User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Personal appeal

You forgot to write it first before making a link Smiley.png!

Nah just joking.

The problem is you've linked to "Peronal appeal" instead of "Personal appeal". ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion / request from a relative newbie (I joined 6 months ago, but have had limited time to contribute) ... some place easy for folks to find, give an address to which donations can be sent via snail mail.
I have had a personal aversion to using credit card on Internet due to security qualms.
A few months ago I managed to screw up my credit card debt due to a combination of personal procrastination and the credit card companies off-shoring their customer service to personnel who not have a good grasp of key nuances, in consequence of which when my credit cards expired, they did not send me replacement ones ... I have been operating for the last few months with checking account, cash, and finding out where traveler's checks no longer accepted.
User:AlMac|(talk) 19:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I found it. I must be blind as a bat today. Not a good start to my end month end year work day (which will last 2 days). User:AlMac|(talk) 20:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Re personal appeal: we're entering our sixth year, not our fifth. Pages that can't be edited are really irritating. AxelBoldt 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed that, thanks for the heads-up Axel. Dan100 (Talk) 09:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Big mess with userboxes

We've got a war currently brewing on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin. Firebug 01:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would venture to say "raging", not brewing. —Cryptic (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

File:Jimbo the Woman.png

I took ages to photo manipulate this picture to put on your funny pics userpage, then all the sudden without notifying me or anything, it has been there for months - until some nasty admin just deletes it! Some admin just go and delete my pic at the press of the button and gone!... all my previous time. This is admin abuse... Some admins feel like power and do whatever at well, I do not believe that Wikipedia should be plutocracy. Squash 02:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, not all admins follow policy dictated by wikipedia and utilize their administrative capabilities in good faith. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats in the future?

Hey Jimmy: First of all, Happy New Year 2006, may you get everything you wish for and your loved ones too.

I need to ask you, what will happen if we don't reach the amount needed by January 6? Will wikipedia go down?

Let me know ASAP, please.

Thank you, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Wikiworried Martin

If the situation was that desperate, I'm pretty sure there would be contingency plans. Remember that there's always the escape valve of advertising: while it's extremely unpopular, if it comes down to Jimbo looking at the accounts and seeing that either he puts up Google text ads or shuts down Wikipedia, I think the outcome will be fairly obvious.

In all probability, Wikimedia has enough money stored up to keep running Wikipedia for a month or two at least. Fundraising targets are generally ploys to get people to donate more rather than actual statements of bare necessity. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2 questions

  • Why not record your voice for your personal appeal message? Some articles can be listened to, so should be your appeal.
  • Have you any plans to have a kind of lecture at a Russian university? I would suggest South Ural State University, which is one of the 10 largest in Russia (among > 90).

Thanks, Anthony Ivanoff 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy

Hello Mr. Wales: First time I am writing to you directly in my three years on the good ship Wikipedia! Finally, a discussion of possible policy changes has begun in an area close to my heart. Please see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy. I have posted all sixteen points formulated by myself and User:SlimVirgin. Thank you for your input and help. Best wishes for a Happy and Prosperous 2006! IZAK 13:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion. IZAK, I don't think you ever got back to me on adopting the Hebrew Wikipedia's model (if you did, my apologies). El_C 13:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
No intrusion at all. I did not get into it. Could you please, for everyone's benefit, present a summary of it at the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy. Thanks. IZAK 13:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, see here. El_C 13:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox situation

The infobox situation needs immediate attention. Not only has it created significant strife on Wikipedia, but this has degenerated into blocking wars. At least two administrators (User:Cryptic and User:Snowspinner) have blocked users for protesting against the mass deletions of userboxes - a clear violation of WP:BP. I strongly suggest that User:Kelly Martin be removed from the Arbitration Committee pending further evaluation of her actions, which were a clear and blatant violation of community consensus and for which she has shown no remorse. Firebug 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

Until such time as administrators are required to exhibit at least a modicum of respect for Wikipedia guidelines, I am leaving the project. It was great while it lasted, but I will not work under conditions where I am subject to the whims of anyone who happened to pass a RFA at some point, with no restraints on their behavior whatsoever. Contact me at mapperlord<at> if you must. Firebug 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Kelly Martin controversy

Dear Mr. Wales,

I would like to second, and further urge you, as Firebug did earlier, to rescind Kelly Martin's admin status and Arbitration Committee status here on Wikipedia. There is no doubt in my mind that she will simply wait for the fuss to die down over political userboxes (especially those that she disagrees with) and then do her mass-deletion process. Many Wikipedians are in strong consensus that Ms. Martin is abusing her powers and is therefore no longer a strong asset to Wikipedia.

Happy New Year,
CJ Marsicano 02:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'd avise treading with caution. "Strong consensus" is hardly true, if you look at Wikipedia:RFC/KM... consensus perhaps, but not an overwhleming one. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Consensus, IMO, seems to be growing stronger. --Cjmarsicano 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a general view that what Kelly has been doing is quite out of line, but she does seem to have some minority support. That said, I feel that such unilateral, controversial actions, combined with the opinion she summed up by saying "screw process", is very unsuitable for an admin, and even moreso for an arbitrator. Consensus and process are what keep this place functional; we can't have powerful users rejecting them and using the special powers that have been entrusted to them to undermine our processes. Everyking 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"Burn her! Burn her!"... oh sorry, I thought we were doing a Monty Python sketch.
Kelly did something which probably should have been discussed first. People objected and reversed what she did. Kelly talked to people about it. There were some unfriendly things said all around. End of story. No great abuse of powers. Anyone want a popsicle? --CBD 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have a Kellywich, with habanero seasoning please. ; --Cjmarsicano 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that was a gross understatement of what's really going on, CBDunkerson. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The thing is Kelly didn't talk about it after. Even in the RfC she said she would continue. She shows no remorce, and is still highly uncivil in current discussion. I feel not one ounce of trust in her, since she stll attempts to dictate what is done. I understand I am bias, founding the WikiProject and all, but still, an admin going around threatening people, and forcing (so far 2) people to leave the WikiProject is hardly responsible. Admins should be at service to the community, and undertake tasks for it as responsible members, not to dictate what the community should do, admins should be treated with no higher status in my opinion. Ian13ID:540053 12:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think at this point we're unlikely to get a reform in this area; I don't even know if Jimbo will read any of this, much less consider it. We've basically got a class of empowered users who we have to work around in order to create an encyclopedia and function as a community; we have to do these things in spite of these users. It is sad that Wikipedia is so egalitarian as its core, yet we have no real way to remedy this situation, at least not yet. Everyking 13:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Removeing adminship is a matter for arbcom and perhaps the stewards anyway. I don't think we have a process for removeing people from arbcom other than not voteing for them at the next election.Geni 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation has the legal authority to regulate virtually all aspects of Wikipedia's functioning. They could, at their discretion, remove any member of the ArbCom. I suspect that the Board would be unlikely to get involved unless there was broad agreement in the community that an Arbitrator needed to be removed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Geni needs to go and read the Arbitration Committee policies. There's a reason that policy cannot be amended by community consensus. Rob Church (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Everyone Who Is Not Kelly Martin Controversy

Dear Mr. Wales,

I would like to second, and further urge you, as I don't think anybody else did earlier, to just declare Kelly in charge of everything, because she demonstrates common sense and a good head. There is no doubt in my mind that she will continue to hold to what is sensible and good for Wikipedia no matter how many malcontents criticize her and try to stack RfCs against her. Many Wikipedians are in strong consensus that Ms. Martin totally rocks and should just be in charge of everything..

Happy New Year,
Phil Sandifer 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think Kelly would do well at that. But I also think users like the idea that their opinion matters on Wikipedia, and our users being happy helps our mission; that's why a little bit of live and let live seems to be in order. -- SCZenz 05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Mythical Man-Month

Dear Sir,

I suggest that when your time permits, you read this book. I believe there are lessons there in project management which can be applied to improving Wiki dispute resolution. I am also thankful that you are a parent, because it gives you relevant experience in dealing with your loyal fans who sometimes behave a little like children, when we disagree with each other.

My comments inspired by the fight that started with userboxes, illuminating many other problems. Eliminating the suerboxes will not eliminate all the related problems. But I believe all the problems can be solved, the community re-united with new year's resolution to benefit Wiki, and that ideas within The Mythical Man-Month can inspire this resolution. User:AlMac|(talk) 09:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I need help

Is Wikipedia related to Wikimedia, or are they two different links? Whopper 03:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit corporation that owns and operates Wikipedia and its sister projects. —Guanaco 05:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved by donation writing

I was really moved by your personal appeal for donations, and wanted to thank you for writing it. The last portion was especially moving - I have always loved Wikipedia, and always known that it was special, but when I read what you wrote about sharing knowledge throughout the world, I truly realized what an awesome thing it is, and what it can do for the world. I'm sure that like myself, many people will be touched by your words and donate. Thanks. -- Natalya 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you totally, I have loved wikipedia with a passion that would only come from remarkable service. I, as a user and a person, would do anything to keep wikipedia above water. I will give until I have not a penny to my name. Wikipedia is the ultimate source for information. I, once again, will do anything for Wikipedia, or Jimbo Wales. Thank you, fatherdontdance

Paypal?!?! They're lucky paypal hasn't frozen their account. All this money coming in. Paypal loves to take people's money. Oh and with paypal's fees, it's getting a 5% cut on the donation commission, especially since the average size is $20-30 -- that gets the highest % from paypal. Imagine someone donating less than 30 cents! That takes money away from an account because paypal's fees overlap it. At least they use moneybookers, where the person sending money pays. That $2 million is all wikipedia's. Hmm... what's "CafePress Commis" Resembled "Commi's"? Who made that abbreviation?

Odd, a lot is coming from Japan. The land of kancho. (and yes, there's an article for that, too.) DyslexicEditor 12:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Since we obviously need a steady cash flow to supplement fundraising, why not setup Wikidating? It would of course have advertising. An online dating service based on Wikimedia software; with Portals for cities etc. - RoyBoy 800 07:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I just look on the bulletin board in my neighborhood Wikisnackshop, where everyone can brew a custom cup of coffee. (SEWilco 19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Proposal to ban intellectuals

There is a proposal to ban users from contributing to articles in the Wikepedia for areas in which they have published. At least one Arbitrator has formally proposed that a current Wikipedia user now be subject to such a ban. What do you think?

I doubt anyone is saying this seriously. I'm guessing that the point here is that we don't treat experts well, or well enough. That goes along with our anti-elitist philosophy, but I think it's the right philosophy, with logical limits, of course. I think we have to be careful, on the one hand, to embrace experts in general, while at the same time preventing them from ruling dictatorially over content. It's important to note that experts are not necessarily going to be any more neutral than the average person. They may be highly informed and they may highly favor one point of view (and in holding these points of view they may, of course, be quite right—or quite wrong), so you don't want to abrogate NPOV in favor of expertise. But you don't want to reject expertise in favor of NPOV, as if the two can't co-exist, either. Basically, they should be treated about like anyone else: let them contribute, let them cite their contributions, and let them participate in discussions on an equal footing. We have to rely on the process to eventually favor the people who are right, and if those people are experts, then experts should be generally favored by the process. Everyking 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The following question is being addressed in the current arbitation [1]:
  • Will the Wikipedia, de facto, adopt the policy that Wikipedia editors are banned from contributing to articles for subjects on which the editors have published outside of the Wikipedia?
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 12:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
One of the Arbitrators has stated that the above stated policy is a "guideline" for the Wikipedia.--Carl Hewitt 00:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
CarlHewitt has misunderstood a (proposed) arbitration remedy applying specifically to him and his behaviour has being a general policy proposal. Existing practice (flowing partly from WP:AUTO and related policies and partly from common sense) is to bar editors from articles about themselves and their work if they cannot contribute constructively and cooperatively. I–and many other editors–contribute quite successfully and with a minimum of fuss in areas where I have published; I don't see that changing any time soon.
I hope that clears up any confusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The question on the table is as follows:
... should people be allowed to document their own work in Wikipeida at all? Commenting on the talk page and draft proposed updates to articles in their user space could (and probably should) still be permitted, but the outright edits in the article space should be left to others who at least in theory would form a community having a more reasonable POV.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
My mistake; I missed that proposal. That said, the proposal has not seemed to draw much support, and it was presented by one of the parties to arbitration rather than by any of the arbitrators. The only restriction that seems likely to garner acceptance is an affirmation of a much narrower restriction as I described above—editors who fail to edit contructively and cooperatively (even when writing in areas of personal expertise) can be barred from participation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a flat ban on people editing things about which they have direct involvement is a bad idea, as it would cut out many of the people with the most knowledge about, and motivation to edit, the things in question. However, if they show inability to stick to NPOV and NOR, some individual sanctions might be in order. *Dan T.* 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds right; it also seems to be pretty close to existing practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to evolve Wikipedia:Autobiography to clarify these points?
I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography#Not_banning_intellectuals.
Regards, --Carl Hewitt 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Carl Hewitt is the subject of an active arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt); no one is proposing that intellectuals be banned; rather, the proposal is that Carl be banned, for being generally disruptive. It seems that the above is an example of the kind of disruption and confusion that Carl likes to spread. linas 07:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

CAT:NS is now down to 350 images!

A few months ago, you asked us to clear out the backlog in the unsourced and unlicesed image categories. At that point, the no source category had 12,000+ images in it. As of now it has ~350. Job done, I think. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Make that 151. Also what I encountered frequently is that the uploader cited their source later, but didn't remove the nosource tag. We should make it clearer that if the tag shows up on an image one downloads, one should remove it after satisfying the requirements, but not if it the license is disputed. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 15:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User page?

Wasn't your page a brownish color for a while? You like blue any? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "Personal Appeal"

You're not getting any of my money if you don't tone down the religious zealots who go after every islamic-related article and POV war while the admins stand by whistling. the preceding unsigned comment is by (talk • contribs)

WMF files

I'm sure your not who I'm supposed to talk to about this, as I couldn't find the appropriate technical venu, so I'll just post it here, and hope that someone notices. Commons accepts uploads of WMF files masquerading as OGG files, which might make wikipedia a vector for windows trojans/worms using the 2005 WMF vulnerability ( wikinews, comments ). JeffBurdges 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This was addressed in the software a short time later, with improved detection of MIME types and explicit blacklisting of WMF files; contained in MediaWiki 1.4.13, 1.5.5 and 1.6alpha. Rob Church (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

About the Personal Appeal

Beatifull words, I would like to donate but abusive things like these [2] [3] [4] [5] show that Wikipedia isn't a right place to invest. That is. --Dungeon Siege 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/Sandbox

See the section titled "These are the voyages..." what do you think? This is the raw table, I havent started beultifying it. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo - Your name is being taken in vain

Jimbo, I assume that you yourself are keeping up with the userbox mess. However, in the major arena of mudslinging over the conflict, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin, your name is continually being taken in vain - by both sides - and things you said are being twisted - again by both sides - to mean absolutely anything. It's painful to watch the community bicker over 50 words you may have written or spoken, and as much as I know you like to stay out of these things, i think its time to find out the Original intent of your words. Before one of these users slits another's throat. --CastAStone 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. if you are going to speak, i suggest you run a find search on your name on the RFC to see just how broadly you are being invoked.--CastAStone 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006

There have been concerns regarding the open vote style proposed for the coming elections. I myself have concerns (and evidence for them) that there will be retaliation, cliquism, and bad blood resulting from an open vote that would not occur if the vote were conducted anonymously. If the voting software used last year is inconveniant, perhaps we could vote by email, by IP proxy, or some other anonymous scheme.

To give you a personal example, I recieved 92 votes last year, despite the fact that I asked supporters to retract their endorsements, due to personal attacks and harassment against them. I don't mind putting myself thru all of that, but how can I ask every one of my voters to do so? There is a reason why since its invention, the process of voting has nearly always been conducted anonymously. I urge you to provide a secret ballot. Sam Spade 01:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi sam, I do appreciate those concerns. But here's an interesting counter-argument: we conduct admin elections openly and publicly and they don't generate much animosity in the end. My suspicion is that it won't be so bad, outside of a few trolls who will thereby reveal themselves quite thoroughly to be trolls. Legitimate complaints can be stated and heard and responded to, etc. I hope it goes well. And if it doesn't, well, we can always go back to the secret ballot method.--Jimbo Wales 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've long thought that there's serious problems with the RFA process, and talked with plenty who share my sentiments. Aside from the fact that voting is evil (since the same is true for secret ballots), and that it discourages true discussion towards consensus, by quarantining names-next-to-numbers in their own sections. The fact is that trolls have derailed a few worthy nominations, that more than a few nominees have left Wikipedia after the ordeal of a nomination, and that even well-intentioned editors, when faced with a situation where they have not just the facts, but a current vote, are often swayed to pile-on. When you have public RFAs that are votes, so that the determined troll or POV-pusher can affect the vote-count despite having a poorly reasoned argument, or none at all. It's a grreat way to take a potshot at another, and generally create a poisonous atmosphere. Especially considering our rising factions, vote-soliciting (even oppose-votes from POV-motivated voters) is only going to increase. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this though, is to read through one of the most disastrous failed RFAs in recent memory, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor, which is full of blatant Islamophobia, trolling, sockpuppeting, vote-soliciting, and even piling-on by good editors. Interestingly, Anonymous editor is currently on RFA heading to be one of the most successful candidates ever (and was certainly worthy back then). Plenty of other candidacies have been plagued by pile-ons (especially some unnecessarily overwhelmingly successful ones, too). These are not necessarily reasons to throw out the process, but I think statements like "they don't generate much animosity in the end" should be approached with caution. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I go further in saying the RfA process is terrible and should be thrown out, but I also acknowledge Jimbo's point, and concede its a rather late hour for changing the voting procedure this month. Lets hope all goes well, and lets rethink the RfA process, shall we? Thanks for your reply, and your free encyclopedia, Jimbo! Sam Spade 13:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There are also bureaucrats on the other side that can choose to discount the POV pushers and trolls if they feel consensus is on the other side, whereas in this election we're looking at you have to get 50% to move on. In addition to that, The ArbCom is more important than an admin IMO. I am of the opinion that we should have a secret vote and then you can approve all candidates that have a certain threshhold, however I understand it may be too late to do so. So my famous last words before I get slaughtered will be: It's been nice knowing you, Jimbo. —Ilyanep (Talk) 16:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Marsden (2)

In the interest of (dis)closure, I would like to redirect to you my (failed) arbitration request in case you haven't spotted it the first time. My particular grievances are with the hush-hush of Marsden's original blocking and the subsequent conduct by certain parties. I welcome any feedback. In order to prevent such a thing happening in the future you might decree a limit to block durations in absence of ArbCom decisions, except in cases of obvious vandalism, because the ban reduction to one month done by dissident administrators here was very reasonable from the way I looked at it. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia? Yeah, right.

We're here to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin has effectively already split most, if not all, active users in half; deletion and block wars have taken place; and civility is at an all-time low on both the RFC and its corresponding talk page. This does not help build an encyclopedia. While most agree that we don't want you to come in and stop this RFC with a dictate, we agree - both sides - that you should perhaps give an opinion. I expect your opinion to be twisted by both sides to suit them, but if you could provide a neutral opinion on this matter it would go a long way to help everything and everyone settle down and cool off. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin may have acted recklessly, but her action was taken because the purpose of the project is to build an encyclopedia. The userboxes were dividing Wikipedia into factions. The factionalism was a major factor in the incivility. Kelly Martin wound up directing much of the anger of people on various sides onto her. I agree that Jimbo needs to review this controversy. I would urge him to address the disease of the factions, of which the userboxes were a symptom. Robert McClenon 12:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
He's likely not listening, apparently he's too busy right now asking for money, and ultimately, any unilateral actions by him will just make things worse anyway. karmafist 15:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm listening. Quietly listening, reflecting, trying to understand everyone's perspective and find a way forward which is mutually pleasing to all of us. It is better (for all of us) to think first, quietly and with respect for others in our hearts, before speaking too quickly.--Jimbo Wales 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree--those are the principles behind my recent refactoring. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The RFC have now restarted (?), a quote from User:Philwelch:

I've decided to archive the original RfC and attempt a refactoring of sorts. The original RfC produced a result of approximately 150 votes of censure and 50 votes of support, but the voting had become confused and split into multiple sections. This is a controlled attempt at trying to glean out the genuine complaints and concerns of those involved while filtering out vitriol and incivility. To this end, I'm formatting it differently from a regular RfC. For one thing, *there will be no endorsements or "me-too" signatures*. Do not add outside views.

Those aren't entirely my words, they've been edited by others. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't the way to go, but you might want to comment.

This quote from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3 I think summarize the problem at the moment :

Snowspinner and Kelly Martin (talk · contribs) (their two current rfcs are fairly connected) are just a symptom of a bigger problem: Our policies and guidelines have lost virtually all their meaning, largely due to the lack of transparency or process towards forming them, reforming them or annulling them. Due to that void, a Wild West atmosphere arises where people feel like they need to act in an extreme nature in order to have a hand in improving Wikipedia's internal workings.

AzaToth 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And now Mr Sidaway has taken it upon himself to do exactly what Ms Martin did. Mr Wales, these actions have already split apart Wikipedia far more than some petty userboxes ever could. I hope you take the right action. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • [I]t's not so much the pretty little box that makes these userboxes so toxic, it's the ease of adding the box, which adds the editor in question to a category that we know will be abused by POV-pushers, because it already has been. This isn't about stopping people having a "bumper sticker" on their user pages, it's about stopping the category system [from] being abused to destroy the neurality policy. El_C 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue has absolutely nothing to do w userboxes, and everything to do w admins who ignore all rules in a demeaning manner. Both Kelly and Snowspinner have something in common with Ed Poor in that they bend the rules. What they do not have in common w Ed Poor is his humble, agreeable manner. A number of Kelly Martin's statements have gone over very badly, and its become rather a P.R. trainwreck. I think this sums the matter up well. Sam Spade 13:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Absolutely nothing" may possibly be just a tad bit of an overstatment. Sadly, unlike the recently neglected (but lovable!) WP:ENC. Which brings us full circle to the pressing question at hand: so, once I become a member, where do pick up vote for my free drugs? El_C 14:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistical Information Request

Would it be possible for someone to cite an authoritative or reliable source for current Wikipedia usage statistics. In particular I am trying to find hard numbers (or good approximations) for visits per day and for page requests per day in all languages and in the English language. The tables available through provide no data on these numbers after October 2004. The graphs available through reqstats are really nifty, lots of colors, and are possibly indecipherable with regard to the statistics I am trying to find. I know that the Wikipedia is doing very well with regard to the Alexa rankings. I don't much care about that since that's comparative. I am far more impressed by what the Wikipedia appears to be in its own self, so to speak. Thank you and sorry for the intrusion; I did not know where else to post this request. Marcopolo 17:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Dear Jimmy,

I only wanted to post a 'Thank You!' from my family for creating such a tremendous educational resource. I am quite wide-eyed however on viewing some of the other postings. Take care. We think Wikipedia is great. Robsmommy 19:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Be on guard, Rob, your mother is here... :) Who's next? MegamanZerosmommy..? I hope not... Welcome to wikipedia, ma'am. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You must take action

Hello Jimbo,

I guess this isn't exactly news to you (or anyone for that matter) but try as one might it is very hard to write and maintain an article on a neutral outlook when the subject at hand is politically charged as for example the Holocaust is. Take the German site for example where this problem is rampant. I have seen people try to introduce into the Holocaust article the important legal fact that it is a felony to deny the Holocaust in Germany with a reference to the legislation in question (Article 130(3) of the German Penal Code). A team of individuals with adminstrative accounts deleted the information each and every time, over and over. Even though some may find it embarassing that not everybody readily believes in the Holocaust and that therefore legal protection against attempts to debunk the Holocaust is required, a wikipedia article must never be a "temple" or "monument" to any subject at hand but a factual summary of the most pertinent information.

In connection with this, Wikipedia articles on certain revisionists of history, especially holocaust revisionists are written in a manner and employ a terminology that is disrespectful and insulting. Take the articles on researchers like Fred Leuchter or Ernst Zundel and you will find these people insulted as "Neonazis". They are not. Few if any of the revisionists crave for a socialist regime and many abhor nationalism for the same reason and yet the epiphet is slapped on them. Attempts to correct the articles accordingly are met with the same kind of religious fervor displayed by the group dedicated to the maintenance of Cuba's Maximo Lider Fidel Castro's image on Wikipedia (This has been reported in the media).

I could go on and fill this page with hundreds of examples more of the abuse that is hurled against people with unpopular opinion. None of that abuse belongs into a Wikipedia. The responsibilty to stop that falls squarely on your shoulders, Jimbo. You must take action. the preceding unsigned comment is by (talk • contribs) 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo generally doesn't take direct action on things like this. There are community processes that handle this sort of thing. If you have a problem with a specific user's actions, I suggest you register and then start up an RFC. If that doesn't go that way, you can put in a request for arbitration. Of course, if everyone is really as biased as you say, you'll fail on both, but if that's the case there's not really any hope for the matter. It's not like Jimbo is going to personally police every Holocaust-related page. Especially not in German, which he only has a basic knowledge of according to his user page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"Holocaust revisionism" = Holocaust denial --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 09:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-blog/copyright laws

I am thinking about starting a weblog full of articles deleted from Wikipedia. Would there be any copyright law complications?Canadianism 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you copy content from Wikipedia, you must link to the edit history and note that it's licensed under the GFDL (with a link to that). Be aware that deleted pages have edit histories inaccessible to most people, so if you want to copy over a deleted page, you must copy and link to its edit history as well. Other than that, it's absolutely fine. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to respond to this?

(moved from Talk:Jimmy Wales): It's really the reason why I'm not donating. On other web page articles, they mention that if you complain about the behavior of a wikipedia admin you get banned -- they gave the name Ed Poor a lot for this. Tempoo 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true too. See the top of my talk page -_- User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle
I want to point out that it isn't just a matter of being an admin: I'm an admin who has suffered some pretty severe sanctions for complaining about the behavior of other admins. The point is correct, but the elite circle is much smaller than just admins in general. It saddens me to read the observations on that site you link, to see how widespread the awareness of the problem is and yet how little we are doing to fix it. We need policy, process, and reliance on the community—we do not need the dictates of a small circle of admins. I have stayed at Wikipedia, and I intend to continue to stay, in part because I believe we will iron out this problem, like all our other problems, past and present, but I must say it is discouraging to see how little progress is being made. Everyking 09:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That linked article is just another of the dime-a-dozen anti-Wikipedia whines and rants that are proliferating these days, usually just sour-grapes from people whose trolling wasn't accepted here. In this particular case, there's even some ugly anti-Semitism, in the comment posted in the discussion there to the effect that "American Jews" control Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
yeah, some real nazi freaks there. Really surprising to see posts from fascists on an "independent news" site that's against stuff like that, or supposed to be: But most of the other posts are pretty relevant. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is over-the-top, but it certainly strikes a chord. I went to a pretty rough middle school, but the amount of misbehavior, cliquism, abuse and degrading treatment that goes on here is a good deal worse. The problem is the power structure, and the method whereby powers are given out. If you fix RfA, it would go a long way. We need an apprenticeship program, not a popularity contest. I'm not alone in my concerns about RfA btw, see this mailing list thread. Sam Spade 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all too true. It's all very well saying "it's not a democracy", but when it isn't, you empower antidemocrats. Never a great idea in any community. You end up with far too many people who are doing little more than thrashing other people. Has it helped build an encyclopaedia? It depresses me to see that you think so, but I think you abandoned the ideal a long time ago. Pity, it was a great vision. -- Grace Note.

Anon user still creating new pages

I'm not sure where to put this, but I'll try here. We have an anon user going round creating new short-stub articles on cricketers on talk pages - as the article page does not exist he cannot create them in the main article namespace. (This user also goes round adding spurious claims that various people are vegans and various non-cricketers have played cricket - so it's all rather odd as to why he doesn't create an account, join WP:Cricket and cut out the vandalism.) Could the functionality that doesn't allow anons to create articles be extended so that they can't create talk pages (or at least can't create talk pages where the article does not exist)? jguk 12:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish you made a quiet inquery to a dev and not such a public post -_-' --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of anons point out errors by posting on talk pages, they probably wouldn't bother signing up and are likely too timid to edit the main page. Kappa 14:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Not on the talk pages of articles that don't yet exist, they don't! jguk 18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that anons should not be allowed to create talk pages for nonexistent articles. I'm moving this discussion to the village pump. Please make further comments there. --TantalumTelluride 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales/These are the voyages...

All done, some information (such as the first few trips also a "vacation" which I presumed was on earth :P) was missing so I couldn't complete those parts. If you could complete those parts it will be nicer IMHO. Neways hope you like it. I haven't added your 2006 plans to it as I am not sure how much it is going to change. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

New user

This is the best website ever,witout it i would spend hours searching for information on other sites with no luck. Keep up the good work:)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolololo (talkcontribs)

Moved from your User Page  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A New Idea for an Interactive Flow Chart for Wikipedia

Jimbo, take a look at this flow chart image someone uploaded to Wikipedia: [6] I think it would be tremendous if a flow chart capability could be programmed in Wikipedia --one that everyone could edit. What do you think? RJII 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There may need to be a policy on how much stuff is legitimate to put one place in it, so as to avoid server load, and be reasonable for human brain to absorb. User:AlMac|(talk) 23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Average End Quality Hypothesis

Hi Jimbo. I've developed a simple mathematical model for the rate of improvement of article quality, and drew a few conclusions from it. You might want to take a look: User:Nikodemos#Average End Quality Hypothesis

Of course, it's just a hypothesis for now, but there is a way to test it, as I explained in the last paragraph over on my user page. I'm hoping to initiate such a test (in the form of a survey) sooner or later. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ludicrous. Your proposition contravenes the whole philosophy of Wikipedia. Instead of the judgement of quality coming from individuals, that judgement would come from a board of elites that would close an article from further editing when they decreed it to be good in their eyes. Take your information fascism somewhere else. RJII 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Jimbo is more than capable of reading a short essay for himself and making up his own mind, even if you apparently disagree. If you dislike my conclusions, then please point out the flaw in my reasoning, as opposed to simply dismissing it for dogmatic reasons. Note that I am proposing a change that would only affect featured articles, which together make up less than 0.001 of wikipedia. Also note that my hypothesis can be either confirmed or denied by experimental evidence (the survey I was talking about). If the experimental evidence denies my hypothesis, that's the end of it. If it confirms it, on the other hand, my recommendations should be taken seriously. Our goal here is not to follow a certain immutable "wiki way" with religious reverence, but to achieve a result: A free, open-content, quality encyclopedia. So far, the current "wiki way" has done a pretty good job of getting us towards that goal. But there is room for improvement. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes he can speak for himself, but he has to maintain a certain level of public decorum. I don't, and can't tell you straight out what you should be told. RJII 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you're Jimbo's personal spokesman now? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Btw, RJII, are you implying that there is no such thing as objective quality? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course there is no such thing as objective quality. Quality is a value judgement. One man's treasure is another man's trash. Maybe that's your problem here. You think there there is objective quality and that some board of elites has exclusive access to the knowledge of this mystical objective quality, and can then decide for everyone else what quality is. Only an individual can judge quality for himself; he can't impose his quality judgement on others. That's what Wikipedia is about. If just one individual thinks something is bad quality he can go in and change it, with no credentials (or democratically-elected office) whatsoever. RJII 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
So if the article about the Moon said that it is made of cheese, that wouldn't be objectively wrong - it would just be a matter of opinion? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be objectively right or wrong (right and wrong aren't value judgments, but quality is). But the opinion on whether it was right or wrong would be subjective of course. Do you let others decide for you whether something is right or wrong? I sure don't. The idea of a board of elitists making that judgement for everyone by locking an article for no further edits is not consistent with the individualistic philosophy of Wikipedia. If you want that, go work for one of the old-school encyclopedias. Reply if you want, but I don't want to take up any more space on this guy's talk page. RJII 02:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course you let others decide for you whether something is right or wrong (in the sense of true or false). You cannot personally verify all the things that scientists hold to be true, but, for the most part, both you and everyone else will trust physicists (for example) to tell us what is true about the physical properties of the universe. Btw, I am not suggesting locking any articles and preventing further editing of them. What I am suggesting is that further edits on the 0.001 of wikipedia that is composed of exceptionally good articles should be subject to some sort of review process. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is tending toward several qualities, one of which is verifiability. As verifiability flourishes, objective research into other qualities, such as factual accuracy, are made easier and more relevant. --Dystopos 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very nice work, Nicodemus. I was just discussing this today with another editor, picking a certain core of articles deemed to be "of academic importance" for which new information was unlikely to be of major urgent importance (biographies of long-dead people, settled scientific areas, long-ago events, etc.) which, when mature, could be protected from edit except by proposal... another benefit of that, WP could attract signed articles by acknowledged experts, if desired. Sure its not Wiki, but isnt the point to get the best encyclopedia? And it would only affect a small percentage of articles... Herostratus 05:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Hola que tal, tengo una duda, si sabes español respondela, por que tenes la cara del Che si tu eres objetivista, soy de la Wikipedia en español [[7]], saludos. Kaser 22:49 4 ene 2006 (CET)

Translation: Hi, how are you, I have a doubt, if you know enough Spanish to respond to it, why you have the face of Che if you are objectivist, I'm from the Spanish wikipedia, regards, Kaser. --Taichi 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

An admin of yours is in violation of US Copyright laws. In addition, this admin is part of a group of editors who push left wing views, one who openly brags. "Hostile to the right wing" [8] If your concept is to last the test of time, better controls need to put into place. I can see why others have left angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Additional copyright violation by, [9]

As one of the targets of this anon's attack, I respectfully request that other editors not remove his comment. Jimbo doesn't need to be protected from his views. JamesMLane 23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I second this, although I quite frankly believe the anon's comment to be absurd, it is a comment (as opposed to vandalism) IMO, so I dont think it merits deletion. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
To comment a bit more accurately, the copyright violation is that User:Gamaliel is using a image on his user page which is only allowed here as fair use on the article refering to the same subject, so it wouldnt be kosher on user pages. So although I personally feel is being a bit excessive in taking this to such levels (and besides, the correct place for copyvio issues is WP:CP, as i have told this anon many times before), he is not actually WRONG in this particular accusation. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 05:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What image? The Yellow Kid? The peace sign in the user box? The first is, as I understand it, out of copyright, and I'm not certain of the second. I don't see any sign that the anon is RIGHT in this particular accusation, just that the anon is angry at being unable to vandalize/warp articles on Ted Kennedy and family. --Calton | Talk 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Cartonl, look here, [10] The other stolen image has been removed. Do you now see"any sign that the anon is RIGHT in this particular accusation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
There were a couple others at times, too. Go through the history of his page and youll see :) Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New twist, when I put up a copyright infringment notice for Crusades I was blocked by admin Adam Bishop. No wonder there are admin abuse threads. Just makes me want to advise more folks about sending complaint to and the FBI investigative team at

My actions over Marsden's block duration

Hi, Jimbo Wales, I have created an RFC on myself so you can express any comments you have about my actions regarding the block duration of Marsden. I've attempted to fairly summarise the events and I've justified my actions. Based on the outcome of the comments given on the RFC, I'll take appropriate action afterwards. Thanks in advance for any comments you make. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jimbo!

I would like to ask you a question regarding the status of the blocks which you impose. Are they to be regarded as definitive in general (meaning that they may only be lifted by you), or definitive only if you say so (meaning that unless you say otherwise, they are open to review by other administrators who may choose to unblock.) I am asking this in relation to the blocks against *drew.

From the nincompoop who thinks that your articles can be deleted..., Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete that, anyway? Everyking 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I mean, look at it. It was empty. "He won the Nobel Prize" was the only thing on the page. Valid speedy, regardless of who wrote it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia problems with abusive admins

To the earlier thread, yes any complaints about admins here and here is the problem...

  • 1 Admins can be as abusive as they want with no one to check up on them
  • 2 Admins don't have to talk to anyone.
  • 3 Admins can delete any criticism against them instead of addressing it.

Now on that thread, Everyking complained about admins. Well, guess what, I looked him up in the ban log and I saw him banned. So I looked up who did it and this is what I found.

I also found Ambi listed on the vandalism warning page. Well since she's an admin, she banned the person who did it. And I see from the comments page, she refused to talk to this person and just banned them. The next user up, she claimed was a sock puppet of the user before, but it turns out this was a lie (Ambi found no suckpuppets for Ebnocuj so she faked a claim). The only thing this Crayolacrime did was to report another user on Vandalism in progress, Dysprosia and warn them who likely is a sockpuppet of Ambi. Neither two accounts made any communication. Furthermore, shortly before the ban user Ambi had stopped used her Ambi account and used her Dysprosia. The accounts have exact gaps in time switching back in forth. See Dysprosia (contri) and Ambi (contri)/ Additionally, notice User:Dysprosia This sock was too lazy to even create a user page!!

This leads me to:

  • 4 Admins use sockpuppets thoroughly
  • 5 Admins never follow the rules (to prove it, name one who follows 3RR. None.)
  • 6 Admins can give dishonest reasons for bans and no one questions them. Most articles are controlled by an admin and a few number of the sockpuppets by the admin. When many people at once don't like their edits, they ban them. The easiest way to ban without reason is claim someone was banned before, falsely.
  • 7 No identity verification on admins. Please see #4
  • 8 From #7, admins should be at least 21. Vandals are children or teenagers. For example, on Ambi's user page, it had said she is a teenager. But before the admin nomination, she hid this.
  • 9 People banned unfairly need to access a forum where they can protest. No such thing exists. No one reads their talk pages.
  • 10 Admins should be requires to speak to someone before banning them. Most (take my example if you want proof -- Ambi does not respond to talk) admins rarely warns anyone before banning.
  • 11 Admins should be banned for erasing complaints about themselves or other admins. Covering up dirty words is okay, but not anything more. On Rfc sort of pages, they ban anyone who has a complaint over admins. Other admins, hide any talk page comments about them, any my example does not fall short there, nothing but complaints in archive.

Just so I can get contact, you can email me here starygostyn (AT) yahoo (DOT) com. Most people are afraid to speak out against the abuses here so perhaps if we all get together, we can complain as a group. 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I broke up your email, since spam bots like to harvest wikipedia for email addresses. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yuck... I hate "obfuscated" e-mail addresses... something about them just offends my aesthetic sensibilities... probably out of the antiquated notion that things on the Internet should be open, straightforward, logical, and consistent and not intentionally (or accidentally) obfuscated in any way. *Dan T.* 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Lots of this is radically overgeneralizing. Speaking for myself, I like to think I follow the rules, that I talk to others, don't use sockpuppets, give honest reasons, and read the talk pages of people I block (often explicitly telling them I will unblock them if they'll just promise to be good). And so on. So this overgeneralization is useless. You need to concentrate on specific admins who are troublemakers; you can't attack the whole group, they're basically the people keep the place functional. Everyking 09:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) can speak for me. This is one of the main problems. Admins and editors form groups and either ban or constantly revert those with other POV's. They are abusive and drunk with self praise. The mediation process is a joke. It's due to these folks that Wikipedia is known as an "almost". As to keeping it functional, that's no excuse for the bad behavior. That's like saying Hitler did a good job of keeping his troops in line. 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More weblinks on the subject:

Okay, this is going to take all day and night to list every one. Just keep going down google.

Ambi is clearly an abusive admin. Notice how all her unfair bans are infinite, but bans for clear vandalism aren't. Ed Poor keeps coming up on google, but I see from his talk page he's been de-admined. I think the first admin to erase this section (they don't want Jimbo Wales reading it) is, as well.

Right now the fundraiser shows about $326,000. I will never make that much in my life at my job. Wikipedia could hire someone whose sole job is to police admins. Pay them $10/hr and that's only $20,000 a year. You can also write a script, like if an admin bans someone and they don't say anything on their talk page first, then the admin gets written up.

I'd also like your comments on my identification thing. If the admins send in driver's license, background check (and yes pay for the background check themselves), proof of identity, that may help. I'd go so far as that they own a webcam and have a random inspection at some point and also have to send in a video (camcorder) for interview.

starygostyn(AT)yahoo(D0T)com 10:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Must... Not... B...J...A...O...D....N...! I must Assume Good Faith! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked at those User Ambi banned and the last few look like they have a bunch of comments from the users and nobody talking to them. This is odd and one was not spoken to. Both had request to discuss and were never answered. I went through the block log for the last day and I saw only one other person talk on their page and they were unblocked. My experience with admins has been they always talk to you. DyslexicEditor 14:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that was too funny. If anyone seriously thinks Ambi and I are sockpuppets are welcome to use CheckUser, but I think that would be a waste of time. Dysprosia 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that Uncyclopedia promotes vandalism of Wikipedia?

Okay, not precisely (you know how wikis are), but it has a page on it. This gives quite good instructions for effective vandalism (doing many pages at once, registering first, making sure your username isn't redlinked). For the time being, I've made an effort at making the page less informative and more amusing, an approach that has the advantage of actually promoting Uncyclopedia's goal as well as Wikipedia's. However, you're the founder of Wikia, which provides hosting to Uncyclopedia, so possibly you'd want to talk to the admins there about getting rid of the page altogether? Or perhaps not. I just wanted to tell you, in case you wanted to know. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia and the other one just aren't funny. Shameful. DyslexicEditor 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This is no more shameful on the part of Uncyclopedia as a whole than Siegenthaler was shaameful on the part of Wikipedia as a whole. Has anyone actually talked to an uncyclopedia admin about this page? Phil Sandifer 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
They also promote kitten huffing, maybe we should raise a stink about that too....
Anyone dumb enough to take uncyclopedia's content seriously (see Encyclopedia Dramatica) deserves whatever scorn or punishment they may get. karmafist 00:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner: Three different sysops (Famine, Carlb, Flammable) did edit the page, thus tacitly approving of its existence. Of course, this still doesn't mean that the head honcho (forget his name) approved of it.

Karmafist: There's a difference between promotion and facilitation. The old version of the page facilitated vandalism of wikis by giving good advice on how to effectively vandalize. I do think the current version of the page is harmless, looking back, since all it does is promote vandalism (and, as you point out, that's not really any more harmful than promoting kitten-huffing). So this doesn't really need to have been put here, on second thought. Oh well. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, are you people aware that Wikipedia promotes vandalism if Uncyclopedia? I saw this on an Uncyclopedia talk page:
Whoa, check this out. This was on Wikipedia, in one of their so-called "templates". Yeah it's deleted but it's in the history. Shows their real agenda. Hover on the link to see what I mean.
"I appreciate the humor, but we're not trying to make an encyclopedia of silliness! You can post anything you want on other websites, but when you're here, please keep your contributions accurate and relevant"
Anything you want. That's what they said. Right, send us your rejects. To write anything they want.
Granted, since it was on Uncyclopedia, the person who wrote it may have been demented. Was he? Is this true? Herostratus 07:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Uncyclopedia is a laugh. Both have standards. People forget this. Rob Church (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)



I was going to donate $1000 to Wikipedia, but until people start pulling their heads out of their behinds insofaras the fair use debate with regard to userbox images, I'm going to find something else to do with the money.

Sorry to do this, but as much as I support Wikipedia, I believe in free speech more.

-- CJ Marsicano 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of donations, User:Gazzareth was vandalizing Jimmy Wales. I asked him why, and he left this note on my talk page:

"More than the required funds were removed from my credit card, i myself doanted $500 to the fighting fun and several thousand were billed to my card. It is illegal and remains illegal for non profit organisations to acquire more money then is required to meet there operational costs."

He doesn't seem to be active right now, but I thought I'd leave this here before he starts to vandalize again.--Shanel 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If the donation processing system is somehow charging people's credit cards more than they authorized, that certainly needs to be looked into right away, and any funds taken in that way refunded. However, vandalism is hardly a productive method of getting this redressed; has he tried contacting Wikipedia / Wikimedia Foundation in any less destructive manner? I presume that Wikimedia is not intentionally charging excess amounts like this, so it is merely a technical glitch of some sort and not a criminal act as he seems to be implying. This, of course, has no relation to whether the funds being solicited or collected exceed the operational costs; this is a budgeting issue, and the nonprofit organization law is considerably more complex than just to say that the money taken in must not exceed operational costs. *Dan T.* 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
So far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation is incapable of "overcharging" people who donate and does not have access to their credit card information to do so. Credit card donations during the fundraiser were handled primarily by PayPal, and they would be the ones to contact, not that I would actually believe such claims from a Wikipedia vandal. --Michael Snow 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he donated in the wrong currency by mistake. For example, maybe he intended to donate 500 Argentine pesos, but actually donated $US500. He would have been billed over 1500 pesos. If so, there isn't much we could do about that. I think it's unlikely that he actually donated several thousand US$ to wikipedia. We received very few donations of that magnitude.-gadfium 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you hear it from someone else...

This new category, Wikipedians who do not trust Jimbo, may be slightly tongue-in-cheek. Deltabeignet 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative power

Dear Jimmy: I would like to present a formal complaint against JtkieferT who is seeking to become arbitrator of Wikipedia. He blocked me for one week with no just cause. He also accused me of impersonating another user Nosharia which is a lie just because that user shared my views. This is libel and character assassination. His action has been arbitrary. Where is his proof? He also blocked Nosharia indefinitely. The reason JtkieferT has been hostile to me is, I believe, for the same reason other Muslim users and administrators of Wikipedia have ganged up against me and as such hated by Muslims. The punishment for apostasy in Islam is death. Since that is not possible through Internet, the respected Muslim administrators of Wikipedia have engaged in a campaign of character assassination and harassment of any person who voices an opinion contrary to Islam calling him Islamophobe, racist, hate monger and all sorts of names. They revert his contributions and block him. I hope my petition is taken seriously and an impartial committee (not composed of Muslims) take a closer look at this ongoing harassment and abuse against all critics of Islam in Wikipedia. I noticed JtkieferT is seeking nomination as an arbitrator. I believe before he is chosen his impartiality should be investigated. I also wrote a complaint against another administrator who clearly abused his powers (see entry "Gross and flagrant abuses of power" in this page) I remain sincerely yours: OceanSplash 6 Jan 2006 07:22

Add Adam Bishop to this list as an abusive admin. Adam blocked IP address when put up a copyright infringment notice on the crusades page. The copyright violation which begins "The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s" has been removed. No apology from Bishop and the IP address remains blocked. I suggest this admin is removed.

Hye Jimmy

I suppose that you have no a lot of time to spend on the User-talk page but if you wanted, I've just one question: -After seeking about somethings in Wiki, I've found in wikimedia a page about products, my good vision allowed to see a panel like Made in USA, the problem for me isn't there but in the fact about the other clothes presented. Where were they producted? You sure guess I think to young people or old unfair payed in china or in other place.Thank you for your answer jonathaneo

Sensei Ashida Kim

Why don't you delete the page for Sensei Ashida Kim. It is not my place to tell you what to do but I'd like to know why you insist that the page not be deleted???? Batzarro 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jimbo tried to get this deleted, but he didn't get community consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination). Kappa 16:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcome to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could help us, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User allow fairuse

You deleted this. I urge you to undelete it and allow the TfD to run its course. (Had anyone but you deleted this I would have undeleted it as an out-of-process deletion.) it is my strong view that this template does not violate U.S. copyright law, nor does it urge anyone else to do so, nor does it urge anyone to violate Wikipedia policy. Rather it urges a change to Wikipedia policy that is at least argubly permisable under US copyright law. Current Wikipedia policy absolutely bans the use of images with a "fair use" license in templates and on user pages. However, U.S. Copyright law could permit such use in proper cases. Granted that it is easier to have a clear fair-use rationale for article usage, I think that in particular cases a perfectly proper rationale can be articuated, and that in such cases (and only in such cases) wikipedia policy should permit such use. I also think that deleting templates that express an opnion about wikipedia policy, and do so in a civil and non-disruptive way, is a very poor idea. DES (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for putting it this way. I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team. --Jimbo Wales 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so I guess this mean we can now vote to permit "with permission" images, since they would be allowed in Wikipedia by US copyright law? Fun. Oh, and next week we'll vote to permit MP3, after all it's more IPOD compatible, and the files themselves don't run afoul of patent law. --
No, actually, none of those things are up for a vote.--Jimbo Wales 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Mr Wales. If the foundation's legal team has issued an opnion on this matter, I have not seen it. Any such opnion should indeed settle the matter for good, at least if the opnion says that it would be illegal or legally unwise to do this. (Obviously even if the opnion says that it is legally ok, we could still choose not to permit such image usage on wikipedia). If there is such an opnion or if one is issued in future, i hope you will post a copy or a link in proper place, perhaps on the Fair Use wikiproject page. But if the legal team has not spoken, this seems to me to be a matter where community consensus ought to have at least some input, pending a final decision by you or the foundation Board. DES (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
DES, you speak of community consensus yet you ignore it. The standing practice has been to forbid fair use images in user pages (it's even a CSD criteria for the image if only used in a user page). Furthermore, it has been standing practice to remove fair use images from templates ... their use there is strongly discouraged (see WP:fairuse) because of the great frequency where use in templates leads to unjustifyable usage. Now you insist we must go through a vote on a matter which is clearly cut and dry because this specific combination of forbidden/discouraged behavior has not yet been subject to a dead horse-beating. After this is closed, will you then demand the community vote on every other combination of fair use abuse until all the editors who support making this a free encyclopedia get tired of wasting their time in endless voting, and give way to the mob demands? -- 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not insisting on a vote on any policy issue -- although one should note that all but the most basic policy issues are always subject to change by consensus, which can change over time. Indeed I am not insisting on anything. I am strongly urging that a template which expresses an opnion on wikipedia policy not be deleted without going though the normal and proper deletion process. This template does not IMO qualify under any of the speedy delete criteria and so in my view should not be deleted except in accord with the proper deletion process, unless there is an emergency of some sort -- and I don't see one in this case. I am in no way "ignoring" consensus, or at least I don't see how I am doing so. I am at most advocating a cahnge in policy -- mostly i am advocating protecting the ability of other users to advocate changes in policy. Jimbo obviously felt that my argument had merit enough to reverse his own action, although not enough to favor retention of the template permenantly. I might add that I did not create the template in question, nor did I nominate it for deletion, thus starting the "dead horse beating". It also occurs to me that you sound like an experienced wikipedia user, and i wonder why you do not use your UserID to sign your comments. DES (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that legal policy is a matter for the wikipedia legal team. However, having an opinion on a legal policy should be perfectly acceptable.--God of War 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Jimmy Wales

This section is for content unrelated to the article on Jimmy Wales that was added to that article's discussion page. --Mr. Billion 05:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Pompadour Hairstyle

What's with this pompadour high hairstyle of Jimbo Wales ?

Is he trying to look Victorian ??

Image deletion

user:Zscout370 claims that he is deletely all non-tagged images (without informing uploaders) on your direct instructions. As a consequence, images I uploaded some time ago, before the present tagging system, marked as my personal photographs, have been deleted without any opportunity for me to add a PD or GFDL tag (I've never watchlisted images because I didn't anticipate this).

Whilst I understand that copyright can be an issue, it seems crazy to give this schoolkid and others the authority to delete other's photographs, clearly marked as such, without checking that they are active contibutors (nearly 20,000 edits in my case) or asking the uploaders to add a formal tag as well as a "my image" or similar. If you look at Zscout's talk page, you will see the resentment that the high-handed implementation of your dictat is causing.

Surely it is not asking too much to require your underlings to follow these steps if an image is marked as my photo or similar (or are clearly likely to be):

  1. check that the contributor is active
  2. if so warn the contributor that the image needs tagging
  3. only after a decent period of time to delete personal images.

I should add that there are admins who have behave much more flexibly than just following your orders. Some have tagged images for me, and others have put a message on my talk page to warn of problems - and I've never uploaded an image that I didn't believe to fit the Wikipedia requirements. jimfbleak 12:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I sympathise. Please copy this to User_talk:Jimbo Wales to make sure he sees your complaint (you are not the only long-standing contributor to complain there but every little helps). Pcb21| Pete 12:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatic logouts

There has been a problem with Wikipedia lately: it's been automatically logging me out of Wikipedia once every few user pages or so. What gives? User:Rickyrab Rickyrab | Talk 20:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hardly a question for the encyclopedic article about Jimmy Wales. Try the Village Pump. — David Remahl 20:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

NOR policy update needed

I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party., weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:

Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B".

Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.

Rex071404 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Cousin Wales

Repeatedly, Jimbo Wales removes links to his ancestor memorilalized in the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Please Please Jimbo Wales

All Bureaucrats and administrators in Japanese Wikipedia should be eliminated because they are not considered suitable for their official power and duty of Wikipedia. They are not only Wikipedians, but also so much insane(anti-social personality disorder)NEET that they don't tried to talk with Wikipedians about the problem that is made by themselves. They don't only achieve accountability but also eliminate Wikipedians who think "admin here is cruel or stupid". They are only mad fascists. Of course they don't try to hold election.

They are all mad fascists and continue to abuse their authority that was given only by Steward, not by japanese Wikipedian's community. Japanese community in 2 channel (that treats the problem of insane administrators of Japanese Wikipedia)have solid consensus that all bureaucrats and administrators in Japanese Wikipedia should go to psychiarists(mental hospital) before they carry out terrorist attacks in the real world, because they are all haunted by delusions that others are always abusing themseves unjustly and delusions of grandeur that they are perfect noble and , what is worse, they bear abnormal malice to society.

Yesterday(November 12, 2005) one of them stupidly confessed that there are only one or two person using innumerable sockpuppets(multiaccounts) for illicit purposes. This one or two person (Suisui,KMT) have 31 sockpuppets for administrators and thousands of ones for general wikipedians, so that he or they have continued to fabricate the general consensus among all Wikipedians.

Apparently they are in the identical evil delusions, all of Wikipedians in Japan ignore them or sometimes protest against their cruel way and immediately get unreasonable block for a long long time. It's so absurd. Administrators in Japanese Wikipedia are not Wikipedians at all. It was a serious mistake to trust them as human beings in the first place.

Anyone have not wanted to run for administrator of Japanese Wikipedia, because Japanese Wikipedians use the word "administrator" as a synonym for cruel person ,e.g."mousou-afo-kanrisha(「妄想アフォ管理者」in Japanese)". Do you understand the state of Japanese Wikipedia?

You or the substitute who you appoint should overrule the decision of Steward and remove all bureaucrats and all administrators of Japanese Wikipedia permanently and manage fairly democratic election. Thank you. --LoveandPeace 08:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, i have to say the very important thing. Japanese Wikipedians' community in 2 channel(which has the most powerful influence to Japanese internet users) suggest bureaucrats and administrators of Japanese Wikipedia are obtaining contribution money fraudulently. In fact, the page that requires visiters to contribute to Japanese Wikipedia is very often unnaturally displayed after editting or a click. I think that the doubt as to whether they are the group of swindlers is very very natural. In any case they are too suspicious. Thank you again. --LoveandPeace 09:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a problem of Japan, not Wikipedia. I don't wait better thing from the japanese internet guys (seriously, don't take this as a offence). You should try resolve this or simply abandon japanese wikipedia and leave the bugs eats.

$100 computer

I suspect you're already aware of this project. I wasn't, until reading they'd rejected Steve Jobs' offer of free OS X in favor of open source software. I imagine it would be good for Wikipedia to see whether there is a role for us in this initiative. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Is this a joke?

Nyikita 21:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so, it almost looks like Jimmy's trying to sell-out or something

Excuse me, but the simple English Wikipedia is a very important work. Not everyone has as clear a grasp of the English language as you both, clearly, do. I fully support the project, and wish to encourage all those who contribute to it: you are doing a great job! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No it is far from a joke. I go there, and I work hard there, don't call it a joke. It's very helpful to people. I showed it to some of the people here in rehab and they use simple english wikipedia. You people are mean, its just for help with young children, and people like those that take part in ESOL. Quentin Pierce 22:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sell out? Why would you say that? The simple English Wikipedia has great potential for people that have English as their second or third language. — David Remahl 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Learning English should be a challenge and it is much better to learn with proper articles because then you are forced to look up words that you do not know. To cater for people in this way only limits their potential. English is English and Simple English isn't. BlueKangaroo 13:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidently you are not someone who has ever worked with immigrants. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I work as a legal advocate (in the UK) and Simple English is becoming much used for helping people with learning disabilities and learning difficulties understand their rights and responsibilities. So why deny people the joys of Wikipedia? But this is hardly the page for this discussion Manmonkey 00:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Noo, You are misunderstanding me! This is the bad joke: [11]. I'm sorry my inaccuracy. The simple English Wikipedia is a very important, of course.

Nyikita 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SCOWLS* That's not work-safe Chris Martin 10:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Esquire Wikipedia test? - supposedly, they posted some sort of article, but I can't find it anywhere. --AySz88^-^ 06:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This was answered thusly on AySz88's talk page: - Mark Hurd 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The esquire article you inquired about on Talk:Jimmy Wales (not a good place to post such questions) was Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia Raul654 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Banned for an "inappropriate username"

"(I am ♀) Nude females ARE NOT PORN, it's art."

- How is this "inappropriate"? How does it warrant banning for a whole day just for choosing a username saying something I believe in (THAT IS TRUE, really..)? This was by User:HappyCamper. I'm new here, but surely this is admin abuse? -- 00:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Using slogans as names is generally frowned upon, and is inadvisable anyway - for anyone and any slogan. See Wikipedia:Username for some details - it notes that "The user name is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement.". There was quite a bit of controversy about User:Jesus is Lord! which you can see at User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange. Morwen - Talk 00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the nickname, but these housewives will do anything to get a kick - including banning innocent people. --Anittas 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that sentence is offensive on so many levels. I salute you! Morwen - Talk 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
From now on, the famous phrase should be changed to "Wikipedia: Unemployed PhD housewife deathmatch". Pcb21 Pete 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Assuming that the "♀" character was part of the name, that's what's wrong. There's a general consensus that usernames must be typeable on a standard keyboard. --Carnildo 06:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy

He had some problems with the user User:Node ue. On the page Moldovan language he was always a trolling character. He was always alone in his positions and he was always against any consensus. Now the page is blocked because of him. Now, he transfered his hatred also on some pages that I created where he comes everyday to revert my work. What can be done? I think more than 100 people told him to stop but he continues his trolling again. Bonaparte talk 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Okay, so i'm a fairly large contributor to this site, i love it, i put huge amounts of time into it, and it has served me well. Anyway, I want to contribute some funds, but my worry, as always, is how does wikipedia plan to maintain its ideology? I heard that a paper edition of the encyclopedia is possibly coming out. So my question is, is somebody going to get rich off of this project (wikipedia), and if so, then why should i put money into it (i already put enough in)? I mean, is there somewhere i can go to see what the funds are, what is needed, how much is paying someone's salary, etc.? Sorry to be the realist; and sure, the early bird gets the worm, but i'm here to serve a different purpose, and unfortunately, in my world, the dishonest are reigning unchecked and i'm poor as hell - so could we address this? Anonymously yours, 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hello Unknown, I surely doubt that anyone from this community will ever make big money with it, as it is managed by the non-profit organization Wikimedia and its local chapters (Wikimedia Deutschland, France etc.). There is much money involved in this project, as a site this big has to have many servers and people who manage them full-time. All finances and budgets is documented and you can read them at (sorry too tired to put link up). However, since all this stuff is licensed under an open license, you *could* make some money as people already do by presenting the stuff together with ads or selling it on paper for the distribution costs. This is the only (minor) downside to the idea of really free information, and as such unavoidable. Be assured that nobody here except the full time staff will ever make money from Wikipedia, and those are paid industry standard wages as you can read for yourself. I sure do trust this community, and couldn't find a better investment in the future of mankind.

Greetz from Berlin, Endymi0n 07:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I don't think there will be a paper version. There will be CD/DVD versions, which are mainly to allow people in developing countries to have access to information where they may not have internet access (and probably in ratios of hundreds of users to one computer). -- Natalinasmpf 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please address the following Wiki-issues:

Wikipedia's concept seems flawed. This issue has been addressed at: regarding:

' the lack of information on most people. Everyone on this planet is notable, yet the censors seem to think you have to be in the news to be included. The idea that most people are not notable is highly offensive to people who value every life and want to hear about them.

' the censorship that is labeled vandalism. Everyone can edit a page, but opposing viewpoints are not tolerated, even if they are very important to some people.

' the lack of detailed information on most topics. The Internet can be readily searched to find detailed information on everything. Wikipedia lacks a lot of detail, because frankly there is too much information out there to filter out.

If the content of wikipedia were left alone, and yearly moved into 'static approved content' pages, the quantity of work required would illustrate how preposterous the whole concept is.

Hello Unknown, let me add my two cents to your arguments:

' the lack of information on most people. Everyone on this planet is notable, yet the censors seem to think you have to be in the news to be included. The idea that most people are not notable is highly offensive to people who value every life and want to hear about them.

  • This site isn't called "Wiki" but "Wikipedia", simply because it strives to be an "Encyclopedia" which limits itself to list "important" people only. If in your average printed encyclopedia there was an article about every human being on earth (living and deceased, to be really "fair"), it would weigh more than the Empire State Building and would be completely unreadable. If you value people so much, be free to host a page where everyone can make an article about anyone - the Wikimedia software is open source. Beware of the server costs though... =)

' the censorship that is labeled vandalism. Everyone can edit a page, but opposing viewpoints are not tolerated, even if they are very important to some people.

  • Here you seem to confuse vandalism and differing points of view. Blanking pages and adding bullshit is in no ones interest and could hardly be interpreted as censorship. If you have a differing viewpoint, you can add it as long as you do not censor the viewpoint of others, which is often the case. Often there is a minority which does not want to be one, so they label good NPOV-sentences like "The general consensus is that this is A, but several people believe it is B" as censorship, which it is not. There is no absolute truth in most cases and you can surely add your own point of view, as long as it makes sense and respects the values of this community. It doesn't matter to me if you believe in Voodoo, Intelligent Design or the nonexistence of Nazi concentration camps, but if you state it as the truth (accepted by the majority of people), it is correctly labeled vandalism.

' the lack of detailed information on most topics. The Internet can be readily searched to find detailed information on everything. Wikipedia lacks a lot of detail, because frankly there is too much information out there to filter out.

  • I cannot follow you here... 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If encyclopadiae had the ambition of being the most detailed source of information in every case, you wouldn't need the rest of the library/internet, right? So they don't. An encyclopedia provides a general overview about a topic. If you want to know everything about it go read every book about it. 2. Most other internet sites are on the average authored by one person. Chances are that not all of these are professionals, so when I search on the net on the average I see a *lot* of bullshit with often widely differing points of view. So wikipedia provides a revisioned extract which is not a bug but the feature.

Just my humble opinion, Endymi0n 16:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Why is the discussion in this section on this page? --JWSchmidt 16:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone mentioned Wikipedia = Web 2.0, but "Beware of the server costs" was never an excuse for the Internet.

Controversy Over Security Risks On Wikipedia

Mr. Wales,

Let me bring the following information to your immediate attention:

{{Security Risk}}

Is it fair to say that the recent deletion and editing of this discussion page - specifically related to bringing to your attention certain security risks here on Wikipedia; and the ongoing controversy related to the deletion and vandalism of materials related to law enforcement and international security (Including Valérie Gignac, Mark Bourque, Template:Infobox Police Officer and Template:Security Risk) is an indication that this project may be spinning out of control? Having recently edited several articles (including (Animal Liberation Front - a known terrorist group) to bring necessary security-related information to your administrators attention, I found myself blocked temporarily from this site. What gives?
PeterZed 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition , repeated deletions of the nefarious connections of the Wales family (see The Outlaw Josie Wales) raise the same subject of huge manipulations of the wiki articles , esp by a coterie / troop of apparent sadistic persons of the ancient persuasion.

And, we recently see that NSA (National Security Agency) scans all internet writings/ typings including those of wikipedia for key words - those key words chosen by rantings of the dazed NSA analysists in their own "raves" room high on who knows what. And proving the ongoing national security manipulations of a WMD as wiki by the sycophant pawns.


When is your birthday (if you don't mind my effrontery)? CliffHarris 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

See Jimbo Wales. His birth date is in the first line. Please post at the bottom of talk pages in future.-gadfium 02:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) this OK or should I move it back? CliffHarris 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Boss

Are you OK ? I've seen a really sick rumor concerning you. You all right ? I've seen the rumor while I was on my way here. I was told it was satire. If that is satire, then what is comedy ? I call it sick. The rumor is found here:[ Jimbo Wales Shot Dead] I really hope you are doing well boss. Martial Law 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you were to read further down: "For the record, The Register must note that the ubermeister of Wikipedia appears to be alive and well. ... The "news" of his death consisted of a random edit to his own, particularly fulsome entry on the encyclopedia he helped create." Obviously this is a work of satire from someone who has a bone to pick with Wikipedia for some unknown reason.

Agreed, boss. Hope you're doing well boss. Martial Law 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against scientology

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention... don't know if this is the kind of project you were originally trying to foster. But it looks like this is what it is devolving into.

{{User against scientology}} Gateman1997 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't bad templates be deleted? Vote to delete it if you think it's bad. This shouldn't be a problem. Everyking 08:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The issue I have is that the admin team is playing favorites. A similar template being Template:User against jews, was speedied. Where this is being allowed? Seems like a double standard to me. They'll protect Jews but not Scientologists on the basis they like one religion more then another?Gateman1997 08:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the difference is that Scientologists are a purely religious group, whereas Jews are identified both in ethnic and religious terms. Also opposing Jews is a rather touchy historical issue, involving mass murder and persecution; there isn't any reason to be so sensitive about Scientology. So the template against Jews would surpass a certain limit of outrageousness that an admin might feel justified in deleting it outright, whereas a template against Scientology might be something that you'd predict could be legitimately controversial. Everyking 08:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I admit that the racial aspect may be possibly where they get their justification, but what if I made a similar one about Catholicism or Islam? Where is the line drawn? Because this is hate speech no matter how you slice it. It's soft hate speech, but it's hate speech.Gateman1997 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not hate speech. It's more along the lines of uncivil and it's wikipedia being the judge of what justifies legitimacy in religion if one is kept and the other is not. gren グレン 12:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And Wikipedia determining what is a religion violates WP:NOT because we're not a primary source.Gateman1997 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is NOT a religion in most countries. The governments of Germany and Belgium officially regard the Church as a totalitarian cult; in France, a parliamentary report classified Scientology as a dangerous cult; in the United Kingdom and Canada the Church is not regarded as meeting the legal standards for being considered a bona fide religion, and elsewhere, apart from America, it's just ignored as "yet another cult". --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a "bona fide" religion in your estimation? Because it is officially recognized as one in the US and granted the same protections as Judaism, Catholicism etc...Gateman1997 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Incredible as it is that it has gained recognition as a religion in the US, the template violates Be Civil in WP:EQ. It doesn't matter if its a religion, a race, or whatever. Jasongetsdown 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A mistress supports religious discrimination... --Nikitchenko 19:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Founder box

Hi Jimbo, I placed this on your user page at one point but it was very quickly removed. As I don't like loose ends and it's in your user space I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do with it. -- Francs2000 12:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New Group

The help group which I informed you about has now been given a name: the "Helping Hand Group". I have asked Elf if she can add a link on Template:welcome. Just thought you should be informed. The Neokid 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology and Assistance with Pauley Perrette

Thank you for your message above, I had forgotten about the discussion we had once on IRC about the ad controversy. Then again, it's easy to have a short attention span in this place considering how much content there is, I alone had over 3,300 edits last month. I'm incredibly concerned about the all too often contradiction with policies and guidelines and how these are updated(usually through shouting matches, often conducted off of Wikipedia.) You can help save the day if you'd like by starting a dialogue about this(we've had a smaller version of such things at Esperanza), but until then i'll try to follow the intent of things and shadow those who are intimidating others or acting in a disruptive manner.

Also, on Pauley Perrette, all you need to do is put a {{protected}} tag up there. Please let me know if I can assist further in the future. karmafist 02:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy Wales

I just gave $10 to the funding appeal (and just spent $700 rebuilding the computer of a local poor artist.) Someday I hope to be profitable enough to make the $700 contribution to Wikipedia. There are not enough servers on your site to hold the commentary I could make about your idea. I'm a Mammoth Cave explorer, and before I knew about the web (1993) I conceived the near equivalent of Wikipedia to hold the human knowledge of the world's longest cave. I was going to name the project "Bibliographic Indexed Spelean History Object Project" See Stephen Bishop (cave explorer) for why I might have chosen this Bacronym. In this comment I just wanted to give specific thanks and appreciation to you for truly making the web all it can be. Your accomplisment (including the social aspect which makes the NPOV process work) ranks with: the Sumerians, Hannah Arendt, Max Muller, Tim Berners-Lee, Jon Postel, Vinton Cerf, Eric S. Raymond, Donald E. Knuth, Grace Hopper, John von Neumann, Alan Mathison Turing, Nathan B. Stubblefield, Lord Kelvin, Alexander Graham Bell and Samuel F. B. Morse, and a random sample of your soon-to-be 900,000 page encyclopedia reads like Virginia Woolf meets Douglas R. Hofstadter. Kudos and Happy New Year to Wikipedia, the Retcon Reason the Internet Was Invented: wikipedians are here to stay! Alan Canon 07:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Louisville

Quotes from election discussion

Hi, Jimbo! Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 and try to alleviate some of our concerns? :) Below is a collection of quotes I selected from that talk page. - Haukur 10:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"I believe that an RfA-type poll is the worst possible option." - Filiocht

"I am completely opposed to the notion of an open (RFA) style election." - Kelly Martin

"I am very very concerned about open voting." - [[Sam Korn]]

"It strikes me as extremely unlikely that anything other than bad-blood will ensue from a public voting process." - Splash

"This is an insanely bad idea, and needs to be changed promptly." - Sam Spade

"I strongly object to a procedure modelled on RFA" - Haukur

"This is a very poor idea." - DES

"Is this some secret plan to cut off our nose to spite our face, and I haven't read the memo?" - Kim Bruning (comment since stricken)

"apparantly we're very suicidal" - Ilyanep

"I stood against this every inch of the way." - Geni

"By having an open vote we're backsliding over a century." - Mackensen

"Why are there oppose links on the voting page? I thought we were going to avoid the "disendorsement" silliness this year." - Tony Sidaway

Might this be a good time to archive?

This page is getting really large, and now there seems to be 2 sections for some reason. Rx StrangeLove 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


Copied to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Wonderfool, in xyr latest incarnation as User:Fooled...err..1, has just placed the following on my talk page, after I added the account to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Wonderfool:

So what if I'm Wonderfool? I've admitted all my nihilartikels (OK, to be fair, I misused the word nihilartikel - what I meant was "articles that I thought don't warrant an entry in Wikipedia". So all should be cleared to have me reinstated now. And I've apologized alreadt too. In various pages under various names. But I'd like to stay put and NOT be banned please, otherwise I'll only just get another username and edit anyway. Cheers Uncle. --Wonderfool 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This situation appears to be stuck in some kind of Limbo, with Wonderfool stating that xe has apologized and named all of the nihilartikels and the Arbitration Committee stating that the ban is still in effect until an apology is forthcoming and all nihilartikels are named. Unfortunately, the two do not appear to be communicating directly with each other. Please resolve it. Uncle G 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"I'll only just get another username and edit anyway" just about sums it up for me. The violation of trust and lack of good will shown in that statement makes it really hard for me to imagine that good behavior is likely in the future.--Jimbo Wales 09:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election controversy

Hi! Could you please clarify whether neutral votes are prohibited or not? As it stands currently, only support and oppose votes are counted, and extensive commentary (which neutral votes in most cases contain or consist of) is prohibited; however, at least one user is unhappy with this and/or claims that neutral votes are okay per earlier consensus and/or your approval. I only joined the ArbCom election administrating team very recently, so I frankly don't know what's true. Could you please get yourself involved, soon? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 18:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. If it's an election how can their be neutral votes? You are either for or against something. If you're neutral you should not be voting would be my argument.Gateman1997 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, 'voting is evil' is one of our oldest and most wise sayings. Instead what we have found over time works best is a process of positive, honest, thoughtful dialogue in search of a consensus. In a dialogue, even 'neutral' is a valuaable opinion, and keeping them right there where others can easily see them seems important.--Jimbo Wales 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not the best use of a "funny image"...

...but you'd be glad to see the best parody I could come up with, in regards to your name. File:JimboPrinceofWales-1-.jpg

You are hereby, "Jimbo, Prince of Wales." Forget that impostor : ) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Carlos, el principe de Gales. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Super Nintendo

Hi, Super Nintendo Wales! -- 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Wales, would you please extend the duration of a nomination(Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anglius) by a few days without 'deleting' it(I do not really possess a sufficient quantity of time presently to reply to their accusations and comments.)--Anglius 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Appeal (yet again)

Jimbo, it's been two months now. Please, will you hear my appeal now? Everyking 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of transparency

Hi Mr. Wales, I´ve noticed that inferior users are not longer able to understand the actions/manipulations of the admins. So I ask you.

Who has deleted the following pics? For what reasons?

Greetings 13:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Two went through IFD and one was orphan fair use.Geni 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, thank you. Would you please tell me the date of the ifds? Anyway, I see these pics were no fair use-abuse/copyright violations (as the orphanator - User:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr. - prefer to claim) Greetings 13:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Since this is not a policy of wikipedia and I didn't find anywhere else to suggest it, I though I should reccomend it directly to some high patented wikimedia hiearchy officer such as the wikipedia founder. Feel free to correct me and maybe send this proposal to the right place it should be. Sorry for the trouble. I wrote it in my profile, won't paste it here to avoid flooding you talk page. Bruno 02:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Inactive BCrats

Please read this note I dropped to Angela.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Further question on policy change

In response to recent events, Wales has made a few changes to better police the site. In addition to implementing a "semi-protection" policy where pages facing vandalism problems can only be edited by registered users with accounts older than four days, site administrators will add a delay to high profile pages, such as the President Bush page that is currently closed. The delay, similar to a "dump" button in radio that gives producers a few seconds to prevent something like crude language from hitting the airwaves, will mean that online vandals cannot quickly amend a page on a breaking news article, such as those posted when the Pope died. Wales notes that the length of the delay will be decided by the community on Wikipedia. "We have hundreds of people monitoring the site all the time. They will figure out the community norms."
from Can Wikipedia Survive Its Own Success?

Are we really going to be getting delayed editing, or a) have I misread this, or b) have you again been misquoted? Btw, I think the idea has merits. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't hear about this. Misquoted again? —Ilyanep (Talk) 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny picture

Now that I've finally learnt how to upload a picture, I thought I'd show my appreciation of this wonderful wikiworld you've created for us by making a funny picture of you which I've placed on the funny picture section. I hope you like it. By the way, how do you manage personal life when you've got such a big task of keeping everything in order here? Could you please reply on my talk page, it would be awesome to have the Jimbo Wales reply on my talk page. Thanks. Spawn Man 02:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The perverse uses of obnoxious userboxes

Obnoxious useerboxes (like Template:I hate X) have their uses. If User A puts one on his homepage,

  • Other users can immediately conclude that A genuinely does hate X, and discount A's comments and edits on X accordingly, avoiding a long and unpleasant experience.
  • So can ArbCom, when deciding to limit A from e.g. editing pages relating to X
  • Deleting the template dpesn't prevent X from having an uncivil userpage; it just makes it harder for the rest of us to know about it.
  • A is not civil because he is forced to stop using the userbox; A is civil when he is persuaded to voluntarily remove it.

(If B puts a userbox on A's page, that's vandalism.)

I would be honored to be shown where this is wrong. Septentrionalis 05:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole user box thing seems to be a craze that has gone out of control. Perhaps a clamp should be placed on all new user boxes. Arno 05:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a patriarchal site?

Is Wikipedia a patriarchal site? If it isn't, may I then ask why a photo of a woman reading the Quran is constantly removed by Islamists and no-one bothers to do anything about it? I hope you are aware that this encyclopedia is opened to all people, including extremists and even terrorists. Why do your admins allow these extremists have their way? They argue that if certain people are offended of seeing a woman reading the Quran, then perhaps the photo should be removed. Even the photographer has been convinced to have the photo removed and now he thinks it's his fault. Here's what he said:

My wife is particularly saddened that a picture of her is causing distress - she compares it to an image of a woman in a small bikini holding a bible in the Bible article - and she has asked that the photo be removed from the article. I personally feel that the image belongs in Timur, where the woman is needed in the image in order to show scale (at least until a replacement image of the folio with a different person is found), but that it is inappropriate to include it in the Qur'an article.

Does this sound normal to you? So if these extremists, whom I dared to call Talebans, are offended by women, then perhaps we should not have woman editors, admins, etc? I suggested to you a month ago that you need to impose more Liberal standards to Wiki and enforce them with the sword! Ban these people, please! Your admins removed my line where I called these extremists for Talebans. How shameful! Here's the photo. Oh, no, we see a couple of hands and a head - with hair on it! -Related link- --Anittas 06:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please offer an opinion in the above (see Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy). It's not good for such a situation to fester. -- Curps 11:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Enforcing standards "with the sword" and banning people doesn't seem very "liberal" to me. And having "liberal standards" (or conservative ones for that matter) doesn't seem very NPOV. *Dan T.* 12:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that's indented as though it were a reply to me, but on second reading it certainly doesn't seem to be. Just to clarify, I certainly haven't blocked anyone over the controversy in question. I take it you are referring to the blocking of the various presumed sockpuppets (eg, by Dmcdevit). -- Curps 06:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-admins should be able to use CheckUser

I estimate that over 93% of admin accounts are sock puppets of other admin accounts.

I see all over articles, admins who control a small number of articles. They check these articles around 16 hours a day. Whenever there is a content dispute, they instantly revert. I see this happen and there's numerous admins that do the same reverts, all have the same POV, and do no other style edits, at least not since years ago. I can watch these articles and see new admin after new admin all doing the same pattern. I've been to a multitude of articles and I see this all the time.

Does CheckUser give the IP address? Because I might see the last 3 digits of the IP change but the rest always the same. That means that the admin hangs up his modem.

Also, there includes proxies. Such as do admins put sock puppets on proxies? And if a vandal finds the same proxy and gets it banned, will the admin's account be banned, also? My guess is no. That admin accounts are immune from that kind of banning, unlike regular users.

Also as for I believe admins and buerocrats that have below 40 edits a month should return to regular users because that is what these sock puppets have. 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Very very few people can do checkuser—only our very most trusted users. See m:CheckUser. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser if you have any concrete evidence of inappropriate sockpuppetry by anyone; admins aren't exempt. -- SCZenz 15:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we admins are super humans, capable of spending our whole lives on Wikipedia. Jimbo pays us, ya know, with all that money from the donations that you foolish mortals thinks goes to buy servers. Get a grip. [[Sam Korn]] 17:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Polygamy "Decision" was a "Summary Judgment & Execution" made without ever hearing all the facts

On 02:52, 15 November 2005, the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy "decision" was made to push out a rare proven topic expert on polygamy, while giving free reign to a hostile proven anti-polygamy editor to misinform Wikipedia readers with propaganda POV. Unfortunately, their anti-expert "Decision" was made completely without any consideraton of the facts or fairness whatsoever. Truly, the evidence testifies (to any honest observer) against the making of this "Summary Judgment and Execution" where considering the facts had never been allowed or performed.

Could you please take a look?

Sure, I'll take a look sometime in the next 3 weeks. I deleted the rest of what you posted here, but I'll read that too. --Jimbo Wales 16:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Today is three weeks later since you made that last post. Coming back today to see if you've had the time yet to fix this anti-expert railroading problem, I unfortunately discovered that someone else had completely removed this section of mine from your TALK page. So, for your review, I put this back back and I ask for your urgent assistance still.
At 18:36, 16 November 2005, I posted that original complete outline, as follows:
At 16:53, November 23, 2005, you replied here.
At 02:04, 14 December 2005, that entire section was then removed by Adam_Carr on your TALK page here.
Anyway, I really do hope you will fix this problem. Pushing out proven content-experts on rare topics by unknowledgeable biased wiki-process-experts leaves Wikipedia misleading the marketplace when it calls itself an "encyclopedia." I know you're busy, but I do hope you will solve this horrendous "Summary Judgement and Execution." After all, I was the one who asked for the Arbitration. Yet never once, not a single time, did any one consider any part of any of MY evidence in any way whatsoever. They gave me no mercy, nothing. They went straight to user-execution, without considering the overwhelming quantity of abuse I had received. It was the pure definition of kangaroo court. From the beginning, it was clear that the head arbitrator's demonstrated bias against the topic should have caused them to recuse themselves. Instead, a pure kangaroo court ensued, designed only to push a rare, proven content-expert of a rare topic out of Wikipedia altogether. It was a complete railroading.
I have believed Wikipedia was better than that, so I am hopeful that you will rectify this as soon you can. (The outline above is intended to help you on that.) When you do fix this, you will truly be helping the readers of Wikipedia find actually correct, accurate, and NPOV information about the rare and little-understood polygamy related topics. That, itself, will then help Wikipedia to not lose its credibility as a hope-to-be "encyclopedia," by recognizing that proven content-experts do have a value in preventing misinformation. I am hopeful for goood things about Wikipedia, so I am hopeful you will fix this tragedy soon. Thank you. - Researcher 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Additional: I just now discovered some more evidence of arbitrator-bias that I had not seen before. I just found out that, on October 10, 2005, while I was distracted with the ongoing dispute at that time, User:Neutrality had deleted the entire explanation about the subtopic of Christian polygamy in the polygamy article. They disguised their extreme bias attack with the absurdity of calling the content an ad, but only an anti-polygamist would suggest that about the NPOV content they deleted. (Please read the deletion for yourself. Without that now-deleted content, the polygamy article now gives no explanation about that subtopic whatseoever, misleading the Wikipedia readers to think that there is no such separate thing as Christian Polygamy, and that it is somehow the same as the totally separate subtopic of Mormon Polygamy.) As I explained in my opening Evidence comments, it is repeatedly proven that anti-polygamists do not want others to know about Christian polygamy or what it is really about because that new subtopic situation has so powerfully changed the discussion about polygamy in general. (See the Sunday, Dec. 11, 2005, article in the Washington Times, here, as one example to see what I mean.) Later, instead of recusing themselves for their obvious bias against the topic, though, (the obviously NON-neutral) arbitrator Neutrality instead cast the last outrageous vote to execute me in the "Summary Judgment & Execution." This is just another example of the outrageous railroading that has occurred here, a kangaroo court. I repeat my hope that you will be able to fix this tragedy. Thank you. - Researcher 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Tomorrow, it will be a month since I made this last post. The day after tomorrow, it will be 2 months since the Summary Judgment & Execution was wrongly implemented against me by so-called "arbitration." I really am trying to be patient. Could you please help? As I had repeatedly pointed out throughout all the stages of the dispute that ultimately railroaded me into the so-called "arbitration," the anti-polygamous attackers against me were never really interested in the content of the polygamy related articles. I had stated correctly that they were faking their "concern" for the content. I had also correctly explained that they were only anti-polygamists whose intent was to railroad me through the process to get me removed. They were Wikipedia process-experts deliberately gaming the system to railroad me through the steps on up to so-called "arbitration" in order to deprive Wikipedia from my expertise as a proven content expert on this topic.
I have been proven completely correct about that ever since, too. Please inspect their actions, particularly this anti-polygamist's history, ever since they "won" their agenda to get me removed via the kangaroo court of the Summary Judgment & Execution." Except for only a couple of posts made immediately to the specifically disputed polygamy articles after they "won," their posting history from then until now shows that they have not done anything for the content of those disputed articles. None of the involved anti-polygamists who ganged up with them against me have been back to fix the disputed articles! So, I was right, of course. They got what they wanted. They got me removed. After the biased kangaroo court's Summary Judgment & Execution against me in the so-called "arbitratation" (that never once listened to my case or issues) banned me from ever posting to the disputed articles, the anti-polygamists' posting inaction for the content of the disputed articles afterward proves that I was right.
The disputed articles still need to be fixed and I have been wrongly banned from helping Wikipedia fix them. Could you please fix this obvious error? Not fixing it currently harms Wikipedia both in articles' content as well as in how it affects content experts from participating when they get run off by Wikipedia process experts cleverly gaming the system. Simply, could you please override the kangaroo court's Summary Judgment & Execution against me? Since I have been proven correct, could you please officially authorize me to be allowed to post to the polygamy related articles again? I really would like to help Wikipedia benefit from my content expertise. Your help will be truly appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 14:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I see this mistakenly got lost in your archiving. So, when you can, please do help. Thanks. - Researcher 17:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert McClenon was another anti-polygamist trying to sabotage the matter

I see that another falsehood was told about me and this case here.

You are commonly asked to review ArbCom cases. There is at least one case that you said you would look at. It is the case of Researcher99. I suggest that you look at it only to confirm that the ArbCom was right. It began as a content dispute, but then Researcher99 began complaining that he had been treated with disrespect. Mediation was attempted, but the mediation failed because Researcher99 said that he was not willing to mediate article content until his claims of being treated with disrespect were mediated. Since the mediation was intended to resolve the content dispute, and one participant refused to discuss content, the mediation failed. The case then went to the ArbCom, which found that Researcher99 was being disruptive. Since the objective of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, failure to discuss content is disruptive. I suggest that the ArbCom be commended for a good decision.

I have looked at most of the other recent ArbCom decisions, and the only one that is misguided is Wyss. Robert McClenon 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It really has to be noted that Robert McClenon was a one-time-appearing anti-polygamist who cleverly conspired to prevent all the evidence from being presented in the dispute. Instead of welcoming evidence, or they were just being too extremely lazy to seriously investigate the amount of evidence of abuses against me, Robert McClenon cleverly turned it around and made up a falsehood about it. In this post they made here, they suggested the falsehood that my presenting the overwhelming quantity of evidence of abuses perpetrated against me was somehow indicative of my putting forth a filibuster. It was so shocking when they told that clearly false idea. I was sincerely and diligently listing out all the overwhelming amount of evidence of abuses against me, and then Robert McClenon simply showed up out of nowhere to make this falsehood up. He was cleverly trying to get people to not read the evidence and he was even trying to make me look like I was the bad one for my showing all the evidence!

As I just previously showed in the last post I just made here today, I was always correct that the anti-polygamists were never serious about mediating for content. The facts before and after all prove that only I was the one who was genuinely concerned about content. Only I had repeatedly tried to make resolution offers with the anti-polygamists, while the anti-polygamists were instead focused on gaming the system just to railroad me through the process on up to so-called "arbitration." I was the one whose AMA initiated the request for Arbitration. Only I was the one who was always genuinely trying to get the problem resolved!

Yet the so-called "arbitration" never once listened to any of my Evidence. So Robert McClenon is now trying to suggest I was the disruptive one? It's another faleshood. The so-called "arbitration" simply made their biased Summary Judgment & Execution without addressing any of my or my AMA's Evidence whatsoever. The whole "arbitration" was a sham, never considering any real evidence. That is why, even though I had been hopeful for fairness to prevail, it is obvious that the so-called "arbitration" was nothing more than a kangaroo court (and Wikipedia needs to fix that, of course). I am sad to say that, but any kind of "decision making court concept" that never considers all the evidence is not a real court of "arbitration." For that kind of "court" to have authority to execute at its whim makes it a kangaroo court and very problematic for Wikipedia's credibility. I believe in systems and fairness. That's why I have been patient and have not taken any action except to plead for help on this TALK page here. So it is clear, when Evidence is never even considered, and an extremely excessive decision to outright execute my participation when I was the abused party, it proves to me (and anyone else seriously looking into the matter) that real arbitration never occured in my case. I was railroaded into a kangaroo court that wrongly executed an innocent content expert. This problem seriously needs to be fixed for Wikipedia.

As I had repeatedly said, the anti-polygamists only wanted to get me banned. That was the only reason for their coming after me. They were never serious about content, not ever. After "winning" that decision to get me banned, the anti-polygamists have not been back since to seriously fix the disputed articles, except one or two posts immediately after the decision. Their later inaction on these related articles shows how disengenuous they were with their fake claims of "concern" for content. They had spent so much time, energy, and months wiki-stalking, attacking, and abusing me in order to railroad through the Wikipedia system into the sham of "arbitration". (I did not realize that about so-called "arbitration" at the time when my AMA initiated the RfArb, though.) Yet once their "victory" of getting me banned by the so-called "arbitration" occurred, the anti-polygamists mostly stopped editing the disputed articles afterward. It proves I was right. They were never concerned about mediating content, only I was. (Plus, the suggestion that I supposedly refused to mediate for content was a tactic of misrepresentation used against me, as this post in the RfM here proves. There, I had said seven times what the Mediation that my own AMA had initiated was actually about. Despite saying what we had sought so many times, the anti-polygamists kept repeating the outrageous falsehood. In the very same way as Robert McClenon does again in his post above on this TALK page, the anti-polygamists kept saying that the Mediation which my own AMA had requested was supposedly about something we had not said and that I was supposedly "refusing Mediation!" Then they would use that falsehood to say I was not willing to fix the issues of content. This deceptive tactic is just more proof of how they conspire to game the system against me.) So, really, I was the only one seriously concerned about the article content. They were using their Wikipedia process-expertise in gaming the system to get me banned and remove me as a proven content expert.

So, for Robert McClenon to suggest that I was ever not wanting to solve or mediate the content problem in the dispute only further proves their clever anti-polygamy agenda too. I was never disruptive. To even say that is just an utter falsehood. I have always been trying to be the helpful content expert for Wikipedia that I am for this topic. For offering Wikipedia my proven content expertise and helpfulness, though, I was targeted by anti-polygamous Wikipedia process experts who railroaded me on up to so-called "arbitration" in order to use that system to get me wrongly banned. So I repeat, the anti-polygamists' failure to go back and really fix the articles' content since then further proves that I was always right. So in this matter, Robert McClenon has no honest credibility to speak about it.

I am hopeful that this problem will be fixed, for the good of Wikipedia. Thank you. - Researcher 17:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

banned users talk on userpage = useless if no one listens

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who goes through the ban log and to look and see if bans are being administered like an IRC chat room full of juvenile deliquents or with professionalism and civility. I found these...

Yup, that's right, banned no warning, no talking on talk page, no discussion. Because the kids doing the banning are afraid they'll accidentally talk in aLtErNaTiNg HaCkEr CaPs? Is it just trigger-happy? I don't have a clue, Arights 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just took a look at the user contributions for VonRyan. You might want to check this little revert war. Look close. Notice what these two were going back and forth about. Look how fast. Fuzheado blocked both participants, and rightly so. These are not legitimate users, they are boneheads par excellence. Fuzheado is hardly a "kid" -- he's a respected Wikipedian and academic professor, and a very friendly and kind person -- hardly prone to being 'trigger-happy'.
The other cases look similarly unappealing. Wikipedia is not a playground for trolls.--Jimbo Wales 09:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, did you try asking the blocking admins about these? Talk to them first; if you don't get a reply, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll look into it. -- SCZenz 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Schwartz (journalist)

I just contacted Stephen Schwartz based off the recent comments left on the talk page [12]. He is not happy and I would hate to see a repeat of the John Seigenthaler fiasco.

Ciao. DTC 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I applaud how you handled this one. Both of the disputed versions of the article were a complete unverifiable mess. Stubbing it was the way to go. --James S. 09:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Why is felbeast banned?None of my edits were vandalism. I was not even given a fair warning. User kept harassing me and reverting my edits. I attacked his talk page for this.

Unblock me Felbeast2 13:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of your, or the other editor's, edits in question, but I think your way of phrasing the issue above shows attitude problems; it's never good to "attack" anybody, or any page, as you said you did, even if it's in retaliation for something somebody else did to you. *Dan T.* 19:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about my shouting friend at Panera today. She knew I wrote for Wikipedia and we noticed the meet-up going on, and then as we were leaving you passed by and I noted it to her. She, to take revenge for my shouting at a professor of hers a couple weeks ago to embarass her, decided to put me on the spot by calling yours and then ducking away. She found it funny, but I felt an explanation desirable.


Wally 21:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it was very very funny as a matter of fact. You should have popped in for the meetup. Anyway the woman I was walking with was a reporter for the New York Times and now I'm sure she thinks that I'm much more of a celebrity than I actually am. This was the first time anyone ever randomly recognized me on the street.--Jimbo Wales 08:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Now that'll be a funny postscript to the anecdote — I'll have to search the Times for that article. If it gets you good press, you can always remember me the next time an ArbCom seat opens up. ;) In any case, it was good almost meeting you. Wally 08:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for the invitation - it was exciting to finally meet so many Wikipedians after a year of editting. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and you too! Since you live so close I'm sure we'll see each other more, and hopefully the next Tampa-area meetup will be sooner than a year!--Jimbo Wales 08:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Will you ever get to the southeast coast of Florida? (Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, etc.) *Dan T.* 15:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting final clarification of whether or not videogame guides qualify as Wikibooks

Hey, sorry to bring up such an old issue, but to this day this has never seen closure.

A while ago you made a statement regarding non-textbooks ("is this a textbook? If it is ... point to a course which uses this sort of textbook ... many people seem to be confused about the purpose of the site."). This sounds to me like videogame guides are a definite no-no, as the closest course would be one discussing the technology and achievements of several games, rather than being a tutorial on how to beat them.

The reason I bring this up is that users of a game guides wiki have expressed a strong desire to be the recipients of our guides, once the decision to remove them is final; however there is still some confusion as to whether the Foundation agrees that a videogame guide does make a valid textbook, and initial suggestions of calling a site-wide vote on the matter have led to nothing.

If you could provide a clear, definitive answer regarding this (ideally worded in such a way that those opposing such a shift won't say you're just arbitrarily throwing your weight around as they did in the previous case) it would be most helpful, I and many others would like to finally bring closure to this issue one way or the other. Thanks for your time. GarrettTalk 23:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

John Warren (convict)

Jimbo, this article is up for deletion on notability grounds, despite the fact that it references a reputable academic source. I believe the decision here could set a precedent in the great notability versus verifiability debate. I would feel better knowing that you were aware of it. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


A little bit ago, you were contacted about a reporter plagerizing Wikipedia... Looks as if he got just desserts; he was fired. You can see more at User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe and corresponding talk page. Just thought you'd like to see what Wikipedia has done for the world of journalism. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 06:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mensa World Gathering

Hey, Jimmy / Jimbo (which name do you prefer?), has anybody from the Mensa World Gathering (to be held at Walt Disney World near Orlando this August) contacted you about being a speaker? It's not too far from your headquarters, and I'm sure lots of Mensans participate in Wikipedia or might be interested in doing so. (I'm not connected with the gathering committee, so I can't actually invite you or anything, but it would be neat if you can arrange something with them. See their contact page.) *Dan T.* 15:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how lucky you are? Don't let it slip away.

You have more Web2.0 mojo than all the ad agencies, glossy agazine publishers, venture capitalists, and academic types combined. Seriously.

The only thing you don't have is assurance that it will scale. I'm not talking about the database and the squids and the servers, I'm talking about the legions of volunteers.

You need to tear yourself away from the press more often and keep helping the thousands who volunteer for you when they should be going to school, working, takig care of their families, etc. It's the least you can do for them. When you get back from Charlie Rose, think about all the people you've got working for you for free. Like you did the other day, you need to get on IRC every so often and ask your free staff what they need.

And go ahead with the adwords on the search page. Thousands will groan, a few strident types will announce forks that never get off the ground unless you count the single 400 MHz server they have over DSL, and a few helpful mirrors which nobody uses will go up. Don't worry about that. Nobody is going to jump ship. And you will need the money. And, you deserve it. You took the risk. If you don't get the foundation on its own legs, eventually some lawyer will come along and make things painful one way or another.

Please keep up the good work.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous fan (talkcontribs)

Hmm it would seem that increaseing the fondations liquid assets it a great way to make a laywer come along sooner.Geni 13:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually I'm in IRC virtually all waking hours when I'm not physically away from the computer. I am generally in #wikimedia, but if I'm not there, I'm just logged in to irc and not in any channel.--Jimbo Wales 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
As one of the free staff, I'm glad that Jimbo spends his time doing the stuff that only he can do, such as dealing with the press. As for what we need, it would help if people stopped reminding us about all the other things we should be doing instead of Wikipedia.  :) JamesMLane 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. A friend of mine asked me: "Don't you have a life outside of wikiepdia..?" I was flabbergasted by his question and honestly though he had gone insane. :) -ZeroTalk 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Rose

I'm actually going to tape a Charlie Rose show this week. As I understand it, though, this is some sort of special episode and not the normal show. Anyhow, they've also given me a standing interview to come in and be interviewed whenever I can get to New York. We almost arranged this last fall, but it fell through when Charlie had to leave town suddenly.--Jimbo Wales 09:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, great to hear that, I can't wait to see it! -- user:zanimum
Indeed, keep us updated as to the air time. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
If you have enough advance notice of a trip to NYC, and you'll have some time while you're here, you might drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC1 and we'll see if we can organize another meetup. JamesMLane 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


how do you feel about Queen? do you like them? Night at the Opera 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Not paticuarly. My prefernce lies with Japanese music, techno, opera, etc. -ZeroTalk 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal resubmittal procedure?

Hello Jimbo, what is the proper procedure for resubmitting a substantially updated yet same core proposal? It appears to me that some Wikipedia users are doing everything in their power to thwart and censor any debate, discussion, and voting of the Wikipedia:Conpiracy theory titles proposal and issue. User Radiant falsely claimed the proposal failed twice. Voting on version 1.0 of the proposal closed 6.5 months ago, two days ago Radiant and others speedy deleted Wikipedia:Title Neutrality (original location of version 2.0 of the proposal) right when voting was just beganing and after 4 months of refining the proposal from discussion on other talk pages. User Radiant even blantantly censored the existence of the vote by using his admin powers to rollback my edits to other user's talk pages informing them of the vote. And just now user Radiant moved version 2.0 of the proposal from Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles to my user namespace. Shouldn't Wikipedia encourage a debate and discussion of potential presentation neutrality violations rather than stifle them into oblivion? In my interpretation the "conspiracy theory" title issue is one area where the WP:NPOV policy is most important and relevant. The proposal can be found at User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles. zen master T 22:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Korean pride

Jimbo, I'm loggin out to tell you this so there's no chance that you'll get pised at me personally, but I think you messed up in blanking Korean pride. I saw the AfD discussion, and I understand WP:NOR, but if you please look at Talk:Korean pride#database of initial sources and reference, you can see that those guys were scrambing like mad to source the thing. I find nationalism distasteful, but I'd rather know about it than have it go on under the radar. Please give them at least another month or two to see if they can source their stuff. I think they will. 04:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Jimbo would get pissed off at you for having a difference of opinion with him regarding one of his actions. You've stated your criticism in a constructive manner, and I think you can safely take credit for your comment. Jacoplane 04:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, totally. I didn't do anything in that case that any other editor couldn't have done. I'm just saying: the article sucked and needs references. No need for anyone (least of all me) to agitated about it. You could try restoring it as it was, but I have a tiny little feeling that a fair number of editors have noticed it and will tend to agree with my thought, which is that an article with random unsourced meanderings on a concept that seems at _best_ to be borderline notable, ought to be trimmed down until it's at least sourced.--Jimbo Wales 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

... --Nikitchenko 11:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

blocking policy

There seems to be some dispute over at Wikipedia:Blocking policy regarding the correct exegesis of something you wrote regarding the blocking of plagiarists/copyright violators. I've protected it for the moment; if you could comment on the situation or edit the policy page or something, that would be most helpful. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mirv, the dispute isn't about what Jimbo said per se. It's about the wording of the section that allows admins to block over copyright disputes. Some editors, myself included, want to make sure that the section doesn't allow admins to block good-faith editors who simply disagree with them about an image's copyright status (where the status is unclear) as has been happening. Others fear altering the section will give more leeway to violators. The compromise below has been suggested on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Editors who repeatedly add to articles text that has been plagiarized, or images the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation — or where a formal complaint from the copyright holder has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation — may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy. In cases where an editor is acting in good faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked. However, when a formal complaint has been received by the Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, the editor's attempts to re-insert the material shall not be considered 'in good faith' even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable."

Well the dispute was initially over what Jimbo said, as the claim was made that he was not referring to copyright violation only plagiarism. After that was shown to be untrue the discussion shifted and now it appears to be becoming a forest fire. The policy says that users should be appropriate warned before being blocked, how does adjusting the policy to require action from a copyright holder before we can stop a user who persistently inserts material without appropriate copyright permissions act to protect users from inappropriate blocks or otherwise further the interests of Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have the debate, but there is no forest fire, and no attempt to adjust the copyright policy. We're debating only when editors may be blocked during a copyright (particularly a fair-use) dispute, and some of us are trying to build into the blocking policy a bit of protection for editors who are acting in good faith — so long as the copyright status is not clear, and so long as no one has complained. That tiny bit of protection is important, in my view. Good-faith editors tend to be reasonable people (almost by definition), and most disputes can therefore be sorted out without recourse to blocks or threats of blocks, which can make even reasonable people dig their heels in. Jimbo, if you're interested, the debate is going on at WP:AN#Blocking_over_fair-use_image_disputes and Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Now you're mischaracterizing the situation entirely, at least from my perspective. I look at your upload log which still has a large number of images claimed as PD which you obviously just grabbed off the web, even though you've been nagged about the copyright status of your uploads many times, and I am forced to realize that we need to be less tolerant of users who will willfully ignore our copyright policies, copyright law, and the goal of making this a Free encyclopedia. I've asked you to provide an example of where a user was inappropriately blocked for material that has turned out not to be a copyright violation, but you've yet to provide one. How can you expect other editors to see this is a problem when you have not produced a single example? Please provide one and I'll gladly work with you to find a version which prevents that problem but also continues to protect Wikipedia. ... but not matter what happens it simply isn't acceptable for us to have a policy of ignoring copyright problems until the copyright holder takes action, good faith editor or not. --Gmaxwell 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If I could pour some gasoline... Gmaxwell calls SlimVirgin hysterical; Gmaxwell calls Alkivar an ungrateful jerkwit; Gmaxwell tells Ambi to cite up or ship off; Gmaxwell remarks that PiccoloNamek is coming off with such arrogance; et cetera, etc. Or am I mischaracterizing? Perhaps a slightly more diplomatic orientation, some honest introspection, not to mention a dose of good ol' wikilove, might result in a dramatic improvement of the situation, all quotings/misquotings & policy issues notwithstanding. El_C 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear! I can't see how uncivilly harassing an editor in good standing does anything to protect Wikipedia from copyright problems. The PD images Greg refers to are the products of animal rights organisations who want their images to be spread as widely as possible. They've told Slim they have no problem with their being used. The PD thing was raised some time ago and it seems the organisation concerned don't even understand what the problem is, let alone are girding their loins for a legal action. In any case, blocking editors who are involved in a good-faith dispute is not necessarily protecting Wikipedia, because the simple truth is that Greg can be wrong. I do think the caution over copyright is merited, and I commend those editors who are working in the best interests of WP but I don't think any purpose is solved by crusading against particular editors. I hope Greg will take El C's excellent advice and take a step back, a deep breath and maybe a nice cup of tea. Grace Note 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No, actually most of the photos are of other things, for example Image:Trinity_gate.jpg is a copyright vio lation from here. There are also a lot of cases were people have followed her around cleaning up her tags. .. but the situation remains that the majority of her images are tagged wrong when she uploads them even though many people have complained at many times. There are quite a few other such images but because we are unable to prevent her from violating copyright on the project without her threatening to leave, our hands are basically tied. --Gmaxwell 08:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Greg, we don't harass other users for "tagging things wrong". The system of tags is relatively complex and some editors just might not grasp it as well as you. Has that never occurred to you? So editors follow SV and fix her tags? Hello? That's the way the wiki's supposed to work. And, Greg, tone it down, man. If this was an article, I'd be editing "many" into "some" at best. One wonders also whether you've trawled through all of Slim's images to check whether the majority were in your opinion wrongly tagged when she uploaded them. That's a lot of pictures, and that kind of effort, I think, answers to your question infra. As for the "numerous problem images", perhaps you'd be willing to email me a list; the email on my userpage works. I don't mind fixing Slim's edits and I daresay I can find a kinder way to discuss it with her than you're taking. And Greg, it's not who's been blocked previously, it's who might be in future that is the bigger concern. -- Grace Note.
Grace, reading you comment again... I wanted to ask where there has been crusading against particular users in regard to copyright violation? I've avoided bugging SV about her numerous problem images because I don't want anyone to feel that someone is out to get them personally on the matter.. I only brought them up here (which was the first time) because I'm very concerned that we're giving voice in the discussion of how to handle users who flagrantly disregard their copyright obligations to someone who has, in effect, flagrantly disregarded her copyright obligations. I find it amusing that people have time to walk through my contribs and find a few cases where I've been harsh, yet are unable to find examples of users incorrect blocked over a copyright claim, or places where I've claimed an image was a violation and it wasn't... yet they still feel perfectly comfortable claiming it so. --Gmaxwell 09:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate it if you would stop the ad hominem comments, especially here where I'm unable to respond. I've deleted the image of Trinity College, not because it was wrongly tagged, but because it was orphaned. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Where else should I? You remove threads from your user talk page.. In any case, I think it's material that the person complaining that the blocking policy is unfair has a huge number of copyright violations herself. You said the image was not wrongly tagged, please explain this. I can't imagine what justifies that claim, since it was a modern photograph you pulled off someone elses website at tagged as PD. I'm glad you deleted it since it may actually be the first example of you correcting your own copyright violation, but there are a lot of other images that you've uploaded which you need to fix. --Gmaxwell 09:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
El_C, thanks for providing citations with your complaints. SV called the attempt remove the copyright violating image from her user page "hysteria" first [13] which caused me to reuse the word in my reply which you cited. After she complained, I apologised [14] because it was rude of me even so. Let me quote what Alkivar said about your comment in response to the trolling on the pro-Daniel Brandt forum: "you fools seriously need to get a fucking life and stop nitpicking over everybody's statements. Go out and get some fresh air.". Both Alkivar and I were overly harsh and haste in the situation and have mutually apologised. I still stand my position that the users who drove Rl off the project with their pack behavior need to either behave or leave, I'm glad they've chosen to behave. ... I think your selection of the Ambi quote was a bit odd, she accused me of saying something I hadn't said, I asked her to provide a citation or leave my talkpage alone, so she left my talk page alone. As far as User:PiccoloNamek goes, he and I get along fine and I'm sure if I asked about it he'd write a comment like Alkivar's above. If this is the worse you can find, I'm doing better than I thought. --Gmaxwell 08:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Gmaxwell, I did not know that forum existed until today, so I am unable to comment on Alkivar's "fresh air" or your "trolling" comment; this may or may not be the worse I could find, but that regretfuly presupposes I was looking for the worse (at the event, the cites were already compiled in that post); by extension, that forum might be anti-wp, still, diffs don't lie. Simply put, my concern, chiefly, is with the mode of expression, and what strikes me as an aggressive attitude. Regards, El_C 08:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Let the good vibes role

I find it interesting that GMaxwell's bot tags the free use image I have on my user page the same day as I commented the above (same day). El_C 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as free use. Perhaps the image was tagged because you misunderstood fair use? -- Pakaran 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Free use images or Conditional use images "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that it is..." El_C 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't realize that. I'm sorry for my tone. I guess I've gotten a bit annoyed with the number of users acting in disregard of copyrights, but in the case of the Che image in question, I think our use is exactly what the creator had in mind. -- Pakaran 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Gah, likewise. This isn't at all truning out like I hoped. Not to say that I feel the slightest guilt using Wikipedia as a webshot! ;) El_C 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The image is tagged as {{bookcover}} that's a fair use license tag. What the bot does is tag images that use fair use license tags (regardles of what other tags they might contain) when they are not used in articles, so no big mystery there. Remove the bookcover tag and you won't hear from the bot again. --Sherool (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I mistook the date, actually; yes, point taken, and apologies extended to GMaxwell. Thanks for your help. El_C 17:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While I stand by my apology wrt to mistaking the date, I think it would be a useful feature of the bot to inform users a picture was tagged. El_C 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted, sorry for any confusion. Gmaxwell 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
As an extension of my response above...I don't execute any control over the individual images that get tagged. The source code for the image selection is already available to toolserver users (and anyone else who asks for that matter). Generally I tag images in batches of a few hundred to a few thousand and only perform a spot check of a dozen images to make sure nothing major has changed out from under me. There are a few corner cases where a free image shares a fair use tag, ... if I ever find more than three or four of these I might make forks of the bookcover, screenshot, cdcover, etc tags which indicate that the material is not fair use, but since there are so few it isn't really worth it. As far as notifying users: since the *vast* majority of the tagged images are completely orphaned, I am concerned that notification beyond watchlists may just cause additional unnecessary confusion. Since the bulk of the uploaders are not even active, and a human reviews all images prior to deletion, I'm not sure what the gain would be. ... I'd rather handle problems by restoring anything uncorrectly deleted on demand. --Gmaxwell 22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in light of that, I see how that approach makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain it comprehensively. Regards, El_C 22:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Petition to the W3C

To: Tim Berners-Lee, Director, World Wide Web Consortium; Senior Researcher, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

With copy to and in care of Ian Jacobs, Head of W3C Communications and Organizer, Conference on Computing Sciences.

Request for Indemnification

Whereas, the official mission of the World Wide Web Consortium includes the goals of:

  • A Web for Everyone, to enable human communication and opportunities to share knowledge for all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability, and
  • A Web on Everything, with information for human and machine processing; and

Whereas, the Wikimedia Foundation, through Wikipedia and her sister projects, has furthered those goals to an extent far beyond the work of any other not-for-profit organization; and

Whereas, the Wikimedia Foundation, as an open community, may be vulnerable to legal attacks from malicious and defective participation such as hoaxes, vandalism, and fraud; and

Whereas, the World Wide Web Consortium, with its vast membership, wealthy supporting organizations, and powerful collaborators in government and industry is capable of providing the means with which to indemnify the Wikimedia Foundation against legal attacks for causes that are no fault of the Foundation; be it then

Resolved, therefore, that we the undersigned request that the World Wide Web Consortium please consider arranging the legal indemnification of the Wikimedia Foundation against actions arising from causes such as libel, slander, negligence, copyright infringement, patent infringement, exposure of trade secrets, aiding and abetting, or conspiracy related to such actions.

If you support this request, please add your wikisig here:

--James S. 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As a webhost, Wikipedia is already immune to proceedings for its content, provided it acts to correct them with all due speed when informed of them. Good luck anyway, but I doubt any e-petition would cause anyone to change their minds about much of anything. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And getting indemnified by somebody with deep pockets doesn't necessarily seem like such a great idea anyway... it would probably encourage people to sue about any real or imagined offense they held Wikipedie responsible for. *Dan T.* 02:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hadn't thought of that. Back to the drawing board....
Partial solution: indeminfication would work, at least once, as long as it were a secret. The downside being that the first real lawsuit might expose such a secret. --James S. 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this true (being immune if acting on complaints in a reasonable time) in Europe as well as the U.S.? --James S. 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak to European Law, but in US law that is true. The common carrier exception basically says that those providing an open communication service to others are not liable for abuses committed by the users of that service as long as that the provider of the service acts is a responsible and prompt manner to address abuses when notified of their existence. Dragons flight 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I would expect the law to be the same in Europe, but I doubt anyone could get the standing to sue Wikipedia from outside America anyway. Wikimedia is incorporated in the U.S., so as a web service, at worst it might have to move one or two of its servers (most of which are also in the U.S.). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wheel warring inquiry

  • From December 27 to December 30 of 2005, Marsden was blocked/unblocked a total of 13 times. This series of blocks was preceeded by an indefinite block on him on December 15 by Snowspinner. Note that Snowspinner placed no message on Marsden's talk page, nor did he place any template on his user page. From that block on December 15 forward, Marsden made exactly one edit outside of his talk page. Despite this, Marsden became the subject of a wheel war. At the tail end of this wheel war, Snowspinner decided to reverse his decision and give Marsden "One last chance". It was following this unblocking that Marsden made his last edit (and only outside of his talk page since the 15th). Following this last edit, you decided to block him once again, stating that Snowspinner was right. See log of blocks against Marsden. Snowspinner himself reversed his decision, yet you thought it proper to undo his reversal. Were you anybody else, the knee-jerk reaction by the people in this wheel war would see a continuance of the wheel warring. I think it would have been much better if you'd taken a hands off approach and let the problem work its way out. You could have suggested to the wheel warring admins what they should be doing to resolve the problem, and then let them resolve it. Instead, a hammer was applied with Marsden as the victim. You usurped the will and actions of the admins that were attempting (however imperfectly) to resolve the situation. Because you are who you are, this was essentially just another form of wheel warring. You had more power to enact a block simply by who you are; you knew it would stick (and it has..he hasn't been unblocked). I don't view your contributions here on this Wikipedia as being any more or less significant than the first time user making their first edit. From that perspective, your block of Marsden is simply a continuance of the wheel war. Marsden has every right to be quite angry with all of you who have engaged in this war. Whether he was guilty of whatever sin or not, the treatment of him was terrible, and any editors viewing it rightfully concerned about the abuse of powers that happened.
  • If you want wheel warring to stop, then take a public stand; change blocking policy to state admins may not undo the blocks of other admins. Any admins violating this will be blocked for (x) time. ArbCom is so far rejecting the wheel war case before it 3-0. Admins are getting a free pass to engage in wheel warring.
  • Others have noted that you take a hands off approach with respect to other language Wikipedias. This most likely is due to language barriers, which is certainly reasonable. I think you should be taking the same approach to this language Wikipedia. By your own admission, you do not use admin powers frequently. Are you truly familiar with the current norms and customs of Wikipedia and able to use your admin privileges in appropriate ways? I routinely check myself for accuracy in using admin privileges and I use them far more frequently than you do. Wikipedia is your baby certainly. But, if Wikipedia is to evolve, you have to let go. Anybody truly devoted to this project hopes Wikipedia is around long past any of us still breathes. If you don't let go and allow Wikipedia to grow without your hands involved in micromanagement aspects, it will be doomed to fail. Your time is precious. You're the one with the vision. I can appreciate the desire to keep your finger in the pie, to keep your hand on the pulse of the project. But, CEOs of a large company are very rarely found trying to figure out a shipping problem down at the loading dock. This is roughly the equivalent of what you did in blocking Marsden. Whatever solution you come up with, right or wrong from the perspective of the people in the trenches, is the one that is going to stick. Nobody's going to be foolish enough to cross swords with the CEO. Well, I'm being so foolish. What you did was wrong. It was out of process, harmful to all of us, and as a result detrimental to the project. Sure, you can be Patton standing at a crossroads being a traffic control cop. But, nine times out of ten such an action is wasting your time and detrimentally affecting the rest of us who get on with the day to day duties of an admin.
  • I also take issue with a posting you made a day after your block of Marsden [15]. In that post, you note "norms and traditions". This is very akin to words I have heard recently from some ArbCom members who noted that policy isn't what is written down; it is common sense and understanding of the way we've always done things. Your post, along with ArbCom's words on this matter, have essentially invalidated policy; it is now meaningless. WP:IAR liberally applied is the only thing that matters now. Common sense isn't common. Wikipedia is a global effort. The sun never sets on contributors to There are people from a dizzying array of cultures, nations and religions all making contributions here. What you think is common sense, from an American living in Florida, isn't likely to be common sense to an Indian living in Gujarat or an Australian living in New South Wales. I'm not in favor of processes hamstringing our ability to act. But, in a community this large (and no matter how much some people insist the community isn't important, it's fundamental) we must have some sense of structure for people from so many backgrounds to be able to effectively work towards a common goal.
  • I am making no exaggeration in noting there is a very large number of people who are very depressed with the state that Wikipedia is in with regards to these issues in general. You can view my talk page to see comments left by some to this effect. I have made contributions noting this problem here and [16]. Work has just begun to attempt to coalesce a number of aspects of this problem into a coherent catalyst for change [17], [18]. There is quite a bit more work that needs to be done. Very worthy editors are leaving the project with strong dissatisfaction about the current state of affairs. Few, if any, seem to care.
  • The stratification of editors must stop. Every one of us started with just one edit. There are no mechanisms to evaluate based on one edit whether an editor is going to be pivotal to the future of 1,000 articles or turn into a hopeless vandal. Yet, we treat new users like crap on a routine basis; their words matter less, their contributions to various debates are viewed with cynicism, and the old hands frequently view them as being subjects to their rule rather than equal participants in a grand project. I know of a new user (MikeGasser) who is a newcomer to this project. His userpage outlines his areas of expertise and knowledge background. I know him; not on a personal level but I know him. He is brilliant and very well regarded within his field. This man can (and already has begun to) make massive contributions to this project. Yet, if he were treated as poorly as some newcomers have been treated here by "old hands", he would leave and take his knowledge with him. Our newcomers are our lifeblood. We must be ever vigilant to support them, care for them, and treat them with due respect. We must be careful to fairly and equitably admonish those who work against this ethic. Yet, right now, crushing the hapless newbie seems a sport rather than a despised activity.
  • I could go on for a while, on many other topics that I feel need to be addressed. Forgive me for rambling, and thanks for listening. --Durin 02:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please review my response to NicholasTurnbull (has not responded) regarding Talrias' actions. El_C 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of good points here. We need to emphasize structure and process. Hundreds of admins acting independently, without a firm set of rules to guide and restrict them, along with an informal admin hierarchy (I've gotta be somewhere near the bottom)'re left with a few users who have power that is almost unlimited. We don't have rules to follow, we have an elite group of admins to avoid irritating. That's just a basic assessment of the problem. A mature system has got to have a developed structure, has got to limit the power of individuals and invest it in collective decision-making with all the stuff that gets decided written down clearly enough that everyone is basically following the same rules, guided by the same thinking (although conflicts will always arise over particular matters of interpretation—the point is to keep it manageable and within a framework). We have a tremendous problem around here in that there's a way of thinking that prevails among the people who basically run the site (although not, as far as I have seen, among Wikipedians in general) that runs completely counter to all that—it's focused on flexibility, individual decision-making, quick and decisive action. There's a strong attachment to that theoretical mode; I couldn't tell you why exactly the attachment is so strong. But the fact is that it's an ideology that increasingly fails at the same rate as growth—this is not new, it's the same old story wherever you go. There is a correct way to develop a system administratively, a correct general way of thinking to guide it, which has been worked out in practice innumerable times—plenty enough that we shouldn't be having to fight over it any more. We need to just throw out that unworkable thinking. We've got battles breaking out all the time, and there's only going to be more, because that thinking becomes even more unworkable as we continue to grow. I'm speaking in very general terms here, but what I'm basically saying is there needs to be a focused shift away from individual decision-making, manifested in specific actions, towards collective decision-making, manifested in policy and process. Everyking 09:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Your titles include:

You have so many that you may or can give some title to other to encourge them, just my opinionAstorknlam 18th January 2006 (UTC)

I find it a bit intimidating. A little modesty, Jimbo, come on. Everyking 09:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You forgot: "Editor". --LV (Dark Mark) 14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Benevolent dictator ;-) Ericd 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Founder, co-founder, or neither?

Many people seem to say that Jimbo is the founder of Wikipedia. Although I am inclined to believe them due to the credibility of those that make that assertion (including Jimbo himself), I cannot see their point.

To determine whether somebody is a founder or not, we must look at only the question of who started Wikipedia, and nothing afterwords. Consider this hypothetical example to demonstrate this point. Let's say that Person A starts a small Coffee shop Company A. The coffee shop has one store and has very modest profits, and eventually is forced to sell. Let's say that Person B buys Company A and builds Company A into a global Coffee empire with hundreds of stores. Even though the contributions to Company A of Person A may be deemed insignificant relative to the contributions of Person B, Person B would be the sole founder of Company A, by definition, since Person A actually started the company. It is likewise with Wikipedia. Wikipedia could not have been what it is today without Jimmy Wales. But that is irrelavent; we must consider only what happened at the very beginning to determine who the founder is.

Now, if I understand the facts correctly (please correct me if I do not),

You have several facts wrong, actually. The wiki itself was first proposed by Jeremy Rosenfeld, later by Larry Sanger. I did not fight against it, but instead had been fighting precisely *for* exactly this sort of system for a very long time, constantly pressuring Larry to radically simplify the Nupedia system. I did the physical setup of the wiki, and made the first edits. I assigned Larry to work on it.

Larry Sanger started Wikipedia. He had the idea, he built the Wiki, and he created the policies. Jimbo Wales actually fought against the idea of creating Wikipedia. Some people assert that Jimbo Wales should be considered the founder of Wikipedia since his company, Bomis, financed it. The argument goes that Sanger's contributions were irrelavent since he was working under Bomis.

Absolutely no one says that Sanger's contributions were irrelevant. I have myself said many times, and in many places, that I think that Larry's contributions are not highly valued enough.

However, this logic does not work anywhere else in human society. For instance, let's try applying this logic to the invention of the transistor. The transistor was invented by William Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain, working under the direction of the AT&T management. Because they were working at AT&T, does this mean that they were not really the founders of a new era of electronics, and instead, the management of AT&T was? If so, why was the nobel price awarded to the three men that invented the transistor, rather than to the CEO of AT&T?

Even if we were going to discard the arguments of the previous paragraph, the argument that people state is that Jimbo Wales was the founder of Wikipedia because he financed its operations. Fine. But Jimbo Wales did not finance the operations of Wikipedia - his company Bomis did. And Bomis was run by Tim Shell as well as Jimbo Wales. So then wouldn't Tim Shell and Jimbo Wales then both be co-founders of Wikipedia?

So according to my logic, Larry Sanger is the sole founder of Wikipedia. Obviously, this logic has to be wrong, as people much more intelligent than me think differently. Can somebody please point out the flaw to my thinking? Thanks, Where (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Founder" is a word, just like any other. It has no inherent truth to it. Rather, the word is useful for some purpose. We call someone a founder because we want a figure of authority to make final decisions and to lead us according to a singular grand design. When we claim that a front-man founded an institution, that gives him virtually unquestionable authority over the undertaking. Until we have the programming in place to make Wikipedia a society of equals, the strength of the project relies on our belief that Jimbo is unquestionably altruistic and has a vision greater than any of us can see. We must believe that he is the founder. *Peace Inside 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a new religious movement. Jonathunder 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
From a non-religious standpoint you could say that Jimbo has physical control over all "truth" at Wikipedia, and Jimbo says he's the founder. Either way, there's no useful reason to question the truth espoused by any authority at Wikipedia except when it conflicts with the truth of someone higher. *Peace Inside 20:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a very interesting discussion. I think it may be more useful to have it at Talk:Jimbo Wales, however. That would be the usual place to discuss whether our article is correct. Johntex\talk 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
We should question Jimbo's word if it seems to contradict the truth. There is no higher authority than truth. And Meriam-Webster dictionary defines founder as "one that founds or establishes." Note that this definition is not "an authoritative individual," as PeaceInside seems to suggest. Where (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I never suggested that Meriam-Webster defines "founder" as "an authoritative individual," and I would never think to use such a summarized resource. Webster Unabridged defines "founder" as "One who founds, establishes, and erects; one who lays a foundation; an author; one from whom anything originates; also, one who endows." *Peace Inside 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The definition that you gave describes Sanger, not Jimmy, as per the logic above. I am considering replacing all references to Sanger as the co-founder as the "founder" and removing all references to Jimmy Wales as the founder or co-founder. What do you think about this? Where (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for that when a few words from Sanger can raise over $300,000 in two weeks. Remember that in a relative universe, "truth" is what we find useful. *Peace Inside 23:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
So we should make stuff up to suit our purposes? Where (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to break this to you, but that's all an encyclopedia is: people making stuff up to serve a purpose. The definitions of these words aren't some eternal truth. They're terms we find useful for conveying large amounts of data in concise phrases or single words. For the phrase "founder of Wikipedia," we find it useful to have a good looking, articulate guy who has lots of servers, can raise lots of money, and who inspires people to work together. If you want to justify this by what some other authoritative figure said, simply refer to Webster's definition of "founder." Based on Jimbo's previous websites, who can argue that he "erects" and "endows" Wikipedia? *Peace Inside 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? So the United States of America was made up to serve a purpose? As for dictionary definitions, they are not an "eternal truth". But when you use a word, you need to go by the definition that exists in the language. Otherwise, I could say that "Ariel Sharon founded Wikipedia" by redefining founded to mean "to have absolutely no role in". If you use a language, you have to use words by their proper meanings. I reiterate that you cannot just make stuff up to serve a purpose. People just want to help Wikipedia and they would donate as long as they were aware of the oppertunity to do so (thus, if the request was on the top of the page). Everything that you said in the definition about Jimbo can apply to Sanger. So at the very most, wouldn't Jimbo only be a co-founder and not a founder? Also, there are many users that "erect" and "endow" Wikipedia presently. Maybe we should start calling several hundred Wikipedians "founders"? Where (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to base who the founder is on the words "erect" and "endow," I'm sure that the members of Jimbo's previous website can testify that he is most qualified. *Peace Inside 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not prescriptivist and does not rule on the meanings of words. Since there appears to be a dispute about what the word found means in this case, we should note the dispute and note the facts behind each side of the case. The term is too vague for there to be any single right answer—yes, it would also be not illogical to say that the first x contributors were "founders". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

All words are prescriptivist. Someone, somewhere prescribed a meaning to them. Disputes aren't about the "truth" of meanings because there is no absolute truth about the meanings of words. Disagreements are only about which prescription we want to follow. In cases like WP:Consensus, the writers of the article didn't follow any existing prescription; they just made up their own. WP:Consensus means supervised super-majority. It doesn't have anything to do with consensus as defined by other resources, but that doesn't stop administrators and bureaucrats from redefining reality based on their own whims. Wikipedia is the world according to Jimbo. If he wants to be defined as founder of his world, that's what is going to happen. Nobody here has the social or the physical ability to define "founder," "consensus," or any of a hundred thousand other parts of our reality against the will of the very few people who control this resource. It's set up this way for a reason. *Peace Inside 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Lewis Carroll said it best about a century and a half ago when he had Humpty Dumpty say "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." *Dan T.* 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You make some good points, but I wouldn't spend too much more time arguing with a sockpuppet. Happy editing! Carbonite | Talk 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Peace, even though this is a non-profit corporation, Wikimedia Foundation is still a corporation. Why should we expect to have more control over content here than at any other incorporated business? --KIMP (spewage) 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand the meaning of prescriptivist if you think that "all words are prescriptivist". Words can't be prescriptivist; only people and ideas can be. According to the prescriptivist outlook, words such as founder should be used according to their "real meaning", which is defined by some authoritative source like a dictionary. According to the descriptivist outlook, words mean what they're generally used to mean, not what any individual or entity says they mean, and words should be used as they're generally used. The goal is to convey meaning as efficiently as possible, not to obey the rules. If different people understand founder differently, the meaning needs to be clarified. The Wales/Sanger debate about the term is notable enough to include anyway.

As for the fact that Jimbo can decide if he wants, no kidding. Thing is, he hasn't, to my knowledge. Even if he had, there'd be no reason not to try to convince him otherwise. Your objections to this post to Jimbo's talk page don't make sense. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you will get much of a response out of Peace Inside. Jimbo blocked him for a week for "trolling." A couple of Sicherheitspolizei made it permanent, accusing him of "sockpuppetry." [19] I'm sure Peace Inside must be guilty of "trolling" and "sockpuppety." If he weren't, there must be a way for him to prove his innocence, right? I've been looking around and I can't seem to find that policy. How exactly would one go about proving his or her innocence of "trolling" and "sockpuppetry?" I guess it doesn't matter, our leaders would never do anything questionable. --KIMP (spewage) 02:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal help

Hi, I work in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. I contact various admins and ISPs about violation of Wikipedia (and all languages, Wikimedia Commons, etc.). I noticed that various ISPs required signatures, e-mail, and telephone address of trademark/copyrights owner, which is basically you, according to the WHOIS, etc. For example, one site was hosted by Yahoo! and a e-mail to Yahoo! returned this:


Yahoo! respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask our
users to do the same. Yahoo! may, in appropriate circumstances and at
its discretion, disable and/or terminate the accounts of users who may
be infringing the intellectual property rights of others.

If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes
trademark infringement, or your intellectual property rights have been
otherwise violated, please provide Yahoo!'s Copyright Agent the
following information:

1. an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act
on behalf of the owner of the trademark or other intellectual property

2. a description of the trademarked work or other intellectual property
that you claim has been infringed;

3. a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is
located on the site;

4. your address, telephone number, and email address;

5. a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the
disputed use is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property
owner, its agent, or the law;

6. a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above
information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the trademark or
intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the trademark or
intellectual property owner's behalf.

Yahoo!'s Agent for Notice of claims of trademark or other intellectual
property infringement can be reached as follows:

How can you help us? Thank you. -- WB 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales isn't the copyright holder. Those who made edits to the article are. I suggest that when you encounter a violation, you find the primary author(s) of the article(s) in question and ask them to grant you the indefinite right to act on their behalf in requesting the takedown of copyrighted material. I'll be the first one to do so: I authorize you to act on my behalf in any manner pertaining to DMCA takedown requests. That should be good enough for those handful of articles that I've contributed nontrivally to. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
What about the address, phone number etc.? I think we should have a template to reply to these. If anyone can help, help us at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. It's really inactive right now... -- WB 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The address, telephone number, and e-mail address have to be yours, not Jimbo's, according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which, of course, is what the Yahoo! message is working under). You just need his, or someone's, physical or digital signature. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since Jimbo must have made edits to at least one articles, and most mirrors have all the articles copied, Jimbo counts as a copyright holder as well. And since Jimbo is rather well known and his address/phone number is publicly available through WHOIS, and it is easy to verify his identity, I think it would be easier if Jimbo can help us with this. -- WB 00:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. All you have to do is swear under penalty of perjury, and they'll take it down unless the one who put it up makes a counterclaim. It's all procedure. But good luck anyway.  :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page for the sake of simplicity etc. Looks like Jimbo's not responding. (he has been online since this message was posted) -- WB 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
We do have the authority to act against GFDL violations, as well as copyright violations of Wikimedia logos. Why isn't the class action site taken down yet? It clearly infringes on Wikipedia's trademark and copyright. Even though I hate the DMCA, and probably many do too, (although we could use 1977 copyright laws if we wanted) I do not see any problem using eye for an eye in this case. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean you hate DMCA and we have to use eye for an eye? DMCA ultimately allows us to protect the contents in the Wikipedia with the right licenses. Any copyrights related event will require a legal action anyways. Especially the big hosting companies like Yahoo! -- WB 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

E-mail regarding Xed's ArbCom vote

Hi Jimbo! I wrote you an e-mail a few days ago regarding Xed's ArbCom case, which has now been closed. If you received the e-mail and read it, could I please get a reply? If you haven't received it, then please write back on this talk page because I'll send it again. I really hope you can clarify the issue for me. Thanks, Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 08:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom indecision

They can not even decide if to accept the case or not:


It is time they would decide and that the article nakba would be made NPOV s policy require.

Zeq 09:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFD#Category:Living people

This category has been nominated for deletion. Demi T/C 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I see living people

In response to the creation of Category:Living people, I have produced a list of articles which have a birth category but not a death category. Thanks for popping into IRC this morning to bring attention to this interesting challenge. I hope people find the list useful. I will continue to update it if there is interest, and I welcome further suggestions on how to improve it or make use of it... --Gmaxwell 16:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Logo you were the missing piece.png --FML IconSP.jpg hi me at pt 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Living people CfD

Hi there, please do not blank other peoples comments on talk pages and the CfD discussion. The people on that discussion have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and have made valid points and alternative solutions. Thanks/wangi 20:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re explaining the delay. However I feel that the points raised in the discussion are still valid and important ones, and therefore should not be blanked. The vast majority are constructive, and those that weren't I did not add back to the page. Thanks/wangi 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we have a discussion instead of you reverting me? - I'm sure you understand this can be taken both ways :) I'm reverting because I think the discussion you have removed is already a good discussion, and a very good basis for continuing the discussion. Ta/wangi 21:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your block of User:Peace Inside

I noticed that you blocked Peace_Inside (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for a week. According to Carbonite (talk · contribs), this user is a sock puppet of Zephram_Stark (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who is currently serving a six-month ban as a result of his arbitration case. Other sock puppets he has created (Fred_Veraxamin (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Go_Cowboys (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Jamal_al_din (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Pandora_Rodriguez (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Peter_McConaughey (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and Rudolf_Nixon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) have been blocked indefinitely, so I urge you to reconsider your block of PI, since I think PI should also be blocked indef. as per the above sock puppets. --TML1988 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Please do not blank active discussions - this has been proven in the past to be completely fruitless. You are also verging very close to a 3RR... remember that cfds do run for several days so you have a bit of time to discuss et al. if need be (which doesn't include blanking other opinions). You can always take it to WP:DRV afterwards if you think the outcome was incorrect. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the entire CfD was totally invalid from the start. This CfD will not run for several days because instead of doing a CfD discussion, we are going to have a real discussion of the underlying issues, a thoughtful discussion without voting, in an attempt to educate people about the underlying problem here and how to solve it.
I moved the comments to a place where they can easily be access for those who care. And I'm strongly protesting against the idea that a bunch of uninformed votes to delete is the right way to do anything around here. --Jimbo Wales 22:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response but I think you are underestimating the effect this has. For example, at the moment there are revert wars raging on across multiple pages because people are trying to add this category to them and others are disagreeing rather strongly. I think it is important to rememeber that CfD et al. is what we make of it - it is generally not a vote (that's why we have DRV et al.) and despite some of the uninformed people who never check back there are plenty of people like me who engage in active discussion on it and can quickly "turn the tide of the vote" per se. So, while I share your concern about the lack of a thoughtful discussion I believe you could have easily have had the discussion right there... WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, stop and think

Jimbo, please stop. Take a break, go outside, something. Your constant reversion/moving of comments on this subject is having a ripple effect far beyond the harm of any CfD discussion ("not a vote"). You've spent five years helping build this project, yes, but when you do things by fiat you not only do not necessarily have the community's backing, but you can actively turn it against you.

I'm sure you've got legal threats, nasty emails and screaming phone calls running you down about "what Wikipedia says about Joe Blow". What would have been the harm of proposing this idea, exploring metadata options, and then going forward? You may have the authority to do this (I'm too new to know for sure), but it's emphasizing the heirarchical nature of the project to a degree that many may find intolerable. And you'll NEVER get the chance to convince them otherwise, if they leave because of your edit. You're not just "another editor" in this case, no other editor has the authority to unilaterally close a CfD. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually and in fact sir/ma'am, you do. From a certain point of view, you own the entire wiki, and may do with it as you wish. This is the essence of Ignore all rules. Don't get drunk on your newly found power though, as other people also own the wiki from this perspective (it's shared ownership). You do need to take their feelings and thoughts into account, but that is all. The latter can be achieved through a process called consensus. Kim Bruning 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Newly found power? I don't think I did anything outside the normal bounds of our processes. If it isn't customary to say "No, actually, we're not going to have a pointless CfD discussion instead of a genuine discussion about how to resolve an actual problem" then we're so much the poorer for it.--Jimbo Wales 00:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree that we may be poorer for it, but no one else has your authority to declare CFD's pointless. No one, absolutely no one else has the authority to "impose it from top down" as you did. I honestly do not understand the pretense at egalitarianism. I don't have a horse in this race so to speak, except in as far that I was honestly shocked at what happened. I am not disputing your authority, or your good intentions. I do object to the glossing over of this unilateral exercise of authority as merely what anyone can do. Any other user/admin/arbcomm would have been banned for deleting a CFD in progress. I think Wikipedia needs a clear line of authority and you are obviously at the top. If you reserve the right to overrule matters that is obviously your privilege, but lets be open about it. I really think that you should restore the archived CFD section, since you have now removed it from the talk page and I don't see what harm it did. But I will leave this topic so as to avoid doing further violence to deceased equines. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've consistently been able to do things like this up to quite recently actually. You should be able to do it too. Though take note that you do have to have very clear, very sane reasons for doing so. You are just as in charge as Nae'blis or I. :-) Kim Bruning 04:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually that was in answer to Nae'blis. :-) (S)he has more power on the wiki than (s)he thinks. Kim Bruning 00:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
No one has authority to call bullshit on the silly political games anymore, except for you Jimbo. Anyone else that tries is branded enemy of the Wiki (which results in things like the most of the oppose votes against Kelly Martin for arbcom). There have been few good cases of such actions in recent memory, and too many bad cases which resulted in administrative access being revoked. As a result users now have the impression that Wikipedia is a game of nomic which they can win if only they play by the right rules.--Gmaxwell 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Nomic rules are almost always changed through democratic voting. Voting can't really be called democratic if votes are visible to all while they are being cast because it biases the outcome in two ways: votes are sold for favors and you get a bandwagon effect during the voting process. --KIMP (spewage) 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact on wikipedia you're not really supposed to vote at all, though some processes do superficially resemble voting. (You've already noticed how polls resemble open votes :-) ) Kim Bruning 04:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Nomic starts with really basic two tiered voting but anything can be changed.. if you haven't played nomic through to the point where voting is no longer possible or to where it can't even be converted back to the orignal game then you haven't really played nomic. In any case, my point is that users are taking the procedures and rules to be more important than the projects goals... and it just so happens that when a wiki does that, it looks a lot like some advanced game of nomic. --Gmaxwell 05:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From the living persons debate

That is such an regrettable comment. Wikipedia belongs legally to a non-profit foundation and in practice to the huge number of people who have contributed because they believe it is of benefit to society. I certainly don't contribute because I want to offer gifts to Jimbo. If I did, right now, I'd feel like a sucker. Osomec 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misunderstood some facts. I can't really imagine why anyone would feel like a sucker. I moved a discussion from an inappropriate place to an appropriate place, and people are acting like I'm Hitler. I did found a nonprofit charitable effort to build an encyclopedia and give it to the world, and I have devoted every waking moment of the past 5 years of my life to thoughtfully assisting others in every way that I can to realize our shared dreams. Probably our old adage of 'Assume Good Faith' could be extended to me for a few minutes now and then, eh?--Jimbo Wales 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I do appreciate your role, but the other user was wrong to say that wikipedia is yours. It would be nice to see you trying to win people round by explaining why this is supposed to work, responding to the serious criticisms raised, and hopefully modifying the suggestion. Osomec 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
As the other user in question, I am open to correction. But as I see it, wikipedia is administered by the foundation which is administered by Jimbo. It is clearly his. He makes the rules. Is that in question? --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if the "Hitler" reference above causes Godwin's Law to apply? It's a rather unusual context, however, in that Jimbo was accusing others of acting like he's Hitler rather than the more common context of implying that one's enemies are the Hitlers. *Dan T.* 03:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


I find it very strange that anyone (anyone!) would accuse me of not thinking user contribution is valuable and not allowing dissent. Check your premises, my friend.

I was not trying to accuse you of anything of the sort. I am and was assuming good faith. I was trying to point out that the effect of blanking out the archived cfd was IMO a diminution in users ability to contribute and dissent. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My purpose here is to encourage a productive positive discussion. The CfD was totally invalid from the start, period. I am not acting differently from any other editor with good sense. There are important issues to be discussed about how to deal with a serious problem, and CfD is absolutely not where we are going to have that discussion.

I don't dispute your motives, and on several levels I agree that the CFD was precipitous. But your exercise of authority went far beyond what any other editor, admin, sysop, arbcomm member would be capable of. All of us see articles, CFD's and other things that we deem invalid. None of us are able to decree that they are "invalid, period" despite whatever reasoned arguments are available. I am just trying to point out that by this series of actions, you have clearly set yourself as far apart and distinctly above ordinary wikipedia users/admins/etcetera. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after months of erosion, I think jimbo reset the standard as to how much power ordinary users can wield back where to it should be. It's going to be fun following his example. Kim Bruning 23:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should block JohnDO for trolling too. [20] --KIMP (spewage) 23:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how he's trolling. I think he's mistaken on several levels. I think there are many editors who could and should do exactly this sort of thing. If something is inappropriately placed on CfD minutes after being created, by a respected user, with no discussion, I certainly hope we've got enough mutual respect and NOT so much of a mob mentality, that a sensible person can simply remove it and say: no, let's discuss it first.--Jimbo Wales 23:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Rather than dwelling on any mistakes in the last few hours can we instead concentrate on moving forward? This place works because of volunteers. While it's great to be bold, we've now had a few examples where they (collectively) got their back up because changes were imposed on them rather than widely and publicly talked about first. We all agree that discussion is good, so maybe next time we start with engaging everyone in a chat? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe next time we should start with a chat. Isn't that what Jimbo is saying. As the person who first created the Category, I saw it put up for deletion within three minutes--and this was after I had first discussed the idea with Jimbo. Discussion should not take place on a VfD page. Discussion should take place in the discussion page first, and that is not what happened. As for the category itself, pardon me if I sound condescending, but it was created in response to certain factors about which the community may be unaware. I say this as the person who answers all the phone calls in the Wikipedia office, and who collects and opens all the mail. While that does not make me more privileged, it does make me more informed about the potential threats to Wikipedia from good people, potential friends, who find articles about them with scurrilous information. I do believe that Recent Changes Patrol is doing an outstanding job. As we grow, however, it becomes absolutely necessary to hone the existing tools at their disposal and to develop new ones. That is exactly what this category is all about. Danny 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's where I'm confused. When the decision to create a new administrative supercategory happens off-wiki, the Category is created at 09:37:34 originally some minutes earlier at Category:Living person by Demi (not Danny who probably has much greater name recognition, or Jimbo who certainly does), the CfD is sparked at 09:10:10 09:58:57, and the discussion page begins at 15:49:49, there's definitely a breakdown of communication. But we disagree as to where it was; people very reasonably took the perennial example of Category:Dead people CfD #1 CfD #2 and acted accordingly; you can hardly blame them for knee-jerking when there was no on-site explanation. Demi didn't even know if it had been announced on-site! -- nae'blis (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Rosenfeld

I read what you said about this Jeremy Rosenfeld fellow who supposedly was the first person to propose the idea of Wiki. I hope I didn't read that wrong, because I started an article on him. Since both you and Larry have your own articles, I thought he deserved one too, but as you can see, the stub is very poor, because I don't know anything about him. It would, however, be interesting to know what his part was in creating Wiki and how you guys reacted to his suggestions, etc. I'm thinking that maybe you could give us some info on him. --Candide, or Optimism 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is absolutely no reason to have an article on him. The fact that someone showed me Ward Cunningham's wiki is not sufficient to make him notable.--Jimbo Wales 15:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that sounds a bit rude for the guy and I still disagree. He seems like the starting point for the idea of this project, which he transmitted to you, but if you disagree, you may delete the stub. --Candide, or Optimism 15:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you already did. You're quicker than Billy the Kid. Heh... --Candide, or Optimism 15:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tron_(hacker): German wikipedia offline by another restraining order; the crazy case and the party to the proceedings

PLEASE NOTE: The german wikipedia is not offline. There seems to be some confusion about the domain names. is the german wikipedia. is the german chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. --Gmaxwell 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo,

How are you? How is your family? I cannot await your Art Design Conference in L.A. on March 23-25 [21]. :-) Well, I don't know how I should begin here. Maybe "Houston, we have a problem". And it is really a very big problem and also the admins of USA, UK and New Zealand are in the same opinion as me: To ask you before anything will be done wrong. It is too special. Please give back the peace to Europe with your ideas and experiences. Europe urgently need you. You're the big and the best boss of Wikipedia. :-)

Please let me be allowed to tell you, that I am as a private person here onto this phantastic wikipedia. My philosophy is to forward voluntary a little bit about my knowledge to wikipedia especially in the themes of law-science, computer-science and science of journalism. While surfing around the Wikipedia and if I detect a mistake anywhere, it is a pleasure for me to correct it at once and to help out.

It is unbelievable what happened in Europe with the complete german which was switched off by the registrant of the domainname WIKIPEDIA.DE, namely by the Wikimedia Germany e.V.[22], a membership corporation with its domicile in Berlin. There is a mass-mania around all the german press. Also the first TV-sender report about it. Just some examples:

My friends, some members of my family and me, we tried to make a very short and hopefull neutral "as-it-is"-report about the complete situation, which I want to send you here. Please don't forget: I am not personally insolved in this case. I am very afraid about the european Wikipedia because of all the german abusing to this phantastic system.

The 1st restraining order by the German Municipal Court of Berlin

The 2nd restraining order by the German Municipal Court of Berlin

  • Mr. Attorney-at-law Friedrich Kurz ("Creative Law", cp. [27]) plead the parents' case. After the cryptic death of Boris F., who was find suspended on a tree in Berlin, the parents and family - with all the pains they have been in deep mourning because of loosing their child - the parents do not want the forwarding hyperlink be set from the german domainname to the american server In the context of this technical hyperlink and by forwarding german users to german spoken content is accused by a so called "abetment-disquieter" in the European Law especially by the Federal Court of Justice - as long as the complete familyname plays a role in it.
  • Responsible for the domainname WIKIPEDIA.DE is the Wikimedia Germany e.V., cp. whois at [28], a membership corporation with its domicile in Berlin intenting to make profit because of this case. This is the reason why the same one German Municipal Court of Berlin was called.
  • The Municipal Court of Berlin (Germany), cp. [29], filed the restraining order on January 17, 2006. The main negotiation can then be done in quiet hours while the hearing before there will exist a final decision. The restraining order itself is only a temporarily solution. Only the best lawyers are allowed to become a District Court Judge in Germany.
  • Because of ignoring the public warning of January 12, 2006, cp. [30], the Wikimedia Germany e.V. with its members - and not the Wikimedia Foundation Incorperation - is potentially responsible for damages.

A hint of sarcasm in this case is, that - instead of deactiving this only one objectinable hyperlink - the Wikimedia Germany e.V. switched off the _complete_ german forwarding system of all the german articles at the german Wikipedia. See also here: , , and much more.

I also made in User_talk:IAAL some suggestions how to fix the problem by a technical way: How about my idea to include the _complete_ familyname of Boris F. into a _global_ "bad word"-filter? The nickname "Tron" is allowed. By the while: Some of your admins thought, this is a hoax and this is why they blocked me. What I do here is only a voluntary goodwill from me to you. Sometimes, I have to give back something instead of only taking.

Thank you very much for taking time to this. :-)


Karl User:IAAL User_talk:IAAL -- 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad-word filter? Ridiculous. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and certainly not censored for the protection of a mere family's reputation. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If it were actually the case that the reputation of the family was riding on what we did, I'd argue that we should consider not printing that content. However, the content has already been widely published, even ignoring the additonal press which was just generated, ... the geni is out of the bottle. --Gmaxwell 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that said family is not suing all media publications using the full name. Wired Magazine did it back in December 1998 ... in 8 years they still havent been sued by the family. This smacks of opportunism... since Wikipedia is in the news these days this is probably just a way for the family to get media attention over the loss of their son again.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 02:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC) is the location of the German Wikipedia, and it's still online. The .org top-level domain name is controlled by the privately-held nonprofit Public Interest Registry, over which Germany has no control. With respect to, which Germany does control, I wouldn't be surprised if it were technologically infeasible or impossible for them to block only specific pages; the only thing they do is tell anyone who wants to access the site what IP address it's at, and the only info they need is the stuff that comes before the .de in the URL. I expect their servers never see the page name.

As for a censor, Wikipedia is based in the United States for good reason. There's no legal reason for us to implement word filters, thankfully, and until there is, I expect we'll disseminate information without regard to bullying by family members of article subjects. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know about the status of and all the other Wikimedia sites with a .de extension? Are they going to be taken down, or not? I was nearly frightened just now when I thought editcount was affected, but then it was just a long request. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Kate's tool (currently) works and I presume the rest of does too. I don't think this'll affect them too much... Hopefully. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Note not AFAICT, this only affected the domain. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - and can you stick around some more

You said:

I moved the comments to a place where they can easily be access for those who care. And I'm strongly protesting against the idea that a bunch of uninformed votes to delete is the right way to do anything around here. --Jimbo Wales 22:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Trödel&#149;talk 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that democracy is a bad system . . . just better, as Churchill is supposed to have said, than all the others. Votes for deletion frequently produce bad results; so what's the alternative? Jimbo can't oversee all votes. Require voters to become informed, maybe? How would that work? Or should we just make all deletion have extremely precise agreed-upon criteria, so that admins could mostly delete without discussion? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the key is that we need to really hold on to our longtime cultural traditions of respectful discussion. In this case, a very long-time contributor (Danny) created a category after consulting with another rather important contributor (me), and without discussion or debate it was placed on CfD, and a big war broke out when I said no, wait, we are going to discuss this first. That's a huge problem, and it is no wonder so many longtime contributors agree that CfD and friends are ripe for reform. Even in democracies, there is a period of discussion before a vote to kill takes place. I do not think that all AfD candidates need to be discussed before being nominated. But I think we need a tradition which say: if a longtime trusted contributor raises a strong objection, the vote can and should stop and the issue discussed seriously first. --Jimbo Wales 15:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I do believe "rather important contributor (me)" = free drugs! But, really, having read 0.1% of this episode: Danny has done/does so much work for the project, and that no one could bother engaging him discussion, instead intiating a CfD after ~3 minutes...?! I'm sorry, but that's simply shameful and direspectful and thoughtless. He deserves an apology, me thinks. El_C 15:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a discussion beforehand, but I see no need to require that. After all, doesn't the vote also double as a discussion? And it's going to almost certainly pull in more people, attract more interest, and get people to place a higher priority on it, if it's up for deletion. I think what you're proposing would cause big problems in practice. Who is a "longtime trusted contributor" (how long, how trusted, and by whom)? Am I a "longtime trusted contributor"? Some people would say yes and some would quite vehemently insist that I'm not. It seems simple but gets nasty when you try to apply it, because the community is too big and too divisively disagreeable for that. Even if you agree that there are certain people who uncontroversially qualify as being longtime trusted contributors, you've got another problem, which is the ability of certain people to have a procedural veto over things. I maintain that putting even more power in the hands of select individuals is emphatically not the way we need to go. We really shouldn't be afraid to just put a sticky issue up for a vote and let the community resolve it. Everyking 16:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The superior system is called consensus. This is what we apply on wikipedia :-) Kim Bruning 04:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly superior in a sense, but only when it can get effective results. And it can only get results among relatively small groups of people. Consensus has its place here, and it probably always will on matters of day-to-day article content deliberation and such, but I think it's backward looking to try to emphasize that model now. At the present time we need to be looking towards more democratic ways of doing things. Everyking 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting some histograms drawn up. With a little luck they'll show that we can stick with consensus for a long long time to come. Kim Bruning 04:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Democracy is a system where the population of a society controls the government. If you think about it, the only way to make that happen is through consensus. In an unwired world, you would vote for representatives and those representatives would find solutions that work for everybody in your small group. If a representative didn't find consensus solutions, you voted him out of office. Larger groups that oversaw the smaller groups were primarily to ensure that the representatives of the smaller groups didn't become corrupt. Since any group could become corrupt, the largest group only had the job of ensuring the basic human rights of the individuals. The closer a nation got to that ideal, the more prosperous it became.
Today's wired world affords us something greater than representatives. We can determine consensus within a group by ourselves. We aren't limited to societies by geographic location either. We can form whatever fellowships we want and rule ourselves within each. Here at Wikipedia, everyone who's interested in the definition of a term forms a group. Members of the group have realities that can be very different from each other, but they can always agree on certain things, like quotes from other authors. By citing an easily verifiable source, we have enabled consensus. Whether or not what the source says is true doesn't matter because the group isn't claiming that it's true. They are only claiming that a certain person said it. When ego is not part of the equation, groups can always reach consensus of all members. No super-majority is needed when egos aren't threatened. Of course, it is much easier and quicker to claim authority than to respect other editors of the group, but the views of the other editors represent the views of the readers. If the time is taken to make sure that all members of the editing group agree with the article, chances are much greater that outside readers of the article will accept it as fact too.
I think the time has come to stop making editing of these articles an ego thing, and start respecting all members of group. Democracy isn't majority rule or super-majority rule, it's the consensual rule of all people affected by a ruling. --Cunning Linguist 06:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is anything wrong with listing something for deletion soon after it is created. A lot of cleanup is done by watching for New pages, so it is only natural that a lot of New pages get flagged for deletion. As for Danny being a valuable contributor, I'm sure that is the case but (a) not all of us know who all the long time contributors are and (b) even long time contributors sometimes make mistakes and (c) the CfD process does allow discussion, not just voting. May I suggest that, instead of creating a category and expecting people to go there to discuss how it can be used to solve a problem, an even better way would have been to create a Project page around the problem/issue at hand, to see what ideas are suggested. Creating the category and saying, "discuss how to make this category solve the problem" tends to be a little stiffling to the idea generation process, in my opinion. Johntex\talk 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But is it really that difficult to comment on his talk page? (rhetorical: answer is snuh!) This proceduralist mindset is rather distressing. El_C 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm play along with your rhetorical questions. Is it really that difficult to create a project page to seek suggestions? Is it really that difficult to go to the CfD discussion and post a message saying why it was important and letting that discussion continue? Is it really that harmful if the category even gets deleted and something (perhaps even the original idea of the category) gets created later in its its place? Johntex\talk 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
~3 minutes. El_C 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I see you are not interested in serious discussion. Johntex\talk 16:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Likewise; as you haven't responded to my concern. Not particularly reciprocal, I find. El_C 16:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting claim, coming from the person that ignored my original points in favor of making your own rhetorical question. But, OK, I'll extend you more courtesy than you have shown me and I will answer your question first. The answer to your question is "no", it would not have been difficult to leave him a message on his talk page. Now, perhaps you would like to answer my questions? Johntex\talk 16:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
In light of your "I'll extend you more courtesy than you have shown me" comment, I'd actually rather not respond now, perhaps later. The "more courtesy" leads me to suspect it'll be a fairly tense exchange, at present (except to say that informative and engaging wiki projects are, of course, good). El_C 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That will be fine. I'm happy we've found common ground to agree that informative and engaging wiki projects are good. Best, Johntex\talk 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
One truism about wikipedia is that we've gotten to the point where any major policy discussion takes a really long time. Sometimes, and this was one of them, time won't permit a long round of debate, and sometimes the issue is important enough to make an executive decision. From WP:IAR:
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Our rules serve as a flexible framework to support that purpose, but if rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply use common sense as you go about working on the encyclopedia.
I think policy can sometimes get in the way of the obvious and it can really trip us up. Rx StrangeLove 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethical and Technical issue at Wikipedia in Portuguese

Hi, Jimbo. Sorry to bother. I'm appealing to you, since we have a situation very polemic at portuguese version of Wiki. There's a huge discussion about the "importance" and "servers request" regarding the userboxes on User pages. Those contrary to the use of such resource say this userboxes diverge the attention of the true purpose of the project: the enciclopedia content. The other argument is that this templates makes servers really busy. My question is if that last argument is true? Are we really abusing of WMF hardware doing so? I most humbly ask for guidance or just a simple opinion on the matter.

Thank you for the attention, Daniel Indech 16:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you're in an activist mood... may like to have a look at discussion on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy, where discussion over whether an editor who repeatedly, and in the face of warnings, restores disputed copyright material can be blocked is stalled over whether it is ever appropriate to block an editor who has a good faith belief that he is permitted to use the material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#blocking_policy. El_C 22:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It's more of a common sense approach. --Cunning Linguist 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This site is becoming a joke

Hi Jimbo, there seem to be people that are more interested in deleting things (meaningful things mind you) than adding things to this site. Check out my work on WikiProject AFL - that page alone would be more valuable than most of the users have added on here.

Instead of people putting in the hard yards and creating articles like I do, they just edit little spelling mistakes and go against your philosophy of adding the "total sum of human knowledge".

Is there somewhere you can see the number of articles you've created? (As opposed to edits?, because edits are next to meaningless when they're spelling fixes). Rogerthat 02:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see your point. There are many different ways people can help out in this site, and creating new articles is only one of them. Even minor spelling fixes help improve the quality of the entire site. Since people aren't paid to edit, or ordered around by a boss, they all do what they wish to do. *Dan T.* 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Leadership of Wikipedia



Arb. Com.

Mediation Com.






What do you think about an Executive Board (besides the actual one for the actual company) that is elected by all of the above, and serves for six-months to help WIKIPEDIA achive it's goal of a free database of all human knowledge? Thanks, just an idea,

WikieZach 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To do...? --LV (Dark Mark) 02:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Step One: Executive Board. Step Three: free database of all human knowledge... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Wonder if we got rid of all the bureaucracy? Wonder if there were no rules and nobody above another person and we talked about a way of just getting along and making great articles? The most important thing would be transparency, and we already have that. --KIMP (spewage) 03:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that there should be a better defined structure (with Jimbo on top of course) But I really want to know what he feels about it. WikieZach 03:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The amazing Seigenthaler effect

"Blessing in disguise" is an understatement.

Seigenthaler effect.gif

Welcome to the top 20. --James S. 03:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)