User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Inflammatory essays, again

Two months ago, I started a discussion here on that inflammatory "humor" essay Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, pointing out that it has no place on Wikipedia, serves no constructive purpose, and will simply be cited by uncivil users hoping to circumvent WP:Civility, under the rationale that hey, it's hosted in the Wikipedia project namespace. This occurred with one editor here, and despite this, the result at MfD was Keep, and the discussion here went nowhere.

Now I've discovered another such "essay" being used in this manner, Wikipedia:Competence is required. In a discussion on Talk:James Randi, user Steven J. Anderson, who is in a disagreement with User:Kazuba, ended his most recent talk page message by saying, "That policy is non-negotiable and trumps consensus. If you're having trouble understanding any of this, you may benefit from perusing WP:COMPETENCE." The issue, of course, is one of disagreement, not understanding, since editors who understand policy disagree about its proper implementation or interpretation all the time. But that essay allows people like Stephen J. Anderson to level thinly-veiled insults at other users.

Jimmy, as much as I generally respect consensus, these pages need to be removed from Wikipedia, regardless of the threadbare rationales offered for them, even if it means a unilateral decision from the top. They offer nothing except fodder for churls to insult others during editorial disputes. Nightscream (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

HEY! Stop being a giant dick! HalfShadow 05:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm ambivalent about the first essay, I think WP:COMPETENCE is important. Editors may misuse it, but it points out the (to me) important fact that while anyone can edit Wikipedia, if that person's English skills, logic skills, writing skills, etc., are so low that more effort is spent fixing those edits than is gained from the contributor, then that person may not be an appropriate editor. Similarly, if someone can't, for whatever reason, edit collaboratively (either do to language problems or emotional problems) and engage in talk page discussion as necessary, then that, too, indicates the person may be in the wrong place. Perhaps WP:COMPETENCE should be renamed, but I do think the essay should continue to exist, as people will invoke the underlying principle even if the link itself does not exist. Note that it is not an essay "kept because its humorous," but one that's far more widely used, and I believe used appropriately. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose what we all agree upon is pretty simple: editors shouldn't make snarky comments to other editors, and shouldn't use links to essays to be snarky, and essays are less desirable to the extent that they invite that kind of abuse. One approach might be to rewrite them to be less offensive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's all those essays are going to be used for. Can you give an example of a citation of that essay that won't be taken as an insult by the editor to whom the comment is directed? If there are areas in which an editor needs work, such as a newbie editor, the more experienced editor can simply point them to the related policy pages, templates, resources (Help Desk, Noticeboards) in question. That would offer not only a more precise resolution to the specific problem, but it would be a constructive solution with which a good faith newbie could genuinely improve. By contrast, citing that essay just sends the message, "You're incompetent." How is this beneficial? Nightscream (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The dick deletion discussion on the essay was an epic failure, accept that not everyone (anyone?) sees this in the same dire terms that you do and more on. As for competence.... editors try to be helpful and accommodating for new users, but sometimes there's a basic level of, well, competence, that has to be expected. We're not a teaching institution. One particular case that drives me nuts are those who can not understand 4 tildes to sign a post even after being told multiple times by multiple people. If someone can't string 1~ 2~ 3~ 4~ together, then there's not much one can do with them. Same with having the ability to write basic, coherent sentences, verb-tense agreements, etc... The bar is set pretty low to edit here, and having an expectation that users meet that bar is not a bad thing. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Nightscream that whoever is pointed to WP:COMPETENCE is likely to feel a bit insulted. The essay is specifically targeted at people who "lack intelligence", are incompetent, immature, etc. The essay can almost only be used for personal attacks. If someone really is "incompetent" to edit Wikipedia, it's much better to point them to WP:V, WP:N or whatever policy is relevant to the discussion than to this essay. Laurent (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it is possible to gather some empirical evidence. How often are these essays referred to? How often is the reference unhelpful and insulting? I think that an MfD accompanied by a serious analysis of these questions could likely be successful, if it can be shown that these are predominantly causing trouble.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would also be useful to bring to the MfD some input from a social scientist or two, and some philosophers. I'd like to see some discussion of the moral implications and social impact of ostracism compared with patience and mentorship in cases of incompetence. Anthony (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone with qualifications in one of those(citation needed), I found WP:PBAGDSWCBY quite useful as a new editor because it was a quick way of realising that editors who cause disruption subtly over very long periods, do more damage than those that can be swiftly and painlessly reverted, blocked and ignored. And no, I didn't discover the essay by being pointed at it in a dispute. Maybe most people don't. In any case, these essays shouldn't be used to tell people "you're incompetent, don't edit"; that is indeed uncivil and is not their purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can go to the essay and click What links here. We have well established procedures for dealing with insults. I hope we don't have here a campaign for dumbing down Wikipedia and replacing clear language with politically correct doublespeak. If somebody's editing is incompetent, it is not an insult to say so, as kindly as possible. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this idea of another MfD is pretty horrid actually. If people misuse an essay or cite it in an uncivil manner, than sanction the user, not the essay itself. This is a "guns don't kill people..." kinda thing here. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at article talk pages that link to WP:COMPETENCE. It breaks down to about 50:50 in my estimation: half of them use WP:COMPETENCE gratuitously, and half constructively. Anthony (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's par for the course. About 50% of Wikipedia comments are polite, and 50% are nasty, snarky or combative. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A social scientist or two and some philosophers to help determine if people feel insulted when they're called incompetent, Anthony? C'mon.

Civility has nothing to do with political correctness, doublespeak or "dumbing down", Jehochman. It's merely a matter of recognizing that there are ways to level constructive criticism that are constructive and useful, and those that are not. The problem with your hypothetical "If somebody's editing is incompetent..." is that what's incompetent is subjective, and there are far less inflammatory ways to describe what's wrong with someone's edits. You don't need an expert in psychology to know that someone will feel insulted if "you're incompetent" is the approach one takes.

When a newbie user began editing some articles relating to The Real World, much of which I re-edited or reverted, he took umbrage at that. I had to explain what I felt was wrong with some of his edits, portions of which included somewhat subjective areas related to good writing that are not entirely detailed explicitly by policy or guideline. Rather than saying, "You're writing is incompetent", which would not provided an avenue for improvement, or induce a friendly atmosphere for discussion, I explained to him my rationale for my edits to his material, citing policy where applicable. The fourth and fifth paragraph of the link I just provided in particular displays my approach. That fifth paragraph in particular pertains to matters of common sense good writing, in which I explain some of the criteria for writing a good synopsis. On another occasion with a different editor, I even related my own personal experiences as a newbie, and provided diffs illustrating the difference between what my overly detailed synopses looked like before and after I was admonished by others to trim them down. This is the right approach to take. Saying, "You're incompetent", either explicitly or obliquely via a linked essay, is not. Period. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice story, but the absence or presence of such essays isn't gong to make people act any more or less civility than they already do. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Period. (See? Everyone can do that!) I've only seen people invoke the incompetence clause when someone has shown repeatedly that they cannot or will not learn Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I'm sure people will sometimes misuse it. That's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some people are still missing the fact that the essay is explicitly written as advice to people dealing with potential incompetence, not as a link to be given to people who are themselves (allegedly) incompetent. So anyone handing out the essay link as a way of implying or stating "you're incompetent", is plainly misusing the essay (and being uncivil). That's not the fault of the essay, any more than the existence of a policy about dealing with vandalism is responsible for incorrect accusations of vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I see Chaser has installed this at the top of the essay.

It The essay is poisonous, pompous, ignorant, arrogant and mean; it encourages impatience and discord, and is the kind of sentiment that appeals to inadequate people, out to trumpet their own dubious worth. The project needs an essay covering incompetence, but not this pretentious, incendiary, derogatory dross. Anthony (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed it as I found it to be insulting as well, and there's no justification for it based on some stray comments here by, what, 1 person? Tarc (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the presence or absence of such essays will alter people's civility, Tarc. My point is that it provides ammunition for the uncivil, and without providing anything productive on the flipside.

Demiurge, that essay provides little or no advice on how to deal with problem editors. Most of it is simply a description of behavior. We already have policy pages on how to deal with edit disputes or tendentious editors. That essay offers nothing to supplement that. Nightscream (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't provide ammo. If people arguing to be uncivil then they will be uncivil, and should be admonished appropriately. That someone misuses or misquotes...again, how many times have you been told that it doesn't mean what you say it means?...it is not a valid reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It indeed provides ammo to those inclined to be uncivil, as the example I provided at the top of this discussion illustrates. Covering your eyes and ears and pretending it's not there does not change that. This point is not predicated on what the essay as a whole says or means. How many times do you have to be told that? You're not refuting the logic or reasoning of my position, you're just engaging in rote repetition of an counter-position, without consideration of my point of view. Its use by WP:CIV violators is part of the problem. Another is that it does not provide any resource for addressing problems of "competence" beyond the aforementioned policy pages. Indeed, why should an "essay" even be in the project namespace when it hasn't been and has no likelihood of being adopted as a policy itself? It's superfluous. At the very least, let users put essays on their User pages, or better yet, on their own websites, which would reduce the appearance that Wikipedia approves of such things. Nightscream (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia does approve of such things, as seen in the last MfD. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How much time should be devoted to tending an editor who fundamentally is not suitable for Wikipedia? People who are blatantly disruptive are easily handled, and POV pushers usually are ejected after considerable effort. But what about cheerful editors who do not understand policies like WP:NOR, or who make many unconstructive edits? The approach of giving as much time as is required to such editors is not sustainable, and that's why WP:COMPETENCE exists: it offers the good advice that sometimes it is necessary to get unconstructive editors to disengage from Wikipedia. You are quite correct that COMPETENCE should not be invoked early in an editor's career: many people have no clue about NOR and NPOV when starting. However, the COMPETENCE essay is important to show that time is a finite resource, and we are here for the encyclopedia, not to battle with people who will not or cannot follow procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? There is nothing wrong with WP:CIR. You have to draw the line somewhere, and this essay seems to be a good way to explain to incompetent editors why they are being blocked. The message needs to be made, and there is no way of saying "sorry, but you don't have the skills required to edit Wikipedia" without sounding a tiny bit rude. But regarding WP:PBAGDSWCBY, that is an essay which should be deleted. access_denied (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

3.5 m + articles

Hi Jimbo! Wikipedia has now crossed 3.5 million + articles. What would you like to say about the milestone? :) 123.211.40.244 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, we sure do like to type. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, some of us do!  Giacomo  20:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just imagine how many we'd be up to without the dramaz. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

probably a lot less.  Giacomo  20:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Or how many less there would be if we insisted on sources... Kevin (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And those are the only ones that were tagged..Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Over 3.5 million articles, I couldn't have done it without all your (plural) help. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, we deletionists need to work harder... ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the terms "deletionist" or "inclusionist". How about "get it right-ionist"? The sources are there, or they're not, and they are adequate to support an article here, or they're not. But taking a generalist stance without regard to the merits of individual articles does not help, and arguably breaches neutrality policy. A step back from one's personal preferences should be commended as completely embodying what we are trying to achieve here. Rodhullandemu 04:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have put the ';)' in bold? Or maybe I should leave my sense of humour out of Wikipedia entirely (do I hear loud shouts of 'please do!). I wasn't being serious, and yes, I think Rodhullandemu's "get it right-ionist" stance is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We need a good essay (or even policy!) to point WP:GETITRIGHT at :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination to ethnic signs isn't admissible

Hello, Mr. Jimbo!
Forgive me for my English. I badly know it. I write by means of translator Google.
I am compelled to address to you, as to the founder of the project "Wikipedia".
I on a nationality the Greek since recent time I live in Greece.
Not so long ago I was registered in your project. And here I am literally today have faced discrimination on a racial accessory on pages of Russian language section of your project. To me have forbidden to write and communicate with participants in my native language which is Greek.
I consider, the granted circumstance not admissible and breaking my rights.
In this connection I ask you to take measures to that anybody and never in your project limited people in the right in free dialogue in their native language.
Thanks!Κοράκι (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you speak Russian? If so, you should be able to communicate in Russian on that project. If not, why are you attempting to edit the Russian project? It is generally considered necessary to have a good grasp of the language to edit on that Wikipedia project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I freely speak Russian and on the Greek. But agree, this my right: to communicate and write in my native language. And nobody should expel me for it from the project. Otherwise, it is already possible to consider it as nationalism and a genocide in separately taken project. Wikipedia after all wasn't for this purpose created...

Instead of apologizing for misunderstanding yesterday my profile there has been blocked it is termless. And in general, in Russian section of the project Wikipedia reigns a complete outrage. Each manager interprets rules at own discretion. How to it it is favourable.Κοράκι (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only recommend that you not write in Greek on the Russian Wikipedia. Beyond that, I am afraid I have no useful advice except please try to relax and get along with people. Saying that not being allowed to write in Greek, in a Russian language project, is genocide is... well, not very polite.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, mr. Jimbo Wales! Allow to ask a question. And polite will be if, suppose, in streets of Athenes to the American, the Australian or the Englishman who in the native English talks to the friend or asks passers-by how to pass on any street. And during this moment the policeman will approach and will tell: "cease to speak English here or go away to itself to the USA, Australia or Great Britain and speak there in the English"?
In my opinion, no... And anybody so doesn't do...
To us, to Greece, comes millions tourists a year, but anybody doesn't expel them from Greece only because they speak in the native language...
You declared time and again both in a press, and on the Internet that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. In her there is place to rudeness, nationalist prejudices, no bias of judgements.
And what turns out actually? Me expel from the project only because I speak and-or I write in other language... Κοράκι (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear, Ανδρέας. Your account was blocked indefinitely not because of your refusal to use Russian instead of Greek, but because of a legal threat (ru). To be unblocked you have to settle the conflict with your opponents by coming to consensus. So I would encourage you to contact your opponent(s) and find a solution, e.g., using Greek followed by Russian translation. I look forward to your return to the project. Btw, you can write to me in Greek if you want. ;) --Glebchik (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Κοράκι, no, it is not your right to use your native language wherever you'd like. If you came here, to the English Wikipedia and refused to speak English, it could result in a similar block because most people here would not understand anything you wrote. Part of a collaborative project is being capable of collaborating. If you don't speak the native language, it becomes much more difficult to edit collaboratively. People will try to communicate with you in your native tongue but, if you are incapable of writing in the local language, it makes things very difficult for those trying to help you. And it is not equivalent to walking around Athens without speaking Greek. I'm not saying this to be rude, but to be helpful. If I were to go to Athens without speaking Greek, it would be both frustrating to myself and anyone there who doesn't speak English! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal Publicity

As an enthusiast and creator of Portals on the English Wikipedia, I was curious if there might be a way we could increase the amount of publicity we give to Portals on Wikipedia. This would help the average non-editor find out how helpful they are for research. Currently, even featured Portals seem to be neglected by the members of the general public who don't have time for the extra searching required to find them. Just a thought. Cheers!--Novus Orator 06:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there are 29,401 pages with a multiple portal box and over 3 million with one or more portal links (although many of those are talk pages) it seems to me that portals are getting plenty of publicity. Why do you say that they are "neglected by members of the general public"? Rich Farmbrough, 10:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Personally I think that portals are actually overpublicised, considering the prominence they have on the main page and the staggering stats Rich has just shown. Jenks24 (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Funds

Hey Jimbo....I recently read this blog at a Pakistani website and was actually wondering, can Wikipedia really close down if it does not meet adequate funds? Is displaying advertisements going to be the ultimate choice? Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel confident that we'll get enough funds to continue our existing donation model. We always have. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The freeness of Wikipedia

I just have a question. In those "personal appeals" above, there are two contradicting statements. It says Wikipedia is based on numerous donations so it can stay being free, but certainly if my use of Wikipedia is thanks to other people paying for it, doesn't that stop it from being free?

Just because I'm not paying for it doesn't mean others aren't. Basically, the $16 million in "donations" is the price tag that we all as a community have to pay for all of us to use it.

That doesn't sound like "Free" to me. Feedback ^☎ 17:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's free, but that doesn't mean it has no cost. People donate time, effort and, yes, money in order to pay that cost. But it will always be free insofar as anyone will be allowed to use and reuse whether they are able and willing to contribute, or not. — Coren ^(talk) 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

TANSTAAFL. Nothing in this world is truly free. Something has to be exchanged for something else to exist, whether it's basic chemistry to provide food for an organism, or paying the bills & internet connection fees for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is free as in "freedom of speech", not free as in "free beer!" It takes money to run Wikipedia, but at least it all comes from donations rather than charging us to even use it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal appeals

Hi Jimmy. While it's clear that your "personal appeals" are working for now, but the parodies have become a meme, and some people seem to be disenchanted.

I know it's been a bit of a rough year for you, and I'm genuinely sorry to see that, but I do wonder: could you see the "Wikimedia garden" moving forward and growing without the benefit of your green thumb?

I guess I'm just trying to offer a synopsis of my sense of what's been said here on this page and elsewhere. I strongly believe in and support Wikimedia's mission, but I have grave concerns about how the fate of the project has been tied to your personality (not that you don't have a great personality, of course).

Do you think it's a healthy thing for a crowd-sourced and hyper-democratic project to rely on one single guy's mojo? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(Before I start, I wanted to note that the link to people who are allegedly disenchanted is a link to an operation who demand advertising in Wikipedia and who are trying to offer a service of paid editing - I don't think 'disenchanted' is the right word.)

I think Wikipedia is much much bigger than I am, and I believe very strongly that Wikipedia should outlive me. One of the things that I'm very happy about these days is the state of the Foundation and the Board - a lot of very good people have worked for a very long time to get us to where we are today, and one decision that I made early on is one that the most valuable things that I could do is help us to avoid the Founder's syndrome. Outside of the curious situation of fund raising, the Foundation is strong enough to stand without me without any problems.

Regarding the fundraiser, the evidence is sadly clear. The banners with my face, which I only reluctantly agreed to after testing proved their efficacy, outperform by a wide margin. I have been joking for awhile now that like Colonel Sanders, after I pass I will be turned into a cartoon symbol. :) (Drawn, presumably, in the style of manga, ha!)

Inside the community, too, I encourage the development of institutions that are robust enough to deal with change and stable enough to preserve our values. The current situation in case something were to happen to me is "In case of my untimely death or inability to perform my capacities, the ArbCom is hereby authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50% + 1 vote of the community. In the interim between them coming up with a ratified proposal, the status quo is to be considered as much as possible. I will amend this succession plan from time to time upon the recommendation of the ArbCom and Community, until such time as we figure out a more long-term and binding way of dealing with it." I think that we should think in the coming year about constitutional matters, but I shall say more about this in my ArbCom appointments announcement, likely late this afternoon but possibly tomorrow morning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War Misappropriations

Dear Jimbo,

I am whistleblower in the case of Ubl v IIF Data Solutions who has the second largest non intervened case in U.S. History with potentially billions at stake and none of the mainstream media will pick up my story.

At Stake in the Ubl Case: Safeguards Protecting $50 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars from Waste, Fraud and Abuse

The Washington Spectator had enough courage to step out and write on the matter: Did a Federal Judge Hand a Blank Check to Defense Contractors?

I am very familiar with the Iraq fund scandal and the Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair and the Wall Street Journal article, Alan Grayson was my initial lead counsel. The defendant initiated and signed an $11 million dollar settlement. Settlement Agreement

The Department of Justice while in the judges chambers when the settlement was constructed and executed withheld their signature for 16 months on the basis of attorneys fees or defendants ability to pay, even though the defendant has grossed over $187 million since 2000.

The case was whitewashed because General.........incomplete more later

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.42.59 (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You had me worried there, I thought you had been got just as you were typing...

If none of the mainstream media will pick up your story, Wikipedia is not the ideal place to start changing that. It's an encyclopedia, not a news outlet.

However, if there is already coverage in at least some respectable sources as you say, then maybe someone will make a mention of that somewhere here.

However, as a self-described whistleblower, maybe the people you want are Wikileaks. Or, if they are a bit too busy at the moment, try one of the organisations being set up as an alternative or splinter group to them. There's been at least one such group in the news lately.

Finally, as a whistleblower with potentially billions at stake, please be a bit more careful with where you leave your IP address.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom request for comment

Hello Jimmy, we already send you mail but got no response anyway there is strong need to discuss one case which was handled by arbcom we tried to discuss it on wiki but it was deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sophie, please read it and tell us what you think about it arbcom is of no use as they refuse to talk with us if there is some justice on wiki I would appreciate any response or please let us even discuss it Petrb (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will repost

We request comment on following case, Sophie (talk · contribs) is a regular wikipedian, participant of counter vandalism unit and project articles for creation, she was blocked indefinitely by arbcom with explanation that she is pretending that she is minor or a minor with provocative behavior, she was notified that if she wants to resolve this she must email arbcom. When she was blocked several users disagreed - see her talk with no explanation from arbcom. She submitted an email (and got the mentioned answer), then she asked what she can do to resolve this, as she is willing to proove her age, and contest the reason of block, however arbcom started to ignore her / stopped answering because issue is already resolved by them. She was also suspected from sockpuppetry and there were many unclear things, but she is willing to explain all of them and she already explained them to many of us, however had no chance to explain it to arbcom because they refuse talk with her. One of our theory is that she had conflict with some administrator on irc, then she posted inappropriate and negative comment on his name and that was a real reason for block (and also why they refuse to talk about it), the comment was seen by many of us, it was "stupid" but appeared as a comment from 13 years old wikipedian who she is, although that action may be subject for some punishment from side of admins we disagree with indefinite block, it was childish and stupid but it was not anything she should be blocked from editing for, from her edit history you would see that she never attempted to post unconstructive edits and is no threat for wikipedia and its users. We don't want to aim this against someone nor to punish anyone from arbcom for this, we only want to peacefully resolve this issue. I will not be surprised if someone revdel it because censorship is modern trend of admins on wiki.
read also comments by users on deleted page I hope you don't ignore community as arbcom do Petrb (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this issue. I support ArbCom in this. I think there are likely facts that you don't know, facts that it wouldn't be appropriate to post publicly due to this possibly involving a minor. This has absolutely nothing to do with irc, and the person running that account has received a full explanation from ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

She already sent explanation to all of us and I don't know what clear is on it, anyway why they refuse to talk with us? why they refuse to talk with her? Why all discussions regardint this were removed? See her talk page - it was admin protected. Why? That is what we wanted comment on we did not want to discuss private stuff Petrb (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that she wants to proove that she is 13 and from explanation we have seen that was one of main reasons she was blocked for, and concerning second reason she never get any explanation what it was - I reviewed most of her contributions and she never did anything wrong apart of that conflict with admins, just tell me if the findings were so important that she has to be blocked indefinitely because of them. And I don't understand why you could not tell it to her. Petrb (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you don't seem to have access to all the facts. This is a potentially sensitive matter possibly involving a minor, and I think you've been misled. I urge you to drop it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Appeals

Let me tell you, Mr. Wales, I use Wikipedia frequently. I've tried adding to the project by contributing, but most times, the admins do nothing more than crap all over my contributions because their not notable in the internet sphere. What it seems has been forgotten in this project is that notability is not strictly limited to the internet, but includes books, radio, magazines, etc, etc. I'm not some vandal and I'm not updating trivially. I truly care about this project, but I am not willing to fund something that operates the way the moderators/admins do around here. Fix that problem, and you'll see some cash. Until then, I'll be pressing the "x" in the box every time I see your pleading mug at the top of a topic. If Wikipedia disappears, I have Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.24.147.160 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps provide us with some examples? Yes, notability can be shown with materials not available on the Internet. Did your deleted contributions make specific references to those books, etc.? Without examples, we can't evaluate your complaint. LadyofShalott 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)