User talk:Jimbo Wales

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 18. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Homecoming

Hi Jimmy:

Alright, you're a Bama guy. You went to Auburn University and the University of Alabama. I know you know how it is in Alabama. I'm wondering, are you Navy Blue and Burnt Orange? or Crimson and White? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.8.12.94 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Pikminlover^Meep! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hi Jimbo

This is doug jensen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D-unit (talk • contribs)

Hi Mr. Wales

Dear Jimmy:

How are you? Could you tell us the topic interested you? And we also wish to know the time and place for the interview in Japan. can we make an appointment to discuss the detail of this interview by phone? We also have something for you. Please give me some feedback.

Best wishes,

Business weekly magazine

Hung-ta Lin

Disturbed User

I am disturbed by the Ockenbock sockpuppet craze from this IP. This is a school, and people like me want to edit positively without being blocked Sincereley, Catholic male

Question

I am from the AACD and posted the information pertaining to the Academy. Is that ok for me to do?

Thanks, Anna Velten

Brian Peppers

I believe today is the date you set for us to resume our discussions over the Brian Peppers article. Please can we continue discussions, and could you also please direct me as to where I should go to express my opinions, as I'm fairly new to wikipedia. Thanks!--Boris Allen 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly second this. The talk page should be opened up in accordance with your pledge of a year ago. The treatment of the subject was contrary to Wikipedia's principles; the article was deleted against the community's wishes, and then discussion about it was prohibited, which was even worse. Everyking 07:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has written an insightful comment on this. It is lengthy (& perhaps even a bit longwinded ;), but well worth the time. El_C 07:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read his comments on the subject before, and I think he's quite wrong on this. An article about Peppers should and would be done in a neutral way (as was done with the past, deleted article); there is nothing that makes it impossible to do NPOV in his case. (To accept this argument would in fact leave Wikipedia in some dire straits: we would have to accept that there are various things we cannot write neutrally about, which could have broad implications.) In fact an article about him would surely be supervised very strictly and written as cautiously as possible; many have in the past argued, not implausibly, that this could be seen as being to Peppers' advantage, considering the rest of his coverage on the Internet is overwhelmingly negative and damaging (with the exception of a few things, like the Snopes piece, which were used as sources in the old article). However, I feel it is a distraction to get into these issues, which are better suited for open discussion on the article's still locked talk page. The key thing right now is establishing the right to once again discuss the subject with respect to the subject's worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everyking 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And my 2 cents is that we put this on hold for another year. I've never seen so much of nothing made out of something in my entire time on Wikipedia. The world will not end without the article. Let it go people. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, at least, what's really critical is that we allow the community to have a voice on the issue (and ideally, that voice should be the voice), and that Jimbo keep his word. I lean slightly toward letting Peppers have an article, but I acknowledge there are arguments from the other side that have merit. It's the underlying principles that I really feel strongly about, not the article. Everyking 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. MER-C 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was pleased to see a good discussion by the community at Deletion review, and it looks like the decision is pretty firm.--Jimbo Wales 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Rbj

I'll be to the point-I believe you made an error here. I made the initial post to WP:AN/I regarding Rbj's conduct, and I do believe that it was of concern, especially his restoration of legal threats against Physicq. Physicq was at least somewhat distressed by these threats [1], as almost anyone would be-the threat of a lawsuit, no matter how ridiculous, is something that gives anyone pause. As far as I knew, this was the entire rationale behind our policy against legal threats.

Rbj didn't need anyone to unblock him. He could've easily been unblocked just by removing the legal threat that, per WP:BAN, he chose to take ownership of by restoring. He was made well aware of this [2], but chose not to do so. He was well aware of the banning policy, he specifically commented that he "took ownership" of another of Nkras' edits when restoring it. Nkras' conduct has been very disruptive, and quite realistically, Rbj's has as well. Since being unblocked, he took to cursing at Coelacan, on AN/I and his talk page, as well as Bainer. He seems to think he can act with near-impunity now, and I'm afraid he might be right-anyone would be hesitant to block a user whose block you reversed, for any reason.

I don't believe that this case is one in which it was correct or necessary for you to unilaterally reverse another administrator. Certainly, no one doubts that you can do so, after all you do run the place in the end. But I'm interested as to why you think such drastic action was necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj is under no special protection from me. He needs to behave himself. However, I think that the facts in this particular case where nowhere near enough to justify an indefinite ban. He did not MAKE a legal threat, and construing his restoration of some discussion to his talk page as taking ownership of other people's comments in the sense of making them his own really stretches the imagination.--Jimbo Wales 10:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems contrary to WP:BAN: "Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." Perhaps you could comment at WP:ANI#My block of Rbj? What exactly can be done if a user is fighting to ensure that legal threats remain on Wikipedia? I'm not sure that blocking is the only way to handle it, but it seems like one possible reasonable measure if a user won't allow legal threats to be deleted. It's an open question, but I'm not sure what the other options are. The legal threats can't simply sit around. — coelacan talk — 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some guy with a disfiguring condition.

make it stop, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reckless edits by one of your former Arbitration Committee members

User:Jayjg keeps making a reckless edit to Quiverfull. In the article, he keeps insisting on calling Charles D. Provan a "holocaust denier" rather than a "holocaust revisionist" and has refused to explain himself. I have repeatedly pointed User:Jayjg to Provan's book No Holes? No Holocaust? where Provan specifically affirms it happened and takes on real holocaust deniers over the fact. It is very clear User:Jayjg has not studied the matter yet he insists on recklessly pushing his edit. User:Jayjg has also made a reckless edit to Charles D. Provan, placing a "fact" tag on material that should have been immediately removed, since Provan is alive.[3] C.m.jones 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're probably best advised to try wp:resolving disputes, as this is still a content dispute, regardless of Jayjg's status. — coelacan talk — 09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Boss 0

Hello I am Big Boss 0. I am new to wikipedia and would like to formally invite you to visit my userpage. Please feel free to leave any and all comments on my talk page. Thank you! Big Boss 0 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Conference in Brazil

Hello Mr. Jimbo,

we are planning a Web 2.0 Conference in Florianópolis, Brazil, probably next September. Among the subjects, the Wiki Way and, of course, Wikipedia will are discussed.

Do you have interest in talk to us about your projects and experience?

Thanks for your attemption.

Marcelo Herondino Cardoso [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.180.4.107 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

HOA entry vanishes without any notice

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowners_association

I added to this article, a second time, info about the origins of planned communities and their mass merchandising under, The Homes Association Handbook section. Quick, read it before it vanishes without a trace as did my first post on this past Monday."

I am quite surprised by this event. An encylclopedia is bona fide if it publishes the truth, and not if it presents a consensus of individuals who have a personal agenda. My entry provides a balanced view of HOAs and uses verifiable materials from CAI and ULI. Its secretive removal is disgraceful and can only be an extreme bias by Wikipedia editors.

Please restore integrity to Wikipedia and keeo my posting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pvtgov (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

you've got e-mail

Hey Jimbo Wales, I e-mailed you about something I need. I e-mailed it to jwales@wikia.com. I e-mailed it yesterday. Thanks -chris^_^ 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

John Doe v. Josef Silny & Associates, Inc.

Good evening, Jimbo. As you probably have learned by now (and in case you haven't: see here for the article and here for the lawsuit filings), Fuzzy Zoeller is suing Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. on counts of defamation, invasion of privacy (flase light), and intentional infliction of emotional distress over an edit made by an IP address located at the business.

I was hoping you could comment on this situation, talk about possible implications, and discuss anything else you deem noteworthy for a possibly article in the Wikipedia Signpost. Thank you very much! _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. The current draft design for the barnstar incorporates the Wikipedia Commons logo. Please let us know if there is a problem with this usage. Thanks very much, Johntex\^talk 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel brandt

Your input at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt would be very useful. This is causing a lot of emotion on all sides and has the potential to seriously damage wikipedia's reputation, SqueakBox 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandt Stuff

Is it possible that I will be able to contact you or anyone at the foundation about this? Yanksox 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to as well, SqueakBox 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask, how will Arbcom examine this and will I be allowed to say anything for my own part? Yanksox 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiVERSITY - External recognition

Dear Mr. Wales

I've been actively involved in university life from undergraduate to post-graduate student, to researcher, lecturer and Prof. since 1975 (both in Europe and the Americas, in addition to industry-baseed R&D on both sides of the Atlantic). For the past couple of years I've been an active and enthusiastic contributor to Wikipedia etc (though far less than some dedicated individuals!. I had great hopes for Wikipedia, but it has, in many ways, exceeded my expectations.

I feel that the versity suffix throws us into a whole new, and very much more exigent and critical arena. (And rightly so. -I expect that the people who'll come here won't be seeking general knowledge but rather, expecting something much more advanced). I fully support the initiative, but feel duty-bound to express my concerns that contributors MUST adopt a very much more conscientious, rigorously self-critical and professional attitude than in other wiki-projects (be they formally "qualified" or not) when preparing their submissions, edits, suggestions etc. etc.

Versity-level respect and recognition can only be won by long, hard work, but can be lost in the blink of an eye ! WIKI does, potentially, deserve this level of respect, but will have to earn it.

Have no doubt, numerous representatives (probably the majority) of the traditional academic community will be very vocal in denouncing any error or misconduct, no matter how insignificant or short-lived. It would be an enormous pity to see such a noble project flounder under such criticism. (Wikityke 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

WikiVERSITY - INITIAL logo and motto

Dear Mr Wales,

If the misssion statement is still open to discussion, it's far too early to definitively decide on the motto and logo, surely !

It's more than correct to elect an INITIAL motto and logo, but please, shouldn't it be made clear that this should not be "written in stone" and should be open to change as the project evolves/matures. Wikityke 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Swedish wikipedia and neoliberalism

Swedish wikipedia has in the last few years beeen known as a neoliberal propagandaportal. I startades edeting wikipediapadges last year and soon found out that the reputation was true. Just this day an admin told me "Yes wikipedia is supoused to be a neoliberal propagandaportal" (in swedish). I started a discussion about it on a big swedish comunity and most people agreed.

Is this the way it should be??

Link? Jimmy might not be able to read Swedish, but there are others who can. ;-) // habj 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Thuresson#Blockad 130.243.190.107 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe! He made a joke... you asked a rhetorical question, and he gave you the answer you wanted. Actually, it is much more common that svwiki gets accused of being "leftie". If there is criticisms from both sides I guess it is somewhat OK. // habj 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No its not a joke of any kind. And there is no doubt about swikis obvious stand for neoliberalism among most swedes. Maybee its a try to be a bullie, becouse he knows the neoliberals have swiki and can do what they want, 130.243.190.107 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A favor...

Could you put your signiture on this page? It sounds like this person really wants you on their signiture book. Thank you! --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And so farewell

Last July I wrote here: "Wikipedia would be much better off if it had a quarter of the number of articles, and a quarter of the number of editors, but some system in place for ensuring that both articles and editors meet some standard of quality. Sooner or later this will have to be done, or Wikipedia will die a slow death as serious editors depart for more rigorously managed projects, and the cranks and illiterates are left to take over the asylum."

Now that Larry Sanger has started a new encyclopaedia project, one at which people have to edit under their real names and at which articles can be brought to completion, that moment has arrived, and I must take my leave. I am rather sad to be doing so, because I have had a lot of fun at Wikipedia and met a lot of admirable people, but I cannot justify spending my time on a project which is doomed to failure by its own ideological fetishes (actually, your fetishes, Mr Wales).

There are some aspects of Citizendium that I don't like, and I am by no means certain that it will succeed. But at least it has the basics right - no anonymous editing, due weight given to people who actually know something about the subject they are writing about, and articles which can be put before the public as accurate and reliable. That's what an encyclopaedia is, and what Wikipedia, by its own choice, cannot become. Adam 05:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of a quote...I don't remember the whole thing, but the basic point was "Humans should be able to do anything. Specialization is for insects", which is part of the beauty of wikipedia. WE aren't experts. No one on wikipedia is an expert, and no one on wikipedia gets extra weight as an expert. We just cite the experts -- feb^talk 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Most human occupations at the present are so complex they require specialization with years of training. SakotGrimshine 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See Competent man WAS 4.250 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time, the Archbishop of Wales set out to build a new Cathedral. It would, he declared, be the biggest, most magnificent Cathedral in the world. It would outshine the Cathedrals at Salisbury, Chartres and Cologne.

“But,” it was said, “Wales is a poor country. We cannot afford to hire a great architect, or engineers, stonemasons, sculptors and artists. We cannot build a Cathedral to compare with these.”

“Nonsense,” said the Archbishop. “A Cathedral is merely a pile of bricks. We have all seen Cathedrals, so we all know how to build one. If everyone in the country makes a brick, and we pile them one on top of another, we will soon have a Cathedral. As to architects and sculptors and painters, there are many who will donate their time and talents without payment, for the glory of God.”

“But,” it was said, “the people are ignorant. They will place their bricks in the wrong place.”

“If someone puts his brick in the wrong place, someone else will notice and put it in the right place,” the Archbishop said. “This will be the Cathedral of the people.”

And so everyone in the country made a brick. Soon there were millions of bricks. The people piled them one on top of the other. There were arguments about whether the bricks were in the right place, and frequently bricks were moved. Some were moved many times.

Great towers of bricks arose. Some were Byzantine and some were Norman and some were Romanesque. Some were demolished and rebuilt in a different style. Some fell down under their own weight.

As the Archbishop had said, architects and artists came to offer their services. They worked away at different parts of the Cathedral, frequently arguing with each other about the right way to proceed. Often they obliterated each other’s work. Eventually many became frustrated, and they left. Others gained control of parts of the project, enlisting the people in their factions, and built towers in all shapes and styles.

Eventually the people succeeded in erecting a huge building, dominated by the many huge spires built by the rival factions. It was indeed bigger than any Cathedral in the world. Parts of it resembled various well-known cathedrals, while other parts resembled secular palaces, pagan temples or the mosques of the Mohammedans.

After several years the Archbishop asked when he would be able to consecrate the Cathedral and hold services there. “It is not finished yet,” the leaders of the factions said. “We are still building new and even more magnificent spires, to overawe those built by heretics. Until the towers of the heretics are demolished and replaced by theologically correct towers, it will never be finished.”

Finally the building became so large, and suffered from so many deficiencies of design and construction, that one day it collapsed with a mighty roar of falling masonry, and was reduced to a vast pile of bricks. The Archbishop was buried beneath the ruins. The remaining builders immediately started again, blaming each other and resolving to build even more splendid towers.

Meanwhile, the leader of the Anabaptists, who had fallen out with the Archbishop many years before, decided to build a new worship house for his small but growing congregation. He hired an architect and a master builder. Using some of the many bricks left over from the Archbishop’s Cathedral, they employed a team of skilled craftsmen, and built a modest but functional worship house in four months.

Adam 10:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an astounding cathedral, while it lasted. Did someone paint a picture of it? If so, can you upload a picture to Commons?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is there on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article page for Jimbo Wales, with both hands covering the crotch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.248 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Losing a good editor

Hi Jimbo, thought to point out the loss of another good editor, and his reasons thus. See User:Djegan for intelligent read. Taramoon 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the German Wikipedia

Dear Mr. Wales! I write this to you, because you as the founder of wikipedia are interested in truth. On the German wikipedia the history of Croatia and Croatian people during the Yugoslavian period is denied. They do not accept that in Yugoslavia lived many nations. Every scinetist, musician or anything else is declined as a yugoslav. As an example Ivan Meštrović. Everywhere he is a Croatian, only on the German Wikipedia not. Now there is a big discussion, but it is still the same. Just a few people, perhaps about 5 %, the admins allow to decline as a Croat. It is not only the Yugoslavian period, also when Croatia was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Nearly everbody is declined as a citizen of that empire, but if you write down that he/she is Croatian it is deleted and you will be banned for this They do not accept other opinions and ban you. I do not think this is in spirit of wikipedia it is just a misuse of power of 4-5 users/admins. I hope you understand what I mean and you can help me. This is the discussion: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Benutzer_Theraphosis Yours sincerly Katarina K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.145.148 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

HELLO, MR. AWESOME!

I would be honoured if you signed my autograph page! --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book)

I'm totally against the idea of asking you this myself, but it would mean a lot to me if you could sign mine as well. // DecaimientoPoético 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ha ha! I wonder what Jimbo feels against me; I remember I was the first person to ask him this. Hopefully, he doesn't mind. But do keep in mind that Jimbo is a busy man; try not to pester him too much about it. Later, Jimbo! :) ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Awesome? :/ Not that he isn't, of course. And what's with the <big></big>? :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Success? or Failure?

- looking over the last couple entries, many interesting issues have come up with wikipedia, and I can say that even if it went down tomorrow it would have been a success, and that even if half the articles were of horrible quality and blatantly false it would have been a success, at least in several senses. Issues such as certain language categories of wikipedia influenced by one nation or another having particular biases is very interesting stuff when it comes to thinking about the nature of information, and even the "experts" can have their own idiosyncratic biases. The editor calling for a reduction to 1/4 the articles i cant understand, why??, the more info the better. calling for a reduction of editors too has its problems, an editor may be bad for most pages yet good on a few, and one of the advantages wikipedia has, is a very large number of people compiling information. The idea of no anonymous editors has its good points like accountability and likely fewer vandals, yet also its problems. There are of course issues with the system of wikipedia that are built into the concept, and an article compiled by one nations editors or even a particular generation of that nations editors could indeed look very different than anothers. Who is to say which is more truly accurate? NPOV & total accuracy is just not achievable, even by the smartest 100 people on this planet, or that will ever live on this planet, its not even achievable to the beings of your greatest omnipotent/omniscient imaginings, because NPOV doesnt actually truly exist, and can only be approximated. One editor might say swedish wikipedia is a liberal outlet, another might say it is hard right & english wikipedia is borderline fascist, it just depends on the reference point of the observer, and there are certainly hard right/left editors cruising wikipedia in all languages. Also 100% accuracy in a wide ranging compendium doesnt truly exist, even if we just take one subject article, its impossible on most articles to get 100% accuracy, you may even have 10 top experts, yet get certain key points incorrect or may mislead the reality, and to get 100% accuracy in the article you would just have to leave out a bunch of items that are worthwhile, and keep it as an 100% undisputed stub. It seems the best anyones encylopedia could accomplish would still need the tag "some of this is pretty accurate, the best we could do, some of it surely has problems", anything claiming more i would be suspect of, and is misleading 83.79.168.184 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos of living people

Hello. Perhaps examples of the "replaceable fair use policy" in action will help. Please look at the infoboxes for Jack Nicklaus and Benoît Mandelbrot. Is the first representative of a person who was at one time the greatest athlete in his field? Why is a photo of someone with their mouth open all right on Wikipedia and not in any marketing or communications department imaginable? Newly elected U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar was in similar shape until a day or two ago because a free image existed—a snapshot taken at a picnic and placed in her infobox until the time her official portrait is released. Why would a living person want to risk being in such an encyclopedia? -Susanlesch 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, I hope these folks are a little upset by their images— upset enough to release high-quality portraits of themselves under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This would hardly require a great sacrifice on their part, and it would improve the encyclopedia significantly.--Pharos 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, "Wikipedia can use a lousy photo until and unless you give a free one to a user?" "Wikipedia can use any old photo until you are dead, when a user can then defend fair use of a professional quality photo?" In the meantime, this stuff is showing up in Google Images, Answers.com, derivatives and who knows where else. As a wise man once said, anything anyone posted to the Internet has already been copied and will be around forever. Thoughts? -Susanlesch 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• No matter how bad the picture is - and I don't believe that having someone's mouth open in a photo is a cardinal sin - that isn't a good reason to use someone else's copyrighted work in what is supposed to be a free-content encyclopaedia, legal excuse or no legal excuse. The photos listed look amateurish, that's undeniable, but this is an encyclopaedia written entirely by amateurs. If anyone is surprised by a poor quality photo then I would think it encouraging that we've managed to raise their expectations to that extent. I really doubt that subjects might actually be offended by low-quality photos of them, unless it showed something embarrassing like being caught yawning during an important political speech or playing footsie with the Junior Minister of Paperclips sitting next to them, in which case we obviously shouldn't use them (at least not at the top of the article). Most people only ever have amateur photos taken of them, except when they go to a wedding. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Sam. Yes, it is a good sign that people take Wikipedia seriously. And apart from the fact that some must because of the importance it receives from the Google PageRank algorithm. But. No, I think people are offended. While trying to get a better free image—the only way a poor one can be displaced, I called one of the subjects mentioned above and talked to their associate who said, "Oh no, I saw that again today. It is awful. Can you get it out of there?" My impression is they will be trying to circulate a free image but they don't have a presence on Wikipedia and are already too late to replace the image in question (it's around everywhere I looked). From the little I understand of the policy and dynamics of user contributions, what they consider to be an "awful" photo was irrevocably uploaded for all to see because Wikipedia added the "replaceable" requirement over and above fair use. Possibly more valuable than free imagery, goodwill might be gained by switching the defaults to say "it's okay to replace fair use images with free images that improve on them." -Susanlesch 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• You don't have to use these amateur photos. Having no photos on a page is also an option, until time comes when we get a high quality photo. --Aude (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• The chances of a free use photo improving on a fair use photo are close to nil. Copyrighted photos are taken with professional equipment, possibly even a dedicated studio, and with the subject co-operating not just to take time off from whatever they are doing to sit still for a few seconds but to go through make-up etc, then have someone touch the photo up afterwords. To spend the time, money and effort to do all of that and then release it for free is fairly rare, and the US (and some other governments) are more or less the only large non-profit organisations who would bother. Individual volunteers equalling that, let alone improving on them, is pretty much not going to happen.
• Do you know the filename of the image that the subject's associate objected to? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• In any event, they have a simple solution to this, release a professional photo under the GFDL or an appropriate creative commons. (In fact, I'd say that if this continue, this might actually encourage people to do so simply to preempt the use of less satisfactory images). JoshuaZ 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The thing about the GFDL is that it allows derivative works, so if someone releases their photo under GFDL they give free rein for anyone to mock and deface it as they wish. Of course people do that anyway with celebrity photos, but actually making yourself complicit in your own denigration makes it very different. So I can understand why notable people might be understandably unwilling to release photos under free licences. Though I can't sympathise with anyone unable to bear the sight of their own face without makeup. (I'm speaking in general terms here, not specifically about the photo Susan Lesch mentioned that the subject's associate objected to, because I still don't know which photo that is and whether it really is that bad.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• At least in the US, fair use allows for parody and criticism anyway, generally anyone using a celebrity photo to ridicule or criticize would be protected under that. GFDL wouldn't make a significant difference on that note. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• What I said still applies - actually saying it's OK to do anything to a photo of you is very different from being unable to get away from it because of the legal system. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bomb on the matter, inspired by this thread. 72.144.241.142 11:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hi, Mr. Jimbo Wales. I am concerned that your user page is more likely at risk become vandalized by register users and IP anons. I really consider that you should fully protect your user page. If you would like to contact me, please visit my talk page. Thanks! — Meteoroid »  04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Given protection is always an imperfect solution and the number of people watching this page I would have thought protection a bad idea for the image it would give of the project, SqueakBox 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Hi Mr Wales I just wanted to know what are we suppose to do when Usernames are created just to chat with each other and there is no significant contribution to Wikipedia as a whole because I have seen a couple and I dont understand why is it being tolerated so Pliz can you elaborate on it a bit more and tell us what is to be done to those who are doing this and how can it be stopped..thanx..--Cometstyles 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation is a non-profit organization that has an educational charter so its money is not supposed to be used for noneducational purposes. So use of Wikimedia resources for mere chatting is not acceptable and wikipedia policy spells that out. Our fine admins have the task of enforcing these policies. So if you see this sort of thing going on, tell the admins and let them do their job of evaluating and acting. They may evaluate the situation differently than you do. In any case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is a place you can contact the admins with an incident report. WAS 4.250 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Housecleaning article images

Please undelete: Image:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg Image:Scrub sponges.jpg

Image:Yarn toilet brush.jpg

They are needed for the Housecleaning article I'm writing User:Chuck Marean/sandbox4. -- Chuck Marean 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Stable and Live versions?

Hey Jimbo, are we ever going to see some of the things you mentioned in this article, specifically, the part about "stable" and "live" versions of pages. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible back door to admin features

Let me first apologize if I have violated any rules, it didn't occur to me until after I just blocked a new user that I may have. I found my way into the new user logs through a link on WP:BLPN specificlly [5] in the logs I foundUser:Yourmotherisawhore and noted the instructions on the Log regarding placing a block. Afterward it dawned on me that only WP:ADMINs have that power. I'm still relatively new to Wiki software so please forgive me if I'm wrong and the user has not been blocked. Thank you for your time. Anynobody 08:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The user is not blocked. All you did was put a template for blocking on the front page. Anyone can do that but it is usually only done by admins after they have blocked someone. I don't think you've violated any rules since you did not intentionally pretend to be an admin. Either way, it would be nice if a real admin could block that username violating account. Gdo01 08:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good deal, thanks for the prompt attention. :) Anynobody 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rounded corners on boxes (using -moz-border-radius)

This page used to have rounded corners on the boxes, and I thought they looked nice. User:67.86.86.217 changed some things to make them no longer be rounded, but also broke the CSS formatting at the same time. I undid the changes, but 67.86.86.217 has done them again, this time mentioning they were intentional to remove the rounding. They are again broken tags. I don't want to get into an edit conflict on this, so I am asking public opinion. Should they be round or not? (for the browsers that show them rounded). Either way, the tags need to be fixed up, as they are currently malformed.(They either need the whole thing removed, or the other half put back, they were originally "-moz-border-radius:15px" and are now just "-moz-border", which is invalid since there is no value in the key:value pair). So, should they be rounded, and if so, could someone else please do so? See [the diff]. Kaldosh 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Translator question regarding the section about you on foundation:Board of Trustees

Business titles are often difficult to translate, since many countries/languages don't share US - or English speaking world? - conventions. In the best of worlds all the people translating would be experts on the stuff they translate, but reality will often be slightly different... I have been given two very different suggestions on what "Research Director" in your bio on foundation:Board of Trustees might mean. To help us translators choose, could you possibly provide like two sentences explaining it in context? Head of development department (if so it's easy), or something very different?

Most parts of that page will probably be around for a fairly long time. It can also be expected to eventually be translated to lots of languages. I am convinced translators of different languages will often have the same questions regarding the source texts, so we should probably create some page om Meta where questions from translators and answers to them can be compiled. For now, if you would answer here I promise to copy it to the relevant place on Meta once that place is created. // habj 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perth April 24

G'day Jimbo, the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia have been made aware that you will be in our City, we would like to invite you to a wikimeetup while here. The discussion is currently going on here. We recognise that your schedule will have limited time we are able to meet at a time and place suitable to you, please leave a message there or contact any of us directly via email. Gnangarra 13:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Please do not use cascading protection, as you did on Lucy Noland, unless applying full protection. See bug 8796 for details. --cesarb 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Constant Errors

Its been happening a lot nowadays whenever I click submit it asks me to donate money, and it says Wikimedia is having technical issues, so view the google cached page.

When are the board members of the Wikimedia Foundation, come together next inorder to expend some money for bandwith, hardware, servers etc etc. --Parker007 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It happens with me as well. --Meno25 09:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talkpage

Can talk pages be modifed so that persons commenting on it cannot delete/modify other persons' comments either by accident or on purpose? It can be made like a blog-in which replies appear below comments but comments themselves cannot be edited

David v Goliath

You might want a look at this guy's request for arbcom intervention:

[6]

He alleges an admin took community action without actual consensus and his arguments are persuasive.

Is this not David versus Goliath all over again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.101.44.34 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think David was quite this verbose...--Isotope23 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The New Yorker quotes you

The New Yorker has added a correction to the Stacy Schiff article in which they quote you. You apparently have no objection whatsoever to Essjay, one of your top administrators, lying to the major media. Instead you hire him at Wikia and promote him to the Arbcom at Wikipedia. Would you care to explain yourself? -Daniel Brandt 68.89.128.115 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

EssJay has always been, and still is, a fantastic editor and trusted member of the community. He apologized to me and to the community for any harm caused. Trolls are claiming that he "bragged" about it: this is bullshit. He has been thoughtful and contrite about the entire matter and I consider it settled.--Jimbo Wales 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Plain and simple Essjay was attempting to protect his physical person. Especialy with people like you who post personal info about wikipedians, Including their birth date and where they live. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that a Wikipedia administrator would be less than truthful about their anonymous identity. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Striking - ABCarter (below) has a point. Anonymity is one thing, exaggeration is another. Will try to stay out of this. --21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While it's important that people can remain anonymous, I am stunned that someone in a position of trust on Wikipedia misrepresented themselves and their credentials. I have to say this really concerns me that Essjay has checkuser and oversight permissions, as well as serves on Arbcom. It's important that I can fully trust people in those positions, but sad to say I can't. Essjay has done lots of great things for Wikipedia and I had great respect for him. It's real shame to see this. --Aude (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add... I'm entirely willing to forgive Essjay, but think these charges are serious enough that he should not be in a position of handling private information. --Aude (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While I have always had issues with the amount of anonymity that is allowed on Wikipedia, I understood the rationale and accepted it. However this is no justification for passing off as true a persona that obviously exaggerates ones qualifications and to allow it to be quoted in a major publication is simply inexcusable. A B Carter (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This creates a credibility problem for Essjay since many people will be shocked at his display of a lack of personal integrity. Essjay needs to deal with this. WAS 4.250 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since qualifications don't matter here, who cares? WP:V and WP:RS are required both from PhDs and jr high kids if they're editing articles. As far as personal integrity is concerned, in cyberspace nobody knows you're a dog; people make up personae right and left around here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We enjoy our fantasy of an exclusively merit-based system, but it really is nothing more than a fantasy. If someone says he has a Ph.D., no amount of protesting the egalitarianism of the project will change the effect this claim has on other editors' opinions of him (or, in this case, the opinions of the New Yorker's readership, who are doubtless accustomed to put much stock by advanced degrees). He could easily have chosen a set of fake characteristics which did not carry such strong preconceptions if he wished to be anonymous. He has introduced a biasing factor -- I cannot say whether it was deliberate, but we cannot pretend it has no effect. — Dan | talk 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But unless he tried to persuade people of his views with respect to articles on religion (and I didn't check and don't know one way or the other) why would this necessarily matter? I wouldn't put extra stock in the views of a Ph.D. outside his particular subject matter. Most decisions on Wikipedia outside of article editing rely mostly on a person's common sense, which is often inversely proportional to his educational achievements. Even when editing, most people don't look at who made what edits to an article. Of course, people are free to draw their own conclusions about his integrity. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he "confirmed" the details on his userpage to the New Yorker, regarding a story on "Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?", disturbs me. The New Yorker also talked with User:William M. Connolley who really is an expert in his field. And it bothers me that Essjay is a position of trust, on Arbcom and with checkuser/oversight. Someone in those positions needs to be held to higher standards of ethics. Essjay owes us an apology, should step down from those positions (until time he regains trust from the community), and Jimbo owes us an explanation. --Aude (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel compelled to mention that the only person the ArbCom answers to is Jimbo. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Several quick points:

1. Absolutely correct, if you write an objective, verifiable, coherent article it doesn’t matter if you’re a tenured professor or a fifth grader. So why put on airs?
2. If Essjay had portrayed himself as a character out of Warcraft I would have found it silly but OK. But if his self-description is not obviously false then I assume good faith and believe him.
3. What is unacceptable is that he was referred to by Jim Wales to represent Wikipedia, and he doesn’t tell the truth. Can you think of anything more embarrassing?

A B Carter (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For those with an interest, I've been trying to engage essjay about this for the last couple of weeks - because I think it's a serious issue too (take a look through my contrib.s...) . I've been unsettled by his refusal to engage in any kind of dialogue, and was also upset to see that in addition to the New Yorker thing, he'd also written to another college professor [[7]] compounding the mistake. I think essjay does great work, but just needs to step up now and say that mistakes have been made. I'm not sure he's a good pick for the arbcom right now..... Purples 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a really big deal, and needs to be dealt with. I concur: at the very least, Essjay doesn't belong on the ArbCom while this is being dealt with. This is a significant blow to the credibility of the project: in an environment where we are constantly defending the credibility of an encyclopedia anyone can edit, how do we explain when a senior administrator is intentionally misrepresenting himself and allowing those misrepresenations to get into the media? Something needs to be done here. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Read more of the postings below, and am ruminating. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this needs to be said: This letter by Essjay coupled with Jimbo's cavalier reaction ("it's no big deal") should be enough to get the Wikipedia Foundation to remove BOTH Jimbo and Essjay from the project. 70.146.32.22 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete disgrace. It's an insult to everyone who has made a real contribution to Wikipedia or donated money to the foundation. Take it like a man, Jimbo, it *is* a big deal. --131.246.137.16 10:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Larger issues of pseudonymity

I can understand how someone using a pseudonym on Wikipedia could yield to the tempation to exaggerate his or her real-life qualifications. It's an error of judgment, but an understandable one. The larger question is whether our encouragement of the use of pseudonyms encourages this sort of dishonesty. Personally, I'm very glad that I decided to use my real name when I created a Wikipedia account, in part because that prevents me from falling into the trap that it seems Essjay has. I'm increasingly of the opinion that we would have been wise to follow MeatballWiki's "UseRealNames" policy. I recognize the advantages of anonymity, but if anonymity leads to dishonesty we should evaluate the culture we've created.

I've invited Essjay to join this discussion and explain his actions. I hope that we can handle this like adults, without excessive finger-pointing and recriminations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Essjay made up a persona to protect himself from stalkers. That one of his stalkers got upset when he found out essjay was doing this doesn't shock me. This should not be a problem. Wikipedians have a right to protect their real-life selves from online stalkers. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, if you go over to WR you will see a thread by Daniel Brandt where he triumphantly note the New Yorker correction. The thread begins in July with "he spends too much time on Wikipedia and I'm sure it's bad for his health and warps his mind." Later, when several people tell him they have no problems with Essjay, Brandt says "If I was competent, and in charge of propaganda for a competent intelligence agency, I'd form a small, tight committee to sign up under a single username, and avoid alienating everyone...I say he's a competent, professional spook who manages several employees to help him out on Wikipedia." Then after Essjay was hired by Wikia and disclosed his identity, Brandt sent a letter to a priest he thinks Essjay might know, asking to confirm details of his identity. This is sick behavior. Brandt has a web site dedicated to disclosing the personal information of every Wikipedia admin. I frankly admire Essjay's campaign of disinformation, which sent Brandt on a months-long wild goose chase. Essjay has commented on this issue extensively on his talk page, but because he archives so often you have to go looking for it. And he responded quite politely to Purples until it became clear that Purples wants his pound of flesh and nothing you can say to him will deter him. Thatcher131 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pop up here, but Thatcher's characterisation of me is so unfair i can't just let it stand. I've consistently just wanted to talk to essjay about this because i thought it could do damage to wiki's reputation. It muddies the waters horribly to start accusing me of being hostile or dangerous - i'm not. I just thought the behaviour was unethical no matter what the motivation and wanted essjay to recognise that. cheers, Purples 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I only just discovered the previous discussions on this subject, in Essjay's archives here, here, here, here, here and here. This does explain the context of Essjay's misrepresentation of himself. However, I wager that I'm not the only person who had this talk page on my watchlist and not Essjay's, and so learned about this matter only today. Other people may learn of this matter from other sources, and get an incomplete picture (as I initially did). Because of this potential for misunderstanding, it would be good if Essjay could make a public statement explaining his reasons for misrepresenting himself. It is not only important that we be honest, it is important that we be seen to be honest.

Essjay's "disinformation" campaign is understandable, given the obsessive nature of Brandt et al., but without that context it looks like someone inflating their credentials to seem more authoritative. Imagine a policeman who goes undercover, and in that undercover "role" commits misdemeanor offences. Now imagine that the policeman is up for promotion, perhaps becoming Commissioner of Police. The press gets wind of his previous misdemeanors, and makes a big deal of them. Wouldn't it be appropriate for the newly appointed Commissioner to make a public statement explaining his actions?

I now understand why Essjay did what he did. However, we should face the fact that when he extended his "disinformation" campaign to the New Yorker, a major media source, and it was subsequently revealed, the consequence damages Wikipedia's public image. The New Yorker correction doesn't give any context for Essjay representing himself as a professor of theology. Essjay should, and not just in his archives. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that Brandt has been browbeating the New Yorker for weeks over this, including contacting the author of the story, the author's agent, and the author's current publisher? All purely in the name of upholding the New Yorker's reputation , of course. Thatcher131 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that. And neither will anyone else who comes across that New Yorker article be. All the more reason why it is important, for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation, that Essjay explain his actions once again, in public. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The implication that Essjay's deception was a reaction to Brandt is bogus. Essjay's false credentials were well-established on his user page before Brandt even had a stub on Wikipedia. It was that stub that first caused Brandt to become interested in Wikipedia. Scroofan 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought: even if this is a form of swiftboating, it's important that Essjay — and, frankly, Wikipedia as a whole — respond to it before it becomes more widely reported without context. Essjay's side of the story is currently buried in his archives, and not terribly easy to find. It needs to be told prominently. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Brandt's relationship with the New Yorker relevant here? If Brandt drinks coffee from Starbucks every morning, does that mean Wikipedians should avoid Starbucks? If the tipoff about Essjay's deception had come from an active Wikipedia contributor instead of Brandt, would there be any more cause for concern about Essjay's behavior? Sethg 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone concern themselves with who anyone is off-Wikipedia? The only thing that matters here is what they do on-Wikipedia. If Essjay has been judged trustworthy enough to be granted the admin rights he has, and he has done nothing on Wikipedia to abuse that trust, then anything else is nobody's business, and repeated attempts to "engage" him on this topic are harrassment. Corvus cornix 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fear of stalkers is a good reason to adopt a pseudonym. It's not a sufficient excuse for waging a calculated effort to deceive people about academic credentials you do not possess -- especially since he lied to the New Yorker and to a professor he contacted regarding Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say this, because I'm a huge fan of this project, but if Jordan remains in a position of authority at Wikipedia it will show there's no accountability at all. Rcade 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. I'm unconvinced that essjay did this as a deliberate effort to appear have credentials he did not. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Does this letter by Essjay convince you? How can it not??? 70.146.32.22 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Look at this. Scroofan 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he did either — but it can certainly look that way to an outside eye. We don't just need to be honest, we need to be seen to be honest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still disgusted, even after reading his talk page archives. You can hide your identity and use a pseudonym without inflating your credentials. What Essjay did is unethical and I don't trust him, in regards to any arbcom, checkuser, or oversight matter. People in these positions are in a position of trust with the community. --Aude (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit less sympathetic now after examining the timeline a bit more closely. As far as I can tell, Essjay was misrepresenting himself long before Daniel Brandt was on the scene. And while the desire to avoid stalking from Brandt can be used to explain why the false persona was maintained on Wikipedia, it does not excuse lying to the reporter (either directly or by omission). There were other ways to maintain his anonymity. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also quite shocked by this revelation. I would like Essjay to explain himself. Respectfully, Fang Aili ^talk 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While I respect Essjay's right to anonymity here, it is unclear to me why Essjay would allow himself to be made a central figure of the New Yorker story in the knowledge that this would involve his false identity being reported as truth to a large audience. This cannot be defended on the basis of preserving his anonymity, because it would have been far easier simply to decline to participate. Certainly, it appears he approached that situation in bad faith. The ultimate damage to Wikipedia from the incident is probably of little accord, except that the media and other outside parties will be less likely to assume good faith of Wikipedians in their future dealings. The damage to Essjay's personal integrity, unfortunately, may be far greater, especially in the eyes of those who know him only tangentially. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this needs to be said:

This letter by Essjay and his statement to The New Yorker, coupled with Jimbo's cavalier reaction ("it's no big deal") should be enough to get the Wikipedia Foundation to remove Essjay AND Jimbo from the project. I hereby call for both to resign. 70.146.32.22 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For Essjay to maintain a false identity in the face of harassment is one thing, and I couldn't care less, but I find that letter to be of much greater concern, as it appears an attempt to use that false identity to project authority. Essjay has been a valued member for a long time, and I don't think we need a witch hunt over this, but it would be very helpful if he would choose to explain his actions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How can the Wikimedia foundation remove Jimbo from the project? At the very least they would have to buy him out as wikipedia belongs to him and not to anyone else, SqueakBox 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt, please go away. You're not helping. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He thinks we're censoring information, and he won't leave until he proves that we have. I don't give a damn if Essjay has a Ph.D. in real life or not; he's still a very helpful contributor. I respect him for his actions, not who he says he is. Maybe the New Yorker should do that too. Oh, and by the way, Essjay doesn't seem like he wants to comment on this affair, which is probably a good idea (see [8] and [9]) PTO 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Not convinced myself that a Florida based IP is Brandt, SqueakBox 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt's not stupid; I bet he knows how to use open proxies. PTO 01:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh there are plenty of ways to get an ip address that isnt one's own of which open proxies is but one (even Windows XP has a method whereby one can control someone else's computer with their permission let alone the various other softwares easily available on the net that will do the same) but I am still not convinced. Either way I dont think the anon should be taken too seriously, SqueakBox 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you the same person who just said Essjay might have faked academic credentials for years for innocent reasons? Rcade 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you can go back and forth debating whether that anon IP was Brandt. While you do that, let me ask, why is it ok that Essjay was representing himself as a PhD-holding professor? Beyond simply trying to mislead anyone, here he is promoting himself as having experience and credentials he does not. It appears that, at the very least, he allowed the New Yorker to misrepresent him. That's actually a problem, and I don't think it's behavior which should be lauded. Should Jimbo resign over it? ... That's rather silly. But this goes to the heart of our credibility, and really needs to be addressed as more than Jimbo's casual dismissal of the issue. JDoorjam JDiscourse 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. It is perfectly acceptable and logical to create misinformation so crazy stalking nutters like Brandt can't stalk you. 2. If you believe what people say on the internet, you are stupid. 3. There is no honesty policy on wikipedia, and people have a right to protect themselves. 4. Essjay is not still making those claims so what's the big deal? Whine all you want but this information changes nothing. 5. If the New Yorker is stupid enough to believe everything everyone tells them, that's their problem. 6. If Brandt didn't go around stalking admis, no one would have to defend themselves from his insanity. 7. Root cause: Daniel Brandt is a nutter. Chipclip 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, root cause: Essjay lied while representing Wikipedia. You're not the first to make an argument along the lines of, "The New Yorker believed something on Wikipedia -- that's their fault!" Well, I'd like us to be believable. I'd like us to be wholly credible. There's a difference between misinformation as Essjay had it on his user page, and actively going out of one's way to lie about one's credentials to the media and to others who care about those credentials and place a value on them, both of which Essjay has done, and done while in the capacity of representing the project. We all lose credibility when one of our senior members lies about himself while representing the project. I put a lot of time and effort into this project, as many others do. I don't like watching its credibility bruised by a member of the community who really ought to know better. JDoorjam JDiscourse 04:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Chipclip, I don't think that the timeline works for blaming all this on Brandt. Essjay is claiming to be a professor on May 10, 2005 here. I'm not an expert on Daniel Brandt's dealings with Wikipedia, but the earliest edit of Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs) is on October 14, 2005. So Essjay was falsely representing himself long before Brandt started stirring things up.

I can understand why, once Brandt did start stalking people, Essjay felt it necessary to maintain the false persona he had created. I don't fully understand why he created that false persona to begin with, but I am willing to assume good faith as far as that is concerned. The point at which I believe Essjay made a major mistake was when he agreed to talk to the New Yorker reporter, and either lied to her or allowed her to believe that his userpage biography was accurate. It would have been better either to decline the interview, to explain his "persona" to the reporter (if there were good reasons behind it, he could presumably have explained those reasons off the record), or to say "I'm happy to discuss my work on Wikipedia, but please do not mention any details of my real life." The last might not have been completely honest, but would at least have prevented the current situation, in which the credibility of Essjay, Jimbo and Wikipedia have all, to varying degrees, been compromised.

Blaming the New Yorker for this isn't particularly productive either. If you're a reporter doing a story on Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia authorities recommend someone to you as a trusted member of the community, it's understandable that you might not do a very thorough background check on your interview subject. After all, you're not talking to this "Essjay" person about his professional life as a professor of theology, you're talking to him about his hobby on Wikipedia. The apparent fact that he's got a Ph.D. in theology is merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

It was a mistake, it turns out, for the New Yorker reporter to accept Essjay on face value. But she accepted Essjay because Wikipedia accepted Essjay. We presented Essjay to the world as one of our best, and now we have to deal with the consequences. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The fallacy of these arguments is that Essjay was accepted by the community because of the work he did here, not because of his "credentials". Wikipedia specifically is based on not caring what your credentials are. No one cares what you do for a living, therefore, whatever you say it is is irrelevent. On wiki, the only thing you can judge people by is the work they do here. And Essjay's work has been good. I'm sorry but there is no crime here. If you think there is, you are as bad as Brandt. (btw, who cares if he protected his identity before Brandt came along? Its a well known fact that there are nutters on the internet. Prevention isn't a crime either.) I'll say it again, 'cause you seem to have missed it. Wikipedia has no honesty policy about personal details. You are acting like we do. If Essjay hadn't revealed this, you wouldn't have known a damn thing. I applaud him for doing so. It takes guts when nutters are out there. So, AGF, and get over your moral snobbiness. Chipclip 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Chipclip, I'm sorry that my sense of morality isn't determined by Wikipedia policies. The issue of Essjay misrepresenting himself on-wiki is troubling, but far less so than the issue of him misrepresenting himself to the world at large via a major media outlet. Listen, I agree that Essjay's work on Wikipedia has been good — no, it's been exemplary. That doesn't change the fact that to maintain a false persona to a reporter is a serious error in judgment. And Essjay's judgment is important to his work on Wikipedia, especially since he's been appointed to ArbCom.

I've had my share of interactions with nutters on Wikipedia — I've even had to handle a death threat. I know that there are loonies out there. And although I have made a different choice, I understand why some people prefer to work under a pseudonym on Wikipedia. But working under a pseudonym and creating a misleading identity with inflated credentials are two different things. When the false identity stayed on Wikipedia, it was fairly insignificant. But in the real world, that sort of misrepresentation isn't looked on kindly.

Wikipedia's Achilles' heel is its accuracy and reliability. We have Stephen Colbert regularly ridiculing us as an example of "truthiness". If an individual chosen by Wikipedia's management to represent us to the world via the media turns out to be exaggerating his credentials, that will seem to reinforce every negative impression of Wikipedia out there. That's why we need to deal with this ourselves. I'm not asking for a pound of flesh here. I don't want to see Essjay or Jimbo "removed from the project" (whatever that might mean). I'm just asking for an explanation and a response from Essjay and Jimbo, about why this happened and how we go forward from here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think people are suggesting that Essjay violated any particular Wikipedia policy, but the fact is that people in the course of their lives are often evaluated in ways unrelated to Wikipeida policy. Essjay, at least in my view, violated standards of honesty that are applicable to all people, Wikipedian or not. The fact that he violated them repeatedly over a long period of time makes him look bad, and the fact that he violated those standards while acting as a representative of Wikipedia makes Wikipedia look bad. I don't see that this should really influence his work on Wikipedia, except to the extent that his activities require others to trust his integrity and judgment. In light of these events it is impossible for me at least to hold those in esteem. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While I have in the past had the utmost respect for Essjay, I have to agree with Chris here. Especially having told this to the New Yorker was unacceptable. Making a fake online personality to avoid stalkers is possibly ok, lying to a major magazine when you are representing Wikipedia is problematic. At minimum, Essjay should have oked with some of the higher ups that he was going to lie about this to the magazine (and if they had oked it, I'd be very upset). JoshuaZ 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Your personal morals are not what dictates how wikipedia is run. You are offended. I'm not. So what? 2. Essjay never portrayed himself as any kind of official representative of the foundation. 3. Jimbo is in charge, not you and he doesn't have a problem with it. 4. No one on this thread has done anywhere near the amount of good work for Wikipedia Essjay has. 5. Don't you have anything better to do? Chipclip 06:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying by the numbers: 1. It's not just about the morality of any one Wikipedian, it's about how this is going to look to the outside world. You have to admit that this damages Wikipedia's credibility. 2. The New Yorker article says "Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community." This means that an official representative of Wikipedia (if not the Wikimedia Foundation) recommended Essjay to the reporter. Essjay went along with this; therefore he was allowing himself to be portrayed as a representative of Wikipedia. 3. I accept that Jimbo is in charge. I'd just like to hear an explanation from him. 4. It is true that Essjay has done a tremendous amount of good work for Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that he's infallible. 5. I could ask you the same question. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo already commented. You just didn't like it. Chipclip 09:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for editors here to protect their identities, and as someone who has been harassed off wiki, that is why I do. I did so from my very first edit here because I know that harassment, stalking and other forms of identity invasion are things people encounter all the time on the web. Essjay simply continued his ruse about his real life achievements to protect himself....at least, this is the way I see it.--MONGO 06:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to protect one's identity without faking and inflating credentials. People in positions of trust, such as Arbcom and those recommended to reporters, need to be held to higher standards. --Aude (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no issue here. No great injustice has been done. Get over yourselves and stop all the drama. Maybe what he said wasn't the best thing, but give it a rest, the guy's human, and it really is a trivial issue. If anyone really thinks this is a big deal, slap yourself a few times and wake up. In the words of 4chan: tits or GTFO. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking about the whole thing or just the "tits or GTFO" part? -- Ned Scott 08:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Tits or GTFO". That bit was Greek to me, except that I understand a little Greek... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Literally translated it means "show us pictures of women's' breasts or leave" (GTFO standing for, get the fuck out), but is also said in response to a "boring" or undesirable threads of discussion. Its use is often humorous, given the nature of the inappropriate request being made in an otherwise serious discussion. For this case it's being used to lighten the mood, rather than being a real request. (zomg) -- Ned Scott 08:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the translation. I don't speak 4chan. (Is there a Babel box for that?) I suppose I will GTFO now, mainly because it's 3:25 in the morning where I am, and I really should sleep at some point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is credibility

Essjay is a paid member of Wikia - a for profit enterprise that encourages people to contribute time there rather than here - a competitor. Is it a conflict of interest for Essjay to be paid to promote Wikia and also to be a member of arbcom? Does Essjay have the credibility so we can believe him when he claims there is no conflict of interest? The issue is his credibility as a decision maker and not his contributions to the articles. The credibility issue must be dealt with. WAS 4.250 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

... What? I'm sorry, but is there a conflict of interest if, say, my wife wants me to spend time with the kids rather than Wikipedia? They're not competitors because they use the same software.. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia Wiki, and Wikias are very specific Wikis. Sometimes we even cross link between the two site! Hardly a conflict. Oh, and Jimbo Wales also works there too.... and probably a lot more people. Is Jimbo's talk page always this funny? I might have to spend more time here, I almost peed my pants after reading this last one. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't see a need for a reputation for truthfulness in members of arbcom? WAS 4.250 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you titled your message about creditability, but if you look at it you are trying to make a point about his employment at Wikia a conflict of interest. And I don't recall him ever lying about being a part of Wikia... Again, there's no conflict of interest. I'm amazed that you even think so. I'm amazed that you see the two sites as competitors. You clearly don't understand the situation. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And as far as what actually matters, I trust Essjay completely with all the access and positions that he holds. No one's perfect, but that doesn't mean it's a trust issue if someone made a questionable approach to their identity online. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A reputation for truthfulness? Not really. A reputation for being able to solve problems is far more useful there. --Carnildo 08:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo trusts him. There is no evidence that he isn't a competent arbcom member. None. If Jimbo thought this would damage Wikipedia's reputation beyond repair, he wouldn't have appointed him. Personally, I think its a non-issue. As I suspect Jimbo does too, considereing his comments. Chipclip 09:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Carnildo, in a way, is sticking up for Essjay by saying that the issue in question doesn't make him a bad arbiter. There's no need to get mad at him for that. While some of us don't think trust is a factor, the point is a good one. -- Ned Scott 09:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's mad at him? If you read my comment, you'll see I'm agreeing with him! Chipclip 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Going forward from here

People argue above about whether Essjay violated any existing Wikipedia policies. Putting that aside, I believe strongly that we should have policies to ensure that this kind of incident doesn't recur. The most urgent issue isn't deceptive self-descriptions by an editor, an administrator, or even an ArbCom member. The serious problem is Wikipedia's public face. From now on, the Wikimedia Foundation should not designate or recommend as a spokesperson anyone who will not be completely candid in dealing with people outside the project. This should apply regardless of whether the editor has a good reason for putting false statements on his or her user page.

This doesn't necessarily mean full disclosure. If an editor's attitude is, "I edit under the username 'Nighthoover on Wheels' and I'm unwilling to disclose my real name or other personal identifying information," that's fine. Some journalists may not accept that and may refuse to quote someone who's effectively anonymous. That's their decision. What's important to the project, though, is that if we (the community, not just one individual) do choose to tell the public something, then that statement can be trusted. JamesMLane t c 13:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What reporter would trust the Wikimedia Foundation and its management on anything, given its role in this? It's not clear whether Wales, Beasley or someone else recommended Jordan as an interview subject to the New Yorker, but he wrote on his talk page that he admitted the ruse before being hired by Wikia in January and it hired him anyway. Jordan bragged on his talk page about fooling the magazine over eight hours of interviews. After finding out, no one at Wikipedia told the New Yorker it had been scammed. There's no accountability at the top here, and to me that's a huge problem for an institution as credible and important as the world's most well-read online encyclopedia. 72.154.117.187 14:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Feh. The Wall Street Journal called me the other day for a chat, am I supposed to send them to someone else? Why? All they would have to do is register an account and ask a civil question on a talk page and they would get the same stuff. The fact that someone chose to engage in a bit of Walter Mittyism is hardly a Wikipedia problem, it's just one of the many tens of thousands of real world problems that also come up on Wikipedia sometimes. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

Dear Mr. Wales,

I think the efficiency of wikipedia would become much higher if we can design new rules for controversial articles(a negligible percentage of wiki articles). A lot of our energy is wasted in dealing with these articles. In comparison with all wikipedia articles, they are not too many. If we can ask a couple of experts to form a board and we interact with them in writing the article(rather than writing them ourselves), that would be great. Can you please let me know your idea? Thanks --Aminz 07:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely that would destroy the whole wikipedia idea and all it represents, SqueakBox 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

99.999% of the articles can be edited using the regular procedure. --Aminz 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that would mean there are about 16 articles that couldnt be edited normally. Which ones? SqueakBox 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean there are 16 but a tiny fraction. I can generally think of "Criticism of X" related articles, or those talking about persecution or discrimination of one group towards others. --Aminz 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me (as a manager in my real life) that the volunteers here are the best resource wikipedia has and to exclude not particular editors but everybody apart from as chosen panel of experts from editing any article goes entirely against the principles of wikipedia and would be counter-productive as people are attracted to volunteer here precisely because of the freedom to edit any article that they are wish to, SqueakBox 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that and I don't suggest we give the whole process to experts. But on the other hand, in reality those who are emotionally involved in these issues would give a headache to others. These articles simply become a wiki-battle-war. I think wikipedia really needs special policies for dealing with these articles. The presense of an expert(who is not emotionally involved) is really needed. --Aminz 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these policies have been developed already over the years, eg WP:3RR. Nobody is forcing anyopne to engage in a particular article so if people are getting a headache they can choose to withdraw. I basically think the solution would be worse than the problem, SqueakBox 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, WP:3RR only prevents edit warring, it doesn't solve anything. There are many people who care about a topic, and that is basically the motivation of many wikipedians for joining wikipedia. So, we can not ask them to just leave. --Aminz 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, no. While I hear your concerns I think to go down the path you suggest would be a slippery slope that wouldn't do wikipedia any good in the longer run for reasons I hope I have stated clearly, SqueakBox 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, this converstaion may be more appropriate on one of your individual talk pages (Just a reccomendation though). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof please that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

I went to that article in question, and it offered little or no proof to back up it's premise -namely that Wikipedia is failing. However, and as aptly mentioned elsewhere in this page, Wikipedia is failing: I am the editor against whom an admin recently made a declaration of "Community Consensus," but when I added the votes up, no consensus (not even a "slim majority!") supported any of the several sanctions that were lobbed against me. (I'm proclaiming my innocence here, but for the sake of argument, assume that we don't know if I am guilty or not.)

If an admin can make a proclamation that a "consensus" exists -when not even a slim majority supported his view on things, then this admin is clearly violating WP:Consensus.

The proof that Wikipedia has failed is that, even after many request for ArbCom to intervene by myself and numerous other editors, ArbCom did not take the case -which effectively supports this rogue admin's illegal actions. ("Illegal" here means in violation of policy, not state or federal law.)

Thus, we can conclude that the many news stories we see about Wikipedia not being reliable have some (if not a lot) of merit.

Maybe if they paid their editors -you know, took out ads -then the quality of editing would improve! But, until then Wikipedia is not a reliable source -just a popular source of information.

Here's the proof to my tall tale.--GordonWatts 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• GordonWatts is currently indefinitely blocked due to his reoslute refusal to accept any restriction on his proposing links to his own blogs as sources,. and his continued interminable argumentation about everything relating to such restrictions. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo in Delhi - same as Times of India office

Hello Jimbo, I see that you are in India and Delhi specifically for another couple of days. I just noticed yesterday, that the Times of India, headquartered there, and apparently the largest daily newspaper in the world, has been plagiarising Wikipedia articles on cricketers. Some of them even copied some unsourced errors and even some OR by yours truly from when I was newbie! See User:Blnguyen for details. Apparently they ran an article just this week discussing the unreliability of Wikipedia! Perhaps you should have a chat to them. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR gone

I was slightly suprised to edit today and discover that both WP:V and WP:NOR, probably the two oldest policies here, have been "deprecated", apparently with little or no warning. Were you aware that this was on the cards? What is your opinion on the matter? Dan100 (Talk) 10:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Instead of "deprecated", you should read "unified and superseded by WP:ATT", and instead of "little or no warning" you should read "five months of discussion on its talk page that was advertised all over the wiki". >Radiant< 10:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)