User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Paid Editing

How does the prohibition on paid editing that you set via WP:JIMBO reconcile with the Wikipedia:Reward board? Could Kohs and everyone else have avoided getting banned if they told their clients to post the article requests on the board? 174.252.107.95 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The key is an understanding of a conflict of interest, of acting on Wikipedia as a paid advocate. Having just now reviewed the Reward board, I see only two requests out of the many there which raise some concerns for me in this area - an absolutely inappropriate one with respect to dANN, and one that I'm not so sure about with respect to Firefly/Serenity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How much of your statement in the paid editing RFC is still in force? Theoretically, any admin could have blocked User:SqueakBox back when his paid editing first came to light in July, without waiting for the months and kilobytes of discussion that followed. 174.252.112.25 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

He's blocked now. Civility is a policy too but editors get away with incivility for extended periods. Just because behaviors aren't immediately sanctioned doesn't mean they're beneficial either. This is an imperfect system.   Will Beback  talk  05:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility is never cut-and-dry. SB's paid editing was. Is the prolific editor who occasionally vandalizes allowed to stay here for very long? 174.252.112.25 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppetry isn't always cut-and-dry either. Do you have a regular account?

Wikipedia isn't perfect, and it never will be. We're improving it as we go. One reason that paid editing isn't explicitly against policy is that some now-banned paid editors argued very strongly against forbidding it. I expect that a new RfC would get a different result.   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you start a new one? User:Benjiboi isn't getting unblocked anytime soon. As I see it, Jimbo's statements and WP:PAID are in direct contradiction with each other, and if Jimbo can still set policy (or could in July 2009) then the paid editing proposed policy is pretty much real policy already. A new RfC could establish that. Or maybe it'll overrule Jimbo's statement. Or maybe there'll just be a lot of hot air and no conclusion.

And as far as socking goes, you'll notice that you, I, and Jimbo are the only people in this thread. 174.252.112.25 (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

From now on, it's just you and Jimbo.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed that the International Association for the Study of Pain pay an expert to review and edit Pain. Is there some uncertainty about the appropriateness of that proposal? Anthony (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is inappropriate in the sense of conflict of interest, no. I also don't think it's really the right way forward. A better approach would be to ask professional associations like this to contact their entire membership body with the message that Wikipedia would welcome expert contributions in this area. Paying people to do things isn't always the best way to motivate the best work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That would be preferable. Are you doing any outreach in that direction? Pitching to international professional conferences, gatherings of vice chancellors, etc.? Anthony (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am. But it is not just me personally (I'm just one person): this sort of thing is core to what many of the Wikimedia Foundation chapters do. You might also want to take a look at Liam Wyatt's amazing GLAM work and the relationship he has built with people at the British Museum.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How about a murder/suicide accusation?

You wanted evidence from me that some of your users in this website are out of control? How about this one [1]? A murder/suicide accusation that is not true at all is called libel and slander, and It's not going to be tolerated. Karajou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.57.179 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This ip went and reverted the delete of this so they could then go writing their own personal attacks and accusations after it. I will now go and remove both. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My condolences to the family if this is true. But please, don't bring such stuff here. People harass celebrities all the time and their families blame the celebrity when something goes wrong because they have an unnecessary desire to place blame and they don't want to assign blame to themselves or their lost one (and they shouldn't!) but then they shouldn't assign blame with others here. Blame won't bring the man back or make anyone feel better about what happened, or prevent people from killing themselves like that in the future. The same goes for Jimbo, if he feels pity or remorse for something he wasn't responsible for.

As I see it, saying, "I commit suicide because I edited Wikipedia," sounds very much like, "I killed that man because I ate a twinkie." He was responsible for his own life. And it's none of your damn business anyway. You are just a trouble-maker. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting, though, that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia at all. It's a fight between Conservapedia and RationalWiki as far as I can tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kind of a late question, but may I ask, Jimbo: What led you to the conclusion that RationalWiki had anything to do with this? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jimbo. There is a long history of Rationalwiki editors (many of which are also WP admins) using Wikipedia discussion pages to air grievances about Conservapedia. Can we get someone remove the allegation that CP sysops are "power-hungry lying murderers"? it's been there at least 24 hours now. nobs (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

More information is here: User talk:98.87.57.179. I am not accusing CP of murder, only of totalitarian admin behavior that did eventually drive my mentally unstable son to suicide. - Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.159.213 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody can talk about Wikipedia totalitarianism when nobody is forced to register and use it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm forced to come here real talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.137.48 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody can talk about life totalitarianism when nobody is forced to live. I don't really need Wikipedia, but I wouldn't hate to see it shift out of the totalitarianism state. Knowing suicide, in my opinion, is indeed always the person him/her-self's problem, but if you cause 10 000 people to suicide, you NOT a good person even though your not responsible. I definitely would never support Conservapedia. Also, even if the suicide can't be blamed on anyone else, PEOPLE HAVE TO RIGHT TO KNOW someone died if the writer wants people to. Don't smash graves down. If you died because of a problem you wouldn't want people to hide your death to protect whats related to the problem. Although the right to free speech doesn't exist on Wikipedia, deleting someone's say in the talk page is disruptive vandalism. Talk pages should not require NPOV.173.180.214.13 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, this anonymous IP has a point. You could be more humble and less possessive. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I love Wikipedia

Dear Jimbo, in response to your recent call for donations I want to tell you about the issue that is impairing Wikipedia substancially, which is the reason why I did not donate again at this time. I know, deletions are a hot topic in every Wikipedia. But I personally have seen articles vanishing in the German Wikipedia which were interesting, well written and fairly well referenced. The reason always is: Irrelevant, not "encyclopedish", not important. And I really can not understand:

This is an ongoing annihilation of knowledge, but I always thought Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge!

Often when I read or take part in deletion discussions, it is obvious to me the some admins are really quick with deleting all articles about things they just have never heard of. At the end, the decision is rather personal. "In dubio pro reo" does not translate here, it is more like "In dubio pro deletion".

But I am not just complaining, I have a proposal too: Allow users to find and read deleted articles.

More detailed, introduce a two-step deletion scheme: Full deletions will only be allowed for articles that violate the universal netiquette (like vandalism, slander, obvious promotion). Soft deletions are for articles that are disputed. When a user searches for an article of a deleted topic, the search result will show like: "No article found in main Wikipedia, but there is a disputed article here: (click)"

Or something like this. Maybe it would be better to change the pro-deletion-people's minds, but I do not know if that is possible. Until there is a real solution for the deletions topic, I will rather donate to those projects that save deleted articles. --W-sky (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of hard/soft deletions. Though I imagine this would lead to a few technical issues.

It's funny that all the critics come out of the woodwork whenever Jimbo's face pops up at the top of the page asking for cash. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, too.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I really like it too. The beauty is that I thought about it before and requested it at the Village Pump about 2 or 3 years ago. I wasn't turned down per se, I was just ignored. I guess I should have just come here instead. Feedback ^☎ 15:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, I'm not sure this is any more effective. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, like Conservapedia, we could also "reach out" to Deletionpedia? In a quid pro quo, we could negotiate to ensure inappropriate material never sees the light of day again. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well and I thought I would throw my 2 cents in too if thats alright. I see a lot of articles get deleted due to a lack of notability. The problem is though, how to define notability, what is notable to one person isn't notable to another. For example, I have no interest in international soccer players so to me they aren't notable, my interest is in American Medal of Honor recipients which would be non-notable to others. My point is its all subjective. So personally I like the idea of being able to see them. Another possibility would be to allow the last version of certain deleted articles to be viewable after they have been deleted. That way if someone wanted to see it they could. --Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with the soft deletion thing. Deletionpedia is unfortunately inactive as far as I knew, so it can't be used I suspect (I personally wanted to build a similar project but unfortunately my work is taking me a lot of time, so I never fully implemented it). I don't think that technical issues are a problem; moving to a different namespace is probably enough. --Cyclopia^talk 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question here is who could we talk to, to actually get this hard/soft deletion idea implemented? It seems as though this would involve a change to the software that actually supports Wikipedia. Would we have to discuss it with someone at Wikimedia? NickCT (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No change in software is needed. You need only have a simple template that says "this article was deleted due to ____ (whatever: lack of notability, only covered in the international press for a few weeks, somebody doesn't like what it's about ... some typical reason, phrased in policy speak). But then, instead of a deleted article, you just have the ordinary text. If someone insists you could have it all inside a show/hide box, or moved to "Deleted/ArticleName". But certainly no new software is involved. The problem of course is that those seeking to delete articles, despite the policies they quote, are not usually putting up random short stubs or articles from the unsourced list - they want articles deleted because they're in the news, because there are many reliable sources, because they don't like the information they provide. And no "soft deletion" could ever satisfy that driving need in their psyche to prove their social dominance by making information unavailable to others. Wnt (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is even remotely close to an accurate and kind statement of the facts about deletions on Wikipedia. I'm unaware of even one case that would match this rhetoric. Wnt, it is incredibly rude - and may cause you to be unable to hear the thoughtful voices of others - to attribute motives to people like a "need in their psyche to prove their social dominance". When we think of other people in those terms, we are too often prevented from listening to their genuine arguments and concerns. I hope that you will reconsider the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly from what I've seen at AfD even if editors did have the urge to delete articles "because they don't like them", they wouldn't be able to simply by the way the process is organized. Obviously this isn't a problem, either, because that's not how WP admins function in the first place. They're just deleted based on whether they should. The^FSAviator ( T • C ) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but who is to decide whether they should - and on what criteria? When it comes to lack of notability, importance or validity, the opinions are often completely different (yet both reasoned), and the process to find a decision is neither fair to both sides, nor democratic.

I am really glad to see that some of you like the idea of soft and hard deletions and just thought of another term too: Maybe it would be nicer to call it "shadowed". --W-sky (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

G11 User pages

I think it`s time to clean Wikipedia from advertizing user pages.:Something like [2] could be a good method.--Löschwahn (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! My talk page isn't really the best place to put this forward; I am not sure where the very best place is. But I found your search results fascinating.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of those are user pages/subpages for editors that have already been blocked for spamming and/or username violations. Maybe there is a way a bot could identify and list all pages of indefinitely blocked users so they could be examined and deleted if they are inappropriate. Peacock (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at some of the first few pages on this list and some of them are in-progress articles that are (or were) being worked on in user space, which is legitimate, although maybe there should be some limitation on how long you can have an in-progress article in user space before it has to be moved to article space or deleted. (One where I checked the history was last worked on more than a year ago.) This would be an especially good idea for in-progress articles about businesses, as I don't think we really care if someone keeps notes or in-progress articles about, say, historical figures or scientific subjects in their user space indefinitely. I did not check to see whether any of these pages have become actual articles. Neutron (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We/I have found your most favorite restaurant in Beijing.

In the XiDan Shopping Centre is a restaurant that serves this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lantrix/5245203240/

You've been in Beijing before; have you stopped by? If not, will you the next time you're there? The restauranteur of that establishment must love our project in order to serve a dish named after your greatest creation! --68.95.116.192 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's been a couple of these. I used to have a list, but I've misplaced it .... there's still User:Soap/Termitomyces albuminosus, but that seems to be the same dish (even if not the same menu). —Soap— 23:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi Jimbo. I'm hoping you or a knowledgeable TPS can point me in the right direction. Does WP or WMF have a definitive copyright policy on lists of the type discussed in this AfD? I've been looking around WP:COPYRIGHT and similar and I can't seem to find anything definitive. I'm not comfortable with random AfD passersby such as myself trying to make or interpret WP copyright policy on the fly in an AfD; I'd really like to understand the existing policy (if any) on lists of this nature before !voting keep or delete based on the copyright concerns mentioned. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure where an existing discussion of that particular point might be. I also don't know what a 'TPS' is, so I am not sure if there are any knowledgeable ones around. :-) But someone who knows more than I do will likely have a better answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Talk Page Stalker" HalfShadow 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also known as a WikiJaguar. (As for the question, I have no idea. You would be better off talking to an editor that is more heavily involved in copyright issues, such as Moonriddengirl. She should be able to help you or point you in the right direction to finding an answer.) Silverseren^C 22:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Silver seren, I will ask her. (Sign #137 that you may be spending too much time on Wikipedia: tossing around acronyms that even Jimbo doesn't know.) 28bytes (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, hide the annoying banner on top of millin of pages

Please, hide the annoying banner on top of millin of pages. It is really annoying to see the ... Banner tens a day? week by week. It is very big, it uses a big font, images. With this banner I must to scroll down a lot on my netbook. I do scroll on every page I want to open in wiki. I ever dont want to edit something, because the banner will be showed to me 3-4 times more while I will do editing. `a5b (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You can use an option in your preferences to block it out: Gadgets, heading Browser Gadgets, the final option labeled Suppress display of the fundraiser banner. That should take care of it. Jarkeld (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See here. HalfShadow 22:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do. With every restart of browser (relogin) I will see the banner again. Millions of people a forced to see the banner, EVEN after they do click on it and read the text. `a5b (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A5b, when you click the little 'x' it is supposed to go away - even if you restart your browser. That's how it works for me. What browser are you using?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That "little x" works inconsistently for me as well, on IE8, though it doesn't really bother me. LWG ^{I done wrong? Let me know!} 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, thanks! It works. Have a good fundraising next time! `a5b (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

can automated bots editing wikipedia be based on quasi openness?

or should all bots be compatible with wikipedia licenses? you can see more info here 188.2.168.166 (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

While I prefer that bots be freely licensed, I don't have a strong opinion about it. In general we don't require people to use free software in order to be able to edit Wikipedia, whether that software is an ordinary browser or an automated or semi-automated helper application.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help welcoming newbies

Hi, Jimbo. I hope that you don't mind me posting this here, but our List of common misconceptions has been mentioned on XKCD,[3] a high-traffic web site. The number of edits to this article have increased by orders of magnitude. If anyone has the time (and patience!) to welcome the newbies and explain our policies and guidelines to them, their assistance is appreciated. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it allowed to overlook Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material and to desestimate your concerns about this issue?

• There is unsourced contentious, defamatory and harmful material against the living people from the Colectivo Socialista de Pacientes here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_Socialista_de_Pacientes
• Based on Wikipedia:BLP#Summary_deletion.2C_salting.2C_and_courtesy_blanking (Spanish_WP:BPV) I requested for a summary deletion[4] of this article, because it contained only unsourced contentious material against those living people, so it was substantially of poor quality and primarily containing contentious material that was unsourced. My request was rejected by admin-user Cratón, who said that instead of deleting, it should be improved and I was accused of disruption[5] by admin-user Sabbut. My published warning that it was unsourced contentious material which even could lead to difamation trials, was assumed as a legal threat and I was even accused of defamation (!?), although my words were taken from Wikipedia:BLP article in spanish-wikipedia:

El material sobre personas vivas debe verificar cuidadosamente las fuentes de su información. Sin fuentes terciarias confiables, una biografía podría violar las políticas de Verificabilidad y de que Wikipedia no es una fuente primaria, y podría motivar juicios por difamación.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BPV#Fuentes_confiables

• The user Aleuze pretended to resolve the thing putting a "cita requerida" ("citation needed") tag[6], which of course, as you also explicity warned[7][8], is a wrong non acceptable procedure for BLP and that is explicity forbidden in the Spanish_WP:BLP. I warned so and I emphasized that it is not an acceptable solution because meanwhile that contentious material would remain published harming those living people. But my warning was answered with rudeness and desestimated again.
• Although I think is better to delete all the aticle, I've still strongly tried to delete unsourced defamatory and contentious material from the article: [9][10][11]
• But that unsourced defamatory and contentious material was strongly restored, specially by the same admin-user Sabutt: [12][13][14]
• I tried again to dissuade the users of restoring that material, by opening a discussion thread in the talk page. The admin-user Sabutt wrote that I was coming to "enmierdar"[15] which means I was coming "to crap bullshit". The discussion thread was deleted by admin-user Alhen and by admin-user Taichi, who said that the talk-page of the article was not the appropiate place for my complaints[16](!).
• The article was blocked[17] by admin-user Laura_Fiorucci and I was blocked[18] for a week by admin-user Taichi.
• Some minutes before I was blocked, I denounced the rudeness ("...crapping bullshit...") from admin-user Sabbut, but my complaint was desestimated by the admin-user 3coma14 who said to me: it was rudely said, but your comments are truly shitting the discussion[19]
• One week later, when "my" block expired, I copy-pasted some parts taken from spanish WP:BLP into the talk_page of the article[20], thus trying again to encourage those users to delete that unsourced contentious and defamatory material; but this thread, with warnings taken from spanish WP:BLP, was also deleted[21] by the admin-user Ezarate. Meanwhile I also denounced admin-user Sabutt due disruption, as he repeatedly restored the unsourced contentious and defamatory material, but again my denounce was desestimated, although my denounce was based explicity on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Semi-protection.2C_protection.2C_and_blocking (spanish_WP:BPV#Bloqueos). Firstly my denounce was closed arguing that I was being rude, disrupting and harrassing. As you recommended[22] I firmly insisted again on the deletion of that unsourced contentious material, therefore I was finally expulsed from es.wikipedia forever by admin-user Taichi, accused of sock pupperty[23].
• Meanwhile the admin-user Laura_Fiorucci had partially deleted the unsourced defamatory and contentious material[24][25].
• But after my expulsion, the unsourced contentious and defamatory material was restored again[26] by the admin-user Taichi, the one who blocked me for a week, the one who finally expulsed me and the one who some days before had deleted from the talk-page my attempts to dissuade users from restoring the unsourced contentious material.
  • Notice that: even if deletion of unsourced defamatory and contentious material had been made by a true sock-puppet, this can not be used as an excuse for restoring that unsourced contentious material. It was demonstrated that it is unsourced contentious material. It has been sourced merely with the mentioned "citation needed"-tag during the last six weeks[27] and previous versions were not better.
• Therefore, those authors are responsible for publishing that material, more over as it is a very harmful material against those living people as they explicity warned.
• The unsourced contentious and defamatory material against the living people from the Colectivo Socialista de Pacientes remains published in spanish-wikipedia here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_Socialista_de_Pacientes

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To the other users: I'm asking Jimbo Wales, so please let Jimbo Wales answer first, before adding your comments to this section.

• :Falls into the "way too much information" category of posts here. You might note [28] among many English language sources which deal with the group. Collect (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Then you should read also this, and there are more texts about it:

  " ... Vermont's media saw perception management at work in 1978, when a young woman named Kristina Berster was caught crossing the border illegally from Canada into Vermont. The FBI knew only that she was a West German citizen and was wanted for something called criminal association a crime that didn't exist in the United States ... The verdict, delivered on Oct. 27, 1978 after more than five days of deliberations, was a felony and misdemeanor conviction for lying to a customs official, but acquittal on the crucial conspiracy charge ... When Berster returned home to Germany, the old charges against her were dropped. But it also demonstrates how perception management works. Manipulating the press and exploiting fear are powerful tools, and too often used to justify bigger budgets or intrusive security measures ... "

  Greg Guma, "Anything but the Truth: The Art of Managing Perceptions," Propaganda And The Global War On Terrorism(GWOT), Year 4 – 2005, The Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, UK (17 August 2005).

  But, may I ask you to let Jimbo Wales answer my questions first -before you add anything else- as I am asking him?. Thank you.

This was a really long post and I'm afraid I don't know what to make of it. My views on biographies are well known. They should be high quality, based on reliable sources, not about tabloid matters and should take into account human dignity. Beyond that, because I am unable to read Spanish, I am not really able to help you very much with Spanish Wikipedia issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I could translate everything you need from spanish to english, and for sure you have some friends who speak spanish and could do the same for you. But perhaps by now you don't need to worry about translations because it could be partially but quickly resolved. As "citation needed" tag is forbidden by WP:BLP because it is obviously a non-sourced material, therefore that material should be deleted summarily. Well, the current version of the article have a lot of paragraphs sourced with the tag "cita requerida" ("citation needed")[29], but the last edition of Laura_Fiorucci does not have none of those paragraphs, as they were hidden by her. As I am really unable to edit anymore in spanish wikipedia, then you may restore this version: [30] made by admin-user Laura_Fiorucci (Edit Summary: per WP:BPV). -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't read Spanish either, but the English version Patients' Collective has sufficient BLP issues to validate the concerns.--Scott Mac 23:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

[31] --JN466 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This chap, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Sabbut, restores content accusing people of wanting to bomb a train station with a "citation needed" tag (edit summary: "undoing, will look for sources"). So does http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Tirithel (edit summary: what is this? meatpuppetry?), before protecting the article. They are both es:WP bureaucrats, and one is a OTRS volunteer as well. Strikes me as most odd. They both speak English, by the way. Either we have a BLP policy, or we don't. --JN466 01:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Spanish Wikipedia run separate and differently from us here at English Wikipedia? I didn't think we had any jurisdiction over what is done at other Wikipedias. Silverseren^C 02:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So I've been told; see [32]. Basically says that Claudio Santos is a sockpuppet and troll who keeps criticising es:WP admins. But frankly, with that type of editing, I am not entirely unsympathetic to such criticism. --JN466 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Their BLP policy appears to be different than ours and a bit looser (in comparison to, say, Japanese Wikipedia, which is way more strict than us) in how they deal with such things. Considering that admins from Spanish Wikipedia are involved, I don't believe we have enough information to make any informed decision. The fact that the OP of this section is trying to get Jimbo behind him doesn't bode well for what s/he is attempting to do, so I think we should just let Spanish Wikipedia sort it out themselves. Silverseren^C 02:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Their BLP policy being different is nonsense. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BPV#Retirar_material_ofensivo_sin_buenas_fuentes is a word-for-word translation of Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, complete with quote from Jimbo ("I cannot emphasise this enough ...", etc.) --JN466 02:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, what? Do you think those two you mentioned are a rogue admin and bureaucrat? Silverseren^C 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I don't know the entire background here, but on the face of it the actions of Sabbut, Tirithel and Taichi are entirely incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Spanish BLP policy (and I read Spanish). To then go on to protect the article in the non-compliant version and block people who sought to remove unsourced contentious material really takes the biscuit. Why do that? Surely it is better to research the sources first and then insert the material, especially if we are talking about accusing people of having planned bombings, and other things besides. --JN466 02:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Two facts: ClaudioSantos y a sockpuppet of a banned user due to edit warring.

Second, SPK (is well known back from 2005) from using terrorist-like tactics to force their POV into the wiki. Example: [33] where down you get a ver y nasty threats towards two sysops:

Aquí mi respuesta basada en la realidad del sistema iatrocapitalista. Eso porque actualmente estamos en la lucha electrónica, el venezolano Ascánder*, pseudo-científico y wikipulpo como el chileno "JorgeGG"* alucinante, los dos perteneciendo a la clase médica, nosotros y yo a la clase neo-revolucionaria: Disponemos sobre los nombres, empleos y direcciones completas. Si alguien tiene interés en eso, podemos enviarle los datos mencionados.

Quick translation: we are in an electronic fight and we have names, jobs and full addresses of those two sysops, and we are willing to provide them to anyone asking.

My full support to the sysops involved dealing with these trolls: instead of blindingly revert, you should've engaged in talk there. Jimbo's talk is not an editorial control center over all wikis.

When you're right, discussion and explanation is the way to go, not crosswiki revert. Magister Mathematicae (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Announcement regarding traditional role

I was planning to announce today a relinquishment of some of my traditional powers, as I have been doing over a long period of time, however writing that up in a precise manner is proving to be more difficult than I thought, despite my having thought quite a bit about what steps to take next. I will make a further announcement about that soon.

— Jimbo Wales, 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that 2011 is in full swing, may I gently remind you of the above? While it may not be urgent, it would be unfortunate to let discussion lapse indefinitely, so if you can estimate when you might be able to make further comment on your position, that would be most helpful.

Thanks, Geometry guy 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

swamped with tenth anniversary activities until at least the fifteenth... --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the fifteenth day of January, not the fifteenth anniversary :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what such pressures are like, but find upper bounds more helpful that lower bounds: "by the end of January", perhaps? Geometry guy 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyberbullying

Does Wikipedia have a cyberbullying policy, in relation to interactions between editors, administrators, stewards etc? If so, could I be directed to it, please? if not, why not? Thanks. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that WP:CIVIL would be what you are looking for. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(Jimbo, this one's epic; if you really wanna read through the drama this stems from, get some coffee first... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

You would think that the OP would be well versed in WP:CIVIL given Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Time_Will_Say_Nothing. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)