User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Should en.Wikipedia medical articles have a prominent disclaimer?

As a WMF board member, you should be aware of this discussion. I'd appreciate an acknowledgment that you have seen this notice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why Anthonyhcole chose to link to a lone instance of inflammatory, obvious, and deleted trolling in his post. Since I presume his intent was to provide a neutral notification of an ongoing policy discussion, I imagine he must have meant to provide a useful link directly to the current version of the active RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the troll's satire, though inappropriate in that forum, emphasises the point most likely to interest the WMF. The board members engaged with en.Wikipedia know that vandals and good faith editors do add false dosing information, ineffective or dangerous treatments, etc. to our medical articles; they know that a portion of our readers think we're a reliable source; so they know that without a prominent disclaimer on our medical articles we're putting those readers at significantly greater risk.

If this RfC closes with no change, and the WMF doesn't act, all harm caused by dangerous information in our medical articles is their responsibility. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it very awkward to know that a site with such power as Wikipedia, that at the same time is so dysfunctional in certain areas, now appears to be a hazard for people looking to cure potentially life-threatening diseases, to be honest.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Evaluating legal disclaimers is for lawyers, not a few people camped out in a WikiProject. If you think Wikipedia is exposed to liability due to changing circumstances of how people use medical information, you should ask the lawyers to go over it and decide if the current disclaimer needs to be made more prominent (as Doc James suggested). If a more prominent disclaimer is actually required, it shouldn't be left for random users to add and remove from various articles, perhaps at the same time as they're vandalizing them. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a safety warning. It doesn't require a lawyer to decide if warning our readers "be careful, this article may be dangerous crap" is a good idea. It takes a sense of ethics and responsibility. Our existing medical disclaimer already says everything it needs to. All this is is an effort to draw readers' attention to it. — Scott • talk 16:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would think twice at giving sick people any advice as long as the quality of this advice can not be proven in a safe way. The last thing this project needs is someone dying because of receiving wrong advice from here.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

So do you also want parachute to have a disclaimer "Warning: do not rely on this information to rig a parachute release system", rattlesnake to have a disclaimer "Warning: this is not a reliable guide on how to handle a snake", snake handling to have a disclaimer "Really, don't do this, I don't care what your stupid religion is, it's obviously wrong!", etc.? Wnt (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This project has so much flaws that the pharmacy industry could easily infiltrate it by wrangling in a friendly administrator in a topic related to a medicinal product that noone knows of but a specific person affected by a disease could buy into the depiction although it is completely wrong. --37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, and if anybody else does, they are welcome to start a discussion on the topic. In the meantime, we can stick to the topic in hand, not slippery slope arguments. — Scott • talk 17:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's a good idea. Every time somebody comes up with a good idea, someone else comes up with a slippery slope or similar bogus reason for doing nothing, and the result is that nothing gets done. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, if a pharmacy company decides to release a "medicine" with severe side-effects that could get you killed or ruin your life and then gets Wikipedia to believe it is good stuff, there should be no warning, whatsoever, that this information is not guaranteed to be true, whatsoever.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get into generalities, then the generality is that the MEDRS-thumpers usually seem to find "ethics" to be satisfied best by removing stuff. This conflicts with the "ethics" of providing the sum of all human knowledge. Having been drawn here in the first place by the latter, I find this a problem. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, why the scare quotes around "ethics"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I recognize there is morality, which comes from a philosophical model of the universe and its purpose that can extend into politics and religion, and there is law and regulation, an amoral process in which people seek to prevent certain events they dislike through coercion, but I have yet to see evidence of a third category. For example, in medicine "ethics" is merely another word for "profit": even a patient who is absolutely dependent on a prescription medicine is denied the right to simply purchase it on his own initiative if he can't afford to pay a tribute to the doctors, his subsequent decline serving as an object lesson to others who might defy them. It is presently being made "unethical" to simply sequence someone's DNA and tell him what his genes are, lest this not qualify as a diagnosis subject to patent; the patient's knowledge of his predispositions is to be rationed, test by test, for hundreds or thousands of dollars each. Clearly knowledge about medical conditions, what their symptoms and treatments even are, is another valuable property some in the medical industry would like to put under lock and key so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. To be sure, the inclusionist's own "ethics" are not that different, except the profit is measured in material taken for open access and universal accessibility. This is actually a selfish act, because in the age of hundred-page EULAs, continual monitoring and revocability, only content that is truly free feels like it belongs to us at all. I would like to think in my case the belief is more fundamental, as I've opposed every form of censorship and have faith in the free exercise of thought, but I am not immune to the baser appeal. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your rambling, ranting comments are incoherent, irrelevant, and ignorant. I for one will not be paying attention to any further posts from you in this discussion. — Scott • talk 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, speaking of law and regulation as an "amoral process" is not much short of being severely immoral, inethical and inhuman, by itself. Any jurisdiction must be connected to moral and ethics. Anybody who thinks this is not the case should have no say, whatsoever, in such critical affairs.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you on that point, as I've noticed that very issue in a couple of articles. But that's beside the point; this is still a good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Coretheapple's point, it would be more accurate to say that some ideas, whilst seen by adherents to be beneficial, are not in alignment with the opinions of the wider editing community and thus fail to become policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Even though German Wikipedia is generally very dismissive of warning templates, there is a de:Vorlage:Gesundheitshinweis (similar to Template:Disclaimer medisch lemma, and there are dozens of interwikis). It is included in ~10.000 medical articles, at the bottom of the articles. For example compare de:Gemcitabine and Gemcitabine. For warning templates at the top: Say hello to banner blindness!

I would also seriously recommend to think about using flagged revisions on medical articles in enWP. I read a study about enWP showing that ~10% of damaging edits are viewed by 100+ persons. Deeper analysis shows that many of the associated survival times are quite short, and these are often the result of damage to extremely popular articles. This doesn't happen with flagged revisions, readers don't see unreviewed/vandal edits. Only logged users and the vandal (cookie) see the vandal edits, until they are reverted. Look at the page views of medical articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages and think about it. Right now, PendingChanges is activated only on 1,019‎ articles (0.02%) in enWP. According to Special:ValidationStatistics: "The average review delay for pages with edits currently pending review is 11 min 52 s; the delay measures how long the oldest pending edit has gone unreviewed." In November 2013 there were a total of 182 million page views on 27,870 medical articles. German Wikipedia is reviewing changes on all its 1,6 million articles. --Atlasowa (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What got me, having dealt with many outpatient MD/psychiatric staff, is a self-identified 'ER' health professional being allowed to sound off, using that tag, on general medical topics that an 'ER' would have minimal experience in. I've no issue with them using a plain old editor name to do so, like any one else, but why do they get to play 'Doctor' on Wikipedia where they'd never be allowed to in real life? AnonNep (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

AnonNep, I have to assume from the linked debate that you are referring to Jmh649 who uses the signature "Doc James". This editor discloses his real world identity. He is a physician named James Heilman, holds an M.D. degree, and is a clinical instructor on the faculty of the University of British Columbia. He has every right to call himself a medical doctor, since he is one. I don't see what his specialty in emergency medicine has to do with anything. If you were referring to another editor, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Seat filling

As noted there, I won't be filling this vacancy except at the request of the ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Filling_of_vacant_seat You may know about this already, but just in case, I thought I would drop a note here. And for what little it's worth, I support both WJBS's proposal (expand beeblebrox's term to 2 years and add guerillo for a 1 year term) and if preferred JV's suggestion of both of them merely for 1 year terms. And I don't mind if it's done by founder fiat (alliteration : ) - or if by way of a new community discussion : ) - jc37 19:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC) For clarification; has filling the seat been deemed: a given? Otherwise leaving the seat vacant seems also a choice; perhaps one you don't support?—John Cline (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Nothing is given. As I just said at the link above, there is no rule or policy that says the seat gets filled, and no rule or policy that says it remains vacant. Over the past few years at least, vacancies have not been filled. However, as far as I know there has never been a "resignation" before the person's term starts, and there is some discussion at the link above about whether this is really a "resignation" or someone declining to accept an appointment. (In the world outside Wikipedia I think it would generally be considered the latter, but Wikipedia often follows rules and terminology of its own.) To me it doesn't seem quite right that the seat remains vacant. In a sense, the election process has not really ended yet until the new term starts, and it would be reasonable to move the people "next in line" up one spot - the appointee to the one-year term to a two-year term, and the next person in line to the one-year term. This of course would be possible only if the next person in line received at least 50% support, which he did. Neutron (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC) To me it doesn't seem right that the rules of the road are changed in progress. We're just supposed to tack on an extra year to a term of what I believe to be a potentially problematic arb and elevate another based on, what exactly? There have been resignations every single year since the beginning of ArbCom and these have gone unfilled until the next election. The election ended, the new people were named, and then came a resignation. That means there should be a vacancy until a replacement can be elected to a one year term about 11 months hence. Carrite (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Cowboys at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files currently and for many years has required that the nomination process include the step of adding a tag to the image caption on any articles the image is on. This is to attract more attention to the deletion debate to see what should be done. Unless there's an objection, nominated files are deleted after 7 days. Several users and at least one Administrator is refusing to adhere to the requirement. This is like canvassing - it's an attempt to sway the discussion by improperly influencing who participates. Cowboys--Elvey (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Stated in the abstract like this, of course it sounds like you are making a reasonable point. However, to help others who are interested in the issue examine and discuss it in a productive way it would be helpful to do a few things: First, link us to the relevant discussion. Second, name and quote the administrator in question. Third, invite that person to come and discuss it here as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to keep the message short, to avoid tl;dr… but here goes: "First, link us to the relevant discussion." => It's at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files (which I linked to already) in particular, this section and others indicate @Stefan2: had told users that it wasn't necessary, saying "The usual thing is to not add any {{puff}} image. Also, non-addition of that template is not a reason to keep a file."

Also, this section indicates @Anna Frodesiak: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions), and after notification there, said she had done so, but hadn't, but then did (diff) after a second notification, even though she had been told there by @ТимофейЛееСуда: that it wasn't necessary. IMO, the only thing Anna did wrong that merits further attention is that she relied on Twinkle, and that attention should be on Twinkle, not on Anna, who I notify merely as a courtesy.

Also, section [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files#File:Beanie_babies_sock_money_1.jpg]indicates @ShakespeareFan00: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions).

Also, section [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files#File:Ryansfancygroup.jpg]indicates @Leoboudv: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions), and after notification there, said s/he had done so, but hadn't, but then s/he did go back and do so after notice was given - (diff) even though @ТимофейЛееСуда: said, incorrectly, that Leoboudv had correctly tagged it initially.

Also, section [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files#File:Martine_Harte_(nee_Griffiths).jpg]indicates @Stefan2: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions). And isn't responding to my request to do so about that or any of the users' many other contemporaneous PUF nominations.

(edit in progress - to be continued.)

Also, section [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files#File:Beanie_babies_sock_money_1.jpg]indicates @ShakespeareFan00: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions).

"Second, name and quote the administrator in question." I can't tell which are admins on commons. ShakespeareFan00, (AKA SFan00_IMG) performs many administrative tasks using scripts to perform actions IN BULK that remain a problem (CN discussion and link to ANI discussion). (Commons is down for me. Details in a hidden comment:)

"Third, invite that person to come and discuss it here as well." Done with pings, above.--Elvey (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO the problem here is that Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is out-of-step with the rest of the deletion process. Compare to the main WP:Articles for Deletion, where the notification aspect is under a separate header at Wikipedia:AFD#After_nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, i.e. it is considered a courtesy, not an obligation. Wikipedia:Files for deletion has it listed n the instruction box, but prefaced with "If the image is in use, also consider...". All the others contain similar language about notification of contributors, etc...being nice but not mandatory. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Tarc, your link was broken; I made the obvious fix.) Wikipedia:AFD#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors does indeed currently say: "While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see below), nominators…" in fact, Twinkle, when used for AfD DOES notify the relevant users, by editing the page to be deleted, which is likely to be watched by the bulk of relevant users. OTOH, Twinkle when used for PUF, does NOT notify notify the relevant users, because it does NOT edit the page which is likely to be watched by the bulk of relevant users, namely the page (or pages) on which the file is used. Users are responsible for their edits with Twinkle, but the immediate cause for the failure to follow policy seems to be largely due to Twinkle. I think @Anna Frodesiak:'s final comment there (at PUF) strongly supports this contention.--Elvey (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting a click-and-forget thing like a PROD. I raised it here: By the way, you must find it frustrating that users don't follow the 3 steps properly. I was one, maybe because Twinkle handles it like it handles a PROD. It just says it's notifying and creating the entry, etc. I never saw any message saying that I was supposed to tag images in articles. I never knew about the 3 steps. Did I miss some information message somewhere? Could this be one of the reasons that people tag incorrectly? and then started a thread here: Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files#Using Twinkle - Step III omitted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bright Line Rule: self-COI exception?

Jimbo, since you are an expert at the Bright Line Rule and presumably User:Guy Macon is not, could you speak to Macon's claim that the Bright Line Rule does not apply to User:28bytes' authoring a Wikipedia article about a software product that he was also marketing for sale to the public? Does the Bright Line Rule really only apply to "paid advocates", while those with a personal and direct financial conflict of interest are exempt? - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was quoting one of the multiple occasions where Jimbo has made it crystal clear what his bright line rule is and is not.

"The Bright Line Rule is about paid advocacy editing - i.e. someone who is being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer. Nothing even remotely similar to that is involved here. While the edit might be legitimately be debated on other grounds, the Bright Line Rule as a best practice has nothing whatsoever to do with this kind of case."[1] -- Jimbo Wales, 5 December 2013 (Emphasis Added)

I would also point out that the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this is also crystal clear:

Wikipedia:No paid advocacy

Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit

For the record, I fully agree with the advice found in our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you have selected one instance where there was no financial conflict of interest (the spouse of a spouse's client), and then used it to try to apply to this instance where there was a financial conflict of interest. At best, you're being naive; at worst, disingenuous. Let's wait for Jimmy Wales to respond; obviously, the intent of the question was not to gain your opinion about your opinion. - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than speaking to the specific example, about which I know too little to comment, I would say that in principle there is no material difference between being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer just because one is self-employed. I wouldn't regard that as an exception at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought you would say, Jimmy, and I agree. Thank you for confirming my belief that Guy Macon was off base in his assessment of the Bright Line Rule. - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Every time I add an image to Commons, and in particular Wikipedia, I am in deliberately raising my exposure, which in turn may raise sales of my images. Should I stop? Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Every Wikipedian who does good work may impress someone somewhere and in some way improve their financial situation as a result. That isn't the point. As a side note, I have not given much thought to COI at Commons but it strikes me that because commons functions as a repository, the issues become somewhat different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If the bright line rule applies to the self-employed, then it's even closer to conflicting with BLP than I thought. People are normally allowed to edit articles about themselves under certain circumstances. If editing an article about your employer is prohibited, and that applies to cases where your employer is yourself, that would seem to prohibit you from editing an article about yourself.

(Note that it is no answer to say "you're only prohibited if there's a financial interest"--the whole point of saying that you count as your own employer is to state that your personal interest is equivalent to the employee's financial interest. If being self-employed is like being paid, and being paid means you can't edit an article with the wrong birthdate for your boss, then you can't edit an article with the wrong birthdate for yourself either.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The BLP emergency exceptions trump everything. Even in BLP situations, best practice under the bright line rule is not to edit about yourself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But of course exceptions for emergency situations are valid. There is no conflict at all between the Bright Line Rule and BLP - they are 100% consistent and while there may be some interesting borderline cases (1) I can't think of any and (2) they will be borderline cases just as all rules have borderline cases and therefore not valid objections to the general principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are exceptions for any reasons, even BLP emergencies, then the rule isn't so bright line any more, is it?

Furthermore, if there are exceptions, wouldn't the argument for having such exceptions work in reverse? That is, if you normally can't edit an article about yourself but you can under the BLP emergency exception, why wouldn't there be a BLP emergency exception letting you edit an article about your boss, with a similar justification? Sure, the latter is different because you could always phone up your boss and ask him to make the change himself, but I doubt that that's what you're suggesting. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia takes action against a PR person for removing clear defamation about his company, we're going to have a PR problem ourselves. WP:IAR means that there are no "bright line rules" without exception, except the one about trying to improve the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} 00:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The most wonderful time of the year?

This matter was raised at WP:AN and can be further appealed to ArbCom. Further ban evasion and grandstanding should be avoided.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo, Two years ago I was banned from Wikipedia. I am not going to discuss what I was banned for, and how it was conducted. I only say that I have not violated any Wikipedia policy, and that not only I have no regrets for doing what I was banned for, but I truly believe it was the best thing I've done for Wikipedia.It was better than hundreds of featured pictures I uploaded and one hundred popular DYK I wrote combined. Jimbo, I was editing under my real name, which was displayed on the images I uploaded. Only because of this being banned from Wikipedia is hurting me in my real life. I am not interested in touching any Wikipedia site ever again. Jimbo, Wikipedia would be much better off, if it learned to let people go. Now is the most wonderful time of the year, when anything could happen. Let's see if this applies to Wikipedia. I simply want Wikipedia to let me go, which in my situation means unblocking my account with an edit summary "Peace". You could globally lock my account, if you want to, I don't care, at least it will not be displayed in the public records. So, is this truly the most wonderful time of the year, when anything could happen, Jimbo? I am doing this not only for myself, but for others like me. I know at least one other person in a similar situation, but there are probably more. Happy New Year! Mbz1 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.122.249 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I am a big fan of letting people walk away with dignity. There are times when recriminations and blame are not productive for anyone. But I'm not sure what your concrete request is. To unblock you with the summary of "peace" but then to "globally lock" your account? What does that mean exactly? (Not saying I will do it, just interested in thinking about whether something like that could be done.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I wish we were better at letting people return with dignity. I guess it's my preference. Happy New Year; Jimbo and all!—John Cline (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I broached this idea to Alison some weeks ago, but she seems to be on break. I regret the words of acrimony I have directed at Mbz1 in the past, and IMO feel that it is about time to find a way to put this to rest with a real solution. Why don't we...well not "we" we, as I have no authority or power...simply unblock Mbz1's account, delete user & talk pages, and she will agree to not sock or edit with the main account. It doesn't really have to be a "forever" thing, perhaps after a clean year or so Mbz can return to the project. Or not, entirely up to her. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, John and Tarc! Jimbo, most people who asking to be unblocked are doing this because they like to return to editing. I on the other hand asked you to replace the ban with a global lock because it is my understanding, and I might be wrong, that global lock does not appear in public records. Of course it would have been much better, if I simply were unblocked, but even in the most wonderful time of the year it probably is not going not happen. That's why my only concern now is my real life well being. As I explained to you I was editing under my real name, which was displayed on all hundreds of images I uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons. After the ban I replaced my real name with a pseudonym on each and every image I uploaded, but even now, when I google my real name and my user ID together I am getting more than 8,000 hits. No matter what I am doing people always find out my real name, and it is a very scary experience for me me because of the ban. Mbz1 (talk) 71.202.122.249 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Hello Mbz1. I am going to ask you five questions. First, when dealing with editors who have been community banned, we often refer to the idea of WP:OFFER. Essentially, in order to prove their good will and their ability to exercise a little self control in the future, banned editors are merely asked to spend six months completely away from Wikipedia. Not evading their block to edit quietly; not evading their block to edit noisily. Just... not editing. Needless to say, if they can achieve this then their request gains a great deal of credibility. If they cannot achieve it, their request's credibility suffers somewhat. It's not a prerequisite or even a sufficient condition... just a benchmark that's sometimes useful. So, keeping that in mind, could you tell us when was the last time that you evaded your block in order to say on Wikipedia that it was appropriate to call a named editor (they edit with their real name) "a little shit"? Was it, say, within the last 36 hours, within the last 72 hours, within the last week, within the last month, within the last three months, or more than six months ago? Second, is it true that you sent an email, to numerous other editors whom you believed agreed with your viewpoint, describing a Wikipedia administrator in good standing as an "anti-semite"? Third, is it true that you sent a private email asking another editor to approve your article - which had a rather anti-Palestinian tone - to appear on Wikipedia's main page? Fourth, what have you done to make up for that behaviour, in the intervening several years? Fifth, why do you think that, after several years of your engaging in problematic behaviour after being banned, the Wikipedia community is likely to have confidence that you will cease these types of behaviours if you are unbanned? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC) When people are worrying about Wikipedia during "the most wonderful time of the year" and their (life-)time is spoiled by this site, I think there's too much influence on people's day-to-day life...--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Yes indeed. I think when people talk about desperately wanting to leave, but actually can't stop evading their block every 48 hours to insult people that they have years-old grudges against, that's a sign they have a problem that some minor technical tweaks like replacing a "ban" with a "lock" won't help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC) As I am not aware of the specifics, I can't and do not want to arrogate a judgement on this specific case, but I have seen countless users being treated unfairly and dismissively by the "deciders" of this site and consequently, I am not very sure that it is always the user's fault and that the "overall system and rules" do not contribute to these kinds of altercations...--37.230.8.60 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Demiurge, you really have no place in this discussion, as it is quite obvious that you lack the capacity to let old grudges go. That is a problem that plagues this project, it's like A Taste of Armageddon; people have fought so long that the original reasons why they began to fight are no longer relevant, they just keep fighting out of spite and of habit. Let it go, trust me, you'll feel better in the morning. It no longer matters what you did or what Mbz did in the past. Release your anger, young padawan. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC) It is indeed best to move on from the past. Problem is, the past is less than twelve hours ago for Mbz1. When she feels able to change that, she will truly be able to move on. And I wish her (and you) all the best in that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I am not going to respond your questions, demiurge1000. We've already talked about it many times. I'll only mention for other people that demiurge1000 questions are built on the "evidences" he got directly, by his own request from the hacker of my email account or from his accomplice and from the user who wrote an email to me impersonating a member of the Arbcom back then user:PhilKnight. Demiurge1000 told me a few days ago that he believes that hackers of private email accounts and impersonates of the members of the Arbcom are heroes. I came here tonight, in the most wonderful time of the year not to make a new drama, but to make peace, not to be tried, but to be understood. I am not asking to be simply unbanned. I am asking that my ban be replaced with a global lock only to protect my real life well being. I am not interested in editing Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia site ever again. I assure you Wikipedia and Wikipedians will be safe from me. Mbz1 (talk) 71.202.122.249 (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Don't you think Colton Cosmic should be far ahead of you in any such dispensations? Don't you think you should make an effort to apologise for what you did to other real people on this website, regardless of how it came to pass that I and others found out about what you did? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I have no idea who is Colton Cosmic. Apologize? Well, I am not an angel. If I started editing Wikipedia now, I would have done many things differently, but I did not do anything to other real people that I feel like apologizing for, and demiurge1000. please stop trolling. I told you already I am not asking to be allowed back to Wikipedia. It is not an appeal. The only thing I am asking for is letting me go with peace. Mbz1 (talk) 71.202.122.249 (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Are you prepared to let others go with peace? Are you prepared to apologise to those whom you have insulted and harassed over the last several years? Do you think your behaviour has had no effect on them? Do you think it felt welcoming for me, as a new editor to Wikipedia, that I was told if I revealed the truth about your behaviour behind the scenes, I would be indefinitely blocked for telling the truth? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC) No demi, I do not feel that people should be made to [apologize] to pseudonymous people in that manner. It won't hurt anyone or anything to just give this a shot, for those that are cynical here. Unblock and see what happens. The worse-case scenario is that you re-block, but I don't think there'll ever be a need. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Tarc, you've had a couple too many, and your first sentence there doesn't parse. Regardless, I have no particular objections to the community ban of Mbz1 being overturned if the community feels that is useful, compassionate, or appropriate. I also don't have any objection to Jimbo overturning it unilaterally, should he wish to, though I would expect him to refer it to the community after doing so. (The ban was originally imposed at WP:AN I think.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC) The word "apologize" was missed, yes. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Mbz, I am already 1 sheet in towards the final tally to hit by midnight, so I must be off. I'll check in in the morning (though more likely post-noon) to see how this has gone. Until then, Happy Holidays & New Year to you and your family. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Tarc. Same to your family to you. It was worth editing Wikipedia to get to know real you! Demiurge1000, you're saying "regardless of how it came to pass that I and others found out about what you did?" Please talk only bout yourself: For example, PhilKnight (as every decent person writes: "Mbz1, just to clarify, there is no way I'm going to consider evidence obtained by hacking. ". Once again I came here not to defend myself, and not to create a drama, and not to be allowed back to Wikipedia. Still, if you could present any on-wiki diff I "harassed" somebody, and I mean "harassed" I will definitely consider an apology. For your information this is what is "harassment". I was never involved in 1.1 Wikihounding 1.2 Threats 1.3 Perceived legal threats 1.4 Posting of personal information 1.5 Private correspondence 1.6 User space harassment On the other hand you, demiurge1000, are my worst wikihound and you, demiurge1000 did post my private correspondence, which was not even addressed to you. You've harassed me, demiurge1000, and continue harassing me even now cowardly hiding behind your anonymity. But I don't care about your apology because an apology should not be forced. It should come from one's heart. Mbz1 (talk) 71.202.122.249 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC) The person responsible for your private correspondence is you; and I will still consider Edward Snowden a hero regardless of what you think of him and any other whistleblower. Because, quite frankly, I don't consider your opinion worth a single penny piece. Except, mind you, on the little proposal I just made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for disappearance of Mbz1. Have a nice day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Jimbo, with demiurge1000 around this tread is going nowhere, but I'd like to remind you a story you once told me. Remember you told me about a vandal, a really bad one, and nobody could stop him until you asked him to stop, but you did it nicely. You told me that the only thing that vandal needed was to be asked to stop nicely. I am not a vandal, but I'd like to be treated with dignity, and not only me, many other banned users are not vandals. Wikipedia would be better off without banning, without templating the user pages, without listing named people in the banned user list attaching their names to a bunch of lies that were told about them, when they were not even allowed to respond. Try a different approach. Treat people with dignity, and I'm sure it would be a far better solution for both people and Wikipedia. Mbz1 (talk) 71.202.122.249 (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I've just gone to the trouble of typing out a proposal to give you, Mbz1, everything that you've asked for here, and I posted it in the place where it can be made to happen (linked above). Why is this not good enough for you? What is it, exactly, that you want? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC) You know, but I will explain to others why: It is a striking reminder of the so called "community" ban discussion when mostly involved and mostly anonymous users including yourself, Russavia Night Ranger (see the last edit summary of the user before he retired ) were telling lies about me, the lies to which I was not allowed to respond.You started that AN thread in purpose, and you reached the result you wanted to reach. Nothing has changed. I mean now a heavily involved with me (only one diff, but there are many many more) Jéské Couriano doesn't want to give me "a free pass". "A global lock" = "a free pass"? Really? It would have been funny, if it wasn't so sad. BTW, Demiurge1000, I don't understand why you keep bringing Edward Snowden, in the content of discussing the hacker of my private email account. You don't compare Snowden to the hackers of private email accounts, don't you, demiurge1000, because if you do I think it is a BLP violation. Mbz1 (talk) 76.126.140.118 (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC) He probably wants Wikipedia to be fair and righteous, before you speak up to its owner, I reckon.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Jimbo, I hope you realize I am not asking for a "free pass". Blocks are used to prevent disruption not to punish a named person. I am not asking to be unbanned (not because the ban was fair, but because I'm too tired proving I have harassed nobody). I am asking that my ban be replaced with a global lock. It could be done. I know it is done for pedophiles. Their reputation is protected on Wikipedia. It was also done for one editor on his own request. He was globally locked, but his accounts were left unblocked. Jimbo, I wanted to make it simple, but my attempt has failed. Now I know the most wonderful time of the year does not apply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is always the same. Happy New Year one more time! Mbz1 (talk) 76.126.140.118 (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I don't know if meta would impose a global lock on request, they are kind of odd over there. I'd really just angle for the unblock here with the promise of retirement, I don't see on what basis it should be refused. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'm going to hat this to prevent further ban evasion and grandstanding. Jimmy, feel free to revert if you think it's a good idea to continue this discussion on wiki. I don't see how that possibly could be, because many of the relevant bits of information are not available for public review. This looks like an ideal matter for ArbCom to handle. Jehochman Talk 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please let Jimbo answer first

It has happened a myriade of times, but hey, this is Jimbo's page and people are mostly trying to get an answer from the founder himself and do not want to have anybody else to have his words cut short and forestall a genuine reaction!--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I generally consider Jimbo's replies here to be the result of careful thought, not an instantaneous "genuine reaction". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read my line carefully (although I am not a native speaker and it might be ambigious): What I meant was that other people are reacting to requests, prior to Jim, and therefore influencing the direction of the disussion. With a "genuine reaction" I meant that the founder should have the first opportunity to reply and once he has done so, others should reply. When things go the other way round, I think there's a case of taking the word out of the addressee's mouth.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is a wiki page and I'm a Wikipedian. I read it every day (well, almost every day although I suppose there might be 5 days a year when I don't). But even so, lots of other people read this page every day as well. It's ok for conversations to be asynchronous to some extent, otherwise things would be slowed down. Also, sometimes people are just asking a question that any number of people could answer. Also, sometimes I overlook particular discussions (we don't have a great notification system so when this page is very long, I may scan over it and miss things. Also, also, also.

For the most part, my answers are the result of longstanding principles that I have been articulating for years, to an extent that lots of people could guess accurately what I'm going to say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bumptious and cocky behaviour by "officials"

Honestly speaking, a number of "responsibles" or "officials" of this site actually do behave more hubristic and overbearing than the worst big-headed cops you will encounter in real life.

This doesn't mean that there's not a whole lot of good people inside this system, but the number of "black sheep" seems to increase on a daily basis.

When I say that people are getting banned without any prior warning, without giving any kind of accountability, line of argument or giving of evidence, there can be no other conclusion that some things have gone utterly wrong and people are treated unfairly and morally AND legally wrong. Given the fact that this site was envisioned by a person who I believe to be genuinely righteous (and maybe a bit "bona fide"???) I think it is time to think about changes and improvements to the overall system! For anybody who has been banned because of an intrigue pr cocky and overbearing behaviour by a "cop" will contribute to the fraction of people who think Wikipedia is doing wrong to the people and the planet as a whole , and in the end, and given some more years of time, there will be so many opponents that have a grudge on this whole project that it could go to waste. (Or the people betrayed by it will do so...)--37.230.8.60 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's generally best to raise a specific case for our reflection and consideration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Again I agree this occurs on a regular basis. Just watch ANI or AE for a while and you'll see this abuse first hand. Arbcom routinely blocks editors in cases and lets admins off scott free for much worse activity than the editors were guilty of. Then those that escape usually get banned from the site by AE within a coupe weeks because "broadly construed" wording means the admins and especially AE can block with unlimited discretion regardless of how tangential the edit really was. We shouldn't be blocking people because they have a sanction on political articles and get blocked for editing New York because politicians live there. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem with purely substituting hypotheticals for actual examples. Who was blocked for editing New York because politicians live there? If the answer is "no one" then it's really hard to take this complaint very seriously. With a realistic example we can explore what happened and think about what could be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo it happens all the time and the fact that you are so blinded by good faith frankly shows the naivety you have for the project. If I were to give you one example, there would be arguments for and against. The absolute best thing for you to do would be to spend the time and look at the blocks levied by Arbitration enforcements and especially User:Sandstein. So not take our word for it, look for yourself and perform somedue diligence.108.45.104.69 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Users denying IP's comments on their discussion pages

There's a user who's openly admitting that he does not answer any requests by IP-Adresses on his disc.

Coincidentally, this user is abusing Wikipedia as a tool to satisfy his personal sense of inferiority by trying to defame and villainize an historical person he despises due to a "personal aversion". Moreover, he thinks his mission is to tell the world that the Wikipedia-featured historical person is not only a villain, but that his death was self-inflicted, but the reality, including a substantial number of well-respected authors, who he is ignoring to the extreme, speak quite a different language.

Unfortunately, he has a number of influential friends among the administrators, who let him go with the greatest kinds of breaches of Wikipedia policies, just because they are "friends".

It is freaking one out when you know there's a POV-soldier talking shit, abusing an historical person and lay the blame on his tragic death, on the one side, but when this "person" is also pulling every imaginable trick to pull "opponents" inside Wikipedia into the dirt, I think there's more than one line crossed!--37.230.8.60 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if you gave some specifics to your widespread accusations I would know better what the devil you're talking about. KonveyorBelt 06:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are several users who have stated openly they don't respond or talk to IP's. Some actively delete their comments off their talk pages. IP's can't vote in RFA's, Arbcom or do a variety of other things. This site has a long history of being opposed to IP editors. Regardless of the talk about being an encyclopedia anyone can edit, that is far from the truth. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason IPs can't !vote is because this would allow one user with a dynamic address to vote dozens of times. If there are indeed users who refuse to talk to IPs, then please mention some more details so we can deal with this in an orderly fashion. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure that's always possible, but even when someone vote with a username and no other edits the vote is typically ignored, same thing here. If there are no other edits, or only vandalism then they would just be ignored. Also the same argument keeps coming out that IP's can't be trusted but they have never been allowed to vote so how do we know? We don't and if foul play is suspected then a check user has the authority to check that out. The bigger problem is the very real problem and wide scale perception that IP's are nothing but vandals. People say there is no problem but then nothing is done to editors who blindly revert an IP's edits, block IP's for no reason or generally mistreat IP editors. When the project and Jimbo start treating the problem seriously, the problems will stop. A large percentage of vandals (not all of course) of vandals are editors who were mistreated. That is a commonly known problem. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jimbo Wales!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Jimbo Wales: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Yeah, happy 2014 to Jimbo and all Wikipedia users, honestly (but also including those who have been fighting for justice and have been banned, indiscriminately and for no substantial reason).--37.230.8.60 (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators publishing numbers of the users they banned

To not single out any "officials, who behave quite frankly", I will first only post this:

There's an admin who is so proud of the number of people he "put in jail" or, more specific, his "personal dungeon" that he includes numbers of this on his user page.

While this may be bad enough, he also isn't ashamed of the sheer number of people he berobbed of their freedom,

but, please hold tight, the number is something like

1576 Users !

I can't imagine someone being proud of imprisoning hundreds of people, but this guy is, indeed! A crazy world this was, in 2013. --37.230.8.60 (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, blocking someone from Wikipedia isn't really putting them in jail. But in general I don't think such numbers are useful really. If someone is on vandalism patrol, though, then doing 1576 blocks is not evidence of wrongdoing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo this has been a problem for a long time. We have a bot going through and blocking thousands of IP's that have never even edited just on the principle of them being IP's/Proxies. One of the key reasons that edits and new editors are declining is because this community is blocking them at an increasing rate. Its only matter of time before this site goes to an edit with a username only policy and frankly so much content is protected at this point it won't belong before you have to be an admin to edit. If you aren't seeing this then perhaps you need to get out of the office and into the trenches and edit more. My suggestion would be to create an alternate username and edit as a new user or IP to see how they are being treated. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no chance of Wikipedia changing to a username-only policy. Jimbo and the Powers That Be always speak out strongly on behalf of IP editing. Also, see WP:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that really addresses the IP's point. I can confirm that unregistered users really are treated appallingly. I often have to revert editors blindly undoing an IP's hard work, only requiring an obvious reference or a bit of formatting. Sometimes, really worryingly often actually, I have to undo regular editors undoing IP editors removal of vandalism. Often the IPs will get reported for 'blocking'. 1576 is nothing - dude should check out WP:ADMINSTATS. But perhaps there's so many blocks because there's so many vandals. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, actual examples would be useful!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I will leave the IPs to do their own whinging. This type of thing can still be seen. You should try it some time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok Jimbo, how about the widescale blocking of IP's by a bot here. Thousands of them solely because they are "proxies" Now, 10 years ago that made sense because proxies were mostly used by hackers and the like. But with increased computer security threats proxies are now common internet/network security practice. This is done by Colleges, Schools, government organizations, top 100 companies and even service providers like Verizon and Comcast. So blocking thousands of IP's that have never done 1 edit with the justification that they are proxies is a waste of time, system resources and is abusive to potentia editors based purely on bad faith. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Open proxies are entirely different than the proxies you discuss. AOL famously proxied outbound requests, and we allow those edits because the underlying IP is exposed through the X-Forwarded-For header. Can you clarify how editors are being disadvantaged by this in ways that aren't addressed through the IP-block exception or the unblock request tracker? LFaraone 21:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is a difference but that difference is subtle and you can't honestly tell me that this isn't preventing people from editing? Besides the fact that these IP's have never even edited at all and we are blocking them based on the assumption they will. That is completely counter to AGF. Yes blocking them prevents them from vandalism, but so does not allowing anyone to edit and that isn't a good way to help the project either. Yes, actually a good example is the fact that we need Account creators. If it weren't for the fact that we block so many IP's from editing, we wouldn't need account creators at all. Add to that the fact of most people not wanting to take the extra time to learn that there is an account creator and just not bothering with it and leaving. Wikipedia has too any rules to learn as it is, there is no need to further antagonize the problem be not allowing them to edit at all. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference isn't subtle. Open proxies are open, and can be used by anybody on the Internet. The other ones I described cannot. LFaraone 22:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There is still zero point in blocking an address that has never edited and its still assuming bad faith. It shouldn't matter where the edit comes from or who does it, if it contributes positively to the project. If the IP is performing vandalism then by all means block it. Its obvious to me at this point that I'm preaching to deaf. If you want to make the project better and allow people to contribute, then allow them to do so. If you want to keep the project in a weakened state and allow a limited number of people to edit in an environment controlled by a few, then keep things how they are. Jimbo created this place with the mantra it was an encyclopedia anyone could edit, now prove it and allow them to do so. Quite being lazy and blocking tens of thousands of IP's just to save the admins a couple of blocks a day. If they want the job volunteers or not, they signed on to do it. If they don't want the work then don't apply. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's you that's missing the point: the IPs that are being blocked as open proxies have no valid purpose: they are generally machines hijacked by botnets, and frequently machines specifically configured to allow wrongdoers to cover their tracks. Blocking them doesn't discourage good-faith editors from editing Wikipedia because no good-faith editors would use them to edit.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Back on track: I remember seeing something like this yesterday. The OP is probably referring to the Template:Admin dashboard/rfarfp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The original point raised by 37.230.8.60 was that some people may take offence at an admin flaunting the number of accounts they've berobbed of their freedom. But one might argue that people who have had their editing thwarted by an administrator (for whatever reason) need little reason to feel aggrieved and may complain about any perceived flaw that presents itself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Honey - I shrunk Wikipedia...

• "Honey – I shrunk Wikipedia!"
  • "That's nice, Dear. Bring your little friends and come upstairs - dinner's ready."

(In your dreams... The {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} is usually un-shrinking: (6,912,802. :)

Of course, it's not the numbers, but the people of Wikipedia that matter most. We take too much for granted. It is troubling to realize that a lot of our friends have shrunk into inactivity because no one has appeared to appreciate anything they did – not even a simple "thank" notification. We can do better.

Anyway, I mainly wanted to thank Jimbo and all his little friends who have been an encouragement to me this past year in many ways. All my best to everyone in 2014. (05:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC))
(Triple-click here to be of good cheer. —Telpardec  TALK  :)

• "Honey – I shrink-wrapped Jimbo's talk page!"
  • "Don't worry, Clue Bot, it will grow back."

---

Happy New Year, Jimbo Wales

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment You Made

While I not get into the IP mess you two are talking about, I do think you are wrong when you said that User:Wehwalt was "out of touch" with the community.

Not only is Wehwalt "in touch" with the community, he has done more for it than most of the editors on here. At present, he has 100 FAs (more than anyone), numerous GAs, numerous DYKs, and 15 WP:FOUR awards (not the most, but still not bad). The articles he has worked on span the spectrum from coins, to history, to politics, to law, to sports, to towns in the US. He works with other editors on their articles (myself included) and gives advice when and where needed. While he is an admin, he typically doesn't get involved in normal admin stuff (ie: blocking). He is the kind of editor that more Wikipedians should be like.

So, he isn't "out of touch" and to say he is shows that he might have been correct, that you are out of touch with the community. Just one editor's opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh well

• Jimbo, I came to you here at the this the most wonderful time of the year to ask you, a named person, to replace my ban with a global lock. I explained to you why I asked for this. Instead the discussion was hijacked by a heavily involved demiurge1000 and now closed by a heavily involved Jehochman.
• Jimbo, I asked for letting me go,and explained to you why. Instead I was treated as I am posing a great danger to the very existence of Wikipedia. My IPs were blocked, my comments were removed, and in the end my request was denied, like if my request were accepted it would have endangered Wikipedia.
• Jimbo, here's what I'd like to tell you. Wikipedia will be much better off, if it learned to be humane, if it learned to let people go, if it learned to allow the discussed persons to be a part of the discussions concerning themselves like this is done in the free civilized word at least at the most wonderful time of the year. Happy New Year! 69.181.41.193 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You should know by now that Wikipedia is not humane. Its more like Sparta with Arbco acting as Spartacus. They even have a pit to kick their enemies into. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is madness. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that Spartacus never visited Sparta (he was a bit busy during his fairly short and brutal lifetime), and was not known for kicking people down wells. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

True, the Romans had a way to deal with their version of 6000 guys in Guy Fawkes masks, and you might say it was "above board". Wnt (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Book Recommendation

Hi there Jimbo-- I was wondering whether you've read/plan to read The Circle by Dave Eggers. It's a book about privacy and the sharing of information which is obviously very relevant to Wikipedia. If you haven't read it I highly suggest you consider doing so.

Thanks and Happy New Year! Newyorkadam (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Interestingly I got it as a Christmas gift. I hope to start reading it tonight. Normally I only get time enough to do long reading when I'm on a long plane trip by myself, and I don't have any of those scheduled for a bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello Jimbo I've just emailed you. The subject line is "Hi Sir". 199.195.250.120 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocking this page so IP's can't edit

I'm officially declaring today to be Relaxation Thursday. So, relax.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know, with all the discussion on this page about abuse of IP editors it shocks and appalls me that some admin would really have the balls to block the page so only established accounts can edit. That action was complete shitty and classless and only shows the validity of the IP's statements on this page. Further Jimbo has stated repeatedly that his talk page should be left as is. If I were Jimbo I would be pissed. Jehochman you should be ashamed of yourself and frankly if I had the admin tools I would revert that action as baseless and rude. Kumioko (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC) There has been heavy socking by at least one banned editor who has been IP hopping. If you check the logs of this page you will see it has been semi protected very frequently due to this exact same problem. Nothing special about this. Kumioko, are you using this routine action as an excuse to complain about me in furtherance of some past disagreement you've had with me? Wikipedia is not for feuding. I note that you did not ask me to explain my action. You simply started flaming me. Do you think that's a good way to collaborate? Jehochman Talk 05:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, but as Jimbo was conversing with the person in question, ipso facto it cannot be considered a disruptive act for them to post here. Reversion, hatting, and ultimately semi-protecting are quite unnecessary here. Tarc (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I don't think Jimmy wants to be treated any differently than any other editor. We can ask if he wants his page to be exempted from the usual rules. Mbz1 has been griefing our editors for a long time. That's why she's been community banned. It's not fair to the victims that this behavior be encouraged on this page, or any other. There's no rush. When Jimmy gets back online he will state what he wants and we can all try to accommodate. I'm also not sure Jimmy remembers the facts of the matter or if he even realized that the IP hopper was a banned editor. Had he known that, I suspect he would have encouraged her to respect the ban and suggested that she email for help. Note that I've offered to courtesy blank any content on Wikipedia that's hurting her in real life. All she needs to do is email the urls or page names. If I don't have the necessary access I will get help from somebody who does. Jehochman Talk 06:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I concur with Tarc on this. Jimbo was conversing with the person, and this is his talk page. If he wanted to prevent them commenting here, he wouldn't have engaged them in what has been so far a peaceful and useful conversation. I'm not going to start a wheel war with you, Jehochman, but you are simply wrong here. I hope that either a consensus among admins emerges to undo what you have done, or that Jimbo does it himself. — Scott • talk 10:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC) @Jehochman:. No as far as I know I have never had a problem with your edits before. I have all but given up editing this place and no one wants to collaborate so why start now. That's one of the major problems with this place and one of the driving factors why I don't edit anymore. The circumstances surrounding this discussion and the general way that IP's and users in general are treated on this site is just more evidence that I don't need to waste my time contributing to it anymore. I plan on making this my last edit. Kumioko (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Jimbo hatted a thread above, and clearly stated "further ban evasion and grandstanding should be avoided". I can see how that could easily be read "ban-evaders: cut it out", and when they didn't "cut it out" someone took the next logical step ES&L 11:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Hum. That is true. Somehow I failed to spot that occurring since the last time I checked in here. Well, in that case I don't really have anything to argue with, even if my feelings on the matter differ. — Scott • talk 11:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Struck comment caused by taking misreading by Bwilkins at face value. I stand by my comment above, especially now knowing that the section was hatted by Jehochman. — Scott • talk 12:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Hang on. Open that and you will see that I hatted it, not him. Jimmy hasn't been online since. Let's just wait and see what he says once he sees the facts. It is unfortunate that legit IP editors can be restricted by measures set to prevent disruption by IP hopping anons. Sometimes editors with accounts are restricted by full protection when there's been an edit war. We do have to maintain order. If people fight less and cooperate more, there'd be a lot less inconvenience all around. Jehochman Talk 11:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC) As an update on the AN discussion regarding Mbz1: people seem willing to let her vanish, but she is currently under an ArbCom block that specifically requires appeal to Arbcom. Mbz1, if you are still watching this discussion, please go ahead and do that. I'm going to unprotect this page and see if Mbz1 can refrain from further ban evasion. She has a clear path forward, and needs to start showing good faith if she wants to make progress. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

More WMF Bright Line violations

Jimbo, what do you think about...

• Denny Vrandečić, who works on the Wikidata project that is funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, editing Wikipedia's article about Wikidata?
• Wikimedia Foundation supporting the OpenDyslexic font, while the Wikipedia article about OpenDyslexic was authored by User:Laurence Francis Harrison, who publishes numerous classic books in the font and sells them on Amazon? (Harrison hails from the Long Beach, California area, same as this single-purpose IP address, too.)

In addition to the above, could you comment on whether there are any restrictions on classes of editors using Wikipedia:Drafts to compose new content that may (eventually) be suitable for Wikipedia article space? For instance, may paid encyclopedists use Draft space? May paid advocacy or paid PR editors use Draft space? May self-COI editors use Draft space? - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would rather you just delete the page, than stop supporting the font. That's kinda ridiculous. Its a good font. I was just trying to write an article that nobody else has written, and should have. Feel free to edit, work on it, instead of bemoaning the inclusion of a page about a font that wikipedia has already included on their font list. Especially as I don't represent OpenDyslexic, you'd kinda be cutting off your nose despite your face. So, I'm just removing my liability now for anyone removing the OpenDyslexic font. It is a dumb decision. - Laurence Francis Harrison (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison, I think the font is a lovely idea. The problem rests in the provenance of the Wikipedia article about the font, as it was created by someone with a financial incentive to popularize the font. This violates Jimmy Wales' widely-known "Bright Line Rule" against paid advocacy editing of article space. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison blanked his article, I've unblanked it. If he wants it deleted he can request that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any "financial incentive" here at all. As I understand it, Mr. Harrison has licensed the font CC-BY-3.0, effectively giving it away, and doesn't get any money when people use the font. Mr. 2001 has a habit of stretching things - to the point of making personal attacks - when it comes to the bright-line policy. If he goes this far a couple more times, I'll ask an admin to start the procedure to ban him.

To Mr. Harrison - thank you for your work and for making the font CC-By. Don't let the turkeys get you down. BTW, I love it when people use the word "despite". It's a word that seems to have been forgotten, at least in American English. Nevertheless, I believe the proper usage here is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Unfortuneatly, it sometimes seems that you have to learn how to conjugate the verb "to spite" in order to properly edit Wikipedia. All the best, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Unfortuneatly", Smallbones tried to give a grammer lessin. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, perhaps you haven't realized that Mr 2001 is a very well known very banned editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Folks, this report is just the usual anonymous poking of Jimmy. Ignore it, or better still, DENY it. The suggestion in the OP is entirely misguided because it is not really an attempt to comment about a particular article or a particular situation—it is just another poke at Jimbo, who for some cruel reason of fate, is more well known than the anonymous poster. Johnuniq (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Mr. 2001 has gotten a bit old. The novelty has worn off. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be best practice for the Wikimedia Foundation to not edit articles about things like Wikidata directly to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The other case is less clear to me but my view is that when in doubt it is better to write something on the talk page and leave direct article space editing to uninvolved editors. As for the use of the draft space, I haven't given it enough thought to form a solid opinion, but my initial thought is that this is an ideal space for people to submit things for community consideration after full disclosure of a COI.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Paul Myners photo

Jimbo, remember back in April 2013 how you said that you would respond to concerns about your permission to share a photo under a free license, and that the "full report" would come "in due course"? Whatever happened to that report? - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I got so disgusted with commons that like many volunteers who are treated badly, I just threw my hands up and walked away from it. Every now and then I think about getting back to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)