User talk:Jimbo Wales

New Barnstar Idea

How 'bout we create a barnstar for people who take great pride in patrolling the "recent changes" section on Wiki? RoryReloaded (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just go ahead and DO it! :) Jimmy doesn't do most of the work around here; us volunteers do :D NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You could probably just use the Original Barnstar or the Tireless Contributor Barnstar, but yeah, Jimbo doesn't care what we do (as long as it's not vandalism!) :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton's Block

A number of user's on Wikiversity are either against or supporting the block which you've done towards Moulton - some of us on the Colloquium have expressed that they should have been informed of this earlier, one of the New Probationary Custodians was going to do a peer review with Moulton before the block happened but they're still doing it - after viewing the reason why you blocked Moulton I'm now beginning to support the block, I don't know why Moulton kept on revealing both personal/private information but this goes against the foundation's policy and if I'm right the law also applies (e.g. Data Protection Act) - I'm glad though that you've took action before things might have got out of hand. Terra 10:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton did nothing illegal. But his insistence on posting a real name on a WikiMedia owned web site when that person did not want that done appears to be against the spirit of the WikiMedia privacy policy even if it is arguable that is does not literally break it because that policy limits WikiMedia Foundation behavior and not content contributor behavior. But because the WikiVersity custodians were not then censoring a link to a page that was not on WikiMedia servers but contained the same information, his behavior can be seen as clearly designed to provoke a reaction and could be expected to continue escalation until he did provoke a reaction. He got what he was asking for. The community is allowing him to prove himself on his talk page and so far he is playing nice. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's more or less right. I talked to a lot of people, and listened to a lot of advice. I do not agree with WAS that "so far he is playing nice". I think he has completely confirmed the reason for the block, which was not specifically about "posting a real name" but about that plus a whole pattern of all-too-familiar disruptive behavior. Wikiversity is a young and small community; such growing pains are normal. I hope that this sparks some conversation about problematic behavior. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, "so far he is playing nice" is half truth and half hope. I did have a final sentence that was unhopeful, but I deleted it as I thought it not terribly useful to not be hopeful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right. It is not terribly useful to not be hopeful. I should have tried, in what I wrote above, to sound a more hopeful tone. I do have hope. But, I do have little hope.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseph H. Wales

Another editor has created an article on Joseph H. Wales, an American ichthyologist. Since Joseph H. Wales has the same surname as you, I thought that you might like to take a look at the article. --Eastmain (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And how about The Outlaw Josey Wales? Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Although the both articles have got the same surname as Jimbo Wales - you are aware though that they may not be related to him, since Wales is a common surname both in America and Britain. Terra 19:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a need to be that patronising? :/ Agent Blightsoot 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that even people with the same surname may not be related to each other, like the comedy singer Al Yankovic and Frankie Yankovic. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

if you don't think the guy who recognized theDevil's Hole Pupfish for the public is notable enough for the Wikipedia than delete this article immediately. But please stop this discussion. --Melly42 (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wales (surname) which was split off from the disambig page a few weeks back. I have added the new bio article. Jimbo is the third most notable person on the page. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Hi Jimbo,

I have on occasion noticed you voicing the thought that you take BLP problems very seriously, and that Wikipedia itself needs to get more serious about not tolerating violations of its BLP policy, and not succumbing to the temptation to reduce an encyclopedia to a repository of tabloid "information." I utterly concur that when Wikipedia allows itself to propagate sensationalism, salaciousness, gossip and allegation, it commits unnecessary harm on living people in a way it should strive to rise above. It is, in my opinion, one failing of many Wikipedia editors (and even some administrators) that they have not grasped the crucial importance of this policy both for the individuals written about in Wikipedia and for Wikipedia itself, and that there are some editors who continue to see it as a positive virtue to include any scrap of supposedly "sourced" negative information about living people.

That said, it seems that the actual BLP policy is a well-written document which, if followed strictly and correctly, would eliminate the problem. I also have the slight impression, although I may be mistaken, that Wikipedia is very slowly moving in the right direction in relation to BLP problems, becoming less tolerant of those wishing to perpetually add negative and tabloidish information to BLP articles.

Even so, I tend to agree that more needs to be done in relation to this problem. I am writing because I don't myself have any answer to how that could be achieved, other than individual editors acting together to make clear that BLP violations have no place here. Do you have any clues about changes that could be made to Wikipedia that would more quickly improve the situation in this regard? I have the impression that some indication in this regard may be necessary to prompt more decisive action. If the vast majority of WIkipedia editors could be brought to a clear understanding of where Wikipedia stands and what it expects in relation to these matters, I think the encyclopedia would benefit enormously in terms of quality and reputation.

Finally, let me just add that I continue to be utterly impressed by your own sensitivity to a wide variety of issues in regard to Wikipedia, and that I believe your own role here is one of the most important reasons Wikipedia is as good as it is. Even though I know you like the idea of slowly decreasing your own influence here, I must say that I hope you do not do so for quite some time, as I think there is quite some way to go before the general editing culture reaches a level of maturity such that your influence would not be beneficial. I commend you for both your ethical sensitivity, and your good judgment about when and how to act here. It is remarkable good fortune for Wikipedia that it has a founder who is so thoughtful and committed in relation to all matters Wikipedia. BCST2001 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban appeal

Hello, Jimbo, I would like to appeal the indef topic ban of a good, established editor. User:Benjiboi. I do not believe that the arbitrators(in the recent ArbCom request that was declined) reviewed all the evidence without prejudice, and I do not believe that they completely read through all material, as some have called the editor obsessed when he is not, and others have said that they might be willing to change their vote on the matter if the user in question exhibited several traits, but, despite the fact that the editor in question did show the requested traits, the arbitrator who initially requested the traits did show that they noted the change, or follow through with any sort of support in the matter. Please see this link, as it is the last diff before the page was cleared of this request. Thank you for your time in hearing/reading this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As one more note, when I asked questions of the reviewing arbitrators, I was never given a reply, such as when I asked Flo how it would benefit the editing of the encyclopedia that this editor be banned indef from this topic.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this is the diff you intended. Jimbo, I really don't know what to say at this point. I don't feel good editors should be caused undo grief especially when reasonable alternatives could be utilized. I'm sure there are editors who earn permanent topic bans but I simply don't see where I've done that - nor had I been approached about such a concern would I have continued in a way that would cast me in such a light. I've been rather stunned at the sweeping lack of good faith towards me regarding these issues and I hope that no one else gets treated in this manner. -- Banjeboi 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Due to the bot archiving threads that are more than 2 days old, I'm posting this, just to be sure it gets viewed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have seen this, and I am looking into it. Benjiboi, are you intending to edit articles on this topic if the ban is lifted? From what I have seen so far, it does not look like overturning the ArbCom on procedural grounds makes sense. So it seems we need to turn a bit toward the content issue, which looks to me to be complex, and it will take me a few days (at best) to study it (and a couple of weeks is more likely). --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The topic is only one BLP; the subject of which is an editor who violated NPA, against myself and others; they are currently community banned after Arbcom.

During the initial stages of this topic ban I had intended to continue editing that article and had agreed from the beginning to follow policy and requested feedback/dialog if indeed I hadn't. Then the only compelling reason for keeping the ban was that the subject didn't like me on the article talkpage, likely because I tended not to agree with them and worked to resolve discussions on uncomfortable material. The article archives are pretty evident of what the atmosphere was like and that I worked to keep discussion focussed.

Others involved in the ongoing drama of the article and witnessing what happened to me contacted me and made me aware of some ... personal issues of the subject which have made me want to do nothing with this user or the article for my own safety. It would be nice if my Arbcom appeals could be oversighted or mitigated online if this is resolved as well so that I become less of the focus when this user returns in some fashion, even if they continue socking.

I agree that technically we can ban editors with poorly formed process as such but I think it's unhelpful when frank and clear communication could have calmed a situation. It takes diplomacy and energy but how much of the same has been used up as a result of, IMHO, using a hammer when a conversation would do. I'm also alarmed at the concept of banning good editors based solely on the subject of a BLP not liking them - that seems like a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi 18:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I begin, let me say, Jimbo, this is not directed at you. It is directed at the arbitrators, which IMHO, I feel did not review everything that there was to be reviewed. Yes, they made their votes, upon opinions of the current situation, and said if the editor in question was to change, or show that he had changed, they would re-think things. After the request was met, there was nothing. Not even a note that they had gone over the most recent of material. No response to the user's current editing behavior.

Yes, I know I can be repetitive at times, but I just strongly feel they were only reviewing past material in regards to the editor's behavior, when they should have been viewing current material. Their judgments were of a Benjiboi that has since disappeared, not of the current one that travels through these texts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

David Brin

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Dear Mr. Wales, I have a conflict of interest question, recorded for the most part on my talk page. Is this edit within Wikipedia behavorial guidelines? Apologies for what have been a subtle misquote on my part ("or his publisher" is significant and its omission is POV on my part), and apologies in advance if my edits caused any problems. I am happy to answer any questions you or others may have. Otherwise, "Who cares?" might apply, just like the last time I felt it necessary to bother you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)