User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Out of line

Wales: You have no right to use personal emails from unknown people as the basis for wikipedia articles. Your claim here [1] of a "BLP" issue is straight bull. How on earth could the sentence "As of August 2010, both groups, "Palestine is not a Country" and "Israel is not a Country", remained on Facebook" (which can be confirmed by, duh, going to facebook) possibly have anything to do with harming/defaming a living person?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is simple: relax. It seems fairly clear that the facts are on the side of those who are pointing out that the groups were deleted, and that new groups were created. Your hatred for the subject has no bearing on the facts of reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And to answer your question specifically. The simple and likely misleading claim that the groups "remain" on Facebook - rather than the accurate point that different groups of the same name have been created, goes directly to the question of effectiveness and accuracy of the JIDF. If the groups in question were in fact violating facebook terms of service (by containing hate speech) and were removed because of it, and then new groups (not containing hate speech) were created, then that's one state of affairs. If Facebook refused to delete them because they didn't contain hate speech at all, that's a different state of affairs. Each state of affairs reflects on the subject of the article.

We need to get it right. We have credible testimony that the situation is as my edit described it. This testimony is not certain just yet, and we need reliable sources. But you looking things up on facebook to make a point is absolutely not the right way to do this.

Try to relax. I'm neither in favor nor against the JIDF. I only want us to be accurate and to proceed slowly and carefully.

Even if you hate the JIDF, I'm sure you can be content that the truth is sufficient to tell the world about them. A minor misleading point, no matter how emotionally invested you are in it, is not the way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My original pique was that you styled it as a "BLP" concern (which it isn't) and that you're in offline communication and coddling a troll who has forged libelous posts here, sought to out and attack editors here and elsewhere, and has been bringing the old battelfield for years (first indef was 2008, dozens of socks since). As for the content: If it can be verified that groups closed, groups of same name later opened, i have no problem at all. As for the "JIDF" I never heard of them until a few days ago, when the guy who runs the site ended up at a drama board again for the latest in a long calvacade of vaquely threatening socks attacking users in good-standing (the curret IP at the bottom of this page). Why? He was using socks and a massive off-wikipedia canvassing effort to edit war over an "advert" tag. Do I "hate" them. No. But i think the fellow behind the websites and accounts is poisining the editing environment and weakening the quality of contentBali ultimate (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to have been some recent editing that appears to reflect the position of, living person comes to defend comments in his article he sees as derogatory and misleading and the user is blocked and then his article is dramatically edited in what appears to reflect in a more negative manner on that person, it all looks a bit attacking and small minded. User:Peter Cohen has also commented that he is trying to get some of the users twitter posts into reliable sources so he can add them to the article, to me this is increasing of the drama and close to actual activism against a living person that we have an article about.Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rio -- the "person" is a pseuonym who's been seeking to control "his" article for two years (got banned for his pains). He runs off-wikipedia propoganda campaigns and would clearly like the wikipedia article about him to bolster those campaigns. He's now upset that he can't control the content anymore -- some bleating about "BLP" is the latest in years of socking and attacks against wikipedia editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We have the opportunity and the NPOV and BLP requirement through wikipedia to rise above such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page that Bali has made an edit there that is a clear BLP violation, and which he should should redact. I also commented that the obvious anger he has expresses against the subject of the article seems to make his editing COI, and he should recuse himself from further editing of that article. His response was to delete my comment from the talk page, which I also think is inappropriate. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Perhaps we can consider deleting and salting the article completely as it is the source of a lot of conflict and deleting it would be perhaps a good option and the subject is upset and complaining about it. There is no obligation on en wiki to host an article about any group , org or suchlike. I don't think the educational and encyclopedic value of the project would be affected by deleting the article and it would seal the deal, so to speak.Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (e/c) I'd be all for deletion (i don't think wikipedia should have articles on any topics for which there is no independent academic analysis and coverage) but if you so nominate it, you won't get anywhere (wikipedia in general does no share my inclusion standards. And there will be a lot of pile on keeps simply because the banned user who used to control it is now whining that he can no longer control it). And while i would support deletion, the argument that it "causes trouble" is the wrong one. One more time on "BLP" -- it can't be an issue when there is no named, living person (in this case there isn't one - just a pseudonym). And in any case, there is no infomation in the article about the pseudonym beyond its own statements. A sentence about the existence or not of a facebook group defames no one, real or invented.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a living person involved, please don't assert otherwise as a get around BLP policy. Your assertion that there would be as you infer, a lot of pile on revengeful keep comments is also a poor claim indeed.Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What we agree on is that the article should be deleted. If you nom it, i will weigh in. My commet that it would be kept to a dead-certainty merely reflects my understanding of the way things work here. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but you are the one with the best policy POV for deletion ... on-line protest group for which there is no independent academic analysis and coverage, article is the subject of multiple complaints from the organizer of the protest. I could happily go with that as the golden kiss goodbye to the whole issue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are not many, but scholarly sources do exist [2] 173.52.126.77 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Penned by one of the ardent defenders of the now-banned parties in the WP:CAMERA affair. You begin to see how tightly-wound the web of disinformation and propaganda is that surrounds the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Tarc (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did he defend the abuse of wikipedia countenanced by the now-banned parties in that incident, or did he defend their thesis that a bias exists; a rather different statement, no? -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be both. At any rate, Oboler is a pro-Zionist acivist. Nothing wrong with that per se. But a disspassionate "scholar" in this area, he is not. He works directly with groups that target the other side of their ideological divide.[3].Bali ultimate (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Any different from Rashid Khalidi or Joseph Massad? Not that it matters; we can quote him and what he says and assume the reader has a few brain cells--the same way if we quote Edward Said, we can assume the reader knows from whence his perspective arises. Regardless, we are getting off-topic. If it is true that the current groups are not the same as the original groups, then the article must reflect that (some variant of "JIDF successfully took the groups down, and later, others restarted them"). Do you disagree, Bali? -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

With apologies for butting in, there has to be a difference in the way we treat the writings of professors of major universities (such as Khalidi and Massad) and those of directors of 'online engagement' at the zionist federation of australia. (Never heard of oboler but this is what I found when googling the name). Otherwise we're never going to be able to sort things out. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No apologies required, RP, healthy discussion only helps. Your point is accurate, Oboler does not have the same gravitas as Said, I agree. Oboler is not David Appletree, either. He is an academic, for whatever that is worth. My concern is that if we start "disallowing" people solely based on their views or associations with organizations who hold strong views, we are hurting ourselves. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not keen on getting involved in the content here, but I just want to note that Oboler is not an academic. According to his website he has a PhD in computer science, but he doesn't hold any academic position. Given how much trouble this article has caused, and how few good sources there are, I would support deleting it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an academic, so what does "in 2007-2008 he was a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University, Israel" mean? Was that an academic position, a research position, or meaningless? -- Avi (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the bias completely one-sided?

But a disspassionate "scholar" in this area, he is not. He works directly with groups that target the other side of their ideological divide.

— Bali Ultimate, 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point, Bali. Shouldn't we be thankful for anyone who exposes bias on wikipedia of any sort? Doesn't it help us address problem areas? Do you think that the bias on wikipedia is completely one-sided, Bali? -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No wikipedia is filled with roving gangs of anti-scientific cranks, ideologically-driven political activists, pr people promoting minor celebrites, and others were are poison to neutral and accurate information. In Oboler's case, he's just the "Zionist" flavor of the ideological internet warrior (other flavors include, but are not limited to "Jew-hating," "Muslim-hatig," "Propalestinian," "Neo-Nazi," "Anti/Pro-climate science," "Vaccines are giving our children autism," etc. etc.) We should get rid of all of them when we find them here. In the case of folks like Oboler, their off-site writings should be treated as the work of folks with an agenda, rather than neutral scholarship. If you're proposing the warriors from all the sides be left to duke it out (actually what is generally done here --yielding sprawling, unreadable and wholly inappropriate pieces of crap like Israel and the apartheid analogy) I disagree. It don't work, and drives off the people who don't have a dog in the intramural squabbles.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is published in a peer reviewed journal. All the complaining about the article amounts to a dislike of the articles premises and conclusions...in other words there are editors who think it is not 'true'. However, as is well known, inclusion in WP is based on WP:V, not truth. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali, this ties into what I asked you above. Shall we remove all references cited to Rashid Khalidi for the same reason? He is cited on wikipedia (British Mandate for Palestine#Arab political rights) for example. How about Joseph Massad (see Israeli–Palestinian conflict note 122). And Edward Said is quoted many times. I could find other scholars/intellectuals whose political viewpoings are clearly demarcated (and strongly held on one side of a debate) yet we quote them and trust that the reader understands their perspective. The same is true for Oboler. All academics have viewpoints, and some (the three I mentioned and Oboler for example) have their viewpoints held strongly and openly. That does not make any of these four improper sources for wikiepdia; it just requires us to trust our readers' intelligence. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Khalidi? Depends. Said? Depends. Oboler? Depends. My comment on Oboler was in the context of whether his single article about the topic of his activism was suffiient to justify having an article here (inclusion standads). If Khalidi was the only scholar to have ever written about, say, a Palestinian internet activist group, and worked directly with whatever the Palestinian version of NGO Monitor is to boot at the time of writing, I would argue he was too deeply involved in that particular topic and would say that it should not be treated as independent and not enough to start to justify inclusion. I would hope that in general Khalidi and Saids views are attributed to them when used here (I would suspect they are). At any rate, the analogy is poor. I find about 30 hits for Andre Oboler on google scholar, compared to 45,000 for Said and about 1,500 for Khalidi. Both are/were eminent academics at leading institutions. Obelor has a PHD in computer science and his website says he is the "Director of Online Engagement at the Zionist Federation of Australia." There are of course many pro-Zionist academics of equal or higher standing than the two Palestinian under discussion. Oboler isn't one of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another study that mentions the JIDF [4], although the discussion of the group is much shorter than the other article. The point is that scholarly sources do exist, and the claim that no such sources exist is incorrect. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A one-sentence mention in a 150 page piece wouldn't cut it either, User:Einsteindonut.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What a strange statement. Admittedly the mention is brief, but it is within the context of "A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College..." which certainly is not insignificant. The term you use "wouldn't cut it" brings up the point I raised earlier. You are clearly so hostile to the subject of the article that it would be better if you recused yourself from editing, because your apparent advocacy raises COI concerns. There are usable sources I found in a few minutes of looking, and which some editors said do not exist. Now I have shown sources exist, but you want to raise the bar, although you can not deny WP:V. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Full mention of the JIDF from the thesis: "The Jewish Internet Defense Force disabled social networking sites that promote anti-semitism or Islamic terrorism." It's a stupid point because this discussion of AFDing it isn't going to go anywhere. But no, i don't consider that the sort of in depth coverage to allow for a stand-alone article. The basis for my belief that one sentece doesn't amount to "substantial coverage" has nothing to do with "hostility."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali, you keep using terms such as "stupid point", "it isn't going to go anywhere", "wouldn't cut it", etc, which presents two problems. One is that these terms suggest emotion but not meaning. The other is that these terms, and many others you have used, indicate that the emotion involved is hostility. Someone, such as you, who is that hostile to a subject should not be editing an article about that subject. The reason is COI. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a "stupid" point because the article is not going to be AFD'd given the way inclusion standards work here. An AFD "isn't going to go anywhere" because I believe the outcome (unfortuately from my perspective) is that it would end as "keep." I.e. the status quo, i.e. "going nowhere." My belief that one sentence in a paper "doesn't cut it" when it comes to the GNG's call for "substantial coverage" can be agreed with or disagreed with, but has nothing to do with "hostility." That a sock of a banned editor who runs the website in question -- and forged a post here to make an admin look antisemtic as part of your little game -- is talking about COI is amusing. And sad. Since it's the same rhetorical tactic you've been using for years here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude that anyone, who wants the article to be fair and good, must be "a sock of a banned editor who runs the website in question" leaves a lot to be desired. I have no relationship to the subject of the article. But if you think differently, take steps to prove your accusation. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO it is rather telling that this IP's first edit is to JIDF's talk page asking another editor to "redact the clear BLP violation". Quite obviously the language of someone familiar with the Wikipedia. Anyways, an AfD on the JIDF would produce a lot of consternation from certain corners, true, but if the only thing they have really been in the news for is the facebook usurpations, then there's a case to be made for WP:ONEEVENT. Tarc (talk)

Comment: I'm not sure if you're part of this or not or if you just don't know much about the organization, but it a common tactic of many Wikipedia editors to downplay the JIDF's significance. Please note my response to another editor who just tried to do this, here. Obviously, they are significant to some extent, or the circus wouldn't be happening. --79.172.242.150 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk)

Is this, then, just a supporting point of view, or is it WP:CIRCUS? Does one side need to show good faith and act with civility, while the other side is exempt? There is every reason to maintain civility, no matter what users involved may think of others. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey 173.52.126.77, Don't take the allegations of COI or being a sockpuppet, personally. That's what happens to any of us who are the slightest bit interested in honesty/objectivity in the article about the JIDF. --79.172.242.150 (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk)

WP:QUACK? IP editors that edit exclusively on the JIDF-article and this talk page concerning the JIDF respectively. Everyone involved in this knows that DA threatened to continue with socks and meatpuppets if he didn't get his way. I am somewhat surprised that these most recent puppets aren't banned or at least striked from record. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, we (func-en, CUs, etc.) are aware of the issues. For the record, it is  Unlikely, in my opinion, that the 173 user is DA or Jewdefence or one of the other suite of puppets, and that is what I said when asked today on func-en. So while the obvious ones should be handled, I fear that there is the danger of dismissing interested parties who are not one-track meatpuppets or sockpuppets out of hand. Then again, I have been known to be wrong, about lots of things :) -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is fair enough. I don't have the same tools available as bureaucrats. I only have WP:QUACK and a couple of SPI IP's that has never edited before, but seems to know the specifcs of BLP violations and the relevance of Jimbo Wales' talk page, and uses them in favour of said DA who promised something exactly like this, so what do I know. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Saddhiyama, you're right for trying to protect the project. In my opinion (not as a CU but an editor) the 79 IP is quacking mighty loudly :) -- Avi (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama is quite mistaken, and I do not "edit exclusively on the JIDF-article and this talk page". In fact, it is very rare for me to get involved in such issues. My IP address does change from time to time, and it changing just when I made some comments here. But my interests, and almost all my editing, are focused elsewhere. A little good faith would go a long way. I very much regret the combative stance taken by some editors that their own motivations are as pure as the driven snow, and that (in stark contrast) the motives of those who disagree with them are evil. Framing discussions in that way is, I think, harmful to Wikipedia. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you are a banned editor, aren't you now? You're on a 173.52 IP range, you have a penchant for false allegations of anti-semitism and a pure warrior mentality for your "side" in the IP area. You're the banned User:Malcolm Schosha (previously the banned User:Kwork. And here's the last IP he socked and got caught with User:173.52.182.160. I'm a little embarrassed that i didn't pick up on this sooner (poor 'ol Malcolm has come linguistic quirks.) Ciao, as you say Malcolm.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above: "I very much regret the combative stance taken by some editors that their own motivations are as pure as the driven snow, and that (in stark contrast) the motives of those who disagree with them are evil. Framing discussions in that way is, I think, harmful to Wikipedia." It is common in I/P dispute discussions (as this is) for sides to claim good intentions for themselves, and evil intentions to those who disagree with them. It is really just a variation on the claim, of those in dispute, that God is on their side. Of course. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be wary of this kind of "sockpuppet" analysis. Note that apparently most addresses in 173.52.x.x geolocate to Brooklyn, New York [5], and are held by Verizon, a very major US internet provider which provided 10% of broadband connections in 2004.[6] Now 1.618 million Jews are said to live in New York[7], some 12% of a total 13.2 million (about 1/3 of the 4.9 million in Israel). Assuming Verizon's Brooklyn site covers the greater New York City area, this means that (unless there's something I missed) about 1.2% of all Jews should be logging in from 173.52.x.x. (Maybe more - the Verizon figure may have grown) You could make the wrong conclusion from this sort of guesswork. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Malcolm to a dead certainty. The IP geolocates to the same residential address on Ocean Avenue across from Prospect Park in both cases. What do you figure the odds are that it's Malcolm's downstairs neighbor? Same writing style, same interest in the same type of art and philosophy, same straw men and misdirection tactics, etc..Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any standard internet providers let people geolocate their customers' homes. The customers won't stand for it. A random IP [8] geolocates to the same coordinates. Not every 173.52.x.x resolves to Brooklyn - some are in the Bronx or Long Island - but as far as I can tell all the ones that do resolve to the exact same spot. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're right. And I apologize for misunderstanding and misusing the technology (i tested it out on my IP -- i live in a dense city much like Brooklyn -- the coordinates were half a mile off). This edit clinched it though [9] -- Malcolm styles himself as a disciple of the Stoic philosphers.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

David Appletree is a hate mongering pseudonymous avatar, Rob. If we were using his real name that would be different.78.46.105.209 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are not many,

Observations on Bali's Comments about Dr. Oboler Here - BLP/Personal attacks Isues?

redacted - Reposting private email is not allowed on WP — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mousetrap

There's been some press coverage in the UK (and internationally, actually) about our article on Agatha Christie's long-running West End play, The Mousetrap:

With many more articles here: [10]. Recent discussions: Talk:The_Mousetrap#Spoiling_on_Facebook_too, Talk:The_Mousetrap#Ending_spoiler. What do you think is the best thing to do? --JN466 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view, our current policy on spoilers is wrong, but I'm not wound up about it in the least and I don't intend to really join in discussions about it. I think there should be some kind of clause encouraging people to be particularly careful about spoiling reader enjoyment of art works that hinge particularly on a surprise ending, and to reveal it only if there is some particular encyclopedic purpose. Revealing endings just for the sake of some passion for documenting every single provable fact in the universe is not really right. I should add: I have not seen this play, I have not read the article, and I don't want to read the article because I don't want to have the ending spoiled for me. So I have no opinion about this particular case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If only those journalists had the same grasp on the principle of an encyclopedia. No matter what one thinks about spoiler warnings, there is no justified reason to first read something that per definitionem will contain a spoiler (like any plot summary, book report etc.) and then complain about having it spoiled for you. Especially if you willingly click on a section called "plot" (or even "identity of the murder" in this case!), you should not be surprised to find the plot of the subject there. So yes, Joe is right, ignore it. It's a "controversy" created by some journalists with no grasp on what an encyclopedia is and apparently too much time on their hands. Regards SoWhy 08:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a spoiler warning should be a huge, blinking notice "caution, spoiler" followed by a collapsible box containing the spoiler itself. The last sentence of the article's short lead says: "The play is also known for its twist ending, which at the end of every performance the audience is asked not to reveal." The spoiler itself is the second half of the second paragraph of the subsection "Identity of the murderer" of the "Plot" section. That was also the situation when the Independent article was written, except that at the time "Identity of the murderer" was a separate section following "Plot". Hans Adler 09:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article version which hid the ending (and is safe to read for those not wishing to know the ending) was this one. It did not actually contain a "huge blinking notice 'caution spoiler'", just a collapsed box that readers could click on. A collapsed box is a good compromise, respecting the feelings of fans of this extremely long-running and much-loved play, while not withholding information from those who want to access it. The labelling of the box needn't be as dramatic as it was in that article version. "Click on Show if you want to know the play's ending" would do just as well. --JN466 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this "reasonable compromise" is that too many people are suggesting it for too many things. Muhammad images, medical pictures, long tables, nudity ... and if any one category is given community approval, we can only expect it to expand to cover all of them, and much more: not just the ending but any part of the plot, not just Muhammad images but Fred Phelps protest banners, not just long tables but any mathematical derivation, not just nudity but any drawing suggesting a disturbing activity. You'd end up with boxes in boxes, articles that can't be printed out without holding a scavenger hunt for all the clickable items. The more this is argued, the more sense the original WP:SPOILER decision makes. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be an extreme worst case scenario with no basis in actual requests. I think wikipedia as a project should always be leaning towards any kind of reasonable compromise. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We are a global website. As the article itself says "Christie asked that the story not be published as long as it ran as a play in the West End of London. The short story has still not been published within the United Kingdom but it has appeared in the United States in the 1950 collection Three Blind Mice and Other Stories." So it was first published in the US sixty years ago.... If we were a UK specific website then I would be inclined to go along with Ms Christie's heirs. ϢereSpielChequers 18:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On collapsing surprise endings in plot summaries: The only argument I've seen against it is the slippery slope. But we could agree to collapse surprise endings in plot summaries while not agreeing to collapse stuff because of offensiveness. Two utterly distinct issues. No slippery slope here, but false equivalence. Anthony (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What criterion can we use, that says it's wrong to offend those with an interest in the Mousetrap, but right to offend Muslims? The Muslims have had their spoiler ban for 1500 years, and when broken there have been riots about it. What do we tell them, about why we can't hide those images, if we roll over and hide this? Apart from being white, and Christian, and English, I can't imagine a single advantage for those pressing this issue, over those pressing that one. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 64#Cyclopia's unexpected promotion to "spokesman" for Wikipedia by journalists of the Independent, Jayen466. And while you are reading our article on The Mousetrap, pay attention to its references section. See that citation of a book by Salem Press? That's an encyclopaedia, that tells the reader the twist in the tale just like this encyclopaedia does, that was published twenty years ago. Readers can check Wikipedia's facts against it.

Don't let journalists who got their facts wrong and then parroted the errors around the world do your thinking for you. Whatever fact checking they each did, it wasn't nearly good enough. Little to nothing in the news reports, that you are waving about to support your stance that there's some problem with an encyclopaedia entry here, was actually factually correct in the first place. They got the status of the talk page contributors wrong; they claimed that the Independent had interviewed people that Paul Bignell and Matthew Bell had not interviewed; they got the date of the relevant article edits wrong by several years; they committed the sin of omission of failing to note that they were quoting what people had written months before the "story"; they didn't notice the existence of an actual spokesman; they didn't check the Wikipedia article out for themselves before parroting a previous newspaper's story; and they didn't bother to check out the many other reference works, including other encyclopaedias and books like Facciponti's and Reed's Teacher's Guide to Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap and Other Plays available for free on the World Wide Web from Penguin since July 2004 (according to its publication data), that have trodden this ground years or even decades ago, before Wikipedia ever did, without three U.K. newspapers constructing a tizzy from whole cloth.

Check your facts before basing your arguments upon this newspaper fabrication. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The errors in the newspaper articles are a red herring in this discussion, as is the slippery-slope argument. It is clear that some people wish the ending weren't in plain sight; so why not accommodate them, by hiding the content in a box that readers can open if they wish? Some readers may not know that the whole crux of the play is the surprise twist at the end.

It is also wrong to frame this whole issue in terms of a power struggle, or us "rolling over", as though it would inconvenience us or anyone else to put the material in a collapsed box, or as though it would jeopardise our encyclopedic mission to do so. If we can remove a source of annoyance to someone else without cost to ourselves, why not be generous and do it? Why be dogmatic, inflexible and rule-bound for the sake of it?

And by the way, likening the impact of our article on The Mousetrap, which is read more than 10,000 times a month, to that of an obscure specialist cyclopedia that appears to be unavailable from amazon and costs $368 when bought directly from Salem Press, is comparing apples and oranges.

In a different sense, the errors in the newspaper articles are of course relevant. Some wit or philosopher -- the name escapes me right now -- once wrote something to the effect, "Isn't it disturbing to find, with any event that you have personal, first-hand knowledge of, that it is misreported in the newspapers?" Newspaper coverage of Wikipedia is, in most cases, atrocious balderdash. Sam Blacketer was lambasted in the international press for removing an attack picture designed to ridicule David Cameron (the press made out he did it to make Cameron look bad). Cycl0pia and an anonymous IP are described as official spokespeople or approved committee members for Wikipedia. Etc. If press reporting on us is so distorted, isn't it time we entertained the possibility in our minds that press reporting on other topics may be similarly off the wall? I have never understood why our sourcing guidelines (with the exception of the medical field, where sanity prevailed, thank God) assume that press sources are as reliable as academic books and other scholarly sources. --JN466 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Some readers may not know that the whole crux of the play is the surprise twist at the end. : Ehm, I don't want to sound rude, but do you actually read the articles you talk about? The fourth sentence of the whole article, before the TOC, currently says: "The play is also known for its twist ending, which at the end of every performance the audience is asked not to reveal." --Cyclopia^talk 00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of complaints several years ago from magicians in response to Wikipedia articles that explained how their tricks work. I'm not sure how that was resolved, but it might have been by declaring the article "how-tos" and moving them to the relative obscurity of Wikibooks. It also has some connection to other secrets, like the Mormon Temple Garments, that Wikipedia has publicized. I can sympathize with those whose faith or livelihood depends in some part on keeping these matters secret. However Wikipedia doesn't reveal secrets. At most, it publicizes what has already been published elsewhere. In this case, the information has been published in at least a couple of sources.

Regarding "spoiling" plots, that's mostly an issue with whodunits. Nobody is complaining that Wikipedia or Cliff Notes is giving away the ending of Hamlet. When it comes to books, readers should avoid flipping to the last page or reading plot summaries if they want to be surprised. It's a little different with a play, but still, attendees would be well-advised to avoid reading reviews of whodunits.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cycl0pia, I often find your way of thinking really abstract and dogmatic; ideology-based rather than practical. Here in this case, you seem to assume that the typical Wikipedia reader sits down at their screen, begins in line 1, and then methodically reads the article, sentence by sentence. I am 100% positive that pretty much the only people who ever read Wikipedia articles that way are (some) reviewers in the GA and FAC processes. The overwhelming majority of our surfing readership "skims". They may begin in the middle, the end, or any place else that attracts their eyes, and typically move on to another page after having read merely parts of the article, rather than the whole of it. --JN466 02:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I often find your way of thinking really abstract and dogmatic; ideology-based rather than practical. : I am curious to know what "ideology" you are talking about. I was simply stating facts, I see nothing "abstract" or "dogmatic" in facts.

The overwhelming majority of our surfing readership "skims"  : I skim a lot as well. But you will notice that articles, nonetheless, strive to have a coherent, old-fashioned top-to-bottom structure. We do not know how our readers will actually use the content, but we structure it in the classical way and we assume it will be used that way. It's the most basic assumption, and it is one that is known to work. We do not repeat definitions in every paragraph because the readers will "skim", for example. If we have to throw away every assumption on that, I could also reply that users can casually click on the collapsible box and read it before realizing what they clicked on -and it's not a far-fetched example: I click on collapsible boxes automatically all the time. --Cyclopia^talk 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo

I am Hans Von Albert of Germany and vould like to zay hello!!!!!!76.177.47.225 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jou Germans from the USA should know zat zee vee is not capitalised ven zee first name is given, and not all German/Americans speak like Arte Johnson let alone write in zat accent... You are very far from ze Favzerland, "Interesting... but not very funny!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Authority abandonment?

You became silent. The community regards it as an official agreement.As for Jinbo and Wikimedia Foundation, the management authority and the management rights other than English Wikipedia were abandoned. It is very regrettable. How will management and the management of each language version be done in the future?Whom is the domain of "wikipedia.jp" succeeded by?--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please send someone else to talk to me?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he thinks that you have forfeited ownership (or at least management) of Wikipedia Japan by not participating in discussions with them. I seem to recall one of the other messengers from Wikipedia Japan expressing a concern about this as well.--*Kat* (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

here. It was this same person. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what he is saying, I suppose. But he's absolutely wrong. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What I do wrong?.It will not explain Japanese community in you. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:山吹色の御菓子 is blocked indefinitely on ja.wikipedia; an explanation is here. 山吹色の御菓子 has made a series of allegations on Jimbo's talk page that are not clearly understandable[11] [12][13][14]. Plainly though it is a matter relating to Japanese Wikipedia rather than the English Wikipedia. 81.145.247.158 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In Japanese Wikipedia, sysop can be freely blocked. There is no policy. The reason why I am blocked it is because of harmful in sysop, and doesn't have the tangible reason. However, sysop is concluded without doing the check user. The act that I proposed Wikipedia:Office action and Wikipedia:Revision deletion is a block reason. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please write in Japanese so we can have someone here who understands both Japanese and English translate it into something intelligible. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd cease attempting to communicate with this editor. You've asked him to communicate in Japanese several times to be more understandable and he has refused, which feels like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He's also posted here at least twice before, and neither of those discussions went anywhere. He's been blocked from editing the Japanese Wikipedia, so I can't see him contributing productively here either. His continued posting here is grandstanding, plain and simple, and we shouldn't be encouraging him to continue. elektrikSHOOS 09:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I want you to refer（User talk:Jimbo Wales#wikipedia.jp and User:Tietew）. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia.jp and User:Tietew

The Japanese user is making references to the domain wikipedia.jp, so I made some research.

The Japanese Internet authority has its Whois service at http://whois.jprs.jp/en/ A query for the domain wikipedia.jp returns the following result:

Domain Information:
[Domain Name]                   WIKIPEDIA.JP
[Registrant]                    Tietew
[Name Server]                   ns1.tietew.jp
[Created on]                    2005/02/01
[Expires on]                    2011/02/28
[Status]                        Active
[Last Updated]                  2010/03/01 01:05:05 (JST)

All the contact information is invalid, so I will not repeat it here. (There is however a contact form available here.)

The domain tietew.jp contains a web page. More information is available at the About page:

• Twitter: @Tietew
• Wikimedias: see User:Tietew on meta

The Meta page makes the following statement: Tietew is a Japanese Wikipedian. A user box list his English skills as En-1. The page also lists a number of accounts:

• The account User:Tietew on the English language Wikipedia was last active in May 2007.
• Tietew (利用者:Tietew) is an administrator on the Japanese Wikipedia.

On the Japanese Wikipedia Tietew made his last edit on June 9, 2010 – to his appropriately named subpage ja:利用者:Tietew/activity. The subsection ドメイン contains the following additional information (as seen through Google Translate)

“ The following domains are owned by me, has kept at private expense.

• wikipedia.jp
• wikimedia.jp
• wikinews.jp
• wikimania.jp

Directly related to these domains and not the Wikimedia Foundation. No money changing hands.

”

I do see a potential for a real problem here. I do not think I need to go any deeper into this. At present wikipedia.jp redirects to the main page of the Japanese language version of Wikipedia. What would be the optimal solution is something like exists in France: The page wikipedia.fr is owned by Wikimédia France and serves as a portal to all Wikimedia projects.

Some additional trivia:

• I did not come across any personal information on Tietew , His user page only contains a copy of the template WP:IFPROXY
• Searching on the Japanese version of Google for "Wikipedia" does not return results for wikipedia.jp. This is most likely because Google dislikes redirects. The situation would change if the page had independent contents.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I remove == from title. This topic has no relation to above. He is admin of ja.wikipedia who mainly active in blocking of open-proxies. That domain is taken in maybe 4 or 5 years ago (old domain). As far as I know, That domain is reserved for future use of local chapter of Japan in good faith. Local chapter has not yet realized in Japanese region. If that reservation is problematic for foundation and people of foundation or so contact him, he would talk and may reply about it. I want to say one thing. I feel prejudice about "Japanese Wikipedia". --Was a bee (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

His main work is similar to User:ProcseeBot, checking port and if it is open-proxy, then block it 6 months. You can confirm his admin log.

• http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Tietew

And his user page IS NOT the copy of WP:IFPROXY. WP:IFPROXY IS the copy of his user page. You can check it at history of that page(through google trans).

--Was a bee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a message to Jimbo. If you want to know this more deeply, I think it is good to ask it to User:aphaia. She know well about old days of Wikimedia project of Japanese region, and if I am not mistaken, she is one of the friend of Tietew. Also she can speak English nicely. --Was a bee (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have already emailed her. I think there is no problem, Tietew is a known Wikipedian from a long time ago, and in many cases, community members registered domains for us to hold them away from spammers, etc. I'll also let the Wikimedia Foundation know what the situation is on this domain name once I get to the bottom of it. I really doubt there is any problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think there is no problem. Those domains has been taken in good faith, and we once asked WMF if they wanted to get them transferred. At that time, we got a informal reply like "no, thank you, we'd rather be grateful for you a trusted Wikipedian to hold them in your own expense". That is why an individual Wikipedia user holds those domains. And Was a bee pointed out, there is no Wikimedia chapter in Japan yet. If asked by WMF or a future chapter, those domains would be transferred without trouble, I believe. --Aphaia (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no 利用者:Tietew in effective syaop. If syaop does not edit it in Japanese Wikipedia for three months, they are made to resign automatically (ja:Wikipedia:管理者の辞任#自動退任について).He is Tuesday, February 23, 2010 04:47 It was not done since（ja:Wikipedia:管理者の辞任#管理者の自動退任）. The resignation was confirmed.However, he does not give back sysop authority.--222.150.138.24 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

His admin status has been confirmed in community by polling (ja:Wikipedia:管理者解任の投票/Tietew_20100602, through google trans). I want English speakers to know that how Japanese trolls anonymously spread distorted information about Japanese Wikipedia like this. Prejudices are come from there. If you have any doubts about Japanese Wikipedia, feel free to ask me, or post it to ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers like Petri Krohn did, or visit irc.freenode.net#wikipedia-ja channel on IRC (Although I am not active on IRC). Many Japanese are not good at English, like me, but many would try to respond your questions sincerely. --Was a bee (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

利用者:Tietew problem divided into "Automatic resignation in regulations" sect and "Exception" sect, and an intense discussion was done. It is a vote forced so that "Exception" sect may confirm it. Therefore, "Automatic resignation in regulations" sect is not participating（ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:管理者の辞任#自動退任にしたらどうか・ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:管理者解任の投票/Tietew_20100602#異議申立）. It is not in the act of normality. No one has decided the confirmation of the authority（ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:管理者の辞任#Tietew氏の処遇について）. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not wanting to pay for the domain registration costs is a bad excuse for not transferring the domains to WMF. I can only imagine... (retracted because of WP:BEANS). Does WMF really want to put their faith in the good will of users? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to hear it from Aphaia. With whom of Wikimedia Foundation did you speak?Can the content be clarified?The act is good intentions, and I feel that their act will contribute to Wikipedia in the future.However, the danger that it will be resold by owner's bankruptcy and others the way things are going cannot be prevented. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of a website from the external links section

Hi Jimbo,

This is Sigi. Please could you explain me the process how to get a page listed again in the external link section without removal. Our page - which is quite serious - is now removed after an entry.

Thank you in advance for your help! Sigi

You can reach me at sluger@vol.at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.232.82 (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You should probably review our external links guidelines. The link was removed because it was inappropriate, and I don't really see it adding to the articles, so there would really be no way around that. Also, you may wish to review the guidelines on conflict of interest—your use of "we" makes it seem you have a connection with this company, which generally means you shouldn't be inserting links for them anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)