User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006

By Permission Only Images to be deleted

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

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

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

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

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

Is their some policy about misinterpreting what you say?

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

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

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

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

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

I am really upset with Ed now. He holds others to higher standards than he hold himself as i will talk about on User_talk:Ed_g2s#Fair_use_Disgrace I Might regret this latter I do regre this i am pponting to an old issue several yers ago but Numerous people have had issues with this user removing fair use images in questionable situations but now i find out he still hasn't removed all fair use images from his userspace after i told him about it(and I was blocked for WP:POINT without a warning or a notice i was blocked by a arbitrator who met him at a wikimeeting in real life). I have not yet given him a chance to respond yet so my opinion is very one sided. This user is very bad at confronting fair use violators yet is is one of the biggest Fair use Violators to date. This is unacceptable and i think he should lose admin privileges. He has received numerous complaints already. I take back my first statement. This is the only User I have heard miss quote your e-mail.--E-Bod 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Permission to use an image only on Wikipedia is not sufficient for its use, nor is permission to use an image only for noncommercial purposes (yes, even on userpages). The relevant permission for Image:Uncyclopedia logo.png is (currently) "I'd like to allow the logo to be used for Wikipedia userpages, userboxes, etc. - in other words, as "decoration" for Wikipedians." That's {{permission}} and thus unacceptable; unless it's released under an acceptable license, it can't be used except under fair use. Likewise for the Firefox logo, etc. I don't understand what your difficulty is.

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

Lets put this whole episode in historical perspective.

On 5 January 2006, the Policy tag was added to the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria page. There was no debate about this. The one user who added this vaguly mentioned he did this because of a conversation with Jimbo, but when pressed, avoided the question and provided nothing. This one user did not follow: Wikipedia:How to create policy#How to propose a new policy.

The first debate, to my knowlege, about fair use was with TSBY regarding Time magazine and fair use images. He took an email from Jimbo and overstepped the bounds of the the email, deleting the images without using the normal channels. This caused a firestorm and a RfC found here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2.

Then there is the case of Ed. Ed began deleting images from user's userpages. When I asked him to provide where he was getting this authority to do this, he ignored my question.[2] At least TSBY had an e-mail from Jimbo (albiet he was interpreting wrong). Ed doesn't even have this. It is as if admin one day decided to delete thousands of images with no consensus and no direction. Ed is creating discontent and anger on wikipedia.Travb (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

You are missing the bigger picture. Images that only Wikipedia have permission to use is not compatable with the GFDL license Wikipedia is released under. We simply can not accept content that is more restrictive than GFDL with regards to who can use it for what (that's my understanding anyway). Aparently (properly used) fair use content can be compatable with GFDL to some extent, but not always wich is why we have a fairly strict fair use policy too. Your permission wold make the image legaly free to use on Wikipedia, sure, but Wikipedia is not a project to build a great website, it's a project to make free content available to anyone, this Wiki is just the tool we use to make this content, and in that context it makes no sense to add content that can only be use on the Wikipedia website, and I don't see why it would be worth complicating our license situation by starting allowing it either. --Sherool (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You are the First person I have encountered to actually address the issue I am bringing up. However Your Legal concerns do not address the 2 instances I am talking about. My particular Issue is For use on User space. The issue is that Images listened free for Non Commercial Purposes [3] are not allowed on Wikipedia Despite Wikipedia being a Nonfor profit image. I am talking about General Permission that would apply to sight beyond Wikipedia. For instance The Uncyclopedia logo has permission to be used as decoration and is licensed uner [4] so we have every legal right to use it. Now if your concern is if we or somebody else wanted to sell the Encyclopedia then we may have problems, however Userspace is not going to be included on a sold copy of this encyclopedia. The Issue Is that the image is licensed for me to use it a certain way. I want to use it that way. If it wasn’t licensed I could still make a Fair use Claim. The user has Given permission. And the only thing stopping it is this That Wikipedia has put additional restrictions past the legal ones saying it won’t use Images licensed for non Commercial use and so the image is put into the Fair use category. I can’t make my foar use claim because we won’t allow it on userspace and I have permission to use it but we won’t accept that ether because People are Quoting Jimbo saying we can’t obtain permission but we fail to quote the whole thing that continues to add when No free alternative is obtainable. We are 100% legally allowed to use it. We just Have People who will not take the spirit of the rules into consideration. The problem is that several rules that should not apply to all circumstances are baing miss applied. Of one of these rules were clarified I would instantly be able to use the image on my userspace--E-Bod 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"People are Quoting Jimbo saying we can’t obtain permission but we fail to quote the whole thing that continues to add when No free alternative is obtainable." Jimbo never said that. He said "As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use"." No provisos, it's unconditional. It happened that the two examples he gave could be easily replaced by free images, but that's not a requirement.

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

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

Quick clarification of image commerciality

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

And how would we enforce the bit about "nondisparaging purpose"s? The policy as I understand it is that such permissions don't matter; it's still an unfree image, usable only under fair use. Yes, that means that combined with the strict fair-use policies, you can't use them on user pages. Yes, that has deeply hurt many people's feelings. I'm not sure why they don't get some free web hosting space to build the home page they really want, but that's just me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a userpage or a Village pump? My question was about not allowing permission. Your' telling me I am not allowed to use images with permission is exactly what I want Jimbo to Clarify. I asked Jimbo as a last resort. I expect him to answer.--E-Bod 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I want to talk about

1. Relevant wikipedia articles
2. How I edit wikipidia
3. Where I have a Conflict of interest when editing a wikipedia article

on a free web hosting space. My userspace is to help me use wikipedia. I can't edit wikipedia on a free web hosting space. Anyway this is the wrong place to talk about this issue. I know what WP:NOT and your comment is irrelevant.--E-Bod 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want I can Explain how I can use Permission company logos in each of these examples. Don't take one policy and claim it says something different. That is the point i am bringing to Jimbo about a point he made that may be misused by admins. You are simply a user with tools. Policies should be stated outright without room for interpretation or lack consideration for unaddressed issues.--E-Bod 05:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely Jimbo will answer you. He doesn't answer most talk-page questions. Mostly, yes, this is a village pump.

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

hello jimbo i need help

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

The truth about the tomorrow series must be heard

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

Tdxiang's song!

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

AfD reform

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

Free wiki host stole wikipedia logo

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

For reference, here's a direct example of what he's talking about. Garrett^Talk 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If that wiki changes the logo, I can get a copy... which reminds me: I really should change my ElWiki logo about now. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reported to the Trademarks committee. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement on elimination of anon voting?

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

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

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

Kasreyn 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Similarities

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

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria being policy

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

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

A simple "yes" would be great if that's your answer, but if your answer is "no", it would be nice to know why not. (For example, do you think the policy is too strict, or too lenient?) Angr (t • c) 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also A clarification On Images used with permission when a free alternative is not possible to obtain as in the case of logos. Any free alternative would still be a derivative.--E-Bod 21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Game guides on Wikibooks

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, which I put up for deletion? Gerard Foley 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it would depend. Are there classes that would use an annotated look at Harry Potter? If so, it would be valid. If not, it may need to go. On a side note, we gonna ask Jimbo on every book we put up deletion? ;-) --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a major change to Wikibooks, I don't think it's asking too much to get a few examples of what's OK. Gerard Foley 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Idea

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

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

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

Isn't that what the lead section is supposed to do? --Carnildo 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. On most pages here the lead paragraph is merely an introduction before delving into the topic, rather than an overview of the topic. Take a look at Pope for instance. In this case the intro is a good one, but it certainly doesn't cover everything below it. It doesn't even tell who the current Pope is! Garrett^Talk 11:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the lead section should be fixed. Fredrik Johansson 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Synopsis of the article Abortion
Abortion is a medical act by which a doctor can end a pregnancy before birth. Two groups, who call themselves Pro-life or Pro-choice disagree as to whether abortion should be allowed or not allowed in law. Abortion is a controversial topic worldwide with women's groups and religions disagreeing on whether it is right or wrong.

Synopsis of the article Head of state
A head of state is the top representative of a country. He or she may appoint the prime minister, sign laws and be a symbol of their country at home and abroad. Kings, Queens and Presidents are all heads of state.

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

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

quv!

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

Apropos of your note at Talk:Jimmy Wales

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

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

The best response is no response?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Wikipedia IS "Evil" [23]

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Your main problem isn't anything systemic, it is with merecat and InShaneee. Well, merecat has been blocked indefinitely, so that takes care of that. Next, onto InShaneee... have you filed an RfC against him for his behavior? I'm not sure having a POV is enough to get someone de-sysopped, but you need to take the appropriate steps in dispute resolution if you would like to be heard by Jimbo. You can't just jump right to ArbCom, so I would suggest taking the advice of those who told you to try mediation. If you are right about it being a systemic problem, rather than a simple disagreement with a couple of editors, Mediation/RfC followed then by an RfAr, may help correct the problem. And again, I urge you not to remain brief and refrain from cross-posting long blocks of text. Thanks. Hope this helps. If you need some help with the dispute resolution process, don't hesitate to ask me for further specifics. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) No, I am sorry, I don't need to sit through any more RFCs to know that they don't work. The one opened by nescio became a Nescio roast. Dozens of Ad hominems, and not a single intervention against any of them. Lies, misinformation, and apparent ignorance. Most of the people commenting had obviously not even bothered to read the article. Same thing with 4 total VFDs. 3 of which were started by ad hominems, and which should have been closed on that as grounds alone. 3 of which had delete votes which were usually and generally composed of ad hominems, which should have had those votes disqualified. All four of which demonstrated that the people voting had never bothered to read what they were voting over. I am not here to be roasted by all of inshannees freinds for bothering to confront his abusiveness. An RFC as is is only a popularity contest, and nothing more. I am new here. How many people do i have to go running to to side with me when the RFC starts being stacked? Sorry, no., duh, i don't need to play that game. If i wanted abuse for abuses sake i'd hang out in chat rooms, not wikipedia.

As for merecat being blocked indefinitely? So? Whats your point? Merecat stacked two VFDs and got caught double voting with sock puppets and stacking VFDs with sock puppets. If wikipedia had listened to me,and bothered to do something about my complaints, merecat wouldn't have had another extra month or so to disrupt wikipedia and game the system. My initial, off the cuff judgement that he was gaming Nescio with ad hominems and straw men arguments should have been more than enough to get the ball rolling. If WP:NPA and WP:PAIN were applied evenly, instead of only by admins with axes to grind after setting somebody up by attacking them first, Merecat would never have been present for me to meet on Wikipedia in the first place. So long as the rules are applied unevenly and so long as nobody knows how to identify a veiled ad hominem, there are hundreds more merecats still operating with impugnity on wikipedia, gaming the system. At least as many as one of them is an admin. Having a pov shouldn't be grounds for de-admin ing. Obvious abuse of admin priveledges to promote a pov, and to harass somebody who is just stating the simple facts is another matter. I have a strong pov. I also have logic and use it and know when its getting in the way of neutrality. The best ad hominem i have had so far is that i was a "straw man"; ie, a plant set to make a weaker argument than anybody who actually held that pov would make. Its a reverse compliment; the reason why that person made that attack against me is that i was making real compromises, and using de-escalation techniques. I was working for the _middle_, not MY side. If a person can't do that, then they have no business being an admin in the first place. Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to indent. Also, signing your name BEFORE your post is unnecessary. Sorry for the advice, but I would have thought someone like you, who's been here since January (an "old timer,") should have learned this by now. - Nhprman 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem about advice. If its useful advice. Indenting is a protocol i should pick up, its just that i am not used to it. Signing before my name seems like a good way to make sure things don't get confusing with answers and questions and who said who. That i might still do once in a while.

Prometheuspan 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It wasn't ad hominem, but it was advice. Blathering on for 800+ 2,037(!) words when you could do it in 200 or less obscures your message, which isn't entirely incorrect, I might add. So stop burning bridges. - Nhprman 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of making ME the subject of your communications, why don't you try talking about what i am talking about? Otherwise, you can be accused of using veiled ad hominems. I am the not the subject here. The subject is Wikipedia, and its problems. If i am not entirely incorrect, then spend the time to support what I am talking about where you feel that is warranted, and, maybe even talk me into a more chilled state by being the first person to make me have the impression somebody is actually listening, for a change. As long as we are exchanging advice, I figured you needed some. 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate the advice, and I am listening. You do make some sense, as I said before, so it's not what you're saying, but how you say it, and occasionally how LONG you say it. Many people will simply tune out long posts, even if they make sense. As far as admin abuse goes, I think everyone recognizes it exists. There are problems with WP that can’t be fixed under the current assumptions and yes, they are systemic. The Mobocracy cannot solve things with endless proposals and endless votes that fail to overcome the impossible hurdle of a 66.6% "consensus." Systemic changes have to be wanted by the leaders, and probably started there. Call that elitist, but that’s what’s got to happen IMO. Complaining too much doesn’t seem to get much attention - or gets the wrong kind - and I think I'll focus on coming up with positive solutions. - Nhprman ^List 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we are finally making some headway then. If you admit that there are problems, and that they are serious, and that they are systemic, It seems that the rational thing to do is to begin working together on solutions. How i say things is a product of how i communicate and how well people are listening. This section is nice and long now, and its getting to be really almost too long. I can see that

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

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

Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) It isn't up to you to decide which parts of my message are relevant and which are not. Do i need to show you the formal logic that renders your comments a veiled ad hominem? As far as burning bridges goes, I reserve the right to set anything on fire if its a path to attack me. Prometheuspan 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop being paranoid. You don't "own" logic. I know some people think they do, but they don't. It's community property. So play nice. - Nhprman 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not being paranoid, thats the fourth time you have made me the subject instead of the subject matter. I never said i owned logic, only that i understand it, and that its use is the solution to the problems that will either doom wikipedia, or define its sucess. So Far I HAVE played nice, you should see me when I'm REALLY POed. Prometheuspan 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell:

Wikipedia's anti-elitism discourages contributions from experts. Experts are not recognized or acknowledged, and often have to defend themselves against non-experts.

There are people in Wikipedia who gang up on others, such as by voting together in an RFC, or have pet rogue admins who ban people who oppose them.

It is very difficult for victims of the ganging-up to seek help at Arbcom or Meditation.

Wikipedia is too tolerant of disruptive edits.

DISCLAIMER: I am simply summarizing the above user's points. These do not reflect my personal beliefs or opinions, although I agree with some of the points.--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

• LOL. Just to be clear, I was simply exhorting the poster to be more succinct, like you were. I actually did slog through the long original post, and I did understand what he was saying. Some of it did make sense. Thanks for proving it could have been said in far fewer words, though! Nhprman 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I am actually well known for making long posts, especially in forums. This is just a summary, and isn't intended to elaborate on all the main points. It's just to give people an idea of what you are writing so they will understand your long rant better. And I agree with some of your points, especially anti-elitism. I wrote the Google Groups article. As an experienced Google Groups user who owns a successful teen chat group and moderates several other large groups, I am more than qualified to write the Google Groups article, even if I am not the most knowledgable Google Groups user in the world. However, much of my information was tagged as unsourced. This will discourage experts from contributing their knowledge. I have also seen complaints about rogue admins abusing their powers --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is twofold, there are no means or measures by which an expert is identified, and no means or methods by which they

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 2

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

---

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

Be Brief. It works better. Also, you say you don't believe in ad hominem and personal attacks, but then you say, "Republican foot soldiers would launch an ignorant offensive..." Simply amazing, and audacious to attack someone in an attempt to prove attacking is wrong. Also, if you wrote in an article that that American Car technology halted in the 60s, it would indeed be reverted because it's factually incorrect and a clear attempt at POV-pushing. - Nhprman 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to be brief, and, that call isn't up to you. I thought we had covered that allready? As for the "Republican Footsoldiers" comment; Are you upset because I am stating a fact that you don't like?

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

Prometheuspan, I've just read through this entire section. I would find it a pity if you gave up on Wikipedia so soon. It's an incredibly big place - can you be sure you're not operating on findings obtained from too small a sample? Just my two cents.

To whom the shoe fits: please remember this is Jimbo's talk page, not article space or your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the sampling size; I picked some pretty good samples,

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

I agree. I often find that I either get ignored or violate WP:POINT. I think I have not made enough noise about the repeated blocks to 202.156.6.54. I find myself unable to edit a quarter of the time. It's like discrimination against 4 million Singaporeans, all of whom use StarHub. What must I do next? Vandalize the userpages of admins who block? If the need arises, and only if, I will. My WikiStress levels are rising. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To whomever it may concern: User was blocked shortly after this for vandalism and WP:POINT (or more to the point, WP:HA). NSLE _(T+C) at 09:40 UTC (2006-06-03)

Another user blocked for criticism - see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Tolerance_of_Criticism - Xed 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Music chart information in relation to fair use

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

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

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

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

Article Deletion/Recreation Policy

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

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

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

Thanks.

71.145.157.217 04:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

71.145.205.23 08:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will file suit

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

Because, of course, we must remember that the First Amendment provides that Jimbo shall promulgate no policy abridging the freedom of speech of any user, even where such speech is disruptive and even where the website on which such speech occurs in privately-owned and -operated. Joe 05:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC) My sardonicism wasn't particularly disruptive, but I don't want to bite the new user, so I'm striking it out; the user appears to be editing in good faith. Joe 06:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The user has apologized on their talk page. Mak (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats are a indefinately blockable offense. Can someone please explain the seriousness of it to the user before he shoots self in the foot with a rocket propelled grenade?--Cat out 00:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales:

Why aren't people allowed to discuss http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html within Wikipedia?

--Markhacker 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been added to a spam blacklist due to a history of linkspamming to that address. -M^ask 20:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Evil behavior

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

Nothing wrong with revealing the truth. It's all about the free flowing of information, baby.

It's called freedom of information!

It's called Open SOurce!

Agnosticso 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Why should links from a website basicaly dedicated in harrasing wikipedia users and administrators should be allowed? Tell me one logical reason. --Cat out 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

by itself, they should definately be allowed just due to the fact that censorship in an encyclopedia is wrong. The blacklist follows the same philosophy as the blocking policy: preventive, not punitive. It was blacklisted because its users spammed it everywhere. You don't (or policy says you shouldn't) block to punish someone, but to prevent further damage. If WikiWatch instituted an active policy of encouraging it's users to add links only where appropriate and to refrain from spam, I'm sure it would be allowed, just as a blocked user will be reinstated if he demonstrates reform and willingness to help build an encyclopedia. -M^ask 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting "censoring", but wikipedia review is unencyclopedic to all but one article, Wikipedia. Wikipedia review mostly exists as a mean to harras wikipedians... And links from this site mostly is criticism against wikipedians... We should make efforts to minimise such trolling --Cat out 14:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about WikiTruth? WikiTruth is notable enough to have its own article? Looks like double standard. Agnosticso 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

I do apologize for calling you on your cell phone while you were eating dinner with your parents. I promise not to call you again. I didn't know you had a talk page. I didn't know I had a talk page. I would just like to make five suggestions.

1. There should be a Wikipedia FAQ that new Wikipedia users can't miss. In other words there should be a flashing hypertext link to it in a very large font all in a box on Wikipedia's home page. This FAQ should explain everything about Wikipedia. It should explain the Wikipedia process. It should tell users about advocates, mediators, and arbitrators. This would save everyone a lot of grief.

2. Some editors revert anything a new contributor adds to an entry. They do this unceremoniously without comment. They do this even if the contributor substantiates their claims on the article talk page. This appears to be against stated Wikipedia policy. New editors are often patronized, berated, insulted and sanctioned simply because they do not understand the Wikipedia process. New editors should have some simple recourse to hostile treatment, and this information should be included in the FAQ.

3. No one should be allowed to edit an article unless they have registered with Wikipedia and sign in with a password. Their email address should be confirmed. This would lessen vandalism and free up administrators to do more constructive things.

4. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from a web site map. Wikipedia is a labyrinth.

5. I am sure there is a fifth suggestion I would like to make, but I just can't think of one now.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

PS. If you ever find yourself in Miami and need any kind assistance please feel free to call on me.

Tolerance in the Wikipedia community

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

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

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

You've missed the main opposition point on userboxes, actually. Userboxes are templates, but templates were designed to help write articles (and as such need to be NPOV). --Cyde↔Weys 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would state the same point as Cyde, but slightly differently. The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. We actually are extremely tolerant about this, and I see no reason for us to change that. However, the issue with userboxes is that they are templates, and as such, they are categorized and easy to replicate and easy to use for campaigning and so on, and so they turn individual advocacy behavior, which is bad enough, into group campaigns. The pages which list userboxes, in the template namespace, make it seem as though putting these things on userpages is a normal and accepted community behavior, when in fact it is not.

There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.--Jimbo Wales 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm both pleased and puzzled to read your words here. Simply saying "they ought not" isn't a policy that ends the abuse of Templates space, and I think you know it won't end the unforgivably endless debates, which are chewing up editing time.

Your Statement of Principles notes that "Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." I urge you to follow this principle and keep this a matter to a mailing list for you and the Admins to sort out.

Leaving it to the "parliament of billions" to it sort out has led to tribalism and factions. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written - not in articles, but about boxes. No consensus seems immanent, other than they’re "cool."

Like all Web collaborations, WP needs clear policies. It’s the site owner’s job to sort out policies of this magnitude and make the fairest decision possible to protect the integrity of the project. Direct democracy can’t solve it. Gentle persuasion can’t solve it. A half million more words written about “Userbox policy proposals” can’t solve it. But you can, and I hope you do. - Nhprman 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm also surprised that you seem to be labeling many/all ("the problem with userboxes is...") POV userboxes as actually advocating/campaigning the view represented, when I don't think the majority of them are doing so. Most are probably being used to describe the editor with no subtext or intent of actually wanting that bias to slip into article-writing. In my opinion, it's not likely (though certainly possible) for someone to view something like "This user is a Christian" or "This user is Jewish" as advocating or identifying with that religion. What if they were reworded to avoid any such interpretation, like "This user has a bias favorable to Christianity" (with "bias" linked to WP:NPOV or some other explanatory page)? --AySz88^-^ 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Or we could simply end this debate with a new policy from Jimbo moving all boxes to user space, then focus on writing articles instead. Problem solved. (I also can't resist commenting that a box saying "This user has a bias favorable to Christianity" has no place on Wikipedia, and is symptomatic of the problem with Userboxes in general, but with Templated boxes in particular.) - Nhprman 05:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is zero conflict between your ideals and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. See Wikipedia:Divisiveness. The solution is to expand your free speech rather than limit it to a bumper sticker slogan. Express yourself! Please! Just don't blindly label yourself with some divisive unthinking slogan or category. We are all complex enough to deserve better than that. WAS 4.250 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Elroch, there's a problem with your suggestion that we "tolerate any such material, except where it is generally agreed to be offensive (confrontational viewpoints, for example)". This plan requires that we make a bunch of decisions about which views are offensive and which ones aren't. That would force Wikipedia to take all kinds of political stands when it comes to questionable cases. How can we condone declaring your membership in one ideology with a history of violence, but not another one? Near the boundary, there are countless such decisions that would have to be made, and that's not how we need to be using our energy; it's enough trouble deciding with topics are encyclopedic and verifiable, without having to worry about allowing some Irish nationalist party's userbox that a group of users claim is horribly offensive while another group screams about how we allowed a userbox for some Irish unionist party that also killed people... and so on and so forth.

That's so far from the project of writing an encyclopedia; we've got no business going there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Agreed. The circumstances that allow some users to say (perhaps with some justification) that the Admins are acting on what they think Jimbo is saying, and may be misinterpreting his comments, are the very reasons why his "non-statement statements" about Userboxes are a huge problem for the project. Though - if I may spin this just a bit differently - I think Jimbo's tolerance for the situation is actually the core of the problem, and I don't blame the admins as much as some seem to for thier zeal in taking at least the FIRST half of every statement Jimbo makes against Templated User boxes at face value. It's the "but this isn't a real policy" part of these statements that drive people mad. - Nhprman 06:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea who wrote that userboxes were "to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." You were grotesquely, obscenely misled. --Tony Sidaway

"Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." Really? Somewhere along the line userboxes got terribly terribly off-track, then. Most userboxes don't even pretend to be even tangentially-related to writing the encyclopedia. (Dammit, edit-conflicted with Tony) --Cyde↔Weys 06:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." Prescriptive versus descriptive. You should see what that wording replaced. WAS 4.250 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have added userboxes to Jimbo's page, which seems to have misled the above editor to think that sticking a load of pastel boxes expressing belief in all kinds of causes is the way to be a good Wikipedian. That's a little sad. I've removed them from Jimbo's page so as to avoid further misleading other users. --Tony Sidaway 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Jimbo and others for your views. Firstly, it is worth making analogies between userboxes and real-world equivalents. A userbox may be seen as being like a T-shirt, or a badge, but may also be seen as being like a category which people belong to out of choice (for example being a Muslim). When one buys a T-shirt or badge or becomes a Muslim, one is to some extent aligning oneself with someone else's viewpoint. Personally I think such behaviour is acceptable in society (although in some workplaces, employees may be prohibited from any such personal statements, even if they have no effect whatsoever on their performance. It has just come to mind that in some societies, certain such declarations have been made compulsory, which is also an attack on personal freedom). I consider that the "clothing policy" for the "Wikipedia workplace" should err on the side of personal freedom.

My second point is to correct a misunderstanding. The user box that led to this discussion did not advocate anything - it expressed a personal viewpoint. Saying "I like Mozart" after editing a few hundred articles on pure mathematics (or "I support the use of green energy") is not the same as saying "You should like Mozart" or "All music but Mozart sux". However, there may well be some fans of death metal who would find a userbox saying "I like Mozart" inflammatory and delete it if given administrator privileges. Should they condescended to, or encouraged? Elroch 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in Wikipedia's mission or policies to suggest its goal is to somehow foster freedom of expression, democracy, personal freedom or anything of the sort. Jimbo's statements and WP's policies are pretty straightforward on at least this point. Further, in addition to banning T-shirts, an employer may say, "No banners or posters are allowed in your workspace about politics, religion or even your favorite music. They're not appropriate for work, and are distractions." Same goes for clothing, and for WP, and honestly, even most "chat" boards have rules and ban those who don't comply. Why is WP so holy that it must not have rules against wanton, off-topic expression? I'll never 'get' that, I guess. As for inflammatory boxes, why not just write "I like Mozart" on your User page, avoiding the problem of deletions altogether? Better yet, let your numerous positive edits on Mozart's article speak to your love of the man and his music. - Nhprman 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the huge imbalance between the freedom to express an inoffensive opinion in a visually appealing way, and the freedom to express a single person's prejudice against many others who have done so, by destroying the userbox template that they chose to use. This latter action is offensive to a community of people who generously provide their own time for the improvement of the encyclopedia. In doing so, Wikipedia loses out, because people who have considerable experience and knowledge feel alienated by someone unconcerned (or motivated) by the irritation to many users that this causes. In the case of Template:User green energy the prejudiced decision of one user to delete this without review, using the false premise of it being "divisive and inflammatory" damaged around 250 user pages. I am sure the majority of Wikipedia contributors would agree that expressing a preference for green energy is not divisive or inflammatory, any more than a vast number of other personal characteristics are, but that the deletion of a template like this is a form of large-scale vandalism of user pages which does not provide a net benefit to Wikipedia. Elroch 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not guarantee freedom of expression, offensive or not, where it does not directly relate to editing the encyclopedia (see: WP:FREE). What you also don't understand is that having a "green energy" template means users (admittedly snarky ones) then feel perfectly free to create an "anti-green energy" template, thus making it divisive, because then those 250 pro-green energy users are encouraged to go and "gang vote" during the deletion reviews for both of these templates. Again, Wikipedia is not the place for any of these discussions, arguments or battles. - Nhprman 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the best example of a real world society where even the most selfless distinguishing characteristic is frowned upon as divisive and prohibited, and must be concealed due to the paranoid sensitivity of others who do not share that characteristic? There must be some powerful regime with a strong, autocratic leadership to which Wikipedia can look to as a role model. Elroch 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we need to look to a society, per se, as a model for solving this problem. On the other hand, if we walked down the street in a hypothetical society and everyone automatically greeted everyone else with the words, "I'm a liberal" "I'm a Nationalist" "Abortion is murder" "Republicans are evil" "Your race stole my land!" then we'd have a pretty nasty world that would inevitably lead to conflict. That's what we have here - the start of something really nasty. And as Jimbo says, the Userbox phenomenon has attracted the wrong kind of people and that's not what this project is all about. And yet, if the boxes were simply unhitched from templates, and the entire "social/clubbing" aspect of the boxes was eliminated, many, if not most, people would have no problem with someone saying "I like editing..." or "I know about..." or whatever, on thier user pages, either as a box or as a line of text. - Nhprman 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the line should be drawn somewhere between pandering to bigotry by avoiding anything that bigots object to, (a policy I cannot subscribe to), and permitting overtly antagonistic viewpoints. Analogies might be the policies of prohibiting any religious alegiance (as the Chinese government once did) and permitting people going around with sandwich boards saying "republicans must die": I disagree with both of these policies. My line would be drawn to allow things that might appear in a pocket biography, but not things that amount to soapboxing. So "I am a member of the Republican party" would be in (and a possible warning of bias) but "Republicans are evil" would be out. To those who would say drawing a line is impossible because it requires judgment, I would say so do many other things. The result of an open discussion should help where this is unclear. What is definitely wrong (and more offensive than most wacko viewpoints) is an editor with a clear political bias going through the list of userboxes deleting the ones whose views are on the opposite wing to his or her own (anyone spring to mind?). Elroch 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is probably a lot of common ground between us, but we have different ways of approaching the issue. You seem concerned about free speech, whereas I'm more concerned about the demonstrated and damaging effects of templated Userboxes. "I am a Republican" is fine written on a Userpage (though there are still good reasons not to) but if it's a template, used a means to gather ALL Republicans together and gang-edit or vote stack, it's very bad for the project. And it's not a question of banning everything a bigot might find offensive. Again (and this is the Practical objection to these templated boxes) an employee might say "Hey, let's start a Democrats at Work club!" and gather all Democrats together. Then, a GOP club starts up. Then a Socialist club. Pretty soon the boss says, "ENOUGH. It's distracting you from work." So this is a multilayered problem, which makes it maddening to see the Tfd review process boil down to hundreds of uninformed "voters" saying "Keep. I like boxes," a statement which is beside the point and doesn't address either the content problem or the problem of how the templates are misused. As for admins deleting boxes they don't like, yes, that's not ideal. But as long as there's ambiguity on the policy, factions will continue fight the war this way. - Nhprman 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I also think Userboxes can work, but not as templates, and simply ignoring the corrosive social networking these templates create (as some advocate doing) will not make the problem go away, it will just increase divisiveness, POV, and POV-pushing here on WP. And debating the numerous "solutions" to the issue is taking hundreds of thousands of User hours away from editing time. - Nhprman 03:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The current system could be improved by being replaced by a directory of graphics suitable for users to find a logo to illustrate an attribute, plus a single generic userbox which would allow the user to specify the graphic and the text. The only reason I personally use userboxes is to draw on the graphical skills of others, and I imagine most others do the same. Elroch 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea. It's probably too simple and logical to ever be adopted as policy, though. ;-) - Nhprman 15:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Jimbo, I also wonder whether you are aware of this. I was tempted to delete it on sight, but I could find nothing in the CSD categories empowering me to speedy it. If it were taken to categories for deletion, it would probably receive a lot of support and survive the process. Admins need more authority at the moment to deal with this sort of thing. Right now, it's not worth the candle trying to oppose the large number of people who think that political, etc., userbox templates are "cool" and must be preserved as a component of Wikipedia culture. In this case, they have actually organised themselves into a category of Wikipedians. Metamagician3000 02:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That "Anti-T2 Wikipedians" club is outrageous and is an unwittingly excellent illustration as to why all Templated Userboxes should be immediately eliminated and why they are divisive by their very nature, regardless of what words they use. It's mindboggling to me that Jimbo has allowed this Userbox nonsense to go on this long, and why he thinks the very scenario you envision - the Anti-T2 Template being deleted, then everyone scampering to Review to write "Keep. I like it. Free Speech." so it can "survive" - is preferable to simply instituting a clear policy that will get these people back to EDITING and away from all this process foolishness. I really want an answer from Jimbo as to why a laissez faire approach, leaving it to an uninformed mobocracy to debate policy they clearly don't understand, makes any sense at all at this point, when all evidence points to a collapse in the process. - Nhprman ^List 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In Jimbo's defence, his approach several months ago of not doing anything drastic was probably the right one. Indeed, I posted here asking that nothing drastic happen, and I don't think that the mass userbox deletions back then helped matters. But that was back in about February. There's been plenty of time for people to understand the aim of getting these things out of template space. What we're now seeing is diehard resistance to that aim by folks who should know better. I think the time has certainly come for stronger action from the top to support those of us who support the aim and are prepared to enforce policies that will achieve it. Metamagician3000 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Though I have to say that I'm detecting a sense from his carefully parsed wording, above (28 May entry) that he still believes friendly, gentle persuasion is always preferable to taking the that action you, me and many, many others feel is necessary to solve the problem. It's a bit unrealistic and I hope he corrects me if I'm misunderstanding this point. - Nhprman ^List 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia in Spanish is going really bad

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

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

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

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo,

Dear Jimbo,

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

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

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

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

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

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

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

German?

Does Jimbo have German ancestry? —User:Arual

Not very likely. The name "Wales" is of English and Scottish origin. 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely all that proves is that Jimbo's Dad is at most half english/scottish, and in turn Jimbo's Dad's Dad is at most half english/scottish and so on. Not that I really understand why this is relevant. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Brian Peppers, again

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

On this note, and in view of the erstwhile discussions about the article, would you be amenable to our redirecting to Internet memes and then protecting? Joe 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The talk page used to have links to off-wikipedia sites about Brian Peppers. DyslexicEditor 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point? If this was a concern (Which it shouldn't be, as the page was deleted as recreation of previously deleted content) then what is so hard about simply removing the links? VegaDark 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't state my opinion about whether it was good or bad. Actually, I was the one posting the links in the talk page to people who complained about there being no article about brian peppers. Basically, there are other sources of info on it. I'd like it if the article says, "try these links for info" and they may have various wikis (wikitruth, uncyclopedia, dramatica), and YMNTDs, and other things that have info on it. DyslexicEditor 04:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for misinterpreting your comment. That certianly sounds like a better idea than what we have now. VegaDark 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

defamation ala Seigenthaler at Les Aspin

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

• 68.14.190.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the editor who added it.

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

An administrator has apparently deleted the 68.14.190.169 contributions. This is actually worse since it makes it seem another editor is actually responsible for the edits. Now the diffs are here but the edit that actually added the material is now deleted. --Tbeatty 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty's concern. I do not know the best solution, but the current look of it is just wrong.--Jimbo Wales 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

rampant state-endorsed copyright infringement by Baidu Baike

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

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

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

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

What can you do? Wikipedia will declare war on PRC? LOL! Your so called copy violations mean nothing in PRC. PRC being a member of the World Trade Organisation means absolutely nothing. You should just give up because there's nothing Wikimedia can do about it. 70.48.250.191 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily a war, I think legal action is entirely justified and necessary. Otherwise any further legal standing will be suitably eroded. Besides, we have plenty of evidence and we have a good case: and the defendant has a lot of funds to compensate. The PRC is a signer of the WIPO, and if they don't respect copyrights from Wikimedia then that says a lot about other corporations' willingness to invest in the PRC. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So who's going to go to China to sue them? 70.48.250.191 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no need - they have assets in the United States. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What we need to ask ourselves is: would the costs of a lawsuit (and the risk of losing) be justified by this alleged copyright infringement? Especially since Wikipedia makes no money from its content, and the amount of damages would therefore be minimal. Cynical 14:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But the server where the data are stored is located in China. This is similar to the situation in Germany in which a judge ruled that he could not shut down Wikipedia.de because the server is located in Florida, USA. 128.100.31.166 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That was an injunction. Seizing of assets could follow. Cynical: damages arises from the philosophy that everything was meant to be provided free as in freedom - damages could follow from damage to this philosophy, damages due to censorship, etc. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You think any judge care about your free as in freedom crap? 70.48.250.251 03:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not the smartest thing to say on Jimmy Wales' page. WP:CIV, or you will be blocked. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:35 UTC (2006-06-01)

The GPL has been upheld in court. Arguing a case for violation of the GFDL is very similar. In fact, I think we can bring this forward to gpl-violations.org if they are willing to do GFDL as well. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

And they're located in China. 70.48.250.251 03:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And they're still subject to international treaties. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

nope, they're not. 128.100.31.170 20:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're not. But you don't sue a state because of one of the companies from that state violated Wikipedia's IP. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple questions regarding the immutability of CSD T1

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

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

Does it matter what the precise wording is? If deletions adopting a certain meaning to the wording are supported by the community on review (which seems to be overwhelmingly the case at present) then there is no need to change it. --Tony Sidaway 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No offense, Tony, but my question is for Jimbo. I'm disappointed that this page is so flooded with comments and arguments that need no involvement of Jimbo - maybe he needs a secretary or something. :-) Deco 04:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't Jimbo just respond without your belittling everyone who disagrees with you? Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV vs "mainstream"

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

Quasi protection

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

Wikipedia rocks

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

Poems?

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

According to the edit history, Jimbo feels embarassed to have odes dedicated to him. Mak (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of giving offence, I think the poems owed more to McGonagall than to Longfellow. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, Tony, I think you're right...but they made me grin. They were, if not spectacular literature, at least well-meant. I suppose my Ode to Wikipedia will have to go elsewhere. (Even though it's more Dr. Seuss than McGonagall OR Longfellow) Verloren Hoop 19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The poems have all been moved to User:Jimbo Wales/Poems, where they should stay. I think Jimbo's user page links to that. Factitious 07:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

-shakes head- No linkage that I could see. Not that I'm really complaining...I was simply amused. Verloren Hoop 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you for making wikipedia encyclopedia

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

Thanks for talk page note

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

Appeal the Arbitration Committee decision

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

Tolerance of Criticism

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

Can you please provide some examples of editors being blocked after making "serious critical opinion" within Wiki policy. I am a newbie as well(see below) so I would be happy to review this and support you if it's true. Thanks! --Tom 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki policy doesn't mean much in these matters. Karmafist is being threatened now (for spreading dissent..). Other users have restrictions imposed on them, like Everyking. I was threatened with a block of a year, the reasons for which are yet to be officially resolved. (it turned out Jimbo was behind it) - Xed 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide links? You know what? Never mind, I really don't care right now, I got to get something to eat, I am starving. Later --Tom 16:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I couldn't give you an example. But I can tell you why most of the criticism is rebuffed. I think most people do it the wrong way - the criticism is either rude, unsupported, or in the wrong place. Though, I'm rather new, so you might have to take my opinion with a shaker of salt. Verloren Hoop 12:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would never in a million years regard you as a critic, never mind someone who has seriously criticized Wikipedia ....where? - Xed 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My criticisms were made on the en mailing list several years ago. I attacked one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia, Neutral point of view. I created a fork which not only permits, but encourages articles which are not "neutral". In addition, original research is welcome. In fact, most of the central policies of Wikipedia are turned on their head. I fought with principle administrator of the time User:Larry Sanger, even edit warred with him. When he criticized another user I posted a message, "Pot calling the kettle black". Briefly, I raised hell, but I never took the step of assuming that other Wikipedia users were not doing what they thought was right as best they could. But, then I usually see both sides; just prefer one over the other. Fred Bauder 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A mailing list? I don't read Wikipedia mailing lists. The vast majority of other editors don't either, and shouldn't have to. Why not post on Wikipedia itself? Were you feeling shy? Anyway, we don't all have the resources to create a fork when we don't get our own way. - Xed 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Well, your criticism was very mild. - Xed 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be a hint that methods and behavior have more to do with sanctions than criticisms do. I criticize this place all the time. I don't think open editing is the best way to go anymore as evidenced by the fact that the majority of our articles are terrible and the constant vandalism, etc. The rate at which we produce featured articles would take hundreds of years before we have a complete encyclopedia. The list goes on. But no one has so much as hinted I was out of line for making the criticisms. It's just not that hard to behave and edit nicely with others. Wondering why you get sanctioned if you can't do that is the problem. - Taxman ^Talk 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeda, and Wales, accept such mild criticism because it can be easily ignored. A serious criticism would involve going against the vested admin interests by suggesting what to do about it, and then attempting to do it. Soon after, the threats will start. - Xed 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You just have a fixed idea and don't look at evidence. And you keep on and on. Fred Bauder 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my fixed idea is that Wikipedia can change for the better. I agree there's not much evidence. And I go on and on. The more passive are happy to ignore problems. - Xed 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not criticism Xed, that's taking action after criticism. If those actions are not done in a cooperative manner and violate policy, don't confuse the consequences of that type of action with consequences of criticism. - Taxman ^Talk 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not moving goalposts, but you are widening them. I talked of "instances on Wikipedia where serious critical opinion has not resulted in the critic being blocked, or threatened with blocking, or accused of being a troll etc.", whereas you say "ask for examples of criticism of Wikipedia that didn't result in someone being banned". The two are of course completely different. "Change must come gradually, or it will split the encyclopedia apart" - this hasn't really got anywhere. A year ago all the press was positive. Now it's hard to find something which isn't negative. But Wikipedia plods on, afraid of any real change. - Xed 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You were given examples of what you asked for. It's not hard to see where your problems are coming from, and it doesn't have anything to do with leveling criticisms. It's behavior. - Taxman ^Talk 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to get examples. Do you really think people should be blocked for saying "Take criticism seriously for a change"? That's what's happening on Wikipedia. That's "incorrect behaviour". Of course, Taxman and Fred Bauder are administrators. They actually believe what they're saying here. If they believed something else, they wouldn't be admins. The self-selection of the timid means nothing gets done. - Xed 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't an administrator then, just another newbie with opinions. Fred Bauder 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. - Xed 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I am back (very yummy lunch). Xed, can you provide an example (link please) of an editor who was banned from Wikipedia for expressing criticism within Wiki policy? Thanks --Tom 20:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I said "blocked, or threatened with blocking, or accused of being a troll etc.", not necessarily banned. You don't have to look too far for such harassment. Just look at the talk page of the user who created the section below - for making a simple criticism, he's threatened with the whole weight of Wikipedia. - Xed 21:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's one, then. Was Eequor ever blocked or banned? I know you are familiar with her, and it looks like a clean blocklog to me. (For that matter, she nearly passed an RfA, though not quite.) Yet she was a quite strong critic at times, who rubbed a lot of people the wrong way (and, indeed, eventually gave up and left). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The name is familiar, though nothing else. "Giving up and leaving", or being forced out, is another way that Wikipedia controls criticism. Why bother blocking someone if they give up and leave? - Xed 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Xed, you mentioned the user who created the section below being threatened with the whole weight of WP. Since I am the only person to have talked to him or her, I am going to assume you mean I was doing the threatening. I find this description very unbased in reality. I was merely trying to help a new user. Bringing legal threats to Wikipedia is a reasonable topic to inform a contributor about. I wasn't doing anything wrong. Please do not mischaracterise my efforts to help as "threatening". Thanks, my friend. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For a new user, your intervention would seem very threatening, though I don't blame you personally. That's just the set-up- Xed 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Setup to what, exactly? More help? He made a legal threat, I was trying to help him not get banned. Think I care if he criticises WP? Nope, don't really. People can think what they want. I think you labeling my comments as "threatening with the whole weight of WP" tells more about you than the WP community as a whole. See you around, my friend. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't read any legal threat in what he wrote, but I can certainly read a threat in your tone on his talk page. - Xed 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This is a rare case where I agree with Everyking. I strongly encourage people to look at that case, in particular, the finding of that that "Everyking's commentary often reveals he is totally ignorant of the situations he is commenting on." [5] and the very convincing evidence we used to come to our decision [6] Raul654 07:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Raul's post serves as an excellent illustration of Wikipedia's problems and how the current system corrupts administrators. Kicking a man when he's down. Smugness. Punishment of critics. Even attacking someone when he knows that they can't respond. - Xed 08:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

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

Do you have logs of the range of IP addresses? What sort of attack was it? I strongly opposed any form of harassment of this type, and I am sure that there is overwhelming agreement on this point. I agree with Fred that it was most likely a co-incidence, since after all this has been a quite civil conversation for the most part. Even so, if you have any particular evidence you would like to share, I am sure we could have people look into this more closely. --Jimbo Wales 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Provided. Head-in-sanders will not be interested that I was blocked again for criticism. - Xed

DoS attacks often come from IRC. Maybe you were on IRC? Maybe even the wikipedia IRC (if that server shows IPs). DyslexicEditor 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

the recent attempt at looking at admin abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia has learned nothing from AoL and Zone.com. Both of those sites tried to have volunteers that would help the other members, but got rid of the program when realizing that the abuse could not be stopped. It took Zone.com 10 years to realize this. Once you give people some kind of power, they will try to put it in practice. Wiki has gotten a lot of popularity during 2004 and I think Wales lives with the impression that the site can only grow to the better. Because Wiki has no competition, Wales has the right to think this way; still, the abuse from the admins makes progress a very limited task. --Candide, or Optimism 13:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from forking the project if you think you can do a better job. Please, go ahead and do so, competition within the scope of the GFDL can only be a good thing. jaco♫plane 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't administrators given powers under a social contract? I thought the whole idea was that if they have the mop, it is because the community agrees on giving them that power and that an abusive administrator's power can be revoked if the community decides that the administrator is not using the power according to the "terms of the contract." After all, we certainly don't select administrators that appear to want to abuse the mop, do we? I don't advocate a fork, but I do think that we should have some method of making all administrators responsible and accountable. Ideally, the community should be allowed to fully cross-examine all aspects of administrative actions (no more administrative discussion outside of WP), and we should also be able to consider taking the mop away from any administrator at any given point in time. Does it make sense that we rigorously examine every single bit of a user when we nominate them for administrator, but afterwards we assume inherently that they will do the right thing? I'm all for assumption of good faith, but the mop is not part of good faith, it is part of a social contract, and as such the rules are different. Administrators may have their good faith when they edit. It's when they use the mop that we must be vigilant and watch them. (XFD, I can just hear everybody poking at me saying, "Corbin, stop saying strange things. They hurt my head.") - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying above, only stop for a moment. You said "Aren't administrators given powers under a social contract?" and "the community agrees on giving them that power"... Don't forget Who is the community? When the admins, etc. say the word 'community', it is not always the same as when you or I or regular Wikipedians say the word 'community'. Community in our book would be a well-rounded representative sampling with a diversity of opinion. Often when they say the same word they mean a small elite group that includes power-hungry admins, their chosen spies, and the ever widening group of editors who seem to be incapable of real thought. This if often how they get elected to begin with. Another thing I've noticed is, there are admmins among this power structure who walk a thin line and don't really like what goes on, but are afraid to openly protest it for fear of getting exterminated themselves. Metrocat 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee deals with user conduct in general, and admins have had the mop taken from them by ArbCom action. There are some discussions going on at the moment regarding a community desysopping procedure, however there is a lot of disagreement about this and it is not ready for the light of day. Other Wikipedias, such as the Dutch and German ones, already have such procedures in place, with rather mixed results. jaco♫plane 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid there should be a transparant government where it is clear what is going on, and people aren't afraid to say what's on their mind. How about that? Metrocat 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Metrocat, are you Mediacrat by any chance? DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Community desysopping would fail because the admins could just ban anyone who wants to desysop them claiming they suspect them of being sockpuppets. And votes could be rigged by being filled with sockpuppets, and meatpuppets (more meatpuppets than sockpuppets). Actually right now, I think we have somewhat of a system where if an admin is hated, they have to change their username. DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL's Guides although there is some Christmas song about how they "term you for saying 'turds'", when AOL replaced them with CATWatch, CATWatch was worse. CATWatch and TOSAdvisor just came into chatrooms and termed everyone in there, then they would sit in the rooms as bots, terming all who entered. TOSAdvisor also would make rooms as "questions about AOL TOS" and if you asked any questions about bad activities of AOL's TOS people, TOSAdvisor termed you in a second--faster than guides did. Also the battle.net forums (I haven't been there for a long time), but back around 1999 to 2001, their paid members just like to delete posts and ban people on whims, while other posts stayed--this only changed when their abusers failed upward and got promoted and new people moderated the boards, but the company sure didn't care. DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the only reason Jimbo is not doing anything is because he feels it's in his best interest to not do anything. Afterall, Wiki is dependent - more or less - on these admins; may they may abusive or not; and a general strike would harm the site. At least that's what he thinks. To make it short, this image shows how it works. --Candide, or Optimism 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see that others are talking about the problems.

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

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

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

the recent attempt at looking at admin abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia has learned nothing from AoL and Zone.com. Both of those sites tried to have volunteers that would help the other members, but got rid of the program when realizing that the abuse could not be stopped. It took Zone.com 10 years to realize this. Once you give people some kind of power, they will try to put it in practice. Wiki has gotten a lot of popularity during 2004 and I think Wales lives with the impression that the site can only grow to the better. Because Wiki has no competition, Wales has the right to think this way; still, the abuse from the admins makes progress a very limited task. --Candide, or Optimism 13:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from forking the project if you think you can do a better job. Please, go ahead and do so, competition within the scope of the GFDL can only be a good thing. jaco♫plane 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't administrators given powers under a social contract? I thought the whole idea was that if they have the mop, it is because the community agrees on giving them that power and that an abusive administrator's power can be revoked if the community decides that the administrator is not using the power according to the "terms of the contract." After all, we certainly don't select administrators that appear to want to abuse the mop, do we? I don't advocate a fork, but I do think that we should have some method of making all administrators responsible and accountable. Ideally, the community should be allowed to fully cross-examine all aspects of administrative actions (no more administrative discussion outside of WP), and we should also be able to consider taking the mop away from any administrator at any given point in time. Does it make sense that we rigorously examine every single bit of a user when we nominate them for administrator, but afterwards we assume inherently that they will do the right thing? I'm all for assumption of good faith, but the mop is not part of good faith, it is part of a social contract, and as such the rules are different. Administrators may have their good faith when they edit. It's when they use the mop that we must be vigilant and watch them. (XFD, I can just hear everybody poking at me saying, "Corbin, stop saying strange things. They hurt my head.") - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying above, only stop for a moment. You said "Aren't administrators given powers under a social contract?" and "the community agrees on giving them that power"... Don't forget Who is the community? When the admins, etc. say the word 'community', it is not always the same as when you or I or regular Wikipedians say the word 'community'. Community in our book would be a well-rounded representative sampling with a diversity of opinion. Often when they say the same word they mean a small elite group that includes power-hungry admins, their chosen spies, and the ever widening group of editors who seem to be incapable of real thought. This if often how they get elected to begin with. Another thing I've noticed is, there are admmins among this power structure who walk a thin line and don't really like what goes on, but are afraid to openly protest it for fear of getting exterminated themselves. Metrocat 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee deals with user conduct in general, and admins have had the mop taken from them by ArbCom action. There are some discussions going on at the moment regarding a community desysopping procedure, however there is a lot of disagreement about this and it is not ready for the light of day. Other Wikipedias, such as the Dutch and German ones, already have such procedures in place, with rather mixed results. jaco♫plane 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, God forbid there should be a transparant government where it is clear what is going on, and people aren't afraid to say what's on their mind. How about that? Metrocat 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Metrocat, are you Mediacrat by any chance? DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Community desysopping would fail because the admins could just ban anyone who wants to desysop them claiming they suspect them of being sockpuppets. And votes could be rigged by being filled with sockpuppets, and meatpuppets (more meatpuppets than sockpuppets). Actually right now, I think we have somewhat of a system where if an admin is hated, they have to change their username. DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL's Guides although there is some Christmas song about how they "term you for saying 'turds'", when AOL replaced them with CATWatch, CATWatch was worse. CATWatch and TOSAdvisor just came into chatrooms and termed everyone in there, then they would sit in the rooms as bots, terming all who entered. TOSAdvisor also would make rooms as "questions about AOL TOS" and if you asked any questions about bad activities of AOL's TOS people, TOSAdvisor termed you in a second--faster than guides did. Also the battle.net forums (I haven't been there for a long time), but back around 1999 to 2001, their paid members just like to delete posts and ban people on whims, while other posts stayed--this only changed when their abusers failed upward and got promoted and new people moderated the boards, but the company sure didn't care. DyslexicEditor 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the only reason Jimbo is not doing anything is because he feels it's in his best interest to not do anything. Afterall, Wiki is dependent - more or less - on these admins; may they may abusive or not; and a general strike would harm the site. At least that's what he thinks. To make it short, this image shows how it works. --Candide, or Optimism 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see that others are talking about the problems.

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

Unblock

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

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

Editing Re-Design Suggestion

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

Who would be the staff checking everything? --Carnildo 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To cut down on the two things that seems to make Wikipedia fallible, 1. Vandalism, and 2. Credibility. There is a lot of information on here that's not credible. Livin' Large 08:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

that does not answer the question (remeber total staff is about 1). In any case being open to editing is a key part of wikipeidia sucess.Geni 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider Wikipedia as much of a success as I used to. The views of the media have given the public perception of this site a major downfall. Of course J.W. would have to hire more people to do the edit approvals--but with his annual budget, I don't see why that would be a problem. Livin' Large 09:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Imagine having him approve edits to a million articles. That's tough. Besides, Wikipedia has frim policies on citing your sources and no original research, so info that's added without a citation or made up is either cited or deleted. Wikipedia works great on this system; it's almost as accurate as Brittanica. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to hire a staff to approve the edits. Not have him or his 1 employee do it--that would be nuts! But eh, it was a suggestion to help cut down on vandals. Livin' Large 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia draws more than a hundred thousand edits per day. If each edit received five seconds of review, you'd need a full-time staff of about twenty people. It ain't cheap to hire that number of people. (Figure $25,000 per year per person, plus 30% overhead, and you're at $650,000 per year. And it gets worse as Wikipedia grows.)

Of course, the obvious vandalism is already caught fairly effectively and rapidly in most cases. Going after the subtle but insidious stuff (changing names and dates, misquoting sources, inventing people or stories about them) takes more time. If Wikipedia decided to review all of its articles – giving each and every article a five-minute once-over – that would be a staff of more than fifty to get the job done in one year. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice page

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

Elitism of Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

I support Alx opinion and question, despite the fact that they are very soft and polite. Ency ^response? 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So do I. Hope to learn what your thoughts on this issue are. Bansp (Bansp@plwiki) 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has used the English Wikipedia administrator channel as a way of discussing confidential matters with administrators. Publication of logs is strictly forbidden. It has proven very useful for coordinating administrator activities; the main channels are open to trolls and others who want to damage Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, yes, I'm sure that must be true. And after all, anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a troll. Metrocat 02:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. In no way was that implied. We've had visits from the GNAA. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

You seem to come from the outsider view, what I would like to ask you is, to imagine that you are an admin, and you deal with an extreme abusive troll. Would you feel as free to discuss the case when you know it is going to be public, also for that same abusive troll? It is a needed thing, and the stuff needs to stay were it is, in closed channels. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that some of the material discussed probably falls under WP:BEANS. That is, making that information and discussion public would almost certainly provide trolls and vandals with detailed information on how best to damage the wiki. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is really "security by obscurity". This opinion sounds strange on wiki based on OS not CS. Ency ^response? 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The more so that a clever troll (and that is the kind of troll we should be afraid of) will find his way through this rather thin veil of obscurity quite easily: there's lots of places to pick bits of critical info from: bugzilla, wikizine, wikipedia-l, the regular mailing list and the regular IRC channel. Admins aren't under an oath not to reveal stuff; often it is a question of how mature one is and of sensing what's appropriate when and in front of what audience, but admins aren't chosen as top moral figures -- they are chosen as people to whom the mop can be trusted, and not the fate of others. Bansp 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

If/When such a formal, structured PAB becomes inevitable then -- unless the open-society basis of Wikipedia is abandoned, which I hope will not happen -- it should recruit its members from all of the users, according to criteria different from (= in many respects, more demanding than) those used for choosing an admin. What you suggest is a free ride from a (good or bad, moral or power-trippy, effective or sloppy) mop wielder to a community leader. That would be an easy move indeed, but with a new name comes a new set of responsibilities, for which many non-admins may be much better equipped than some admins (not because they are bad admins -- they may be great at what they do now; but although the community trusted in their skills regarding creating templates, running bots, etc., it did not explicitly entrust them with the steering wheel, i.e., policy-making powers). What I think Alx-pl may be talking about -- and what I myself fear as well -- is that settling behind a convenient wall of a secret and elitist mailing list is a very serious step in the direction of turning the mop into the steering wheel. It bends easily, especially in the heat of battle against trolls, real or imagined. Bansp 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think some issues need to be clarified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for comicbook articles and movies

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

I think the work itself is a valid source for strictly factual matters, such as the name of a character, but anything involving more complex interpretation should be based on outside sources that have conducted such analysis in a peer-reviewed manner. *Dan T.* 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, can we then do anything to fix these articles that are solely based on comicbooks and the interpretation of the author? --Candide, or Optimism 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

merge

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

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

Talkpage protecting

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

I'm confused. You sound like you're not an admin but you say you protected your talk page. DyslexicEditor 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I protected his talk page for abusing it and REPEATEDLY removing warnings. He was blocked for incivility under that account (such as swearing at Jacoplane). He refused to serve out his block so I extended it and will block the sockpuppet that comes up. Sasquatch t|c 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

croatia again?

• u have in plans 2 visit croatia or other near countries in the near future?
• btw, r u the only person who created wikipedia or there were some other people included 2?
• Respond soon, m8.
• West Brom 4ever

can arbitrators put words in other people's mouths?

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

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

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

Why don't they just ask me instead of presuming them, and blurring the line between fact and belief, them and me, epistemology and ontology, etc.? no evidence can establish someone's beliefs but that person's own mind, and nobody has the right to pronounce them but that person. They are saying that i believe something totally different than what i actually do, in plain english. To allow a judge (or judges) to define a plaintiff or defendant's beliefs would be to set a dangerous precedent. Kevin Baas^talk 23:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, courts and tribunals make such findings all the time. Metamagician3000 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all courts are just. I'm talking about justness and reasoning. Are judges allowed to insert statements for the plaintiff or defendant that the plaintiff or defendant did not make? Are they allowed essentially, to tamper with the evidence? That's why I am saying that it would set a dangerous precedent - it would abstract the evidence and findings from the actual events that transpired, providing opportunity for the judges to make arbitrary rulings. I'm not talking about courts or tribunals, I'm talking about logic and prudence. Kevin Baas^talk 14:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Courts can and have attributed statements to people, they are called summaries. They can even state you said something when you didnt, see Saddam Hussein's not guilty plee. I think what the user was trying to do was summarize your feelings, not overwrite them or treat them in a manner anything close to disrespectfully. Clerks in RFCU's summarize everyone points for essjay to go through. Is your arguement about the symantics of what they wrote or that you just didnt take it as a summary. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either position could adequately characterize the relation of what i believe in to the actions of fred bauder. obviously it's not a summary of my feelings. a summary of my feelings would be more like "outraged", and fred doesn't really seem to care what my feelings are anyways, or what my beliefs actually are, for that matter, though he has no problem setting up a straw man in an arbcom "findings of fact". i don't think he was trying to summarize my feelings. numerous other users have done a much better job at that without any visible effort. he hasn't asked me my feelings and i haven't offered them - except to ask him to recuse himself because he had expressed prejudice - which he refused to do. so he has no basis upon which to summarize my feelings. he overwrote my feelings, i told him so, and he doesn't seem to care in the slightest. he misrepresented my beliefs. multiple people have told him so. and he doesn't seem to care in the slightest. if he respected my person, he would at least seem to care, in the slighest, when i tell him that he's misrepresenting my beliefs. if he respected my person, he would at least seem to care, in the slighest, when people involved in the matter tell him that he's misrepresenting my beliefs. if he respected my person, he would at least seem to care, in the slighest, when people whom i have never interacted with before tell him that he's misrepresenting my beliefs. Kevin Baas^talk 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Jimbo-->Admin-->Editor

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

HA ha ha ha!!! 70.48.250.130 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No.Geni 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I have blocked Anittas permanently. Past due.--Jimbo Wales 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another user blocked for criticism - see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Tolerance_of_Criticism - Xed 15:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's my impression Anittas was blocked for making a personal attack, not for simple criticism. Powers 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Removing sexually explicit images

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

This page also has some funky image Prince_Albert_piercing 70.48.250.130 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll

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

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

Jimmy Wales will you please answer me?

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

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