User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Wikicities.com | My Website

Wikipedia 3D Sitemap

Hey Jimbo, met you in Dresden on June 3rd and you seemed to be interested in Kolossuss' project of a 3D sitemap of Wikipedia. Here is a link to check out: 3D Sitemap

I award you this award...

File:Order Orla Bialego2.jpg

Order of the White Eagle (badge)

For your massive contribution to society in the form of Wikipedia.

To Heaven, and back.

Hi Jimbo; I´ve observed that most articles grow to a mature version and then become almost "finished" versions, with very few edits afterwards. But articles that inspire emotional reactions keep being edited with no care. Try Hinduism, for instance. It is way below its past glory. It wouldn´t deserve a Featured nomination today. Is it a problem that has caught your (and the rest of the community's) attention? Subramanian ^talk 17:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A light of hope

Yes I know it sound some silly but is what find the wikipedia site makes me feel. Why? Because recently I start to belive that the internet only good for see porn pages. (What it sound pathetic for me) this site change my mind and also make me belive there are people whit something else than hormones. What a relief¡

A wiki killer proposal

I have made a highly unpopular proposal to close most non-functioning wikis. I think you'd like to know it. Please visit: m:Proposed policy for wiki closure. -- Toytoy 14:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's highly unpopular for a good reason... it's a pointless policy that serves no useful purpose and only antagonizes people whose languages happen not to have a well-developed wiki yet. Some of those "inactive" wikis may some day develop into larger, more popular ones, if you don't strangle this by killing them prematurely. *Dan* 22:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Laurent-Désiré Kabila

Just a courtesy note to say - I have edited your signed message at the top of Laurent-Désiré Kabila warning of advance fee fraud and so removed the attribution. I hope this is the right thing to do. — ciphergoth 16:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

World Community Grid

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark83 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Significant objections have been raised to this. Mark83 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

Hello Mr. Wales. There is a discussion regarding the validity of Wikipedia's local copy of the GFDL here. Because it is in wiki formatting, it may be invalid. Please comment on this issue ASAP. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have addressed this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is still not identical. Compare [1] to [2]. The original on gnu.org is plain text, while the one here is in wiki formatting. Or does that not matter? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The license says a verbatim copy, meaning literally word-for-word. Differences in font selection, line length, spacing, and other formatting do not make a copy otherwise than verbatim, and the page as viewed by the user is now rendered with the same words as the GNU version (that is, the markup is removed). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, the text is verbatim now, but if I turn on "Auto-number headings" in the preferences, the sections have 2 numbers before them, so section 0 looks like "1 0. PREAMBLE", section 1 is "2 1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS", and so on for the whole page. What about people who have this setting on? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 03:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Mailing list and Irate

Jimbo, I see that you've blocked User:Irate indefinitely based on some comments he made on IRC. But I only found out about this on the mailing list, and I think it should be discussed on Wikipedia, preferably on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, so that the rest of us can know about it and discuss it. For example, I myself strongly disagree with your block, but if you take this process, of doing it by fiat and only talking about it on the mailing list, those of us who disagree are effectively excluded from the decision. Everyking 03:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You may start a discussion there if you like; I think it will be quite instructive. You could also discuss it here. I think such a discussion might be quite helpful to everyone to clarify the purpose of the website: is it to be a playground for belligerant, illiterate, and unapologetic users (like Irate), or a serious encyclopedia project? --Jimbo Wales 10:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That isn't a fair characterization of the matter. Nobody wants Wikipedia to be a playground for anybody. The question I was raising was one of process, whether it was done correctly or whether it should have been done only on the basis of broader input. But of course it's settled now anyway. Everyking 10:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you think was done incorrectly. Everything was by the book. There was an arbcom case, a result, an appeal, a result. There was and continues to be broad community input and support for the process. --Jimbo Wales 11:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You just banned him because he said something you didn't like in IRC. Everyking 23:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes he did. Irate said that he intended to disrupt wikipedia. Everyone who has had any contact with irate knows that this was no idle threat as Irate had already disrupted wikipedia. Jimbo enjoys my support for this action, and I expect the support of everyone else with the exception of Irate and yourself. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to trap me in the box of supporting Irate, but it's not going to happen. All I'm saying is that we should follow process and a permanent ban should not be done purely on the basis of an IRC conversation. I'm not even saying the IRC conversation shouldn't be admissible as evidence! That alone is pretty radical, since there's precedent that IRC and the encyclopedia should be treated as completely separate. Everyking 23:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to trap you! you daft thing! Yes IRC and Wikipedia are seperate things, and yes something like "you are a wanker" said on irc shouldn't be grounds for a ban on wikipedia. But "I will disrupt wikipedia" is a different matter. Jimbo banned a disruptive editor who threatened to disrupt again as soon as his current block expired. This is entirely within process. Jimbo has every right to ban anyone he sees fit to. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Theresa, but I'll go further and say this wasn't just a ban because "he said something I didn't like in irc" nor was it a ban of "anyone I see fit". This is part of our standard operating procedure which sets no new precedent at all.

Everyking's point would be valid if I had randomly banned an otherwise good user for misbehaving in IRC. But Irate was not misbehaving in irc, and that was not at all the point. (And, let's be honest: Everyking surely knows this and is making a silly argument anyway.) The conversation could have taken place in email, on the phone, in the wiki, wherever. The point that a user was protesting his sentence before the ArbCom by making the argument that (a) "the rules are rubbish" and (b) other people's bad behavior justified his own and (c) a clear promise to continue behaving as he always has and (d) a clear rejection of my own suggestion that he hold himself to a higher standard than the rules.

I am quite certain now that this case is going to go down in the "troll version" of the history of Wikipedia as the case where Jimbo randomly banned a perfectly good user because he said something that Jimbo didn't like in irc. Fine. But good users will not be deceived by that sort of nonsense.

Irate was very very very lucky to have been allowed here as long as he was.--Jimbo Wales 10:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think there are cases like this, or there could be, where a user makes a threat on IRC and that is followed by an encyclopedia block. I think C is the only one of your points that could warrant a block. The question is, did Irate make this promise? I mean in the sense that he said he would continue doing what got him banned before. Even in that case I think a block based on that is jumping the gun a bit, but it would be a bit more reasonable than I've previously thought it to be. Everyking 13:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of those who work forces...

Am I glad I just stumbled across you! What's the deal w/ al qaeda? It's been protected for like 9 days! Can anything be done? I know terrorism's touchy but truth seekers are getting the crappy end of this deal; I can taste it. I don't know what the exact controversy entails but I'm sure it has to do with the

goverment

and

truth.

If there's anything I can do, I got your back homey. Nice 'pedia. Salam.

Kzzl 04:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Kate Walsh (singer)

I've just arrived at the article about Kate Walsh via a random link and noticed your comment on the talk page (from 16 July that you had a photo of her you were going to upload. Did you ever get around to doing this - I can't spot any images with her name in the title here or on commons? Thryduulf 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I finally just now got around to uploading the photos to Commons. It was actually much easier than I thought it would be. Hmm, maybe I'm running out of excuses to be lazy, and I'll finally upload more. :-)--Jimbo Wales 10:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Main Page (en) edit war

Hello Mr.Wales,

There seems to be an edit (maybe revert) war over the front page (Did You Know <> Picture of the Day). Maybe you should help resolve it. --Member 00:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Arb Com appointments

Why did you appoint Jayjg rather than Mirv? Mirv was closer to being elected in the previous elections.

Jayjg was very strongly supported and recommended by the existing ArbCom members, whose judgment I trust very much. I'm sure Mirv would be a fine candidate too, but I don't know him so well. --Jimbo Wales 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am also curious why you re-appointed Jdforrester, when the electorate clearly de-elected him/her ?

James is, in my opinion, one of our finest arbitrators. I know of no complaints about him as an arbitrator, and his understanding of policy and the requirements of building an encyclopedia are excellent. He's thoughtful and patient, yet firm. I feel fairly strongly that the ArbCom election process was deeply flawed, due to the negative campaigning. The position is like that of a judge, not that of a legislator, and so a deep understsanding of the law and a judicial temperament are more important than popularity. --Jimbo Wales 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have some of the arb com pages in {{subst:Special:Watchlist}} but I don't remember ever noticing you giving an explanation of your appointments anywhere - could you point me to it? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 12:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It was on the mailing list. But I'm happy to give further explanations here.

The fundamental job of the ArbCom is to defend the community so that we can get our work done. This is a touchy and difficult job requiring difficult judgments.--Jimbo Wales 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence that they are defending the community. Perhaps they imagine they are, but in practice? Their judgments are frequently unpopular, but cannot be overruled by the community. They seem to have a disconnect from the community and tend to apply punitive measures in cases where it is not necessary, often exacerbating problems. If the ArbCom is so in touch with the community, then we should allow for the possibility of a community veto, as well as petitions to oust unpopular arbs. Everyking 09:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps your view of the popularity of the ArbCom is influenced by the fact that you've been sanctioned by them for your behavior. I think if you step outside your own situation, you'll see that the main "popularity" problem the ArbCom has is that they have been, on the whole, much more patient than many people feel they should have been.

But this is really beside the point. The ArbCom really ought to feel comfortable making decisions regardless of popularity. It strikes me as particularly unwise for the decisions on user behavior to become a popularity contest. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to be a mobocracy.--Jimbo Wales 09:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I honestly cannot think of a case where the ArbCom was criticized for being soft, with the exception of Xed's case, where Snowspinner thought that he should've gotten a penalty even harsher than the already extremely harsh penalty he got. Maybe my memory is being selective. Everyking 10:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You're still an admin. I think that says a lot, personally. --Jimbo Wales 10:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's like having half your money stolen: curse your luck for being robbed, or bless your luck for leaving you with something? My personality has always tended towards the former. Nice of you to come right out and say what you think of me, anyway, Jimbo. Everyking 10:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this criticism is fair. The arbcom are a group of volunteers doing a difficult job in trying circumstances, where it's impossible to please everyone. Not only do they have to plough through all the claims and counter-claims (which are so boring sometimes, they make your head spin), they also take time to answer people's concerns about their decisions on talk pages, by e-mail, and on the mailing list, which makes them pretty accountable. Overall, they've laid down an important series of rulings, which are often referred to on article talk pages to guide decisions about content. If they can be faulted for anything, it's for erring on the side of caution and good faith, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I concur with your remarks about volunteers and difficult job etc but that does not mean that any lapse, any screw up by the ArbCom is forgiveable. By analogy a volunteer fire force which kills someone by negligence (driving too quickly through a red light, say) is still liable, volunteer or not. But the rest of what you say seems like a joke to me. What you describe is not what took place in my case. Don't jump too quickly to the conclusion that I am biased. Have a look at "Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell" - the ArbCom did not behave as you describe here, far from it. Paul Beardsell 14:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

your editings

Ser Jimbo Do you do som of you edits under an anonymous IP? .**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 23:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. Usually if I accidentally make an edit anonymously, I log in immediately to claim the prior edit. I almost never edit the content of Wikipedia at all, other than tiny tidbits here and there.--Jimbo Wales 08:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people have said that you use other accounts on wikipedia to do some of your edits. Is this true, false, or do you wish to respond "no comment."? DyslexicEditor 14:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's false. I haven't used another account in over a year. Before that I had another id for a short time, and made fewer than 100 edits with it. I sometimes toy with the idea of getting another account to do some minor editing here and there, because it tends to call a small ruckus when I do an edit as it is, and it would be nice to be able to sometimes do quiet editing without imply anything big and important. But by and large, I do almost no editing at all.--Jimbo Wales 14:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Unabhängige Wikipedianer - Just a hello and a statement

Hi Jimbo

I am here to say that we are group of de:Wikipedia users who do not feel represented by "Wikimedia Deutschland e.V."

Some admins of us (and with > 10.000 edits) were therefore nominated by Achim Raschka and others for re-election (and being bashed) but are still in a quite good standing.

Please be informed that we appreciate yours and Wikimedia Foundation's work to provide us an ultimate collection of knowledge and exchange of views from all cultures.

Unabhängiger Wikipedianer (de) 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Flag

Vandalism

Hello Jimbo... I've been apologizing to the users hit by my imposter R℮dwolf24. Of course Im sure your page is edited more than any other user page so you probably havent noticed it. However rest assured that wasn't me... Redwolf24 02:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

vfd I think you should see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Cyrus_Farivar

The admin Snowspinner is completely ignoring the community consensus.

I will admit my first comment was probably unnecessarily harsh, but here's the basic situation as I see it. A journalist who has written for notable publications, and who is probably unaware of our vanity policy, writes an article on himself. The article is nominated for deletion, and our badly broken deletion system generates a lot of votes that want to delete an article on a notable subject because of the circumstances of its creation, despite the fact that plenty has happened since the article's creation.

And, well, it needs to not work that way. If VfD is generating a consensus like that, VfD is broken, and it should be ignored. We don't delete articles on notable subjects because we're pissy about how they got created, and we don't bite the newcomers like that - especially not prominant newcomers who are giving Wikipedia what is basically good press. It's a shitty thing to do, and it needs to not happen. So I'm going to keep the article. Snowspinner 01:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this particular issue, but I do want to stress Snowspinner's attitude here—this is what I've been dealing with for a long time (and gotten a lot of grief for), his belief that policy is optional and can be ignored. This is not a belief that an admin should hold, and certainly, not in a million years act on it. But he does this on a daily basis. And currently I'm in front of the ArbCom for reminding him of policy during each of these daily controversies he stirs up. Everyking 05:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That does not look like consensus to delete to me. Far from it. — David Remahl 02:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

David is right. Snowspinner is right. I'm not sure what else I can say about it. --Jimbo Wales 08:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I decided that there is more that I can say about it. I just did a count myself, and found 17 Keep and 35 Delete votes. That's 67.32%. According to the deletion policy, a 2/3 majority is considered by many to be sufficient, but some feel it should be higher. It is also well within the remit of an administrator to weigh votes according to their own judgment of the reputation or credibility of the voters, and also to make a judgment on the circumstances. Therefore, quite clearly, Snowspinner is perfectly within his rights to make a judgment call that the page should be kept.

Furthermore he is _clearly right_ on the issue of notability. This is a legitimate journalist who is writing in Slate, the New York Timnes, etc.! Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored in a case like this. Remember, our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission.--Jimbo Wales 08:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)