User talk:Jimbo Wales

Hello Jimbo

Hello Jimbo... Do you ever visit this site and write stuff? :) If so could you respond to this?

Thanks, Anonymous

How to name this ?

Dear Jimbo,
There is currently a delicate discussion on the administrator's board on the French wikipedia.
This follows the undefinite block of a user decided by a big amount of sysops (18) while a minority opposed to this (5) and after one of these unblocked him...
The case has been taken in front of the ArbCom... It sounds as if the undefinite block will be (much) reduced (but this is not the issue).
-> some sysops claim that they will not obey to the CAr if it requires the modification of this undefinite block. One of these sysops is a steward, member of the Association Wikimedia France, another one is checkuser.
I think this is not anecdotical and important enough so that you intervene. My understanding of the fragile equilibrium based on consensus with some "committees" elected (or chosen by the community) to take decisions could collapse...

• Here is the thread of the topic fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs#Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Arbitrage/Alvaro - Aliesin (in French) English translation
• You can ask details/comments to fr:User:Gribeco (English translation), who is against the principle to "obey" the ArbCom decision
• You can ask details/comments to fr:User:Hadrien (English translation), who is the ArbCom referee who "complained" about that.
• While trustable, I don't think fr:User:Anthère (English translation) is neutral, due to the involvment of fr:User:Guillom (English translation), member of the association Wikimedia France in the discussions.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
NB: Feel free to ask me any translation. There also some contributors of wp:en, who do not participate to wp:fr, who could help you and support. As involved, while I didn't take part to the debate, I think I am not neutral either, even for a translation. Ceedjee (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia we have a system of "constitutional monarchy," and some longstanding traditions around that. I would personally desysop any admin or group of admins seeking to defy the ArbCom, because the ArbCom is a valid part of our longstanding traditions. There are other ways, more proper ways, to seek for change. (Including, for example, an appeal to me and a nonbinding community poll requesting me or the ArbCom to reconsider a decision. There are lots of civilized possibilities.) In French Wikipedia, I do not believe I hold the same role at all, because it is not part of the community tradition there. So therefore, all I can do is advise you: admins defying the ArbCom in any language ought to be prepared to accept the consequences, but I do not know what those are, and I can't personally help you. My point is, I do not know what power I have in French Wikipedia at all, however as an elder of our community, I would suggest that random admins overturning ArbCom decisions is a serious mistake. Justice can only be achieved through thoughtful process, and an admin war of all-against-all with no agreed upon conventions for settling things sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo.

Thank you for your comment. Of course you are considered as an Elder (wise) on wp:fr too. :-)

I will permit myself to leave a link on wp:fr to here. I assume some people will come here to discuss with you. But I think it is an important issue. Ceedjee (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well. It seems there is no consensus around an Elder position you would have or could be expected to have, on wp:fr.

But Anthère wrote in French something that sounds a little bit like what you write.

Thx anyway for your comments. I think they helped to make people think about the situation.

Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, really? "I would personally desysop any admin or group of admins seeking to defy the ArbCom"? Are you aware that at least two arbcom decisions have been vacated by the community of admins simply refusing to enforce them? (Admittedly it was some time ago.) Or, supposing one were to have principled concerns about certain regarding which Arbcom has declined to/refused to/been unable to act? Thatcher 04:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Refusing to enforce a decision is quite different from taking an action that contravenes the decision. If ArbCom says, "Block Thatcher forever," and then somebody unblocks you, they will be desysopped. If ArbCom says, "Any sysop may block Thatcher on Tuesday," and nobody does, who can be blamed? There is no obligation to enforce, but there most certainly is an obligation not to obstruct. Jehochman ^Talk 04:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So user:Smith is topic-banned from editing article:Foo; but continues to edit, and no admins enforce the remedy. Where does this rank in your schema? Thatcher 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(Leans on his mop and whistles) Hey, man, I'm just a volunteer. You can't force me to work. Jehochman ^Talk 05:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A more interesting question: ArbCom bans User:Smith from editing Foo and I tell Smith, "Bah, go ahead and edit Foo". I think that would be pushing my luck to the extreme. Jehochman ^Talk 05:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably the most you could realistically get away with scot-free is to say "I will no enforce your topic ban on Foo." It's pretty clear to me that one of the "unenforced" ArbCom decisions in the footnotes BLP randomness, I'm not sure what the other is though. Footnotes BLP is totally useless, so I think it's unfair to say it's not being used when it's being used to maximum efficiency. WilyD 14:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that neither I, nor any other admin ever threatened to defy the ArbCom of the French-language Wikipedia. The straw-man summary provided by Ceedjee is highly deceitful. I believe the community, the ArbCom and the administrators would never let a bunch of administrators overturn an ArbCom decision. That said, this is purely a fr.wikipedia matter, and I think Jimbo has much better to do. guillom 09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guillom, on wp:en, we apply : wp:NPA. (you reverted me). -> Jimbo underlined here above it was not good to start an edit war between editors.

I just want to point out that the summary I made is not straw man argumentation. Just because I pointed out I didn't think Anthère (and I) were neutral and that you (as well others) were involved. But also and simply because I provided to Jimbo the diffs and that he could check (or have checked) everything by himself.

I think Jimbo gave his mind. Not we should all think about what he wrote, why he wrote that and just try to take his (Elder's) mind into account and put if in the context (or from your point of view, in the right context).

If this issue should come to WP:dispute resolution, I will provide the diff and we can discuss all this but please, do not delete my comments here. This remains Jimbo Wales's page and if he think all this discuss should be archived, he will proceed (alone).

Ceedjee (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert you, I moved your comment to my talk page, as it was addressed to me and not to Jimbo. I don't see why Jimbo should endure agressive discussions on his talk page if they have nothing to do with him. guillom 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, even you will agree I rarely, if ever, come onto this page and have a "pop" at you, but I cannot ignore you saying "In the English Wikipedia we have a system of constitutional monarchy." This is blatantly not so. A constitutional monarch submits without argument to the choices of the electorate. A constitutional monarch expresses, publicly, no opinion. A constitutional monarch never goes contrary to a decision of his appointed government. A constitutional monarch can take no personal action against any individual. A constitutional monarch may advise his government he may not direct. Now, bearing all of that in mind, do you still feel "In the English Wikipedia we have a system of constitutional monarchy"? Now I don't personally care if you see yourself as the Tsar of Russia, the Emperor of China or the Omnipotent Autocrat of La La land, but please don't say this is a constitutional monarchy when your own words on this page suggest otherwise. Giano (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Giano, when Jimbo says "In the English Wikipedia we have a system of "constitutional monarchy," "; he is surely referring to his idea of "constitutional monarch" and not yours. I can not say what all is entailed in his conception of it; but I can tell you that my conception of it bears no resemblance to what you just said. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I cant think where [1] I acquire the anarchistic ideas. Giano (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not anarchistic, merely nonfactual. For example investigate the case of Thailand. However Jimbo's meaning is better understood from his references to him progressing down the path that the British monarchy has progressed - meaning less and less power until all he does is wave. He has not claimed to be at the "just wave" stage yet, but he believes he will wind up at that point at some time, which makes sense to me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee missed accidentally some small details, like the banned user publicly stated he was non longer on wp: to edit but to discourage people to edit wp:. - phe 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Phe,

I wrote : "It sounds as if the undefinite block will be (much) reduced (but this is not the issue)."

Do you think this is not a fair summary of the point you underline ? I think I took numerous cares in the way I introduced context to wp. If not or if he had some questions, Jimbo can ask more to Hadrien (referee) and Gribeco (main involved sysop).

The most important, I think, remains Jimbo statement. Put it in any context you like, give it the due weight you consider it must have but I think we have the Elder's mind and we could live with it.

(I copy paste this on your talk page here if you want to discuss this). Ceedjee (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's normal you take care a lot about Jimbo's point of view and I too, but pointing out you get this point of view through misleading information is fair. - phe 07:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

--Buster7 (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)------> is waving back to Jimbo...."Thanks for Wikipedia"

arbcom election question....

G'day Jimbo - in the discussions about the elections to arbcom at the end of the year, I'm hoping to be able to confirm how our constitutional monarch will be deciding whom to invite for tea, and to form a government! - I've written up my understanding of how we do things, and would really appreciate you taking a quick look, and offering thoughts :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Jimbo, I'd recommend keeping an eye on the Sarah Palin article and the associated talk page. The amount of libel and POV-pushing going on there is pretty astonishing, and Wikipedia could end up getting a major public black eye if it's not brought under control. Most sensible editors seem to have thrown up their hands and left. Kelly ^hi! 07:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Although Kelly and I disagree about what exactly are violations I can join with her in urging you to keep an eye on the matter. We have have at least 15 news articles (I've counted, including TWO in the NYT) in major publications watching the progress of that article. We are the #1 RESULT on google for her name. If you see _anything_ wrong I highly encourage you to lend your opinions in the matter. At the moment I don't think any decrees from your are nessasary. Just to have people know that you are watching and have expressed an interested will be a big help to editors like Kelly who are just trying to keep it a good article. --mboverload@ 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to LexisNexis, I count 22 articles already. The Washington Post even ran a little something on it yesterday. But if you think that's a concern, the foreign-language journalists seem to care even more. Factiva searches indicate that German-language publications have already run 10 articles on Palin and her Wikipedia page; the Italians have published four articles; the Spanish-language newspaper, El Mundo, discussed it in a piece today. The list goes on and on. It seems like journalists worldwide are expecting some POV-pusher somewhere to make a move on Wikipedia in the next few days. Everyone is watching. It's becoming the story. Astonishing, really. J Readings (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation that it is becoming the story. Incredibly interesting and a testimate to the power of, and interest about, Wikipedia. This is amazing. Jimbo, please make your presence known. Or perhaps this is an expiriment. See how well Wikipedia governs itself without you. hmmm --mboverload@ 04:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly. I've got the page watchlisted, but the traffic is so massive and there's so many redlink editors, IPs, and SPAs running through there that it's really challenging to try and figure out who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. I personally think that it's at least slightly under control at the moment, but with the growing number of potential problem editors, it could spiral out of control in a hurry. More admin eyes of all kinds would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Relax, guys; the higher the profile of the article, the better we do. Jimbo getting involved would be the worst thing possible. It would inhibit some people. It would indicate that the system does not work without hierarchical power controls. The media will supply published reliable sources for all appropriate claims for this article. It is the cases where only a tabloid here and there publish something that are problematic and can use Jimbo's deft BLP touch. Be cool. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Having newspapers comment that Jimbo is storming around WP with an iron fist is far worse than having them watch the page for POV stuff which will quickly be reverted anyway. Sure there may be a lot of people trying to add stuff that's not wanted, but I suspect there's twice as many people waiting to remove it. And Hi Jimbo! First time I've commented on your talk page! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --mboverload@ 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that! We go though these things almost daily. fr33kman (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You've generally taken a hard line against wheel warring in the past - would you like to comment on what has recently happened at this article? --Random832 (contribs) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The cavalier attitude toward BLP violations, inaction by admins despite numerous requests for help for editors trying to maintain the article, and complete disregard by Jimbo is pretty sad. I don't think this will play well in the press. (I've been contacted - what should I say?) Kelly ^hi! 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't mess with anything, and please

A modest proposal (that does not involve cannibalism)

Hey there.

I'd appreciate your toughts on a simple proposal I have made to tweak AC policy. Obviously, committee procedure is within the remit of the committee itself, but I'm sure your opinion would be valued. — Coren ^(talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)