User talk:Jimbo Wales

Assyrian people

Hey there! I didn't know where else to go so I will make this quick as you are probably really busy.

From the beginning of the Assyrian people's article we've had problems with the ongoing nameconflict. Some identify as Syriacs other as Chaldeans or Assyrians. We have had this nameconflict going on for two long, for years. I want to ask you to move the page from Assyrian people to Assyrian/Syriac people and lock it if able. Thanks --Yohanun (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UT (archiving comment) Fram (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.14 alpha

Can you give me MediaWiki 1.14 alpha? 202.137.66.72 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See this page from MediaWiki.org. Graham87 03:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(archiving comment, this section did not get picked up by the archive bot for some reason. Fram (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Oversight

Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.

Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? --Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked David Gerard and FT2 to fill me in about the history. I have reviewed the oversight logs, and read Thatcher's summary of the situation, which as far as I know appears to be factually accurate. It is evening here, and I am going to bed. I am leaving Europe early tomorrow morning for the US, and then I will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, and traveling by car to a meeting with a Brazilian Wikipedian on Friday. I don't expect to have substantial time to devote to my Wikipedia work until Saturday at the earliest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, and have a nice Thanksgiving. --Duk 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

When you can squeeze this matter in to your busy agenda, would you be kind enough to give us your opinion on the rights and wrongs of David Gerard's oversighting of FT2's edits in the middle of an election campaign. It is impossible to know how many others would have opposed his election had the oversights not been made, but at least once you have spoken and shared your thoughts, those that will be taking this unsatisfactory matter further will have an idea how to proceed. The problems of a registered charity are manifold, I wonder what the solution to all this is - what a pity those such as Gerard do not think before they act. Giano (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe FT2 intends to say something about this early next week. I'll comment at that time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is it for FT2 to comment on it? David Gerard's explanation might be marginally more interesting and probably of more use. Quite frankly FT2's explanations are neither here nor there, it happened. What are you, J Wales, planning to do about it? Giano (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said, I will comment at that time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A better question, IMHO, is "Why is this exact same question posted 3x on the same individual's talk page?" I count two instances in Archive 40 [1] [2] and now this one. I understand--it's an important question--but this repetition seems to approach the realm of POINTiness.GJC 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

---

OK, it looks like FT2 has commented. Now, Jimbo, can you please answer my questions;

• Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege.
• Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light?

I have some new questions too;

• Why did you wait for FT2 to comment when this is another of Gerards messes?
• This has been going on now for a year. Doesn't your and FT2's delaying tactics seem disrespectful to the community? Do you think that if you just keep delaying, stalling and deflecting that we'll all forget about it? What's next, are you going to ask the arbcom to 'look into it'?
• In a project that allows anonymous user names, a person's edit history is all we have judge candidates on. If you sit back and allow edit histories to be falsified then why do we even bother having elections? --Duk 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I will answer your questions as best I can. I would appreciate it if, going forward, you would drop the hostile tone and ask your questions in a more thoughtful way.

(1) I think these oversights were not within policy, and that minor mistakes of this nature should not result in immediate removal of the power. In any event, I have never personally removed the oversight bit from anyone and I'm quite sure that me acting as judge, jury, and executioner in such cases would quite properly be frowned upon. The oversighters monitor each other; you may want to ask them to clarify circumstances in which they would recommend that the bit be removed.

(2) It is absolutely false to claim that anyone was banned for bringing this to light. If you think I am mistaken, please supply me details.

(3) I waited for FT2 to comment because I wanted to make sure I understood what happened. I'm quite sure that I ought not to go around making half-baked comments without the facts in hand. I will leave such behavior to others. I prefer to be as careful and deliberate as I can be; I hope that you will respect that.

(4) I am unaware of any delaying tactics. You asked me last week, and I looked into it over a holiday weekend as best I could. It's Monday now, and I still have some unanswered questions (not, by the way, due to anyone stalling or being less than 100% transparent with me, it's just that there's a lot of history to understand).

(5) I don't think edit histories should be falsified, so your question is invalid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damian tells the story a little differently. Since you seem to want to hear from various sides, I'd like to unban him and ask him to comment here. --Duk 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy, we know this story isn't holding water, in fact it is leaking like a sieve, if there are no problems why was Gerard apologising to you for making them, and then why were they not un-oversighted if there were no problems. So far all FT2 has done is add confusion upon confusion. The fact he delayed a week to coincide his explanation with the opening of the new elections fools no-one. It is not too late for him to stand again, of if that is not possible then the only honourable thing to do is resign. This thing stinks from beginning to end, and when things stink this bad they are always routed out.Giano (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) David realized that oversight was the wrong tool to use after I raised the issue with him, and he apologized for that. (2) He asked developers to un-oversight, but that was not possible. I do not know why; I had nothing to do with that conversation. I think FT2 has been completely transparent and open throughout this process. I think any accusations of delaying are really quite silly. What purpose would delaying have, after all? Rather, what I see, is someone working really hard in the face of a rather astonishing smear campaign. Giano, you are yourself one of the people who not so long ago "warned" me about FT2 being involved in the bondage subculture, and seem to be part of the movement to "out" FT2 as a gentleman who posts pictures of himself in advertisements for such. But, I have met FT2 - the identification is wrong, and you should be ashamed of yourself for taking part in a smear campaign.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

YOu have just in an email made a serious false allegation against me. For the record i have never been involved in any outing campaign of any person on Wikipedia Review. That you are advised by liars is news to no one, that you are a liar will be news to many. If you can find one gram of evidence that i have been responsible for or assisted in the public outing of anyone please provide proof because you won't find any - and if you do it will be because you are lying further. If this is how you want to play things take your Gerard and your FT2 and stick them with your enccyclopedia where the sun fails to shineGiano (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seattle? It's been gray and gloomy every time I've visited. Jehochman ^Talk 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I support Duk in asking that Peter Damien be unblocked. He's a good editor, an academic in an area in which the project has a dire need for qualified people. He seems to have been blocked originally for trying to draw voters attention in ArbCom 2007 to FT2's edits to articles about human-animal sex, two of which Damien highlighted, and which were soon after oversighted (FT2's first two edits to Wikpedia, I believe). It seems that Damien got frustrated by FT2's lack of answers and started making inappropriate comments, such as "dog lover," and, I believe, he suggested he would report FT2 to an animal-welfare group, which got him blocked. Shortly thereafter, the oversights took place. So it's true that he wasn't blocked for pointing out the oversighting, but his block and the oversighting were closely connected.

Since then, Damien's been unblocked, then reblocked several times for e.g. commenting on the block by FT2 of someone else. In other words, it's the "give a dog a bad name" syndrome: one block has basically caused the next one. He should be unblocked now, allowed to tell his side of the story, then allowed to go about his business helping to improve the encyclopedia, as he was doing before. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I am not privy to the reasons why Peter Damian was originally blocked, however I trust your judgement on that as it seemed to you then. However, given his returns here under different accounts, with the express intention of creating good content in areas where it is lacking, then using his subsequent blocks as leverage to attempt to persuade major contributors to withdraw their contributions, struck me as being unhelpful. On balance, I do not feel that would have had much success in real terms. There was, for a short time, a slight consensus that we should not pander to that campaign on the basis that we would rather have him inside the tent pissing out than the alternative. However, without regard to that consensus, he's been blocked again. If he were allowed back on the basis that all that is past should remain so, I wouldn't complain about that; we should all move on and allow wounds to heal. Bitterness should not be allowed to poison the aims of the project, and sadly, I see too much of that persisting here, and being allowed to persist. On a personal note, both Damian and I consider ourselves academics and would much prefer, I suspect, to concentrate on content rather than context. But of all the editors here who know my health and financial difficulties, he is the first and only to offer any assistance whatsoever; there may, of course, be an ulterior motive in that, but he's not so stupid as to assume that I would be biased in his favour on that account. He's lucky, perhaps, in that he will be able to celebrate Christmas. It's very doubtful that I will. --Rodhullandemu 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rod, the matter is not secret, but Damian's original account was under his real name, so to respect his privacy we avoid linking too much to his comments. Also, due to changes in mediawiki, his block log has become uncoupled from his account (long story). I can email you some of the links if that will help. Thatcher 23:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• The oversights certainly muddied the waters and made Damian angry, but have very little to do with either his original blocks or Jimbo's latest block of the Peter Damian account. Damian objected to FT2's election for other reasons, then when that did not get traction he found the zoophilia edits, then when that did not get traction he canvassed a bunch of people who had already voted to change their votes, as a result he was blocked. He was unblocked after apologizing but then posted the dispute to his blog. He says that he removed the post from the blog before the oversight, and I have no reason to doubt him, but the fact remains he was banned for a repeated campaign of smear, harassment and innuendo. He maintains an off-site list of "the most revolting wikipedia articles" that (in part) targets articles FT2 has contributed to or defended, and he has started threads on Wikipedia Review about FT2 titled "Sociopathic behaviour", "More sociopathic cruft defense by FT2", and "More Evidence of FT2’s Bestiality Pushing Sockpuppetry" (among others), none of which have anything to do with oversight. The only possible reason to unblock him would be as a diagnostic test, like injecting someone with glucose to see if they are diabetic. Now that the oversight business is out in the open and acknowledged, can Damian resume editing without further obsessing over FT2? I'd like to think that the experiment is worth a try but I have strong doubts. I would like Damian to at least acknowledge that yes, he has been targeting FT2 at least in part, and that he is willing to let it go. Thatcher 23:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the bytes spilled here explain in part why we don't want wikipedia to be a political battleground, internal or otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think he needs to be allowed to tell his side of the story first (within Wikipedia policy), and then be allowed to continue editing, at which point he should undertake not to mention FT2 again. However, I can tell you that I've had people pursue me in the way FT2 has been pursued, and they're not blocked. To the best of my knowledge, Damien became annoyed with FT2 in the first place because of the way FT2 handled a philosophy mediation, then when he looked at FT2's edits, he found FT2 focused on unusual sexual practices, most notably human-animal sex. He considered such a person unsuited to ArbCom, in part because of the edits, though mostly because of the personality. At no point, to the best of my knowledge, did Damien before the first block, start posting in a way intended to out FT2 or anything similar (I stress — to the best of my knowledge). Since the block, I don't know, but it seems clear to me that this was a case of spiralling mistrust triggered by the first block. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree, the question is whether Damian can unspiral himself. I am in email contact with him, I would have more confidence if he acknowledged his own conduct in some degree. Thatcher 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he has acknowledged it. He apologized for calling FT2 a dog lover, and he apologized for threatening to report him to an animal-welfare group. But some of the blocks have been quite mysterious -- for example, he was blocked for objecting to FT2 blocking an account that FT2 said was a sockpuppet, and which was helping to clean up the pederasty article. Is any admin willing to unblock him, that's the question, on condition that, once he's told his side of the FT2 story, he go about his way, unmolested and unmolesting? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The account was a checkuser-confirmed sock of banned user HeadleyDown, and Damian was insisting that because of FT2's own views on sexuality, he should not have been involved in blocking the account because it had the effect of advancing a pro-pederast agenda. In any case, I have emailed Peter, pointing him to this discussion and asking him a couple of questions. Thatcher 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My mostly uninvolved impression here is that a line, and a big line, should be drawn under all of this, as raking over the ashes is detracting from the primary purpose of building an encyclopedia. It's sadly a measure of the maturity of any social construct that it will inevitably be drawn into self-analysis rather than actually getting on with the job in hand, and that can be destructive. *Accordingly, I put forward the following propositions:

1. Peter Damian will be allowed to edit here, using whatever account name he chooses to use, as long as it is made known to trusted parties, subject to normal editing policies, and will not use Wikipedia or any other forum, online or otherwise, to rake up past perceived injustices.
2. Unless gross violations of such trust become obvious, because of, or requiring, Checkuser intervention, this will be an end of all previous matters, on the basis of a fresh start and any substantiated breach of this agreement by Peter Damian will result in immediate and irrevocable banning from this project.

# Any substantiated breach of this agreement by Peter Damian or any other party thereto will result in immediate and irrevocable banning from this project, including, but not limited to, bad-faith abuse of checkuser privileges. I know it's late where I am, but this does really need some balls. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what does checkuser have to do with the Damian matter? Thatcher 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I told you it was late. Redacted accordingly. --Rodhullandemu 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Brandt

I'm sorry about that whole Brandt mess. It was wrong and I just want to move on forward. I hope you do well. Yanksox (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Article undeletion vs. Scottish courts

Jimbo -

Can you please have a look in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin deletes article per Scottish police?

Here's the brief synopsis, as I see it. AlisonW was contacted by the Scotting police, representing the Scottish courts. She was asked (as a Wikipedia representative) to take down our article on Peter Tobin for the duration of his trial, so as to avoid tainting the jury pool. AlisonW complied.

We now have a tempest on WP:AN, where some editors insist that the article must be restored immediately (WP:NOTCENSORED, it's outside U.S. jurisdiction, etc.). From what I gather, the trial is expected to be over in less than a week, at which time the article would be restored anyway.

I am gravely concerned that prematurely restoring this article has the potential to do serious real-world harm, and (secondarily) the fallout could also badly bloody the project's reputation. (Screwing up a murder/rape trial will probably draw more attention than the Seigenthaler mess.)

I'm here to ask you to weigh in on the dispute, and – hopefully – to encourage a little bit of patience. I suspect that you're the only individual on the project who is capable of acting with both the necessary speed and moral authority to make such a request and to make it stick. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I know little of the details here, but I can say with some confidence that based on what I do know, a little relaxation is almost certainly in order. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news site, and while we hate to have timely information unavailable, there can be competing concerns which outweigh. I have spoken with neither of AlisonW nor Mike Godwin about this situation, but I strongly recommend against restoring the article hastily. The case will still be as famous and appropriate for an encyclopia (or not, as the circumstances dictate) a week from now.

Rather than have a useless drama and fight over this case, perhaps a better use of energy all around would to be help formulate a more longterm policy response to similar situations in the future. I don't know that I would personally be in favor of deletion in circumstances like this, but I think reasonable people can differ, and all that I am advising is that there is no need to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a Reichstag in Edinburgh? This does seem strange, but tempting as it is to wander up the Royal Mile to the High Court, caution obviously comes first. . dave souza, talk 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

<blush> It's in Dundee, I've not been paying attention to the BBC News24 that's been burbling away all day. Evidently Desperate Dan is needed. . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I've tried to cut the Gordian knot and restored the article as a single-sentence stub, referring only to this man's involvement in as a defendant in a current murder trial. This stub has now been semi-protected and we can hopefully now discuss what content would be appropriate. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not the case, Jimmy, as you described. In this case the UK prosecutor or Court wants the article down because the historical references, which had been there for some time, about previous convictions of the BLP subject--he's a notable convicted and admitted rapist/murderer in the UK--may taint the jury now. They want the whole thing gone since we're high profile and have all the info in one easy to find place. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue should really go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. That is where a proper process can occur. Kingturtle (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion of the principles raised by this case at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Current_legal_cases. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser

Looks like you re-granted yourself CheckUser two weeks ago and still haven't "returned" the bit. Are you planning on keeping it going forward? (Just general curiosity. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Email to Giano

Jimmy, did you possibly overstate the case against Giano? To the best of my knowledge Giano has never outed anybody. Perhaps you have confused him with somebody else and an apology is due? This situation is difficult enough without adding more potentially false accusations to the stew. Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano has sent me wild accusations about a good user, which turned out to be completely false. Those accusations were based on an outing thread on a message board where he is a regular participant. I commented about this privately only, to someone who chose to publicize my private remarks inappropriately, but I stand by the comment fully. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Giano

As JWales posts above that he is standing by his allegation. Here is the truth: JWales and I had an email dialogue in early September 2008, which touched on FT2. I was concerned that allegations on WR, following hot on the Poetlister debacle were damaging to Wikipedia's international reputation. A view I still hold. My email to JWales began "I don't know if you have seen last weeks outing of FT2, on WR, nor do I know if the damaging allegations contained in that outing are true or not, and it doesn't really matter because it is only one small part of what appears to be a recurring overall problem." I obviously can't post JWales' replies but I can tell you that he did not agree that such allegations were damaging to Wikipedia and that was the end of the correspondence which consisted of approximately 6 emails.. I was not aware we had parted with any bad blood. In fact, 2 weeks later we had a perfectly reasonable exchange concerning an unwell, former Wikipedian attempting to damage the project - and we were in complete mutual agreement on handling that matter.

Last night, In an email to to third party (not FT2, although JWales may have copied him) JWales made the false claim that I (Giano) "participates in WR and aggressively participates in their outing campaigns." This has made me more than angry. Outing people has never been one of my interests, I deplore it. I frequently warn private email correspondents against giving out too much information. I know the RL names of many of those who don't agree with some of my thoughts, but I can say without fear of any contradiction, not one of them has ever worried I would out them. I have always protected everyone's right to privacy. Even recently on WR, that of JWales' own family. The only time I have ever asked for an oversight in one "my debacles" was because an adversary had inadvertently given away private info relating the Admin who blocked me. Editors RL privacy is paramount to me, no matter who they are. To those of you, (some from a surprising quarters) who have posted kind messages on my page - thanks it means a lot. I just want you all to know that I do have standards. Giano (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, I appreciate and accept the apology. Perhaps, however, this is the time to say that if you don't soon change your advisers, Wikipedia's reputation (which is just as important as the project) will be internationally trashed and it will take years to recover. One does not have to be an Arb, an Admin or a user of IRC to care what happens here. You, more than anyone other, needs to realise that. Your closest advisers are bad and have been for a long time. Giano (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Hopefully Giano will accept. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia User pages policies vs FREE SPEECH protected by First Amendment to the US Constitution

In USA Wikipedia is registered as public organization. Does this mean that Wikipedia User pages policies should comply with rights (such as FREE SPEECH) protected by US Constitution ? Apovolot (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Would this have anything to do with this by any chance? – iridescent 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes (in part) and particularly with the following comment there, which raised my curiosity level: "Changed my vote (above) to regular Delete due to the relentless campaign by User:Apovolot, who uses arguments like 'free speech' that are not to be found in Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)" Apovolot (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

... the short answer to your question is "No", and I suggest you read the First Amendment. It's a classic, but often misunderstood, sometimes for comic effect. --Rodhullandemu 00:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Still no, I'm afraid. The first amendment covers us inasmuch as the state can't censor our articles, but Arbcom isn't a government and Jimbo isn't a president. As an independent organisation, we're bound by those rules we choose to be bound by ourselves. – iridescent 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rodhullandemu - should I consider your reply as rendering of legal opinion ? Apovolot (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I am a lawyer. You are not, otherwise you wouldn't make such a basic mistake as ot the scope of the First Amendment. --Rodhullandemu 01:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law..." It says nothing about private websites, which Wikipedia is. The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, has the right to say that anything may not be included, for any reason. They have allowed the community as a whole to decide the exact details, and thus we have WP:USERPAGE. A good essay to read regarding this is WP:FREE. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides the legal aspect of the issue, there is also a moral one: Should Wikipedia User pages policies try by free intent to comply with FREE SPEECH protected by US Constitution ? Apovolot (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That question does not, as far as I know, have a definitive answer, since the decision has been largely left up to the community to decide. You could try starting a discussion at WT:USERPAGE, but I can practically guarantee you that you will get nowhere. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This reply sounds like deja vu to me ... I think I have heard something like this before ? ... Oh yes: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". Apovolot (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Or "You're using our server, you follow our rules" might be a less hyperbolic way to put it… – iridescent 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, isn't "our server, our rules" logic just serves as easy escape from facing moral issues question ? Apovolot (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Our server = "What we want" is the only issue. No morals involved. – iridescent 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone from Wikipedia will readily admit that Wikipedia's collective "What we want" is in contradiction with articles of US Constitution ? Apovolot (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Many, many people have told you that what Wikipedia disallows on its own servers is not covered by the Constitution. If you don't believe us, that is your problem. What are you going to do? Sue them for controlling what is placed on their own property? Go ahead. I'll bring the popcorn. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it more simply, would you allow me to come over to your house with a Magic Marker and scribble on the walls? By your logic, I would be exercising my "Constitutional rights". Please stop this; you're starting to cross the line that separates "commentary" from "disruption". – iridescent 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Most users from outside the U.S. certainly won't care. The issue of free speech may or may not be of concern, but not the extent to which Wikipedia's policies about the concept do or don't align with the U.S. constitution. I can't even imagine that many American users will be much troubled. And then there is the small point that what the U.S. constitution says about free speech has nothing to do with the rules of a non-governmental association. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech. Wikipedia has a narrowly defined mission: It exists to be an encyclopedia and nothing else. Merely because anyone is allowed to contribute to that mission does not mean that anything goes. If content is so beyond the scope of creating an encylopedia, it must go. There is no moral conflict. The moral conflict would be if we allowed the mission of Wikipedia to be degraded by people taking advantage of the open nature of the software to pervert Wikipedia to their own means. We have one goal; building an encyclopedia. Any deviation from that goal represents a moral bad. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Free speech can be abused (like those cases of blasphemy and certain articles in Encyclopedia Dramatica), so no. Wikipedia may be a dictatorship of some sort, frankly speaking (although it is also made as a democracy), but it is for the better, rather than allowing users to attack or bash at people on their userspaces. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion (on this page, which in fact represents the *face* of Wikipedia) clearly shows to any *outsider* that Wikipedia, which I am sure was created with the noble goal of spreading the Knowledge and Truth, has eroded into "Borg-like" police state collective of brain-washed zealous fanatics, who prefer to blindly follow the "rules" instead of using their personal moral judgment. An amazed outsider will see in this discussion all vestiges of very unappealing, uncharismatic dictatorship without Human Face ... This is what happens when noble goals are pursued using wrong methods ! Apovolot (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Apovolot, stop the trolling and get to your point already. It is clear that you wanted to use Wikipedia to advertise or whatever, well, guess what. I'm going to be blunt here. Wikipedia is not for anyone to advertise anything. Have you read numerous encylopedias in your life? If so, look closely at the content(and I mean the paper/book ones, not anything online). Do you see ads anywhere? No? I didn't think so. We're here to write an encylopedia. We have rules here to keep the content neutral, and to keep others from using the space we are using to write an encyclopedia, to advertise their new cure-all tonic. We are not here to provide free ad-space. We are here to write an encyclopedia which will be completely neutral in tone. We are not here to provide free webspace for anyone. You want free webspace? Go to Yahoo or Google, I'm pretty sure they have something available in that regard, but also, they have rules. Terms of Service, if you will. I'm pretty sure that you, like most internet users, have seen that link to the ToS regarding any webservice of any sort. Here's the short story for you: Wikipedia is not governed by the US, nor the UN, nor any other nation or country. It is governed by the laws and rules layed out in the ToS, the policies created to help the ongoing, endless construction. If you can't follow our rules then find somewhere else to edit, just make sure it isn't here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been a deletion discussion, as is our policy. The result of that deletion discussion was, delete. To be a member of wikipedia's community is to be bound by our policies and processes. The process was followed, the result was delete, and there's not much else to discuss in my opinion. Wikipedia is a mix of firm rules and community mores. We have deletion discussions when the issue is not clear, to get a gut-check from a variety of contributors. The mores have spoken. Why clutter up Jimbo's page with this? At best, the next step would be deletion review. That's the process. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone taken a look at International Law? Because the United Stated is joined to the United Nations, it has to follow some international laws. Is there any International laws allowing free speech? Techman224^Talk 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A treaty cannot trump the US Constitution. The US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech (and, thus, the right of the Wikimedia Foundation to use their own server to say what they want to say and not say what they don't want to say). A treaty infringing on that right is unconstitutional. --B (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation does not say anything that is on their servers, they are simply a provider of a forum that others use. Individual American's have the constitutional guarantee of free speech; however, a treaty can (and in some cases does) limit speech where there is a compelling government interest. See the Treaty Clause which lends considerable legal effect to treaties, including trumping US law where there is a conflict (for full treaties not legislative agreements or executive agreements). --Trödel 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You have no freedom of speech on somebody else's web server. Period. The WMF can at its sole pleasure allow or disallow your speech here for any reason or for no reason. --B (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Again - you are uninformed, if the Foundation began to exercise editorial control over the information on Wikipedia it would lose the protections afforded it as a provider under US law. Therefore, the Foundation does not do so and the platform they provide becomes a forum for free speech where each individual is responsible for their own comments. Thus the WMF can not be sued for libel but the poster of the information can be. You should read Online service provider law and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act before you respond. --Trödel 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As amusing as this is, it has nothing to do with either the original complaint - someone's user page was deleted - or the direct question I answered - what about international law. In any event, it's not a question of a user's rights being infringed. --B (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it does have everything to do with the original complaint. The complainant is asking Jimbo Wales to restore his page (i.e. edit the content) contrary to the wishes of the wikipedia community - which determined that it should be deleted in an MfD. If Jimbo did so, and his actions were deemed to have been done as a "WMF trustee" there would be consequences for the WMF as a "provider". Thus, this forum is the wrong place for this request. It should be in deletion review (as has already been suggested). Or the writer should use Google Sites or some other way to "publish" his material. Although one has the right of Free Speech, one does not have the right to require any forum (meaning locations, websites, public places, televisions stations, etc.) to carry ones speech. He can carry on his speech just fine elsewhere. It is clear that the community decided against carrying this material. The irony is that this complaint is likely to move community opinion against carrying this material rather than to influence it to support an undeletion. --Trödel 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Trodel, I think it may be you that is uninformed - at least insofar as understanding the separate implications of any free speech protections and the section 230 status of the Wikimedia Foundation. The original poster seemed to posit a 'right to free speech' - using the American constitution as a basis for that right. That is simply not true - there is no constitutional right to free speech on private property not your own, or right to freedom from limitations on speech in a private context. Obviously there is some complexity in terms of the definition of "private property", but generally speaking... rights guaranteed in the US constitution are written to prevent (or require) government action only. The Section 230 status is something apart. The Wikimedia Foundation does not directly publish or endorse any content, it provides the hosting service (and myriad other non-content services). The Wikipedia community, on the other hand, is empowered to control the content of the Wikipedia project. Editors on Wikipedia have the privilege of editing as long as that privelege is not revoked by the "agents" of the community (administrators). There is no legal right at stake. Avruch ^T 23:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being so sloppy.

There are two issues (1) whether there is a free speech right to have your stuff included on Wikipedia, (2) the assertion that one shouldn't complain because the Wikimedia Foundation has the free speech right to include whatever they want on their servers.

I was responding to (2) "A treaty cannot trump the US Constitution. The US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech (and, thus, the right of the Wikimedia Foundation to use their own server to say what they want to say and not say what they don't want to say)." This is not a good argument, in my mind of why the info should not be included. I responded poorly - I was taking issue with two things - (a) that treaties have no authority to modify US law - the conflict of laws question when a treaty is in conflict with the US Constitution is a difficult one, and (b) that the WMF is deciding what to include on a case by case basis - they are not.

Yes the WMF owns the servers and can decide what they want to do with them. They have decided to be a "provider" and set up rules that allows what can and can not be included - defining a community - however they do not make individual content decisions - they leave that up to the community. Thus there is no "right" to have your stuff on Wikipedia - as you clearly state, "there is no constitutional right to free speech on private property not your own, or right to freedom from limitations on speech in a private context."

As you more eloquently explain, "The Wikipedia community, on the other hand, is empowered to control the content of the Wikipedia project. Editors on Wikipedia have the privilege of editing as long as that privelege is not revoked by the "agents" of the community (administrators). There is no legal right at stake."

Thanks for your clarification --Trödel 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to India

Hi Jimbo, Welcome to my home town , Thiruvananthapuram ! I do wish to meet you but I am away in Bangalore . Anyways a warm welcome to you to India again , from the Indian Wikipedians ! -- Tinu Cherian - 12:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in these stats before coming to India ! -- Tinu Cherian - 12:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote question

I don't think I'll actually garner Jimbo's attention, but I figure his many page watchers might be able to help. There was a quote of Jimbo's that I read once. The guts of it was, whenever he was asked to investigate admin abuse, he was always surprised that the person asking wasn't blocked long ago. Ring any bells? Anyone got a page link? I'm pretty sure I saw it on a policy or guideline page, but now I can't find it (always possible it's been edited out). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not sure if I can help you in finding it, but I can say that I don't endorse it today as you wrote it. What I would say is that most often when I get a random email alleging admin abuse, then when I look into it, I find that the complainant lasted a lot longer before being blocked than I would have imagined. We are often surprisingly tolerant of blatant deliberate trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From the man himself; not quite how I remembered it, but if my memory was perfect I wouldn't have to ask! Thanks, much obliged (and if anyone does have a link, I'd still appreciate it). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what I may have said at the time, but there have been some cases of "admin abuse" which panned out, so I can no longer use absolute terms like "always". It is also possible, of course, that I spoke in error at the time, failing to include a qualification that I should have. I try not to speak carelessly, but like anyone, I do make mistakes at times.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding something...

I recently recieved an email from somebody, requesting that this page be deleted because it reveals unwanted personal information. Can you delete it please, to resolve the problem? Thanks. -- 92.9.247.207 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone would need a lot more than you've stated here. First, how have you been emailed if you don't have an account? Second, that is a complex but inconclusive SSP report from which it appears nothing has followed. Third, this is not the sort of thing that Jimbo usually gets involved in. If it's a problem, why not ask here? --Rodhullandemu 21:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Transition to CC-BY-SA

What is going on on the front to move Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA? As the GFDL 1.3 does not allow the transition to CC-BY-SA of GFDL material from external sources added after November 1, 2008, every day that passes makes more work to find and remove any integrated text if and when the transition takes place. Even if there are other issues that must be seen to before the transition can officially take place MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning can be changed immediately to say "You irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the terms o the GFDL and CC-BY-SA". This will make it that when the transition does take place only November (and three days of December) would have to be reviewed for external GFDL contributions. To me, this seems like a no-brainer, and I'd make the change myself, but I'm afraid I'd be lynched. Jon513 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for the change - the GFDL allows migration to CC-BY-SA (as of version 1.3) so by licensing under the GFDL, they are agreeing to license it under CC-BY-SA. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I recommend emailing Erik Moeller; I believe he is in charge at the Foundation of the migration discussion. I confess that due to my recent work on other issues, I have lost the plot on the transition and I don't quite know where we stand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

HPJoker complaint

HPJoker got temp banned a day or so ago for Uncivility. Earlier today he got his ban extended to an indefinite ban and has proof that it was not him "avoided" his ban with another IP. The IP he was using at 20:22, 2 December 2008 was 161.97.198.130. This is an IP for Fairview High School. He used an IP Tracer to find the location of the IP that added insults to Atlantabravz talk page while Joker was at school. The tracer said that it was a New York City IP. He explains it on the bottom of his talk page. He wishes that with this evidence that he can get the indef ban taken off. FYI the IP Tracer he used was this, just in case you want to try the IPs. It's basically...

161.97.198.130 A Fairview IP Address

74.50.119.142 IP address mistaken to be HPJoker

76.120.0.210 HPJoker's real IP address

Try out those IPs in the tracer above if you want to. You can reply on HPJoker's Talk Page. Thank you. 24.37.32.193 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be the right person to deal with something like this. Any admin should be able to help you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you recommend one? This is Joker again using another school IP address. I've been close with jj and he is on a wikibreak, so he can't exactly help me out. Blueboy96 is convinced that the New York IP is mine, which of course it is not as I reside in Boulder, Colorado. I write an MLB off season news thing on my userpage and would like to get back to it. I just feel like that justice should be served and since you're the head man and are kind enough to take time out of your day to reply to these messages, I was wondering if you could do something about it. I don't know for sure, but Blueboy probably has my user and talk page on his watchlist. I have left several messages on my talk page asking to talk to him and he won't respond. 161.97.198.68 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I go to Fairview! 75.166.85.36 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how do you know HPJoker to be making this appeal for him? MBisanz ^talk 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)