User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by X-romix (talk | contribs) at 11:40, 2 July 2010 (→‎Nude children photo in Commons). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

(Manual archive list)

Template:Fix bunching

Please make me a founder

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

Is this a joke? I'm pretty sure you didn't help found Wikipedia... :) ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a novel idea, though...I don't think any user has ever asked to be a part of the founder group before this. Still, the credentials required are doubtfully present (doubtfully rather than certainly because for all we know, he may have founded something...=) ). Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, I demand to be part of the founder group. I did, after all, found... Erm... The Alden J. Blethen article? ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can handle this one! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wouldn't be right if Jimbo just simply gave the "founder" user access level to anyone he wanted. I recommend we create Wikipedia:Requests for foundership. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it should be called Wikipedia:Requests for jimboship. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! You can go ahead and create it; I'll be the first to apply! :) ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 00:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows it Requests for Godkingship. -- ۩ Mask 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, that had me laughing in tears! I wasn't here in 2005 and didn't know about that page. Love it! CycloneGU (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Let me try again. *Poof*, you're a founder!!! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty funny thread. I noticed it by just waving over a link with WP:POPUPS and laughed→clicked. It opens up a lot of ideas for new bits, such as a luser-bit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Super Hamster, let's create it! Jimbo can go through and review every request. He'll just have t edit the Wikipedia article to add in each person. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 20:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "ability to change any user to any other level" theoretical or has Jimbo actually used this power recently to any extent? I would assume from Jimbo's comments that the only time he would ever use the ability to change someone to a Founder would be when he is ready to "retire" and would like to personally have the honor of bestowing upon his successor the title, and even then I assume he would only do so with the blessing of the Wikipedia Community, thereby making the "annointment" purely a pro forma affair. Of course this is just my personal musing based on his previous comments and actions. But of course I would love to be a Founder if he's willing to hand the title out to those who ask! :) Camelbinky (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the Founder flag currently has the ability to change anyone's level. It gives me "read-only" powers for basically everything project-wide, but no rights to actually "do" things. In my view, the Founder flag was an honorary technical bundle of rights bestowed by the developers and not at my request, and not particularly important. Certainly not important at English Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot, then please recommend me to a user who does have the ability to change my user level to "founder". --WikiDonn (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Special:ListGroupRights, the founder right can Edit all user rights (userrights); Make users into Administrators or Bureaucrats (makesysop). According to that, you can change anyone's rights - however, whether "founder" is one which you can change, only you can really tell by looking at Special:UserRight - and I'm not aware of any of the other WMF project where the 'founder' right exists. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDonn, I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse... create your own wiki, and assign yourself the 'founder' right by adding the following line to your LocalSettings.php file: 
$wgGroupPermissions['founder']['founder'] = true;
and then you just assign the right to yourself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Phantom: Jimbo is right, see [1]. Sole Soul (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So does this mean no Wikipedia:Requests for jimboship page? Darn... ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A similar user right exists called Researcher. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find exactly where to request it. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From that page...
The 'researcher' group was created in April 2010 to allow individuals explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation to search deleted pages and view deleted history entries without their associated text.
This tells me that you have to be given the permission from the actual Foundation. Maybe someone knows more about how that works? This is the first time I've seen it, and it sounds like researchers "research" deleted pages and logs. CycloneGU (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon since Larry Sanger co-founded the project, he should get "founder" status too.. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Larry chose to leave the project. There is no reason for him to have any permissions now. --Tango (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, you do. It's on your talk page. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. --WikiDonn (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...You're hopeless. :) Only kidding. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 05:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news is not a reliable source now?

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

First of all, you're late. Look up a few topics.
Second...when was FOX News ever a reliable source for information? They are so right wing that they're kissing John McCain's feet. Or something far worse we'd rather not know about. I will not say go ahead and delink everything yet, as actual news on the basic FOX station is probably safe, but I would be careful what you use as a source somewhere. CycloneGU (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (Prior comment retracted due to influence of personal distaste)[reply]
Such comments are not helpful. All news articles, no matter if its the New York Times, Fox News or NBC should always be carefully scrutinized. Several times in the past few years alone the NY Times has been the victim of dishonest "journalists", so it isn't matter of left or right. Always trust, but just as importantly, always verify. --TK-CP (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, I guess my personal distaste for FOX News got into my comment there. =) I therefore politely retract that comment; my main point was to indicate that Jimbo has already read the article. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess FNC is no different from The Daily Punctilio. I don't think this name-calling that they did to the Grand Theft Auto series - "blood-drenched digital killfest" constitutes a fair and objective news report about a GTA-related incident. Oh, and the original article's from the NY Post, too, another staple of lulzy, dishonest journalists. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is as much of a reliable source as any other in its category (i.e. MSNBC, CBS, etc). It is when particular reliable sources contradict each other or only one reliable source is claiming a particular something that we need to carefully examine its reliability and accuracy. — CIS (talk | stalk) 21:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so because no other reliable source contradicts Fox News then we should add a section to Wikipedia article about harboring pedophiles?
I agree, if Fox News is a reliable source, then i guess a section should be added to Wikipedia about allegations of harboring pedophiles.--98.14.113.232 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if CNN is a reliable source, Wikipedia is controlled by big business to make their respective organizations look better. By the way, if NBC is a reliable source, Port Charlotte High School was destroyed by Hurricane Charley and the students were put in portables. I don't care how apparently "reliable" a source is, always take what it says with a grain of salt. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide links to where these news sources report these things. Also, Fox News has a history of this. --Iankap99 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we (as Wikipedians) do a poor job at the commonsense task of distinguishing news from opinion. (To be fair, news organizations themselves have blurred the line in response to commercial forces, with Fox News being a trailblazer in that regard). Fox News is reasonably reliable as a source of news. One should probably be more careful in using them - or, for that matter, any news service - as a source of opinion. The particular Fox News piece on Wikipedia and pedophiles, while superficially framed as a news story, is basically a jeremiad filled out with a few vaguely facty-sounding morsels. That doesn't make Fox News categorically "reliable" or "unreliable" - it just reinforces the need for common sense. MastCell Talk 21:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

He already did. See The Signpost report or diff. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those, however, no thoughts were stated about removing fox news as a reliable source due to many past cases of false journalism. And if they are a reliable source, then shouldn't a section be added to the wikipedia article about allegations of harboring pedophiles--Iankap99 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)?[reply]

Zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia

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

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

I searched for the zero-tolerance policy towards racism and towards inciting violence and found nothing also. Sole Soul (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Pedophilia: "Pedophilia or the advocacy of pedophilia on the English Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. Editors who self-identify as pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia will be blocked indefinitely." NW (Talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Pedophilia page is only one month old and states that it is it "not a policy or guideline itself". Is there another place where the long-held policy against pedophilia advocacy is noted? Uncle uncle uncle 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page is mistaken. It is policy, and has been for quite some time. It should be relabeled as such.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, such blocks can typically only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sole Soul: Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy implies that advocating racism, violence, pedophilia, etc... are not permitted. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and anything that detracts from that is obviously not welcome here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC) obviously, each of these things may be described neutrally, and are: racism, violence, pedophilia[reply]
I was being sarcastic. Sole Soul (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sarcasm always works really well online! O:-) ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I cannot fathom what point you are trying to make with that comparison. Steve Smith (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Israeli admins would block Palestinians, and Palestinian admins would block Israeli's, we'd have a right mess on our hands, now wouldn't we?
Hence, normally we're a fairly tolerant bunch. Of course, I'm personally opposed to people identifying their affiliations, just to avoid that kind of confrontation.
  • I recall a Hamas-supporter being harassed, for instance. I couldn't quite convince him of my position, so people harassed him further, and I think he eventually left.
  • Another instance in which things went wrong was the "Polish names vs. 'Nazi names'" debate. At one point, even a Developer got involved (oops)
In general, advocating (there's that word again) zero-tolerance weakens consensus and NPOV, and chases people away who might otherwise provide productive input.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but what does any of that have to do with pedophilia, towards which we do have a zero tolerance policy? You're saying that it makes no sense to have a zero tolerance attitude towards Israelis and/or Palestinians, which is correct, but you seem to believe that this has some bearing on pedophilia, which is where you've lost me. Steve Smith (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we were to have a zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia, we would not have an NPOV policy towards pedophilia. This is unfortunate. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My memory is that blocking someone just for self-identifying as a paedophile (rather than advocating or engaging in paedophilia on site) was quite controversial last time it happened (although it may have happened again more recently - the last case I know of was at least a year ago). I don't know of any clear policy on the subject. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, to summarize:
  • Despite the statements of Sue Gardener quoted above, there is no official "policy" (long-term or otherwise) on English Wikipedia prohibiting editing by either self-identified or suspected paedophiles.
  • Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia suggests that some members of the community feel that ARBCOM cannot dictate policy - it must come from the WMF.
  • There is no policy at the WMF level.
  • Editors have been blocked when they self-identified as paedophiles (per Tango's statement above).
  • These types of blocks are controversial (again, per Tango's statement) which suggests that parts of the community are unaware or do not agree with any informal "long-term policy" against editing by paedophiles.
  • Editors who have been blocked by ARBCOM on English Wikipedia (although not necessarily indicating that they are blocked for any involvement in pro-paedophilia POV-puching or self-identification as a paedophile) are free to edit on other WMF projects (per my own observation here).
Is that a fair summary of the current situation? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Advocacy of pedophilia is strictly banned. Anyone doing so will be blocked on sight and cases should be referred to the ArbCom, rather than having an on-site debate. This has been de facto policy for a very long time. Any pages on Wikipedia which do not reflect this are out of date and should be updated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the policy is that things that are illegal are removed on sight when admins or WMF are made aware, and when needed people who attribute to that content are blocked. That has always been the case and will always be the case. Apparently more and more people have trouble understanding that, so I guess it is time to start copying relevant pieces of US law into separate policies, because otherwise they don't believe something isn't allowed here.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to dispute what you are saying about the removal of illegal material -- although recent discussions show that opinions vary wildly on what constitutes "illegal" -- but that isn't at all what we're discussing here. A self-identified paedophile might be blocked without having edited anything other than their userpage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this a project-wide de facto unwritten policy, or does it only apply on English Wikipedia? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be written. There is no reason for it to be unwritten policy. It has been firm policy for a long time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, don't you agree that this should be written down as a foundation policy however ? No reason that this is limited to just en.wp I presume ? P.S. are there other people/groups that are blocked on sight ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
m:Pedophilia --MZMcBride (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

AzaToth, you are mistaken. Advocacy of pedophilia is grounds for immediate blocking, and appeals should be sent directly by email to the ArbCom. This is policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking about two different thing here; I'm talking about identification, not advocacy; People should be banned for what they do, not for what they are. →AzaToth 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way: both are banned, full stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jimbo, for your clear statements here. I hope they will go some way to reducing the amount of unnecessary debate by those trying to gauge which way the wind is blowing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual orientation is with reference to heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, not sex with children (which is certainly not "legally protected"). Your interpretation of policy leaves me utterly gob-smacked. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vecrumba is correct. Advocacy of pedophilia is strictly forbidden.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, policy (whether written or not) is very clear that advocacy of paedophilia is forbidden. The controversial issue is whether simply identifying as a paedophile is forbidden. --Tango (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aza: This is quite different because the law in most places identifies this activity as illegal, and society in every nation has a vested interest in keeping them from spreading their crap here, that will only be flouted at wikipedia's utter peril and disgrace, you can mark my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.20.3 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reference to "sexual orientation," which many U.S. states prohibit discrimination on, doesn't apply to pedos. Pedos can be stomped and are in practice when found. Bickering over the niceities of where it says so will help us cement that things say the right thing where they need to. The fact that a news article is not 100% accurate is the reality of 100% of news articles.--Milowent (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must admit that I'm pretty dumbfounded by all of this. This so-called "policy" states that editors with certain opinions are not allowed to edit here, no matter whether they have breached our relevant content policies or not. As an open editing environment we shouldn't disallow any type of editor from editing until and unless they show that they cannot edit within our content policies. We don't (nor should we) ban editors due to their personal opinions about racism, national superiority, murder, religion, sexuality, or any other political issues; we freely welcome all to edit unless they act on their personal bias and go on a POV spree and start distorting our articles. We bring bring down the banhammer only after these editors have shown that they as individuals, not as a group cannot edit within our guidelines. We can't just fully ban groups of people we don't care for, that's discrimination and goes against our nondiscrimination policy (which covers both sexuality and mental illness: the two most common rationales for pedophilia). All of the responses by Jimbo above appear to be inspired by his personal moral (ie:counter-POV) opinion of the situation. I have to wonder who else is secretly banned from editing due to "wrong opinions".
  • In a nutshell: The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV: editors' backgrounds are superfluous as long as our articles are written neutrally. Editors with extreme points of view have several options, including obtaining talkpage consensus before editing and not editing within the subject at all. ThemFromSpace 04:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had previously thought that everyone on Wikipedia supported allowing everyone to edit unless their edits were problematic, and that it didn't matter who they are or what their opinions are, so long as their edits are fine. IMO, an editor who is an escaped convict, anti-Wikimedia activist, murderer, pedophile, and terrorist who happened to bomb Wikimania along with several other locations should still be allowed to edit so long as their edits are okay. --Yair rand (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of the recent comments, but look at it as if you were Jimbo (not that he does himself). All he can say is no pedos. If he said something else, the media would pick up on it. He knows he's not creating a policy page with his comments. We should probably leave him alone, now that he's said what he has to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A month and a half ago, asked Jimbo for his opinion, as Founder, on the WP:PED page. He gave his opinion which was identical to his position now. I then pointed out that we need to look carefully at the procedure for promoting the page to Policy and left it at that. Jimbo's opinion is invaluable but not binding, as far as I am aware. No need to press him further on this issue, therefore. If he wishes to comment further, no doubt he will do so in a more appropriate venue. Thank you, again, Jimbo, for taking time to comment --Jubilee♫clipman 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't claim to be creating policy, he claims that policy already exists. I would like to see the discussion which resulted in a consensus for this policy or the WMF board resolution creating it - as far as I know, those are the two ways policy can be created. (There hasn't been consensus for policy creation by decree by Jimbo for a long time.) --Tango (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now a policy

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

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

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

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

Do you guys even know what "Pedophilia" means?

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

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

Murderers are free to edit Wikipedia because there is no indication that murderers use the Internet to promote murder. The converse applies to pedophiles. Yes, it's unfair, and yes, the world is not perfect. (Text borrowed from my talk page.) Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paedophiles are most certainly not welcome on wikipedia, and will be indefinitely banned and blocked if found. But they're free to edit, insofar as there is no way of stopping them provided that they do not self-identify, advocate (actively or subtly) or practise it (actively or subtly). Murderers are in precisely the same boat. WFCforLife (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a bit silly. Even a self-proclaimed paedophile ought to have the right to edit Wikipedia, provided that the content they submit does not promote or encourage their sexual style of behaviour. A person's actions in RL do not necessarily manifest themselves online. Being a paedophile, or a murderer, or a drug trafficker, or someone who doesn't wait for the walk signal before crossing the street doesn't render that person incapable of contributing constructively to a project such as Wikipedia. If you raped a child in 1994, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that you're a good person in general. However, you might still write the greatest article ever written. Discrimination of this sort is insane. Nothing short. It's insane. Jbfolker2x (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedophilia is attraction to pre–pubescent children. That is NOT 16 or under, it is 12 and under.
Make sure the facts are right before spouting off
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if it's "attraction to pre-pubescent children" then age doesn't really factor into it. Puberty would be the deciding factor. Regardless, you either ignored or misread everything I wrote. The issue here is whether or not acknowledged paedophiles ought to be editing Wikipedia. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I am), but regardless of a person's day-to-day actions, they are nonetheless capable of making positive contributions to Wikipedia. Being a paedophile is a disgusting thing, but it says NOTHING about your ability to construct well-researched articles. Jbfolker2x (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not misread nor ignore you. As you started with "do you guys even know..." I think it is important that we do know and your statements proved that you did not quite know.
You said "under 16", which is wrong, and you said "sexual relations with a minor", which is not pedophilia, and is also wrong. Sexual relations with a minor is statutory rape and is seperate to pedophilia.
Do not assume that being corrected is akin to being ignored. I am not involving myself in the debate on banning them or not but merely correcting you to ensure people know the correct terminology used by you. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you did. This topic was started by someone who is not me. Everything prior to my signed comment has nothing to do with my views or opinions. But, this isn't about your inability to comprehend indentation and signature. There's actually a discussion at hand. Jbfolker2x (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for making assumptions but you said "Regardless, you either ignored or misread everything I wrote." which is directed at me.
As I was correcting the opening statement how was I to know that you were not the same person ? Chaosdruid (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom It May Concern

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

I disagreed with Jimbo userbox

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

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

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

Uh, I don't have anything to do with userboxes. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People give themselves userboxes. You are thinking of barnstars - I don't know of a barnstar for disagreeing with Jimbo. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a thought! "Awarded to [editor] for disagreeing with Jimbo on [issue x]." Hm... WP:BEANS in action  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tango, I'm not sure where I saw it, but it is the greatest userbox ever. It is not a barnstar. I can't remember which one, but an admin had one on his User page. Userboxes are almost as much fun as Wikipedia. I'm going to go try and find it again. I figured everyone knew what I was talking about. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Well, I found one but the code is well protected. It can be seen here on Balloonman's User page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Balloonman
Look under the collapsed "Barnstars and other awards" secton, #27. It is actually called the "Jimbo Finds Me Offensive Barnstar of Infamy," so I was mistaken: it is indeed a barnstar in which case I withdraw my request for one. Sometimes you gotta give me time to catch up, that's all. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that if it's a userbox, you can just add it to your own userpage. If it's a barnstar, then you need someone else to award it to you (although they are just a bit of fun, so there aren't any penalties for giving yourself barnstars, people would just think you a bit odd!). --Tango (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right again. It wasn't a userbox, I shouldn't have referred to it that way. I remember seeing that it was given to Balloonman but I wanted one myself, selfish pig that I am. I just don't think its fair Balloonman gets to have all the WikiFun. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
You have two choices, {{User reverted by Jimbo}} and {{User The Jimbo Finds Me Offensive Barnstar of Infamy}}. Enjoy!   — Jeff G. ツ 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informing you of possible areas of exploitation within Wikipedia

Hi Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most people are well aware of "vulernabilities" present in Wikipedia. The blocking policy makes it pretty clear that blocks are a technical measure only and just about everyone is aware they can be evaded. Tools like autoblock and the abuse filter help, but nothing is foolproof. There has yet to be a major attack on the wiki, even some of our most notorious vandels like Grawp and Willy on Wheels utterly failed to do any real lasting damage, and in the end became nothing more than some temporary dramahz on our noticeboards. Most people lack the technical knoweldge to do a serious sustained attack on wikipedia, and most that have the knowledge have better things to do with their time. When you actually look at the numbers you tend to notice that a few thousand organized vandal edits pales in comparison to the tends of thounds of vandal reverts every day. --nn123645 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, my point is that this particular serial vandal does bring up some good points. If it is technically possible to make amendments to the underlying code in order to protect against some of the problems Swamilive has outlined, then I say go for it. While the overall level of vandalism is relatively minute compared to constructive edits, we might as well invest some time into making it harder for vandals to edit in the first place. Jbfolker2x (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is simple enough. If someone really becomes a problem, we contact ISPs and law enforcement. Technical improvements are made all the time btw. The editfilter itself is one such relatively new development. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Law enforcement? Sorry, but this seems strange to me. Nowhere that I'm aware of has any law against editing Wikipedia. Perhaps if the individual is advocating violence, hate crimes, etc.., but in most cases our vandals are simply annoyances. What I'm talking about here isn't in the realm of "legal or illegal". I'm talking about someone (like Swamilive) who continues, despite multiple warnings, to disrupt Wikipedia with petty, nonsensical edits. How can we more effectively combat those types of editors who stay within the law, but nonetheless are extremely troublesome to the development of the project? Jbfolker2x (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well like I said above you can't create a foolproof system. I don't think we need to spend alot of time fighting a problem that doesn't exist. If and when a massive attack on Wikipedia happens I'm sure solutions will be deployed to deal with it. --nn123645 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this a bit closer I'm not quite sure why your so concerned. As for your points above:
  • Edit Filter - the weaknesses of the abuse filter are well known, it was never designed to be a foolproof system to stop all vandalism. It is just designed to make it harder for vandals with known patterns and drive by vandals to edit.
  • Dynamic IPs - the problems of blocking dynamic IPs are well known. Short of redesigning the way the internet works it is impossible to fix this problem.
  • Static IPs - this is just plain social engineering and the above vandal abusing WP:AGF, there really is nothing to fix here.
  • Different ISPs - This is a pretty lame scenario that already has a solution, if you have to call your friend to register accounts for you ur doing it wrong as that could (and in any real attack would) be totally automated.--nn123645 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started reading this with great interest, since it seemed to promise that I might learn something new about some strange software loopholes. I learned nothing. The difficulty of using ip-based banning has been well-understood for a very long time. The ability of annoying people to waste the time of others with fake arguments and deception is an inherent part of... well... of being human. I do support, quite strongly, efforts to identify software enhancements that could be helpful in eliminating or reducing vandalism, as well as in better identifying socks and reducing mis-identification of socks. But I disagree strongly that anyone needs to "think like a vandal" and practice vandalizing Wikipedia to uncover new vulnerabilities. They will either be already well-known (as was everything in this present case) or new inventions (in which case, they are theoretical exploits at best).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have no doubt, I agree that the points outlined by Swamilive are already well-known by the community in general. My point was simply that IF these problems, minor or insignificant as they may be, can be easily avoided without rewriting the entire code of the project, then they ought to be. I fail to see any problem with a more secure Wikipedia. In short, though it's currently tough for any ill-intentioned editor to disrupt Wikipedia on a large scale, why not make it EVEN TOUGHER? If it's technically possible, I say do it. Jbfolker2x (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libel and no response from wiki

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

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

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

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

It is our policy to block people that make legal threats and I doubt you will have any luck changing that policy. --Tango (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and to this guy it reads something like "we know you want help, but we would rather you just fucked off". Your note above might have been more useful had the IP not already been blocked by that time. Don't you understand how it must feel to have a shitty Wikipedia bio? Kevin (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin - If it was just this one IP I would agree with you, but you may not have seen the full history. This guy (Donny Long himself) has been extended more than his fair share of good faith by many editors. He has been blocked on at least 15 IPs and 2 named accounts, has made multiple threats to multiple users, and continues to vandalize a number of pages aside from his own. He is not merely trying to have his own page removed for what he claims is libel, but he is trying to insert -BLP info about other people and spam for his website at the same time.  7  23:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban proposal

  • Jimbo, there is currently a ban proposal underway against the BLP subject: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_proposal. Now, it is my understanding that editors have repeatedly, over a period spanning several years, inserted unsourced and grossly defamatory content into the man's BLP, and that none of these editors has to date been sanctioned in any way. Do correct me if I am mistaken on that point. But if that is verifiably so, please let us make sure that we first pronounce article bans, BLP bans or site bans against the editors responsible for these BLP edits, before we take any action against the BLP subject. I propose that we should sanction the editors responsible, let the BLP subject know about the actions we have taken, apologise to him, and then revisit the issue to see if any further action such as a site ban against the BLP subject is indeed required. --JN466 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a little bit of vandalism this year and that content was deleted the same day and the editor blocked -- too hastily it turns out as the edits weren't vandalism. There was vandalism in 2008 and we blanked and protected the article to deal with the vandalism then. If you have some specific libel and specific editors in mind, then - be specific. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, that really was Donny Long. And Donny was really pissed. This is a link to his blog. http://donnylong.com/blog/ 76.177.47.225 (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:AfD

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

Thanks

For this [2] which is very clear sighted. --BozMo talk 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dear Jimbo,

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

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

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

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

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

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

That marginal porn guy

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

I don't think that's true at all. The bad behavior of the subject of a bad biography is not sufficient reason to keep it, if that's what you are suggesting (but surely not). There is no way this guy should ever have been in Wikipedia in the first place. WP:PORNBIO is a seriously misguided standard, I think. The entire field is rife with Kayfabe which we tend to mindlessly report.
I think there is a lesson to be learned here: don't write bad biographies full of random trivia about non-notable people - it hurts them and makes them sad and angry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started another discussion on rewriting PORNBIO, after the last failed to attract much interest - you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pornbio_2. Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a zero sum game. We all win - Mr Long got his article deleted, and we get a better encyclopedia. --Diannaa TALK 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not over quite yet, there is a deletion review. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

James,

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

The Bosch means the Germans; he's Danish... --Tango (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crafty was quite rightly blocked for two weeks for other similar comments. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images with no ages on

Jimbo,

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

Could you give serious thought to this worrying problem?

Thanks

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

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

Ban discussions on ANI

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

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

This is all about Ibaranoff24. I suggest instead of blindly supporting someone you clearly know nothing about, you read all relevant material.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, I'm not supporting him or any other banned editor. I just believe that a consensus for a ban shouldn't be under any circumstances achieved in less than 24 hours. Would you like it if you weren't given the time of day during your own ban discussion? Sure, editors who are nominated for banning are usually ridiculously disruptive, but it doesn't change the fact that they are users on Wikipedia who should enjoy a justifiable amount of time of discussion before being outcasted. Feedback ☎ 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not appropriate to ban someone for life without allowing them to comment on it, and 15-16 hours is not sufficient time. I did not participate in the Ibaranoff24/Sugar Bear discussion and don't really care if he was banned or not. What I'm talking about is the process. We allow Chuck Marean (sp?) to vandalize Wiki for years, and allow him to come back, but we take less than 24 hrs to ban someone for life? That is inherently wrong - in a collaborative community we should allow someone accused of wrong-doing to have an opportunity to defend himself. GregJackP Boomer! 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bans are not for life, not even close. The standard offer limits almost any community ban to 6 months if the user doesn't sock and says they'll abide by the policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - until recently I never even cared about ANI. My point is still valid, however. Even if the ban is for 6 months, the "accused" deserves an opportunity to defend themselves. Anything else is inherently wrong and unfair. GregJackP Boomer! 22:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That user was already indef blocked and moreover, arbcom is reviewing it. He won't fall between any cracks, so to speak. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing my point. I'm not commenting on this specific case, but on the procedure in general. In this case I don't care if he is banned or not, but every user that is accused of misconduct should have a right to be heard in the original forum. They should receive notice and an opportunity to be heard at the original level. Appeals (to ArbCom) or whereever, have a systemic bias against those that have received punishment. It is a basic part of due process, whether in a judicial or administrative procedure (and we are the later) and more importantly, it is fair and the right thing to do. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a privately owned website. A ban doesn't take meaningful liberty or any property from anyone. A ban is only meant to keep someone from editing text on databases running on Internet servers, mostly as a means to keep the site open to good faith editing by almost everyone who wants to do so. Also keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or a court, most mistakes are very easy to undo or otherwise fix. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Apparently there was one today or yesterday that closed after about 15 hrs involving Sugar Bear. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He had the chance to defend himself at the SPI and at his talk page. He denied the sock pages despite the evidence, just like he did the first time, when CU confirmed socking, and I quote: "They must have mixed up the IPs or something." I can find the diff, if you like.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying he didn't get a chance to defend himself - he asked if there were any that were under 24 hrs duration. As far as I know, Sugar Bear deserved to be banned/blocked. My points have been directed at process, not this case. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hindi Wiki

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

Help

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

Ref. BBC (disambiguation)
Wow, this has been added and removed over 30 times, going back to 2005![3]
The problem is, a disambiguation page should only link to articles (WP:DABSTYLE), and I am unable to find enough reliable sources to write an article; Google Books only gives a couple of matches, not enough to avoid it being deleted as a dictionary definition (and yes, "DICdef" does seem terribly appropriate in this case!). So, whilst it may be true that it is 'well-known', it doesn't seem to be verifiable as an encyclopaedic topic; sorry. Unless others have ideas, I don't see a 'solution'; a note about this problem on the talk page and/or a <!-- Comment in the article only visible when editing --> might help, perhaps?  Chzz  ►  10:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nude children photo in Commons

Etc. Discussion was twice speedy closed and I'm was banned. One of such admins (User:Putnik) is Gay-activist (was admin of ru.lgbt.wikia.com [4]). This site has a group of child admins (15 years old etc. like User:VasilievVV - he is "global admin" makes blocking some of voters against Putnik on Commons when global admin elections was there). There is group of gays or children which votes and admin actions controlled by well-known gay activist Roman Becker (Rombick). http://community.livejournal.com/ru_wikipedia/tag/ромбикгейт 178.176.183.114 (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC) It's my post: X-romix (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is need discussion, I'm not sure that it is good pictures. Discussion is speedy closed by member of well-known group of Russian gay activists. I think it is not good idea to host pictures with full naked childrens and not discuss it storing by community. X-romix (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo say to delete such images for the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Perhaps I have said something different from what I intended, English is not my first language (but usually I get my intented meaning across despite grammatical errors or unusual phrasing). What I mean is: these pictures are not a problem (legally, and for most people morally), and attributing the declined deletion of these articles to the presumed fact that the admins were gay and/or children is a typical prejudiced view equalling gays with pedophiles. If you were disturbed by my call to upload more similar pictures: apar from the fact that it was intended sarcastically, as a counterweight to the calls for deletion, it was also honest: I think that commons should host as many good quality pictures of people of all ages, races, backgrounds, ... clothed and unclothed, but with respect for their privacy and excluding child porn or other gratuitous images which are illegal or only intended to shock. The images shown above are very good examples, but show only one aspect of the full human range of ages, sizes, ... The more the merrier. All human knowledge includes a repository of the wide diversity (and similarity) in humans, both physically and in clothing (and everything inbetween, like tattoos and piercings). Fram (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=371366805"