Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Please: WaytagoJimbo
→‎Topic Ban appeal: stopping archival of topic until it is read
Line 28: Line 28:
::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.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>[[User:Daedalus969/RR|Improve]]</sub>''' 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::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.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>[[User:Daedalus969/RR|Improve]]</sub>''' 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
<small>Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>[[User:Daedalus969/RR|Improve]]</sub>''' 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
<small>Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>[[User:Daedalus969/RR|Improve]]</sub>''' 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
<small>Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- ''<small><u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#CC0000">oi</font></u>]]</small>'' 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
<small>Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- ''<small><u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#CC0000">oi</font></u>]]</small>'' 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</small><small> Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>[[User:Daedalus969/RR|Improve]]</sub>''' 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)</small>


== "Notability" ==
== "Notability" ==

Revision as of 19:16, 25 September 2008

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.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 06:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 06:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Due to the bot archiving threads that are more than 2 days old, I'm posting this, just to be sure it gets viewed.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 11:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Adding this so that the bot does not archive it before it is ready.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability"

Hey, just telling you, people are treating "notability" as a rule, not a "generally accepted... thing". What is your opinion on "notability"? Are you aware that, while a book by Dr. Suess isn't notable, every The Simpsons episode is? Just bringing this to your attentio. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, we do not know what you are talking about. Please present a concise and full account of what issues you are having. --mboverload@ 23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that "notability" is problematic. It's a shorthand way of speaking, but it leads people to think about the issue in an invalid way. The real work can mostly be done by "verifiability", and "verifiability" is much more amenable to consensus. The Simpson's anomaly is probably my own personal fault, because way back in the day before I really understood the limitations of the medium, I said something like "We should have an article on every episode of The Simpson's, why not?" Whereas now, if I were voting, I would vote to delete. (That's not a decree or anything, I am just saying that my own views have changed substantially.) My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your old self... "why not"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.4.35 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Welcome! I am a user Silesian Wikipedii. I have the request to you. Can I be an appearance overcome from you the user sides? Greeting, Ozi64 13:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can be an appearance overcome from me the user sides.  :-) Actually, I am only playing a little bit, because I don't quite get your meaning. Are you asking if I would come and say hello on Silesian Wikipedia?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't speak English well because he's just after primary school. He meant to ask whether he can "borrow" your userpage :) Timpul my talk 13:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind of Civility - regardless how the user speaks English may not be his/her native language. Dark Mage 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User is a non-native speaker, as per their user page. Jimbo actually took the time to go to the user's Wikipedia and say hello to him on his user page. =) --mboverload@ 06:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proof that Jimbo is a stand-up community guy!--Buster7 (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would like to comment on the FA review. I'm done there, because I feel that the people who brought it and are trying to defeature the article had less than good motives. The reason I'm posting something here is that I'm a strong supporter of a democratic encyclopedia. And I do think that, over time, it will produce better results than any other kind of online resource. But, there is a tendency for bureaucracy and grudges to obstruct. There is a tendency for people without knowledge to tell people with knowledge what is right and what is not. Another reason I ask is that this article is currently the only featured article in the Social sciences, which is listed as "[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Social_sciences vital]". That, I believe, is because the others have not had enough attention from people familiar with their subjects. It is very easy for featured article reviewers to tell what reads well on an article about a computer game. It is not so easy for a university level subject. Feel free to send me an email. Wikidea 20:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom elections

G'day Jimbo - I thought I'd pop round once again to ask if you have a spare moment to take a look at the discussion of the upcoming arbcom elections - the rubber stamp of a constitutional monarch would be much appreciated - as indeed are any further thoughts. I think confirmation of how the election will be judged is timely, and it'd be great to get you engaged if poss. :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an interesting question about Foundation involvement has come up too - my understanding was that this was one of those 'constitutional monarch' things, and not at all related to your role with the Foundation - but thinking about it, I can't remember why I have that impression! - it'd be great if you could clear it up :-) thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be in Quadriga Award in Germany. I want to welcome you there. Admire your work. Success for you!
--Vin 2 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question for you

Hi Jimbo, I have a question for you. I need to delate a page that I write today, because I will improve it, and then I prefer to delate it, an user told me that any admin user can do it, could you do it? thank you for your support. Wikiuser9 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done under WP:CSD#G7 - sorry you had to end up with me doing it rather than Jimbo :) Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]