User talk:Jimbo Wales

Massive pedophile crackdown

About a month ago, there appeared to be a big crackdown on self-identified pedophilies. From what I can gather, the ones that I knew that had put up messages saying they were a pedophile (User:Zanthalon, User:Silent War, User:Clayboy) seemed to be indefinitely blocked and had their pages deleted and protected. I've found something here: [1] Can you explain and is there any more information on this? Christopher Connor 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The banning of three self-professed pedophiles hardly seems like a "massive crackdown". If there are issues with individual bans please email individual ArbCom members directly. -Will Beback · † · 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulation to the Wikipedia for actioning to protect wide society from the dangerous individualsWen Hsing 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulation to Wen Hsing for making an extremely POV edit, not to mention one that is highly erroneous. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This page for the talk, Point Of View expression is permit? Is it not? Also most reasonable persons agree pedophilia dangerous. If a persons say openly they feel urge to murder, or would enjoy torture the animal, or create the social chaos with explosive, is this not dangerous thinking? Similarly dangerous pedophile concern. I do not intend moralistic judgment or offensive, it is issue the society safety.Wen Hsing 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of any general crackdown. We always block people who are trolling and being disruptive. I see nothing wrong with any of the blocks.--Jimbo Wales 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, my detailed response is here, the short version being: Ask the person to remove the offending material, and only refusal to do so being cause for banning. AFAIK these are good editors and I wouldn't have any credibility if I didn't stand up for them, so I am. Please reconsider. Herostratus 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The blocked Wikipedians were not trolls, they were simply paedophiles who made well-intentioned edits to Wikipedia but admitted their sexual orientation on their userpage. Since there are millions of paedophiles in society, there are clearly going to be a lot of paedophiles on Wikipedia. I'm guessing that Wikipedia received complaints from random vigilantes, however this reaction is totally unnecessary - a few silly hate groups and vigilantes are hardly going to damage a site such as Wikipedia. BLueRibbon 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-self-identifying paedophiles are clearly free to edit wikipedia, SqueakBox 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And why shouldn't we identify as paedophiles, other than to protect the delicate ears of vigilante groups? Admitting my attraction to children doesn't harm anyone, it just shows that Wikipedia is diverse, something which any online society should hope to be. BLueRibbon 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, too, we should ban any self-identifying homosexuals because they "portray negatively on Wikipedia's reputation"? Your bigoted views on sexual orientation should not be the basis of banishment from this project. ~ UBeR 02:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Vigilante groups? Are you kidding? IMO it does harm people, adult and children, so I agree with Jimbo. The blocking does no harm at all to the project, SqueakBox 02:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, would you care to explain how identifying as a paedophile harms adults or children, or are you just going to sit there making yourself feel superior with your arrogant remarks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BLueRibbon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I am not feeling superior at all, look at my user page and you'll see I identify with what is an illegal activity in many parts of the worl in bold as the opening statement of my user page so I can relate to alienation and all that but do think that it harms the project and does indeed harm adults and children. How would you presume to know what may harms others? Paedophilia does harm countless people is the reality, SqueakBox 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't realized yet, when I say "paedophilia" I mean a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. I do not mean any kind of activity. As I have already suggested, please read the pedophilia article. BLueRibbon 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking through their edit histories (Silent War, Clayboy, Zanthalon), I'm can't seem to find evidence that the blocked users were actually being disruptive. Zanthalon and Silent War were infrequent editors – their last edits were on 24 December 2006 and 30 September 2006, respectively – and so the blocks (all on 7 March 2007) were implemented months after they were last active. Admitting to paedophilia is obviously a red flag, but from their edits, it doesn't appear that their intention here was to troll, so does admitting to be a paedophile constitute a blockable offence? Wales: you yourself blocked Clayboy so could you explain this in more detail? Christopher Connor 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is only because their user page entries have been deleted, SqueakBox 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this should be a warning to pedophiles: Conceal your innermost thoughts at all costs, even if it causes you to go insane, because the world doesn't care and usually bans you from any project you join because you might someday happen to see the 1 in 7 billion chance child by accident (notice five chances have to be met, which would almost never happen). Big congratulations. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that sounds good to me. Better to go insane than abuse the innocent, no? SqueakBox 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the pedophilia article before you make such silly comments. I have never had sex with a child, yet you appear to be happy to attack me. There's only one person abusing the innocent here and that's you. BLueRibbon 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I read you home page, SqueakBox 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Which innocents is that? I am not an admin so am just commenting, pretty much from a sense of shock, SqueakBox 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am a paedophile because I am attracted to pre-pubescent children, however I do not have sex with children because I do not agree with adult-child sex. You referred to paedophiles as "abusing the innocent." Since I am innocent of what you are accusing paedophiles of doing, don't you think that you are offending an innocent person (me)? BLueRibbon 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No I dont think I am offending innocent people but I think paedophiles do do so just as people who want to murder other people can be offensive, and if they express their murderous desire here they get blocked too, SqueakBox 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 - criminality

I have visited the penitentiary in Colorado and interacted with pedophiles. We worked together on certain matters. All prisoners have the right to safety and medical care. We had one here in Crestone, a very clever one, he had a little dog he used as a lure. He gave puppet shows. I liked him, a very pleasant man. He used the wireless internet connection at the cafe to get online. I chatted with him a bit and recommended Wikipedia. But then later found out what he was up to. I suppose he couldn't control himself. It isn't a lack of humanity or sympathy which is involved. It is the reputation of the site. We are not a platform for advocacy. Or a place of assignation. Fred Bauder 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, just because we're paedophiles doesn't mean we're criminals or child abusers. Do not, under any circumstances, link me to the people jailed for child molestation. The assumption that all paedophiles are child abusers and criminals is highly offensive and is the reason why I defend my cause so doggedly. BLueRibbon 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a fair assumption,IMO. At 18 you may well be too young for a sexual relationship anyway, SqueakBox 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a fair assumption? The assumption that we're child abusers? Do you know how many paedophiles there are, how many abuse cases there are, and how many of those cases are committed by adult-attracted people? If you look at the numbers, they don't even come close to adding up to your theory. BLueRibbon 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, the assumption that all child molesters are pedophiles is a dangerous one: 90% of all child molesters have no sexual attraction to children, so laws targeting pedophilia have little effect on child molestation. --Carnildo 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The question I have though, if you want privacy, the right to lead a quiet law-abiding life, why are you expressing your sexual desires on one of the most visited websites in the world? Fred Bauder 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly want a quiet life. Regarding privacy, I take measures to protect myself on the internet. Expressing my desires here does not violate the law. I don't like to be silenced because of my sexual attraction and, when safe to do so, I make it clear that I'm attracted to children because I'm tired of so many people feeling ashamed of who they are. BLueRibbon 11:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the point. For many people, making it acceptable to have a particular desire is one step closer to making it acceptable to act on that desire. While that may not be your intent, the upset you are causing people is genuine. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose the same argument was made in the past to homosexuals. However, SqueakBox, it is correct that users should not be allowed to self-identify as pedophiles on their talk pages. There are a few reasons for this, but one that is sufficient is, lets's face it: because identifying oneself as a pedophile is such a red flag, it's a godsend for trolls. Identifying oneself as a pedophile is a great way to create disruptive drama, a troll's purpose. Actual pedophiles should understand this and recognize that for this reason it may be necessary to prohibit all self-identification as a pedophile to prevent the trolling use of such. (That does not mean that non-trolling self-identified pedphiles should be banned, just that their self-identification be removed.) Herostratus 03:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A mixed race marriage like mine has also been criminalised in the past but, as with homosexuality, we are talking of consensting adults who have the chance of a long term sustained marriage. IMO the acceptance of mixed race and homosexual marriages is a sign of progress whereas our attitude as societies to paedophiles has harden, and IMO for obvious reasons, SqueakBox 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have already stated several times, paedophilia is not harmful because it is a thought/feeling. If one refrains from acting on that, it is highly unreasonable to attack them or tar them with same brush as people who do act. Carnildo also made a good point. BLueRibbon 11:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to debate the goods and ills of society. We're here to build an encyclopedia, an educational resource for people of all ages. Is the project, and its reputation in the world, helped or hurt by allowing editors to proclaim a sexual preference for minors? I cannot see any reason why the project would be helped, and many reasons why it would be hurt. That would be true even if the editors in question only edited their user pages. In fact, they edited much more. While it wasn't the immediate cause of their ban, these editors along with others have consistently sought to remove negative information about pedophilia, to remove connections between pedophilia and child molestation, and to insert favorable material. They've been, to use the usual phrase, POV pushers. That user:Rookiee, another self-professed pedophile, wrote our first article on Justin Berry in a way that even Clayboy admitted was "pretty badly POV"[2] is an indication of the trouble we've had. While we do want our articles on pedophilia and related issues to be as neutral as any other topic, the pro-pedophile editors have done more to skew the neutrality than to help it. Let's remember that Wikipedia doesn't exist to right the world's wrongs - our purpose is to write the world's encyclopedia. -Will Beback · † · 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I should add that there are other wikis that welcome these users:[3] This isn't the only game in town. -Will Beback · † · 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 - therapy

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Many of the concerns advanced here are more properly addressed in a therapeutic setting. Cries for help are simply inappropriate in a public forum. Fred Bauder 11:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• A rare occasion when I agree with Fred - it seems to me that BlueRibbon is a Wikipedian in order to discuss his sexuality [4] rather than write an encyclopedia - I'm sure you must have some other interests and hobbies BlueRibbon - why not do us all a favour and go and write about them instead, assuming they are legal that is. Giano 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I discuss my sexuality pretty much everywhere where I feel it is safe to do so, however the reason I edit Wikipedia is to maintain a NPOV on the paedophilia-related articles, which are obviously subject to significant bias due to the current state of public opinion. For the record, I do write about many of my hobbies at Wikipedia, however I use a different username. BLueRibbon 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We should reflect the current state of public opinion worldwide in our encyclopedia, SqueakBox 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. An encyclopedia should not represent any point of view, it should represent fact. Since public opinion operates in a manner contrary to fact in this particular example, reflecting public opinion is certainly not in the best interests of this project. BLueRibbon 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually fact is a dubious concept outside the hard sciences. We should represent all notable points of view, SqueakBox 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. You will find millions of facts if you read Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which is not designed to represent points of view. BLueRibbon 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3 - attempts to ask for Jimbo's opinion

Maybe we should get Jimbo Wales' opinion on this instead of arguing. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that Jimbo doesn't usually discuss controversial issues such as this, but I agree that it would be useful to hear his opinion. BLueRibbon 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo has already opined here, see above, SqueakBox 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This you mean? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, SqueakBox 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As Fred said, this project is not some kind of experimental platform for democratic argument. It's an encyclopedia, and a project with a PR aspect to it. If you want the privilege of editing here, it's fair enough that you do nothing that could bring the project into disrepute - which includes self-identifying as a pedophile on your userpage or elsewhere. If you (some hypothetical pedophile) want to make pedophilia more socially respectable, take the issue to other forums. If the government tries to censor you, I might even support your right to say whatever it is you want - I'm big on freedom of speech. But Wikipedia is not the government; it's a private operation that can set its own terms on which it cooperates with people. It's not here to assist your cause, however just or unjust, and it has its own problems without you adding to them. Why don't people "get" this simple idea? Metamagician3000 10:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. All I ask is that we keep a NPOV on pedophiles and pedophilia—that's what Wikipedia is about. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4 - views of

I am disgusted with both Fred Bauder's and Will Beback's bigoted views on this issue. These types of hate-filled views were once applicable to to the handicapped and homosexuals. And so it appears SqueakBox's has been caught with his pants down on concerning his views on Wikipedia and his ill-conceived notion that Wikipedia should represent the public opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UBeR (talk • contribs).

Can you elaborate, please? Your comment seems rather obscure (and I almost reverted it for trolling). —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything "hate-filled" about my comments or Bauder's. The editors in question didn't just keep their beliefs to themselves - they used Wikipedia resources to promote those beliefs, and they actively sought to alter WP articles to reflect their POV. Anybody who edits Wikipedia, whether pedophile or Presbyterian, should put the project first. This isn't an experiment in free speech or the equality of all ideas. -Will Beback · † · 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And I wholeheartedly believe that encyclopedia writing should be at the forefront of every user. That is the goal of this project. But when members are being denied to do this on the basis of their sexual orientation and bigoted fears of "degrading reputation" is when this project demises. ~ UBeR 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand, and agree with both you and W. Beback. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, from recent events it appears that new user-page precedents have been set. These are:

• No self-identification as a pedophile.
• No pro-pedophile material.
• No external links to pro-pedophile material.

and that these offenses are punishable by an indefinite ban. Since no evidence of disruption from the banned users have been provided, this appears to be the case. At this point, Wikipedia:User page should be updated to reflect this (which also means the initial bans were out of hand).

(I also hoped to avoid a long, off-topic discussion like the one above.) Christopher Connor 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 6 - action/desire

I posted this at talk:Sexual intercourse a couple of weeks ago, before I was aware of this debate;

== Pedophilia and "desire". ==

I realise that this will be a sensitive subject, so I will try to be clear. Desire, thinking about, fantasising regarding sex with children is not illegal/prohibited. There are no legal mechanisms to deny people the ability to think in a certain manner. Most societies disallow the expression of such desires by moral and social disapproval, and the use of legal methods to restrict communication of such desires. What is illegal is the practice, procurement, advancement or support of pedophilia, and its depiction even as fiction. By stating that the desire is illegal, rather than publicly condemned, is untruthful. In short, people who have or do think such thoughts are not criminals - those that act upon such impulses are... LessHeard vanU 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I feel that confusing or linking desire with the illegal/immoral practice is inaccurate and wrong I am also of the opinion that not allowing the free expression of such interest or desire is beyond that which is allowed in western society. Wikipedia does not have to allow such expression if that is its choice, but I would make clear that this choice is based upon a moral/political consideration than that of law. My personal opinion is that a contributor is free to admit to anything that is of itself not illegal (desire, not practice, in this case) on their userpage. If this encourages other editors to review the contributors edits more closely on certain subjects, then this is better for WP. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:LessHeard vanU's comemtns above. DES ^(talk) 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not thought police and of course we dont and indeed cant analyse people's inner thoughts. To claim wikipedia doesnt allow people to think what they want is absurd, ridiculous given we cant do this so what is your complaint? Nobody has been blocked for having an inner thought but when individuals start trying to proclaim their so-called and definitely illegal desires on people they know will be sickened to hear them, that is not thinking, its provoking others, and its bemirsching the project in a big way. Undeclared paedophiles are welcome here as we have no way of knowing who they are and we assume good faith, SqueakBox 22:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I re-iterate (as you keep missing the point and making the claim); the desire is not illegal. Acting upon it is. Therefore if Wikipedia decides, as it is entitled to do, that it should remove references of pedophiliac interest from userpages or ban such self declared pedophiles then it does so on the grounds of morality and/or political standpoints. My complaint is that asserting that having such desires is illegal is fallacious. LessHeard vanU 12:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between having a desire and expressing it and I am not convinced that expressing said desire is legal (though legality depends largely on where one is located), SqueakBox 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As said before, a desire for sexual activity with children is perfectly legal if not acted upon, so shouldn't that apply to expressing it as well? True, if such an admission is made in a way that is disruptive or intended to be disruptive, that should not be allowed. Yet if such attraction is simply stated on a user-page, the content of which is generally associated with the editor, not the encyclopedia, why should the editor be blocked? I'm quite new to Wikipedia, and not all that experienced with its way of operating, but this is quite beyond my comprehension. --Anna512 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is a big difference, legally speaking, between expressing a desire and expressing an intent to act on that desire.Chunky Rice 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 7 - reporting

• Anyone who actually admits to being a pedophile here should not only be permanently blocked, but all of their available information should be immediately forwarded to the FBI and / or InterPol. 70.105.16.153 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Well the FBI have no authority outside the US (interpol is not the correct channel) as I think that is going a bit far but IMO Fred Bauer got it right when saying what these people need is therapy. I agree that a permanent block is always justified in these cases but dont think wikipedia needs to do anything further unless an actual crime appears to have been committed, SqueakBox 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Therapy? There is little hope for these sick puppies who prey on our posterity ever rejoining the human race... that is why we just remove them from society. And trust me, FBI and Interpol are both very interested. 70.105.16.153 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the FBI only have jurisdiction over people in the US or with US citizenship/residency and unfortunately even inn the US many convicted child sex offenders get released and then re-offend, and then get released again etc. I certainly understand your point of view better than many expressed in this thread, SqueakBox 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is important to realise the difference between a paedophile that has acted on such desires or intends to, and a paedophile that has not. Child molesters deserve to be inserted slowly, feet-down into a meat-grinder, but that is not a treatment I would recommend to innocent people. --Anna512 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone is expressing that desire on wikipedia I think there is a strong argument that individual is a danger to himself or others. Besides we dont want our readers being exposed to people who say they want to have sex with children, that is completely not the point of either wikipedia or us having user pages. Nobody is stopping a paedophile who doesnt self identify editing constructively to the paedophile articles, SqueakBox 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Far better that someone admits to a persuasion, and denies themselves the practice, than those that secretly work to an agenda. The approbation directed toward an honest person, whose desires are not condoned, is only going to make others who have similar desires conceal them. That said, I re-iterate that Wikipedia has the right and the powers to disallow self identification in areas it believes is detrimental to the community. I am against such measures in principle. The only danger I can see is the mob mentality engendered by a topic that allows very little scope for the arguments in defence of such peoples admission of desire. On that basis, given the emotive and non-logical (and downright plain wrong) comments by some, I now think that WP should require that no self identification as a paedophile is permitted. I am disappointed, but realistic. LessHeard vanU 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is dismaying and disturbing enough that these individuals, far from seeking therapy, have the unmitigated gall to organize themselves into political lobby groups for the purpose of announcing to us their view that it's 'okay' now for them to rape our young kids. They should NOT be allowed to turn this project into one of their platforms, by any means. 70.105.16.153 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See Pedophile activism, SqueakBox 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 8 - wikiversity

I would suggest that you all discuss this at Wikiversity! This discussion is quite interesting to read, but it doesn't belong to this talk page. Wikiversity has plenty of room for talk pages and learning material about pedophilia and other subjects, and there's no requirement for NPOV, as long as you disclose your POVs. See, for instance, this page created for a discussion about War and Iran. You could do the same with Pedophilia, both people in favor and against. A.Z. 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my position, I am not arguing for pedophillia but noting that expressing the desire or interest is not illegal. Statement of Law/fact. This has obviously placed me (in the "minds" of morons) as a pro pedophile editor, but such is the risk us liberals take when presented with the task of explaining concepts to those who seem incapable of conceptualising argument... LessHeard vanU 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ps. Where did Jimbo say that this is not an appropriate venue?

I understand your position. I know I haven't expressed myself very well before, when I said "people in favor and against". I guess I was just being lazy. I understood that you are not defending child abuse: you are defending the right for people to express their desires.

Jimbo didn't say that this is not an appropriate place for the discussion, as far as I know: I said it. I think that, at Wikiversity, everyone will have a better place to develop the discussion and make it into useful learning material.

I think that the discussion may even qualify as original research if you continue it for quite a while. You could do that at Wikiversity: original research is fine there, arguing about law and pedophilia and desires and the expression of desires is fine there; useful learning material can be developed, and you may learn something yourselves. I do think that a user talk page is less appropriate, but I admit it that I tried to find out why and couldn't think of a good rational explanation for that. Anyway, that's only the way I feel and my suggestion is only a suggestion. A.Z. 22:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for misunderstanding that you were not misunderstanding me. I've responded more fully at your talkpage since, as you say, the discussion here is verging on off topic. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This topic is getting too far towards law and legal status of pedophilia... In my opinion, stating your sexual orientation at all here is a bad idea. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a dating service, so any mention of sexuality etc. shouldn't be allowed. That being said the legality of such things is beside the point. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, people in monnogamous relations have a sexual orientation, not just people wanting to date. Is a picture of me with my wife expressing my sexual orientation, or is LessHeard vanU's expressing his. Many gays would, I suspect, would be particularly uncomfortable with not being able to express sexual orientation, SqueakBox 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

On my userpage I note that I am married and the father of two children. This gives some indication of my life experiences, which may be useful to other editors when evaluating my comments regarding events in the latter quarter of the 20th century. It also gives some idea of the orthodoxy of my current sexual activities. Why should I be allowed this expression, and someone else not? I, and the alternative they, do not have to make such details public, but we surely should all have the same right? LessHeard vanU 23:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think that to a minor extent, a sexual orientation can be made. Things such as "This user is married" should be allowed, as opposed to "This user is a heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual." There is a difference between them, as one is confrontational while the other implies but remains in the background. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I absolutely disagree. I am married with 2 children does not mean that I am not a serial adulterer with the morals of a rat with an expanded libido, whereas a gay person may have been in a monogamous relationship for one or more decades (and does not note that they are a choral music enthusiast). Which one of us is best suited for editing an article on church organs? Which one of use is the better human being? Which one of us is more honest? Self identifying, the point at the very start of this discussion, provides the greater community the best way of quickly evaluating another editor. As such we should all be given the same opportunities, no matter what the consequences to the editor is. LessHeard vanU 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (in case my wife looks in to see what drivel I have been inflicting - THIS IS AN EXAMPLE...!)

The only problem that I have with placing sexual orientations in a large extent on Wikipedia is that, although denied, you will receive a substantial amount of bias and prejudice from others who find it distasteful. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But—that's life. Republicans and Democrats recievee a substantial amount of bias and prejudice from others who find republic or democracy distasteful. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 9 - precedent

I'm strongly against sexual abuse of children, but I feel that banning the self-identification of a viewpoint or sexual preference to constitute a dangerous precedent. If we can say you aren't allow to self-identify as pedophile, one day someone can also say we cannot self-identify as far left, anarchist, or paleoconservative (some people equate paleoconservatism with misogyny and racism), etc, eventually it would led to a new crackdown on expression of viewpoints on userpages. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 00:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi, we don't block accounts because we dislike their thinking, we block accounts because they disrupt the project. We block people who come up with offensive usernames for the same basic reason. -Will Beback · † · 07:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You got a fair point there, Springeragh... Anyway, it was just a suggestion. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

With this debate about paedophiles, I'd love to hear what their victims have to say on the subject while Wikipedians philosophise like it's a trivial matter... LuciferMorgan 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Victims? "Paedophile" ≠ "child molester". Since a paedophile may never act upon the attraction (while on the other hand children may be molested by non-paedophiles), to what "victims" do you refer? The people who suffer the affliction of paedophilia, i.e. the paedophiles themselves? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If it were disruptive for a wikipedian to openly identify as black, would you support a measure that banned members who openly identified as being black?

Or would you stick two fingers up to 'pleasing the public', and embrace the principle of personal freedom? --Jim Burton 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You cant in a good faith way compare being black to being a pedophile. To suggest they are even vaguely similar strikes me as rascist claptrp, SqueakBox 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To say that the two can be reasoned around differently strikes me as misopedic claptrap. Both are biological conditions, with some soially determined element involved. No one is harmed by a basic state of being alone; be that race or pedophilia. --Jim Burton 07:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

misopedia (′mis·ə′pē·dē·ə) (psychology) Morbid hatred of all children, but especially of one's own

I think you just wrote that "if someone sees a distinction between blackness and pedophilic tendencies, then they have a hatred of children". Is that what you meant to say or have I misunderstood you? Either way, can you please explain? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare dark skinned people with paedophiles - that's quite a racist comment actually. Are you saying those who sexually abuse children and those who are dark skinned are one and the same? Jim Burton, that's totally incorrect. LuciferMorgan 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A pedophile is not someone who engages in sexual activity with a child. A pedophile is exactly what it says in the article. Being of a certian race is very similar to being of a certain orientation. Both are grounded in genetics, and both are made known, or categorised due to social processes. To claim that my assertion is racist, is in turn anti - pedophile --Jim Burton 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedophiles who act on their urges have sex with children. There is little or no evidence that pedophilia is genetic. -Will Beback · † · 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pedophiles who act on their urges have sex with children." This doesn't contradict Jim's statement. 'Black people who kill are murderers, therefore your statement that black people are not murderers is disputable.' "There is little or no evidence that pedophilia is genetic." Probably because there's almost no research into it. There's Gaffney et al., though -Jillium 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedophiles, by definition, desire to have sex with children. Blacks do not, by definition, desire to murder people. The comparison is offensive. And many things are possibly true pending research. However until such research is done we can't legitimately claim them to be true in an encyclopedia. -Will Beback · † · 00:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[indent] Pedophiles, by definition, desire to have sex with children.

You really haven't been reading those articles that you spend hours editing, have you? Pedophiles have a primary sexual attraction towards children, but this does not mean that they want to 'have sex' (whatever that is). In fact, some pedophiles claim that despite enjoying the idea of fondling a prepubescent child, they feel that the practise is naturally disruptive and harmful, and thus wouldn't engage in it themselves. However genetic the pedophile orientation is, there is absolutely no evidence that sexual arousal to child imagery can be reduced by nonintrusive therapeutic techniques, and much anecdotal evidence against that idea. Michael Jackson can bleach his skin, he can also go in for chemical castration, but at the end of the day, both of his conditions remain. --Jim Burton 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Lucifer. In reply to your earlier comment I think that that discussion is for the main pedophilia article, where sources including victims accounts and considerations better inform the subject. I would also comment that nobody here, in my interactions, has acted like it is in the least bit trivial. In fact, the paedophile activism article is potentially far more controversial than the main paedophile article since we are seeking to make an encyclopedic entry regarding people and groups that seek to change public perceptions of child-adult sex and its supporters. If there is a lot of talk there and here it is because we all want to be very sure that what we place in the article is as appropriate as we can make it. LessHeard vanU 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence to compare a sexual orientation with racial characteristics and I agree with Lucifer that to do so is being rascist. Pedophilia at best is an illness. Is being black an illness? Of course not. Pedophilia implies a certain desire or orientation. Does being black? Of course not, and to compare the 2 is rascist in a way that insults black people, SqueakBox 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And orientation cannot be genetic? Also if its an illness, then what's the problem with self-identifying as a sufferer of that illness? I personally suffer from multiple allergies (it's annoying) and I think people who have painful/uncomfortable conditions should be able to identify themselves as having them. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparing a Negro Man to a to a crock of shit is not racist, or not inherently so. Perhaps I love crocks of shit. My assertion is only racist according to your (IMO equally denounceable) anti pedophile sentiments. --Jim Burton 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 10 - pedophiles should ...

No, you let me tell YOU something [comments factored] Now ENOUGH of this turning Jimbo's page into a three ring circus, like you disgrace everything you touch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.129.173.169 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

This IP should be blocked, and hopefully one or two known editors will go away with it --Jim Burton 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes well so should you for your rascist outburst which I have censored. Rascism will not be tolerated, SqueakBox 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the comment again before acting so irrationally. 1. The comment was a philosophical take on relativism, 2. If it were racism, such a thing is hard to define, and thus it should stand so that admins can take action against the espouser, 3. By censoring it, you mischaracterise me as racist (a very serious mistake), 4. In no way does this imply that I would want to remove a person's right to engage in racist literature. --Jim Burton 02:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You sir, are a living piece of shit and have no right to write this here about Black people. A slow, horrible death would be to good for you, child molestor. As for blocking me, if you aren't used to the way people will react to your stench by now, you probably never will be, so why don't you just do yourself and us all a big favor... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.219.80 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Whilst different social minorities fluctuate in and out of fashion, the one timeless constant that remains is the group of poor fools who follow fashion to the point of distortion and curse the folk devils to the point of unreasoned hatred --Jim Burton 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you one more time to get off Jimbo's page, faggot bitch. You don't belong here. If I were an admin you would be blocked long ago for your incendiary comments. You've aready laid your big child molesting turd here, now walk away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.130.212.139 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Incendiary!!!? :) XD XP If I weren't a good natured child molesting, racist, faggot turd or whatever, I could have said that of you. Love --Jim Burton 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I know Wikipedia isn't the place to express one's own political viewsbut why is "This user supports the Islamic resistance" considered extremely inflammatory and compeletely inappropriate, while "This user supports George W. Bush" or "This user supports Likud", "This user supports Yisrael Beytenu" and other political userbox are treated like any other userbox. We should avoid double-standards and bias on Wikipedia, even when the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia admins are biased to one side. Either this one should be allowed, or every other political userbox should be removed. I need your say on this. Emбargo 13:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for 48 hours for repeatedly creating an inappropriate user page, see Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content, also [5] and [6]. It is my opinion that administrators may continue to block him as long as he continues this activity. See also [7] where he removes a rather ordinary Israel userbox. Fred Bauder 15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, but I was talking about the userbox, which seems perfectly appropriate to me, seeing there are other similar userboxes. Changing the subject and talking about my inappropriate userpage doesn't change the fact that "This user supports Hezbollah", again, is considered "extremely inflammatory" and "completely inappropriate" while other userboxes, or "Wikipedians by politics" as a whole, is considered ordinary. Emбargo 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with embargo on this point. If someone can say they support Bush, and another cannot say that they support islamic resistance, then this is a double-standard. I can see why this creates problems because a majority of Americans in particular (which I'm sure comprises large sum of users on Wikipedia) is disgusted by the islamic resistance, but by the same token, many peole believe that Bush is just as bad. I don't endorse islamic resistance myself, but I do endorse his freedom of expression in this point. If people do not like this userbox, they can choose not to use it. Shimdidly 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo believes, in general, that userboxes are divisive and should not be used on Wikipedia. I guess this thread kind of supports that opinion.  :-) 4.68.248.200 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He may believe some are thus but not all and has explicitly supported language skill user boxes, which are on his page, SqueakBox 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me... I wasn't thinking of language userboxes as the type of userboxes in question at the time but, of course, you're right. Jimbo's userbox suggestions are in the archives of this page. I was merely trying to enlighten those who might not have seen his previous comments on the subject and, perhaps, keep him from having to comment on something he has commented on so eloquently in the past. Carry on...  :-) 4.68.248.200 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, can you give your opinion on this matter, if you will? Flagrant bias has been giving me headaches for a while, I need to know where you stand on this. Emбargo 10:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So typical that certain users will rail about discrimination while posting material like this.Proabivouac 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By all means comment on this Jimbo if you wish, but the major problem here is Embargo verging on trolling with his continued insertion of userboxes, each time trying to test the community to see what he can get away with, and when it goes quiet, out he pops with a more inflamatory userbox. Just take a look at the Embargo's contribs..... Ryan Postlethwaite 10:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If Ryan Postelthwaite wants me blocked or banned for whatever reason, feel free to do so. This is not the issue being discussed, what I came here to discuss is double-standards and how some userboxes are allowed and others not, only because administrators like Ryan Postlethwaite consider it a terrorist organization. Logically, either this one should be allowed or every other political userbox deleted. What does Jimbo Wales think? Emбargo 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is Embargo, the userboxes you keep pointing to say things like this user supports george bush. What we're concerned about is when you put up userboxes like; This user supports armed resistance to israeli massacres (check the wikilinking out). That's clearly offensive and against WP:USER, as so many people have suggested Embargo, instead of worrying about your userbox, why don't you go and do something that will help the encyclopedia? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See Jimbo, that's the kind of hypocrisy I have had to deal with for the past weeks. Ryan, I thought you objected to "This user supports the Islamic resistance" "due to the contraversial nature of the group", and because "This user supports the islamic resistance is clearly a polemical statement, against WP:USER" or because "Hezbollah are seen as a terrorist organisation by a number of countries still, saying that you support islamic resistance by them is clearly offensive to people who have been killed in their terrorist campaigns, regardless of how you, a supporter of them feels about them, the fact is, supporting hezbollah in any way on wikipedia is clear innappropriate." or "Israelies would be highly offended by your userbox, anyway - IT IS a polemical statement." Enough with the hypocrisy. Why don't you stop worrying about my userbox and actually do something that will help the encyclopedia?

Hopefully Jimbo will give his final word before this gets automatically archived. Emбargo 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo, Wikipedia is not a forum for the expression of opinion. If you have sourced and neutrally presented material you'd like to add to Hezbollah, go do it. Your personal opinion is irrelevant except insofar as its upsetting some other editors.Proabivouac 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo, trust me I've got many other things to worry about than your userbox (check my contribs, I'm doing other constructive things on wikipedia), I just don't like you upsetting other users with the statements you make on your userpage. Instead of filling Jimbo's talk page with this, why don't you take it to WT:USER? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, you don't like it when I upset other users with the statements on my userpage. You consider stating support for Hezbollah upsetting. I consider stating support for Israel, Zionism and the many Israeli political parties equally upsetting. In fact, all userboxes are upsetting to some at one point. But why are these upsetting userboxes allowed when others are not? Why is stating support for Israel, Zionism, Yisrael Beytenu and others allowed whereas stating support for Hezbollah considered inflammatory? This is Jimbo Wales' talk page and I'm addressing him and not Ryan Poslethwaite or Proabivouac. I really can't see why Jimbo Wales is avoiding this. Please give your final word. Emбargo 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I brought it to WT:USER a month ago, and it fizzled after a few replies. It had a big to-do over at WP:AN/I for a week or so, which resulted in some good conversation and some crackdowns on some users that Embargo has long complained about, such as this one, but that was all. There are still two overall problems that remain; one is that, as mentioned in the first post of this topic, there seems to be this sentiment that some political boxes are OK, while others are not. The second is that one admin will judge that a user box is OK, and then another one comes along and deletes it. Why is it so hard to ask that these two issues be addressed? #1) Either delete all political-related boxes, or allow them all. #2) Require all admins to adhere to a uniform standard when upholding #1 Tarc 13:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is Tarc, there have been numerous threads on AN/I regarding Embargo's userboxes, he doesn't seam to understand that they aren't allowed. The userboxes which Embargo keeps quoting that shouldn't be allowed are no where near as offensive as his, he is consistantly attempting to make a point, his contributions show that his major concern on wikipedia is attempting to get his pro-Hezbollah userboxes to stay, what he often forgets is that we are trying to create an encyclopedia, not campaign against countries - this isn't the UN. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"No where near as offensive" is entirely subjective, and that is at the heart of the problem here. All I want to to see some damned consistency in applying the "no polemical statements" rule...maybe its just me, but WP:USER doesn't say "nearly offensive polemicals" are ok. Its like the silliness of Nearly Headless Nick; either his head's on, or his head's off. There's no logical in-between. Tarc 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BB, WP:BB... let me say, I'm just a wikipedist that has found this conversation by chance, and wanted to say something. While wikipedia must be neutral, wikipedists, and by extension humans, are not. What you might find offensive, for me could be perfectly normal, and vice versa. For example, I am sure this userbox is highly offensive here, but, I can assure you in the spanish wikipedia is very common among wikipedists (not me). On the contrary, something like this has generated a lot of controversy and banned users there. What I am trying to say, that everybody must accept not all the people think alike, and we must respect each other. Emбargo hasn't made any crime. Suporting islamic palestines is not the same as killing israelies. If it offends you (as it does me too), don't look at it, dont' copy in your page or promote it. But.... Does his lack of neutrality as human affect his work as wikipedist? That is the important question. If his contributions are neutral or he has an agenda different from contribution to wikipedia. That should be the relevant problem. ---- Fernando Estel · (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:USER? It clearly states that polemical statements aren't allowed, I find it quite difficult to believe that some people can't see that embargo's userboxes are polemical. Numerous AN/I threads regarding Embargo's trolling over his userpage should make it perfectly clear that the userboxes he is using are inappropriate for wikipedia, especially where civility is key. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A "polemical" statement would be one that constitutes a "refutation of the opinions or principles of another".[8] If supporting Hezbollah is considered "polemic", I can't for the life of me see this userbox is not. The Iraq war was opposed by millions of people worldwide, including the UN. If a user is proud to have participated in an act considered illegtimate by the majority of people across the world, then that is just as "polemic" as supporting Hezbollah.Bless sins 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm, have you actually checked over Embargo's userpage history? He's not simply supporting Hezbollah, it's far more inflammatory than that, take a look at this nice little userbox of his (note what the words are wikilinking to), polemical enough for you? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a registered user of this site so perhaps that makes my opinion of the matter less valid to you, but I agree with Embargo's stance. It is double standards to consider support for Hezbollah any differently to support for George Bush. The argument about polemic is redundant and inappropriate - polemic is, by definition, an argument. A userbox is not an argument, it is a reflection of support. To rule a userbox supporting Hezbollah as polemical (and thus against the rules), you would have to do the same to every userbox suggesting political support. I'm sorry, but I think Embargo is being completely reasonable in his stance. You may not agree with it, but it's not polemical by definition and it doesn't seem to be against the rules. Any other user page content he might have had in the past is irrelevant to this specific debate. 60.241.179.28 09:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the above, it does fit into secondary definitions of polemic. My point stands, however - his userbox is no more or less inflamatory to various groups than one supporting Bush or Israel. Rulings such as this should be objective and unbiased, and the ruling that his userbox is a violation but others aren't is far from objective, and far from unbiased. 60.241.179.28 09:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if you ban a user box supporting one illegal war, you ought to ban ones supporting another; and probably ones supporting just about anything else. I'd add that the specifics of where Embargo's links are linking to (yes, I did check) and what his box says are not relevant. In effect, to me it is not obvious that it should be OK to support one group and not OK to support another, and arguments such as "come on, it's obvious" aren't going to fly. So, I'd like to hear a logical criterion for allowing or banning such user boxes based on something other than a particular editor's whim, and I'd like to see it applied.200.121.198.125 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear Jim Wales' opinion on this before restoring the userbox to my page. Emбargo 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Should I take your silence as permission to reinstate the userbox? I think what you're doing is pretty low Jimbo. Emбargo 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie

Is this movie (sort of Documentary)>>Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story (which stars our very own Jimmy Wales) really going to be made or is it just one of those IMDB's fake creations..--Cometstyles 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The movie is under production, and the production team was in Chennai when Jimbo visited the city in connection with a wiki-unconference on 25th February, 2007 - [9]. As far as I know, the team is moving with Jimbo around the world :) and a documentary of about two hours shall see the light of the day sometime in 2008. --Bhadani (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Few words more --Bhadani (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By weird coincidence, the previous tennant of my apartment is the filmmaker, Michael Gibson. I've met him several times and we have friends in common, so I can vouch for his identity. I also received a fundraising letter for the film, so I believe the film is a serious effort. William Pietri 14:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's a documentary. Wikipedia need to be in a James Bond or Mission Impossible kind of movie. Who is with me on this? SakotGrimshine 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Angelena Jolie plays a character named SlimVirgin who is a secret spy for British Intelligence but is also a double spy for Israeli Intelligence who plants secret messages in Wikipedia for spies around the world. However Sean Connery playing Daniel Brandt is paid by the CIA to ferret out her identity but tries to cover up his single minded interest by pretending to try to out the identities of all admins. Meanwhile Jimbo, played by himself, disguises himself as Sommey, the leader of a gang of cyber-punks out to destroy Wikipedia, and arranges a secret meeting with Brandt (who is in a secret location in Peru) where Jimbo forces him to drink some Kool-aide laced with a drug that turns him into a nerd that cares for nothing except adding sourced information into an online encyclopedia called "Wikipedia". It ends with a sex scene. WAS 4.250 14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's more of Wikipedia Review. Make it more like a James Bond movie. There's some villain who has a plot to use Wikipedia to take over the world, destroy the world, or hold it for ransom. There will be a scene where the villain maybe saying "unleash the socks" or something will press a button and lots of employees will go to work on the Wikipedia bio of someone the villain wants to punish and it's lots of socks with new users, established users (they'll edit helpfully just so they can do those rare instances where they do the villain's biddin to alter an article), and hacked admin accounts (admins who were inactive and didn't watch their accounts) and then all of a sudden the villain is able to change someone's whole reputation. This is more James Bond fashion. Maybe there's a scene where instead of Blowfeld or whoever pressing a button to kill someone, they press a button to kill someone through their wikipedia bio and Blofeld doesn't kill them but leaves them to be killed by their bio. By the way I don't mean anything bad by Wikipedia bios, I'm just thinking of how a James Bond movie would go. The villain would be rich so he'd have henchmen dial up to ISPs all over the world to look like multiple people. Maybe the victim could hold Brittain hostage saying he's going to change their nation's history unless he gets one million dollars. SakotGrimshine 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... shouldn't it simply be a CGI rendered feature, with a bit of hand-drawn animation for the really tricky bits? For the arthouse crowd the final scene could always show live action puppets manipulating the computers used for the CGI. Oh, and lots of nudity since WP is not censored. LessHeard vanU 10:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Power abuse

Mr. Wales, I'm just an ordinary Wikipedia's editor, I'm not from an english speaking language but I think everybody here is equal, by principle. I would like to protest about a block I suffered from an administrator (and your friend as suposed by the photo at his users page)named Kjetil r and other arbitrary one, Lugusto, from Brazil.

I'm now blocked at Commons because I "dared" upload an OWN WORK of good quality, which was tagged as COPYVIO withou any reason, just a "doubt". Of course, I reuploaded the image and this administrator Kjetil r simply blocked me for one week, with a bizarre "death sentence": "user reuploaded a copyvio". What??? What copyvio?? Please, I ask you to read the actual discussion in my talk page at Commons[10] and help to a solution in this matter. I thnik administrators who block users based in their own will, without any true reason, must be punished. Thank you Machocarioca 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

I would suggest, before going to Mr. Wales, that you exhaust the "lower level" appeals processes first. If you disagree with an administrators actions in the Commons, you should post your complaint on the Commons Admin noticeboard ([11]). You should be able to post there even if you're blocked. If you can't, email one of the Commons administrators and let them know you want to appeal your block and they should allow you to do so. Cla68 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't do that, I'm blocked. When I'll be able to do that, the block would be expired. It looks like Cuba, maybe. I would like an answer from Mr Wales, the user in question is a friend of him. "Lowel Level"? I tought all users were equal here. Mr Wales and Mr John Doe too. There's a great injustice and power abuse in the situation. Machocarioca 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Just as a reminder, we don't "punish" people here. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a semantic quibble. We deny folks access to resources. In some contexts that serves as punishment, or charitably, feedback for their learning systems. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Nobody is blocked as a punishment. For instance, if you there's no reason to believe some user would keep on doing disruptive behavior, there's no need to block. In the Commons case above, the user was blocked because he showed intention to keep reuploading deleted material. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the intent (i.e. to not be punishment), the action of blocking can feel to the blocked user like a punishment, as should be self-evident by the user's complaint. The fact that a person does not intend a consequence to be interpreted as punishment (i.e. you/Wikipedia admins as a whole do not intend blocking to be interpreted as punishment) cannot prevent an affected individual from feeling punished. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(Abu badali) said: "Nobody is blocked as a punishment". If you are blocked without support of any rule, you're being punished. "The user was blocked because he showed intention to keep reuploading deleted material". Yes, but why delected?? Nobody talks about that. Because a user "doubt" an own image is mine. Of course it was reuploaded, and will be again, this is not a nazi site . And of course I fell me punished. Machocarioca 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Of course it was reuploaded, and will be again, is exactly why you're blocked. Editors are not blocked for punishment, but because it's the only way to prevent them from being disruptive. WilyD 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To WilyD : Disruptive?? Who you call disruptive? An user who wants upload his own work?? I'm sorry, but are you kidding?? Could be disruptive, in your mind, an administrator who blocks an user who wants upload his own work or not?? And this arbitrary administrator blocked me before I say anything about reupload anything. Could you please answer this question? Did you read anytihng in this discussion before say what you said? Machocarioca 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Whether you're right or not is not really what being disruptive is about. When something is disputed in good faith by several users they need to resolve the issue before moving forward. Right or wrong, someone who keeps charging ahead against the grain without discussion is being disruptive. Pledging to continue to do so without trying to resolve the issue is definitely being disruptive. While a seven day block does seem somewhat excessive, the fact that you declared your intent to keep uploading shows it wasn't unjustified. Discuss and work out the problem, then proceed. Look, I understand how frustrating other users can be sometimes when you're playing by the rules and they're opposed to what you're doing. But you have to find a consensus. Of course, an Admin blocking a user who wants to upload their own work may or may not be disruptive - more context is needed to know. And I read the whole discussion before I wrote what I wrote, yes. WilyD 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with some points of your message but let me discuss some statements: "When something is disputed in good faith". The problem here is this, there isn't good faith on it but bad personal relationship. This is a problem that came here from another language wiki, envolving a known troublemaker in it, user Dantadd✉ who came here to "doubt" about the work of someone about who he knows.......nothing. In other words, this guy called me desonest supported by an irresponsable ADM. The administrator (God knows how) Lugusto in question did not delet it in good faith, he deleted because this one, (his friend in another wiki) "doubted" about the ownership. Based in what? Nothing, as you can read at the discuss page. There wasn't a consensus to delect the image, just the will of an user because another one said "I doubt" (???)I want to resolve this issue, how can we do that? As you can imagine, I'm very upset with this situation.
• I understand how frustrating other users can be sometimes when you're playing by the rules . Yes, I'm the one here playing by the rules, this ADM Lugusto is not, as you can read in the discuss. I apologize for all this thing, but this is a personal fight among users of portuguese wiki that was deployed here for two users, Dantadd and Lugusto. There's a huge discussion out there about fair use and these people took all this thing to a personal level. This is the root of all this thing here, I apologize for their behaviour. Well, I'm very frustated that an ordinary user of this wiki, only by personal feelings, have started this mess.

they need to resolve the issue before moving forward. Yes I agree but the issue was already resolved moving forward before anything, the image was deleted right? And when it was uploaded another ADM blocked the user. It was resolved, hã? Well, the bizarre question is: how can the owner of an image(me) upload it without being blocked or something?? What I have to say? I think I've said all. Thank you. Machocarioca 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Machocarioca: It was decided at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KEITHR.JPG that the image should be deleted. I did not participate in the deletion debate, and I do not have strong feelings about this image. But when you upload it again, and say that you intend to do so over and over again, you should be blocked. Seven days was perhaps too much, so I'll unblock you now. The block has now expired. You can write a note at commons:Commons:Undeletion requests, but please do not upload it again. Kjetil r 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC), changed 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me , but I strongly desagree . It was decided, for who? By one arbitrary administrator without any, repeating, any evidence to that, as you can read in the discuss page. The only messages there were from two users who say that they talked with me before and I said the image was really mine. Just that. No arbitrary users, just came to me to confirm. Agree? Please, read the discussion and find ANY evidence that suppports the deletion. So, there wasn't any accordance to that, just of the user who began all the process coming from nowhere to say he "doubted" about the ownership of an image placed here months ago.

I will write a note in the undelection request and wait to read the arguments against or not. I'm very upset with these arbitrary act, as you can see, by two irresponsable users from antoher wiki, Lugusto and Dantadd.

And you, sir, blocked me because I "reuploaded a COPYVIO". What?? Could you say me what copyvio were you talking about? I think you made a huge mistake supporting an arbitrary act of another one, in a "debate" (it wasn't) you neither participate. An this "expired block" was an absurd one, forgive me. Ok, I know you, administrators, will never block an administrator for arbitrary acts, you will ever suppport them, this is a problema here in Wikipedia and the reason of some many angry among the users. I just think this method doesn't work. Maybe is the real reason why Jerry Sanger got out. Anyone, who we do not know who is or his capacity to understand an especific mater can decide what he wants if he is an "administrator". The human being never fails... Thank you. Machocarioca 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

• It's not just you, so don't sweat it. This sort of stupidity has become part of Wikipedia's culture. It's the reason I never bother contributing anymore, and it's the reason Wikipedia has been bleeding good editors for quite some time. (Anyone want to set an over/under on when this comment gets deleted?) 24.193.75.24 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you really endorse this policy?

From WP:NPA: "...some types of comments are never acceptable:

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

[...]

These examples are not inclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians..."

The reason I ask if you endorse this policy, is because it is not currently being followed. At the moment, the prohibition against personal attacks DOES NOT apply equally to all Wikipedians. Certain select editors seem to have have been given a green light by administration, to write whatever intolerant hate speech they want about groups of people with different beliefs, with utter impunity. When I complained about this, an admin did not warn them but instead warned me for complaining, and told me there is no higher authority than himself who even cares - which is exactly what I would expect to hear from a prison guard. Please see my talk page for complete details. With Regards, Til Eulenspiegel 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone can keep up with it, bud—settle down. Personal attacks happen every day and probably everywhere and we just don't have enough people to warn everyone. It might seem like playing favourites, and I felt the same way as you when I was in your position, but it is impossible to get to everyone. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. The lesson I am drawing from all this is that the rules are meaningless, because they apply unevenly. Til Eulenspiegel 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But only because it is almost impossible to apply then evenly because there are not enough enforcers. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)There are mechanisms in place if you have a serious complaint, AN/I, Rfc and ultimately arbcom. I dont believe Jimbo has the time to be enforcing this type of policy personally and having a policy that is agreeable is one thing and seeing it enforced is quite another, and no reason to think he doesnt endorse the policy, SqueakBox 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it might be a simple fact of Eulenspiegel willfully misstating what has occurred. I know the admin involved very well and she is not known for playing favorites (contrary to Eulenspiegel's "your talk page clearly shows that you hold your buddies whom you yuck it up with and slap on the back, to a much lower standard and look the other way when they call me "pathetic"" comment). •Jim62sch• 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The willful mistating of the situation is not mine. The pathetic comment directed against me was actually only minor, incidental and would have been easily overlooked, and is obviously not the 'intolerant hate speech' directed against a religious minority I am referring to, as on my user talk page. I found this truly alarming and seemingly done with admin approval, but so far the only one to be repeatedly censured was me, and I haven't even done anything wrong. Til Eulenspiegel 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This isnt the place to deal with disputes between users, SqueakBox 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the place to communicate with Jimbo Wales, and try to get a response from him, thank you. This project has very short order become unbearable for me, because it soon becomes apparent to anyone who tries to help here that there are certain "favored" individuals here who have free license to spew whatever venom about others' beliefs they want, all they want, whenever they want. This appears entirely likely to continue, since involved administrators seem to be doing NOTHING to rein these users in, rather, they tend to congratulate them and even join the attack against anyone who notices or complains. The personal attacks and intimidations against me on my homepage are continuing even now. I don't know what I ever did to start any of this, other than be bold enough to notice that some of these guys are practising hate speech against minorities, and to actually dare to say something about it. If there are truly no rules here, or rather, if the rules are applied so selectively and in such a biased direction, then I don't give a hoot WHERE your bureaucratic formalities say I have to file the complaint -- Your project has just succeeded in making another enemy, and I'm parking myself right here until I get a response from the one person who should know what his project really looks like. What's it to you anyway? I was actually talking to Jimbo, not asking for a whole team of spindoctors to paradrop in. Til Eulenspiegel 11:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also, FYI, the said administrator advised me on my homepage, more than once, that trying to get this even heard in the dispute process would never even stand a chance, because they would refuse to hear such allegations of abuse against one of 'their own', so to speak. (You know what this is beginning to sound like, by the way?) So, on the basis of that admin's advice to me, I concluded that this here would be the best route to go to bring attention to this. Til Eulenspiegel 12:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I advised you to take it to Rfc or AN/I, and told you Jimbo and/or Arbcom was inappropriate. I won't comment at this time on the inaccuracy of your other posts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you "advised" me to take it to Rfc and AN/I, while at the same time informing me that it would never see the light of day, so naturally I took your word to mean that doing so would not be productive. Til Eulenspiegel 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what post of mine led you to the erroneous conclusion that I was stating or implying that "it would never see the light of day" but it is clear either there is considerable difficulty in communication one way or the other, or you are deliberately mis-stating my position on all things. I prefer to AGF; please post a diff where I stated something which led you to believe your concerns would "never see the light of day", so we can clear up this misunderstanding. If you do not know how to post a diff, ask me on my talk page, or yours - and I suggest this conversation be moved back to your talk page, as Jimbo's talk page is not appropriate for this discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[12]. Til Eulenspiegel 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"This will not be accepted by the mediation committee" is not the same as "this will never see the light of day". Many requested mediations are rejected. This does not mean there is not an appropriate venue for dispute resolution for the issue, or that it will be buried, but rather that it simply won't be handled by the mediation committee. Is this clearer now, or do you still have issues with that post of mine? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever - your message on my talk page to tell me "There is nothing to mediate. As a member of the mediation committee myself, I can tell you this will not be accepted" gives me the clear indication that the entire system is corrupt and stacked against fairness to religious beliefs, so my decision to short-circuit that process was a very logical one. The comments I am complaining about have the effect of demonizing people of a certain faith and declaring their firm beliefs "invalid", but this is apparently acceptable here because as of yet I am STILL the only one to be specifically rebuked over this affair. Obviously, if as yousay, the mediation committee (of which you are a member) will not hear this compaint about you, I have to go right to the top. Also please note that it is incorrect that you told me asking Jimbo's input would be "inappropriate"; rather, you stated that he and arbcom are the only authorities on wikipedia higher than yourself, and then you expressed doubt that they would even be interested in your gross abuse of power, as if suggesting there's only one way to find out. I'm still waiting to hear from the one person I came here to talk to. Til Eulenspiegel 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) You are drawing a false conclusion, in fact several. Something can be inappropriate for mediation, without it being religious bigotry or corruption. If you want to buy a sausage, and they tell you at the bakers' that this is the wrong place, it is not sausage bigotry or corruption. Your "logical" decision makes no sense in this context. Your martyr complex about being rebuked is something that frankly you're just going to have to get over. I note you continally ignore that I admonished others on the talk page as a group, and specifically told Orangemarlin he was trolling (a statement which others have disagreed with, with good reason). Going "to the top" does simply not work here, anymore than you writing the president because you couldn't buy sausage at the bakers. He is busy and it doesn't require his attention and he won't bother - I state this with 99% assurance, not positive assurance, because of course Jimbo may choose to comment on anything he wishes. The very strong likelihood is that Jimbo will choose not to respond to this post. The correct venue, if you feel you have met with bigotry, would be AN/I or Rfc, as I have told you several times already. And lastly, content about your religion may be found to be not appropriate for an article without any religious bigotry or supression being involved. If you feel there is good reason to have it in the article, then post that on the talk page - citing your sources, stating clearly why you feel the view is different enough and significant enough for inclusion. You have failed utterly to do that, and instead have decided you are the target of religious persecution, which I assure you is not the case. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already heard your opinion on the matter several times, thank you. I am now waiting to hear Jimbo's. If that fails, I will start writing in many, many other forums around the world about my experiences on wikipedia, which is beginning to look very much like a place where all kinds of bigotry is not only rampant but encouraged by the administration, as long as the target is not one of the "favoured" groups. Til Eulenspiegel 12:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Go post everywhere that you didn't get support for an edit you wanted to make to an article, and instead of following the policies and guidelines, you indulged in personal attacks and incivility on other editors, and when warned about this, you started accusing the warning administrator of favoritism, religious bigotry, and all manner of other faults; that you utterly failed to interest anyone in your bizarre persecution theories, and all of that constitutes "proof" that Wikipedia is biased and evil. Have fun with that. I'm done trying to help you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't personally attacked anyone. Not once. And this isn't about the edit or the article. This is about the fact that I am constantly being accused falsely of personal attacks and incivility, etc. while editors who routinely demonize entire religious groups and spread intolerance get your approval and encouragement to continue. Til Eulenspiegel 14:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the basic message I keep getting from you is "Yes, it is anti-religious bigotry -- but so what? What can you do about it? Nobody but you cares!" That's why I am here. This can't seriously be your policy. Too much has been invested over the last 400 years in achieving some measure of tolerance to just throw it all away now. Til Eulenspiegel 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Til. You seem to be very worked up about this. Almost anywhere on the Internet, including Wikipedia, being in a lather means people will have a hard time taking you seriously. I'd encourage you to go for a long walk and not sit down at the keyboard again until you are cool as a cucumber. Thanks, William Pietri 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I have been waiting for a response for days so far, so I guess my answer is that intolerance and bigotry really are acceptable here. Til Eulenspiegel 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong in that, although naturally you're welcome to your own opinions. However, it's my theory that your refusal to calm down is making it hard for you to fairly consider what I consider to be the mountain of evidence to the contrary, like the large archive of ArbComm descisions, the regularity with which people are admonished or banned for egregious violations of WP:CIVIL, or the fact that two of our five pillars are about neutrality and kindness to our fellow editors. So again, and in sincere amity, I'd encourage you to take a break until your sense of outrage subsides. Then come back and chat with some of our religious editors (and perhaps even a pastor or two) and ask them how they feel they've been treated. If we have a real problem here, you won't lose anything by waiting a week to expose it. And if you have, as I believe, made a mistake, then you'll gain a lot by coming back and taking a fresh look at things. William Pietri 15:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The facts aren't going to be any different a week from now. First of all, I am already completely calm. Please do not project an image of uncalmness onto me with your words. That's almost like user:Orange Marlin trying to project a heart attack on me at my talkpage. Didn't work. It only convinces me further that certain editors here have a special permission to say whatever hate speech they want, and they know they are never going to get called on it because of their "favored" status here. Til Eulenspiegel 16:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Eulenspiegel, there are people here who say pretty much whatever they want and get away with it. This has been a topic that has caused me much distress and I even wrote an essay about it. The fact is, it is not that different than real life, there are people who get away with alot because of who they are. I hope that this issue does not cause you so much stress that you feel this project is not worth the time, because it is actually a great project. If you have any questions or if there is anything I can help you with, or answer for you, please contact me on my user talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Chris, in real life there have always been "people who get away with alot because of who they are." Here are some examples: Marie Antoinette... Tsar Nicholas... George III... Imagine if everybody just let it go and said "Oh well, maybe this will just stop on its own" Til Eulenspiegel 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It becomes a question of choosing your battles. I have some strong opinions and theories on why WP:CIVIL. WP:NPA and WP:AGF are vital to the functioning of wikipedia. I have not written the essay but plan to get around to it sometime. When I see any of these policies fall apart, or prove worthless in situations where it would appear that they were needed, it hurts me a little and makes me question my role as an administrator, an editor and my role overall as a participant of this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure you're calm, you might ask yourself why several uninvolved parties get the impression that you're not. It's true the facts won't be different in a week, which is precisely why I'm suggesting you not treat this as an urgent problem. If your goal is actually to make a difference here, then we would all benefit by thoughtful examination of your concerns. Your style of interaction, which certainly does not come across as calm, is going to bias almost any reader against taking your concerns seriously, regardless of their actual merit. William Pietri 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Has this user been blocked yet? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should they be blocked? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems awful close to trolling to me. I could be wrong though, so don't take me too literally. :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Could be, but I at least believe the premise of his concerns to be valid. I have actually contemplated asking jimbo what his take on the policies are before. While he may be dragging it a bit far, he stands for something he believes in, and I have much respect for that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Til to be trolling, as that implies insincerity. I do think he's wrong, and I think he's handling things poorly. But that's no crime, and I think suggesting blocking him is premature and unlikely to aid him in calming down. William Pietri 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a block would be out of line. What I see here is a common conflict that comes up when people who are only used to talking about religion/faith in a religious community attempt to communicate in a more nuetral setting (e.g., here or an academic setting). It often takes some adjustment to speak of these things more neutrally. And, perhaps some of the comments toward Til were a little biting, and he/she did not respond to it well. But I think blocking would only exascerbate the problem. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems rational to me, David. Folks get used to communicating with other people who share their views, and the voices of those who do not seem "alien" to them. Til really does need to chill on the allegations of bigotry though, as it is simply a matter of differing viewpoints. As a nontheist I have no animus toward religions per se, but, on Wikipedia, I have a significant problem with folks who seek to imbue articles with a specific theistic or atheistic viewpoint. There is such a thing as a middle-ground. •Jim62sch• 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would comment that it is strange that some editors took it upon themselves to say what may or may not be appropriate on Jimbo's talkpage. I often see comments on Admin talkpages where an editor is asking for clarification or explanations regarding decisions, and Jimbo is Mr Wikipedia. I may be wrong, of course, but then I don't claim to know Jimbo's thoughts on this. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this in anyway being a matter for Jimbo to deal with. Til Eulenspiegel is incivil, uncooperative, and making misleading (quite possibly even false) statements against one of the most neutral, most fair admins on this project, for simply doing her job. It's outrageous and it's ridiculous. William Pietri is exactly correct: this would not be a big deal had Til Eulenspiegel not gone absolutely batshit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another "unjustified reproach" - I have in fact not been uncivil at all. All of the personal attacks have been directed against me, not from me. Til Eulenspiegel 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some really nice people giving you advice, and you are hitting back with anger and false accusations. Pastor David is like one of the real gentlemen on Wikipedia, he even left a very balanced and calm message on your talk page, and you attacked him. You'll claim I'm being uncivil, but really you are embarrassing yourself. Orangemarlin 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you accuse me of "attacking" him? Til Eulenspiegel 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you are the one who ought to be pointing out what you think might be a speck in my eye when it comes to personal attacks, Orangemarlin... Til Eulenspiegel 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I also read it as incivil to such an extent that I apologized for asking him to get involved in this unfortunate situation. You may not have meant it to seem hostile and belittling, of course, but that's how I read it. A useful lesson to draw from this is that it's easy to misunderstand people on the Internet. And you might consider that in the same way you believe other people have misinterpreted your words as more hostile than they are, you may also have misunderstood the intent of others. William Pietri 01:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who has talked so far has been right AND wrong. Nobody is perfect and everyone makes a mistake, now and again. I understand where Eulenspiegel comes from as well as those he is accusing. Eulenspiegel did not "attack" David. What he said was very hurtful, but not an attack. We need to understand the difference between "hurtfulness" and "personal attacks". If we don't, than this discussion will go on forever. Come on, people. Gdk411 03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what was being used was the loosest meaning of attack, and not the wikipedia policy definition of attack. That said, I agree. I did not take it as an attack, just slightly uncivil. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 03:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chaser's War on Everything

Hey Jimbo, I saw Mr. Ten questions got you. You did fine Jimbo! Here's the questions again in case you missed them:

• 1. How are you enjoying Australia?
  2. How do our computers compare to those in America?
  3. Why does everyone in IT look so Nerdy? You look like a day-time TV star.
  4. Mac or Windows, do you really give a shit?
  5. There are 1.7 million articles on Wikipedia how did you find time to write them all?
  6. Craig Rucastle is a bit unhappy with his picture on his article, can you upload a better one?
  7. My dog, he's got like, this scab thing under his chin, I don't know if you know the number of a local vet of something?
  8. Jessica Rowe and Peter Overton will at last?
  9. Cracked Pepper?
  10. How do you feel about the fact that when I looked you up this morning I changed your article to say that you were a 13 year old Drug Lord from Malaysia?

To which you answered:

• 1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. A lot of coffee
  4. 17

Very nice! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Those answers don't make any sense...--ZayZayEM 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pls note WP:IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, oh dear, that was so funny, Chasers War has to be my favourite show --JRA WestyQld2 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, mine too. Dfrg.msc 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Office/WMF response to HD-DVD key controversy

Dear Mr. Wales, I am leaving a message on your talk page today to try to bring up a current issue of controversy across the web and which has crossed over to several articles on wikipedia. I am speaking about the HD DVD encryption key controversy or more specifically, HD DVD Night. Specifically many feel that the WP:OFFICE should put out a statement regarding this issue. Some editors have left a message on the Volunteer Coordinator for the office, Cary Bass, but those messages have been responded to on his talk page here stating, 'The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time.' I hope that I can bring further light to this issue and ask for a statement on this matter. Respectfully, MrMacMan ^Talk 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cary's answer was complete. You might also want to see Wikipedia:Keyspam for another view from some community members on the subject. --Gmaxwell 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that your own opinion stated in an essay you created? I don't mean to demean you it just seems like I wanted something from policy or an actual statement on the issue. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I wrote was "Cary's answer was complete"... I offered you the essay so that you could have another view to consider, not as an official response. You're not going to get an actual official statement ... it would be foolish for the foundation to provide one at this time. If you want an unofficial view from someone on the board, you can go see Kat Walsh's post on wikien-l or look at Jimmy's comment here. --Gmaxwell 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my own view is that people should basically relax a little bit. There is no hurry here. People who think the key should be in the article for editorial reasons have a point. People who think the key should NOT be in the article for editorial reasons have a point. People who are concerned about legal risks to the project have a point. People who think the risks are small have a point. So, what do we do? Take it slow, see how things are going, don't get weird ideas about either side oppressing you, try not to get nervous and depressed about strings of sekrit numbers. :)

To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter. Speaking in my individual capacity in my traditional role in Wikipedia, I am simply advising everyone to stay relaxed and focussed on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, and understand that people who disagree with you on this point are also human beings who love freedom of information.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and on this issue. I hope next time I come here it will not have to deal with a point of controversy. Thanks you very much, MrMacMan ^Talk 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise! The official policy regarding the key controversy is assume good faith!!! WOW!!! Who would have known? We actually had it figured out before hand! :P

Maybe a lot of speculation would have been saved if instead of the "Black List" message, editors who tried to post the number got a brief message introducing or reminding them of that key (no pun intended!) principle... How is that as a suggestion? --Cerejota 04:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Students required to edit Wikipedia articles

Have you noticed professors requiring their students to edit Wikipedia articles? I never did until just now. See, for example, Talk:Itasca State Park. Michael Hardy 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it before. A lot of them have to write an article about something which gets deleted for notability standards, or in violation of other policies. They seem to think of Wikipedia as a free web host for academic material. Unfortunately that's what its not. Last time I deleted an article that wasn't notable, and that was written as an assignment, I told the student her teacher could contact me to discuss the matter. That's about all we can do, really. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of us are aware of this and are helping the professors in many ways, such as making sure newly created articles meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination for more information. (Also see Category:Wikipedia articles as assignments.)↔NMajdan•talk 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a good classroom assignment would be for students to take an existing article on a subject related to that class curriculum and take it to FA or A-class status. That would benefit both the student and Wikipedia. If we come across any professor that takes this approach, I think we should publicize it to reinforce this positive behavior. Cla68 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a good classroom assignment would be for a teacher to present three to five topics that are requested articles on WP, ask the students to choose one and write about it, then assign a group project for small groups to combine the content from the essays, using WP's standards, and come up with an article for each. Anchoress 23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. Would it be instruction creep in your view, to have a policy, or at the least a guideline, regarding the use of Wikipedia in class projects? i.e. one that reiterates "don't vandalize, everything must meet the verifiability guidelines you can find at this link, this isn't a chatroom, etc." but also delivers a bit of information regarding the difference between primary and secondary sources, and the importance of citations? (For example, it would say something like "You should cite Wikipedia as accurate research due to the changeable nature of it, but it is perfectly acceptable to use any references and citations found in wikipedia for your own research, as they should qualify as accurate external links, or peer reviewed information" and then a little bit on how to properly go about citing things?) Would that be too much instruction creep? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Total Contradiction, whatchall thinkin?

Who in their right mind protected Jimbo's userpage? Can anyone tell me? It clearly states at the bottom, "y'all may edit this page." However, I must say I've tried this and it's protected. And I thought I was gonna do somethin' worthwhile. Ahwhell... ClaimJumperPete 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are over 1 million article unprotected and nobody is stopping you making the project better than ever, SqueakBox 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, I think you're missing the point? He's saying someone PROTECTED the page so that no one can edit it. Michael Hardy 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Without making any judgemental comment whatsoever, you might look at the contributions to date of User:ClaimJumperPete in considering answers to this point.--Anthony.bradbury 22:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Commercial Wikipedia

Do you regret not making Wikipedia a commercial site to sell some ad space? Obviously this could be bringing in a small fortune. Seems like a wasted opportunity. Acirema 05:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He has been quoted as saying making it a nonprofit was the smartest thing he ever did or the dumbest thing he ever did. If he had not made it nonprofit, then it may never have become anything ... but we'll never know. WAS 4.250 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added that often repeated quote to q:Jimmy Wales, sourced to SXSW 2006; does it date back further? John Vandenberg 08:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The history of Spanish Wikipedia may be of interest to you. NoSeptember 12:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is important to recognize that I have always said that line as a joke. :) --Jimbo Wales 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Autograph

Hey Jimmy!!! You are awesome!! If you ever get the time, could you sign my user page? Kip the Dip 19:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He did that to me once. I'm not sure I liked it, though. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Karmafist banned for administrative vandalism?

I'm curious about what kind of "subtle vandalism" did User:Karmafist engage in (administrative? editorial?). How would someone "subtly" vandalize Wikipedia? And what articles did he vandalize? I don't know who to ask, so I post this on Jimbo's talk page, I assume someone else other than Jimbo would respond, since it happens in most of the times. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't vandalize any article using this account but through sockpuppetry using many others, as stated on user page. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating an article on every human gene

Hi there, the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject is pursuing collaborations with the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and also The Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation to import content from several open-access databases into Wikipedia. This would focus initially on creating a stub on every single human gene, using the newly-approved ProteinBoxBot. The proposal is up for discussion in a post on the Village Pump. Your input would be valuable, particularly as this will raise Wikipedia's profile substantially in the scientific community. TimVickers 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd ArbCom case for Zero

Here we go again. Zero is before ArbCom for the 3rd time. Again he edit war and blocks "zionist editors". Does this sounds familiar ? it should since you said he should be de-sysoped in his 1st case. Here is the evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence - once again ArbCom is going to "warn" Zero while kicking the "Zionist editor" out. Does this smacks of bias ? I don't know yet but it sure looks like something is not "Kosher" when only the zionist editor is blamed on edit-war while the overwhelming evidence points to violations by both sides. Zeq 07:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

btw, the arbitor Fred Bauder is again showing his strong anti-Zionist stance by placing what he claim is evidence against me. Anyone can check the so-called evidence and find out by himself that it is wrong. (no I am not inveting this just check it out) For example he maintain that I edited an article I was banned for while the ban exipred on March 5 and my edits or from 3 weeks later on march 24 after the ban was already lifted (on March 5: [13]. Agian, like in previous ArbCom cases involving anti-Zionsit editors (Suvh as Zero, Homey) Fred is trying to protect the anti-Zionists and kick out the Zionists. (in the case of Homey he offered Homey amnesty. In Zero's 2 previous cases he only propse warnnings to him while the pro-Israel editors were banned, kicked out or placed under probation. Zeq 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please see this: [14]
  • btw, I have received several e-mails from editors who will remain nameless who told me that they are afraid to offer evidence in the case against Zero since they are concerned that such a move could get them to be banned from Wikipedia by Fred Bauder. Do you really want this encyclopedia to be ran under fear from anti-Zionists ? Does Fred has your backing for such behaviour ? Zeq 14:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Living people category in Chinese Wikipedia needs intervention

There is a heated deletion debate in Chinese Wikipedia concerning living people category. Please intervene even if you cannot enter Chinese. I can explain the English text to users there. Thank you.--Jusjih 15:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)(English and Chinese Wikipedia admin)

I can read Chinese and I edit the Chinese Wikipedia as well, but you want Jimbo to intervene to keep that category or to delete that category? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 15:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw your post there. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton

I believe the user User:Rklawton is abusing his administative authority. Could you or someone else look into his actions. 63.3.20.1 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to make a request at WP:ANI, providing specific diffs or links to explain the problem. Do not reply on this page; nobody will help you here. Placeholder account 00:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I dare you...

...to take the Official "Are you a Wikipediholic" test. Then, tell me what your score is on my talk page. Good luck.--Dial 03:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Eleventy billion.--Jimbo Wales 04:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because "You are Jimbo." Your score fits the range! :-) Nothin' like a bit of fun on a bad day (all those admins' accounts being hacked). Ryan ^{Got something to say?} 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Short answer to trolling question

You can look in the history if you want to read the trolling question.

With respect to where the donated funds go, you can look it up. We publish audited financial statements. What you will see in those financial statements is that neither I, nor any of the board of directors, receive any of that money. There are some travel reimbursements (very little to me personally, since most of my travel is paid for by people who have invited me to speak, or by me personally). Anyway, we publish everything.--Jimbo Wales 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nickname Policy, please

Hello Mr. Wales, I have had a problem with the Wikipedia entry of Archimedes Plutonium. It just so happens that Wikipedia has some irrational policy over nicknames, and yours of "Jimbo" is a case in point. You may not feel that Jimbo is deprecatory, but to a scientist, these sort of things touches sensitive nerves. Scientists don't want nonsense but want seriousness. There is not a scientist that I know of in Encycl Britannica who is encumbered by some dumb and stupid nickname. Nicknames are fine for sports figures or entertainment, but for scientists nicknames smack of mocking. Arthur Rubin is a Wiki editor who insists on retaining this deprecatory fanname "Arky". The source which that was found is a deprecatory source in the first place and not a biography source. The people who discuss my ideas on the Internet have largely used the nickname AP. Nicknames are different from fannames. And a person has a say over what his/her nickname is. Others cannot give me a nickname which I reject. Arthur Rubin is acting like a bully on this nickname issue. He has never posted the full Wiki policy on nicknames, which leads me to suspect there really never was a policy and that the insistence on "Arky" is a form of mockery which the Wiki editors are delighted over.

I do not believe you have a policy for nicknames and that you do not have a definition of nickname versus fanname, nor does Wikipedia have a steadfast rule for nicknames as witnessed by scientist versus sports entries. So the evidence indicates Wikipedia is acting arbitrary on nicknames.

-- Archimedes Plutonium —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.54.196 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

OMG it's Archie Pu! Do you remember me? I don't suppose you do, but anyway whilste I don't accept that you have a say in a nickname given to you by many of your "fans" never the less I don't see the issue is important enough to fight over. You do know that you are not really a scientist though? Honestly you are not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And for this very reason, why isn't the man's bio (Archimedes Plutonium) tagged for speedy deletion? Looking at the TALK page, I see this was tried, but failed. Partly on grounds that if everybody else was doing it (Kibo lives in part to make fun of Archie), then why shouldn't Archie? Here again we see BLP being used as a dumping ground for bios that NOBODY else would print. Wikipedia is (among other things) a museum of collected previously-lost trivia about living internet cranks, crackpots, and eccentrics. I can do nothing about it, except to continue to point them out, until you all just cave in from embarrassment regarding what your own petrified BLP policies have created. Gag me. Jimbo, some serious bad karma is building up, here. Your BLP policies remind me of the slime explosion from Ghostbusters II. Eventually, when it all goes up or comes down, everybody who aided or abbetted keeping BLPs of people like Archie, are figuratively going to look like they've been hit with 10 buckets of dinosaur snot. Fair warning. SBHarris 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How long will this go on ? ("Protocols of Zion")

People start noticing [15] Zeq 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is customary, I believe, to wait until ArbCom have actually ruled before you appeal to the big man himself. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has rulled twice and did nothing to stop Zero. (this is his 3rd arbcom apearnace) and Fred is again rail roading it again (even after he admit that he himself was rude againt me, that he made factual errors in accusaing me etc...) everything goes in order to help an anti-zionist editor like Zero end his 3rd arbCom case without any restriction (depsite overwhelimg evidence to his violations) [16] , [17] - this despite the evidence: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Dmcdevit Zeq 17:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred continues to taint the case with divisions to "pro-Zionist" editors: [18] It is time someone intevine and re-start thje case w/o Fred being involved it. He is rude and made false accusations such as the one about using propeganda sources similar the "protoclos of Zion". Fred is unfit to be judicial in this case.

• • • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop&diff=128867454&oldid=128761129]] (not by me) Zeq 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My block

Thanks for the unblock Jimbo. I realize now that there's apparently some crazy stuff going on, even moreso than I thought when I first saw the main page deleted. My explanation for my unblocks is here. · jersyko talk 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all good. I just saw that you unblocked one of the problem accounts, and thought I would be cautious. But I got straightened out pretty quickly.--Jimbo Wales 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, if I was ever going to get a block log, I'm glad you're the one that did it instead of a rogue/compromised admin on a rampage. · jersyko talk 19:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, apologies

Hi Jimbo, I'm from Sunderland in the United Kingdom. Sorry about the questions on IRC (I never meant to troll) My apologies for the incident. Eaomatrix 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So You have no answer on this ?

the bottom edit: [19] Zeq 20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't necessarily comment on everything. --Deskana (AFK 47) 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. By silence and not taking action are speaking volume. Zeq 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He also doesn't read everything, and sometimes goes for days without visiting this page. So, well, it's hardly the dark signs & portents your message seems to suggest. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

understood. Zeq 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually visit almost every day, and try to read everything. I find myself entirely unconvinced by Zeq in this case. That edit, the one you link to, strikes me as completely unproblematic. It is of course true that at some point, biased sources are not reliable sources. You may disagree with Fred in his assessment of your behavior (and I might disagree with him as well), but it is hardly problematic for him to disagree with you. So what's the big scandal here? Is there something I am failing to grasp? --Jimbo Wales 09:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

When an arbitor makes false accusation about an editor (the accusation that the editor is using sources similar to some of the worst propeganda source the world ever known) and is unable to back this accusation with facts. And given that this accusations was only offered to defend the other party to the arbitration (who did removed sources) this is not a fair judicial proces. The problem is compunded by both Zero0000 and Fred being anti-Zionists and Fred labaleing me as "zionist" (not sure if Fred meaning by that is similar to my understanding of the term). In any case justice need to apear fair and in this case it is not. Fred is ignoring the evidence about Zero's constant edit-wars (in articles I never eddited). If you will look deeper into Zero's edit you will see how Wikipedia rule of NPOV is violated by him again and again (mostly be deleting sources who oppose his own POV) > Thank you for your time looking into this case. Zeq 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC) btw, was it your intention to delete all this: [20] ? Zeq 10:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, you response is understandable because I think Zeq might be barking up the wrong tree (or for the wrong reason) here, but could you revisit that comment. While I never specifically referred to your old wikien-l post like Zeq has been, I'm now concerned that you seem to be repudiating the common-sense part that reads "we have a cardinal rule, that goes all the way back to the existence of sysop powers in the first place, that they must never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in." In fact, one of the reasons I brought this arbitration case as a third party was because of Zero0000's blocking of an editor he was edit warring with (Zeq), and especially because of his previously desysopping of him, and this being his third arbitration case. I was already disconcerted to have Fred apparently deciding that blocking while involved is acceptable, but I sincerely hope that wasn't your intention. (In fact, I would appreciate it if you took the opportunity to reiterate this point, there or on the mailing list.) Dmcdevit·t 10:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong tree maybe. We are after all discussing here an admin who engage in massive amount of edit-wars with multiple users (including articles that I never editted) and when he does revert me his give these kind of reasons which show maturaity and sound judjment: [21] . Zeq 10:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking Jiang

Jimbo, please reconsider your re-blocking of User:Jiang. It has been confirmed that Jiang is back in control of his account, and he is already desysopped. Indefinite blocking seems a little harsh just for having a weak password.--ragesoss 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Checkusers have confirmed that the person in control of the account now is Jiang and the account is no longer compromised. Marine 69-71 has been unblocked under similar reasoning. While re-sysopping is a whole other bucket of worms, both Jiang and Tony the Marine are active and valued members of the community, and shouldn't loose that privilege because of a poor, yet common, choice of password. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection to an unblock, and I will do it myself right now to make sure the block log looks happy.--Jimbo Wales 09:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, actually.--Jimbo Wales 09:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW

Not realy sure what made you "unhappy" (it was not my intention) in any case I wrote this specific words when the case strated:

"Only Zero's current behavior is standing on trial today. The pattern existed for years but the evidence on recent bahaviour is fresh. His on-going violations will are presented (recent edits: 2007, 2006). There is no other Wikipedian who behave with such arrogance toward those who disgree with him and with such sense of impunity – this will be clear from the evidence.(some just days old - zero continue this behavior even after this 3rd ArbCom case of his has started) Zeq 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC) " . No one was making any attempt to paint something as something else. Zeros pattern of behaviour is similar to what he did when you suggested he should be de-sysoped. It really did not matter if you or anyone else said at the time but simply :It is clear that admins who are block/ban after being warrned not to block (and not to ban) during a edit-dispute lacks the minimal judgment and self restrain required of admins.

Zeq 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Messiahs

I removed the notice you placed here but have also substantially changed the article here. I am giving you the courtesy of letting you know, SqueakBox 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration case likely to suppress information on the Falun Gong

If you have a moment, please check out a current arbitration case here:[22] and my response to Fred Bauder’s justification for singling out Falun Gong critics here: [23] I'm one of two critics of the Falun Gong who have just been banned from editing the article based on Fred Bauder's belief that I'm a "determined activist" seeking to push my POV, rather than an analysis of my edits. Falun Gong practitioners have aggressively deleted well-sourced and notable information from Wikipedia which they consider reflects badly on their group, yet none of these editors were singled out for a ban at the start of the Arbitration case. If this doesn't amount to unequal application of Wikipedia policies, I don't know what does.

I'm not asking you to intervene on my behalf, since I've already decided to leave Wikipedia for good. But there will surely be other editors who in good faith seek to introduce edits about the Falun Gong which Falun Gong practitioners object to and work to suppress. This particular arbitration action was flawed from the beginning. Thought you should know. --Tomananda 07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: For a slightly different take on this issue, check out this post on the Arbitration Talk page from another editor who is neither pro-FG nor anti-FG: [24]

The problem is not the arbitrators want to suppress anyone, it is that anti-Falun Gong editors often disruptively remove sourced information from articles, I don't want to single out any editor, but removing sourced information based on POV is indeed disruptive. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's disruptive to delete sourced material...but that is not what I have done. For the most part, the edits that have been used to ban me are cases where I have re-instated direct quotes from Master Li Hongzhi. I have only rarely engaged in deleting things on Wikipedia because I believe in the principle of working cooperatively. When in doubt: add something to a legitimate edit, don't just delete it.

If other FG critics have deleted sourced material, is it fair to make me accountable for their actions? To get a grip on how my ban is so unjustified compared to the sanctions of FG practitioners, please compare my edits on the evidence page with those done by FG practitioner "Happy in General" and you'll get the point. Happy in General reinstated what can clearly be considered a POV picture some 30 times, and for those actions she was not even given the lesser sanction of a revert parole. My edits were also the reinstatement of sourced material...in this case direct quotes from Li Hongzhi on what he has said about his Dafa (Great Law of the cosmos) and how it is judging all beings. Those are direct quotes from the Master, who is considered an infallible god by the practitioners (although they deny it). So how in the world can I be banned for reinstating well sourced direct quotes from Master Li, while Happy in General gets off scott free for reinstating even more POV pictures of an alleged FG victim in China? My intent has always been to add quotes from Master Li which may make the practitioners uncomfortable not because I'm trying to embarrass them, but because they show a radically different picture of the FG from what appears in their edits. Now, it appears that the Arb Com has unwittingly given sanction to these same practitioners to control the content of these pages, censoring material which is relevant and well-sourced, but which they think reflects poorly on their group. Really, don't you see the profound injustice here? --Tomananda 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

See above. Emбargo 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Embargo, you need to let this drop, if you want a discussion on the matter, take it to WP:AN, this isn't the right place for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. Take this to WP:ANI or WP:AN if you wish, but please do not start another post here. It isn't relevant, and the posts are getting extremely disruptive, especially as you seem to be canvassing Jimbo for support... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do not seek Jim Wales' support. I want him to resolve this once and for all and I hope he has the courage to speak up. Emбargo 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The community can decide this, we don't need someone from the top to comment on it. Please take this to AN or AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On an issue this serious, on which which consensus has been reached too many times, I think I need a final say. "This user supports Hezbollah", is it allowed or not? Is it "completely inappropriate" and "inflammatory" or is it acceptable as the rest of the userboxes? I'm not asking you Postlethwhatever, I'm asking Jim Wales, the owner of Wikipedia. Emбargo 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you the head of wiki?

Are you the head of wiki? if not who is? thanks in advance, Dom58! 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Florence Devouard is the Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am a trustee (board member) of the Wikimedia Foundation. Within the English Wikipedia I have a certain traditional role under our community system of governance, a role which of course changes over time as the community institutions grow and strengthen. This role is not assigned by the foundation, but by the community and our traditions.--Jimbo Wales 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki ads...

http://requests.wikia.com/wiki/Ads ← The proposal.

I've created a proposal that I believe has the potential to be a large revenue source for Wikia, and in turn, Wikipedia. Should I just go ahead and start the site myself, or would Wikia be an appropriate framework? --Remi 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do realize that Wikipedia has nothing to do with Wikia? That you're posting this on entirely the wrong site? --Cyde Weys 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you do realise that this violates Wikia's terms of use? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Probably wouldn't work. Thanks for the feedback. --Remi 08:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another answer to Why Fred should have recused

[25] By now, it is too late since Fred has tainted this whole process into a very clear direction:

Ignoring the multiple policvy violations of Zero as an editor while "admonishing" his misuse of the admin tools.

This is so remote from being fair.

Zero has edit-war (massivly) even in articles I never edited but it seems that as long as someone is editing only from a strongly anti-zionist POV he can violate wikipedia policy with impunity. This is Zero's 3rd arbCom case. He was warned before but again is going to end this case with no restrictions on his disrupptive edit practices. On the other hand the editor which the comitee (and Fred) label a "zionist editor" is removed, banned or severly restricted.

Jimbo, is this strike you as fair or as systematic anti-zionist bias ?

all I was asking is for ArbCom to look at the evidence (pleanty of it) before Fred starts dectating the proposed decison. Zeq 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only one who presented evidence which is totaly ignored by ArbCom Dmcdevit: [26] Armarouso: [27]

and there is more... Zeq 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Dear Jimbo, I am writing concerning the entry on Archimedes Plutonium. He is a figure who, according to the opening of the entry, is "widely noted for his varied contributions to Usenet and his claims that the entire Universe is a single plutonium atom." The entry has been the subject of two AfDs, but has survived both. The subject of the entry requested in March that the entry be deleted (see here and here, and also see this). It is very clear that the subject of this entry is not notable, and that this entry exists only because some editors consider its subject to be a figure of fun, if their motives are not indeed more malicious than that. I feel that the subject of the entry may not be in a strong position to defend himself, and I therefore request your intervention in deleting this entry. Thanks. FNMF 04:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The entry has been the subject of two AfDs, but has survived both." Clearly the community thinks he's notable enough to warrant an article, I've certainly read him before, so what exactly is the need so pressing that this article requires being brought to Jimbo to be deleted against the community's wishes? I fail to see it... FeloniousMonk 05:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the Archimedes meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 05:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

An example of the content of the entry is the following: "Others defended him on the grounds that anyone who dubbed himself "The King of All Science" while talking to Nobel prize winners about pumping water from the Pacific Ocean to the Moon via a giant hose using osmotic pressure, more than made up for any perceived lack of academic credentials for the sheer entertainment that such things gave to the world." He is an utterly non-notable figure, and the entry is not only non-encyclopaedic but insensitive and malicious. Furthermore, the subject of the entry has requested deletion, and this request is entirely reasonable. If this kind of abuse of the defenceless is permissible on Wikipedia, it reflects poorly on the editorial culture. FNMF 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to respond to the fact that he meets WP:BIO or not? JoshuaZ 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned he's completely non-notable, as I've mentioned in both of the comments I've placed. FNMF 12:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So explain how he's no notable. We have multiple (6 at least) independent reliable sources which focus on him. Nor is this a 15-minutes of fame situation but the articles are for a variety of different things in different years. Notability is not simply your being uninterested in the topic. JoshuaZ 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that establish anything like encyclopaedic notability. FNMF 13:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The "The Dartmouth Murders" has an extensive discussion, there are at least two articles in The Dartmouth which are dedicated solely to discussing this topic and he is the subject of multiple others. He is extensively discussed in the Discover article ""Notes from Another Universe" as well as being discussed in Dartmouth Alumni Magazine for October of 1992. If you would bother to actually look at the article you would have realized this. We have many, independent, non-trivial reliable sources. Stop being disruptive. JoshuaZ 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, you may well feel certain that Archimedes Plutonium is an important and worthwhile ornament to Wikipedia. I disagree, and I have given my reasons. You ask me to address your criticisms of my position and I have done so, though obviously not to your satisfaction. On the other hand, I have not seen any response to my claim that the entry is non-encyclopaedic, insensitive, and malicious. However that may be, please do not accuse me of "disruption" merely because you are frustrated that I do not agree with your position. FNMF 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FNMF: ths is really not the proper place to discuss events that have followed Wikipedia process to the T. If the article has twice survied AfD, it is (as FM stated) clearly because the community feels it should stay.

Essentially, in refusing to accept the voice of the community and in continuing to try to fan the flames of a dead fire, you are being disruptive for disruption's sake. Let it go, move on to another topic, another article. Look, I don't think most of the school articles belong here, but since the community supports these articles, I'll be damned if I'm going to bang my head into a marble wall in protest. It's best to just move on, and keep ones credibility intact. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My belief is the following: there is no clearer case that I know of where a Wikipedia entry has the potential to cause harm to the subject of the entry. I understand that editors aware of this entry have twice chosen to retain it. I nevertheless believe this is an unnecessary and potentially harmful entry that is also insensitive, malicious, and non-encyclopaedic. By coming to this forum, I was not attempting to initiate a dialogue on the entry with those who wish to defend the entry. Clearly there are editors who believe this entry is justified. Of course, if the entry has been through 2 AfDs, then obviously I'm not the first one to object to the entry. Whether Mr Wales chooses to act in relation to this entry or not is his business, and I trust him with this decision. But nothing that has been printed in objection to my initial post convinces me that the Archimedes Plutonium entry has any place in this encyclopaedia. FNMF 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest comment by the subject of the entry is this. FNMF 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The even latest-er comment by the subject of the entry is this This situation is unpleasant and unnecessary. FNMF 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

interwiev Mr. Wales (Spain)

I am a Spanish journalist. I want to contact with Jimbo Wales -o with their press office - to make him an interview via e-mail, for a Spanish newspaper A greeting, ÁNGELES LÓPEZ <snipped to prevent spambots>

See Wikipedia:Contact us and Foundation:Press room. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Slurred Nicknames and Wikipedia getting into trouble

Newsgroups: soc.history, sci.lang, misc.legal From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 10 May 2007 14:47:20 -0700 Local: Thurs, May 10 2007 4:47 pm Subject: Wikipedia insistence on giving ethnic slurred nicknames to innocent people

Wikipedia delights in throwing darts at innocent people whenever they can find something negative about a person they delight in pinning it on the person and then they justify it by saying it is their rules.

For example, I am a scientist but the only scientist pinned with a nickname and a ethnic slur of a nickname. My real nickname is AP, but since the hatemonger Eric Francis wrote "Arky" in his book, Wikipedia wants to laugh alongside Francis by trying to pin AP with that ethnic slur in Archimedes Plutonium's Wikipedia page.

Arkie / Arky (U.S.) similar to Okie, except from Arkansas instead of Oklahoma.

http://www.search.com/reference/List_of_ethnic_slurs#A

I keep telling Wikipedia that a person owns his or her nickname and has control over it. And that a person has to *want* a nickname before it can be used in an encyclopedia.

But the Wiki editors are too obtuse for the most part and too much into gathering laughs than to have serious and objective pages.

So I ask the question. Is the word "Arky" a profanity in some foreign languages. I know it is a ethnic slur in USA.

And I ask if Wikipedia continues to saddle me with a ethnic slur of a nickname that it is a civil lawsuit in the making?

Thanks for any answers.

P.S. I am thinking of contacting the State Attorney's Office and send a letter of reprimand to the Wikipedia foundation for the harrassement of private citizens. That Wikipedia just does not have their act together when it comes to nicknames. And that the Wikipedia organization has too many obtuse editors looking for laughs and not for the TRUTH.

P.S. post this also to Wikipedia discussion pages to Mr. Wales and to the Archimedes Plutonium entry.

Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.55.1 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

• Do people from Arkansas constitute an ethnic group? Nigel Barristoat 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• That sounds like a No Legal Threats violation. *Dan T.* 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This edit, where xe is clearly employing legal threats in an attempt to have editors stop editing an article, is an unequivocal violation. Uncle G 09:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

the usage of wikipedia-only/non-commercial purpose materials in Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo.

I am a humble member of Wikipedia community participating mainly in its german part I write to you, because as far as I know, this prohibiting guideline comes out directly from you, so you are the only appropriate person to talk on this topic.

So, I consider this guideline to be a huge mistake, and I'm sure that many authors are agree with me. It is absolutely clear that a permission is needed, to use diverse materials, otherwise it would be unlawful.
But using the materials in question, we can make it available and useful for everyone, at least inside Wikipedia. Because of this rule nobody can use it, also those who are you caring of. You don't help them in any way by such prohibition, but it harms Wikipedia from my point of view. --Prandr 16:02 CET, 11 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.137.24 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Joe's page

I'm sure you're too busy to handle something as insignifigant as this, but if you get a chance, could you tell me if my user page has too much personal crap so that I can avoid a block?—Joe Jacard

I'll handle this one for you Jimbo, your userpage is absolutely fine - in fact, I like it! You really don't need to worry about a block, they don't get handed out willy nilly, it's only for very serious problems and as a protective measure for the encyclopedia. Keep up your great work :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It does

There is no reason that the article should not be sourced, however the removal of the information was done under false pretenses given the citing of BLP for a deceased individual. The protection of the page under the reason of "Edit war" seemed a little brisk too, considering by no objective viewer could that situation be considered an edit war with only two reverts total. When you are debating someone citing one policy, when there are violations of other policies in doing so, which policy trumps the other? If the answer is to ignore all rules then neither policy matters. My only aim on that page was to re-insert information removed because it was obvious it was removed without the person having read the article itself as evidenced by the citing of BLP for a dead man, why the page was locked after not even remotely reaching 3RR is beyond me.

So in conclusion I agree the article needs sourcing, I disagree on the methods taken to force the sourcing and strongly disagree with the protection of the page over a non-existent edit war. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong. --Jimbo Wales 01:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to see which part is wrong, I agree with you that the article needs sourcing but disagree with the quick protection and methods that lead to the protection. I know your view on article sourcing, which is a point we agree upon, but I am unsure of your opinions on the protection or the methods that lead to the protection due to your vague replies, can you be more specific? –– Lid^(Talk) 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple. If someone removes random crap from an article like that and asks for sources, cramming the crap back in is the wrong approach. Arguing that the guy is dead, and therefore BLP doesn't apply, is really a stretch. Quality matters. --Jimbo Wales 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I only did it in this case because of that stretch, although I will admit originally I saw it as detrimental and may have reverted at that time (though I felt justified in that during that period the editor in question was believed, and was also blocked for a period due to this belief, that they were a sock of a previously banned editor) I have since not ham-fistedly re-inserted information of this status back into articles excluding this single case. The quality does indeed matter, but also actually paying attention to what you are doing is just as important and I saw someone justifying their reasons with Biography Living Persons on a biography of a deceased person as simply ill-conceived. I won't re-insert the information, and in fact have no willingness to do so, I do however feel that the full protection should be lifted as there is no real dispute between the removal of the information, simply the reasons for the original removal of the information. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)