User talk:Jimbo Wales

This user was a participant in the 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, improving articles from July 18–22.

Set up a direct link to Wiki Questions

Hi, there. I had a great idea to share with wikipedia, but I don't know where to post it. I also noticed that one of our sister projects, Simple English Wikipedia, had a place where people could go to list there question and be able to be read and answered by anyone. So I was wondering if you could please set one up for the main page (or in the way Simple English set it up) and if it was already set up, can you make a direct link to it from the main page? Please respond on my talkpage. Signed and regards from --Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Simple English Wikipedia username

Hi Mr Wales. I've blocked a user with your username on the Simple English Wikipedia. Just to be on the safe side, I'd like to cofirm if it is really you. Thank you.--TVBdxiang (Talk) 07:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It was created automatically by SUL [1] so it is pretty clear it IS him. Viridae^Talk 08:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Wales. I am sorry for the error, I was unaware of the situation due to my long-term inactivity. Please don't de-sysop me! =P--TVBdxiang (Talk) 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hell's teeth! Welcome to SEWP, I hope you'll be providing us with an assessment of the project. It's very important, particularly to those editors whose time is spent exclusively there. I'm not suggesting you should give us some "inside line" on the thinking of the WMF but as of very recently, this particular Wikipedia was on the edge of closure. Some comment, direction, advice, or similar, would be very much gratefully received. No drama.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed TRM! As the newest user to be elected bureaucrat on SEWP I'd like to simply thank you Jimmy for even visiting. Simple English projects tend to receive a plethora of bad reviews by editors but I feel they serve a real purpose in providing a place for people with limited skills in English (by whatever cause) to access the "sum of all human knowledge" in language they can understand and in such a format that it encourages them to take part in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"! In summary, cheers for simply dropping in! fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Offer to mediate

Hello Jimmy. Please see my offer to formally mediate your dispute with Bishonen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Ryan_Postlethwaite here. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be very happy with that, so my answer is yes. I hope that Bishonen will agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Giving up the use of block

I voluntarily offered, in my discussions with Bishonen, and as a good faith gesture to demonstrate my good will in trying to resolve all disputes with her, to not use the block tool for 6 months. Upon my own private reflection, I have decided to simply give up the use of the block tool permanently. I don't need it, it isn't important, and it is too widely viewed as a "nuclear option". I simply can't use the block tool normally, because people over-interpret it. No problem, I just won't use it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to annotate Bishonen's block log to void the block that you placed? This would not exonerate her behavior; it would simply say that you are revoking your block without prejudice. Somebody else could theoretically review the incident involving Bishonen and place an appropriate warning or sanction if needed. If you agree, you might offer this to Bishonen. I have no idea if she would accept. Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am offering to enter into mediation with a goal of placing a note into the block log, but the exact wording is not something that I think can be usefully be hashed out in public. The block was valid, and I hope it will be viewed as influential and important in terms of establishing the principle that even influential admins who are likely to complain a lot afterwards may be blocked for egregious personal attacks - just as any ordinary or unpopular user would be. Bishonen has offered to consider having someone work with me to come up with a wording she can accept - she is not willing to work with me directly. I think she's wrong to be so uncooperative, but then, that's no surprise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to do that? It seems a bit of an overreaction. You've made rather influential blocks in the past: MyWikiBiz, DanielBrandt, and giving that up would, for better or worse, remove your ability to break up problems which are too contentious to end in any other ways. Prodego ^talk 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Prodego. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways for me to handle cases like that which I think will be more effective. In the long run, as I have always said, I am opposed to the entire notion of "GodKing", much preferring the model of Constitutional Monarchy where I have certain reserved and rarely used powers, primarily existing in order to deal with constitutional crises of various kinds. Although this is directly an attempt to simply eliminate what I view as a distraction from the real issue (admin misconduct in the form of personal attacks being a blockable offense), it is also part of my ongoing efforts to make sure that my role evolves usefully. Soon, I will be making some announcements about the upcoming ArbCom elections that are in the same general spirit - and which go far beyond the proposals that even some of my harshest critics have recommended. (I think they are wrong about their criticism, but I also, perhaps surprisingly think they are too mild in their reform proposals.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may choose not to exercise certain powers without abrogating the power itself much like the advice given by the Fool to King Lear - he did not listen. Taam (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to have the assigned rights of Template:Founder|Jimbo Wales amended to remove the block flag? As you may recall, I am very keen on having all accessible rights viewable for all (named) accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not. Why would that be necessary? Do you think I'm not going to live up to my pledge?  :-) I am still an admin, I am just an admin who isn't going to be blocking anybody ever again. There are other admins like me, actually, who don't block people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I think there is some value in such an undertaking, I doubt it would be useful. Should we reasonably expect Jimbo to encounter an ongoing and egregious breach of WP:BLP, say, and wait until his report to WP:AIV is processed? I think not. Whereas Jimbo does not necessarily engage in that function, I've certainly seen him/you act to prevent legal damage to the encyclopedia and the WMF by imposing blocks. If "other admins" don't block people, either they are operating in areas where blocking is not an option, or they are not doing their job properly. Either way, an admin without the block or protect option cannot be effective here, and I perceive that that applies equally to Jimbo. An alternative, of course, is that Jimbo voluntarily retains the block option, but reports such blocks to WP:ANI for community review unless the reason for blocking is "obvious and gross". All in all, my view is that one exceptional case does not justify a severe change of either policy or attitude- unless it is part of a pattern of egregious behaviour; and I don't see that here. Rodhullandemu 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that the Queen of England doesn't go around issuing parking tickets? :)  Roger Davies ^talk 04:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rarely done routine blocks of that type, and there are always more people around. It's not hard to find an admin if something needs doing quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's perhaps the point- your blocks, particularly of high-profile editors, are open to more scrutiny than those of us mere horny-handed sons of toil who do such on a daily basis. But if you have admin responsibilities (and I say that in preference to "powers"), you should be able to exercise those; subject to review, of course, but the ultimate object, is it not, is the protection of this encyclopedia? Rodhullandemu 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your block of Bishonen was good. Your giving up the block tool sounds like a bad idea William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Use the force, Luke. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds really positive, good move that may inspire others to follow suit. Perhaps a new voluntary post could be created for those who want the right to delete, unlock pages etc without wanting the power to block people. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to believe that, but that implies a matrix of permissions which seems to me like mission creep, and adding levels which predicates that some users have some permissions, and others do not, is supremely unnecessary. Although admin permissions are a package, I see no reason to split out granting such permissions into what would inevitably end up as "well, I trust X with permission Y, but not with permission Z", and I suggest that would not be constructive as far as WP:RFA, and its inevitable subsets would be concerned. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The power of the block turns one into a policeman; and while policemen are a necessary evil beng able to police isnt a necessary part of being a good encyclopedia editor, and to insist on the only way to get extra privileges is by accepting the role of policeman feels to me completely wrong; this proposal of Jimbo's feels right though and its a shame he cant officialize it by removing the ability to block while retianing it to lock, delete etc. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jimbo, I think you should reconsider. So long as you still have the power to enact a block, there may be a situation where you have to do so to prevent imminent damage to the encyclopedia. Making this blanket pledge will only lead to even more dramaz in the event that necessity entails that it be foregone. I'd much rather see you pledge to only use the tool from absolute necessity and explain forthwith at ANI in that event. You're correct that we have admins who don't make blocks - but none that I am aware of have promised not to ever do so. In effect, you're partly abrogating your role, not as a GodKing, but as a plain vanilla administrator. Franamax (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Carcharoth refrains from using the block button. This whole situation is on beyond bizarre. Jimmy, you damage your standing with the community by being stubborn. You need to listen to the feedback you are getting. There's no need to refrain from ever placing a block. You just need to avoid controversial blocks (as should we all). Because you get less practice than other experienced admins, and because of your unique ability to trigger dramas, you need to be a bit more conservative in using the block button. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think I'm being stubborn. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Its hard if not impossible to imagine any situation in which we are dependent on Jimbo, or any specific admin, in giving a block, and if this were true the project is halfway doomed already; this move would enhance your role not reduce it and the project will only have problems if there are not enough volunteers willing to make blocks. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• As founder of the project, your actions will be automatically in the spotlight. And you do have a history of controversial blocks. Refraining from blocking is one way of avoiding this controversy. Personally I think it would set a good example if you focused more on friendly warnings to users than insta-blocking. a little insignificant 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Generally it looks very bad when a CEO prowls the office chewing out subordinates. It is much better for the CEO to provide avuncular guidance to those in some sort of difficulty. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Using that analogy (admins=subordinates, users=clients), subordinates shouldn't call clients little shits, even if they are aggravating. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe any analogies here are particularly apposite. Roger Davies comments above "For the same reason that the Queen of England doesn't go around issuing parking tickets?"; that misses the point, with respect. Whereas the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom no longer gets involved in the minutiae of law enforcement, and hasn't for over 600 years, all law enforcement derives from regal authority. That is not the case with respect to Jimbo, because that function has been largely delegated to the community and is regulated thereby. Neither do I see Jimbo fulfilling the role of a CEO, because that, to me, implies a day-to-day, hands-on involvement, and again, it seems clear that Jimbo has left that to the rest of us. OTOH, avuncular guidance in the context of the "original vision" is fine as long as it is seen as such; unfortunately, it seems to me that Jimbo's role here has been both overstated and understated for whatever purpose. Clarification, of course, would be wonderful- but I don't see it happening at present. Rodhullandemu 00:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Rod, law enforcement in the England has been delegated too, not that any monarch ever went around doing that sort of thing. That's not where the difference would lie. The difference if any would be whether or not a "fiction" of ultimate sovereignty is retained. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The intention of the godking to hold back from direct intervention is commendable. If he needs to issue a block, it should be clear enough to others for them to issue the block. If his intervention is every needed, he still can. The system of constitutional monarchy is in practice a stable system, with a significant psychological feature: Those who wield the power don’t ultimately hold it, and the one who does hold it doesn’t use it. It is not power that corrupts, it is the free exercise of power that corrupts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

C'mont guys, the man says he ain't gonna block no more. What's there to discuss? Or: Oh, He ain't gonna block no more no more; he ain't gonna block no more; now how 'bout the heck; we give it a rest; cause he says he ain't gonna block no more! (No need to stint on the applause!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Future of Wikipedia

Wikipedia has become for me a layer that sits atop google search for ordered information. In this sense it goes far beyond what any printed encyclopaedia could provide. Inclined towards this kind of paradigm I wonder what the implications are for the project as it heads towards the 3,000,000+ articles range. Suspecting this subject has maybe already been talked to death could you point me to any papers or articles that discuss this subject? Taam (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sits atop google? Only if you use google exclusively for search. While google is great for many things there are many other things for which wikipedia and not google is the obvious first port of call in searching, from bios to acronyms to technical information; personally I think wikipdia has underplayed what a brilliant search engine it is for encyclopedic information. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Squeakbox, methinks you nail down precisely one of the issues relating to what Wikipedia is becoming, i.e. it has now gone well beyond the limits of printed page and what was conventionally thought to be an encyclopedia. I use google as an example because, like a lot of people, it comes up in a browser tab and is automatically the first port of call for searching out information. More often than nought it is the Wikipedia entry that comes out top of the list in my fields of interest. I suppose one of the main points relates to the encyclopedia paradigm in that inclusiveness, which I veer towards, has obvious issues relating to resources. In essence my question relates to what Wikipedia is and what it becomes. Taam (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mike Duke

Sir, I believe an old schoolfriend of mine is being discussed on the board of Biography of Living People. I have been reading about these biographies, and it is currently being suggested that Mike is a homophobe, due to the fact that he once signed a petition opposing the adoption of children by certain gay groups. I assure you he is not a homophobe, and this is by no account a reliable source, especially considering the spurious claims that are being made on the article as a result of signing this petition. Please assure me that this enclyclopedia does not allow such controvercial claims to be made based on such a insubstantial piece of 'evidence'. It has never been reported in any newspaper that Mike is at all homophobic (as he is not), and the fact that your website finds it ok to call him this is disgusting. I used to rely on this website for a source of information, and reliable information at that! Now I am not so sure. I will definately be speaking to my wife and her friends about this.

Yours,

Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When one newspaper defines a competing newspaper's reputation, is it NPOV?

Jimbo, considering your recent foray into journalism ethics, I was hoping that you might weigh in on this particular discussion here on the Falklands War discussion page. Thank you in advance, if you do decide to help out by clarifying how we proceed. -- Thekohser 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking generally and as a Brit, I'd say that the Sun is far less reputable than the Guardian. Remember, the Guardian isn't effectively banned from an entire city on a matter of principle. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good, Sceptre. Then I will look for your support that the Falklands War article should more accurately reflect how the Guardian described the Sun's jingoistic, often reckless, bloody-minded, ruthless, black-humoured, xenophobic, and triumphalist headlines. That's actually my most recent edit to the Falklands War article. I prefer it. Sum of human knowledge, you know. -- Thekohser 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly NPOV unless the other side of the arguemtn is also presented. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Guardian is hoping to prize readers from the Sun (left-wing yuppy broadsheet, versus "working man" trashy right-wing tabloid). Totally different markets. The Guardian is a reliable source for the Sun's headlines during the Falklands. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so then I am curious how, out of "jingoistic, often reckless, bloody-minded, ruthless, black-humoured, xenophobic, and triumphalist", Wikipedia decided to select jingoistic and xenophobic from that list? I'm being told that a book by Robert Harris is the actual reference citation for this, but I haven't seen those two terms in close proximity to The Sun in his book (as I've not at all seen his book). -- Thekohser 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An enemy

Someone, who is making me Zozca. What is the proof of that user. He, should come on my talk page and give me the proof--TZX Master (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone, who is making me Asadaleem12@hotmail.com. What is the proof of that user. He, should come on my talk page and give me the proof--TZX Master (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Change password

My, e-mail address is mastertahir@rocketmail.com. Please activate the new password,, please give instruction to admins to activate the new password. Someone is using my passowrd.--119.152.6.18 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)