User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Accessibility

Hi Jimbo. I would ask to stimulate and stimulate the use of alternative (alt=...) text on images in the Wikipedia and Global projects. In Wikipedia in Portuguese is difficult. My son is visually impaired and want to read the texts. My Wiki-pt adjustments are being reversed. I'm stop edits now. Please help...help. Congratulations, Wikipedia is good for world. 189.65.177.161 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disappointed that this post hasn't had a reaction in nearly two days. I feel we are somewhat unaware, if not dismissive, let alone intolerant, of those users who are not fully able as regards the full Wikipedia experience. I cannot understand why pt:wiki should be doing this, because it seems to be unhelpful. Meanwhile, some specific examples would help to identify the problem at least but since I don't speak Portuguese, and my Spanish is extremely basic, I would not be able to intervene directly but I may be able to pass it on to someone who can help you. Rodhullandemu 01:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Estou um pouco decepcionado que este post não tenha tido uma reação em quase dois dias. Sinto que estamos um pouco inconsciente, se não desprezo, muito menos intolerantes, daqueles usuários que não são plenamente capazes no que diz respeito a experiência completa Wikipédia. Eu não consigo entender porque pt: wiki deveria estar fazendo isso, porque parece ser inútil. Entretanto, alguns exemplos específicos que ajudam a identificar o problema, pelo menos, mas desde que eu não falo Português, e meu espanhol é extremamente simples, eu não seria capaz de intervir directamente, mas eu posso ser capaz de dá-lo a alguém que pode ajudá-lo. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Having just spent some time in Brazil and having met a few (though sadly too few) Portuguese language Wikipedians, I can ask in English for more information but yes, diffs would be helpful.

As a general principle, I strongly support accessibility for Wikipedia, but I have to admit that the complaint from an anon was ignored by me because I think it is not likely to be true. I don't know of any Wikipedians who think that accessibility is a bad idea and who wouldn't wholeheartedly support non-disruptive edits in support of accessibility. Therefore, I'm sorry to say, I suspect there's something else going on here, and I get too many emails and concerns raised from all quarters to be able to deal well with them all. Still, if there is a real problem here, I am happy to hear from people and to offer a hopefully-helpful bit of encouragement and coaching.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs (in Portuguese!)

going on the assumption that the editor used the same IP on the PT wiki, i went a looked it up, and... yeah. He's right. John Isner, Avril Lavigne #1, Avril #2 (this one was only up for a couple minutes before being removed), Santa Cruz del Isolte (to be fair this one appears to have been removed by accident with the conversion to an infobox). -- ۩ Mask 17:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't seem good. I note however that other images on pt.wikipedia.org have alt tags no problem, so it's hard to guess what happened here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to understand, even if you read Portuguese, yes. I have looked into this as far as I can, but edit summaries for removal of the alt fields would have helped. I would think if we can find an editor/admin here who is also familiar with pt:wiki values, that would help. I'm not following this on pt:wiki, but perhaps that the editor whose original complaint came here hasn't followed up here might just indicate that the problem is solved. I propose that if there is nothing new in 24 hours here on this topic that this thread be closed. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the editor who reverted the changes isn't familiar with alt texts. They are of course very useful but can look a bit pointless and over-descriptive for someone who doesn't know what they are about. Laurent (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that they are sometimes removed by mistake, through an editor simply not understanding what they are. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox News report

Did you see this? I'm sure you probably have. I think it's just terrible.. everything. Thanks for your time  – Tommy [message] 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't seen it until just now! Thank you for showing it to me. My response is quite simple: the story is absolutely scandalously idiotic, and Jana Winter, the author, should be fired from her job. The story is idiotic nonsense from top to bottom. As in the statement from Sue Gardner, we have longstanding policies that deal with this very effectively, and there is zero evidence for any of the sensationalist and negative claims put forward about Wikipedia. Much of what she writes is simply transparently idiotic: that some message board has hundreds of links to Wikipedia ought to be no surprise, no matter what the content of the message board. That pedophiles think we are bigots for not allowing them to advocate here is no shocker, but neither is it evidence that we are a haven for pedophiles. Jana Winter is a disgrace to the professional of journalism, full stop, and I will complain about her at the highest levels possible.

I do not mind stories critical of Wikipedia - lords knows there are plenty of sensible criticisms that people can and do make. What I do mind is deeply irrational character assassination based on absolute untruths.

At the same time, I note with some happiness that the story is receiving exactly as much pickup and discussion in the general media that it deserves: zero. Real reporters will look at the story, look at our policies, ask real questions, and realize there is no story here. (In fact, if there is a story here, it is simply about how low Fox News has sunk.) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick chime-in on the FOX News bit. If you do not watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (an incredibly funny man and the absolute best of all of the late nite hosts, no competition), you should. At least once a week - and often more - the writers like to mock FOX News for some of the ridiculous things that they say. Also, the current issue of Maclean's (in Canada) has a Scott Feschuk piece regarding "The secret script of FOX News North" (see Sun TV News Channel) in its back pages; it features a suggested "script" for every show. The article, sadly, seems to be missing from the site and his blog and I won't risk any infringement from using my $40 scanner/printer to scan the article into here, nor provide the entire text of the article, but I found some other articles not in the magazine here. So even in Canada, we will soon have some comic news content to shake our own heads at, and it saddens me that Jon Stewart will not see it because he'll still be giving us things to laugh at from the originator of the genre. Hopefully he'll be there to cover the launch, at the very least!

Tommy - thanks for posting this! Reading it made me think of a Stephen Colbert comedy piece from HIS show - this sounds like one of his fake mustered stories, and to think this is actually REAL journalism - I'm disgusted, but this is how "balanced" FOX News is. If "balanced" means having garbage in all the right places. CycloneGU (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I looked into this.

1. There actually was an organized attempt to infiltrate wikipedia articles. This was stopped in 2008 and twenty or so editors were blocked. There was even an ArbCom case about it, but it is a non-public case. However, such manipulation is not new, it happens every day and we stop it everyday. It was caught and corrected.
2. This is just very outdated original reporting by Jana, had he written the article 2 years ago it would have actually had news value and been original.
3. Are there currently pedophiles editing wikipedia. Probably, just as there likely will be murderers and tax frauds editing it. These people are all around us, everywhere in the world doing the same thing. I believe that is why a lot of Fox News viewers build safe rooms.
4. All links that are mentioned are only used in talk pages or in articles very much related to the actual topic (Nambla itself and its founder) [1] [2] [3]
5. Annabelleigh thanks Fox News for the increase in pageviews. Good work Jana, you brought more people to their turf, you put them in the spotlight.
6. "Posts on boychat, linking to wikipedia", probably. So does half the rest of the world. You can also find how to build a theoretical atomic bomb. Everyone can link to Wikipedia, it is part of the free society that Fox News so vehemently 'defends' (yet they profess a closed worldview that is as eary as some extreme islamic views are in my opinion).
7. "Nigam, who is co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Group and sits on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children" Yeash, someone needs to talk to that guy. Either he is misinformed, or he is deliberately spreading misinformation, in which case he is outright dangerous himself.
8. Oh wait, Jana seems to have forgotten to point out a little bit of COI by interviewing Nigam: "former president of Fox Interactive Media" How's that for honesty and transparency.
9. Ah, Nigam is also on the board of FOSI. The same organization that I tried to contact about ICRA labels in our recent dispute, asking for help and comments and who never sent as much as a confirmation of receiving my email.
10. Wait a minute, he is also on the board of NCMEC ??? Isn't that the organization that we are supposed to report child abuse to ? Like the one we now even mention in our proposed Commons:Sexual content guideline ? The organization where someone like Stillwaterising has already reported a manga image to, and wants to report more to ? I was actually in favor of that, but I'm suddenly a lot less convinced of its neutrality. Can someone please reassure me ?

Jana should be ashamed that he labels himself as a journalist. He is not worthy of being in the profession. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, I spoke with you in London after the first Fox-Pedophilia special. I really don't think that this piece warrants any official response, it's remarkably biased and wildly out of date. I do think however, that some of the points that The DJ make, especially in regards to giving exposure to paedophile forums, would make for a stinging rebuttal. - hahnchen 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please make me a founder

Hi, I read that you can change the user access level of a user to any other level. I've also noticed that you are the only member of the usergroup "founder". Please add me to the usergroup "founder" because I want to be a founder too. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I'm pretty sure you didn't help found Wikipedia... :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a novel idea, though...I don't think any user has ever asked to be a part of the founder group before this. Still, the credentials required are doubtfully present (doubtfully rather than certainly because for all we know, he may have founded something...=) ). Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I demand to be part of the founder group. I did, after all, found... Erm... The Alden J. Blethen article? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I can handle this one! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't be right if Jimbo just simply gave the "founder" user access level to anyone he wanted. I recommend we create Wikipedia:Requests for foundership. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it should be called Wikipedia:Requests for jimboship. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! You can go ahead and create it; I'll be the first to apply! :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 00:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows it Requests for Godkingship. -- ۩ Mask 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, that had me laughing in tears! I wasn't here in 2005 and didn't know about that page. Love it! CycloneGU (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Let me try again. *Poof*, you're a founder!!! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Super Hamster, let's create it! Jimbo can go through and review every request. He'll just have t edit the Wikipedia article to add in each person. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 20:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the "ability to change any user to any other level" theoretical or has Jimbo actually used this power recently to any extent? I would assume from Jimbo's comments that the only time he would ever use the ability to change someone to a Founder would be when he is ready to "retire" and would like to personally have the honor of bestowing upon his successor the title, and even then I assume he would only do so with the blessing of the Wikipedia Community, thereby making the "annointment" purely a pro forma affair. Of course this is just my personal musing based on his previous comments and actions. But of course I would love to be a Founder if he's willing to hand the title out to those who ask! :) Camelbinky (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the Founder flag currently has the ability to change anyone's level. It gives me "read-only" powers for basically everything project-wide, but no rights to actually "do" things. In my view, the Founder flag was an honorary technical bundle of rights bestowed by the developers and not at my request, and not particularly important. Certainly not important at English Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot, then please recommend me to a user who does have the ability to change my user level to "founder". --WikiDonn (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Special:ListGroupRights, the founder right can Edit all user rights (userrights); Make users into Administrators or Bureaucrats (makesysop). According to that, you can change anyone's rights - however, whether "founder" is one which you can change, only you can really tell by looking at Special:UserRight - and I'm not aware of any of the other WMF project where the 'founder' right exists. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiDonn, I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse... create your own wiki, and assign yourself the 'founder' right by adding the following line to your LocalSettings.php file:

$wgGroupPermissions['founder']['founder'] = true;

and then you just assign the right to yourself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@Phantom: Jimbo is right, see [4]. Sole Soul (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So does this mean no Wikipedia:Requests for jimboship page? Darn... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes please! Please make me a founder too! ;-)

Once you're done laughing, let me explain why I'm actually serious, and perhaps you'll even end up agreeing with me :-) :

I've been advocating that experienced admins should retire after ~1 year and then participate in more of an institutional memory kind of role. This would be a powerful tool to mitigate the VestedContributor or founder-effect antipatterns (in the case of Jimbo, quite literally, in fact).

I've put my money where my mouth is myself, but I haven't been able to convince others. The main reason I haven't been able to convince people to copy my "eccentric"[*] ways is because they said they still wanted to be able to read deleted revisions. At this moment in time, the only role you're realistically going to have that allows reading hidden/deleted revisions is *admin*. Hence, no voluntary retirements. :-(

For years now, I've been advocating a limited rights role to fix this. The role would leave peoples deleted-revision-reading intact, but for the most part leave them as "normal" users. I'm not sure what to call it, but something like: "retired admin", "veteran", "be able to see deleted revisions", or (insert your own ideas here).

Now, guess what happens? After the last commons kerfluffle, Jimmy Wales has essentially trimmed down the founder role to the point where it mostly matches my "retired admin" idea. What can I say? Mr. Wales is a wise man, if a bit slow at times O:-)

If we can rename the founder flag to something more innocuous (or make a similar flag with similar provisions), we could actually use it for our institutional memory type people. They could trade in "admin" for "retired", or vice versa . Does that sound like a good idea?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC) [*]It's only eccentric while you're still the only one doing it. If everyone does it, it's called "tradition"

Reference: http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg10788.html --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A similar user right exists called Researcher. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find exactly where to request it. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

From that page...

The 'researcher' group was created in April 2010 to allow individuals explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation to search deleted pages and view deleted history entries without their associated text.

This tells me that you have to be given the permission from the actual Foundation. Maybe someone knows more about how that works? This is the first time I've seen it, and it sounds like researchers "research" deleted pages and logs. CycloneGU (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I reckon since Larry Sanger co-founded the project, he should get "founder" status too.. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Larry chose to leave the project. There is no reason for him to have any permissions now. --Tango (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox news is not a reliable source now?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/ - since this is BS I heard, can we start delinking it and other Murdoch papers? His works would be unreliable? Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you're late. Look up a few topics.

Second...when was FOX News ever a reliable source for information? They are so right wing that they're kissing John McCain's feet. Or something far worse we'd rather not know about. I will not say go ahead and delink everything yet, as actual news on the basic FOX station is probably safe, but I would be careful what you use as a source somewhere. CycloneGU (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (Prior comment retracted due to influence of personal distaste)

Such comments are not helpful. All news articles, no matter if its the New York Times, Fox News or NBC should always be carefully scrutinized. Several times in the past few years alone the NY Times has been the victim of dishonest "journalists", so it isn't matter of left or right. Always trust, but just as importantly, always verify. --TK-CP (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Very true, I guess my personal distaste for FOX News got into my comment there. =) I therefore politely retract that comment; my main point was to indicate that Jimbo has already read the article. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess FNC is no different from The Daily Punctilio. I don't think this name-calling that they did to the Grand Theft Auto series - "blood-drenched digital killfest" constitutes a fair and objective news report about a GTA-related incident. Oh, and the original article's from the NY Post, too, another staple of lulzy, dishonest journalists. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if Fox News is a reliable source, then i guess a section should be added to Wikipedia about allegations of harboring pedophiles.--98.14.113.232 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough is Enough

Don't tell me that you're gonna let muslim fanatics seize arabic wikipedia like what they did with th bbc the last few decades.... it becomes a place for Jihad propaganda, Salafi propaganda and Islam propaganda in general. How could you trust those people like 'Riadismet' or 'Mohamed Ouda' or 'DrFO.Tn' or 'Elmoro' or 'Ali1' or 'Bassem19' or 'غلام الأسمر' or 'Trabelsiismail' who is posting this pic! in his profile to control the pedia? the worst is their proportion.... now you can say Good-bye to neutrality, at least me who should say that... i don't know how to end this and i can't contribute their anymore, and our societies really need something objectively and neutrally like wikipedia but not like that! please investigate... do something. please --الزمخشري (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As regards the Arabic Wikipedia, they have their own processes, and mediating a neutral position might be tricky; but surely you are not alone here? I don't see Jimbo being able to assist here other than in an advisory capacity; and although his advice may be indicative, different Wikipedias have their own rules. Rodhullandemu 01:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"but surely you are not alone here?" what do you mean?--الزمخشري (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This user "الزمخشري" has 7 edits in ar wp, 3 of them in the mainspace, specifically in the article about Hijab in Arabic. None of his edits were reverted, actually, they are at the top of the page history. 62.120.18.9 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

it's not my original account i made it not to be chased like what you've done here --الزمخشري (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

People often here the bad things about ar wp (and certainly there are bad things), but I want to give a relevant example of a good thing. They have an abuse filter that tags replacing the word "اسرائيل" (Israel) with the word "فلسطين" (Palestine). 62.120.18.9 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:File talk:No Israel.svg. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That file is one of the worst things I've seen allowed to stay in Commons, no value other than various users using it on their user pages. It reinforces my belief that apparently the only attack pieces allowed in any wikimedia project is anti-semitism; if Judaism was a living person and protected by BLP alot of that crap wouldnt be allowed.Camelbinky (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. 62.120.18.9 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Camelbinky Anti israeli state != anti judaism or being antisemetic. I'm starting to become more and more anti-israel myself over the past 10 years, yet I have nothing against judaism as a people. Regardless, it would be best if people didn't misuse their userpages as political soapboxes of "anti-" sentiments. Why can't they just use a "i'm proud to be a supporter of palestine" userbox instead ? If such activism becomes problematic, at some point someone will have to step in. It is best if it is the community itself that steps in. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Diamond

I've already put it in Talk. But here's another paste:

This is not staged. As per http://www.dogster.com/forums/Behavior_and_Training/thread/552030 Apparently Victoria has commented about it. I am in the process of getting the source of that comment in the link above. Besides, I believe it is better to add, "possibly staged", instead of removing the entire insert. As it nevertheless, is fact, staged or not staged, while people could look into that proof.

I know for sure the page was promoted by Wendy herself, owner of Animal Fair, which was the account used here. I just hope she's not going around threatening everyone who's got negative things to say about her. If you're victimized by her, you have my sympathy, just know you're not alone.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.253.131 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For the IP editor 64.131.253.131, a reliable source for the fact that the Victoria Stilwell argument was not "staged", is Stilwell's own site, posting her own commentary (that has been copied in boundless forums across the Internet). It's difficult to see how and why Wales would jump to the hasty conclusion that a heated discussion that so moved Stilwell to write such a detailed clarification would have been "staged". Perhaps Wales is exempt from Wikipedia policy about original research? -- Wandering Parsnip (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, what do you think of the editorial contributions of User:Luckyanimalfair, as described in this analysis? Animal Fair was founded by Wendy Diamond, and her dog is named Lucky. Perhaps that's a coincidence? By your repeatedly editing (to remove a criticism) an article that has been repeatedly maintained and puffed up by what appears to be a severely "conflicted" editor with a self-promotional agenda, what sort of message does that send to the rest of us? -- Wandering Parsnip (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple. Find a 3rd party reliable source that this is a legitimate controversy, and it can go into the article. Otherwise, it can't. Simple.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but do you have any comment about the "'conflicted' editor with a self-promotional agenda", i.e., User:Luckyanimalfair? Do you approve of their editing the Wikipedia article about Wendy Diamond? - Any old someone (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After about 4 or 5 minutes of searching I found sources in True/Slant and in Entertainment Weekly that covered this heated dispute in some detail. Neither of them described the argument as "staged", as you had described it "clearly". The properly sourced text now resides in a sub-section entitled Dispute over dominance training. This turned out to be a slam dunk "include", no need for edit warring. - Any old someone (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is still very much a slam dunk for not including it. There are no third party sources which suggest in any way that this was a major incident or in any way relevant to her overall career. The mentions you found are much to slim to overcome the WP:UNDUE problem. But, further discussion should take place on the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PAN 2010 Lab, Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship, and Social Software Misuse

Hi Jimbo. May I draw your attention to the PAN 2010 Lab, specifically the Social Software Misuse task [15]. According to the organizers 9 teams had submitted the results for the second task and evaluations of performance are going to be available in a several days time. Perhaps Wikimedia foundation (or you personally) may have some interest in sponsoring this research effort. --Dc987 (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds interesting!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia

Jimmy, I'm cross-posting from here, since it has been nearly two years since Sue Gardner answered anything on her Talk page.

I read in the news that Sue Gardner said that Wikipedia "has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography". We at our organization are interested in adopting a similar policy. Would you be kind enough to point me toward this Wikipedia policy? The closest thing I could find after many minutes of searching was Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy; however, that page clearly says that it "is not a policy or guideline", only an essay. I have similarly searched WikimediaFoundation.org for "zero tolerance", but there is nothing; as there is likewise nothing about pedophilia. There is also nothing on Meta Wikimedia about "zero tolerance" and pedophilia. -- Calling Occupants (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I searched for the zero-tolerance policy towards racism and towards inciting violence and found nothing also. Sole Soul (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pedophilia: "Pedophilia or the advocacy of pedophilia on the English Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. Editors who self-identify as pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia will be blocked indefinitely." NW (Talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Pedophilia page is only one month old and states that it is it "not a policy or guideline itself". Is there another place where the long-held policy against pedophilia advocacy is noted? Uncle uncle uncle 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The page is mistaken. It is policy, and has been for quite some time. It should be relabeled as such.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, such blocks can typically only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sole Soul: Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy implies that advocating racism, violence, pedophilia, etc... are not permitted. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and anything that detracts from that is obviously not welcome here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC) obviously, each of these things may be described neutrally, and are: racism, violence, pedophilia

I was being sarcastic. Sole Soul (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sarcasm always works really well online! O:-) ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(I would have preferred she had used a different wording though. We tend to be a fairly tolerant bunch. What would happen if israelis were "zero-tolerance" towards palestinians, or vice versa? ) Better to be "taking all due care". --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot fathom what point you are trying to make with that comparison. Steve Smith (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Israeli admins would block Palestinians, and Palestinian admins would block Israeli's, we'd have a right mess on our hands, now wouldn't we?

Hence, normally we're a fairly tolerant bunch. Of course, I'm personally opposed to people identifying their affiliations, just to avoid that kind of confrontation.

• I recall a Hamas-supporter being harassed, for instance. I couldn't quite convince him of my position, so people harassed him further, and I think he eventually left.
• Another instance in which things went wrong was the "Polish names vs. 'Nazi names'" debate. At one point, even a Developer got involved (oops)

In general, advocating (there's that word again) zero-tolerance weakens consensus and NPOV, and chases people away who might otherwise provide productive input.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but what does any of that have to do with pedophilia, towards which we do have a zero tolerance policy? You're saying that it makes no sense to have a zero tolerance attitude towards Israelis and/or Palestinians, which is correct, but you seem to believe that this has some bearing on pedophilia, which is where you've lost me. Steve Smith (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we were to have a zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia, we would not have an NPOV policy towards pedophilia. This is unfortunate. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My memory is that blocking someone just for self-identifying as a paedophile (rather than advocating or engaging in paedophilia on site) was quite controversial last time it happened (although it may have happened again more recently - the last case I know of was at least a year ago). I don't know of any clear policy on the subject. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize:

• Despite the statements of Sue Gardener quoted above, there is no official "policy" (long-term or otherwise) on English Wikipedia prohibiting editing by either self-identified or suspected paedophiles.
• Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia suggests that some members of the community feel that ARBCOM cannot dictate policy - it must come from the WMF.
• There is no policy at the WMF level.
• Editors have been blocked when they self-identified as paedophiles (per Tango's statement above).
• These types of blocks are controversial (again, per Tango's statement) which suggests that parts of the community are unaware or do not agree with any informal "long-term policy" against editing by paedophiles.
• Editors who have been blocked by ARBCOM on English Wikipedia (although not necessarily indicating that they are blocked for any involvement in pro-paedophilia POV-puching or self-identification as a paedophile) are free to edit on other WMF projects (per my own observation here).

Is that a fair summary of the current situation? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Advocacy of pedophilia is strictly banned. Anyone doing so will be blocked on sight and cases should be referred to the ArbCom, rather than having an on-site debate. This has been de facto policy for a very long time. Any pages on Wikipedia which do not reflect this are out of date and should be updated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the policy is that things that are illegal are removed on sight when admins or WMF are made aware, and when needed people who attribute to that content are blocked. That has always been the case and will always be the case. Apparently more and more people have trouble understanding that, so I guess it is time to start copying relevant pieces of US law into separate policies, because otherwise they don't believe something isn't allowed here.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to dispute what you are saying about the removal of illegal material -- although recent discussions show that opinions vary wildly on what constitutes "illegal" -- but that isn't at all what we're discussing here. A self-identified paedophile might be blocked without having edited anything other than their userpage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a practice of the arbitration committee and a de facto policy (though unwritten). Quite a number of accounts have been indefinitely blocked for engaging in PPA or self-identifying as a pedophile, and it's been some time since any such blocks were truly controversial. The practice does in fact amount to a "zero tolerance policy" for PPA or the presence of pedophiles. Nathan ^T 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a project-wide de facto unwritten policy, or does it only apply on English Wikipedia? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be written. There is no reason for it to be unwritten policy. It has been firm policy for a long time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, don't you agree that this should be written down as a foundation policy however ? No reason that this is limited to just en.wp I presume ? P.S. are there other people/groups that are blocked on sight ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

m:Pedophilia --MZMcBride (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is foundation:Non discrimination policy, quoted here (emphasis added):

The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer.

Also it states that "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." Thus banning people on the ground that they have identified them self as pedophile, is pretty much against written WMF policy. _→AzaToth 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AzaToth, you are mistaken. Advocacy of pedophilia is grounds for immediate blocking, and appeals should be sent directly by email to the ArbCom. This is policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different thing here; I'm talking about identification, not advocacy; People should be banned for what they do, not for what they are. _→AzaToth 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Either way: both are banned, full stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo, for your clear statements here. I hope they will go some way to reducing the amount of unnecessary debate by those trying to gauge which way the wind is blowing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is with reference to heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, not sex with children (which is certainly not "legally protected"). Your interpretation of policy leaves me utterly gob-smacked. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba is correct. Advocacy of pedophilia is strictly forbidden.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, policy (whether written or not) is very clear that advocacy of paedophilia is forbidden. The controversial issue is whether simply identifying as a paedophile is forbidden. --Tango (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Aza: This is quite different because the law in most places identifies this activity as illegal, and society in every nation has a vested interest in keeping them from spreading their crap here, that will only be flouted at wikipedia's utter peril and disgrace, you can mark my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.20.3 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• A reference to "sexual orientation," which many U.S. states prohibit discrimination on, doesn't apply to pedos. Pedos can be stomped and are in practice when found. Bickering over the niceities of where it says so will help us cement that things say the right thing where they need to. The fact that a news article is not 100% accurate is the reality of 100% of news articles.--Milowent (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I must admit that I'm pretty dumbfounded by all of this. This so-called "policy" states that editors with certain opinions are not allowed to edit here, no matter whether they have breached our relevant content policies or not. As an open editing environment we shouldn't disallow any type of editor from editing until and unless they show that they cannot edit within our content policies. We don't (nor should we) ban editors due to their personal opinions about racism, national superiority, murder, religion, sexuality, or any other political issues; we freely welcome all to edit unless they act on their personal bias and go on a POV spree and start distorting our articles. We bring bring down the banhammer only after these editors have shown that they as individuals, not as a group cannot edit within our guidelines. We can't just fully ban groups of people we don't care for, that's discrimination and goes against our nondiscrimination policy (which covers both sexuality and mental illness: the two most common rationales for pedophilia). All of the responses by Jimbo above appear to be inspired by his personal moral (ie:counter-POV) opinion of the situation. I have to wonder who else is secretly banned from editing due to "wrong opinions".

• In a nutshell: The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV: editors' backgrounds are superfluous as long as our articles are written neutrally. Editors with extreme points of view have several options, including obtaining talkpage consensus before editing and not editing within the subject at all. ThemFromSpace 04:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I had previously thought that everyone on Wikipedia supported allowing everyone to edit unless their edits were problematic, and that it didn't matter who they are or what their opinions are, so long as their edits are fine. IMO, an editor who is an escaped convict, anti-Wikimedia activist, murderer, pedophile, and terrorist who happened to bomb Wikimania along with several other locations should still be allowed to edit so long as their edits are okay. --Yair rand (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the recent comments, but look at it as if you were Jimbo (not that he does himself). All he can say is no pedos. If he said something else, the media would pick up on it. He knows he's not creating a policy page with his comments. We should probably leave him alone, now that he's said what he has to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A month and a half ago, asked Jimbo for his opinion, as Founder, on the WP:PED page. He gave his opinion which was identical to his position now. I then pointed out that we need to look carefully at the procedure for promoting the page to Policy and left it at that. Jimbo's opinion is invaluable but not binding, as far as I am aware. No need to press him further on this issue, therefore. If he wishes to comment further, no doubt he will do so in a more appropriate venue. Thank you, again, Jimbo, for taking time to comment --Jubilee♫clipman 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't claim to be creating policy, he claims that policy already exists. I would like to see the discussion which resulted in a consensus for this policy or the WMF board resolution creating it - as far as I know, those are the two ways policy can be created. (There hasn't been consensus for policy creation by decree by Jimbo for a long time.) --Tango (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now a policy

I fully support the zero tolerance unwritten policy indicated by past practice, and by Jimbo above. However I oppose the recent promotion of WP:PED to a policy (diff) because that will lead editors to imagine they can and should develop the policy. I oppose a written policy with precise wording because:

• Per WP:BURO we do not try to document exactly what an activist can get away with.
• Whatever WP:PED says is irrelevant to what WMF and Arbcom will do.
• There would be continual and pointless arguments at WP:PED about the ethics of banning a group of people (think of the human rights!).
• People would make claims re pedophilia that could be interpreted as some kind of acceptance or advocacy (they're born with it; they can't help it; we shouldn't discriminate; so long as they don't advocate harm, what's the problem; and more WP:BEANS stuff). Should such comments be reverted?
• Trolls would arrive at the talk page, and we would argue about what a troll can get away with.

My views above are not based on my regard for pedophiles, but on a simple recognition that activists would dedicate their lives in order to push articles, discussions and policies towards a more relaxed approach re pedophilia. Just being seen ("this user supports friendship with boys") may be sufficient in time to cause a grudging acceptance by some people. We are not the law and do not have to decide what happens with activists other than to continue the unwritten zero tolerance policy. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative, heating up again

Hi, Jimbo, I wanted you to be the first to see this edit I'm making to Genesis creation narrative, since it bears directly on something I asked, and received, your comment on earlier. I have a feeling it will be reverted quickly, though that would be an injustice because there seem to be no cause for reverting this factual and sourced information I am adding. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to pass judgement on whether that statement should be in the article, but surely it should be in the "Creation myth" section (just below where you put it) if it is going to be anywhere. I'm not going to move it myself, since I don't want that to be mistaken for supporting the addition, but I suggest you move it. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I put it in "Questions of genre" section, because it directly addresses the question of "questions of genre". Maybe the "Creation myth" section should be a subsection of "Questions of genre"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that lasted a surprising 4.5 hours before it was removed by User:Professor marginalia who doesn't think the sources are good enough to indicate that anyone disagrees with the "myth" label. So now we're back to "Genesis is inarguably a myth, because anyone who disagrees doesn't count". I have also been told that I have no standing to object or request arbitration, no recourse or hope of due process, and threatened repeatedly with banishment because I still don't think Genesis is a "myth", and I won't just shut up or go away and accept that there is no recourse. So that's my problem with Wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever told you you can't object and go through the dispute resolution system is wrong. You may not be successful, but you can certainly go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and get more opinions. If it turns out the consensus is against you, then you need to be willing to accept defeat, though. --Tango (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fun, Easy Way to Learn German

Dear Jim, you might find it easy and fun to watch Rammstein Videos! Especially the ones with English - German subtitles. You will find yourself quickly picking up words and phrases very quickly and have fun doing it. Fűr immer und immer...Fűr einen tag..(Helden)--Oracleofottawa (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Some find JFK's speeches helpful too.</sarcasm> – ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the hard part of the german language. It's always easy to learn some phrases. The problem is to find the right words to say what you want to say. Also you will find it hard to use the correct grammar, so that an german will be able to understand you. You should also notice that the content of songs from Rammstein has usually more then one meaning, which could be misleading to only trust in available translation. Das kann ich deshalb sagen, da ich in Deutschland geboren bin und es mir dadurch natürlich leicht fällt Englischsprachige einzuschätzen, die regelmäßig ihre Probleme damit haben, obwohl sie es auf einer Schule gelernt haben. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagreed with Jimbo userbox

Sorry to be such a nuisance, Jimbo, and post on your actual User page, but could I trouble you for one of those "I disagreed with Jimbo" userboxes? I'm not sure if you give these out, or if you have even seen one, but it is sort of a red box with your face on the left side and it says something like "this user disagreed with Jimbo..." or something similar? Do you know the box?

Anyway, we did respectfully disagree on something, so I qualify! You suggested that an article I contributed "almost certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia." Well, I disagree (With the caveat that I humbly accept the concensus to remove, of course).

What do you think? I spent two weeks writing that thing, throw a dog a bone, will ya? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I don't have anything to do with userboxes. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

People give themselves userboxes. You are thinking of barnstars - I don't know of a barnstar for disagreeing with Jimbo. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a thought! "Awarded to [editor] for disagreeing with Jimbo on [issue x]." Hm... WP:BEANS in action  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Informing you of possible areas of exploitation within Wikipedia

Hi Jim,

The following was originally posted by banned user Swamilive under a different account on his sockpuppet investigation page. Some of the wording will appear out of context here since it was part of an ongoing discussion. However, the banned user brought up some very interesting points concerning some of the loopholes that exist within Wikipedia. He appears to want to aid the project, although in a nonconventional way. I just thought that, as founder, you might be interested in examining some of the problems he brings up.

I just want to point out a few things before this account gets blocked. Please bear with me.

First of all, I'm deeply concerned about the checkuser results from some of the investigations against me. On this page a great number of accounts have been erroneously linked to me. Of the 20 or so listed, only 3 are mine. I would suggest that Wikipedia invest in either the technology or the personnel to handle this procedure properly. Far too many non-Swamilive editors are being scapegoated and I don't believe that's fair. It's a bit like imprisoning an innocent man. More wiki-DNA testing must be done to prevent this kind of thing in the future.

Secondly, as Delicious carbuncle pointed out, the account I created (Scottish Coke) after being banned was not started up within Thunder Bay, where I reside. Well, he (I'm assuming you're a he, DelCarb...please correct me if I'm wrong) mentioned an ISP change. Now, Scottish Coke's (my) comment got deleted pretty quickly, and unfortunately its implications concerning the Wikipedia project as a whole were widely ignored as a result of that. This next bit, I know, will take a bit of faith on everyone's behalf:

Let us postulate that although I am a serial vandal, my actual objective is to provide some insight for admins about the exploitable loopholes that currently plague Wikipedia so that they may develop better code or more effective ways of avoiding problems. Hard to swallow, I know. But, that's the beauty of it right there. To think like a vandal, one must act like a vandal. No well-established editor could properly test and exploit these loopholes without getting themselves banned. What this project needed was a relatively crafty individual to purposely vandalize articles in order to attempt to circumvent the blocks and bans placed upon them for their actions. Once circumvented, the user would inform admins about how they got past the sanctions, thus allowing for discussion and action to avoid having the same thing happen again. I am that guy. There's a lot to read, but if you go back I have always come forward with my methods of evasion. For everyone's sake, though, a summary:

Edit Filters
They work well enough if the vandal has no imagination. A few users were working hard to get a few specific terms I was using banned. And, at least one of them got edit filtered. However, I showed that simply adding an underscore or a hyphen or ANYTHING to that term would allow it to pass through the filter undetected. Example: The Garrison_James.

Dynamic IPs
No great revelation here, and range blocks take care of these. Now, I edit from Thunder Bay, so the ranges of IPs I can use are limited. However, if I resided in New York City or Tokyo we'd have a much larger problem. There must be some way of pinpointing vandal IPs without rangeblocking hundreds of thousands of people at once. A determined vandal will keep refreshing his dynamic IP until he's caused the entire ISP to be blocked. Major inconvenience if you have a ton of decent editors within that range. Not everyone will ask for exemption, and it's a problem to prove who you are.

Static IPs
Some of you have probably dealt with a girl named Jean Currie in the past few months. She made up an elaborate story about taking over a business location that Swamilive used to own and being stuck with a static IP that he vandalized from. She tried very hard to get the IP address unblocked. Well, of course Jean Currie was me, but I had a lot of fun pretending to be someone who did not exist for awhile. In fact, many admins got involved in the discussion and the majority of them couldn't tell truth from fiction. Again, a crafty enough vandal could easily sway the opinions and doubts of a whole committee of people. You make a fake e-mail address, you make up a story, and all of a sudden you're as anonymous as anyone else.

Different ISPs
Now, in Thunder Bay we have only a few ISPs and IP ranges that we can create accounts from. So, let's say I got all of Thunder Bay effectively banned from editing. Not a single computer in the area could edit Wikipedia. And let's also assume that I have been checkusered all to Hell and any dormant socks I might have made for such an occasion have been discovered. So, I can't even log in and edit from a pre-existing account. What are my options? Drive or fly out of town to edit from outside the geographical area? No, of course not. Way too much trouble. Instead, you contact someone in another city (old friend, complete stranger, whatever) and request that they create an account for you and tell you the password. Now, even though you're under a range block for editing anonymously, you can suddenly log in to an account created just for you and edit from it. This process is a bit long for the vandal because they must call or Facebook someone to do the initial account creation every time. But, perhaps this out-of-towner could make 20 accounts at once. Doesn't take long. The only possible solution I can see to this problem is to rangeblock every new IP range that the vandal has people create accounts from. But, now that the vandal can do this from anywhere in the world, it could quickly become a big problem since some ranges are larger than others. In short, the actions of the admins are going to piss a lot more people off than if the vandal was simply allowed to proceed with hitting random, revertable pages with vandalism.

So, that's just something to consider. You can work with me or you can work against me. But, much like the game, once you start playing, you can't stop.

Jbfolker2x (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Most people are well aware of "vulernabilities" present in Wikipedia. The blocking policy makes it pretty clear that blocks are a technical measure only and just about everyone is aware they can be evaded. Tools like autoblockand the abuse filter help, but nothing is foolproof. There has yet to be a major attack on the wiki, even some of our most notorious vandels like Grawp and Willy on Wheels utterly failed to do any real lasting damage, and in the end became nothing more than some temporary dramahz on our noticeboards. Most people lack the technical knoweldge to do a serious sustained attack on wikipedia, and most that have the knowledge have better things to do with their time. When you actually look at the numbers you tend to notice that a few thousand organized vandal edits pales in comparison to the tends of thounds of vandal reverts every day. --nn123645 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Still, my point is that this particular serial vandal does bring up some good points. If it is technically possible to make amendments to the underlying code in order to protect against some of the problems Swamilive has outlined, then I say go for it. While the overall level of vandalism is relatively minute compared to constructive edits, we might as well invest some time into making it harder for vandals to edit in the first place. Jbfolker2x (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)