedia Foundation signed with Answers.com; if I have this wrong, then you were quite right to remove it. However if the link was indeed added because of a business arrangement, and not because of mere editorial decision that it should be there, it is important that such material that is added as a consequence of business arrangements are indeed marked as such. Regardless of whether or not I approve of the arrangement, if the link must be there due to such an arrangement then I would, of course, be prepared to consider it a fait accomplis but would however demand the link is clearly labelled as being added due to business reasons outside the discretion of Wikipedia editors.
In response to your question whether I think the link should not be there - I do indeed think the link should not be there, but I wouldn't remove it myself because if an arrangement was indeed reached, it is not after all my place to interfere with the Foundation's business decision making. However, I must point out to you that the Answers.com search tool is, in my opinion, in direct violation of the GFDL license that Wikipedia is distributed under, albeit perhaps in spirit versus in legal terms. I am not a lawyer, admittedly, but in the EULA that accompanies the search tool the user is required to agree to the following:
You are only permitted view and/or browse the Content, and/or make limited copies of portions of the Content as fall within the "fair use" provisions of the United States Copyright Act, provided all such uses are for noncommercial personal purposes. [...] you may not: (i) modify or create any derivative works of the Content or documentation, including without limitation, translation, customization or localization; (ii) remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notices, legends, symbols or labels in the Content; [...] You are not permitted to retrieve and store in electronic or any other form any of the databases underlying the Content that is accessed through our Web Site or Software. All commercial and/or unauthorized use of the Content of any kind, including reproduction of any kind for a commercial purpose of any kind, direct or indirect, is strictly prohibited. The Content, the Web Site and the Software remain solely the property of Answers or of Answers Content providers at all times...
This is, if I am not mistaken, in complete violation of the GFDL in a number of respects, as it not only claims copyright ownership of the content used by the tool but denies the user the right to copy, modify or redistribute the content, and indeed the EULA makes no mention of the GFDL and the user's rights to use and redistribute the material under this license. Although perhaps if the Wikimedia Foundation has granted Answers.com the right to use the content in legal terms this issue may not be enforceable, I believe that, even if Answers.com are not legally forbidden from claiming such due to whatever licensing the Wikimedia Foundation granted to them, this is not only directly misleading to users operating the tool but also denies the contribution made by the myriad of Wikipedia editors who have worked hard towards the provision of free content. I thus believe Wikipedia should not be condoning the usage of a product that claims copyright ownership of its material, appears to deny the users to redistribute the content under the GFDL - and, even less so, should be directly profiting from the operation of such a service. The recent competitive patent litigation launched by Answers.com against another similar toolbar provider also strikes me as contrary to the spirit of open collaboration and free exchange of contribution that Wikipedia is built on. However, I fear such concerns of mine will of course lead to nothing since the deal has already been struck, but nevertheless in my opinion the link should not be there. As I said, however, I defer to your judgement, since you are after all the leader of our project, but hope you may perhaps give the above some thought. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The link will stay when it meets the normal editorial standards. The GFDL compliance stuff is not going to be an issue. I have forwarded comments to them, and based on ALL my interactions with them, I am confident that this oversight will be corrected promptly. They are extremely eager to do the right thing and be of service to the community. I continue to be astonished at the level of hostility people have shown towards one of the best friends that the Wikipedia community has. If there are problems, then there are problems, and Assume Good Faith is one of our cardinal rules for dealing with it.--Jimbo Wales06:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not hostility, Jimbo, it's mistrust. We in the open source community have been getting screwed over for years on stuff like this. Whether it's Linksys including modified GPL code in their routers or just Microsoft being Microsoft, some of us constantly feel like we're under attack. Yes, we'd love to be able to trust Answers.com, but when their ToS is several pages of legalese and doesn't even mention the GFDL once, we get nervous. --Cyde Weys08:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo: I'd like to make it perfectly clear I don't harbour any specific hostility against Answers.com in a personal sense; what I am however hostile to is the all-too-common restrictive approach to intellectual property taken by many dot-com and technology-related businesses in relation to copyright, speaking as an individual who is fervently in support of software and information freedom. Personally I cannot see how Answers.com claiming ownership of Wikipedia content would be an "oversight"; I could easily assume so if, for example, no copyright attribution was mentioned and neither the GFDL nor Answers.com's ownership was mentioned within the license. Assuming good faith is one thing, but, considering that you have personally made assurances that these issues would be remedied months ago when these concerns were first aired there comes a point where one has to raise objection to such a use of Wikipedia content. Forgive me for saying so, but I cannot see that you would be accusing those who disagree with Answers.com's claim of copyright ownership relating to Wikipedia content of bad faith if prior relations, and indeed financial support, had not been forthcoming by Answers.com; regardless of whether Answers.com is indeed "one of the best friends that the Wikipedia community has" I see no reason that misattribution of copyright should be tolerated, nor indeed dismissed as mere "hostility" or assumption of bad faith. I am also yet to see any evidence that Answers.com is indeed "eager to do the right thing"; please remember that we have not had any personal dialogue with this organisation, and so we have no other means of determining the trustworthiness of their approach to using Wikipedia content other than the direct use that they apply to it. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've been all over Wikipedia the last few days trying to figure this out, and have asked it in a few of the related talk, but to no response. I am confused about Spoiler warnings in literature, tv, and movie articles. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and that templates that warn readers of things like pornographic material are inappropiate. So then why do we use spoiler warnings, as they perform the same function, just warning a different group of people. Besides the fact that the template is unsightly, it is a constant debate (as it would also be about a warning of prornography) about where to put the warning, what material can go outside the warning, or if the spoiler material should even have it's own article. I think that the Spoiler warnings should be taken down from all articles (of course, just my opinion). But if they aren't, I am curious to know how they can stay up and templates such as this one will be taken down. Thank you for your time, and have a good night (or day, depending on where in the world you are). --Chuck06:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The first thing I was going to say was that it's simply uncontroversial. You are the first person I've seen who is against spoiler warnings, they are so obviously necessary. This is because whether or not something i pornography is a subjective judgement, while whether or not something is a spoiler is a purely objective and factual judgement, and therefore unlikely to be controversial. There may be other good reasons. Loom9107:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
He's not the only person who thinks spoiler warnings are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If people come to Wikipedia to read about a book, TV program or film, they shouldn't be surprised to find a discussion of the plot. If they're squeamish about discussion of plot detail, they probably shouldn't be reading such articles in the first place. --Tony Sidaway10:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I should say they're the most unsightliest things any fellow came near. If a person wanders to wikipedia to partake of information pertaining to a subject, there should be nothing odd about learning of in-depth summeries. On most occassion, I remove spoiler tags upon sight. -ZeroTalk10:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think logical consistency in the area of "warnings" is a hopeless task. There are too many people with too many opinions. My take is that a wrapper around WP that censors topics/sections of a user's choice is the only way forward. There are a few possible business models that might just work, so I hope this will happen one day. Pcb21Pete11:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Spoiler templates a very useful. They give the user a choice whether they want to read about the plot/ending or not. They may be looking for that, but they may be looking for information about the author/subject without wanting to know the ending. Wikipedia is not the only reference site on the net but it is many people's reference of choice and is (one of) the first google hits for many books/films/etc. The last debate I was involved in about warning templates was a clear consensus that spoiler templates should be used but no others should be. I can't remember off the top of my head where the debate was though, but I'll add a link when I remember/find it. Thryduulf11:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Your defence is that people may come to see the plot details, but then they also might not. I understand that. But I also understand that someone might want to view information about, say, the governments involvement in the Abu Ghraib prison controversy, without seeing all of the pictures accompanied by it. However, a warning about those pictures (which by the way there can be no controversy about that they are pictures of torture and abuse) was not allowed. When searching for "Abu Ghraib" on Google, Wikipedia's "Abu Ghraib torture and Prisoner Abuse" article is the third result listed. A seperate version of that article, without pictures, was also not allowed. You say, "...a clear consensus that spoiler templates should be used but no others should be.". Well that's not very good policy. There is no difference between warning people about pictures in order to skip over them, and warning people that plot endings follow. I have heard so many times that Wikipedia is not censored, but clearly spoilers are censorship. That's why I brought this up on Jimbo's page. I ask you, Jimbo, to put down a ruling on this (preferably to get rid of them) and not leave the matter up for debate, scattered over more than 5 talk pages, where no one can make sense of any community consensus. Thanks, Chuck12:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd also be interested to see the debate that a clear consensus for "censor spoilers only, and not other things". Seems really odd and unlikely to me! Pcb21Pete12:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If someone goes looking for a page on Ghandi, they should expect to find out everything about his life. In a similar vein, should someone go looking for Dumbledore, getting bent out of shape that someone put how he died is ridiculous. This isn't a fandom encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia. If you go looking and you find something, don't get pissy because you don't like what you find. I say that there should be a movement to have Spoiler Tags removed from the pages they mar. I hate them and it is nice to see I am not alone. Vaguely14:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the picture!
Thank you for posting a link to the pic of my shirt! Your talk at UF was really wonderful and wholly inspiring. I'm going to tackle Wikibooks with a renewed vitality. Keep up the amazing work, Mr. Wales! -Asarkees06:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue of accountability, power, and the community's role
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, Jimbo, and I'm going to put my neck on the line and say what I think about it. To be blunt, I don't think you need to be running things here on the site itself; whether you're involved technically, financially or with the media is another question. You are not responsive to concerns, requests, or appeals; whether this is due to a lack of time, apathy, or a combination of the two is ultimately inconsequential. The fact is, the guy at the top is identified as the one to go to for the resolution of a variety of matters, yet he is not actually there to resolve anything. This means nothing can actually be changed or fixed about these problems—if you choose to not respond, then that's the end of the story and there's nowhere else to go. You have no accountability; if you ignore people, or even abuse them, the community can do nothing about it. I've suggested before that you delegate your on-wiki role to other individuals who are able and willing to fulfill the role, but as usual you ignored me. Furthermore, you make decrees that have no basis in any kind of collective or democratically-oriented governance; there is no way for the community to influence these decrees if you choose not to listen to it, and there is no way to overturn these decrees no matter how unpopular they are. Everyone knows how hard it is to change policy and process here; what do you do when there isn't even a mechanism of process to affect a change in the first place? What do you do when the person with the ultimate authority cannot be made accountable and will not voluntarily make himself accountable?
What I'm getting at, Jimbo—and I am not trying to be uncivil, just completely honest, although there may be unavoidable overlap—is that for the sake of the entire project you need to change something about your leadership role. Why not let the community elect someone, or a small group of users, to fulfill your role? Failing this, you could at least appoint someone to do it. The community needs a representative at the top to be calm, neutral, and fair, to listen to people's concerns, engage in dialogue with them, to hear people's appeals regarding arbitration matters, and to give advice on questions of policy and practice. It needs someone who is active in talking and listening, but not active in doing—not active in "laying down the law", making decrees, etc. If such a representative is going to ever fulfill such a role, is ever going to issue final decisions, then there needs to be a check on that representative's authority—there should be a way to vote him or her in, or to vote him or her out. Or barring all this, we could simply do without someone serving your role altogether. Even that, I think, would be better than unresponsiveness punctuated by occasional harsh decrees and out of the blue measures. Everyking06:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note about this. You are an administrator and this post seems very immature. Jimbo's userpage doesn't say anything about people being an ass if they question an admin. Principle 8 doesn't say at all what you've said it does above. There are current procedures to implement change, and Jimbo does not need to go away. Is this post a joke? --Chuck08:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Everyking, I don't understand what you say about principles 7 and 8. I can't see your interpretation of them. I have considerable sympathy with everything else you say above.-gadfium08:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
They have been modified, and apparently the changes are out of the history as well. That's amazing. Well, it is possible the way it was written before was vandalism, I suppose I can give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt on that. If it stayed that way for a while, maybe a mirror caught it, otherwise they've got me looking pretty stupid. Everyking09:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It must have been vandalism. It was extremely offensive and provocative before, whereas now it sounds quite reasonable. Well, I'll accordingly remove that portion of my criticism, then. Everyking09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Will the community elect an anonymous internet user or will the elected person have to show who they are in real life like Jimbo Wales has done--pictures, media appearances, something? What if we elect someone and they die in a car crash, or were a criminal and got sent to jail--and all we see is just someone stops responding--no way to phone them, no name for obituaries? At the very least we need an emergency contact like a family member should they vanish or their account gets taken over. DyslexicEditor09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have a higher standard of real world identification for someone filling that role. I'd be content with Jimbo being elected to such a position, if he was willing to step up and start filling the role he assigned for himself. The first and most important issue is having that degree of accountability and association with the actual community. Everyking09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It actually sounds like you want someone doing what Larry did. I imagine that person would get absolutely inundated with requests. Pcb21Pete09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This entire discussion will make a lot more sense if readers understand that Everyking was sanctioned by just such a group of multiple people, and that his appeal to me failed to gain him a reprieve. In my view, the process has worked perfectly in this case.--Jimbo Wales10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware that you had heard Everyking's appeal. From the comment immediately below this, it does not appear that Everyking believes that his appeal has been considered. I have no problem if you have considered his appeal, discussed it with him, and turned it down. If this is the case I think a clear statement of this would be helpful.-gadfium21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What I was saying had little to do with arbitration. I did mention that I think someone in your role should actually respond to appeal requests and deal with them properly; in my case you accepted my appeal and then proceeded to ignore me completely. I think questionable cases should be reviewed seriously and some of them should be sent back to the ArbCom for reconsideration. In present practice, your availability to hear appeals is just a formality, a pretense to give people the idea that there is some means of seeking redress; I think you can acknowledge that. Everyking10:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm delighted to see Jimbo weigh in. While not privy to the sanction/appeal issue noted here, I share some of Everyking's frustration. There seems to be a feeling that this site will run on autopilot with a few loosely elucidated philosophical principles to guide it, and that's a nice concept, but it's a recipe for endless conflict and division. I think Jimbo is a visionary and probably does an awesome job running the day-to-day business of the foundation behind Wikipedia, but the president of a foundation cannot assume all will go well without setting solid boundaries and policies for important issues such as Userboxes (which have been a particular interest of mine) or other supposed policies listed at WP:NOT. For example:
Either this is a social networking site, or it isn't. Either we're here to argue over Userbox templates, or not. Some Userboxes are deleted and others are saved, or all Userboxes are deleted. Which is it? Without clear guidance, the bickering leads to confusion, mixed messages and anger over Admins' deletions.
What about the issue of "voting"? This isn't a democracy, and we don't "vote," says WP:NOT. But look at the Separation of Church and State Userbox Template deletion review. It appears that it's going to "win" because supporters are "rallying" to its defense. I may or may not agree with the box, but it's clearly a divisive issue that will give rise to OPPOSING Userboxes. That, to me, is the true test of divisiveness. So if it "wins," will it be kept? The User:UBX/Communist box has "won" challenges too, but the Template:User_Fascist box was speedy deleted. Communism isn't divisive, too? Why does the "popular" box get saved? Because this is a democracy and this is a stark illustration. I think it's time for a re-think about this site's policies - or at least its procedures - and it has to come from the top. Consensus works on the small scale when creating articles, but doesn't seem to work for Userboxes and other Template-related issues. Jimbo, please decide the proper role of the User in constructing this encyclopedia. Thanks! Nhprman19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: It looks like, for some reason, Prometheuspan's message was posted smack dab in the middle of mine. I separated the two again, to keep it readable. Nhprman02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
(about above)Poli-Sci note; Wikipedia is a beneficient Dictatorship with extremely strong Democratic Tendencies. It has multiple different and redundant methods for conflict resolution, based primarilly upon consensus, which is a Democratic Methodology.
(about below) Consensus process has its limitations, and, this is the good part about having a lucid beneficient dictator. If you are unhappy with an aspect of the process here, it seems like the way to go about resolving such issues is to make a lucid and strong and cogent analysis of the problem in the community setting. Consensus process tends to bog down with larger numbers of people and with more complicated issues. That doesn't mean it isn't working, just that it takes time and patience. Where Wikipedia will always run into the most problems for itself is catering to non-Encyclopedic aspects of social functioning. The obvious rational answer is, if something doesn't have an encyclopedic function, but rather, a social one, and is causing the community to spend time and stress, then maybe that feature isn't as useful as much as it is problematic. Put yourself in the Beneficient Dictators Shoes for a moment. Everybody is begging for Deus ex machina to come and fix their problem; But the Wise Beneficient Dictator Knows that the closer things approximate Democracy the better. The BEST thing that Jimbo can do in most cases is NOTHING. It doesn't mean that he isn't listening, or doesn't care. It may mean that he is busy. It also means that as Beneficient Dictators go, he is doing the best thing he can for us; Trying to let the wisdom of the many work its way through the problem. Prometheuspan21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting vision, but a misguided and naive one. I disagree that Jimbo needs to 'do nothing' and let the mob continue to argue and 'vote' incessently in a freakish exercise in Direct Democracy (something that never works.) Jimbo needs to step up and speak out, not as a dictator but as the head of his foundation. Consensus-building is not working in a group of hundreds of thousands. It isn't simply "slow" at working, it just isn't capable of setting policy. I don't see consensus here, I see a model that's flawed, and it needs an update that can only come from its creator. Nhprman02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Your message got garbled a bit below..
are his powers that some began calling him "the benevolent dictator." But Wales bristled at that tag. So his minions assigned him a different, though no less imposing, label. "Jimbo," says Wikipedia administrator Mark Pellegrini, "is the God-King."
In response to Nhprman, Jimbo, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy. It basically reaffirms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that templates and categories should be used only to that end. I know a fair number of users browse through Wikipedia looking for new things to find and read about using categories. The list of all categories is linked from the main page. How long are we going to wait and what percentage of those categories are going to be user categories before we say enough is enough? --Cyde Weys19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This was posted by a sysop?!? That's unbelievable! I assumed from the first line that this was someone with at most 10-20 edits. This is not to say I don't agree with the things said, but I can't see an admin actually making a post like that. In general the more experienced an editor is more he worships Jimbo (and don't take worship in necessarily a bad sense). This is just the sort of thing WikiCranks post. Anyway, as society is capitalist and Jimbo owns this, I can't see Jimbo not having a right to unilaterally change policies. The best we can hope for is that Jimbo chooses not to exercise this right. Loom9107:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo. For about the last 25 minutes it seemed that the Wikimedia sites wouldn't work, and anything that came under this branch (Wikipedia, Wikia, Wikimedia Foundation, the wikis under Wikia, you name it) just came up with "The page cannot be displayed." Was this a server failure? The server might have refused to work long before I got up (10:50 UTC, I live in Perth, WA.) Just wanted to let you know about this--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a regular occurance. The server info page says wikipedia has about 100 terabytes or so of storage space and that it has 85% data compression rate. DyslexicEditor23:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Gadfium, I don't report them. I just assume that lots of people use wikipedia so it's busy, and don't bother with it. My reply was to the thread saying that server problems are regular. M Johnson brought the topic up; I didn't. DyslexicEditor06:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have just published on my web site an article about the behavior of some administrators and of the Arbcom in the "revert war" concerning the article "Bogdanov Affair", in which all people who had tried to edit anything positive about them have been banned. Now the article has become terribly partial against the Bogdanovs, which is "normal" since it has been written only by their detractors. This article, which does not respect the NPOV, and which has been written without consensus between the editors, is the result of the choice of the Arbcom, who decided to keep only some editors who were the worse "anti-Bogdanov" ones, deciding in this way on the orientation of the article... I do not think this practice matches with Wikipedia's rules...
Unhappily it is in french, it hasn't been translated in english yet (I am looking for someone who could do it). I hope you can understand it, one way or another. I summed up the problem in english on my user page : Laurence67.
Anyways I want to congratulate you on having the idea of creating Wikipedia : it is a great idea, and I was very enthusiastic about it when I discovered it. That's why I find it's a pity that people who are supposed to enforce its rules make such an abuse of power, to the extent that it has a detrimental effect on the content of an article... It would seem that Wikipedia is not better than the "real world" !
Severe abuse of administrator rights in Germany (Bwilcke)
Involved parties:
User Bwilcke, that is me
Wikipedia Administrator Henriette Fiebig
Wikipedia Administrator GS
Wikipedia Administrator Achim Raschka
Wikipedia Administrator Markus Mueller
From March 10, 2006 through 24 (an unusual long period of time) I was blocked on the grounds that I allegedly, despite several warnings (no links given), repeatedly insulted other users by "Nazi insults" (two links) and were prone to conflict and disturbance from the beginning (one link). The request/reasoning for the blockage had been written by Administrator GS. I had allegedly insulted him and Henriette Fiebig.
March 5, 2005 I filed a Request for Mediation/Problem Bwilcke vs. GS to clear this allegations, which I found highly unjustified and insulting, with Administrator GS and a mediator. I numbered the sentences (1) – (4) of GS' request/reasoning, excluded (3) for another RFM (not concerning GS), and demanded deliverance of the links for the alleged "several warnings" regarding the alleged Nazi insults, to explain the alleged insult of him (GS) and to explain how the one and only link he set could account for my allegedly being "prone to conflict and disturbance from the beginning" (end of January), especially since I deleted this remark from the article discussion site exactly 1 minute later, accompanied by the explanation "error".
Furthermore, I asked for an explanation why I got no opportunity, as is required by the template for blockage requests, to defend myself/comment on the issue.
No mediator showed up and I got the advice to forget it.
Meanwhile every administrator seems to know that I added solid official documents and primary authors into the articles to which I contribute, which cannot be deleted but have the great disadvantage that they do by no means agree with the POV of the "majority", which GS likes to cite again and again, and especially Henriette Fiebig whose opinion can also be read in a "skeptical" journal, so that my suspicion is that she uses Wikipedia (in respect to the articles involved) as a platform to propagate her opinion or the journal respectively - – and her opinion alone by always trying to get me out. It seems nobody dares to help me, because she is in the managing board of Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., or nobody dares to mediate on the same reason, unless by taking her part and accusing me.
I repeated my request by saying it again in slightly altered form. A mediator showed up, talked about the content of the articles instead of the issue in this RFM (of course, accusing me of having the wrong opinion), and as I asked for someone "neutral enough" to mediate, he snapped at me and left.
I repeated my request a third time. Now GS answered, merely repeated some of the sentences criticized by me and declined to discuss the matter.
Finally I repeated my request a fourth time, and now I threatened to clear things with GS by a libel suit, as his request/reasoning was full of lies and insults. I set a time limit and advised to settle the matter in this RFM in good terms instead.
At once I was blocked out "unlimited" by Wikipedia Administrator Markus Mueller because of "threatening with legal action". As this action hindered me from participating in the discussion and thereby forced me to take legal action instead, Markus Mueller soon reverted the blockage, but limited my actions to "participate in the RFM".
Now there was a discussion at last. The discussion showed that GS' request/reasoning for blockage was founded on lies; and it showed not to be the culprit for my blockage but that Henriette Fiebig and Achim Raschka carried it out on March 10 without any procedure at all. GS gave evidence of that by hinting at the fact that Achim Raschka did not give a confirmation of action in his request/reasoning for blockage.
I filed a second RFM Bwilcke vs. Achim Raschka and Henriette Fiebig to learn why they did not follow any of the required procedures, thereby excluding my from defending myself or other comments, respectively; and second, to discuss my alleged insult.
I filed a third RFM Bwilcke vs. Markus Mueller regarding his blockage because of my "threatening with legal action" (libel suit). It is illegal to prevent someone from contributing to the open Wikipedia by denying his right to take legal action if necessary. Moreover, my threat was by no means unjustified, as without it I would not have had any success in discussing the libelous GS request/reasoning for blockage; and my threat did by no means concern trifles.
Very soon Henriette Fiebig and a "Berlin-Jurist" took action. Berlin-Jurist blocked me once and for all, Henriette Fiebig proposed "achiving" all of my RFM, and they cannot be found any more on the site of RMF, neither among the new RMFs nor among the old RMFs. They altogether have vanished completely.
Hey, Mr. Wales, I was wondering if I could ask you something. Do you mind if I ask you a question regarding a problem I am having with wiki on my wiki site? If so, please reply here (as it is on my website and I will more likely see it there) and I'll give more details. I thought you would be a good person to ask because I've searched everywhere for the solution to my problem and, well, you started this whole Encyclopedia Project (which I think is awsome). :)
I don't believe that Jimbo is an expert in how the software works, and in any case he's a very busy person and unlikely to be the best person you can ask for help in such matters. I suggest you look at [3] and select one of the methods of asking for help listed there.-gadfium05:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Picture of Jimbo
I took and posted this photo of Jimmy Wales. He said he did not like the old picture and I volunteered to take and post a new one. BTW, he mentioned the picture in his talk today in San Francisco, while using it as an example of how anyone can edit any page, that he liked the new picture. So please don't revert it. It is not vandalism, and it really is Jimmy Wales, and I think it looks more like him than the old picture. -- Samuel Wantman05:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Note that somebody had uploaded a picture of a completely different person over that picture for a while, which probably explains some of the earlier reverts. (I can't provide a link to the other picture because it's been deleted from the image's history.) –Tifego(t)06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: If you suspect that the photo has been changed, click on this link to see the picture that should be displayed. If it is different from the image showing above, a bogus version of Jimmy's picture has been uploaded. An admin can restore the correct version, or you can re-upload the correct version to Image:Jimmy Wales.jpg. This is preferred to reverting to a different image file. -- Samuel Wantman20:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see this tank. I'm generally in support of anything that brings in cash so long as it doesn't damage the project. It's hard for me to read hostile comments from users -- some of whom pay nothing and have plenty mighty fine time here -- not only insisting that they continue to pay nothing but that nobody else should ever pay anything. Is profit evil?
I don't expect a personal response so I don't intend to watch this high-traffic page; if you do comment here, please flag on my talk. Thank you. John Reid14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be of the impression that merely because we don't pay anything means we shouldn't have a say in the project. That is entirely incorrect. A lot of us donate our time — hundreds upon hundreds of hours of our time — and that is worth a lot. The users complaining to Jimbo aren't the ones who read the encyclopedia a lot and don't really contribute — they are the users who are putting in lots of effort to make the encyclopedia better and really should have a say in things. --Cyde Weys00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Profit is neither good nor evil. It's simply a means to an end.
Wikipedia operates by the bazaar model rather than the cathedral model (see The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar for more details), which does not conform to the Roman-esque conception of hierarchies of privilege.
Revision and consensus by the many, rather than the censorship of a few. Jimbo is a peer Wikipedian - merely "first among equals" - not a King. His additional powers for the exercise of responsibility to the progression of the project, not a status symbol of superiority to oppress and suppress others for his own personal privilege.
How can Wikipedia achieve its aims - "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" - if the sum of all human knowledge is held to ransom by a privileged elite with an exclusionary mentality, as you're suggesting?
Of course people should be free to access Wikipedia without paying; Otherwise, the whole basis of the project and its aims are undermined. It is correct to note, as above, that profit is not solely measured in dollars. Wikipedia "hires" thouands of "employees" who work without wage (and have already achieved an encyclopedia of comparable - or better - accuracy to commercial rivals but far, far larger while still only in its effective "infancy").
Implicit in the bazaar model is that there is no ruling elite. There is no "tribute" to be laid at the feet of Kings or gods, in expectation of their "privilege" and "mercy".
We are peers. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. You "pay" as equally by contribution and revision. Of course people should access and use the resource freely or its whole purpose becomes meaningless and its aims unachievable.
Pragmatically, though, the sum of all human knowledge takes up a lot of server space and for every single person on the planet to access it is a lot of bandwidth. Unlike software and knowledge, hardware is material and needs to be paid for materialistically.
The project is multi-faceted and, therefore, contributions are equally multi-faceted; There is a pragmatic requirement of financial donations for the infrastructure side of things, as there is requirement of contributions of knowledge and revision to the encyclopedia.
But this still operates by the bazaar model: Donating funds is a contribution to progression of the project, as is making a contribution of an article.
Your "payback" with Wikipedia is the fact that you and everyone else gets to access "the sum of all human knowledge" without fee, without restrictions, with a say.
Because I edit an article, you can gain whatever knowledge I can contribute. When you edit an article, I gain whatever knowledge you contribute. When you or I donate, it is possible for children in Africa or South Africa to gain free high-quality textbooks. Their education may help them find their way out of poverty and you'll get your money back, so to speak, when the First World no longer needs to provide aid and charity to these nations and can actually benefit through fair trade relations with countries who will then be our equals. When they are free and when they are out of poverty, then they shall come to contribute a donation and what they know that we don't to Wikipedia too, I'm sure.
The next Einstein could be born in Eithopia. The cure for cancer discovered in Peru. A plentiful non-carbon emitting power source by Chinese scientists.
If I were ever to become a multi-millionaire personally (unfortunately, an unlikely prospect statistically), I would not hesitate to donate a whole million - or more, if I could afford that - to this project. Because, I assure you, the return on my investment would give me back every single penny and far, far more genuine profit.
What price the theory of everything? What price the cure of cancer? What price cold fusion? What price understanding the universe? What price freeing the whole world from oppression, intolerance, war and slavery by equipping them with the real weapon that will forever defeat it: Education?
Priceless, in my humble opinion. Utterly priceless. Beyond wealth. Beyond petty material concerns.
That is what this project is really about.
The sum of all human knowledge. By the people, for the people. Equally, freely, fratenally.
Regarding the behaviour of the Irpen (talk·contribs) he's been reverting all my edits of today on false accusations. Now this user is been provocking, taunting only. I request you to speak with him to calm him down. --Chisinau20:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I still haven't seen any evidences. I saw only something else. What is the connection Irpen? I also saw how a a user like Irpen is reverting my edits. --Chisinau20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have started a discussion about the toolserver (Wikipedia:Toolserver), and our increasing reliance on it. I was told you might be interested in the discussion due to your interest in the categorization and maintenance/observation of Category:Living people which was facilitated by the toolserver. The discussion is just starting really, so if you want to and have time, I'm sure your thoughts would be appreciated. - cohesion02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is probably the most profoundly impactful social experiment of the internet era we live in to date. Wikipedia, despite it's difficulties controlling bad content, is a fantastic research starting point and knowledge base. While one would be remiss to directly cite wikipedia as a source, the references in the articles are superb. My kudos go out to Jim for creating something revolutionary, useful and exciting. I have a suggestion that may be worthwile, or may not- I leave that up to you.
What if over successive unreverted edits of a page, sections of text that don't change start building 'longevity points' and users who post unreverted changes build up a similar sort of counter. While edits to pages would still remain controlled by the existing rules, warnings could be sent when a low level user makes changes to long standing text. It would also be interesting to have two colorized versions of a page available- one which shows by color the amount of time text has stood unchanged (red is new, green or black is old), and another which shows the 'longevity rating' of the text (red is low, green or black is high).
That system or something similar could help weed out bad edits without restricting user mobility.
Besides that, it sounds like a good idea, but I would find it hard to believe it hasn't already been considered and discussed at length somewhere. And, this isn't really the right place for making Wikipedia proposals, try Wikipedia:Proposals. –Tifego(t)05:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
... and there also is a nn:Brukar:Jimbo Wales. Until now, we have been somewhat sceptic as to whether it was an impostor, but if it is you, you are welcome, of course. In any case, we wish you a nice trip to Ålesund. Trondtr18:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
mr jimbo you are doing a terrific job.BUT i came here to say it is time for wikipedia to have a own search engine like google or yahoo this wont take us away from wikipedia to sites like google or yahoo then back to wikipedia with the exactly name we are looking for.
i tell this because i came for non english speak country some words in inglish i dont spell very well.with a search engine like google or yahoo it can be much more helpful.thank you.user: Felisberto 13:30 17april2006 (UTC)
Nice to know that you enjoy reading Wikipedia! Unfortunately, writing a search engine is not something that can be done on some rainy Sunday, even without a hangover... Google actually uses millions of dollars on research, just to keep their engine up to date.
this is the main reason im against those people who are against supported ads in the wikipedia.we could use that money to develop
our encyclopedia .wikipedia is one of top sites in the world BUT the truth is:wikipedia is very primitive website doesnt have a own search engine we should go through many sites to get the information on wikipedia .i think is a SHAME of wikipedia
like being in the age of stone when humans
didnt discovered the fire yet.felisberto,18april2006(UTC)
We've gone over ads, and if we ever get them, I, for one, would expect to be paid, not to mention numerous other problems with ads. As for searching, there is a "Search" button on the sidebar, which rather sucks, but it's there. But do you want a search engine for Wikipedia? MediaWiki is open source! Write your own and submit it! —BorgHunterubx (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you expect to be paid a share of donations, then? I may be wrong, but I think that all the humans who work for Wikimedia (except possibly the lawyers) are volunteers, and nobody's proposing to change that. All money goes to pay for machines, and will continue to do so.As for searching, it's not a matter of writing it, it's a matter of searching's inherent intractability. There are somewhat better search features than we have built in, but they're disabled (in particular, indexing is disabled) because of server strain. If Wikimedia had more money, they could buy more servers, and thus permit more server-intensive things such as searching. Nobody would get paid, it would just be buying more equipment. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
In my most humble opinion, having a search engine on Wikipedia is redundant and inefficient. Bibliomaniac15 kowtows to Jimbo Wales.
I read somewhere once that America's founding fathers didn't want political parties and wrote the constitution in accordance with that hope. I have always wondered what they would have done different if they could have forseen the nature of future political parties in America. A very interseting article by a bright guy says:What Wikipedia has taught us now, is that in a vacuum of politics, politics will be created. There is no vacuum of politics. People who are encountering this space where they can not lord over others for technicalities and gain power for themselves will then proceed to invoke technicalities, take power from other people. They just do this. This is what human beings do.[4] I have for a while now, thought the creation of political parties (factions) within wikipedia seemed inevitable. You are fighting factionalism, but suppose factionalism wins. Admins organized outside wikipedia space into contenting groups, each wishing the best for wikipedia, but each forced by the nature of political power realities and human nature to value loyalty to the group above and beyond any one specific choice. Creationists versus evolutionists, for example. A hundred such sincere conflicts is workable, but when favors are traded forming alliances (and how do you stop human from being humans and would you want to), the bigger alliance wins, so political parties become inevitable. I don't have an answer. Only questions. Anyway, back to finish reading the article. WAS 4.25015:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any actual examples of creationists or evolutionists trading votes with people in order to accomplish something on Wikipedia? People are sometimes tactical, but not actually all that political, from what I've seen. JDoorjamTalk16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There definitely is a pro-science cabal on Wikipedia. And I think that is a good thing ... pseudoscience and religious opinions on scientific matters really don't belong in an encyclopedia of knowledge. Yeah, we do cover creationism in its own article (because it is a notable movement), but we sure as hell don't modify the evolution article to reflect some manufactured controversy that isn't really there. --Cyde Weys00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"pseudoscience and religious opinions on scientific matters really don't belong in an encyclopedia of knowledge." - I disagree. If they are noteworthy/widespread enough, all opinions on all matters belongs in an encyclopedia, regardless of their scientific validity or religiosity. What matters is noteworthiness; we even include archaic, disproven scientific theories that noone believes in anymore if they have enough historical significance, so obviously we don't forbid the inclusion of untrue beliefs. Where the vital distinction must be made, though, is that while we include beliefs that lack any evidence or support, we don't present them as being equally as valid and substantiated as scientific facts and theories: we should include erroneous or unverifiable beliefs on scientific topics in the exact same way we include popular culture references to scientific topics: as a secondary focus of discussion, and a sociological one.
"but we sure as hell don't modify the evolution article to reflect some manufactured controversy that isn't really there." - Actually, there really is a controversy, and a highly noteworthy one, regarding evolution, regardless of whether or not it's "manufactured". However, the controversy is a social and religious one, not a scientific one, and that is correctly reflected in the evolution article: rather than presenting Creationism as an "equally valid scientific theory" or some nonsense like that, it mentions such views as an after-the-fact, sociological item of interest, first describing the phenomenon itself. It's not that Wikipedia shouldn't deal with pseudoscience; it's that Wikipedia should deal with pseudoscience as pseudoscience, rather than dealing with pseudoscience as science. -Silence08:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
You and I believe exactly the same thing, I think we just have different ways of saying it. But there wasn't a sentence of this post I disagreed with. --Cyde Weys17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there can be no vaccuam of politics. It is a proven fact that human beings engage in politics over the smallest of stakes, and in this era of information, control (even limited) over the content of the world's most popular encyclopaedia is not a very low stake. Power games and string-pullings will take place regardless of whether we like it or not. We can only hope that the current or future mechanics of Wikipedia will channel those politics in such a manner as to keep wikipedia on its current goal, produce a free repository of all verifiable encyclpaedic knowledge. Loom9108:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Dbachman and clique permanently vandalize pages thru redirection. Besides that, they add rassistic hate comments to pages. This is the arb com's opininon so far:
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)
Reject as very premature. Though if there is evidence that Bgully is Antifinnugor, I'd like to see it so I can consider an extension of the ban. Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Reject ➥the Epopt 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Reject as per Dom. James F. (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The arbitration committee seems to completely ignore, that dbachmann and clique vandalizes and eclatantly misuse administrator rights.
If you are unwilling or unable to intervene, and care for stopping vandalization and misuse of administrator rights, then I must summarize:
impact of such cliques to wikipedia
articles are incorrect and contain dogmatic views of small (hate) cliques
quality of articles gets worse, important facts remain unmentioned or get permanently vandalized as here
donators and potentional donators hear the above practices, and stop donations
As you surely know, having been inspired by the Free Software Movement / OpenSource principle, there is an unfortunate ambiguity to the English word "free" which can arise.
Do we mean "free, as in freedom" or "free, as in costing nothing" when we say "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"?
Arguably, in the English context, we probably mean both simultaneously (though, de-emphasising "free, as in costing nothing" might be advisable for encouraging donations, he says with tongue firmly in cheek).
The problem arises that the word "free" only has this dual meaning in English.
For other languages, there are likely separate words for "free, as in freedom" and "free, as in costing nothing".
Such as in Welsh (your namesake Wikipedia, from whence I've come), there is "rhydd" which means "free, as in freedom" and there is no actual direct word for "free, as in costing nothing" (this is usually replaced with the phrase "(yn rhad ac) am ddim", which translates to "(cheap and) for nothing" in English).
Because of this, there was a temporary problem - now sorted out - that the subheading was "Wicipedia, y gwyddionadur rhad" which was an unfortunate translation because it suggested the Wikipedia was "cheap" (which the same "poor / bad quality" semantics that the word also carries in English). This was corrected by standardising that it should be "rhydd" ("free, as in freedom") throughout.
But I imagine that Welsh isn't the sole language where the ambiguity of "free" could cause problems and mistranslations of its intended meaning.
Plus, of course, there is the basic question: What is your intended meaning?
One assumes you mean "free, as in freedom" primarily (judging by the way you describe Wikipedia in the media and in interviews). But that is just an assumption, rather than a known stated fact, as far as I'm aware.
Nevertheless, for clarifying the stated intent and easing multi-lingual translation (to properly internationalise the statement of intent here), perhaps the same work-around that the Free Software Movement evolved into using might also make sense in the Wikipedia context?
Namely, "Wikipedia, the Open Encyclopedia" would:
Make clear Wikipedia's fundamental difference to its rivals.
Act as a welcoming "invitation" for people to make revisions.
Ease multi-lingual translations by avoiding the ambiguity that "free" carries because it has double meaning in English (which likely does not carry through to other languages)
De-emphasises any semantics of "free, as in chaotic anarchy with no rules" for "open, structured but having no boundaries" instead.
Spoken aloud, it has a mild poetical alliteration to it, which just sounds nice.
I know revising this at this point in time is no small undertaking but "open", to me, seems quite the superior word to "free" in this context. I bring this to you, of course, because this is as "top level" as you can get to revise the subheading of Wikipedia's very name. PetrochemicalPete17:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should recieve some community feedback at Mediawiki:Tagline before you ask Jimbo Wales. There are hundreds of other people who can make this change, and Jimbo usually isn't involved in these decisions. r3m0ttalk15:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I read with interest your comment on TreyHarris'stalkpage, and I hope you will permit me briefly to insinuate myself into your discussion. Your comments apropos of verifiability and, more importantly, what our default assumption vis-à-vis inclusion ought to be, were altogether correct, of course, but I think it should be noted that there is a difference between our presenting information as sourced fact and our presenting information as averred by another to be fact, where independent verification will be inconclusive. If, for example, our Jimbo Wales article said, "Jimbo brainwashes Wikipedia's editors in order that he might someday use them as his own private army", we'd likely want to remove that information as unsourced (one might instead add a {{fact}} tag, but such tagging is probably best used only where the information referenced is not likely to prove divisive); if, though, our article said, "On his webpage, Joe Blow says that 'Jimbo brainwashes...'", we'd be left then with a different question. We certainly oughtn't to include every piece of information any writer asserts to be true--"On his Wikipedia user page, Jahiegel suggests he has proof that Jimbo Wales is actually the alter ego of Karl Rove" wouldn't be encyclopedic--but when the writer is generally credible--or, more importantly, generally notable--inclusion is likely appropriate, at least where an article makes clear that information is presented only as the conjecture/theory/argument of someone else. We are left, then, to wonder what our standards ought to be for the inclusion of a suggestion offered by some exeternal individual that stands in distinction to or contradiction of another suggestion of fact, especially one independently verifiable. Since we don't practice first-person journalism, many of our articles depend on the reports of others; while a Wikipedia article about a Supreme Court decision can rely wholly on the actual text of that decision, our article about, say, the whale in the Thames, must rely largely on accounts asserted to be factual by reporters (even those Wikipedians who saw the whale with their own eyes are discouraged from "reporting" their experience as part of our article, and rightly so); is the blog of an Al Jazeera reporter in the same category as an article written by a New York Times reporter, especially where statements in the former are contradicted by a subject or subject's representative, in this case, an NPR official? I think the two are not in the same category and so agree with your suppositions, but I write (at great length, evidently) only to note that there are situations in which the proper disposition of the question as to inclusion isn't as clear-cut as that which you illustrate on Trey's talk page. Joe20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I should say that I understand much of this to be covered by WP:V (and to have been discussed at length on other talk pages--although to no clear consensus as to where we might draw the line as to verifiability), but that I fleshed out the questions here only in order that those who have been editing the Garrels page (largely newbies), might best appreciate your concerns with respect to sourcing, et cetera. Joe22:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Squidward name removal
Do you want to delete the edits that do contain the names, not 100% sure if you've had a request or if its just courtesy :) -- Tawker21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Rgulerdem
Can you please please please remove the block on Rgulerdem's account? Everyone deserves a second chance. Netpari00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for my misunderstanding, but I've reread your comment on my talk page several times, and reviewed my edit history to Anne Garrels, and have talked with some other editors on IRC, and I'm still entirely confused. Per WP:OFFICE, I will not edit that article again at all until I understand. I acted in good faith, but apparently acted badly. I can't claim honest contrition or be sure I'm acting well in the future until I understand what I did wrong, so I hope you can help clarify this for me.
In your comment, you wrote, "the unfortunate fact is that you re-inserted several times false information into this article, the stuff about Anne Garrels' alleged security detail". But the only edits of mine I can find that inserted that information were this one, this one, and this one—all of which were reversions, marked 'rvv' or 'reverting unexplained removal of content', where the prior editor was an anonymous IP and removed several pieces of information, some of which were strongly sourced, with no edit summary explaining the removal. So I assumed vandalism, and thus reverted.
In this edit, I actually marked the statement you're talking about with {{fact}}, which I understood to be the polite way of asking for a reference before deleting—which I had intended to do since some time had passed with no sourcing. So I definitely was not trying to keep that misinformation in the encyclopedia.
Also, the statement you deleted had nothing to do with the security detail. It was about her husband and his occupation in the 1960's. A couple simple web searches and library database queries are turning up sources for this, so I'm confused about what the problem was with the statement.
Confusion breeds speculation, I'm afraid, and the only interpretation (assuming that we don't have some miscommunication here) that I've been able to figure is that it is not disruption, nor vandalism, to delete unsourced statements, even if they are easily sourceable, and even if the deletion includes sourced statements. Is that correct? You may or may not be aware that a lot of my edits of late have been to source articles that were previously unsourced. I have long wanted to just blank articles that had no sourcing, but I feared that this would be a violation of WP:POINT. Am I hearing you correctly, that it's not? That I have a free hand to delete unsourced facts in the future, even if they are easily sourced? But contrariwise, if I see what I interpret as blanking vandalism in the future, I must not revert it, but only restore the sourced facts?
I honestly have very little interest in the Anne Garrels article. I made an edit to it once, so it was on my watchlist, so I was policing it for vandalism in what I thought was the right way. I'm sorry that I misunderstood what the right way to police vandalism was, but I'm trying to understand!
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I just want to be sure that we don't have a miscommunication here. Thanks for your time. --TreyHarris00:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
In relation to the same article, Jimbo, I'd like to ask if the information you removed in this diff was actually what you intended to remove, as the assertion that Garrels and J. Vinton Lawrence are married is clearly verified by her NPR biography, and the other statements about his assignment in Laos and as an employee of Air America seem to me to be verified in the links from his article, and have not been removed from his article by you or anyone else. Thanks!-Polotet01:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Trey! Appreciate your thoughtful response. I will respond more tomorrow, I just am out of time tonight. I just wanted to say, though, I like your answer and you are not in trouble with me at all.
Polotet, if the claim about her husband can be properly sourced, then it should be. I removed it not because it was false, but because it was unsourced. It sounds like you've found the sources elsewhere, so I say great, put it back in and cite the sources.
This is really what this is all about: negative information was inserted repeatedly into the article without sources. Trey did it as a good-faith revert of what he took to be vandalism, but unfortunately, it wasn't vandalism, it was the victim of a bad article trying to fix it. So, not good in the end. I think we need to change our default assumptions on bios of living persons: if it is negative information, we need to source it.--Jimbo Wales01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never done IRC, sorry, and I didn't get an email (though another Wikipedian email came through). Did you send it to jokestress at g mail? I went to the IRC channel page here, but my Mac/Firefox setup said I needed missing software. I am kind of resistant to IMs and those kinds of communications because people tend to get my address and inundate me with questions and comments. I'm sure you know the feeling. Can you resend the email? Sorry to be a pain-- I am a bit of a cyberluddite on some things. Jokestress04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Original research at Heaven's Stairway
Aloha. I have repeatedly tried to remove the section "Overgrow.com ownership dispute section" in the article, Heaven's Stairway but a misguided user continues to reinsert the section. This content appears to be original research which has not been published in a reliable, published source, nor is it verifiable (TTBOMK). The source itself is an anonymous comment made here: [5]. Is this a candidate for WP:OFFICE? —Viriditas | Talk09:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
BLP
Jimbo, you said on this user's talk page: "Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia, and especially for the biography of a living person, it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute" and also: "Negative and dangerous information must be excluded from Wikipedia unless it can be sourced to a RELIABLE source. We are not a forum for repeating gossip and rumors". Would you please review the RfA that stems from this issue? This RfA was started because a group of editors claimed WP:CON on poorly sourced information regarding a WP:BLP that I removed, then harassed me on privacy issues during the dispute. When this was brought to RfA, it was to stop the group of editors from harassment; but instead, it was turned into my lynching. However, based on your comments (and my contention from the beginning that it was policy), it appears the removal was the correct course of action. The information they insisted on reasserting was full of weasel words and the only sourcing was for the quotes within the section, rather than the section as a whole (false verifiablity through quote mining). I would very much appreciate you taking a look at this RfA. I know it seems terribly involved and lengthy, but the main issue behind everything is the violation in regards to WP:BLP related to WP:NOR & WP:V. Thank you. agapetos_angel15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua's comment is based on a repeated accusation that is a misperception of events, irrelevant to the specifics of my above request regarding BLP. Thanks again. agapetos_angel18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
mrs wales please consider this:frequente outage at wikipedia server ,this week two major breaks even the photos doesnt load properly maybe from a weak server.do you think wikipedia can still be a user based donation site?a lot of people dont.let turn wikipedia on user support ads everywhere.charging even for download.wikipedia can create permanent jobs for people. wikipedia for profit.
dont worry about people who are against ads at end they will come abord.google,yahoo,my space and others are comercial sites but still be used by many people.i dont see the reason why people will stop to use wikipedia because of ads.
im worry about wikipedia is my favorite site.thank for your consideration.
User:Felisberto14:52 ,22april2006(UTC)
Also, there is a good pragmatic case to state that commercial advertising threatens to seriously violate NPOV and Wikipedian neutrality.
Imagine that some "XYZ123 corporation" sponsors Wikipedia through running commercial advertising.
This company is then involved in a contraversy or legal dispute. Where, factually, the sad truth is that "XYZ123 corporation" is actually at fault / in the wrong / has done something questionable or illegal that it shouldn't have done.
Wikipedia is then faced with a serious conflict of interest and a threat to NPOV and reliability for the Wikipedia article on "XYZ123 corporation".
To write the truth in that article might annoy the sponsors, who threaten to remove their sponsorship fully if the article does not "spin" the article with a few lies, half-truths and positive propoganda to support their case.
On the one hand, Wikipedia has a duty to report the truth while, on the other hand, it also has a conflicting interest - a loyalty - to its sponsors, if it wants to receive the sponsorship money it needs.
Commercial advertising pits Wikipedia's neutrality and reliability against the common sense pragmatic reality that it's not a wise idea to "bite the hand that feeds".
By requesting donations and alternative methods of funding Wikipedia, it can avoid putting itself in such an unacceptable compromised position in the first place.
Anyway, the problem of slowness is something that can be tackle by many means before considering going near commercial advertising; For example, if you logout of your user account, you'll find that Wikipedia runs faster. The whole site is slower when you're logged in, for some reason. Many of the problems are simply technical in nature and improvements to software - which, unfortunate, never come as fast as you'd like them to - and structure could often solve these problems. Not all problems like this are necessarily only solved by throwing bigger hardware at it. PetrochemicalPete17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Various mechanisms have long been in place in conventional works that run advertising to preserve neutrality. In Wikipedia's case, the ads in question would be from a major middle party like Google, so the actual advertisers would likely have no idea what sites their ads were running on, and even if they did and could tell the middle-man not to run them here, the middle-man would run other ads instead and there would be no difference to Wikipedia's income. As for Google (or whoever) pulling something like that, all such companies allow anyone to run their ads if they don't think they'll try to cheat them.
The slowness is not a software issue. MediaWiki is optimized to the extent possible. The slowness is because things like database storage and retrieval take up an unavoidable minimum of time (see computational complexity), and the fewer servers you have, the slower you're going to be. More servers would absolutely allow Wikipedia to run much faster and more reliably, without question. (The reason Google runs its searches so quickly, for instance, is because it has roughly a thousand times the number of servers Wikipedia has.) The reason you notice that Wikipedia runs faster when you run out is no quirk of the software; it's because when you're logged in, the servers have to retrieve your preferences and possibly generate the requested page from scratch to suit them, whereas if you're logged out no preferences need to be retrieved and the page is almost certainly cached.
And to WAS: how, precisely, is advertising "selling" anything other than some space on a page? Wikipedia would be just as free, in both senses of the term, if it ran ads—it would just be faster and have better features. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia tries to be a neutral encyclopedia. This is good for freedom. Less neutrality is not as good for freedom. Ads are specifically designed to not be neutral, but to promote something. A society that is pluralistic in having commercial and noncommercial entities, religious and nonreligious entities, and so on is far superior to one that permits the destruction of the natural varied social human experience. Life is more than money. Society is more than struggle. Capitalism is a useful tool, not the answer to all problems. WAS 4.25021:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, there could be no possible issue of neutrality, since given the ad mechanism, Wikipedia would have literally zero incentive to whitewash anyone. I think users can separate ads from content, don't you? There's no problem with non-neutrality outside the encyclopedia. And yes, variety is fine, but it shouldn't be sought gratuitously when one option is inherently inferior to another. As for life being more than money, I agree that it is, but the goals of the Foundation would be greatly advanced by having more money. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm just telling you that you were made chief justice of Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt. Currently, a dispute other this is going on at WP:MFD - in which I am involved. I'm just telling you that this is thought to have been done without your consent, and has therefore been rolled back by User:Pureblade. I'm just telling you this, sorry if you find this as a dispute I'm trying to involve you in - I am not. Computerjoe's talk20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that I am in contravention, allthough i admit its a tuff
call, even for me, as I am having to walk a very precarious line in terms of what I can and can't do and stay "in perview."
As a problem solving thought, I'd like to say that I am very sympathetic to what I think that you are trying to do, and, I'd like to share some observations of mine with you, to see if we are on the same page here.
The problem as I see it is in creating an "Atmosphere" of "Library" rather than an "atmosphere" of geek esoterica. This is an information engineering tactic which attempts to help Wikibooks focus on what it needs to in order to continue to be taken seriously as an information resource.
My thought on this is that actually, my project is sort of a very different cure for the same problem. Its a streamlined multi thematic Unit
Approach to generating 300 or so Textbooks. The "Space" theme increases the efficiency of the fact filter and the relevancy filter (So long as we maintain that this is a fact finding and science exploring mission, and don't fall off the obvious cliff into fiction, which it is true that we are slightly hovering over.)
My point in all of this is that maybe a better way to solve the problem
which you and I both see regarding Content on Wikibooks is to support
efforts aimed at fullfilling the mission statement better, rather than
exclude things as an information engineering tool.
It would be a grand favor (for instance) if Wikipedia could send over a few dozen of its experts to even as much as link Wikipedia into ThinkStarship. (I am using wherever I can Wikipedia as my first line of information resource, and consider wikipedia a "parent" database.) Rather than try to rig conditions in which Textbooks rather than cruft gets written, why don't we just focus on writing Textbooks?
A final thought; The project does suffer in terms of popularity from
being on Wikibooks. I would probably have at least a dozen participants by now if the proposition of writing for a textbook didn't scare so many
people off. I can't possibly write 300 textbooks all by myself. I can attempt to demonstrate and lead to sort of teach and learn the system
how to go about writing up an entire library. In the end, either I'll
get 300 participants to help, or I won't. So I really hope that my base assumption that we are doing each other a favor is a true one, and, I'm
fishing for help on my project rather than stress over wether or not I'll be canned.
Judging by the uproar that has ensued at Wikibooks, primarily out of the vagueness and uncertainty created by your directions, an extended response with a clarification, or an interview as suggested by some, may be a good idea. enochlau (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
i have a question
my friend said u emailed him regarding the april 23 wookieepedia vandalism spree and said that u woud report him to the cops, what could the cops do to him, especially since this is a website "anybody can edit"
Send a message to my Swainstonation with answer plz
No personal attacks question
Can we go ahead and make "No personal attacks" a universal policy on all Wikimedia sites, fitting it to each specific site? Isn't this common sense? Do we really need to run long straw polls, etc. to gauge consensus for this policy on each site? Shouldn't this be one of those automatic "duh"-type things? Thanks. --LV(Dark Mark)02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Debate and conversation enlightens, illustrates, and informs. surely you don't wish to deprive people of those blessings, do you? To the extent people disagree, an informing, learning, enlightening process is needed anyway. What consitutes a personal attack? "Your edit was unsourced, biased, uninformed, unlearned, misspelled, ungrammatical, in poor taste, in poor style, and just like things my ignorant 11 year old brother says." "That's illogical and ignorant." "You D*** F***!!!" Which is and which isn't and why? Short circuiting the process might hurt more than help. Sometimes the journey is the destination. WAS 4.25003:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's why you'd also need to bring the parallel policy on civility. To look at your sample statements, the first two are borderline violations of NPA, but definitely over the line of CIV. (The last one is a pretty clear personal attack.)
Neither policy is really needed, though, except as a crutch for policy wonks and a bludgeon for wikilawyers. Both are simply specific case examples of the application of WP:DICK, which does govern all behaviour on Wikimedia projects. I hope that admins on other Wikimedia projects feel comfortable blocking people who act like dicks regardless of the letter of their local policy—an environment that shelters dicks just makes productive contributors miserable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. TenOfAllTrades is right to point out a specific policy or guideline is not necessary. The rules are meant as means to a good end; they are meant to encode existing practice. So make it existing practice to suppress dickishness with minimum disruption to ongoing encyclopedic improvements. WAS 4.25014:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Request for information.
Good day Mr. Wales:
Based on the recommendation of members of Wikipedia who interact via the 'wikimedia-bootcamp' IRC channel, I have elected to contact you with my concerns relating to Wikipedia's operation and management.
From my experience (and some users who came before me but have since departed the project), it seems that certain users with administrative sysop rights have taken to the habit of glibly destroying new content they arbitrarily deem non-notable.
Apparently, other contributors have expressed discontent with this activity in the past. Could you please tell me if there is any constructive action which can be taken by the project to control this behavior? It is rather distressing to have users whose policy is "shoot first, ask questions later" operate with such privileges.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this message; I hope to hear from you soon.
Regards,
Jimi Ayodele
Please supply details. No one can help if you insist on this level of vagueness. Oe better yet, why don't you create an encyclopedic neutral verifyable article on a noteable subject yourself and see what happens. WAS 4.25020:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What sort of details are you looking for? If you are talking about naming names, that seems to be a BAD idea. I have raised this issue in at different venues, and including personally identifiable information distracts from the issue at hand (i.e. trigger-happy users who have been provided with additional access to the system.) This usually means arbitrarily defending the users in question, or develop an adversarial attitude.
As for your second point, I suggest you check the stats on my contributions before rushing to judgment (or making otherwise snide remarks...) Folajimi20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was asking for examples of data deleted because it was nonnotable. Make up an example to give us some clue. "George Bush has pink underware" was deleted or "Star 3gg556 is the first neutron star that was ever discovered". was deleted. Give a real or similar example about what you think was notable and others did not. WAS 4.25023:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see how we could have a constructive discussion without at least having specific examples. Depending on the users responsible, an RFC might be a good first step, although some users will respond more productively to an RFC than others. I'm not sure how this problem could be solved besides on a case by case basis; we already have WP:DRV for reversing out of process and non-policy-driven deletions, and I'm not sure what else could be done to control the problem on a large scale rather than case by case.-Polotet20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Polotet, thanks very much for your timely feedback; it is greatly appreciated.
Let it be known that I am in total agreement with you on the need for concrete examples. Unfortunately, the problem I have encountered is this rabid rush to judgment, which is characteristic of many users; sad to say, users with administrative rights are prone to this kind of behaviour as well.
You make a valid point about addressing my concerns across the board; I can see how it would be difficult to check for malcontents across the board. The reason I have chosen to raise this matter now was because of the adverse impact from deletionists or aggressive {{prod}}-taggers can have on newcomers.
When I first started contributing about six months ago, there were a handful of users who periodically would slap my contributions with the aforementioned tag. In some cases, the article was simply given the deep-six — "speedy" style, before I could defend them. It was rather disheartening and intimidating. Considering that I would spend several hours collecting the information needed for a stub, then to have someone perform a drive-by for some arbitrary reason was akin to being robbed.
This is not about "punishing" anybody; it is about making sure that reckless users are not in a position to drive away people like myself who are here to improve the quality of the project. Folajimi21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Rather than gather data and have your work destroyed, try asking if the subject matter would make a good article. You might find an article already exists or people tall you they will delete it if you create it. Try asking for opinions before you do the work. WAS 4.25023:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Polotet, the above bundle of tripe is a valid case in point; notice how the subject is already assuming that no attempt was made to confirm notability prior to creating the article. This is why I refrain from providing specific cases, since such users appear to have an innate predisposition to go into the defensive-dismissive mode. Their feedback is about as useful as giblets of red herrings, laced with rotgut backwash... Folajimi02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That depends partly on who's enforcing it, and how vile the taunts are. I would most likely just remove the comments after the first warning. In general, people get at least two warnings, with the second explicitly mentioning that they may be blocked, and if they continue they would be blocked from editing, typically for 24 hours. The intention of this is not so much to punish the editor, but to enforce a cool-down period. However, repeated offences draw longer blocks.-gadfium03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Although this was an unintended tangent, I would like to thank you for the constructive (and honest) feedback; it is greatly appreciated. Only after I asked the question did I the notice message at the top of this page.
Unfortunately, it's not just admins who believe in speedy-deleting content deemed "non-notable". The Wikipedia community generally appears to favor this, as codified in WP:CSD. If your article doesn't assert notability, it can be speedied. I strongly disagree with this (see my opinion here), but I wouldn't call it abuse of admin rights to enforce community consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. In fact, the aggressive actions against three separate articles (in as many months) have been reversed. Usually, this is because it is discovered (after the fact, of course) that the content did assert notability after all. When I try to find out why it happened in the first place, I am told that it was a "mistake." To have a 12-guage pointed at a newcomer's contribution is not only intimidating, it can be downright discouraging (especially when it took hours of research to create the entry.)
It would be far easier to concede the point if an honest effort was not made to assert the notability of the subject matter. However, considering the impact it has on newcomers, and the lack of understanding displayed by the desperadoes/hellcats, I just need to be reassured that their actions are unsupported by the community.
(P.S. It is nice to know that Eric Burns is still participating; I wish I could say the same for some of the "missing wikipedians" who were kidnapped by frustration...) Folajimi04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an admin thing. It's common for people that think something is not notable to tag things with speedy or VFD. DyslexicEditor08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
My observation of an editing dispute lead me to the WP:RS guideline page. From discussions of that guideline, the No Original Research was cited.
Going to that policy page, I found many of the same editors working on it, rather strongly defending their common POV. The NOR policy has evidently been extended to include analysis, and even by implication, evaluation. Evaluation and analysis are different bodies of data than research. I see no way to NOT analyze or evaluate data at all and produce an encyclopedia article. Devoid of these factors, one can do only rough summaries and indices.
I would like your comments on this and suggestions of any direction to take with No Original Research policy and Reliable Sources guideline. --Fahrenheit45123:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You have it exactly right when you say: "Devoid of these factors, one can do only rough summaries and indices." That's what an encyclopedia is. We don't create new knowledge here. We don't even come up with novel interpretations. We report verifyable noteable facts in an unbiased manner. At least we are trying to! WAS 4.25000:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Not true, according the Oxford English Dictionary, an encyclopedia is:"a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." --Fahrenheit45101:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The only analysis and evaluation an encyclopedia does is to decide 1) what content to include and 2) how much space to devote to it. Unfortunately there are some editors and administrators that confuse Original Research which is actually creating content with editorial judgement. This is what some would call systemic bias in the system. A "flat earth" theory is completely sourcable. It's also completely dismissable. THere is no reason to have, say, the "Flat Earthers Description of How the Global Positioning System Works" in the Global Positioning System article. It is not original research to assess that they aren't a reliable source. Evaluating and analyzing the source is what the editors should be doing. The odd part is that even administrators are confusing the concept of "synthesis" with "No Original Research". Synthesizing a position from facts is a sourcing issue, not an NOR issue. The difference is subtle in that a WP:RS problem should be handled with a fact tag while Original Research should be deleted. The whole "synhtesis" addition to WP:NOR was created to justify deletion of unsourced factual material instead of having it researched and sourced properly. Factual, synthesized relationships should be sourcable. Original Research cannot be sourced. Sorry for the ramble. --Tbeatty00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Secret business?
Do you have a secret coffee shop, located in a college town? Jimbo's Java (00:54 in) in this Google-made animation looks like a hot spot to drop at, doc. -- Zanimum00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Critical Analysis of Controversial Material
I have made a concentrated effort, as a registered user, to edit Wikipedia pages over the last month or so. Over the last few years, I made a few changes anonymously, when I noticed something wrong in an article that I happened to run across, but I never invested much time looking at or working on Wikipedia until recently. Soon after I began involving myself in Wikipedia, someone on another forum pointed out sensational claims being made on Wikipedia regarding a certain preacher, the late Jack Hyles. Unless you have been involved in Christian fundamentalism in some way for the last decade, particularly around the Southside of Chicago, you probably could not appreciate how profound the effect of such a representation is within that segment of Christianity.
An encyclopedic biography on Jack Hyles, one that answers all the questions that people might have, is not an easy subject. When I read the Wikipedia entry, I could easily see that the statements made on the Wikipedia page were outrageous, even if true. I found on the Discussion page that editors prior to me had attempted to edit the page, but had been resisted by a determined group of individuals. I decided that it would be futile for me to edit the article page without cooperation within Wikipedia, and I will not mix my work with the sensationalism of the current page. I followed the steps for mediation provided by Wikipedia. I approached the editors on the Jack Hyles Discussion page with my concerns. I submitted a Wikiquette alert on March 31 (archived without reply) and an AMA request for advocacy on April 1 (though I see it isn't on the page any longer, despite not receiving any replies). I put in a Request for Arbitration on April 3 (voted down, on the grounds that I had made no prior attempts at mediation).
I have continued since that time to express my disapproval of the Jack Hyles page, while simultaneously collecting biographical information so I could submit my own edition. However, I must say that I am forming a distinctly unfavorable impression about the sorts of people who make up Wikipedia. Every encounter I have with a Wikipedia editor only emphasizes my impression that Wikipedia is merely a propaganda tool, intended to discredit unapproved subjects. Don't misinterpret my complaint as an argument in support of Jack Hyles. My complaint is that the research that has gone into the Jack Hyles page is no deeper than necessary to pull out some negative newspaper clippings attacking Jack Hyles, while ignoring extenuating circumstances or contradicting or positive statements, even if made within the same article from which the negative statements were quoted. I am outraged that such shoddy work is being used to form a judgement about someone. I would not treat any person this way, no matter how evil I thought he might be. Any competent editor would have no trouble seeing that the Jack Hyles page is hugely defective, but all of your editors who have not given up in disgust on this page strongly defend the page.
If you cannot come up with a better system, one capable of producing reliable, objective, insightful material, then you should stop the Wikipedia project. Otherwise, Wikipedia is just a poison to human knowledge. Pooua06:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Some editors are pleased by more userboxes in Wikipedia. Some editors are pleased by fewer userboxes in Wikipedia. WAS 4.25019:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think these comments were a call for a general debate, but a request for a direct response from Jimbo. Thanks. Nhprman04:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
First time caller...
...long time listener and admin. This morning, Georgia Public Radio reported that "the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia confirmed that edits to the Mark Taylor (politician) article inserting information on the drunk driving wreck of his son came from the office of his competitor, Cathy Cox." Did we? I posted this question on WP:AN, and no one copped to being "Wikipedia" in that regard. Did we do a checkuser? Was there something we followed? I ask because we're going to get dragged into an ongoing political campaign, and I can foresee our being open to every unhappy reader demanding to know where every displeasing edit came from. I have no interest in either Cox or Taylor, but I am a Georgia resident, and I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as "Wikipedia" to confirm identities or locations of editors, unless there was something very, very serious going on. As I understand it, the information was factual but unpleasant; there are many instances like that. Today, the Atlanta Journal is saying that you told the AP that this information came from this location.
Not to complain or anything, but could you let us know if something like that is going on so that we can provide coherent answers to the people who ask later? Geogre22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, it would be nice if we knew it was happening so that, if nothing else, we could monitor the page more closely. As it is, Daniel Brandt has shown up to 'help' again. <sigh> I'm staying out, as I'm indifferent to the politicians, but I'd still wish we'd known via the mailing list or the Administrator's Noticeboard or some other place that is seen widely enough that there would have been no mystery. Geogre02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sysop
Can I be an editing sysop? User:Xana1 26 April 2006
I hadn't seen your comment earlier (someone else had made a comment on a separate issue later, so when I checked the diff I didn't see it). I certainly don't read what you said as a personal attack.
I understand how you feel about THINKSTARSHIP whilst its location is uncertain. About that, I can only say two things. 1) that it is not my decision, but the community's as to whether it meets WB:WIW (as amended by Jimbo). 2) that regardless of where that discussion ends up, it is no-one's intention to delete any wikibook covered by Jimbo's addition to WB:WIW from the internet. Plenty of time will be given to any book falling foul of that to find an alternative wiki which would welcome it. The conclusion from this is that any amendments and improvements you make to the book will stay.
Another point I can usefully make is that if you could provide a clear explanation of why you believe it complies with the Jimbo-amended WB:WIW (assuming that you do believe that), that may help resolve the issue quickly. Without wishing to be rude, I have so far had difficulty in following the line of your arguments, which makes it more difficult for me (and no doubt others) to come to a view on this matter. All the best, Jguk20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. My argument is pretty complex. I think
that Jimbos actual wording and idea are being blown out of proportion
here. I'm caught in an interesting middle. I totally agree with Jimbo
in theory, via the lens of my interpretation of what i think he means. I don't think that everybody elses interpretation is realistic, and seems alarmist. I agree with Jimbo, mostly because i understand the information engineering angle. It is exactly the kind
of thing i could see myself saying 3 years from now when ThinkStarship gets big and has a lot of participants. I think that I
have tried to make an argument that thinkstarship is within the WB:WIW, I suppose it doesn't help that this is interspersed with comments where i try to get people to see what i see in terms of the wisdom of what he is actually saying on the one hand, and the difference between what he is actually saying, and how it looks to me
like everybody is misinterpreting that. To start with, the way its worded doesn't make it sound like its to be applied to anything in the past; its a foreward moving information engineering concept, nothing in the things said leads me to believe he meant it to be retroactive. Secondly, it looks like a pretty open ended Guideline,
not an absolutist and certainly not a literalist rule. From my perspective, Jimbo made a sensible new suggestion, and by virtue of imagining it to be retroactive, everybody has gone into a sort of panic attack. I'm glad you asked me this, I think i'll repost it
to Jimbo. ThinkStarship actually factually does sort of sit on the fuzzy line between fiction and fact, and on those grounds, I can't
claim absolutely to see myself as totally totally totally within WB:WIW. In fact, to some extent, Thinkstarship is sort of one big
toe over the line, and the rest very much in line. More important to
me personally is that ThinkStarship actually looks to me to have essentially a paralell mission statement to the whole of Wikibooks;
To generate an online library of textbooks covering every subject. In an absolutist or literalist interpretation of the rules,
especially the "Must be reasonably useful to existing class", I don't
think ThinkStarship would pass. "Existing Class" is a pretty strong
qualifier. However, in a non absolutist and non literalist interpretation, ThinkStrships materials would be applicable to Classes in the very near future. Those classes would teach the subjects in question from a different angle than is currrently being used; Thats what a "Thematic Unit" does to a subject. Lastly, even tho i am VERY sympathetic to Jimbo, I agree with the assessment that
he is out of the loop. Its hard to continue to be a BENEFICIENT dictator when your participation is only 44 edits. I think he should
get his self over here and spend some time working with us before making Information engineering rules. The evolution of a place like
wikibooks is somewhat organic, and won't conform to expected rules.
What Jimbo can't understand is the molasses sort of way that books
creep foreward as compared to articles. I think we should quit deleting things in general, and start shelving them appropriately.
I keep saying over and over; get a "fiction" and "pov" bookshelf. We probably don't want to encourage those shelves to become populated,
but the fact is, people are going to come here and write stuff which they think in good faith is "textbook" and which isn't. Instead of deleting it, I think we should consider it a starter book, and look
for ways to improve it.
Prometheuspan01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
trying to save Wikipedia
Hi Jimbo,
I am a researcher who loves Wikipedia and up until recently, used it frequently in her research. Because of the following I am afraid to rely on the neutrality in many articles there now.
I joined Wiki March 22 and have had a horrendous experience dealing with a group of editors (that includes some admins). The many bizarre events that have occurred, started when I made an admittedly clumsy edit on The Democratic Party (of the United States) article. This article reads like an ad for the Democratic Party. It took a week to get changes made but some did get made, due to my perseverance. I will admit that. But I am stronger and more persevering than most. Most editors who wish to add nonbiased edits to political articles, get discouraged, repeatedly blocked or banned altogether by the group's admins. The work on verifying and neutralizing this article is far from done.
There are quite a few who have the same difficulty, amazingly with the same group of editors. The longer I stay at Wiki, the huger this group becomes. I have gathered strong evidence and can show, that a large group of editors are controlling political and controversial articles on Wikipedia. They harass, insult, ignore, maneuver and conspire to remove any editing of their articles, that attempt to improve their articles with a neutral point of view. They are often editors who use original content in their articles. It doesn't take much looking around to see that most, if not all, of this group are left-wing leaning editors. ( I am neither left or right wing.) I do believe in the neutrality of articles in an encyclopedia, and the importance of them being fact based.
All day I have been blocked by an admin (KillerChihuahua) I have admittedly taunted these people back all day but I am in jail and have no recourse to defend myself. I just found your blog. I am being blocked illegally by Wiki Blocking page rules, I believe. They are threatening me with a long block or ban- because I haven't shut up.
At the risk of asserting the existence of a conspiracy, an accusation you probably have heard before, I will say the following.
Does this group form a cabal or conspiracy? From what I gather, yes and no. I don't think many of it's members are aware that they are part of a larger conspiracy, and that they are being used by the conspirators, to do their dirty work. (Though the members tend to consist of nasty vindictive pedants who write rfc's, etc.) Is the larger conspirator group the Democratic Party, or a faction of the the Democratic Party? Possibly. I can't make this claim for sure. But in any case, due to their underhanded and mean efforts, it is nonetheless almost impossible to make improving changes to their articles, cabal or not. Furthermore, the articles that are guarded wih iron gates are the ones that have a biased point of view towards the Democrats and against everyone else. Many articles that represent any view that differs from the left-wing are similarly guarded.
I fear for Wikipedia's reputation. I'm afraid that as a direct result of this group's ironclad policies, and the articles that can be now found on Wikipedia, other groups, outside Wikipdia with an opposing view or having objections, may files law suits on Wikipedia, thereby destroying it financially. I believe this to be a legitimate concern. Again, I love Wikipedia and if this were to happen I would be personally devastated.
If you are interested in urls that show evidence of my claims I would be more than happy to provide them. I have many such urls, too many for this entry to your blog.
In respect and sincere concern for the future integrity and existence of Wikipedia, and thanks for reading Maggiethewolfstar03:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 17:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If on the other hand you are interested in seeing links to places showing where this person participates in exactly the same kind of
"cabal" she is complaining about, but the Conservatives, I'd be happy
to show that. In particular, this user goes looking for conservatives to
beg them into secret email meetings and who knows what else. The truth
here is that INTEREST determines who writes an article or who opposes it
or obstructs it, and that with as many Users as we have, cliques will form as a natural outcome of sociology. Cliques are not cabals, but the better point is that somewhere along the line, Wikipedia became a battlezone for politicos on all sides. I think that guidelines regarding
agenda and political full disclosure are in order and would seriously
alleviate this problem. If you have any interest in discussing with a sociologist and a systems theorist ways in which to seriously help Wikipedia deal with this problem, please, I'm very available to you and
very knowledgable.
Prometheuspan17:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the outright lies Prometheuspan. You people are unbelievable. First you get upset because I call some of you nazis. Then you call me a Conservative. Am I missing something here? I have asked you all to check this out. I knew that it would be doubted that this is my website. I took a screenshot of my user page and uploaded a page with the image so you could see that I am not Conservative. Just because I can't stand liberals doesn't mean that I can stand conservatives either. Cut the crap and don't spread lies about me again.
Prometheuspan00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I honestly can't believe i am bothering with this, but you see, i keep coming back to check on my bit, which is above yours.
User talk:Merecat
SOS
Merecat, This is really important. I need to talk to you without the goons listening in. I do not believe in maneuvers. This is important to both, our survival here and the survival of Wikipedia. Please go here: [4] scroll down on left column, and find the contact page. Please send me an email and I'll email you back or we can use messenger or paltalk or whatever.
This is serious. I can't say this here, not in this police state.
in peace and solidarity Maggiethewolfstar 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to think about that. I am a real believer in on the record communications. Let me decide until tommorrow. Merecat 04:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I respect whatever you decide because it is and should be your decision. I'll just say that I am NOT one to do underhanded tactical maneuvering. This is an urgent matter. I want to ask your advice about it. It is huge. It concerns something that the goon squad would try to ban me for because it involves blowing their dirty cover.
Prometheuspan00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Quick Seek Encyclopedia
Hi Jimbo! I was not sure where to post this so I will do it in your talk page. I accidentally came across with the Quick Seek Encyclopedia and noticed that they use material from Wikipedia. Although they are free to do that, it seems to me that the site has no reference to Wikipedia and also, at the bottom, there is a rather confusing copyright notice. I don't know if you are aware of this site, i just wanted to let you know. Best regards. Dada11:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
We are aware that you had a conversation with Miss Adams and we will continue our stance on her updates. We do not know why this has become such a big issue for others (who seem to be taking this all too personal), but the last edits we made for Stephanie Adams are accurate and should remain. As stated in the discussion page for Stephanie Adams:
The GODDESSY "company" is already mentioned and is therefore sufficient. The comment regarding GODDESSY becoming "the title of several metaphysical books by Adams" has also been confirmed and should remain.
Stephanie Adams does not confirm doing tarot readings and love readings online personally, so the information mentioned previously has not and cannot be verified and is therefore inaccurate.
The GODDESSY site is in the process of making updates to the web site and has confirmed that the information regarding "tarot readings" and "love readings" is not accurate and should not remain.
Refer to the source (The GODDESSY web site) [[6]] and their reciprocated link ("the latest") will confirm the revised information that is up-to-date and correct.
Again, we do not know why others have issues, but our revisions are accurate and should remain.
Thank you for your time,
GODDESSY
SOCK PUPPET ALERT
User 68.161.222.151
User Goddessy
Same person, I am new to this part of it all, but they are clearly the same person making comments one right after another and doing very bad slip ups.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.161.222.151http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY
All comments within seconds of each other and you'll notice that quite often, User 68.161.222.151 signs her comments with GODDESSY
I don't know if this is just user 68.161.222.151 accidentaly forgetting to sign in, but it is starting to look like it is just to circumvent the 3RR rule.
Both 68.161.222.151 and GODDESSY had been banned from Wikki as a troll, yet reinstated by a different moderator. I believe ALOT of the "moderator and admin fighting" are due to personal feelings of GODDESSY ( who is in reality Stephanie Adams )
Let's not forget the Wikipedia rules.
Also this person wants you to believe that they have spoken to Jim Wales personally on the telephone, and that he has commented the above inquiry, yet no signature from Jim Wales is present, therefore looking at the history of the page it is very easy to see that this person made the comments by themselves to make it LOOK like Jim Wales had commented on her InquiryJuliannaRoseMauriello16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
CLEARLY YOU BOTH HAVE PERSONAL ISSUES, BUT THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL DISPUTE AND WILL BE RESOLVED WITH A PHONE CALL TODAY. -GODDESSY
UPDATE:
-The GODDESSY Public Relations Department confirmed that "Miss Adams did in fact contact Mr. Wales over the telephone, which led to an amicable outcome". (So ignore the comments made by internet trolls.)
-To date, a harassment campaign still seems to be going on by more than one user on this site. JuliannaRoseMauriello(talk) was one of them, but she was infinitely blocked[7] from Wikipedia and further investigations are being made.
I hate to bother you because I know you’re a busy man, but I have exhausted all other possibilities. Wikipedia policy says to revert all edits that a user makes after he is banned, presumably to avoid having to having to fact-check contributions when the editor is not trusted. Occasionally, however, these edits are good and can be independently verified. As a member who has only made positive edits and who tries as hard as I can to get along, can I independently verify the edits that I know to be positive and change them to the better version? Or do we need to keep the old edits in place to punish the banned user?
I am asking because my login, User:Pole star, is currently blocked indefinitely even though all of my contributions are positive, verifiable, NPOV, and I know that they are good for Wikipedia. I have never had an argument with another Wikipedia user. I am not any other person than whom I claim to be and I have never edited here under another name. I have written many emails to User:SlimVirgin about this. She says that I appear to be Zephram Stark because Lester Darling appears to be Zephram Stark and I restored many of Lester Darling’s positive contributions. I don’t think there is anything wrong with independently verifying a positive contribution and restoring it when you know it is good, but there appears to be some disagreement about this amongst editors. Would you please take a minute and weigh in on whether you think positive edits are more important, or punishing a banned user by keeping his positive edits from ever being considered is more important?
How about this: So long as no one objects, place the most important edit to be restored on my user page at the rate of one per week, and eventually what is worth restoring will be restored. I will personally check the first and only the first edit placed there once per week in accordance with this compromise and verify if I think it should be added somewhere in Wikipedia, and will act in accordance with my judgement and will not fight in any way to retain it if someone deletes it after I add it (if I add it). Does that work for everyone? (I give no guarantees of any kind except that the minute this compromise stops being fun for me, I won't be a part of this compromise anymore.) WAS 4.25017:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to help. The sampling above are only a few of hundreds of contributions in that same category. More of them appear almost every day. There are plenty of people willing to look beyond Wikipedia politics and choose the version of an article based solely on its merit, but they are discouraged from doing so ([8], [9]). Part of the reason there are so many good edits from people called sockpuppets is that not all of the accused editors are sockpuppets. Many of the reverted contributions in the above list are from me, and I'm not a sockpuppet. All of my edits were reverted, including the ones that had nothing to do with this issue. It looks like the same thing happens to anyone who interferes. If this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to be, that's fine. I just want to hear it from the top, because my opinion is different. I think that the best article should always come first. David (alias Pole star) 19:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'm done with week one's task: Starfish Galaxy. So, everybody, it it a good thing or a bad thing? David, maybe your problem was in only reverting, instead of making it better in a way specific to your judgements. If your judgements are always identical to a banned user, then who else could you be? On the other hand, we do want to fix mistakes. But if the biggest mistake is a typo in the number designation of a galaxy far far away, then I have to say that reducing disruption is a far more pressing and immediate and important task. None-the-less, this is fun for me, so next week, send me your next most important diff that is being prevented from being fixed for one reason or another. And if no one objects by then, maybe more than one per week. WAS 4.25022:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You did a great job on that. Thank you. If you look at my contribution in the history of that article, I'm sure you'll find that I made it better in a way specific to my judgements. Your idea of letting the designation exist in the info box only was a stroke of genius. Nobody can argue with that.
Next week, it's on to the battery electric factory flat truck article. I had to write an email to the Tim Warner, the E&BASR webmaster, to verify that Wikipedia had the right to upload his picture with a GFDL. Although I'm sure many people have already verified this, Mr. Warner seemed good natured about it. I imagine that one more time won't matter much. Have fun! David (alias Pole star) 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Motor gasoline california two wheel vehicles exist, but I would recommend any such titled article be deleted with any contents validated by sources being moved to motorcycle. In exactly the same way small flat bed electric vehicles (or battery electric factory flat trucks) undoubtedly have some more common designation that when googled will yield plenty of sources for an article, perhaps an article already written, once one knows where to look when one gets the name right. The issue is not existance, but nomenclature and sources. WAS 4.250 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Electric platform truck for example. WAS 4.25018:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Expanding the description of one vehicle to cover the entire category of vehicles is a brilliant idea! We could show how the truck evolved from what used to call a Battery electric factory flat truck (before Google), to the Electric platform trucks of today. We could even explain why they used to be called "Battery electric factory flat trucks," but I’ll talk more about that with you at the article.
I think I also see where you’re going in terms of this conversation. Correct me if I’m wrong. You’re saying that we should do more as editors than just vote for one reversion or the other. We should think outside the box and expand our minds to possibilities that might satisfy both sides of the issue. That is some good general advice. I don’t think it applies, however, when one side simply doesn’t want certain information to be known. The only compromise there would be to restrict useful knowledge, which seems to go against the purpose of Wikipedia. David (alias Pole star) 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
One person checking one article a week doesn't solve the problem, of course. I would still appreciate an answer as to whether the rest of us can help verify questionable contributions, or are these articles off limits to the average writer after a suspected sockpuppet edits them? David (alias Pole star) 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This "revert all edits" policy on banned users is absolutely ridiculous. Look at this edit. Someone corrected the spelling of "dilema" to dilemma, and was then reverted as an edit by a suspected sockpuppet. That's absurd. I would contend that is it vandalism to make any edit that solely changes words so that they are misspelled, which is actually what the reverter did in this instance. --Cyde Weys17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that some editors might want to revert the contributions of people they don’t trust, but if those edits are positive, someone else who has never caused any problems should be able to verify them and include them. At least that is the way I think Jimbo wants Wikipedia to work. I could be wrong, and that's why I'm here asking for a clarification. I feel strongly that someone like me who only makes positive edits and tries as hard as I can to get along, should not be called a suspected sockpuppet and should be allowed to contribute. David (alias Pole star) 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cyde. I've just re-corrected a buch of spelling errors that were thoughtlessly reverted. Some people should remember that we're actually trying to build an encylopaedia. Noisy | Talk01:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Usually if a person uses even an IP address to say anything about their banning except on their talk page (which normally gets locked if they talk too much after being banned) then the IP gets banned and all edits reverted and the IP is called a "sockpuppet". Can there please be clear policy on this? DyslexicEditor08:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
We just need to use common sense. Even banned editors can help the encyclopedia if they are doing something as mundane as correcting spelling errors, and these edits clearly shouldn't be reverted. We should judge edits on the merit of the edit, not the status of the user. --Cyde Weys14:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Pole Star is Zephram Stark, one of Wikipedia's most notorious and inventive trolls. By all means restore whatever edits of his you think require it, but be careful not to give him a platform. SlimVirgin(talk)06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
First, I am not Zephram Stark. There is no evidence to support this claim except that I restored some edits that I thought were good (from someone else who was labeled "Zephram Stark" based entirely on his positive edits as well).
Second, what platform are you afraid of? Are ideas for bettering Wikipedia dangerous?
Third, I don’t see any evidence that Zephram Stark was even a troll. He disagreed with you over the substance of an article and made an inappropriate remark about your religious group. You’ve been on a witch hunt ever since, blocking anyone who refuses to flirt with you on email. If anyone wants to see what SlimVirgin bases her blocks and unblocks on, drop me a note. pole--star@hotmail.com
Jimbo, seriously, sue Wikitruth and be done with it. If you don't, then this will just get worse. You need to deal with these rogue admins. They are the plague that hurts Wikipedia more than anything else. The cabal must be stopped. Now that they have publicised their actions via Wikitruth, you finally have a way to get rid of them for good. So sue them. Sue wikitruth.info and take them to court. I cannot see any possible way that you could lose such a case. They do not have a leg to stand on. And on top of winning, you'd also clean up what is the biggest problem with Wikipedia, its lack of transparency. And then you'd realise that people who criticise Wikipedia are not the enemy - they are here to help Wikipedia. Its the people who control it and use it to manipulate history that are the problem. People like Wikitruth. 203.122.231.19509:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It is Category:Rouge admins that you are referring to, I believe and as you can see from the spelling, it's a bit of a joke. I doubt very much that the members of Rouge Admins are the source of the leakage, they are some of WP's finest. ++Lar: t/c13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, I was just thinking that seeing as how you know things about stuff, what do you think would be the least Effort-requiring path to gain a well known status in the general community without being a hinderance to others?
Cheers,Jive Monk04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Kiss a lot of asses, asses of administrators, then asses of bureacrats, then asses of arbitrators and the big J himself. 70.49.111.20406:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
But, 70.49.111.204, that requires a lot of effort.
Sorry to bug you, but I'm still wondering what to do about possible blanking vandalism, given the issues raised in the Anne Garrels article. Obviously, if I have the time and resources to verify every statement blanked, I will do that, but sometimes I can't (for instance, if the source is a paper book and I'm not at the library). Should the article be left blanked until the statements can be verified? Should the article be restored, but possibly have some sort of tag added to it until verification is done? WP:VAND needs to be updated to address this. In the meantime, I'm personally letting all blanking I see stand unless I have time to verify—but there are plenty of other people who just revert blanking on sight. I understand how busy you are; I'll take the question to the Village Pump and the relevant policy talk pages, if you don't have time to deal with this. Thanks! --TreyHarris10:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
En side for foreløpig informasjon. A page for preliminary information.
— John Erling Blad (en) 30. apr 2006 kl.15:55 (UTC)
KGB
Please inform, is Wikipedia supposed to be transparent, or is it normal to be forced to resolve disputes by email? I would like to know why I am blocked, but nobody will tell me. For two weeks, I have been asking the simple question, "How have I offended?" Nobody will give me an answer. They keep deleting my {{unblock}} request, telling me to contact the person who blocked me by email. As someone who has lived in Communist Russia, this sounds like meeting the KGB in private to ask why they have targeted me. Can't we do things out in the open? --Kaspersky Trust22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If there is one thing I learned from living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it's to never accuse an official of making a mistake in private. --Kaspersky Trust23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I have now been unblocked, but my question remains in earnest, "Is Wikipedia supposed to be transparent, or is it normal to be forced to resolve disputes by email?" It took me a week of writing letters and requesting an unblock before I was released. To this day, nobody has even attempted to tell how I offended. My user discussion page was locked and I was told to communicate privately with my accuser. Please inform, is this how Wikipedia is supposed to operate? --Kaspersky Trust14:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Political userboxes
Dear Jimbo, you have commented a few times on the matter of userboxes and especially political userboxes, I believe its time to set a stricter rule for them (especially the political ones). I'd appreciate this and I am sure I wont be alone, -- - K a s h Talk | email23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Kashk is not alone in his desire for you to speak. Please do it, Jimbo, and soon. It's time to set Wikipedia back on track towards its mission, and away from being a social networking site and political debating society. Nhprman02:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You if people learned to stop worrying about userboxes they suddenly wouldn't matter very much. Go outside and take some photos so it becomes easyer to kill the copyvios or something. So far Jimbo's invoment has failed to calm the battle. I fail to see why you should expect anything different in future.Geni03:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
When everyone jumps in and comments on questions asked here on Jimbo's talk page, it gives him cover not to answer the question or deal with the issues raised. Jimbo, please don't do that this time. Geni: Yes, Jimbo has made some nice comments, but always with the caveat that they should not be taken seriously. That's not "involvement." And "stop worrying" is not a solution. An admin like you who has deleted more than 1600 articles or images cannot say they don't "worry" about content, and you should be worried about Userbox content, too. It's entirely legitimate. Nhprman04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Userboxes don't tend to contain copyvios any more. Yeah I worry. But I worry about article content for the most part. If you want a policy hard long term solution (which a pronocement from Jimbo will not give you) try and gather a consensus for some kind of policy.Geni11:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Supposedly, WP is not an exercise in democracy. Yet, "voting" on the last policy on userboxes fell short (61%), and was declared a "failure to reach consensus" even though the vast majority wanted it. Maybe Jimbo can clear up this conundrum for me. As for Jimbo's supposedly ineffectual pronouncements, he's the site owner, and it's his RESPONSIBILITY to set boundaries for this project. Don't give him cover to evade his duties with Utopian visions of a collective solution that's NOT materializing. Nhprman14:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can't even get 2/3rds support then yo can claim to have consensus. The site is owned by the wikimedia foundation not jimbo. The only actual responsibities the foundation has are those that keep it as a non profit. A collective solution is appearing. Both sides are largly so sick of the conflict that they are walking away and going back to editing in wikipedia. In any case if you belive the conflict can be ended by jimbo pronocement then there is no need to ask for the pronouncement to go in any particlar direction. So why don't you ask him to say that all userboxes are fine?Geni15:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Stephanie Adams Article Is Now Being Butchered By Several People
Your input might be helpful in resolving the continuous problems with the Stephanie Adams article, so please do so if you may on the Stephanie Adams discussion board.
The article on Stephanie Adams seems to be being butchered after we made important additions to it. Users are even removing previous comments that have been on there for a long time.
It is getting to be common practice to lock a talk page after a banning. I'm sure it's nothing personal against you. DyslexicEditor10:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Is Wikipedia supposed to be transparent, or is it normal to be forced to resolve disputes by email?"Wikipedia is part transparent and part not transparent. We are evolving. The encyclopedia part is under the GFDL and thus as transparent humanly possible. Top management has special legal responsibilities which limit transparency. Concerns for the privacy of contributors and biography subjects alike motivate nontransparency of a different type. And finally every editor is subject to legal liability for their behavior - from libel charges which can uncover your identity to civil lawsuits that can ruin you financially even if you win.
"To this day, nobody has even attempted to tell how I offended."Your user talk page says you have been informed you appeared to be a sock puppet of a banned user.
"Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to operate?" Wikipedia adopts whatever policies seem to work in making progress towards a free encyclopedia for all mankind. We are evolving. WAS 4.25015:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Allowing people anonymity when they want it makes sense to me, but I was being forced to communicate with my accuser in private. I was told repeatedly that emailing my accuser would be my only hope of getting unblocked. My user discussion page was locked, my {{unblock}} request was repeatedly deleted without resolution, and I find out now that my block was apparently based on nothing more than my inadvertently offending one user by gamma correcting pictures that he had previously released into the public domain. I did not mean to offend this user. I only wanted to help improve Wikipedia.
Some of the pictures that I gamma corrected had been released into the public domain by J. Williams (User:JW1805). Many of these pictures have now been reverted to the version without my gamma correction. In some cases, JW1805 overwrote the version I corrected with one that is remarkably similar to the correction I did, and nothing at all like the gamma of the original. In all cases but one, JW1805 took off my note saying "Gamma correction by Kaspersky Trust." (See also: Image:Tarpon Springs Mural.jpg, Image:James Oglethorpe.jpg, Image:Sam Houston at San Jacinto.jpg, Image:Cranmer Window Christ Church.jpg) I did not take credit for gamma correcting some of JW1805's public domain pictures. He did not revert those: Image:Apalachicola River.jpg, Image:Apalachicolabay.jpg. I did not mean to impose on another person's territory. I thought that improvement to pictures in the public domain would be appreciated.
My intentions are honorable and I believe that my contributions are good. What happened to me appears to be closer to the norm than a fluke. My question remains in earnest, "Should we be forced to resolve disputes by email?" --Kaspersky Trust19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I just tagged 800 untagged images, I sure could use a slice of cake... Congrats on Time 100! --Rory096
Just stopping in for a snack while on RC-patrol. I guess I'll settle for a nibble of ems' slice... --Alan Au06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Foiled by an edit conflict! ...and here I was sure ems had passed on his piece. I'll have to go find some spam to nibble on instead... --Alan Au06:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
He'd never run for president. It's clear from Wikipedia's first principles that Jim is a bit of an anarchist. If he was president he'd probably open the prisons and declare war on the decadent capitalist West. I like to think so anyway - Fat Alan, 19:07, 12 May (GMT)
There is currently an arbitration case[10] involving geo-politics that may very well be the poster case for some of the few shortcomings, certainly problems in Wikipedia. One of the arbitrators involved, User:Jayjg`s neutrality in regards to this specific case has come into question, yet he has gone ahead emanating some tilted proposals (objected to by other arbitrators as “over kill ”) against the same editors whom in the past he had obstreperously disagreed with in POV[11]. Despite the diffs showing otherwise, naturally our dear Jayjg does not agree that he should recuse/distance himself from the case (in legal lingo; contributing to “non-statuary aggravated factors ”), and sees his past relations with those editors as irrelevant, but at this point the blocking of a group of well-intentioned editors unjustly, may be irreparable. Jayjg, unfortunately, has had some complaints against him before accused by others as perhaps passionate in his POV[12] edits to the point that his admin status many times presents a conflict of interest in various cases. The positive productivity of Wiki recently been undermined by some bad press. I think their concern was that they saw a trend developing here: Please look into this, since this seems serious enough to warrant your intervention. ThanksZmmz21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
more problems with the administrator jaygy
just for the record.
this is my first ban ever
and here are the response to the allegations
1) unsourced pov. There has only been one possible unsourced POV (non reliable source), everything else has been sourced. Granted with two references, i used another wiki page, and a home page as a source. I was never warned that these are inadmissible. Is this justification for a permenant ban
2) copyright violations. This turns out to be a false charge. There has only be one citation by jaygy for copyright violations and this turns out to fufil every criteria listed on wikipedia for fair use.
3)attacks on the talk pages. There has only been only one possible example of personal attacks. This was when i stated that jayg was following me around and this is what you expect from a zionist. Hardly ranks in the hall of fame of personal attacks, and one has to question if this remotely comes near justification for an indefinate ban, or ban at all.
4) sock puppet. As i explained earlier, shared computer , same ip, same session on the internet explorer. But that aside there was only one single instance of this alledgedly being used to violate wikipedia rules. Where on one occasion . Note one occasion only in the entire history of my wikipedia usage a page was reverted more than 3 times.
given any fair, and clear policy by wikipedia, an inpartial adminstrator would question a ban at all, let alone an indefinate ban.
Also I would like to question the predjudice of many of the administrators who have commented on this case (see the wiki email section). I post under the name of saladin. My email is abuhamza1970@hotmail.com. During the last 5 days I have been accused of being an al qaida sympathiser, of not sharing the views of civilised society, sympathise with 911, and am a general threat to wikipedia, all because my email is abu hamza, and i have made contributions to the 'zionist' page and reverted changes to the harold shipman page, amongst many other contributions. All of which fall within the remit of wikipedia rules and NPOV (see major, minor view, proportinality etc).
My experience over the last 3 days has been a real eye opener, and i have been exposed to the most horrendous predjudice, accusations ranging from al qaida operative to 911 sympathiser to anti semetic, etc, etc. And these are from the administrators (slim virgin jaygy, philip welch). This hardly gives me or my community a fuzzy warm feeling that Wikipedia is an open community based project that seeks to include others outside of the anglo american community. If my experience is anything to go by, then it does not bode well for my community or other non anglo american, judaic communities.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.62 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 May 2006
I just wanted to drop a note and thank you for your quick response via email. If you feel it is appropriate, then I would say that`s pretty much good enough for us. ThanksZmmz00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any sort of list of your usernames at other wikis?
Mr. Wales, first off you're a genius. Second, I was wondering if we could start a Cut Spelling Wikipedia. Can we please?Cameron Nedland00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
For those who are wondering: cut spelling. If this gets approved, of course (good luck), it would probably just be a simple algorithmic conversion of Wikipedia—there's no reason to have a separate Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I know it seems stupid but pages wouldn't fill up so quickly and such. I don't know, maybe I'm just stupid like that.Cameron Nedland21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You're certainly free to create it on your own; you already have permission to use all Wikipedia text under the GFDL; be sure to follow the terms, though. If you want Wikimedia to run it, things are a bit more difficult. New Wikipedias (on Wikimedia servers) are proposed at Meta:Requests for new languages. Best of luck. Superm401 - Talk03:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Question about french wikinews
Dear Wimbo, I ask you because of, we are making a vote about the french name of wikinews. You know that the others information web-site of wikimedia association having their name in proper language (Wikinoticias, wikinews,...) so some persons in french wikinews have propose to vote for an over name of the project, a name in french language. My question is if in your opinion, we are in our right? One user (Divol) say that "wikinews" is a copyrighted mark and we can't change it. The web-adress is posession of wikimedia foundation so we can not also change it. Even if the vote is oppose to change, what can you say us about it? And if the people vote for change, what can we do? thank you--Jonathaneo08:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Different projects often have localized names (although the domain name will always remain in English: fr.wikinews.org, never wikinouvelles.org or whatever). See, for instance, Wikilivres, or Wikiźródła. Thus, I assume there's no problem with it, although Divol's thought about trademarks is reasonable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Here you said: "The problem we are seeing, again and again, is this attitude that some poor victim of a biased rant in Wikipedia ought to not get pissed and take us up on our offer of 'anyone can edit' but should rather immerse themselves in our arcane internal culture until they understand the right way to get things done. I do not know what is going to change, but something BIG has got to happen and SOON about this issue, because the amount of time it is consuming for some of our best editors is getting way out of control." This is part of the larger problem of too much freedom of anyone to edit at any time has caused adminship to be a time-waster that encourages edit-warrier attitutes and knee jerk banning and reverts. I highly recommend changing the at any time part. Why does that have to be 24-7 for everyone? Liberal use of protection would also help. Why on Earth waste admin's time with babysitting sensitive articles when they can be protected from anyone who hasn't had a username for less than a week? Your time is too valuable to waste like that. My time is too valuable to waste like that. Respect for the time of the volunteers is important too. Who wouldn't get a little edgy battling vandalism hour after hour? The cost in causing warrier attitudes is all by itself enough reason for more liberal use of page protection. While someone waits a week to be able to edit a biography, they can edit something else less sensitive. Yes, anyone can edit. But why sensitive articles 24-7? WAS 4.25017:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Um, I think you're saying the exact opposite of what Jimbo said. He was reinforcing the idea of "anyone can edit" by saying that newbies should be able to edit without having to first figure out what the ground rules are supposed to be. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It looked like he was talking about people editing their own articles, not merely bad editing. I think in the future advanced AIs can fix things like this--already there is the Tawkerbot. For people editing their own articles, this is one person. Daniel Brant (however it's spelled) didn't like his own article and disputed it a lot and was eventually banned. The real problem is it a topic of interest to a group, and people of that group are 99% of the ones who edit the article. So the people who edit such articles put all sorts of misinformation and spin in to make the group look better than it actually is. If the group is considered wierd, they make it look normal. If the group is considered racist or illegal, they make it sound harmless--I've read talk pages of articles about many racist groups and pro-pedophilia groups and there's all this complaining that racists/pedos edit the article to their agenda. And articles about things that belong to say a geek fandom that is non-controversial, likely are filled with spin because nobody challenges them. DyslexicEditor05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm someone who was incorrectly labeled a sock puppet, so I see things from a different point of view. I can empathize with the amount of time that administrators put into reverting vandalism, but it seems that you bring most of it on yourself. After being banned, unbanned and banned again (judged only by one mistaken person) after doing nothing but undeniably making articles better, and after going through all of the "proper channels" and having no action taken, I'm so frustrated that an "improper channel" is starting to look quite attractive. Why do I feel like I'm being forced outside the clique when I have so much to offer that could benefit this encyclopedia? David (Pole star) 16:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
All you have to do, Pole star, is sign up for a new account and start making decent contributions in a way that doesn't make admins think you're out to cause trouble. That shouldn't be so hard. SlimVirgin(talk)17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
All you have to do, Pole star, is sign up for a new account and start making contributions that coincide with SlimVirgin's agenda, and you won't get indefinitely banned as yet another editor who meets with SlimVirgin's disapproval, and is ipso facto a sockpuppet of someone bad, and therefore deserving of swift justice from SlimVirgin. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.252.1617:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's exactly what Jimbo was talking about in the quote at the beginning of this section. I was here for only one week when I was banned. I was banned by judgement of one person because I didn't know about Zephram Stark. I didn't know that we aren't supposed to make an article better when Zephram Stark (or someone suspected of being Zephram Stark) first made the change. Even if I had read your mountain of policies, that bit of information isn't in there. Now SlimVirgin suggests that I create an alternate account to circumvent my ban. Is this an admission that there is no way for a productive editor such as myself to work within existing policy? All I want to do is try to make articles better. I don't care about Zephram Stark or what SlimVirgin thinks he did. If an article is better, it should remain that way and the person who made it better should not be banned or called a sock puppet for doing it. All of this should be legal and I shouldn't be expected to break a policy by secretly creating a second account under false pretenses. David (Pole star) 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"Statement placed here by Jimbo Wales at 18:01 UTC, 20 February. Do not remove or modify wording without good reason
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."
Do you have something against people expressing their beliefs?
Dudtz 5/5/06 4:57 PM EST
Yes, of course. I am deeply opposed to free speech. Now, given that this is obviously silly, why did you even ask me the question? The userbox problem is not about expression of belief, but about factionalism and general stupidity.--Jimbo Wales21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This is what I don't understand. Since when was expressing oneself as an atheist, or Christian, as pro-life or as s kung-fu expert factionalism? Wikipedia is a community, yes, but members of a community must express thier individuality. That in itself is not factionalism, but simply free expression- the same free expression Wikiepdia is supposed to be based on.
The userbox problem doesn't exist, therefore, because there is no problem. Look, I'm sorry if I look like I'm ranting or if this seems like a personal attack (it's not). But I feel that creating templates for users is fine, so long is there is a balance: if a pro-life userbox exists, than a pro-choice one should as well. As long as these are only used on User pages, what's the big deal? The User page doesn't have to be NPOV, according to Mackensen, so keeping these templates as a basis for userpages only makes sense- Wikiepdia has a page on the abortion debate, for example, why can't it have the userpages for the sides of that debate? And why is Wikiepdia supressing the free expression it's supposed to be based on? TheTrueSora19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok,so you are opposed to factions,you probably have your reasons,but how is it stupidity.
Some of the belief userboxes probably are silly,but you should not remove the whole lot.
Dudtz 5/5/06 5:17 PM EST
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
Bureaucrats
Users with "bureaucrat" status can turn other users into sysops (but not remove sysop status), change usernames, and flag and unflag bots accounts. Bureaucrats are created by other bureaucrats on projects where these exist, or by stewards on those who don't yet have one. Sysoppings are recorded in Special:Log/rights or Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log for activity prior to December 24, 2004. Sysoppings by stewards are recorded at Meta:Special:Log/rights but the few stewards who actively sysop users on the English Wikipedia do so using their local bureaucrat status, making this distinction rather academic.
Why is there a position called "bureaucrat"?
Dudtz 5/5/06 5:31 PM EST
Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, but if some users want to call themselves bureaucrats anyway, what's the harm? Jimpartame01:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason that the second-highest level of privileges is called "steward". Those that Wikipedia gives more power to are supposed to have no more authority, and they are therefore generally not given names that would imply superiority. (Admins are, of course, the glaring exception.) A "bureaucrat" is someone who enforces laws and policies, not someone who makes them, so it's more appropriate than most alternatives. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree with you here - the term "admin" refers to an administrator, which in a office or university is considered to be the lowest rank of work as they spend all their time with paperwork. THe term has acquired a different meaning on the Internet, but in essence it is still the same. Having SysOp over SysAdmin is an excellent idea. --XyraelT10:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Not just on the Internet, but with respect to technology in general. An administrator of a computer generally has full access to the computer, among the highest permission ranks if not actually the highest. An administrator of a website (which Wikipedia is) is typically someone with the ability to directly edit site files to some degree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
A bureaucrat is a person of bureaucracy.Dudtz 5/7/06 9:49 PM EST
Mostly, the term bureaucrat devolved to find a term which would imply serving and following the will of the community. Bureaucrat is a rather odious name, but it implies exactly that. The reason for bureaucrats' existence is that different projects can, and do, hold different criteria for granting permission levels; stewards cannot possibly know every single procedure in every single Wikimedia wiki out there. Titoxd(?!? - help us)01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy now? Or is it just a non-bureaucracy with some members who like to act like bureaucrats? (Not that there's anything wrong with that :-) Jimpartame01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a state of anarchy with a bunch of self-appointed burueaucrats running around trying to clean up the whole sorry mess. However, it is also probably the best website in the world and, personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. And neither would Jim. - Fat Alan 19:15, 12 May 2006 (GMT)
Jayjg is becoming a problem
Wikipedia has a member of the arbitration committee who is falsifying CheckUser reports. Jayjg is very passionate about his work, but this isn't the first time that his passions have needed to be reigned in for the good of the project. I feel strongly that Wikipedia must let him continue contributing only as an editor. Here is proof that he has lied about CheckUser results.
Jayjg claims that I am Zephram Stark based on CheckUser results and other unspecified factors [13]. As you can see here [14], my IP number is 4.231.20.95 or similar. My home service is through Level 3 Communications Inc. and I live in San Antonio (something you can verify through ip-to-location.com).
Jayjg also claims to have CheckUser verified that Pole star is Zephram Stark [15]. As you can see here [16], Pole star's IP number is 67.150.222.251. According to ip-to-location.com, that IP number is registered to PAC-West out of Seattle, Washington.
Jayjg also claims that SR Bryant is the infamous "banned user" Zephram Stark [17]. As you can see here [18], SR Bryant's IP number is 4.249.57.71, placing him in the vicinity of Reston, Virginia.
I don't know what criteria Jayjg is using for his accusations, but it isn't a CheckUser. He is lying about that. --Kaspersky Trust03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This planet will know peace when all of its children have a homeland. Jayjg should not be expected to apologize for seeking this peace. --Dotan15:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Dotan is him too. Zeph, what you have to understand is that long before anyone had check-user access, we had to work out who the sockpuppets were based on posts alone. That experience has produced exceptionally well-honed linguistic analytic skills. I'd give it up if I were you. :-D SlimVirgin(talk)03:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
WOW, can you teach me your advanced linguistic analytic skills so I can be super smart just like you? Jorgegorom21:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
On your kind invitation to edit your page, I moved the poems to a sub-page [19][20][21]
because I felt that many of them were not exactly showcase material (if anyone who wrote them is reading this, I trust they won't take it personally). Someone has partially reverted me [22], leaving an situation where they now exist both on the main page and on the sub-page. Given the difference of opinion, I think it's best to refer it back to you and ask you to either complete the revert or undo it as you prefer. Thanks. Arbitrary username20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a couple of the poems dedicated to Jimbo Wales. Which ones do you think are "not exactly showcase material"? Don't worry, I don't take it personally, I just want to know what you dislike about the poems. Jimpartame21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think it's helpful for me to discuss them individually. Rather, I just wanted to flag that there is difference of opinion about them collectively, and so it's best for Jimbo to decide. Arbitrary username21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're saying there's difference of opinion, it's important to find out what your opinion is. I wrote "Cyberspace sometimes is scary," "Jimbo Wales is really couth," and "All over the world, people cheer." I really don't mind if you don't like something about those poems, because getting feedback is useful for me. I'd like to know why you don't like my poems so that I can do better in the future. Jimpartame03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You're teasing out of me a little more than I intended to say, so please nobody be offended. Okay, here goes. The difference of opinion is not particularly regarding the truth or falsehood of the actual statements made in the poems (such as those you've quoted), but whether or not they are a good addition to this page. I personally think that they are of poor literary merit (but that's basically an esthetic thing so there's no point asking me to analyze it further). Maybe more importantly, I think that they are sycophantic in tone, which makes it look like Wikipedia is a kind of Jimbo-personality-cult, which I don't think is helpful. I could speculate whether Jimbo feels the same way about them as he did about moving the barnstars to a sub-page, but I thought it better just to ask him. Arbitrary username15:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Which ones seem sycophantic? They look pretty NPOV to me, but feel free to write your own if you want to represent more sides of the issue. Jimpartame23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
About the origins of the catalan wikipedia
Hi and sorry for my English. I'm a member of the Catalan Wikipedia and I wanted to improve our article of our own wikipedia but, looking for information, I realized that it was the second wikipedia to be created. There's a contradiction because our administrators say that the French Wikipedia was created before, but some users of English Wikipedia told me that the Catalan Wikipedia was created on 1. March 2001 and the French Wikipedia on 15. March 2001. Moreover, I'd like to know why did you choose the catalan wikipedia to be the second (or third) wikipedia to be created because I think that it reveals the politics (all the knowledge in every language) of he wikipedia, but I'm not sure, because I've also heard that the creation of the catalan wiki has something to do with the avaiable space in the servers. These suspicious contradictions make me ask to the founders, that's to say, you, when was created the catalan wikipedia, why did you choose this language to be the second wikipedia and what did you want demonstrate with its creation. I know that my petition isn't easy to understand, so if you have any question, ask me. Gangleri2001 (Talk to me)
Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?
Jimbo,
Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.
Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?
There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?
Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, yourself included, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?
We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?
Jimbo's job is to create an environment of transparency and communication. He has done his job very well. According to the teachings of Ayn Rand, this should enable the rest of us to cause conflict with society and persevere to achieve our goals. Those who persevere without physically imposing their ideas on others will eventually find consensus. To the extent that the environment maximizes the effectiveness of objectivism while minimizing the effectiveness of physical force, it promotes useful growth. Jimbo has succeeded in creating a Randian environment that far surpasses anything this world has ever known, and we have the useful growth of Wikipedia to show for it. The Wiki engine has taken us as far as it is going to. Further growth at Wikipedia is up to us. It depends entirely on whether or not we buy into the hierarchical system that so many administrators are trying to push. By coming here and petitioning Jimbo to fix your problems, you are giving him and the rest of the hierarchical system the power to do so as they see fit. Such hierarchical power cannot create a consensual resource. The goals you seek of integrity and impartiality can be won only through individual pursuit of rational self-interest.
If you believe that a dictate from above can create impartiality, it won't matter how great of an environment Jimbo creates for us. --Team Shocker19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
"Individual pursuit of rational self-interest" has created this article: [23]. This article is controlled by a group of gay advocates who claimed in the article that "damage from natural disasters correlates with Protestantism". This is a group of editors who compared ingesting semen to taking vitamins... in the introduction!
Claims are added to the article, not for the benefit of the reader, but for the purpose of "convincing the people in the center to change their opinion" and "changing voters' minds". (Those quotes come directly from the talk page where strategy is devised to craft the article "from the gay rights advocacy point of view" - another direct quote).
This environment has not "maximized the effectiveness of objectivism". It has allowed a group of a dozen gay advocates to use a supposedly neutral encyclopedia to promote their agenda.
I am not saying that Jimbo has not "done his job very well". I am saying that the system is badly broken and needs to be fixed. And yes, that will require "a dictate from above".
There is currently no mechanism to prevent a group of extremists from controlling an article and using it to push propaganda. Until there is such a mechanism, we don't have a neutral and high-quality encyclopedia; We have this: [24]
Mr. Franklin, you're impassioned plea for top-down control is eloquent, but it won't do you any good in a Randian environment. Here, you must be your own hero. Here, each person's happiness is their only moral purpose, and productive achievement is their most noble activity. If Mr. Wales were to use physical force to, as you put it, "correct the problem," Wikipedia would stop being a Randian environment. If Wikipedia were to stop being a Randian environment, it is very likely that you would not be here. Even if you were here, content approval would filter down from the top, making you nothing but a slave: a worker with no control or compensation. Perhaps you feel that way now, but the solution lies in the path opposite from the one you espouse. Requesting mandates of force from above will make articles more out of your control, not less.
When you say "that the system is badly broken and needs to be fixed," the keepers of the system can only look at that from a general Randian perspective. No software will be written, nor will any dictatorial measures be levied, to address your specific concern of homosexual "propaganda." The only positive action that can be taken in a fundamentally Randian environment is to make the system more conducive to objectivist philosophy, thereby better enabling the heroism of all individuals. To that end, we welcome any specific ideas for how to improve the Wiki engine. --Team Shocker16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
In a true Randian system, people would trade shares of sysop time on an open market, and the invisible hand would ensure that those people best able would have the authority when it was needed. This system has a beauracracy (the sysops and ARBCOM) who are, in effect, like the looters who ruined Taggert Transcontinental. WP:NOT your Randian dreamtopia. Yesterdog23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The SysOps and ArbCom are not meant to be part of a Randian dreamtopia. They are necessary constructs to make up for real limitations in the system. The Wiki engine is a monumental first step toward a stable objectivist society. It is proof of concept beyond anyone's expectations, but it is a relatively simple database design that has its limits. The engine doesn't input everyone's POV and output consensus, but it comes closer to that aim than anything else in human history. We have this amazing resource of Wikipedia as a result. The next step is to make a better engine. As server space becomes less expensive and processing speeds improve, a more robust database design will bring us closer to a true Randian environment. --Team Shocker02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that if we take Rand seriously, as you seem to want to do, creating a good Wikipedia would clearly be supporting the looters instead of realizing oneself as a rational individual. Trolls, obviously are like Francisco D'Anconia, helping to defeat the looters from within. True Randians would start their own internet. And a separate wikipedia with a password like, "A is A, and I will never do work at my own expense to benefit others, I work only to promote my own ends as a rational being". Right? Yesterdog02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If anyone needs me, I'll be hiding in the mountains until all Wikipedians are fairly compensated for their work and the unjust centralized control of Wikipedia is ended.-Polotet03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That's were the rational egoism of objectivist philosophy differs from the selfishness of corporate capitalism. A corporation would never contribute to Wikipedia unless it could see some way of making a profit in it, but over a million articles have been created, edited and re-edited by people for purely altruistic reasons. The only explanation is that people enjoy being altruistic. It is part of human nature to seek a larger purpose, to benefit society and to have our opinion count for something. When Rand says that man is a heroic being with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, she does not discount the happiness that man gets from being a vital part of humanity. --Team Shocker23:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Conceding straightaway that this likely isn't the place at which we should engage in this discussion, I'd note that one may edit here self-interestedly, I think, and nevertheless contribute in a salutary fashion. Much of my editing, for example, is driven by the idea that, where I improve an article that another prospective user finds interesting, he/she may join the project and contribute to an article that I might find interesting. Surely one may also edit in order that he/she should be intellectually or socially engaged. As I've said, inter al., at WP:NOT EVIL, I disclaim any altruistic impulse in my editing Wikipedia; I edit solely for academic stimulation and encyclopedic perpetutation (I do derive pleasure, for whatever reason, from reading and learning information to which one would otherwise ascribe the appellative trivia, and I believe that as I edit, I encourage others to edit, such that the encyclopedia benefits me; that which benefits me also benefits the encyclopedia). Joe23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an argument over a false dichotomy. Selfishness and altruism are subjective judgement calls over the very same act.
For example, is a soldier defending his nation in a war committing a selfish or altruistic act?
It depends on your subjective perspective. It's a personal judgemental call.
If you are the enemy then it is a selfish act of self-preservation by your enemy. If you are a member of that soldier's nation then you may consider it an altruistic act because they are defending you. If you're the soldier then you may consider it selfish - you joined the army not specifically for your nation but for your own personal gain in wage and skills - or you may consider it altruistic - you signed up for patriotic reasons for the defence of every citizen of that nation.
The soldier may be defending the nation (altruistic) with a view to realising that this will implicitly defend their own family (altruistic: They are separate individuals, selfish: They carry your genes) or they may have joined up to learn new skills (selfish) to gain employment (selfish: increase personal materialism, altruistic: improve the economy and living standards of the nation).
Objectively, there are no such entities as "selfish" and "altruistic".
These are subjective frames of reference through which individuals make personal judgements and are the "lens" through which objective events are subjectively viewed.
They are merely two sides of the same coin. Objectively, the coin is both "heads" and "tails". Subjectively, you call "heads" or "tails" according to which side of the coin is visible to you at that time (as geometrically, the shape of the coin makes these options mutually exclusive to a single subjective viewpoint).
You are, to be sure, correct; I was simply using the terms as ostensibly defined and perceived by others involved in the discussion. Joe04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia's objective to be an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality" [26] or is Wikipedia's objective to be "Randian"?
When the reader goes to an encyclopedia for objective information and instead gets propaganda, does he care that the encyclopedia was Randian? (Speaking of propaganda, did you know that "in most developed countries, same-sex relationships are accepted as normal and natural" [27]?)
What good is being "Randian" if your encyclopedia is biased and wrong?
Wikipedia as it exists today has policies, committees, and a structure. But it doesn't have policies that work to prevent groups that push their agenda here. So why not fix those policies?
I'm glad that you "welcome any specific ideas". There are many ways to fix this. Here are a couple:
The article I have been involved with should have been removed months ago. A group of radical homosexuals organized and would revert my corrections. Since there were more of them than me, I was not able to correct the article. They would game the system to get me booted for 3rr when I tried to make changes. They would take turns removing my corrections so they wouldn't get blocked for 3rr (since no one editor reverted my changes more than 3 times). But since I did make the changes more than 3 times I would get the boot.
Since I could not correct the article, I nominated it for deletion. But guess what? The same group of organized gays (and their friends) was allowed to vote on the RfD! Obviously they weren't going to vote to remove their own propaganda, so the RfD never had a chance.
It is a very bad idea to have the same group of people who created a biased article decide whether it should be deleted or not. One way to solve this problem is to task ArbCom with the removal of biased articles. Under the current model, ArbCom will not get involved in the deletion of articles because they don't feel that it is their function. That should be changed.
Another way to solve this problem is to form a "POV Removal committee". This new committee could be formed to identify articles that have a long history of being abused by groups of zealots. These articles could be removed, at least temporarily. Wikipedia users could petition this committee to make a determination about what they believe to be biased articles. Members could be appointed to the committee based on how moderate they are. Extremists of all types would be excluded from the committee, or would at least be balanced (one lefty for every righty).
This problem is real. When readers see articles that are crap they are less likely to return. We should at least endeavor to fix the problem.
Lou, you're discounting the power of individual action. Don't ask people to form a committee. Become the committee. Wikipedia as a society should never force editors to achieve its goals. Instead, you should act to carry out your goals yourself. I think that if you started a POV Removal Committee, you'd be able to convince others to join. The goal of productive editing of articles is highly valued here. Jimpartame02:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd join. Maintaining NPOV is easy. Most all of it is just citing your sources within the article. X says this and Y says that. The narrative voice of the article doesn't assert anything controversial. The reader can choose to believe X, Y or neither. The article doesn't make that choice.
Lou, whether or not you agree with objectivist philosophy, it is the core concept of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Placing another layer of control over the failed last one won't solve your problems. That can only serve to give minority opinion more weight. Your search for the perfectly balanced committee will never be realized because balance is a matter of perspective. Everyone will try to pull the balance to where they think the middle lies, until someone succeeds. At that point, the committee will stop working for anyone else and the system will need yet another layer. I don't envy your quest for a stable hierarchical system because nobody in the history of the world has ever found one. With today's technology, we finally have an alternative and proof of concept, right here at Wikipedia, that objectivist philosophy works. Now that we've outgrown the simple engine that got us started, we can try to go back to the old ways or we can move ahead. I'm going to move ahead, and I hope you'll join me. --Team Shocker03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see how Wikipedia is fundamentally objectivist. I'd say it's much more communist, or at least communalist, and that it really stands in opposition to some core tenets of objectivism. I guess you could argue NPOV policy has an objectivist nature, but beyond that I don't see the underpinnings of Wikipedia as in any way consistant with objectivist philosophy.-Polotet03:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You see "anyone can edit" as communalist or Communist? Both of those societies rely on the standardized altruism of their participants. Anyone who deviates from that standard must be excluded in order for the system to work. As long as Wikipedia is a resource that "anyone can edit," it promotes the concept of man as a heroic being. Individual vandals don't get very far here because they are trying to punish others, and Wikipedia is not conducive to punishment. Those who relentlessly pursue their perception of productive achievement, however, are unstoppable in this environment, even by Jimbo Wales: [28]. --Team Shocker15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do people make quality edits except out of an altruistic desire to increase the quality of a free encyclopedia? I don't know about you, but I'm not getting paid for my edits, and no matter how famous and well known Wikipedia to become I know I'll never attain fame for it. I don't know about everyone else, but my editing is driven by altruism, and I can't see any other good reason to edit. People who deviate from an altruistic standard are punished--that's what vandals do. And I'm not sure what your point is about Zephram Stark--he's just an individual vandal who is persistent enough to keep on coming back.-Polotet20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting point of view, especially considering that Stark has never committed any vandalism. --Team Shocker23:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
People make edits out of altruism or as punishment depending on which they think will be more effective. Altruism is useful and effective in an enabling environment. Punishment, on the other hand, is an attempt to limit creative reasoning. Even if it were effective, the results would not be useful. The Wiki engine succeeds in making this great resource to the extent that it enables altruism, but it fails where it enables systems of punishment, exclusion and limits to creative reasoning. On my talk page, I have started an outline for a new engine designed to address the larger concerns of users like Lou by promoting altruism without the systems of punishment that are holding his article hostage. --Team Shocker22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Dude, can you get your head out of the clouds for a second? This article [29] uses the word "cocksucker" and has a picture of a dick. The article is run by an organized group of homos who don't give a damn that you are "moving ahead". They don't care what Wikipedia's policy about obscenity is, and they don't care that unsuspecting children are reading the word "cocksucker". They have consensus and they'll do what they damn well please.
Their objective is to make the article unbalanced and pro-gay. "Anyone can edit" doesn't apply here. They take turns reverting any changes that aren't pro-gay, assuring that their propaganda cannot be removed and anybody who dares to express an opposing thought is booted for 3rr.
The reference to the word "cocksucker" is from a direct quotation by McCarthy. In context, McCarthy is using the word insultingly from an anti-gay position.
I've read the article and I see no NPOV violations at all. I think you're seeing what you want to see - from a personal viewpoint - rather than what is actually there. PetrochemicalPete04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You "see no NPOV violations at all"? They listed "conservatism" under the category of "anti-homosexual attitudes"!
The authors say that conservatives are "threatened" by "the efforts of homosexuals to achieve equal rights", but of course homosexuals have all the same rights that every other citizen has.
The article doesn't mention the homosexual agenda, but instead talks about the "assumed homosexual agenda". As if those who are aware of the homosexual agenda are seeing a mirage.
Here is my favorite sentence "Those who regard homosexuality as a sin or perversion can believe that acceptance of homosexual parents and homosexual marriage will "redefine" (and presumably diminish) the institutions of family and marriage." No matter how you slice it, homosexual marriage does redefine marriage! To characterize people who don't support gay marriage as "those who regard homosexuality as a sin or perversion" is a bit one-sided, wouldn't you say?
Here's Wikipedia's policy that says "images that you are aware might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. [32]
Here's where they say that "between two images of equal value, one showing nudity and the other not, the picture showing nudity should be favored" [33]
It's all spelled out in the policy, but they have established "consensus" so they play by the rules that their "consensus" agrees to. There is no way to stop them. That isn't how "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is supposed to work. Lou franklin02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Lou, my point is that I don't see a penis in that picture. You're complaining about something that just isn't there. Have you seen the Penis article? When you complain that Societal attitudes towards homosexuality "has a picture of a dick," it makes it sound like they're adding one of those pictures, not some Greek art which is not a picture of a dick. Jimpartame03:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It's possibly that some prankster rigged the image to appear differently when viewed from your IP. When I look at it, I see an image of some red-figure pottery, depicting two Greek men sitting down. One of them is bandaging the other. He is bandaging his arm, not his penis. The guy on the right has a funny looking hat, but it is a hat, not a penis. Jimpartame04:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Optometrist to the rescue! See detail [34]. Uncircumcised. Any questions?
Lou, when you say that the model isn't working, you have to remember that the model brought us this far. Our current engine is Randian with dictatorial stopgaps to overcome its simplicity. Given that we have outgrown it, do we pursue a more robust engine or do we give up and become a dictatorship? There are arguments for both. Encyclopedia Britannica is closer to the dictatorial model. It is a wonderful resource, but I think we have something much better, especially given that we have surpassed Britannica in many ways in only a few short years. Asking people on top to micromanage your concerns by petitioning Jimbo to take direct action or form a committee puts us in the dictatorial category, where the most we can aspire is to be like Britannica. Taking the responsibility for our own productive achievement, however, will enable this project to be so much more.
I understand that you want direct action for your specific problem and not a general fix for the underlying issue, but fixing the underlying issue is all that anyone cares about on this discussion page. Have you tried an RfC?--Team Shocker15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a prayer. That is for "where participants cannot reach consensus". But they have consensus.
I have tried every other mechanism known to Wikipedia: mediation, arbitration, request for deletion, etc. Wikipedia currently does not have a remedy that fixes this. It needs one badly. Lou franklin02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm writing a new engine here that should take care of the problem for you, but it won't be ready for months. In the mean time, I think you might be pleasantly surprised by an RfC. It will bring more people into the discussion which will have an effect on consensus. --Team Shocker03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that an RfC will work, but it is important that I try all mechanisms within Wikipedia first. They have blocked me from the user page. How do I file an RfC without access to the user page? Lou franklin03:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
How do you want people to create policy? There's either discussion and building consensus on the talk page, or bold editing of the page until a version everyone agrees on is arrived at. -- SCZenz17:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It sounds as though you already had an answer in mind when you asked the question. If you're just looking for someone to validate your predetermined conclusion, we'd better take a close look at its assumptions. WP:POL refers to WP:HCP on the matter of creating policy by consensus. WP:HCP is a guideline, not a policy. A guideline illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy.
A question follows, "Why create a guideline if we can't enforce it?" A guideline is information that experienced editors give to help others become most effective at Wikipedia. It is a gift of knowledge, not a rod for obedience. Many of our current policies would better fit into the "gift" category as well. For instance, Wikipedia:No personal attacks says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This is some very good advice for new users and seasoned editors alike. --Team Shocker19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Questioning things requires doubt. A rational person cannot doubt. Therefore, the objectivist response is to ignore policy. Using personal attacks is merely another form of currency; brought about by Virtues of man. Yesterdog05:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears that there is some currency after all. However, I don't think objectivist response is as simple as ignoring policy because I believe that a rational person can choose not to doubt all things. People follow policy to which they consent. That consent can be based on agreement with the policy or simply a belief that a less than optimal policy is better than no policy. Within a government system, rational consent might be given for the entire system of policies even if one of the rules is considered incorrect or even damaging.
In the case of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, consent is hard to give and the policy rarely followed because the threshold is so poorly defined. If we are never to talk about anything but content, wouldn't the basis of this discussion be considered a personal attack? Wouldn't my asking the previous question be considered another personal attack? In fact, wouldn't anyone pointing out that someone else had engaged in a personal attack itself be a personal attack? --Team Shocker15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"A rational person cannot doubt"?
The roots of the modern scientific philosophical method owes a direct and acknowledged debt to the Descartesean concept of "ultimate doubt" (commonly concisely exemplified by Descartes' famous "Cogito Ergo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am" - conclusion, as the sole item of knowledge which defies doubt. Though, subsequent philosophers have even challenged that even this fails the Aristotlean test of supreme skepticism).
On the contrary, the ideal rational person cannot believe and they cannot know. They can only doubt.
As the ideal is unobtainable - a person is by nature and indirect experience, forever subjective - this doubt is eternally incapable of reaching "closure".
This is why science never stops. This is why no Wikipedian edit is ever final.
The quest for truth through rationality and objectivism is an eternal voyage.
Even if you were to reach your destination, you must forever doubt the fact that you've arrived and remain eternally open-minded to the possibility that everything you know is wrong.
Sexually explicit remarks towards me on Dutch Wikipedia
Dear mister Wales,
Very recently two users used very sexually explicit remarks towards me concerning my transsexual past. Also two users are explicitly mobbing me and want me to leave the project completely. Only the first accusation was answered with a two-hour block, the following three were not followed by a block at all - not even by a warning.
I wonder where this stops: death threats, rape threats?
Sunday 21st of May there'll be a Dutch Wikipedia meeting, and I promised to be there. I wonder if I'll be safe there, or just if I'll be treated with respect and honour.
Could you please take any action in these matters, as Dutch moderators seem to lack the initiative to do so? Verrekijker20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo doesn't know Dutch, you realize. How is he supposed to read all the discussion that doubtless occurred, especially since you didn't give links? Furthermore, he's exceptionally busy. Stewards who can understand Dutch include m:User:Oscar and m:User:Walter; while I'm pretty sure they can't unilaterally interfere with the local operations of a Wikipedia, they would at least be able to bring the matter up with Jimbo as known reliable sources if they felt there was a real problem. (They are, as it happens, also bureaucrats and admins on the Dutch Wikipedia.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Grammy's law: If a user posts on User talk:Jimbo Wales about a dispute, that is a strong indication that the user in question is a) inexperienced or b) wrong.'[35]65.74.249.9022:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Wiki used as a source for SVT...
I don't know if you collect material of all significant press articles that mention Wiki, or other kind of press material, but the Swedish Public Service television wrote an article published on the net and on teletext tv, that used Wikipedia as a source. The article talks about one of the last surviver from the Titanic. The article ends with the paragraph:
Enligt nätencyklopedin Wikipedia finns två kända överlevande från Titanic kvar i livet. De är 94 och 95 år gamla och bor i England.
Translated: According to internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, there are two known survivors from Titanic still alive. They are 94 and 95 years old and live in England.
I think this is cool, because a Public Service TV used Wiki as a source; that same tv usually use credible newspapers and Reuters as a source for their news. Thought I would let you know... --Candide, or Optimism04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Señor Jimbo Wales, kailangan po ng Philippine Wikipedian Community ng Inyong Tulong.
Mr. Jimmy Wales,
I am writing from the Pearl of The Orient Seas, speaking in behalf of our fledgling community here which is facing difficulties and is having a hard time making world-class ,wiki-class and excellent articles and giving up to the minute and accurate information due to our resource limitations. These are the difficulties we are facing and we are asking for advice and assistance regarding the following:
1. We have a very small community which in its own numbers, is very insufficient in covering the Philippines. Our community is very small, in fact that we are hardly making progress in Philipine-related topics. Add to it the fact that most of us are still studying and working and a very significant portion of our community are minors.
2. People do not have enough information about Wikipedia, or are suspicious since many sites in the Net offer false promises. They either never heard of us, do come here and do not know that anybody can edit it or they do not belive that Wikipedia does not charge fees.
3. Encyclopedias in Philippine languages are not heard of. If ever we tell them (as per my own experience) they are either skeptical or suspicious, since it is very revolutionary that there is an encylopedia in Philippine languages, since we are used to the fact that most encyclopedias are English.
4. An encyclopedia on the internet is very very revolutionary and new to the people that they don't know that it exists.
5. We are so low-profile that even the government is suspicious if we are non profit or for profit. As per the experience of my friend and comrade in fingers, Akira, he is having some delays in his project to improve the coverage about the Manila Light Rail Transit System. He has written letters to the Transport Authority and they told him to wait for one week, it has already been 2 weeks since he sent the letter.
6. Our community are living in very different places and it is hard to travel and meet up, partly due to the fact that many of us are busy or are minors.
Therefore at your permission, I give you the difficulties and limitations of our community. I leave the propositions and the solution to the rest of the Filipino Wikipedian Community. I am but one of them, and I personally feel that they must have their opinion heard.
Indeed, none of those seem even remotely close to the mission of wikibooks at first glance. Perhaps one or two of them might be ok, maybe. Are there courses taught in high schools, job skills courses, which would include a text about preparing for employment interviews? Probably, but this could be checked. Pykrete Bong? That one is tantamount to vandalism if you ask me and should have been promptly deleted on sight.--Jimbo Wales17:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jimbo. In the coming few weeks, I think I may spend most of my time weeding out the junk and taking a stand for WB. Thanks for your guidance. I know how busy you are, and appreciate your caring for all of the Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia(s). Thanks. --LV(Dark Mark)18:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Should these be considered instead as possible WikiReaders?
A "Preparing for an employment interview" text would have been quite useful in the "Technical and Professional Communication" course I took in college. --Carnildo20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I know you'e taken a particular interest in flagrant copyright violators, so let me point you to a particular discussion on the admin board. Note particularly his rationale when busted, ...why are you doing this? You know that Wikipedia isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this! --Calton | Talk00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry
I was wrong. It's wrong to copy material onto Wikipedia without attribution. I'm sorry. I'm also sorry for violating my block to post here, but I needed to get your attention.--Primetime02:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Plans for releasing Wikipedia 1.0
The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has been very busy and is about to start accepting nominations for Wikipedia:Version 0.5, a test of a CD/DVD/paper release. We would like to release this test version in autumn 2006. We will also soon be accepting Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations in preparation for release of a full Wikipedia 1.0 release, soon after 0.5 if the test is successful. The nomination/approval process will mirror WP:GAN for V0.5, and WP:FAC for V1.0. We elected to start with a core of important, good-quality articles and build from there, rather than following the German model. This will allow us to scrutinise each article and check for copyright infringements, bad language, etc. The following activities are providing support for the project:
We have had successful tests of a bot which automagically prepares tables of articles by quality such as this chemistry list and the corresponding log of changes, both updated daily. We will be contacting all WikiProjects during the spring with the aim of encouraging groups to use this system. We hope the projects will at least provide us with lists of key articles in their subject area. The projects can then easily feed into V0.5 and V1.0 via the nomination process.
Please could you give your views on this strategy on the main WP:1.0 discussion page? Would you be willing to support these projects as official CD/DVD/paper releases of Wikipedia, assuming certain criteria (no copyright problems, etc) are met? Thanks, Walkerma01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Question
Do you think lists even on a web site violates copyright laws, because Rhobite thinks lists on web sites violates copyright laws. This is just a question. Drop feedback on my talk site. Thank You.--Stco2317:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that your question is for Mr. Wales. My point is that it's much more likely for be answered if he can link directly to examples. Just in case Mr. Wales doesn't answer you right away, I'd like to share what I know about the subject.
It is considered illegal in many countries to copy something from another site unless the owner licenses you to copy it [37]. This includes lists. It doesn't matter if you improved the list after you copied it. You can, however, create a similar list from scratch. You can also report on what you have found on another site, giving full credit and without changing it. If you create a list from scratch, don't tell people that you "copied" it, because copying something can be against copyright laws. Instead, say that you created the list from the sources that you specify. --Team Shocker18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The last time Jimbo made a substantive edit to this page was six days ago. You will notice that he responds to very few of the comments left here. He certainly doesn't involve himself in day-to-day copyright disputes.
The talk page in question contains a discussion of the issue that involves Rhobite citing case law, then you saying the opposite without citing any kind of support, suggesting that copyright issues on Wikipedia should be dealt with by contacting the copyright holder (see Wikipedia:Copyrights), and saying that you will report Rhobite "to Wikipedia" and have him blocked when, in fact, he's an admin (i.e., one of the people who decides whether someone gets blocked).
The list may or may not be copyrighted. Mentioning some of the winners (say, the top three or five) is certainly fine, reproducing the whole list quite possibly is, but either way, your methods of trying to win the dispute are not. Please be civil and respect Wikipedia procedures rather than edit warring and ignoring Foundation-mandated policies such as Wikipedia:Copyrights. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Not disrupting Wikipedia is more important than whether a list of toys does or does not get added this year. It can be added next year or the year after that, if it is indeed all that important. On the other hand, Rhobite says: "I am planning to remove the copyrighted content from the AFI lists as well" as part of that discussion(05:34, 29 March) which could itself cause unnecessary disruption if done with a lack of proper coordination with other admins. Further it may be that it should not be done at all. Fair use is an area in law that that is unsettled and ever changing and there is no bright line in many cases. WAS 4.25019:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I am going to put the toys on the I Love Toys list from A-Z once the article is unblocked, and I think you should do the same with other list so they don't violate copyright laws. Thank You.--Stco2319:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Since the court aims to protect the economic value of the intellectual property as well as maximize freedom of information, this seems to be an excellent choice. WAS 4.25020:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel that I need to coordinate with other admins if I'm planning on removing copyrighted information from articles. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what lists are copyrighted. Generally if the list is a result of editorial opinion -- like the VH1 list -- it is copyrighted. Even if VH1 removes it from their website, it's still copyrighted. Even if we rearrange the list A-Z, it's still copyrighted. It's fine if people don't understand this - we can't expect every contributor to understand copyrights. However, once they're informed of the infringement they should stop adding infringing content. Rhobite20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
When evaluating a fair use claim you need to consider the transformative nature of the new work. Does the new work merely "supersede[s] the objects of the original creation" or does it "add[s] something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message"? (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc). Rearranging a copyrighted list and republishing it in its entirety does not transform the work at all. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Business Data, Inc. found that translating, slightly altering, and republishing text is not fair use due to the nontransformative nature. As for the three other fair use factors, the nature of VH1's list is commercial, the amount which Stco23 believes he is entitled to copy is 100% of the list, and the effect of our use could negatively affect VH1's viewership or website hits. All of these factors weigh against fair use. Rhobite21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So, no, you are not quoting an authority; you are being your own authority. Are you an intellectual property lawyer? WAS 4.25001:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure I'm correct here. If you require an exact case which declares that rearranging a list of 100 items from VH1's web site is not fair use, you probably won't find one. I have quoted one of the most well-known and precedential fair use cases, Campbell, to illustrate that a fair use defense hinges on the transformative nature of a work. I also cited Nihon, a case of a company appropriating and slightly altering text on a website, which was found not to be fair use, and bears a resemblance to Stco23's request. I resent that you asked me to cite cases, but when I did that you resorted to an ad hominem attack. You don't need a law degree to explain an obvious copyright violation. I've already indulged you too much. Since Jimbo Wales' talk page isn't an appropriate place to have this discussion, please take any replies to Talk:I Love Toys if you want. Rhobite02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure I'm correct here. The commercial value and the intellectual property content of an ordered list of entertainment items that is presented to the public in the form of an ordered list and not as a class or set lies in the ordering of the list and deordering the list removes its commercial value and the copyrightable portion of its intellectual property content. If you require an exact case which declares that rearranging a list of 100 items from VH1's web site is fair use, you probably won't find one. You have pointlessly quoted one of the most well-known and precedential fair use cases, Campbell, to illustrate that a fair use defense hinges on the transformative nature of a work. You also pointlessly cited Nihon, a case of a company appropriating and slightly altering text on a website. I find your resentment uncalled for. I have not resorted to an ad hominem attack. You don't need a law degree to explain an obvious case of fair use. I've already indulged you too much. Since Jimbo Wales' talk page isn't an appropriate place to have this discussion, please take any replies to Talk:I Love Toys if you want. WAS 4.25017:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This case illustrates one of the paradoxes of the Wiki engine. In order to create a single definition in which we can all agree, we had to create some very restrictive policies. In this instance, our policies restricted useful information right out of existence. Wikipedia:Copyrights keeps us from copying the list. Wikipedia:No original research keeps us from recreating or drawing conclusions from the list. We can link to a website that has some of this information, but eventually the link will be broken and the information will be lost.
On a live template used by all the US state articles? My assumption is that since there are plenty of ways to figure this out that would be far less intrusive the point must be something else. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't clicking "Show preview" let you see if it works without actually messing anything up? Isn't that a suitable action? Do things need to be saved to see the actual change? --LV(Dark Mark)00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, there might be some things that require saving the page. And since it's a template, there may be special attributes that require the saved copy to initiate?—G.He00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
--Viewing contribution data for user Jimbo Wales (sysop) (over the 2097 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 1840 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 12, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 27, March, 2001
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 25.56% Minor edits: 63.08%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 34.16% Minor article edits: 67.1%
Average edits per day (current): 1.14
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 4.1%
Unique pages edited: 746 | Average edits per page: 2.81 | Edits on top: 2.62%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 20.7%
Minor edits (non reverts): 14.97%
Marked reverts: 1.43%
Unmarked edits: 62.9%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 20.79% | Article talk: 12.45%
User: 6.39% | User talk: 42.35%
Wikipedia: 10.68% | Wikipedia talk: 3.67%
Image: 0.86%
Template: 0.29%
Category: 0.19%
Portal: 0%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0.62%
Other talk pages: 1.38%
Jimbo Wales, I am a friend of thewolfstar. She has asked me to ask you to please help her and Merecat. She along with Merecat and many others have been blocked unfairly with no procedure followed. Thewolfstar's page is protected now, too. She and Merecat are now blocked indefinitely. Thewolfstar's unblock code has been removed by her blockers. Bishonen is involved and Swatjester, both known low-lives. Please help thewolfstar and please help Merecat. I know you hate junior highers like Bishonen and Schvatjester. SlimVirgin, Bunchofgrapes, Killerchihuahua and many others are involved for sure. Thanks Jimbo. Many are being blocked and extermminated all over the place. It's clear that any dissenting view on Wikipedia is not allowed. There is no doubt about it. The conspiracy is world wide and it runs deepLamb of god23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oooh, why wasn't I included in the lowlives? I live very lowly, when I live at all, and the whole WP:AN/I seems to be in on the conspiracy. (BTW, I'm reminded of Yvor Winters's comment on Gerard Manley Hopkins's The Windhover: "I breed champion aerdales, but I wouldn't write a poem comparing one of them to Jesus Christ." One must wonder what it takes to name oneself the agnus dei.) Geogre02:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Never fear, I would have named you, had I written that missive. You truly are the lowest of the low, Geogre... Well, ok maybe not the VERY lowest of the low, but far enough. ++Lar: t/c02:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I looked at thewolfstar's talk page and edit history and found at least one edit that deserved banning--I only looked briefly as it was very long. If "Lamb of god" is not a different person, then I think it's someone they know from the wikipedia review site. DyslexicEditor03:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The block/ban was based on a month's behavior, multiple attempts at mediation, and took place only after a long discussion in two locations on AN/I, as well as the user's talk page. This was one of the more slow-motion bans ever, and there were innumerable attempts at getting the matter resolved by at least half a dozen unrelated persons. Geogre13:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
DE- It started at serious personal attacks and ended at veiled and not so veiled threats against other editors and wikipedia itself. Not a happy story.
Geogre, if you are feeling left out let us know and I'm sure we can come up with an egregious personal attack or two. I would have long since, except... I can't write sonnets. Do you have any preference for the topic of the insult? 'Near the lowest, but not quite, the lowest, of the low' lacks a certain flow that I like to have in my personal attacks. MilesVorkosigan18:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I do get the usual "Fatty fat fat" stuff from IP numbers, and some of my sonnets are heartfelt complaints. I was just upset that I wasn't included in the crowd of commanist caballist censors of creativity. Am I not clubbable? (It's been ages since I've been accused of being a sockpuppet, too.) Let's leave the boss's talk page alone, though. I'm sure he's got other things to do, what with running for president and all. Geogre23:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I've been reverted back to junior high school. Lambofgod, you can email me at dgr0498@fsu.edu (that's Florida State University) with your apology. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as I know cheering someone helps that one so
The Hero of Time has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
English policies are policies in the world. Is it true?
Hello, Mr. Jimbo Wales. I'm a thankless translator who is translating policies of English version to of Japanese. My understanding is that policies existing in English Wikipedia are also policies in other languages after they have been imported and translated. Is it wrong? I'd like to beg your opinion.--ComSpex01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Outside of some very broad basics, no. In general, local projects are free to set the policies they need, depending on local culture, local experience, etc. Some of the very broadest principles are of course applicable everywhere: NPOV, free licensing, kindness to others, etc. But the details can and should vary everywhere.--Jimbo Wales02:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer, Mr. Jimbo Wales. Specifically speaking, WP:AGF and WP:CIV are the ones that are now discussed in Japanese Wikipedia for whether each should be a policy or a guideline. I wish you could read and write in Japanese language as a user of Japanese Wikipedia.--ComSpex04:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If I may be permitted to make a personal observation, Assume good faith (AGF) and Civility (CIV) are both official policies on our wiki. In practise this means that all editors of the English Wikipedia are expected to follow them. On our large wiki, this has consequences at the higher end of the dispute resolution procedure, a person who persistently breaches either can be sanctioned, even banned.
In a smaller wiki this kind of policy may not yet appear so important. As the wiki grows, however, the benefits of having such policies will become evident. The policy making process on each wikipedia project must follow its own path, but I hope that other wikipedias can learn from our experience and that of other large projects such as the German and French Wikipedias. --Tony Sidaway16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Mr.Tony Sidaway. I agree. As Mr. Jimbo Wales says above, I also do believe that the two are very precious principles which are applicable beyond cultures and languages. At this time of writing, according to your words, Japanese Wikipedia is still one of yet smaller wikis with my regret.--ComSpex09:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Hey Jimbo! I'm a rather new editor to wikipedia I have been extremely impressed with my experience here. So I just wanted to say thanks for starting this, and it would completely make my day if you dropped me a note on my talk page, or wrote some jibberish on my vandalism page. Regards --Charlie(@CIRL | talk)04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
!
QuentinSmith has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
Jimpartame has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
Hi Jimbo, I wrote a little parody of the RfA process (which I'm going through right now) and have posted it (and a ogg of it!) here: The RfA Candidate's Song. I hope you like it: you even get a mention towards the end. Bucketsofg✐14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful job! (And it just occured to me - it must be quite bothersome to Jimbo as every time he logs on I'm sure he gets the big orange box 'You have new messages!') Cowman109Talk01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Baidu Can Do Whatever It Wants With Wikipedia's Content, Even Sell It, And There Is Nothing You Can Do About It
Why should Baidu care about GFDL or CC? GFDL and CC probably doesn't even apply under chinese laws. Hell, Baidu can sell wikipedia content if they want to and the chinese governmnet would not give a damn. 70.48.250.13801:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Dunno about that. China is a signatory to the Berne Convention, among others, and has various copyright relations with the US. While in practice they might not be as stringent as an American webhost, I wouldn't be surprised if they at least made some effort to stop people from massively ripping stuff off. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering that they don't even like WIkipedia and have blocked it nationwide, it's highly unlikely that they will actully help Wikipedia in anyway. 70.48.250.13805:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, it is legal to sell GFDL content, as long as the distributor follows the terms (which Baidu apparently does not). Superm401 - Talk03:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The RFC should provide the rest of the info. I believe this to be a very important item and precedent concerning admins powers. Thank you for your time, Chuck(척뉴넘)11:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: Kindly, this message is intended for Jimbo and does not need to be commented on by other users.
It's a wiki, anyone can comment. I don't know how long of a signature we're expected to put up with before we're allowed to do something about it, but it's quite obvious we shouldn't allow signatures of arbitrary length. --Cyde Weys06:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Sidaway, that's not what I said. What I said was: That course of action (starting an RfC) was not the correct one. I believe every admin should be held accountable if they make a mistake; that was the intent of the RfC - although it was the wrong move to make. Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. — Nathan(talk)18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If someone were to post/force information that cant have a basis due to the lack of research in the field, how should such cases be processed? I am inclined to remove them w/o a compramise, is that way out of line? --Catout21:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"No modification" type licenses
Are these allowed or not? Not allowing modifications are defenently not GFDL compatable, and the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} template also stated that works must permit modifications or be deleted up untill 20 December 2005 when Sfre-factored the template and somehow did not mention modifications in the new version (should I re-insert it?). {{Cc-nd}}, {{Cc-by-nd-1.0}} and {{Cc-by-nd-2.0}} also say they are explicitly non-free licenses, but they don't seem to have been officialy "depreciated" either, and this kind of images was not mentioned on the anouncement that depreciated {{noncommercial}} and {{permission}} type images either. Was this an oversight, or are this kind of restrictions a-ok for Wikipedia use? --Sherool(talk)19:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Block clarification (Wikibooks)
Recently, you blocked Zephram Stark from Wikibooks [39]. As I've had quite a bit of interaction with this user here on WP, I was a tad disappointed to see him pop up at WB, as he can be a bit frustrating sometimes. However, my question is regarding the general blocking policy. Are we allowed to block banned en.wiki users at the first sign of trouble, or do we have to go through the usual steps? My guess is that we should have a shorter leash on these users, correct? We've basically shown that we (users of all Wikimedia projects) have assumed good faith, but they have already worn it out. So we should be able to block at the very first sign of trouble, no? Thanks for your help. --Mark Neelstin(Dark Mark)02:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This would be up to Wikibooks to decide, generally. I recommend enforcing en.wikipedia blocks globally in all en communities, but that can be left up to local preference. Zephram's particular bad, and it would be a total shame for you to waste much time with him!--Jimbo Wales01:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Are mods for computer games notable
Hello, I am wondering once and for all if small mods/conversions for computer games are notable, and when they go from being notable to being AFD cruft. Trying to figure this out from general guidelines is a source of great confusion for me and others. Bfelite04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Jimbo hasn't been big on discussing notability criteria. The only comment by him I know of on the matter is this (note the edit summary), over two years ago. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
What was believed appropriate for Wikipedia changed as the number of articles went from 10,000 to 100,000 to 1,000,000. It will continue to change as it goes from 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 and more. WAS 4.25015:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Do you think that if they allow Pacifist user boxes they should have Facist? And if they have Christianity they should have Satanist. I am not a Satanist I am just saying they have rights to. MegaloManiac17:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not logged onto my wikipedia for about a month, and when I did I noticed some things that were quite odd with my history.
I joined in March of 2006, yet I seem to have 3 edits that were made in August of 2004... Over a year before I even joined. I also created the Doctor Andonuts page, and that is gone from my history. (Yet the page is still there) I've also made numerous edits to the Mother 3 page, yet only one edit is shown.
I'm not quite sure what is wrong, but I would be grateful if I could receive some type of explanation, advice, or assistance. Thank you for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssj27gohan (talk • contribs) .
Is it really necessary? I mean, when he makes some relatively harmless comment. It seems to me to only inflame him.--Jimbo Wales07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I did hesitate on that one. There are a couple of problems, however. Firstly, when he comes back he tends to make a couple of harmless-looking edits, then when people question them on the talk page he goes into a rage. He is completely unable to respect or listen to consensus. When I was a relative newbie, he completely flamed me for disagreeing with him on Chopin's birthdate and attempting to get consensus on that talk page, and this began with relatively harmless comments on the talk page. In addition, my understanding is that he is a permanently banned user, despite not having gone through ArbCom, and that permanently banned users are generally banned from making edits even to correct spelling, and that in order to discourage them from returning and further causing disruption, edit warring, and filling the Recent changes page with Squids, they should be immediately reverted, and their IP blocked. Of course, if you disagree with me and would like me to change my behaviour, just let me know, and I will completely respect that. Cheers, Mak(talk)15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've not followed it, but I think that vandal is an old one like willy, the communist, or the pelican vandal, and so I'm amazed if it's still the same person. It's my belief that a lot of these famous ones stopped and now just have copycats. DyslexicEditor21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you have a point, but the edits in question had nothing to do with Squids, and everything to do with the old bones the guy likes to chew on, like Rocky Marciano, for some reason. I believe the edit Jimbo is questioning is this. I really doubt copycats have the knowledge and will to argue about these things. I didn't particularly care about the content of this particular edit. I just thought it would be best not to encourage him. He's been editing a good bit today too, but I guess I won't do anything until I hear from Jimbo. Have the Communism Vandal and the others gone through ArbCom? Mak(talk)22:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I should clarify that I meant my question literally, in the sense of gathering Makemi's opinion, it was not an implicit order or request, just a thought. Makemi gave me a very sensible answer, and I leave it to individual judgment of course. Just be aware that I get rather a large amount of email from this individual detailing every single alleged injustice against him. :) --Jimbo Wales17:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide a page on Wikipedia and a page on that site that both contain GFDL copyrighted material? WAS 4.25022:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
All of their articles on the Ivy League schools and the Ivy League itself are clearly copied from Wikipedia. See their content on the Ivy League and compare to Ivy League. Look at their page on Brown University Or their page on Cornell. Same for the rest of the Ivy schools. It's pretty blatant, down to even much of the formatting. I worked on several of these articles and have seem them shaped over time and long discussions, so it's certainly not the case that the Wikipedia articles are copyvios. --Chan-Ho (Talk)22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a clear case of copyright violation by ivysport. In cases like this the Wikipedia Foundation paid legal talent contacts them and they usually eventually see the virtue of complying with our copyright license as it is the only thing that gives them the right to distribute significant amounts of Wikipedia content in the first place. WAS 4.25023:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
According to our GFDL policy licence he/she certainly does not. Credit must be attributed to wikipedia to ensure the contributor's right to acknowledge thier insertions. "He has the right to use Wikipedia's content however he wants". Wherever did you get that idea..? -ZeroTalk20:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a copyright licence; not a "policy". The copyright of any specific material on wikipedia belongs to the contributor and not to the wikipedia foundation. The GFDL is a copyright license that lets both wikipedia and anyone else make copies that would otherwise violate copyright law. WAS 4.25022:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Because GFDL is supposed to give anyone the freedom to do whatever he wants with the wikipedia content he downloaded onto his own computer. If GFDL does not give him such freedom, then GFDL is wrong, not him. Issac Dick20:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright law does not prevent anyone from doing what they want with honestly obtained copies of copyrighted material in the privacy of their own home so long as your copies stay in your home and are not copied and distributed to others thereby impacting the copyright holder. WAS 4.25022:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
GFDL is supposed to give anyone the freedom to do whatever he wants with [licensed content]. Actually, no, it was never supposed to allow that. GFDL is pretty well known as a "viral" license meaning that it propogates by allowing GFDL content to be used only if the new work also is released under the GFDL. GFDL is wrong, not him. A choice was made by Jimbo Wales, et al, to license contributions under the GFDL; editors contribute their works with the understanding that it falls under the GFDL. If someone doesn't follow the conditions of the license, s/he is breaking the terms of contract and subject to the legal consequences. That certainly doesn't make this person "right" and the license "wrong". --Chan-Ho (Talk)22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I recently looked down at the bottom of one of the articles copied here and found it clearly states the source is from Wikipedia. The other replicated pages, such as this one also are sourced. This may have been done recently, but is there still an issue concerning copyrights if the source is given? Cowman109Talk23:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm...that's interesting. The first two pages I found (see the links above) through Google were on the Ivy League and Cornell, and they definitely did not (and still do not) have those notices. It's possible I only looked at the bottom for references to Wikipedia on the exact two that didn't have the notice and didn't note the others had it (I only checked the others to verify they looked like Wikipedia duplicates).
In any case, they're not in full compliance with the GFDL, because it's not enough to just have a notice. For one thing, as someone mentioned above, they must provide a list of contributors, which they definitely do not. Well, I guess I'm content as long as they mention Wikipedia. I only brought this up to learn a little about how (and if) Wikipedia responds to these things. --Chan-Ho (Talk)00:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
"In cases like this the Wikipedia Foundation paid legal talent contacts them and they usually eventually see the virtue of complying with our copyright license as it is the only thing that gives them the right to distribute significant amounts of Wikipedia content in the first place." Not to be too rude, but this is completely wrong. The Wikimedia foundation does not own copyright on any articles so the can not enforce the GFDL. It is contributors like me who write and send such letters; to help, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Also, websites rarely comply with such requests, rather than usually. Superm401 - Talk03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You asked that no one reinsert the real name of the comic that plays this character without an unimpeachable source. Please review the source that I found on the talk page of the article - does it pass muster? I would change the article myself, but I am concerned that I would be violating some policy. Clarifier18:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
harsch sentence
i know you have been bloking many people that why i've decided to come here. it's not the time to consider a shorter sentence(sort of amnesty) for good comportement(behavior) for those who have been blocked indefinitely?i've found very severe to block somebody indefinitely or more than 6 months.Felisberto20May2006(UTC)
O RLY?
It appears as if I am going to make you part of an ongoing internet phenomeon. My apologies if you feel as if I violated your privacy. Please don't hurt me or any members of my family.
newspaper article about WP Newport News, James city Virginia
A reporter and photographer from the Daily Press newspaper in Newport News, Virginia came to our home near Williamsburg yesterday afternoon, and interviewed me, and photographed me and Mom for a story on Wikipedia and my work.
The reporter considers me something of a historian on local history and transportation subjects. I explained off the record that my bus company situation is still in litigation, and I didn't want it included in story. (It went belly up in 2004).
Story set to run Monday, May 22 in Spotlight section. Keep your fingers crossed story is complimentary and reasonably accurate. I dont know if this feature is opart of the paper which they publsih online, but I will try to scan the article of it isn't. Hopefully, good press for WP. Thought you would want to know.
—G.He has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
um, hi, i know that this isn't considered an "encyclopedic" topic by many wikizealots, but i just have reeeeeeeaaaalllllly been wondering why Brian Peppers is down. i mean, what good does that do for wikipedia? how does this help? if the article was unverified or in bad condition somehow, why can't we just make a new one? at the very least, we could have a redirect to the Internet Phenomenon page.
it struck me as extremely bizarre for wikipedia to not have an article on this. Joeyramoney05:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't around when it happened, but what I heard was, Brian Peppers saw the article about him, decided it was libelous, and threatened to sue Jimbo. That's why he took it down and won't let anybody write anything new. Jimpartame06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"I quite properly speedied it as a recreation of content which had already been properly deleted per AfD. You can't just keep recreating things over and over hoping to get the result you want out of an AfD. The multiple AfD's should have never happened in the first place."
"The only "Jimbo" thing I did was to basically say: cool it for awhile. I'll gladly consider shortening the cooling period if positive recent developments to our policy on biographies of living persons are shaped into a form that gets huge community consensus and gives us a better way to deal with these issues than the nonsense of repeated AfD battles. That way lies madness.--Jimbo Wales 03:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" - Quote provided by WAS 4.25013:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. This was not a legal issue in any way, it was a community issue. A huge brawl was brewing over something absolutely unimportant, and procedure had already been ignored and I felt we were on the verge of a totally absurd wheel war over it. The rumors, detailed above, of a legal threat from Brian Peppers are totally untrue. --Jimbo Wales17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
(Oy, this is much longer than I'd intended it to be) And that's the part that concerns some of us; where Wikipedia is not open to civil action (as, for example, in our having an article, even a biased one, about Brian Peppers), WP:OFFICE oughtn't to be used. OFFICE protections/deletions undertaken lest Wikipedia should be sued are one thing; surely those who donate to the Foundation don't desire that their contributions should be used to fight every prospective legal battle, and we would do well temporarily to protect pages in order that our article should not leave the foundation open to suit (of course, it is exceedingly rare that the Foundation should be open to suit). Where an action is taken by Jimbo, either consistent with OFFICE or with his other powers, only to quell community unrest or to insulate Wikipedia from public criticism (I understand the former to have been more relevant here), we are simply faced with Jimbo's substituting his judgment for that of the community. Jimbo, to be sure, is usually eminently deliberate and deferential in acting as the ultimate Wikipedian, but, in this instance, I think he erred; the solution to our debating stridently and vociferously (and perhaps disruptively) apropos of the propriety of our having an article is not less talk but more. Jimbo's intimation, for example, that polemical userboxes are, on the whole, exorbitantly disruptive, has convinced many users to abandon their divisive userboxes, and, even as debates continue w/r/to userboxes, several proposals to resolve finally the situation are now drawing considerable community support; though some users are unlikely ever to compromise, most users do not desire that one issue should disrupt the project and so will work collegially and collectively to ameliorate problems. We surely don't want to go down the road of removing every article over which substantial portions of the Wikipedia community disagree (we'd be left with far fewer than our 1M+ articles); it is much better that we should encourage further collaboration. Here, the issue was either (a) that the Peppers article was dividing the community so severely that its being removed, even as it might harm the encyclopedia by removing a sourced article, was on the whole better for the project or (b) that Jimbo construed WP:NN and WP:NOT to mean that Peppers oughtn't to have a biographical article here. The former leads us down a slippery slope, while the latter simply represents the imposition of the view of one to the exclusion of the views of many. Jimbo rightfully and properly steps into certain situations here, but I would hope he'd refrain from insinuating himself into simple disputes over notability/verifiability, at least in any capacity other than as an everyday editor, and I fear he may have acted otherwise here. Nevertheless, I don't believe that our not having a Brian Peppers article means that the project has failed, and so I continue to edit and enjoy; to the extent that Jimbo's action was simply meant to remind us (I should say I wasn't really involved in the Peppers discussions; they predated my coming here) that we're here to create and benefit from an encyclopedia, not to debate the minutiae of policy or to quarrel over an individual article. Notwithstanding that I believe biographies of living people ought not to be treated in a fashion different from that in which we treat most of our articles, such that we absolutely ought not, contra Jimbo, to care about the effects of our disseminating accurate and sourced information (we are, after all, disinterested and dispassionate encyclopedists), I understand that a consensus exists for our editing consistent with some sense of the harm limitation principle (though cf. the rejected Wikiethics and WP:NOT EVIL); I don't, though, think that the judgment of Jimbo is necessarily superior to that of a collection of editors. Joe23:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Addressing the concern of Joeyramoney, and inasmuch as Peppers is mentioned on the meme page, I wonder whether we might consider unprotecting Brian Peppers and redirecting it per Joeyramoney; thereafter the page can again be protected. Joe23:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the redirect would be a good idea. This graph from Google Trends certainly suggests Brian Peppers isn't going to be forgotten very soon. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
There's plenty of info about him on uncyclopedia, wikitruth, encyclopediadramatica, and ytmnd if you want to learn who he is. DyslexicEditor21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In this edit http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks&diff=prev&oldid=434945 you said "Wikibooks is not a repository for video game manuals ". The effort to move these books to a different project has been going well, I moved all the books I wrote to my own wiki. Another user (Garrett) has been active in moving the rest to strategywiki which uses the GFDL. The problem is, some Wikibooks users have started to question the moves, you can see the disscussion here.
Garrett has raised the question "Is this the Foundation speaking, or is it only Jimbo?". Could you please go to Wikibooks and join the discussion. The moving of books has been put on hold until this is sorted out.
I myself have just grabbed the 300+ Pokémon pages (which I believe are not covered by the GFDL because they are lists and tables of factual data), and the Wikibooks versions are ready to be deleted. (Which took nearly 24 hours)! The sooner you respond, the sooner they can be deleted and we can all move on with our lives. Thanks, Gerard Foley23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say, this will be the end of wikipedia.de
Hi Mr.Wales , here´s some stuff (not complete) only from today. For a short summary ask de: Benutzer:Elian or de:Benutzer:Henriette Fiebig. See you tomorrow and aftertomorrow with new disgusting stuff.
Hi Mr.Wales, today is Monday - Day 2. Here´s a collection of new disgusting stuff from de. (btw.: sometimes I think, I and about 10 users more are the only, who write articles (but that might be subjective)
9.According to User NoAOL this was the topic the Germans contributed most today:
These 2 guys have noticed,that first de:Benutzer:Finanzer,later de:Benutzer:Markus Schweiß have made a mistake. Now they are preparing a correct "Benuzersperrung". According to Wranzl their prepariations will take a week. So you will get two weeks of new disgusting stuff.Look what they have done today:
There were some topics more today,Tuesday - Day 3 but I´m getting more and more confused. Maybe tommorrow you will get some the rest. Cheers 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Wales, today is Day 4 - new weird stuff from de.
btw. Germany was voted rank 15 in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006. And this might be the rank of wikipedia.de currently too. Typical: Number 5 from Lithuania de:We Are The Winners is said to be not relevant (by the losers :-)).(VfD)
2 remarkable topics.:"Heisse Luft" de:Benutzer:Rax (you know him from *22 and *23) has again breaked his break, not to add any foundations but to delete Hans Bug's statement and to ban IPs from his show trial + disk.Greetings to Mr. Wyschinski, if you can read this history.
And now to something completely different. He3nry in I don´t need a dictionary - I´m a German admin
Cheers. See you 08:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Who the....?
Excuse me, Mr. Wales, I know you're busy but who the heck deleting the userboxes page. Are you planning to eliminate them or something? Thanks for listening. GANDALF199221:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
~Ron~
Juan Cole page
Hi, I just saw your comments to me on the Juan Cole page. I feel kind of crushed, actually, because I very much respect the project and have been trying to do good quality edits in good faith here. Elizmr00:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So I just read what I wrote again, and respectfully have to say that I can't see that it is such a mockery:
The NPOV policy states that everything must be written from neutral point of view. Conflicting views should all be presented in a fair neutral tone. The article doesn't come down on any side; the reader is left to judge for his/her self. The article should not be overtly sympathetic or negative towards the subject of the article. We should describe the debate that exists regarding Cole here as fully as we can. One of the great advantages of Wikipedia to a single author source, is that we can have different individuals or "camps" describing different sides of a debate.
Elizmr, with all due respect, this is a mockery of what Wikipedia stands for. The original statement, which you say is at odds with Wikipedia, is a far more accurate summary of NPOV. NPOV is not about warring camps adding POV bits to an article and hoping against hope that it comes out ok in the end. It is absolutely correct to say that it is not the job of Cole's fans to balance out the article, and also absolutely correct to say that if you or anyone else is unwilling to invest time finding responses to critiques, then they should recuse themselves from the article.--Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for using the word "camps" --it was a particularly bad choice of words. What I was trying to say is that different authors who understand various nuances of the dialog the best can describe it most cogently and accurately. Of note, the only really contentious article that I have edited on Wikipedia in the past was the one on MEMRI, which was very much of an attack piece and I went in and tried to find stuff to balance the attacks out rather than insist that they be removed (because I thought that the attacks were a valid piece of the dialog).
This is the next piece of what I wrote and your reply:
Regarding your earlier statement, "The Cole detractors editing this page are using a lawyer's technique of putting up scurrilous charges like anti-semitism that are based on conjecture in order to tarnish Cole in the eyes of the "jury" (ie a casual reader not familiar with the subject)," I would refer you to another Wikipedia policy, WP:AGF. This policy asks us to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we are all working here for the good of Wikipedia, eg, on this article, to present a full multidimensional view of Juan Cole. Working under the assumption that "Cole detractors" are "putting up scurrilous charges like antisemitism" in order to "tarnish cole" is kind of assuming bad faith on the part of the "Cole detractors", isn't it? Assuming good faith would be to give other editors the benefit of the doubt that they are putting this stuff in because they consider it a relevant piece of the dialog on Cole. But remember, just because a scholar says that Cole is "x" for reasons "y" and "z", that doesn't mean Cole is "x" or not--that is left to the reader. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and as you begin to edit on pages like this where emotions are high I hope you can begin by remembering that we are all on the same team here--we are Wikipedians--not Cole supporters or Cole detractors. Elizmr 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is important, of course. However, it is pretty hard to read the version of the article being complained about and characterize it in any other way. Note well: I am not a fan of Prof. Cole.--Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Gee, Xed, all three of those articles are open for editing. If you don't like them, go edit them. Lying to people about their status does not help your already sad reputation for wild accusations.--Jimbo Wales23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And risk an indefinte ban for breaking some unknown rule by admins made trigger happy by months of playing first-person-shooter with their blocking powers against evil doers taking advantage of "everyone can edit"? (I do not envy your choices. Limit editing enough so the warrier mentality is not needed and people think the sky is falling. Don't limit editing that much and what other choice is there but to let those who enjoy first-person shooter games shoot their blocks at the vandals?) WAS 4.25023:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If an article were "under heavy manners" that would indicate that they were in a state of emergency where normal rules no longer apply. As Jimbo pointed out, these articles are no longer protected and anyone is free to edit them as long as they stick to the usual policies and guidelines. So yes, lying. jaco♫plane23:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's not really true. Two of the articles have "scare notices" on them. - Xed23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, well I didn't notice that the two articles were still semiprotected, I only looked at the Dershowitz article. Still, the "scare notices" as you call them specifically state that standard policies apply to the editing of the page. jaco♫plane23:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I honestly have to say that although I don't know the other editors on the page, I don't think anyone was trying to purposely tarnish cole by putting stuff on the page they didn't believe was true. I personally only put stuff up that I felt was an important part of a three dimensional portrait of Cole on Wikipedia. He has said some very controversial things and takes a quite controversial tone on his blog; this is part of who he is. I also edited in the sandbox version quite a bit in order to achieve NPOV, although the version now has moved away from this quite a bit. I am a person of integrity and am speaking with complete honestly here. I do think that I deserve an assumption of good faith.
Being a new user, I am not familiar with the WP chain of command or process of appeal. I believe you are high in the administrator ladder.
This is not a matter of taking sides but for the good of the WP community. The following comment gives you the flavor of what is going on in a nutshell. Also, I know you are already familiar with the article.
"Stub it and then block the stub. The damage is a continuing damage as new readers come to the site. In fact each day the damage progresses. It's just a matter of time until a national or international media picks up the news. Like they did the Cuba article. I can see the bylline. "NeoKon Likudniks hijack Juan Cole WP article and get it locked against balancing edits. Tar him as anti-semite b/c of his forceful and effective criticism of repressive Israeli occupation of Palestinians and American heavy handed Iraq occupation. They are also concerned about his moderating stance toward the Iran war stampede." Take Care!--Will314159 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)"
The problem is the article is locked in a prejudical mode, no consensus can be achieved, yet the administrator in charge, who won't identify himself, won't stub the protected article and leaves the offending article up. Take Care!--Will314159 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It just seems so common sense to 1) take the non-neutral article down, 2) put up a protected stub, and 3) work on a new version at liesure. What am I missing? I am beginning to appreciate articulating in a NPOV point of view. Have to overcome years of legal advocacy habit. Take Care!--Will314159 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
To answer one or two minor points: 1) Jimbo is, de facto, in charge of the project, and he can impose anything he wants (subject only theoretically to disapproval by the Board), so saying he's "high in the administrator ladder" is correct but something of an understatement; on the other hand 2) he generally isn't acting in the capacity of head honcho unless specifically noted; 3) there's not really a ladder of administrators, but rather Jimbo/Danny/the Board/the Foundation generally at the top, and every other user largely equal (although administrators are given more technical powers, they theoretically aren't given more authority); 4) you can verify at Special:Logs that User:Mysekurity was the one who protected the page, in response to a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; and 5) if you want the page unprotected, the place to ask is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it's unlikely that it will be unprotected until the argument on the talk page is resolved. Hope that helps. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you a "Muslim editor" ?
If not, then you are not entitled to "leave any message here": [40]
I don't know if you saw it in my email, so I'll repeat here, just for good measure... When will you next be available on IRC, mate? We need to thrash out details of our agreement and my statement. NSLE(T+C) at 01:01 UTC (2006-05-24)
\(caint) 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
\(caint) 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Shell <e> 01:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Coyoty 20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
![[34]](http://www.cirp.org/library/history/hodges2/hodges02a.jpg){kind=link}
