User talk:Jimbo Wales

Click here to leave a new message.

CONFERENCE IN MALLORCA, SPAIN

Dear Mr. Wales,

We would like to invite you to give a conference/speech about free software, open source, and linux in general, in our hometown, Palma, in Mallorca, Spain. We are an association called InfoCoop, which belongs to the UCTAIB, focusing on developing our work within a cooperative effort, especially in education, which started two years back, as a support group for computer science teachers, and which later developed into organizing related events. Last year we invited Xavi de Blas, a university teacher from Barcelona who shoud be coming back to do his linux show later this year, last May we had Richard Stallman talking about GNU/linux, and in October, we will have a journalist, Vicent Partal who is running an online newspaper all based on free/open source software from Barcelona. Now we are trying to organize and book some more lectures, and we would be very interested in having you over here, and listen to what you have to say. The lecture would be open, and we usually count on the cooperation from club Diario de Mallorca, a local newspaper's venue which fits over 200 people. There is also further press coverage, including television, since we keep it open to everyone and invite and send information to all major organizations in the area. Obviously we we would cover travel, food and board, and your own fees. I hope we can meet soon in Mallorca, and attend your lecture, of course. Please let us know about your agenda, availability of dates for 2007-2008-2009, whenever it is more convenient for you (except July, August, everything seems to stop for the summer, over here) and costs.

Thanks for your time, hoping to hear from you soon,

Llorenç Mercer

ll.mercer@gmail.com

Ads for Wikipedia

Just curious, why don't we have commercials on Television for Wikipedia? I was shocked to see that a lot of people don't know about it. It would definatley be a nice break from that HeadOn commercial! Cheers,JetLover 23:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a charity funded by donations from the people who edit its wikis. There's no money left for TV ads - most money gets used on things like bandwidth and computer equiptment. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer is (1) the foundation doesn't have any funds for this, and (2) most people know about Wikipedia already. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also most internet searches on Yahoo or Google turn up Wikipedia as one of the top three search results. While Wikipedia is now the tenth most popular website, it is relatively unknown among the non-internet savvy generation, but who cares? 199.125.109.26 02:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertising Wikipedia on a country with TV is like Pissing in an Ocean of Pi-- I mean, It's a waste of perfectly good money. The money it would take to even have a very modest national marketing campaign would be much, much better spent paying for more employees, or hardware, or bandwidth, or electricity, or buying OLPCs for her, and so on an so forth. We could do a lot more for Wikipedia by putting that money into keeping Wikimedia afloat than by advertising it --lucid 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

People dont spend money on advertising except to make more money and you havent explained how wikipedia could make money by advertising, SqueakBox 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already the ninth most popular website in the world. It gets attention for free in major news outlets every day. Why would it advertise? Durova^Charge! 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I've never seen Google advertise either, except occasionally in specialty publications to seek job applicants. Sometimes something (for-profit or not-for-profit) just manages to be in the right place at the right time with an idea whose time has come, and can become a massive institution purely on word-of-mouth. Advertising would just be a waste of money in those cases. *Dan T.* 18:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on this without further waste of space. 84.250.110.93 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Donations

I have a career pretty similar to your former one. How much do I need to donate to become an administrator? 86.150.30.172 09:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SYSOP. Donations have nothing to do with it --lucid 09:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All cheques payable to me... --Deskana (apples) 11:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The above comments and the one on my messages are not helpful. Surely it would be reasonable to give special privileges to donors. Naturally I see an arguement for greater scruitiny of the inexperienced, but a donation to Wikipedia can be as great a contribution as that of an editor. 86.150.30.172 12:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship isn't a reward for contributing to Wikipedia. It is a tool. --lucid 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So why can't I have that tool? 86.150.30.172 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, adminship is entrusted by the community to editors whom the community knows well. Editing from an IP address won't get you there (not to mention an IP can't be sysoped). I'd suggest that you create an account as a first step if you'd like to become an admin. Just edit for a long time; make solid, productive edits until you've impacted the community enough to be sysoped. But that shouldn't be your goal; your goal should be the project - making Wikipedia the best repository of human knowledge on the planet. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 12:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely a substantial donation to the community should be enough? Why do I have to be "known well"? 86.150.30.172 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Substitute "well known" for "widely recognised as a good contributor", one who is considered unlikely - based on observation - to use the extra tools available to disrupt Wikipedia. This is important since the tools available for admins can do a great more damage than those used for general editing. Donating a considerable amount of money only indicates that you have a considerable amount of money available for donation, and not how well you would carry out the work of an admin. LessHeard vanU 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is sort of like trying to make the sun the biggest thing in the solar system --lucid 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Point granted.  :-) =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I now have an account. Euriboring 13:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA is the only way you're going to get sysop rights, and without a lot more contributions behind your account, your RfA will fail. Adminship is a set of tools that let you help Wikipedia more, and without a need or use for those tools, you will not be granted them. --Deskana (apples) 13:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(*cough* The RfA page says, "The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy..." and nothing about the need for the tools - which is often an area of contention in the various discussions.) LessHeard vanU 14:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. This user would not be granted adminship, and you are as aware of this as me. --Deskana (apples) 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Semantics", indeed, as regards this editor (now rightly indefblocked by you) but not perhaps in discussions involving legitimate candidates. Just general principles for those unfamiliar with sysop criteria - hence my decision to remark in smaller type. LessHeard vanU 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Henry Root Letters are much funnier. -- Hoary 13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you become an admin, it means you have a few special tools. You use the tools to fight abuse and clear backlogs. You need to know policy to use the tools well. --Kaypoh 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The user in question is now blocked. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the block of this user. What nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats a bit like trying to buy a place in the parliament. 84.250.110.93 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite being wrong, the idea that adminship is a reward for contributing to Wikipedia seems to be common, especially among newcomers. A.Z. 23:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Governments being bought? No, that never happens :-). Thanks for backing us, Jimbo. I never expected anything less. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, never literally. 84.250.110.93 10:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should AGF and teach him how to contribute to Wikipedia. If he learns policy, maybe he will become an admin one day! :) --Kaypoh 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at his user page. In his plea for unblock, he mentioned having no intention to make any good faith contributions to the project. Once he admits to wanting admin access for purely personal reasons, good faith goes out the window. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This block made me feel slightly uneasy. The user's request is doubtless very, very silly. He clearly has little understanding of how Wikipedia works and probably doesn't really know what an admin is, even though this was explained to him. Nevertheless, he wasn't harming the project and newcomers aren't usually blocked for strange behaviour. His questions were posted on talk and community pages and could have been answered or even just ignored. The assumptions behind the questions were wrong - but they would only be harmful if someone took them seriously and made him an admin. They weren't asked in bad faith. It's a shame that we bite newcomers like this but perhaps, if he decides to become a serious contributor, he might benefit from a new username. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked, not for being ridiculous (though he was being ridiculous), but for repeated disruptive edits. Non-admins can't see the deleted edits, but that's why he was blocked. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not the same guy as the previous ip address, but I never have heard there are edits you have to be an admin to see. When did this start and what is it's purpose? This is a good faith edit -- I'm just curious. I have never heard this before.  :-) 63.3.15.1 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just deleted edits- that is, edits on deleted articles. It's always been there. The only reason you can't see them is simply because they have to be invisible; otherwise, deleting attack pages would leave them still present, as Wikipedia has a perpetual memory. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 01:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete their edits? If you do that, non-admins can't judge whether you made a right decision or not. A.Z. 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The user made an RfA, in which he: offered to pay $250,000 to Wikipedia, and $250 to the first 500 people who "vote for him". Also he said "I want to be able to say that I am a Wikipedia administrator. Also I would like to be able to view deleted pages", as to why he wants to be an administrator. The edits were deleted because his RfA was deleted, they were not hidden from view, just removed. Prodego ^talk 01:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. A.Z. 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cash?  :-) Oh, sorry, that's hilarious. Thank you for the answer. 63.3.15.1 01:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol - it's good to hear people don't just get blocked for asking ridiculous questions. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 02:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Very good :-) A.Z. 02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I bet many admins have never ever donated to Wikipedia. Lradrama 08:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture to say most haven't. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Prodego ^talk 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear me. Well that certainly makes my comment about his questions not being asked in bad faith look very silly. I wonder what on earth he can be trying to prove. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is never wrong. Prodego ^talk 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Supposing, in 8 weeks' time, this editor announces he has found someone willing to take bribes, and I'm sure there are some around, does it matter? Is it likely that this would happen outside Euriboring's test scenario? Without wishing to teach people to stuff beans up their nose, a favourable Wikipedia article could conceivably be a powerful PR tool and the possibility of money being paid may not be completely far fetched. Also, what would happen to the editor in question? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads

Hi, I would like to see his user page but I keep getting stuck on an image when loading it's called qxz-ad37.gif or something. Could someone see if it's not absolutely vital for the article and delete or change it to .png or something please. Thanks 84.250.110.93 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a Wikipedia ad. We could remove it, but I highly recommend that if your computer is that old, you turn off images in your web browser, or if your web browser is causing problems, try another one such as Firefox or Opera --lucid 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Jimbo's user page and is not an article... And although Jimbo probably welcomes your opinion, it is his user page and it's up to him what to put on it and if he feels he wants the ad then it is vital Nil Einne 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Your user page is only there because the community lets it be-- if your user page is disruptive or causes real troubles for other users (it's your user page causing it, not the other users) it can and will be changed. You own your userspace in the same way you own a driver's license. --lucid 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, ignore this I just turned off images and it sill won't load, it's propably high-traffic or something. 84.250.110.93 22:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is is the adverts needn't be removed, because most computers have no problem with them. Lots of users have adverts on their userpages. There's no need for yet another scrap to start over this. Lradrama 14:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads violate policy, actually. Any experienced user will tell you that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laleena (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They aren't real ads, which doesn't seem to be communicated very well. See Template:Wikipedia ads. Prodego ^talk 23:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

2 Million Mark

Hello Jimbo, as you can see from here we are edging closer and closer to the 2 Million mark with articles. What should we do about it? Should we hold a competition for the person who creates the 2 Millionth article? HarrisonB Speak! 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this calls for a lengthy discussion of a commemoration ceremony and a plaque but no actual getting out of chairs. ←Ben^B4 03:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality should be our focus now, rather than quantity. --Deskana (talky) 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Deskana in this situation. Wikipedia is already one of the largest and farthest reaching single sources of human knowledge on any subject one could imagine, and to worry now about encouraging people to make more articles instead of improving what we have got is... you know what, I don't have the heart to write a big long rant here. At least I got to the joke before anyone else --lucid 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Deskana here. It should be more about quality than quantity now, and 2 million is a less remarkable milestone than 1 million.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

plaque misuses non-free image Image:Wikipedia-logo.png and should be removed -85.210.32.112 18:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article creation level is high, we might not know who actually does create the 2,000,000 article. And then we'd have a vicious fight over who actually did. But if things were simple, it would be nice, yes. Lradrama 20:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What if the 2 millionth article got deleted though? Then what would happen? ACBest 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We came extremely close to deleting the 1,000,000th article. The 999,999th article was One million articles - see Talk:Jordanhill railway station/Archive 1#Thank god. Hut 8.5 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely that we will know the two millionth edit, because of the very high risk of it being deleted as vandalism or reverted. And nor should we. Wikipedia is a project to build a meaningful reference database; it is not an ego trip for editors to hit a magic number. There will almost certainly be a number of two-millionth edits, and none should be publicised. Unless it is from Jimbo, because he deserves the credit. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the two millionth edit, it's the two millionth article. What do you mean by saying that only Jimbo's two millionth edit should be publicised? A.Z. 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant if Jimbo created the article. I can't see Jimbo reaching 2,000,000 edits very soon can you? Isn't the poor bloke busy enough? ;-) Lradrama 09:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WR (*cough*) is plotting to create the 2000000. --Isis4563 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So I suspect are rather a lot of other people.Geni 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure, but if WR got the 2000000th, they would make it something bad. Something anti-Wikipedia. --Isis4563 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fun with numbers: Wikipedia has well over 160 million edits total (see m:List of Wikipedias#1 000 000+ articles). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What have they done with my song mam (replace: “Wikipedia, man”)?

Reminder to Your friendly intervention:

I'm back from vacancy and most of our club, meanwhile having resigned. Of course awful vandalism got more and more a serious problem for WIKI-admins. But they have no Right to violate themselves especially WP:NOR partly consistently, e.g. by putting – partly even priory! – bare depreciative opinions at first within an article instead of serious descriptions. That was shown in link above and more generally reprimanded in An Open Letter to the Scientific Community, published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.

WIKI-Censorship? A meaning-dictatorship against unloved facts?

A kind of prior depreciative censorship was shown in Our partly commonly fixed issues, ignored: Precedently to any serious content of related theories, papers, links, depreciations are put as shown; this is nowhere supportable. If this continues, this would become a bad redaction, as usual in bad newspapers only...

We showed some incredible defects of knowledge

Involved WP:PHYS members in Our Open letter to Jim Wales support a mainstream and not the history. E.g.: The history of Hubble was falsified, really destroyed, by precedent opions in the sense that Big Bang is now valid and not what he Hubble had meant quite "falsly", himself never committed to Big Bang as steadily pretended:

Zwicky's Tired light is less irrational than Big Bang. 

Above linked important OPEN LETTER TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY was signed and supported meanwhile by thousands “dissidents” of Big-Bang (found in Google).

Those serious Institutes, Professors, Doctors and researchers need in our 3 dimensions a so-called "relativistic photon's mass" (m=hf/c²) producing Gravitational redshift and the related other Einstein effect.

Arrogantly acting proponents of Big-Bang mean that this is not needed in "their" 4 dimensions: Their gravity is replaced by curvatures of spacetime instead and all others have to follow their theory - and blindly. All mentioned dissidents became anyhow victims of those awfully acting “modern physicist’s” meaning quasi that old physics (like good old shoes) are no more "modern" and therefore must be bad.

Their new clothes are invisible ("mysteries, miracles"). They act like the naked Kaiser saying that only bad people cannot see his new clothes, but all see him naked...

Bare ignorance – also by WP:PHYS members in that tendency – supports the mentioned mental “war of physicians”.

Real fairness cannot support any kind of ignorance and wars, anywhere...

Proved now also

We were IP-hunted and how!

All we did was erased, obviously arbitrarily. We did not believe that this can be: We were chased (two assistants of Univ.-Prof. had told us the same, partly with their Wiki-IDs).

The same problem was already written by others

See e.g. Another open letter to Jim Wales.

Incredible defects in physics are hidden

Proved now in our link even multiply: Involved members of WP:PHYS have incredible defects in basic physics and math and refuse (by incompetence?) or by fear anyhow to (let!) put serious stuff in articles, all was rv meanwhile.

• E.g.: A frequency depending photon’s mass m=hf/c² - as calculated in the whole remaining world by EINSTEIN with E=mc² and PLANCK’s E=hf.
• E.g.: The article General relativity links [Solutions of General relativity] with cooking recipes only to find, but without any real solution at all (we put 6 well-known, erased). The second related article Exact solutions of General relativity begins until today with a seriously fault: A contravariant Einstein tensor. The fault is directly shown in comparison to all other articles and sources: the tensor indexes are put above. The defects were corrected in vain, rv, until today remaining.

Re-Acting slippery like snakes?

You will find especially how involved WIKI-Admin Duae seriously pretended at first not to understand German at all. Then he pretended to understand perfectly the related same German WIKI-article. He meant it says the same. But we showed - as you will realize with your advanced German knowledge:

  GERMAN WIKI had said (correctly!) the contrary of the ENGLISH WIKI!

Incredible? The ivolved Wiki-Admin acted also here (like to each even COMMONLY FIXED TOPICS) slippery away also from this topic like a snake after having been instructed by our translation of the kernel...

Also our priory two fixed Issues are not handled until today: Duae confessed to know the missing photon’s mass and its gravity used by (arbitrarily destroyed, named "crank", "silly") copies of original Fritz Zwicky papers. And resulting mental “war”-effects if people are not informed at all that a particle named photon must have a mass in our 3D-world.

Even those two topics were not handled at all... 

Instead Duae confessed

Big Bang needs mystery!

Big Bang makes everything from nothing. This needs indeed GOD and not any physics! Meanwhile it needs more and more, even many mysteries! The word “mystery” for it was confessed written by Admin Duae! But like a wounded greyhound he attacked in masses side-issues instead. He abuses a few real or pretended shortcomings or faults of alternative physics. Mainly he only pretended faults by his lack of serious "old-fashioned" physical knowledge, as shown. Such unfairness is no more banal (some of us meant: You User: Jimbo Wales certainly had left WIKI because you had to resign – as we now)...

We'll stop fighting windmills if no supervisor reacts seriously

We not want to act like the soldier in a picture:

He (has to) try to split a rock with his helmet-peak... 

If nobody reacts seriously we have to resign against the might of rigid windmills, against a kind of censorship, against bare ignorance, against serious lack of knowledge in phyiscs, etc. (our Dr.Kießlinger wrote – Email copied and linked – that Wikipedian Admins are unable to “hear” as others - until a Professor - support one ore all topics by linked emails)... DeepBlueDiamond 12:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: see User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues ←Ben^B4 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am embarrassed at the amount of time I wasted on that. It was a genuine attempt at communication and explanation, but futile. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why does your userpage get vandalized so much?--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He's the founder of Wikipedia, and a lot of crazy asses hate him for it. Primitive men solving everything with destruction. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Founder" of Wikipedia is actually disputed. --Tom 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

O_o why would someone vandalize a person's userpage who could block you in a second?--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

IT'S A MADHOUSE!!!! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea i get that, some people are just crazy--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism isn't rare. Many Wikipedians' userpages get vandalised a real lot, specially if they are admins or vandal patrollers. Mine's been vandalised 23 times :-( . But being a famous guy around here, people think it's funny to have a mess around with his page. Lradrama 09:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, mine's been vandalized about eighty times (I just eventually stopped updating the counter). The more you work at improving the encyclopedia, the more conflict you come into with people who don't improve it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people feel thier need to express thier anger at Wikipedia and how it works (or dosen't work) by vandalizing. Of course, he could always have his userpage protected but I guess he dosen't mind. 71.112.225.88 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Traffic. LessHeard vanU 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest harsher penalties for vandalism

Specifically, I think blocking after one pure vandalism edit would be an appropriate measure, to save productive users' time from being wasted. Wikipedia is big enough now that it's unlikely that these vandals would have much in terms of notable subjects to contribute, and as one of the most visited sites on the Internet, we need to take harsher action now, and extend longer blocks. WP:AGF dates back a long time, but since Wikipedia is so big now and shows up in every Google search and we still let anon-IPs edit, it's not so strong as a way of thinking as it once was. Personally, I'd never be a recent changes patroller as I'm not wasting my time dealing with idiots. I'm also in favour of logging in as a requirement to edit, to ensure quality.-16:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's been talked about time and time again: no. The system works, amazingly enough. I've even seen some "pure vandalism edits" that later turned out to be by people who actually did decide to help the project, or simple misunderstandings. It's fine as it is --lucid 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Having said what I said, we shouldn't block people for introducing articles on non-notable subjects, in my opinion, and probably the opinion of many other Wikipedians. We should just guide them towards what is notable...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the system works, but I, despite my many positive contributions, would never be a recent changes patroller as it seems like little more than being a slave to the trolls and vandals. We should relieve these hard-working Wikipedians of their duties by imposing harsher penalties.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then don't do RCP. People that do RCP take pride in what they do, weeding out the vandals, while also helping newcomers, at least the good ones do. If you don't like it, don't do it, there's about a bajillion other things to work on here, we don't need to 'fix' a system that isn't broken just so you can get in on something that works fine for everyone who does it --lucid 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, once you impose "harsher penalties" you increase the attractiveness of a target among openly-antagonistic perpetrators who value the "prestige" of getting away with misdeeds with higher stakes. Moreover, unless the "penalties" involve a complete deprivation of all means of mounting future attacks (impossible with an open and totally anonymous system), or the deprivation of a fundamental necessity of life itself, the penalties will only be viewed as "harsh" by those who value participation here. The antagonistic trolls and vandals will just view it as a fun new "challenge" to surpass.

Thus, the greatest punishment will fall upon those who sincerely meant well, but were mistakenly identified as a troll or a vandal. Such well-meaning people will then be more likely to give up and not come back. This is the exact opposite of what you'd want. dr.ef.tymac 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to remember not every vandal vandalises past final warning. Many of them make vandalism edits once every three months. And I know from being on RC most of the summer. RC patrollers aren't "slaves to the trolls and vandals" like you said, I might have to put up with them for a short time but it isn't long before their actions get them blocked from editing. Also if you have to log in th edit, it kind of defeats the whole purpose of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." If people have to log in, that means everyone can't edit straight away because they have to sign up. Also not all IPs are vandals. There is a good long list of IPs who make loads of constructive edits to wikipedia along with the list of "Vandal IPs". You have to take the bad with the good and currently the good is shadowing the bad. AngelOfSadness talk 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to remember that anyone can create an account (very quickly, without email verification), and that's not contradictory to the idea of anyone being able to edit.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But you did say earlier that you would be in favour of logging in as a requirement. Making it a requirement defeats the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But also those accounts can be blocked as quickly as creating one. If it is found the editor isn't making any constructuve edits, then they will be blocked. If they create another account and continue their ways, then that account will be blocked aswell. It will continue until the vandal gets bored and finds something else to do with their time. AngelOfSadness talk 18:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm - tougher penalties for vandals? Why not... perhaps we could start flogging them... WjBscribe 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm now in favour of WJBscribe's idea on flogging. That would be much better than the current system of dealing with vandals :D AngelOfSadness talk 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I honestly think the current system works for a number of reasons. First and foremost, is that not all "vandalism" is intentional, or "destructive". The term has become a "catch-all" for any edit that does more harm than good to an article, and the truth is, many of these edits are mistakes made by younger folks, or brand new editors who don't understand how Wikipedia works. However, that being said, there are certainly cases of deliberate, pre-meditated vandalism, where the editor knows exactly how to disrupt in a way that makes it very difficult to revert the page for most people, such as resizing fonts, changing all colors to black, or the obvious image vandalism that happens. These things need a knowledge of the proper codes and how they'll render, and thus the intent is most certainly destructive, especially after more than one incident. All that being said, I still truly believe that a kind word, a custom warning, and a little patience can sometimes turn these people around, and if we can "save" even one out of a hundred from continuing, (without having to block them) I think it is worth it. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chop off their hands. They won't be able to use a keyboard any more. *Dan T.* 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chances are they'll grow more hands like the way Spongebob Squarepants can, use their other body parts(feet, nose etc) or get a loved one to type as they chant their wishes. AngelOfSadness talk 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Tarring and feathering? That sounds like fun...maybe a lynching? Life incarceration? Denial of ice cream? Although I do agree, vandalism is ferociously un-fun... =David^(talk)_(contribs) 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• As a RC patroller, I think we could be quicker to issue short term blocks in cases where an account or IP address is clearly only interested in vandalizing. After four appropriate warnings and a report to AIV, a vandal could get in a dozen vandalism edits in short order before he is blocked. (Many more than that if he is highly motivated). Most IP addresses can't be blocked for long term anyway, and a short time out for a named account will give that editor a chance to review policies and guidelines, and evaluate whether or not he wants to be a positive contributor to the project. I have been known to issue "only warnings" in such obvious cases, but I usually give them the chance to make two more vandal edits after my warning before I report them. So far I am not aware of any of my reports to AIV being rejected, so apparently the blocking admins are supportive of this in practice. But the named accounts usually get an indef block. Perhaps they could get a shorter one for the first block. - Crockspot 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should give one warning before blocking. We would want to make it nice and friendly, something along the line of a level one, but have it state that if they vandalize again, they will be blocked. But if this is implemented, we will have to be more careful about what we call vandalism. --Mschel 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the multi-level warning system works fine, as long as we have the leeway to step it up more quickly in the more abusive cases, which we appear to already have. - Crockspot 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are to be preventative not punitive. ~ Wikihermit 18:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be preventive, since they are on a vandal tear at the moment. The object is to stop the vandalism, with the benefit of giving them a chance to reconsider further vandalism. - Crockspot 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea but some editors could abuse the use of the warning, giving it to people who they don't agree with instead of giving it to who did obvious vandalism. AngelOfSadness talk 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The call on whether or not to block is up to the admin responding to the AIV report. I assume that these reports are given at least a cursory contribution history examination. I think abuses would be caught there. - Crockspot 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course. What am I on about today? Permission to strikeout my last statement. AngelOfSadness talk 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In reply to crockspot's comments about vandals getting away with vandalism between the time they're reported and the time they're blocked, what about something like a user level block? Any user with more than, say, 500 edits can apply for it, and be approved fairly easily by any admin, kinda like the process for getting approved for AWB, and they can then block any user for 30-60 minutes, on the condition that it's blatant vandalism (X IS TOTAL SHIT) and they've had a full set of warnings, and then be reported to AIV-- on the condition, of course, that anyone abusing it would be instantly banned themselves, or anyone who was being careless with it would get it taken away. This would seem like a good way to at least get vandals to have to stop for a moment, look at their talk page, think about why they can't edit until an administrator reviews their case --lucid 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's a pretty good idea, considering that the mechanism for message notification to IP's is broken. But I'm not sure how easily that could be implemented. - Crockspot 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• That's an insanely creepy idea (nothing personal). We don't need some sort of new official mechanism in place; if an account (not an IP) has an obvious history of vandalism, but has never quite managed to make that final edit to get them blocked, the admins should just strap on a pair and shuffle them off. Vandals attempting to game the system are even worse than bored schoolkids. If it's an IP that has a history of vandalism and it looks like they're at a new cycle of vandalism, just issue a quick six-hour block and be done with it (short and sweet to minimize collateral damage, but long enough to make the vandal lose interest). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the ability to give a 30 minute block by an editor who has shown past good judgment in making reports to AIV, to stop further vandalism while the AIV backlog is being worked through, would not necessarily be a bad thing. There would have to be strict penalties for abusing this trust as well. But again, this might not even be doable in the current software environment. - Crockspot 20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ADD - Even a ten minute block would be useful for vandal patrol (and not very useful for abusive purposes). But there may not be the mechanism for discerning levels of block permissions in the software. It's probably an all or none thing. - Crockspot 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• EVula, I can understand your concerns, but (and again, this is nothing personal ^^) you've had a mop for almost a year, I'm not sure you quite know/remember how frustrating it is to have to wait for an admin to get to AIV and constantly revert an IP every few minutes until someone answers it. you also seem to be misunderstanding the point-- it isn't an Alternative to administrator intervention, it is an additional measure to protect the encyclopedia. Again, this would only be to stop IPs until an administrator had a chance to look it over, and anyone abusing it or repeatedly using it mistakenly would have it taken away, or be banned themselves--lucid 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm willing to agree that I'm a bit out-of-touch with AIV from an editor's perspective. However, I still don't think that creating a "mini-sysop" permission level is the best idea (or, for that matter, even possible). Getting admins to more reliably patrol AIV is a better (and easier to implement) alternative (one that I'm woefully guilty of falling short on as well). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Backlogs would be a good idea-- have easy to read graphs (including using various shades of backgrounds for the numbers, like that RFA bot, to show if something is in backlog or clear), sorted by important (AIV > 3RR > UAA > RFPP, something like that) and such, and divided into backlogs that editors can help with, and backlogs that admins can help with. It could all be handled fairly simply by one or two well programmed bots. Just go to a single page, and get a quick glance over of what needs doing-- everything from WP:ACC to WP:AFC to CAT:CSD, and so on --lucid 21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• It varies from admin to admin, from what I can tell. I've indefinitely blocked accounts with two edits that were painfully obvious vandalism, and short-blocked IPs after a single edit without warning (again, for painfully obvious, no good-faith assumption type vandalism). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Haven't you let Google buy Wikipedia yet?

Just curious, usually Google buys stuff that has severely changed the internet (like Youtube) 68.195.123.26 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's greatest asset is the community that creates it. The encyclopedia itself is just an array of data that fits on a disk. How do you sell a community? - Crockspot 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you buy something which cannot be sold? Raul654 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Everything has a price. 68.195.123.26 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)\
      • And anything can be sold. 68.195.123.26 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not the data itself. It is freely licensed. Can't be sold. But if someone wants to cut us all checks or some stock options for our mad editing skilz, I'm all ears. - Crockspot 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL ^Ariel♥Gold 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You remind me of that person the other day who asked how much for adminship saying 'Everything has a price' ACBest 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL ACBest. This is most interesting. --Reviewisat(Talk) 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to buy it, all money to me, not Jimbo!! ACBest 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You wish :D 84.250.110.93 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Over at WikipediaReview - a website inhabited primarily by users who have been banned from Wikipedia for mishebavhior - they were discussing just that, ACBest. The consensus seemed to be that the most abusive admins (from their perspective) who are immune to the rules (again, according to them) could make HUGE money from selling their accounts. Raul654 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, people think they can sell anything now ACBest 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My old World of Warcraft account is worth about £200 (which is like $400). Stupid, really. --Deskana (talky) 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for an online account...how crazy are some people. --Reviewisat(Talk) 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people get conned though - they sell the account, give a fake password, sell again. Its like selling homing pigeons :P ACBest 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fraud and you could be sued for that. (did I get the words fraud & sued right?) 84.250.110.93 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, though (not like it'd ever happen)...how does one go about buying a nonprofit organization? I mean, Jimbo doesn't own the project, the WM Foundation does. So who/what would the money go to? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The money would go to me! MUHAHA! I dont actually know who it would go to... tough question... ACBest 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The foundation, I assume, but what's the point of the foundation getting tons of money to spend on the wikis if its sold them all? This discussion is totally pointless, by the way, I don't see why we're continuing with it, especially on Jimbo's talk page. --Deskana (talky) 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• When you buy a business (singly owned, or partnership), you agree to purchase the outstanding assets and liabilities of that company. When you "buy" a corporation, what you are actually doing is purchasing 51% of the voting stock (Class A stock, usually. Note that for a company like Warren Buffet's Berskhire Hathoway, one share of class A stock costs around $100,000). A non-profit can sell its assets (the servers, the Foundation trademarks like the name "Wikipedia" and logos). So I suppose if the Foundation went bankrupt, you could buy the assets, but that's it. Buying the assets doesn't get you on the Foundation's board of trustees, which (in a legal sense) is how you take over the Foundation. Raul654 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What you're thinking:

1. Google gives Jimbo a bunch of money.
2. Jimbo escapes to mootxico and lives like a God-King
3. Google takes over Wikipedia, puts google ads on the sides and tops of articles, all goes on as normal. Everybody Wins.

What would actually happen:

1. Google takes over the Wikimedia foundation
2. Huge dramafest over Wikipedia
3. Community splits, someone imports the entire Wikipedia database offsite, mentions the GFDL, and someone starts a new site. The new site gets most of the community, Wikipedia gets most of the popularity (read:vandals)
4. Nobody wins.

--lucid 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would gladly take the money if Jimbo didn't want it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Get on with it, Jimbo will never let us down by selling it to a search machine. Now could we please stop wasting space of our precious encyclopedia :-P ? 84.250.110.93 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, get on with it! :-) =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

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

-WarthogDemon 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally something diffirent

Finally some fun news, I was following recent changes and found 4 vandalism cases. I calculated from that onre hour how long would destroying wikipedia take and here it is it would take with that rate take 479500 hours to destroy wikipedia completely :P heh-he and I do remember that the current rate is low but I'll keep doing this for some time :) ~ Peace keeper IIHow do I spell?... 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Four vandal edits in an hour? Are you blindfolded? From my own experience, there are at least ten vandalisms a minute, if not many times more than that. - Crockspot 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes; you have to keep in mind that the RC page updates so fast, it's completely replaced in less than a second most times of day. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I chased a half-dozen vandal IPs around one article for half an hour the other day; they were making that many bad edits in a minute or so... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want a more accurate view, go to this IRC channel, and keep a log of every change made in an hour. Then filter through them to see what's : Good edits, good faith but bad edits, reverts, vandalism, and so on, and then do your statistics --lucid 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? Lee Nysted still wants his name, and any likeness of him, deleted...permanently.

For some strange reason(s) User:Yamla, and others here, persist on recreating Lee Nysted's user and talk pages.

Here is the original link that allowed Mr. Nysted to be free of Wikipedia, as to his real name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_24#Lee_Nysted_requests_that_his_user_page_and_talk_page_be_deleted_per_policy_and_guidelines

I do not think Mr. Nysted has requested that he be re-instated as a user of Wikipedia. Please respect his initial request and delete his user and talk pages. Thank you. FP. 9-4-07 Courtesy Copy: LN 9-4-07 OneDayToDay 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like Mr. Nysted has reinstated himself by continuing to edit, in spite of his ban. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just with that account, either. There have been a substantial number of accounts editing for Mr. Nysted. --Yamla 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Mr. Nysted is quite comfortabe in Aruba. He has made it abundantly clear that he wants his own name not to be used as a user or talk page, here at Wikipedia. Please do not draw any conclusions about Mr. Nysted's activites because of the actions of fans or, as you say, the activity of "a substantial number of accounts." Wikipedia policy and guidelines are being ignored in this case and it is hardly worth any more time than it takes to simply do what is right. Thank you for your time, FP. OneDayToDay 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that Mr. Nysted's "fans" all have similar writing styles and use open proxies. Likewise, your first contributions were postings to your own talk and user pages that contained the same sort of Hallmark-card sentiments that Mr. Nysted normally posts to his sockpuppets' user and talk pages when he creates them. A curious set of coincidences wouldn't you say? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• It must be difficult editing and playing police detective on Wikipedia while "practicing law" in Chicago, Mr.O.

What would you do if Mr. Nysted ever becomes notable enough or emo enough for Wikipedia? Either way, I think Wikipedia editors that want Mr. Nysted to have a user page will help add to his Google hits. The innuendos and accusations are not seemly and certainly look somewhat slanted and not in good faith. OneDayToDay 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If Mr. Nysted ever meets the notability criteria, it would be entirely appropriate for someone to create an article on him. This would not automatically lift the ban on Mr. Nysted editing Wikipedia, of course. That can be appealed by going to WP:ARBCOM who, if I remember correctly (and I may not) imposed the original ban. --Yamla 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good, that is settled. Now, please delete Mr. Nysted's user page and his talk page per his request in May 2007. (See above link found in Jimbo's archive.) The ban is not an issue here, today. I am quite confident, Mr. Nysted will never want to edit here while using his real name. Thank you. OneDayToDay 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  If you read that link, you'll find that the admin who deleted your pages said, "The deleted pages of course remain accessible to administrators and can always be reinstated if there is any inappropriate activity in the future." "Inappropriate activity" would include continuing to use sock/meatpuppets to evade your ban. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? So you assume that I am Lee Nysted and everyone that ever edits anything about Lee Nysted will be seen as a sockpuppet or meat puppet of Lee Nysted? Velly intellestink. Wikipedia policy and guidelines / MySpace version? I am truly amazed at the potential scope such an inquiry could take and the lengths to which you and your cabal have gone to assure your ranks that the likes of someone like Lee Nysted will never gain a foothold in this hollow, sorry, hallowed place. Surely someone here will see that your tone and motives are suspect and certainly not up to the standards that have been established here. Thank you for your time. I pray Lee Nysted or his fans will read this and respond to this at some point in the future. OneDayToDay 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy Blanking

I'm having a discussion with another user on the precedent you established of courtesy blanking arbitrations to prevent Google from turning them up. In our case, the user in question was suspended in part for overzealously blanking pages, making this somewhat ironic at the very least. I'd appreciate any insights you had into when it is appropriate to cover up the results of someone's arbitration. Jfwambaugh 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This site

This is a good site! 72.84.245.38 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)