Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.91.169.43 (talk) at 02:21, 25 December 2008 (→administrators). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ArbCom Appointments

With this edit, I am making the following appointments to the Arbitration Committee:

3 year terms:

  • (expansion seat)

2 year terms:

(expansion seat)

1 year term:

(expansion seat)

Some notes:

1. Some in the community suggested that I should look at both percentage of support and at net "pro" votes. Or that I should look at net "pro" votes instead of percentage of support. As it turns out, when making 3 expansion appointments, there is a lucky coincidence: - Top six on both metrics are all appointed to 3 year terms - Next three on both metrics are all appointed to 2 year terms - Number ten on both metrics is appointed to a 1 year term

So, in this case, it would not matter which metric I favored.

2. As a "sanity check" on the appointments process, and in response to public and private concerns raised about inappropriate block voting, I also considered the votes of *just* admins. In the end this had no impact. There were two interesting small variations: - Jayvdb got much higher admin support, reflecting I think the results of an offsite campaign (I checked into the concerns of the campaigners and found them to be without merit) - CoolHandLuke got much lower admin support, reflecting I think the nature of his campaign - "In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us."

These variations are interesting, nothing more, and certainly not sufficient for me to posit a major rift between the broader community and the admins. Most of the vote counts were very similar for admins versus non-admins.

3. All 10 appointees have agreed to identify to the Foundation. This is not a requirement of the Foundation, and I chose not to make it a requirement for my appointments, either. It was merely a request. Nonetheless, all 10 eagerly agreed to it. There is no need for them to do so *before* taking office, and I'm sure it'll happen quickly enough.

4. Deskana is resigning his seat. I am not filling that seat right now, but I intend to do so in an interim election at some point in 2009, yet to be determined. There have been some mentions of other possible retirements, and so I will wait to see if anyone else is looking to retire early next year, and then we'll see about an election in March or June or so. With the 3 expansion seats, it is not as if we will be short-staffed.

My exploration of the voting results tells me that this was an election for change. The only 2 current Arbs who were running were soundly defeated. This was a key factor in my decision to expand the committee - appointing 7 of 15 seats would not even be a majority, and 8 of 15 (by filling Deskana's seat) would barely be.

As it stands, we have 10 of 18 seats filled with new members, and with 1 retirement, in fact we have 10 of 17 arbs new. The community has asked for change, and I support this fully.

The mandate for the new arbs, as I see it, and a small change.

1. Many people are of the opinion that the 2008 ArbCom moved much too slowly, and got too little done. I intend that with more members, the committee will explore ways to get more things done and more quickly. Various proposals have been put forward in the past, and all have merits. I encourage the new committee to act quickly and decisively to reorganize and reexamine working methods to get faster resolution to conflicts - justice delayed is justice denied.

2. Many people are of the opinion that the 2008 ArbCom was too opaque, hearing too many matters in private. I encourage the creation of new rules clearly limiting the scope of private decisionmaking.

Rather than completely outlawing it, because I do think there can be situations where a privately-handled matter is important for the dignity of all participants, I will simply strongly discourage private votes of any kind. There should be no "secret trials" or anything resembling them, and there can be no valid ArbCom action unless the person being sanctioned has had the opportunity for a public defense.

There are problems with this: drama on the wiki will increase in some ways. But the bigger drama of conspiracy theories and decisions made in error due to insufficient eyeballs on the case will be avoided.

3. We want arbs to be both responsive to community concerns, and also immune from populist campaigns that push rash decisionmaking. These are competing concerns which must be kept in balance. I request the new ArbCom to reflect on and discuss the creation of a method for the community recall of unpopular ArbCom members. This discussion should take place in June of 2009, once the new Arbs have some experience of the job and thus a deeper understanding of the pressures involved. I would like to see a procedure in place by the time of the next election.

The small change: while not completely outlawing all private decision making, I will simply state that I will be strongly inclined to overturn on appeal any decision of the ArbCom that did not include a public discussion and vote.

I leave it to the new ArbCom to make their own decisions regarding the use of public workshops versus the private ArbCom wiki versus the mailing list - all are valid tools. I simply strongly encourage a renewed focus on the desire of the community for strong transparency in ArbCom operations.

--Jimbo

Replies

On a first read through of the rationale and comments... I am impressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine choices; I'm glad that you didn't need to intervene for Jay. Sceptre (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent choices. Very pleased here! ;-) ayematthew ✡ 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure how a mid-year election would go, but thanks for listening to the community. Majorly talk 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great choices. I wish all the new ArbCom members well. Willking1979 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One election a year is enough. An interim election risks much disruption with little benefit.Genisock2 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I've found a mistake. Doesn't Tranche Gamma expire in Dec 2009 and Alpha in 2010, not the other way around? Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I didn't make a mistake. I used a spreadsheet and worked partly from memory. Let's check my work quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, I really really like these times because they match the mandate from the community. For the moment I am removing the tranche names while we sort this out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, are you appointing a new member when Deskana formally resigns, if he hasn't already? Sceptre (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aawww, I always fancied myself as an alpha male (chuckle) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, Cas! Sincerement, --A NobodyMy talk 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, these start 1 Jan 2009, or now? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it up to the committee (old and new) to determine transition strategy. Whatever is traditional, I suppose. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liking the mandate. Thanks, Martinp23 23:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "I will stand for re-election in two years, and if re-elected I will stand down after another two years". John Vandenberg (chat) 23:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that into account here and we'll finalize the details over the next day or so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I find the comments very helpful; I think those points were themes of many of the successful campaigns, and working on those issues should improve the community's trust. Cool Hand Luke 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was right. Just kidding--thanks for taking what we gave, for the top 10. rootology (C)(T) 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't approve of your role in the process, Jimbo, I am happy that you appointed the candidates according to the community's will and issued a call for more transparency—lack of transparency is indeed one of the committee's biggest problems. Everyking (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be time to pause and consider the possibility that my role is important to the execution of the community's will, rather than an impediment to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to complain if you make good decisions. If you continue along this unobjectionable path, it is entirely possible that your role could be to execute the community's will. Everyking (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo Everyking's sentiment's above. I have issues with the system, but the results are acceptable. I am particularly impressed that you opted to appoint a prominent Wikipedia Review member to a three-year term, and I wonder if that should send out some sort of message? GTD 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but my impression so far is that Wikipedia Review is full of embittered rejects with an axe to grind, and those that manage to maintain a presence here as well as there have too much time to spare. But I'm open to persuasion. --Rodhullandemu 00:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With an axe? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) (LessHorrid vanU)[reply]
Not necessarily. My preferred weapons are words and ideas; but personally, I can find enough to do here without spreading my efforts elsewhere. There are always articles needing improvement, and defending against deletionists. For example, if I survive beyond New Years Eve, I have set aside January to deal with all articles related to The Prisoner (how apt!), establishing their notability, creating a Prisoner portal, and getting it to featured status. An admirable goal, but I expect no help from the Wikipedia Review mob- it's not the sort of thing they, er, do. --Rodhullandemu 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So what is it "we" do? Personally, I like to think I write articles, but maybe you disagree. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really am not interested what you do elsewhere, but my commitment is here; I'm sure you are a very good article writer; but if you care to click on "Random article", I guarantee you'll find something that needs proper care and attention above and beyond the politics. It's a measure of Wikipedia's success, perhaps, that it attracts outside criticism; nothing new in that, but my focus is to minimise the incidence of that criticism. This may be against all the odds, but it's nonetheless a worthy enterprise as far as I am concerned. --Rodhullandemu 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is number one? You are the new number 6 – wait a minute, that's someone else. Congratulations to all the new numbers. . dave souza, talk 10:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like many others above, I personally object to any one unelected individual having so large a role in EnWiki as Jimbo does. <silliness> It is very frustrating, then, to see, time and again, Jimbo making such well-reasoned decisions, having his finger very acutely on the pulse of the community, and generally making practically everyone pretty happy. It's hard enough to over throw a tyrannical monarch, much less a beloved one. Jimbo, couldn't you maybe get us into an unpopular war, or suggest all wikipedians may have to convert to Catholicism, or build a lavish palace while the populace is starving??</silliness>. Which is to say, I disagree with Jimbo's role here, but I have to admit, so far, he has done a damn good job of it. Good work. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now we see what the benefit of a couple days' worth of thought can be - a restructuring of sorts that puts the emphasis on the new voices and thoughts. Looks like a good option to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very pleased with your decision to expand the ArbCom, as they are (were?) severely overworked, and the top ten candidates are all very, very good IMO. Thank you for being willing to take this step. I would like to offer my congratulations to all the newly appointed Arbitrators! J.delanoygabsadds 04:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, this just won't do. There's only one objectionable and incompetent arbitrator who I don't like very much left on the committee. What happened to respect of Wikipedia traditions? Who will we complain about? Does this mean we will have to edit articles instead of whipping up Wikidrama? Editors DESERVE TO KNOW!!!! :P Physchim62 (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo, thank you. Cheers on this much needed expansion, along with your thoughtful, meaningful takes on the election altogether. What you have to say about on-wiki decision-making, along with what you plan to do if arbcom needlessly strays off-wiki, is and will be very helpful to the project. To echo Thatcher, everyone on arbcom has my best wishes, along with my heartfelt sympathies. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. What a stunningly well thought out decision! --TS 00:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is important to thank everyone for their participation in Wikipedia. In particular I think it is important at this time to thank the outgoing ArbCom members and the new ArbCom members. It is a time consuming commitment and it should be appreciated by the whole community. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have the right to be pretty pleased with yourself. What a well-thought out solution, and what wisdom to listen to what Wikipedians wanted this election and interpret it so well. I think it's no accident you are being acclaimed by the community for this decision. Credit given where credit is due. Congratulations, and thank you. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 09:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • umm, what is this arbitrtion thing? thats all

Dcollins52Tell me what you think 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The results do justify the 5 day wait, and also indicate that you are likely the best person to keep doing this particular job. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first ArbCom election I've ever paid attention to. I am very impressed. And I don't understand the complaints about Jimbo's role. If theory (in this case good government theory) is contradicted by praxis, theory should be ignored. In the litany of secular follies, the exaltation of form over substance is a cardinal sin, second only to the propagation of elevator music. David in DC (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested clarification

I will simply state that I will be strongly inclined to overturn on appeal any decision of the ArbCom that did not include a public discussion and vote

Do you mean both a public discussion and vote or just public discussion or a vote? One thing that bothers me about the current process is that the bulk of work the arbitrators are seen to do is simply voting, usually with no public rationale. One often (in fact usually) has no specific idea why an arbitrator is voting in such a manner when they have had no input into the workshop, nor any reason besides good faith to believe that they have worked on comprehending any of the evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love clarification on this as well. It seems to me that, for example, a discussion page that only arbs could edit but we could all see would be a good thing, and that they hash out their differences there, rather than via whatever off-wiki method is now used. IronDuke 01:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like and to me, and a welcome committment to the openness and transparency which is essential to give legitimacy and gain widespread acceptance that actions and decisions are just. The rationale behind decisions should be made clear. A good restart, and I'm hopeful for the future. . dave souza, talk 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably need to hone the good ole psychic abilities, as it doesn't look like an answer is gonna be given here. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Happy Holidays

K50 Dude The Great is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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 Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Have a great holiday, and an eventful new year!

From K50 Dude

(timestamped for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ping

Your meta page directed me here. Could you have a look at my comments on your Planet Wikimedia request? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Have you sent an email to Herby?

Hi Jimbo. Have you sent an email to Herby? Herby uses this mysterious email in a little admin convention on commons for some mysterious hints, but he doesn't want to name its content and its sender.

Quote:

OK - I'll not be amending ME's block now. I've had an email which leaves me indifferent at best to unblocking him in any way at all. I'll withdraw from this idiocy again. --Herby talk thyme 15:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This created with me the impression that Mutter Erde had sent you a mail, and that you had perceived the communication as aggressive. According to commons:User talk:Mutter Erde#Herby has got an email my impression was wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I do not care what your opinion is Pieter - your approach is almost as unpleasant (to me) as ME. All anyone need know is that I had an email, the content of which merely left me feeling that unblocking ME was pointless. It is my personal decision over a personal email. I have no intention of returning to the aggressive nonsense that is driving good folk away from Commons. --Herby talk thyme 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

retrieved from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Time_to_decide

I have no information about this at all, as far as I am aware.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK. Thanks. Then I have to search for another guy. Merry Christmas 78.52.88.228 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above ip has now been blocked. This ip was used by banned user MutterErde. --Kanonkas :  Talk  22:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your famous quote

About 'every single person on the planet having access to to all the information' has always irritated me so please excuse me while I get this off my chest. Wiki is indeed a phenomonom and every democratic and levelling but only amongst those with access to a PC, a phone and some electricity. The majority of people on Earth had not made a phone call ten years ago. Phones are more plentiful now so this may have changed. Many millions don't have access to clean drinking water yet. When everyone on the planet has access to a PC and phone and plenty of electricity your quote will be accurate but as yet this is well under 50% of the world's people. So perhaps you'd like to withdraw that quote? Sorry to be a nag, congratulations on founding Wiki and Season's Greetings to you, Geoff.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 01:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I originally wrote it, it goes like this "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." That's really what I mean. You are right, we are not in the world yet. So, let's build it. What will it take? It will take more than just a website, yes. It will take more than just mobile phones, yes. There's a lot of work left to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal

But Wikipedia is more than a website. We share a common cause: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.

If you really want to attract serious, knowledgeable people and see the Wikipedia financially supported - then you must to do (or, at least, initiate) a huge cleanup of the existing list of contributors and administrators. Many of the Wikipedia articles and talk pages are no more than a sewer of primitivism, lies, and political propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.20.29 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of knowledgeable people attracted to the site, its size is the price of its success but still and all the only way to MAke it better is to edit it yourself, Jimbo personally cannot clean up the place. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is allowed to join; everyone is allowed to leave. There's no 'cleanup' needed... the process seems to work, naturally. Articles really aren't as bad as you implied since most of them do follow NPOV, and for those that aren't people clean them up naturally as well. Good articles are referenced also; your comment isn't. 194.75.236.70 (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer contribute financially and rarely contribute any content -- nothing of any substance anyhow -- on wikipedia, and I tell anyone who will listen that wikipedia is NOT a good source, because Jimmy and the various wiki powers that be have installed people, processes and culture that undermine the declared objectives of NPOV. I really believed in the language about how wikipedia cherishes NPOV, but came to believe that it does not really prefer or adhere to NPOV. I have many examples. I look for a day when things will change but I do not think it will happen. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly true. So then, where were you wronged?— Dædαlus Contribs 11:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is true. Just because you are clueless about situations and events I have experienced does not make my words untrue. And, its not a matter of me being "wronged". In fact, I do not believe I have been wronged. It's just a matter of wikipedia not being what it advertises. It is not true to the founding principles. Here is one example that is rampant all over wikipedia: Definitions. Almost every article defines its subject. I have observed that a large fraction of these definitions are not supportable by an appeal to actual dictionaries. At times, when I have said that per NPOV, wikipedia should only rely upon other sources and not create its own definitions, the "consensus" said "No, we can make our own rules on this" and overtly denied dictionary definitions. As I said, wikipedia actually does not prefer or enforce NPOV. What it prefers and enforces is majority rule. This "truth is determined by democracy" approach is systemic and it is a deeply held value -- much stronger than NPOV, but unstated.
Another related issue that is also a problem but is not what I was referring to is the problem of the bias in sources. This bias is almost never addressed. I was not actually referring to that problem, but it is part of the overall issue, and I do not believe that there is ANY effective mechanism to deal with that issue. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the importance of references. When I start doing actual research for a project that I am involved in, I inevitably start with en.wiki. I glance through the article, getting some "basics" (whether NPOV or not). I then head down to the references and see also's and branch out from there. Within a half-hour, I have the widest possible Bibliography to start my real research. That is the beauty and use of en.Wiki - NPOV, democracy and drama be damned. ♪BMWΔ 17:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter. If the Majority (i.e. "Consensus") agree that the references are not what they want in the article, the references do not get in. If the Majority (i.e. "Consensus") agree that their own private definition is better than anything that can be referenced (even if their definition does not have a reference), then that is what prevails, and referenced to the contrary are deleted. As I said, it is "truth established by democracy" not "Neutral Point of View", and references can be damned.
Then too, there is the opposite problem: Biased references. But that's a whole different matter that I was not specifically discussing, but it is related, because, once again, the Majority (i.e. "Consensus") can agree that their reference is not biased and thus entirely superior but that your reference is spurious and should be removed. In fact, as I said above, your reference can be spurious by their view even if they do not even have a reference for their view. All they need is the majority.
This would not bug me if it were not for the fact that there are explicit rules as to how things are supposed to go, and these rules are subverted, sometimes without even a pretense. In the rules, NPOV theoretically prevails above all -- even "Consensus" (i.e. The Majority) and is "not negotiable". In reality, that policy is gutless in the face of the driving mechanism in wikipedia: "Majority Rules" -- and "truth by democratic vote". Even though this is stoutly denied and piously preached against by the faithful acolytes, it is the real sub rosa odus operandi of many aspects in the project and absolutely nothing can or will be done about it. Ever.
Of course there is an answer to my complaint: "Don't edit in those places where such activities take place". You can see that advice passed around fairly often when there are problems. So, taking that advice, I have decided not to contribute to wikipedia's content in any significant way. In addition, I will not financially contribute as I did in the past because I feel that I am supporting a kind of bait and switch program.
I suppose I am easy to dismiss as a whiner. After all, I am probably the only editor who ever made this observation -- so it must be a lunatic fringe thing I'm spouting. Hey...take a vote on it -- and if the majority agree that I am an idiot, that's the eternal truth -- even though the party line is: "Voting is Evil". --Blue Tie (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas

re this edit
this thread began at User talk:Jack Merridew#Christmas but I believe this is a better spot for the discussion.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“The philosophy of Saraswati Day is that the most important thing for human life is knowledge.”

Why does your not celebrating Christmas have anything to do with systemic bias? Lots of people do celebrate it, including in America, and I am baffled by your edit summary, removing systemic bias means recognizing all celebrations. I imagine their are celebrations in Bali and that when there are you join in. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that I don't celebrate Christmas (although I don't). A few points;
  • I don't think it appropriate to promote such a holiday on that fellow's page. Certainly, there should be an article at Christmas and I'd have no issue with a DYK or some other mention on the main page.
  • just about every day is somehow special to some group, somewhere. I don't recall any recognition anywhere on-wiki last Saraswati Day and that would be a whole lot more appropriate to an encyclopaedia; lovely, it's red: see Saraswati and http://www.indo.com/culture/saraswati.html; it's a celebration of knowledge. See why I see systemic bias? It's pervasive.
  • the image was not placed the by the user. That page says 'edit this page' and especially encourages things like code fixes, which I did some of. It does not say to mess with the content itself, which mucking with the picture amounts to. If the user had placed the image themselves, I'd certainly not have touched it.
  • the image is a lame photoshop job and looks like something off a GeoCities page from about 1996.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It actually says you can edit the page, it doesn't say you can do code fixes (not that I added the hat anyway). And while a few celebrations are as important as Christmas it is very few. I have now made Saraswati Day a redirect to Saraswati pooja, which certainly is an article in the main space. People are wishing Jimbo a happy winter not a happy summer (as it is in the southern hemisphere) and that's because he lives in America, where I believe Christmas is very popular. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it says: my ultimate dream is that some person who thinks it is fun would come along and make it look perfect, or close to perfect. See that link up here that says 'edit this page'? Go for it. It's a "wiki world"! which was what I had in mind. And I didn't know we had an importance scale for celebrations ;) NB: Saraswati pooja would seem to be a different celebration than Saraswati Day. Hindus have a great many. Jack Merridew 15:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I have fixed that one. And to cover all the Hindi festivals in detail in the main space is absolutely what countering systemic bias is all about. My Hindi colleague in India wished me a Happy Christmas and I wish I were able to know when to wish her a happy festival because obviously I would not wish her a Happy Christmas and given he is an American happy Christmas seems appropriate as a greeting to Jimbo too, and I guess that was someone's way of saying that. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not miss the point: When I say "Merry Christmas" to someone of any faith (even Christian), I am saying "Christmas has a happy meaning for me. I therefore wish you the same happy feelings that I have." It's not telling them to "go out and celebrate Christmas." ♪BMWΔ 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I got another Merry Christmas message from India today and would not have dreamt of responding with a similar because Christmas isn't a mainstream festival there; I'd say "Happy Yom Kippur" to anyone living in Israel. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

I think one particular sentence you're using in the appeal causes a lot of confusion. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." This idea applies to the Wikimedia Foundation rather than Wikipedia, which is why some knowledge is better housed on a different project. I think you should make that difference clear in any communication so people don't misquote you. - Mgm|(talk) 08:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Pleasure

Hello Jimbo, It's a pleasure to meet you. I'll try to have a positive affect here at wikipedia in the coming weeks/months/years. Thank you for allowing us this venture, and I did want to stop by and wish you and yours a pleasant holiday season in what ever way you observe it. Ched (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Quetion?

Hello, Jimbo. I want to ask you about creating new artiles on all wikiprojects. All criterias about this are given on Wikipedia. But, there isn't any minimum of datas, or number of tags which are needed to create new article. For example, 15 days ago, there was big editing spam on Wikipedia on macedonian language, what should be an article, and what shouldn't. We've been creating articles, that are linked to over 100 websites (without blogs), especially news and knowledgable websites. For some users, it was OK, but on the other side, some were against this criteria. We checked this with other criterias, on other Wikipedias, and we saw, that there isn't absolute critaeria about this. Can you give me an opinion, or such an advise about that, what criterias about browsering are needed to create an article. Also, there are some old books (old and unreedited) that content informations, about something which can't be easy founded , by browsering on Internet.

I also liked to ask something about implementing new Meta projects. I talked about it with Angela, but also I liked to contact you about this.

It's my pleasure.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Spanish abuse

I apologize for approaching you for help, but I honestly don't know who to approach. I am very active on the English Wikipedia and have recently started to work in the Spanish Wikipedia to try to spur growth there. I have worked hard to translate articles regarding WP:Awards, but es:Usuario:Netito777, who's even protected his/her own user page, has deleted all such translations and gone so far as to even delete all unrelated redirects, code templates (called "plantillas"), and userboxes I have created. This is abuse and censorship at its extreme. The Spanish Wikipedia has a different bureaucracy, so I'm not sure where to report such a problem. Please help! --Eustress (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: you should leave messages on Netito's talk page, not his userpage. es:Usuario_Discusión:Netito777 is not protected, and has not been since June. J.delanoygabsadds 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant he's protected his userpage, not the talk page (which still seems odd). I'll leave him a message, but he's reverted all my edits without any edit summary--even those that have nothing to do with Wikipedia awards (e.g., barnstars (Spanish "estrellas"), etc.). I need some sysop help! --Eustress (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is more of an issue involving es.wiki having a different culture, one in which things such as WP:AWARD are not as accepted. It's not censorship as much as it is a different consensus, and there's nothing that the English Wikipedia can (or should) do, as the two wikis are independent from each other. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does creating awards to give to others hurt the work if done well? These editors themselves have award pages linked on their userpages, so I don't see this as a cultural issue. This administrator has not only deleted my awards-related pages but also other non-related templates, userboxes, and redirects I have created. My note (with diffs) to the admin is listed on his user talk page here: es:Usuario_Discusión:Netito777#Abuso.
The Spanish Wikipedia does not have a place like WP:Requests_for_comment/Example_admin to report admin abuse. I'm hoping Jimbo, or some sysop with global or Spanish authority, can help. --Eustress (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, what happens is that a sprawling bureaucracy to give out awards (similar to the one here) is considered a waste of time in the Spanish Wikipedia, as it is not directly related to the encyclopedia (c.f. what happened with Esperanza). You may want to go to WP:TAB, which is the equivalent of WP:AN in es.wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Esperanza was deleted b/c it was "counter to the open and transparent spirit of a wiki." I was just creating (or translating) resources to promote WikiLove. And at least Esperanza got a proper MfD. In this case, one administrator did not like the additions so he deleted everything and then went on to delete extra unrelated additions. I will try to work through es:WP:TAB, but I think something bigger is at play here that merits attention from someone with power. --Eustress (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if that person is Jimbo, though, and probably there is no-one to answer your request here, you should try the es.wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← I've tried all of your suggestions (pleading for help at WP:TAB, trying to compromise with the administrator) but he and others won't even move the articles in question to my user space. And if no one can help, not even Mr. Wales, then this is a sad day indeed. I mean, I have a real life, so worst case scenario I never edit in Spanish Wikipedia again, but I thought the Wikipedia family was bigger than this and strived to be united. --Eustress (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Eustress was bloqued (in the es.Wiki) per WP:NSW (WP:POINT) for one week. More information can be found here. Editors should ignore this thread. --Kmaster (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this thread be ignored? You've silenced me on the Spanish Wiki and then come over here to try to do the same? That seems wrong. --Eustress (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...I've never been blocked before. They say I was trying to sabotage them. I did a whole lot of work, which I felt was deleted without due process. The deleting administrator did not try to help me adjust to Spanish Wikipedia at all (it seems some policies are different over there), so I reported the situation (as suggested here). Due to my reporting, the cabal of Spanish Wiki admins thinks I'm out to take down their system or something and has blocked me, so I can no longer discuss the issue. I was very respectful in my comments (which were few) and was never uncivil. The Spanish Wiki system has failed in this instance.
The larger issue here then (one that I'm hoping Mr. Wales can shed light on) is the state of the separate Wikis. Is there no universal controller over all Wikipedia projects, or are we to just to run some social experiment and see how polarized/unified the separate Wikis become? If they are to run independent, perhaps some article could be created that delineates the differences between the language sites. Because of articles like interlanguage links and Wikipedia:Translation on the English Wiki, I believed policies were the same across projects. --Eustress (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Es cierto que no hay ningun control central en los wikis; hasta mas cierto es que no vas a conseguir nada aqui tampoco. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (Eustress translates this as It is true that there is no central control system in the wikis; but more certain is that you are not going to get any help here either.[reply]

Schools

Dear Mr. Wales, best wishes to you and happy holidays. I was hoping to get your current thoughts on school articles. You wrote on Nov 7, 2003:

Let me make my point more clear: arguments about what we ought to if someone really starts to abuse wikipedia with thousands and thousands of trivial articles do not prove that we ought to delete any and every article that's too trivial today.

Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world.

Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website.

Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do.

That's true *even if* we'd react differently to a ton of one-liners mass-imported saying nothing more than "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" and "Indian Springs is a private school in Birmingham, Alabama, US" and on and on and on, ad nauseum.

The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times" is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times.

Jimbo, Partial solution to rampant deletionism

As of today, schools articles have gone from being an exemption from the Criteria for speedy deletion to not being an exemption at all and I was wondering if what you wrote in 2003 still holds true. On Wikipedia, I back up my belief in school articles through Wikipedia:Verifiability: the many times schools are mentioned by the people they educate and by newspapers, magazines, and television broadcasts. Being able to delete school articles without even a chance for editorial discussion and research is most disheartening to me, considering it bypasses the entire Afd process. I'm not sure what the harm is in at least redirecting a school article to its school district/locality. And what will happen to the articles for foreign schools where the burden on the editor is even greater? --Jh12 (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not agree with what I wrote in 2003. I had no idea what an eternal nightmare the schools issue would become.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Schools are still exempted from A7. Hut 8.5 16:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just noticed that. It's confusing because aside from the single word "except," it looks like schools got lumped under the same group as other organizations. Regardless, I don't think there has to be any nightmare when it comes to school articles. If there's consensus for deletion, then the articles should be deleted. The fact that there are debates over school articles is why I think they make terrible Csd candidates --Jh12 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

administrators

Are administrators allowed to make sarcastic comments towards users? The administrators don't see when one of their own has done something wrong. Only one administrator was helpful, only to be blocked later.

I find it strange that you say there may be a "heated debate" here. This seems like the only place. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess from your second comment that you are relatively new here; however, what's wrong with taking it up with the Admin concerned on their Talk page, or on the appropriate noticeboard, or asking for review at Wikiquette alerts? It's extremely unlikely that Jimbo is going to have the time to investigate such a vague complaint, but I don't mind doing so. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did take it up with the administrators concerned. Seems like I'm blocked now. Admin "Garden" was very helpful. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting from another account when you're blocked is only likely to get this account blocked, too. Did you follow the procedures to request unblocking on your blocked account? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You clearly are not blocked now. You were blocked for eight minutes by a very competent and respected Admin, for all the right reasons, in my opinion. I'd advise you take notice of those reasons, lest it happen again, but I'm glad you found a helpful Admin. We are not ogres, but neither are we endless reservoirs of patience. --Rodhullandemu 23:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is seeing the attack by the other administrator. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Somebody edited or deleted my post about this being my only id. It can be verified. I don't hide. I am who I am. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. Sorry, we aren't psychic either. As an IP editor, your history is completely visible to Admins. But if your problems arise from a registered account, we need to know about that to be able to look at it. Can you help us out with that? --Rodhullandemu 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh?????

This is my only IP, I explained that after "LittleRedRidingHood" accused me of using a different one. I posted another statement about this being my only ID and IP and it didn't show up. The only thing is that it must have been altered in some way. I'll say it again. This is my only IP and ID. I'm not hiding from anything, unlike what I'm being accused of here.

I don't see what you're getting at. Sticking to the topic and away from sarcastic comments not relevant is better. I know that you're not an ogre and not psychic. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki/User_talk:J.delanoy 75.91.169.43 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

malitious deletions that I've see shouldn't be done either, especially by an admin stalker 75.91.169.43 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'm an Iranian and I can't donate to wikipedia because my country is prohibitted but I translated your appeal to Persian and I am here to say: all the Persian wikipedia's memebers are sad because they can't help wikipedia/wikimedia…Kind Regards --Komeil 4life (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per above user i should admit if you don't see so many Iranians in donor's list it not because we don't like to donate it is because there is no safe way to transfer money to wikifoundation .so we all try to help wiki by our edits and articles.--Mardetanha talk 00:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


More Christmas greetings

Frankenstein created a monster which, as portrayed by Boris Karloff, grew beyond his control but was wholly innocent in intention. That is a somewhat clumsy metaphor for Wikipedia, but nevertheless, we have reached the position of being something of a leviathan, which has brought new problems, as those who would seek to weaken us continue to find new ways of exploiting the cracks in the structure. On the whole, however, this should only serve to resist the jealous and the nay-sayer wherever we can. Meanwhile, and in festive tone, I recommend A child's Christmas in Wales and the related song, which always creases me up. It is possible for soul music to come from Wales (in more ways than one, hopefully). --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hello Jimbo Wales! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Again, merry Christmas! Ashbey 00:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't celebrate Christmas, then happy holidays!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=259995775"