User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 30


Ongoing abuse at Christopher Michael Langan

Hello, Jimbo.

I'm writing to update you on the administrative antics at Christopher Michael Langan. This is the article from which I was indefinitely banned even though all of my edits were conspicuously accurate, neutral, and made in good faith (in contrast to those of certain Wikipedia administrators fixated on the article for less benign reasons).

Despite your recent removal of an outrageously inaccurate section which had been added to the article by administrators bent on defaming its subject, hostile administrators continue to hover over it, preventing good-faith editors from improving it and bringing it in line with Wikipedia policy.

Here are some examples:

In this edit, administrator Guettarda reverts a change that had reached consensus on the talk page, replacing a neutral version with original research. Responding to dialogue regarding the change, FeloniousMonk steps in here, using faulty logic to justify Guettarda's revert while using the edit summary to pointedly warn more constructive editors to "drop it and move along".

When a user later suggests including a section on the CTMU - that is, on the widely-reported work of the bio subject - FeloniousMonk stops by to explain why that won't be happening. Unfortunately, the reason cited by Mr. Monk ("undue weight") does not apply here, as he probably knows.

Other notable edits include this example of intimidation toward a prominent user who kindly offered to help me open a dialogue on administrative abuse, per your advice to Asmodeus above.

In fact, after a bit of reflection, I'm coming around to the opinion that perhaps such a dialogue should indeed be opened (provided that you are able to keep an eye on it to limit the administrative abuse that it will certainly provoke). Numerous topics need to be discussed, including administrative anonymity and the lack of a meaningful appeals process for abusive or otherwise questionable ArbCom rulings. --DrL 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is busy. He advised Asmo to file an Rfc, which if you feel this situation warrants further examination is the course of action I advise for you. He doesn't usually get involved in individual complaints. Should you file an Rfc, I will welcome the opportunity to ask why you made spurious accusations against me and then failed to provide any evidence or reasoning to support those charges, and indeed, failed even to reply to my request for them in the thread you previously started here. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo isn't the only one who's busy. By the way - despite my low opinion of your past editing behavior, I'm glad you made it out okay. --DrL 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
ROFL, thanks for sharing! I am still waiting for you to actually post a dif concerning any "editing behavior" with which you have an issue. My talk page is easy to find - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing abuses, please check out these topics and fix the issues.


Jimbo, my name is Chris Bricky, I am 42 and a member of the miniatures gaming community. I do work as a volunteer proofreader for Battlefront under the Flames of War product. FoW is a 15mm WWII miniatures game.

Mr. Larry Dunn has been having some issues with the gaming community as a whole. I am here to officially ask that he lose all editing abilities on wiki.

Here are some links to the discussion groups that deal with his sordid behavior:

The first link is the overall page that will show you a bunch of topis about Larry and his wikipedia editing exploits, the next three links are the direct links to some of the topics.

I deleted and edited Mr. Larry Dunn's home page with the message that he was using his merely spreading his opinion while wiping out many others.

You may judge for yourself the extent that his abuses have stirred up. I am not a regular user of Wiki and doubt I will use it in the future for anything if people like Mr. Dunn are allowed to run rampant over anything they like and then routinely erase others hard work repeatedly.

It appears it is time for you to either take direct action or to have others in your organization do something about Mr. Dunn.

Thank You very much for your time. I hope you take the time and look into this or at least have someone else do so.

Good bye and good luck,

Chris Bricky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwiiogre (talkcontribs) 00:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC).


I am also a contributor to the pages covering the disagreement with Mr. Dunn. I am a businessman and a wargamer with over 50 years experience gaming and working within the gaming community. Mr. Dunn, through his easily documented bias, is attempting to dictate the contents of the Wargaming entry on Wikipedia. He has a history, which is partially documented in my entries on the dispute page, of "self importance" and I believe he has assumed a "wiki god" complex in those areas he thinks he is an expert. Mr. Dunn is not, by a long stretch, an expert in wargaming. His caustic nature and obvious paranoia cannot be allowed to continue in this environment where harmony is stressed.

Thank you for your time and efforts. Respectfully. Spamjaguar 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional important information...

We have learned Mr. Dunn has access, through his position at his place of employment, to sensitive information pertaining to any of the companies mentioned in the manufacturers, rules and gaming system production, support organizations lists contained within the wargaming section. This potentially unrestricted access to sensitive material makes it imperative that Mr. Dunn is not connected with the Wargaming section of Wikipedia. Spamjaguar 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Usage of Non-free wikipedia logo not compliant with current EDP?

Can you please comment on this Jimbo? We need to know how the new EDP rules allow usage of the non-free wikipedia logo. As far as the current interpretation goes, we need to exempt it per the EDP, the logo's need relicensing or a lot of the uses need to be removed, and the logo's then need a "Fair Use rationale". --TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction and request for assistance

Hi Jimbo! I'm just wondering if you could possibly look through mine and User:MONGO's recent contribs. He seems to be REALLY dedicated to getting rid of me. He's cited some wierd things as evidence of trolling. I've not actually done anything in breach of policy. I'm actually really trying my best to enforce policy to everyone. Could you please help he's already had me blocked for trolling because I defended User:Guinnog (an admin who MONGO doesn't aggree with on content and has in the past called a conspiracy theorist) - After MONGO's report of Guinnog at ANI. Apparently a newbie defending in an incident he is not fully familiar with is considered trolling! Anyway sorry to waffle, I don't want to waste your valuable time but if you can look quickly - i.e before MONGO removes this comment or something.. that would be really great! Thanks sooo much, Marie (aka I'm so special) --I'm so special 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has been indef blocked (although not by me) as an obvious disruptive sockpuppet. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Founder of Wikipedia

No I'm the founder! Really I am! Now send me a dozen doughnuts, the kind with the chocolate icing and custard filling. Obey me! Wjhonson 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make incorrect assertion. Also I inform you to not excessively frequent eat the delicious doughnut due to the health effect.Wen Hsing 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you got 2 comments on that joke, and might have even gotten Jimbo to roll his eyes. Are you proud? Mattbash 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

how would you feel?

How would you feel if Wikipedia won a guinness world record for largest internet database sometime in the next year? I bet you'd be exited @:)-- 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Google probably has the biggest Internet database, but Wikipedia is the biggest encyclopedia. *Dan T.* 22:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
what if Wikipedia surpasses Google somehow-- 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Impossible, it would break the internet. Bkkeim2000 05:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Fair Use Images of Living People

Hi. I'm involved in a discussion about the policy regarding not using fair use images in biographies of living people. I've heard that this results from a decision by Jimbo Wales, but I can't find a link to that ruling. Can anyone help me with that? Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The foundation of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia community lies in the free culture movement, hence the GFDL and the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws stating "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Jimbo has repeated the founding community's commitment to freedom (libre) and the Foundation's board has recently passed a resolution affirming that commitment (see Licensing policy FAQ draft). Someone could find some specific Jimbo comment, but the commitment to the freedom to copy and modify educational information is fundamental to the enterprise and not just to Jimbo. WAS 4.250 09:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, and thanks for the response. The only reason I looked for a specific Jimbo quotation is the situation revolves around a content dispute where one person removes fair use images from biographies of living people, and another questions if this is policy. The first appeals to a statement by Jimbo regarding deletion of all such images. So for that reason I went looking for one. But thanks for clarifying, and also for your words on your talk page. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I just read WP:FU again more closely and discovered that the answer I searched for is already clearly delineated there, as policy. So I don't need to find any specific quote. So nevermind. But thanks WAS 4.250 for your response. --Tractorkingsfan 05:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New Mirror of Wikipedia? Is this site a new mirrow of Wikipedia? Is it owned by your for-profit venture Wikia? Thank you for explanation. Reportarait 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a fork of Wikipedia, and apparently not a compliant one - sadly it's far from the only one. To properly answer the question, it's nothing to do with Wikia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sam has it right. I had never heard of it before.--Jimbo Wales 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

U R0X0R!

If you message me on my talk page, my life will be ttly complete! and no, I don't use this language of AIM while editing U R0X0R!!! I just can't tell you how cool it would be if u messaged me. LazyLaces 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Trampton 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


[1] Yes!!! That is common sense thinking. FloNight 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Are you kidding? I pray you are. Where is the common sense and logical thinking in your example?

Your example helps to substantiate my points above. Wikipedia has stopped someone from adding their birthday?

Look at the history of the administrator you use:

(i.e., deletions, blocking, and developing relationships with like minded administrators, followed by more deletions and blocking. Further, the administrator has user page(s) that more resemble a personal autobiography for self gratification and vanity than any form of credentials giving him license to be a policeman /editor. How could he possibly spend anytime at his real job?)

Why do you not ask this type of administrator to add, rather than subtract, information to this project? Thank you for such an excellent example of wasted time. Step 3 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And here's Step 3's entire contribution history.[2] Does anyone besides myself feel like getting out some air freshener to relieve the odor of stale socks? DurovaCharge! 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pretty fast in the not using good faith department are we not, Ms. Durova?

Without using any good will, common sense, verification of where I come from, or what I may have to offer this project, you want to smear me with a brush that is so often used by administrators, out for "blood." I have been here for a matter of days and that is frightening to you?

I have made no threats, and I have done nothing to give anyone cause for suspecting that I am anything but a person with an opinion.

If that is grounds for being blocked, which I suspect you are contemplating by your "request for back-up" then we are, indeed, at the end of an era, IMHO. I plan to be here to help the project, add information, my occasional opinions, and any possible value I may have to offer; nothing more. Step 3 08:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yikes...FloNight 10:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There you go, dear Durova! My very first real contribution. We "speculate," and do not "bet" in the

financial services business. See Wikipedia for a definition of the above terms. I changed the word in Jimbo's article to speculation, deleting the word "bet." I think you will see that I have now added a speck of value to this project. Step 3 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Complex investigations are my specialty. I know a sockpuppet when it's this obvious. Tread lightly. DurovaCharge! 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sehr Gut!

Ich bin working on a linear regression model for use in complex transactions involving U.S. dollar interest rate swaps during periods when the yield curve is inverted. Such a phenomenon has happened 6 times, in U.S. history, 7 if you use an alternative definition of inversion. My business takes me all over the world, I am presently in the Chicago, Illinois area (U.S.A.) if that helps you. I speak a little German, aber "nur ein bischen." I will try to help make this place more reliable, safe for families, and less filled with vexacious nervous paranoid types, Nicht Vahr? Guten nacht and good luck in your work. Please do not threaten people here. It is not polite and certainly not policy. Use good faith. Step 3 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Macht nichts. Ich kann die beide Sprachen. DurovaCharge! 07:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The edits that Step 3 provided in the area of finance are accurate and, in fact, they are substantially supported by Wikipedia definitions.

The way that Step 3 was treated is unfortunate, and I will suggest that we leave this IP free of any registered users from now on. Lack of good faith and lack of respect for people is not what the Wikipedia project endorses as policy. Indefinite blocking without any research done is just not seemly.


I am still relatively new and learning Wikipedia and could not decide where to post this. Since it involves a guideline/policy action (request), I thought I would post it here. Now, this is a PC topic, but please understand I'm not being insensitive, I just want to discuss what I feel to be ludicrous terminology.

The term African-American is a political term which in the past fifteen years has been forced upon us by the NAACP, politicians, and journalists. The majority of people however still use white American and black American, etc. Why does Wikipedia not also follow suit? Having said that, America, thus far, is the only country engaged in this politically correct terminology. Since we are an international site, I would like to see Wikipedia set up a guideline or policy to use black American rather than African-American. The latter doesn't make sense. What if someone is 6th generation Jamaican and they come as a tourist to America? Does that make them a Jamaican African-American? And what about people such as Roger Whittaker, Charlize Theron, Dave Matthews, and others who are true African's but only white? Are they White African-Americans or are they African-Americans? African-American is an ethnic term, not a color descriptive. In the rest of the world it adds confusion and people automatically think ethnicity. Is an individual from Calcutta then called a Asian African-American when visiting America? What about Seal? Is he an African African-American? Where does this confusing lunacy stop? Is a Black Englishman tourist then called a English African-American?

My grandfather was black, my grandmother mixed, my mother mixed, one of my brothers black, my father white and so I'm not doing this maliciously. I am from the Caribbean and my whole mixed family still uses the term Black along with the majority of America as well as non-Americanized West Indians. As mentioned I would like to see a policy/guideline set up instructing Wikipedia to balk the PC world like it does in many other areas and go for color, not the confusing exclusive-to-American-Media-and-Politicians ethnic descriptive political term that makes no sense. I would like to hear some feedback from the rest of you. --Maniwar (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Try the Village Pump? This looks like the kind of thing that gets solved by consensus. DurovaCharge! 07:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Living Person Bio falsehood

Today, the bio of Hollywood actor Corey Sevier was vandalized by anon. IP, who stated that Sevier "announced he was gay on April 4". This was undetected for two hours.

Further, said vandal also added a "Category:Gay Actors" to the Sevier article, which went undetected for 6 hours.

I know that you are strongly committed to the founding principle of anon. edits to Wikipedia, but realistically, how much longer can this go on for Living Person bios, especially high-profile celebrities?

Please consider changing the policy to:

Automatic "Semi-Protection" for all Living Person articles

JGHowes talk - 11:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that motion and move to extend such semi-protection to all featured articles and controversial articles. A further way to reduce alot of friction would be to limit editing of such articles to experienced users (for example 2,000+ mainspace edits), preferably registered users, but -- barring that -- at least experienced. Articles such as the Gettysburg Address are vandal magnets. -- Fyslee/talk 11:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Creating a special level based on edit count would probably require a significant software change. However, it may be easier to set the autoconfirm threshold (currently 4 days) to a higher time limit (2 weeks perhaps?) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection will not cure the problem. Look at the history of cheese, it's been semied for a very long time... it's still frequently vandalize, most edits are vandalism or reverts. And how many good edits by anons did we miss? Stable verisons will actually help a lot more, but Jimbo is already fully behind them.. Unfortunately, many people in the community are not. --Gmaxwell 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone really against stable versions? I would be shocked. I always thought some technical issue was holding it up.--Pharos 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, at least there are people opposed any form of it that hasn't been cut down to the point where it won't be effective for this purpose. (i.e. Many people on the stable versions now strawpoll said they'd only support it if the most recently edited version was what we displayed to the reader.) It's regarded as unwiki and thus evil by some. :( --Gmaxwell 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"the most recently edited version was what we displayed to the reader" - Isn't that essentially what we do now? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Wales

Hi Mr Wales, I was wondering if you could sign my autograph page... Please! Thank you and have a great day! WikiMan53 (talk contribs count) | Can I have your autograph? 13:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm working on shortning my signitures. Its kind of long.

Dear Mr Wales

I am contacting you today to complain about wikipedia. My name is Bradleigh and i am a former user (Bradles_01) my user has been blocked for stupid reasons. Firstly, I tried to add an article to wikipedia (Article Name: "Sports Trainer"), I added the article and wrote quite a bit about sports trainers and everything was wonderful until oneday one of the users deicided that wikipedia didn't need my article and deleted it, firstly when anyone is allowed to contribute why can one user decide if my article is or is not proper for wikipedia. Secondly the user made a link from sports trainer. they deleted Sports Trainer and re-directed the page to Athletic Trainer. Now i have listed a number of differences between the two occupations however everyone in the wikipedian community who decided to comment on the case are quite obviously stupid. Because there are so many differences between the two occupations. Furthermore in Australia and New Zealand an Athleti Trainer, does not even exist they are replaced by the much different sports trainer, so even if it is only for the benifit of aus/nz readers to have separate articles. but no-one on wikipedia sees to beable to see that. I would like to discuss this issue with you, in detail and i am hoping that you are not as stupid as the other users and can not only see the differences but see common sense, and since wikipedia has articles about fictional characters on it, and i can't see why there should be a problem with a sports trainer article. Please e-mail me (, as i have been blocked and cannot reply. thank you in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Calling people stupid really doesn't get very far. --Ali K 10:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Jimbo, nice interview on Sunday. I think I was as uncomfortable as you ;) --Ali K 10:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not reality

Comment: In a corporate structure, there is board of directors and a Chairman of same. The board, along with the President and C.E.O. have the ability to define the path of said company.

In our courts, we have a jury or a judge. The law is defined, not changed at will by people not experienced enough to make wise decisions.

At Wikipedia, there is a consensus established (Poll) by whoever shows up. The administrators that show up to make decisions about "consensus" are many times teaming up with friends and co-administrators of similar or like attitudes. Canvassing is not allowed? It happens all the time. That is what the notice boards are used for. The same people show up for the same type of "votes" all of the time.

To the outside world, this experiment in consensus taking, or polling, is not reliable. Editing by vandals is crushing this encyclopedia. I have not seen or heard of a single University or school that allows students to use Wikipedia as a reliable resource. There are more people being blocked by administrators keen on deleting information, than are present at any consensus gathering...i.e., AFD, etc.

Without a defined structure of real live leaders, either elected or appointed by a board of directors; people, each of which have something reliable that defines their experience and credentials to rule and contribute here, this experiment will slowly but surely evaporate into the internet cosmos. Another encyclopedia will emerge that more closely resembles a traditional source of reliable knowledge. The articles established here will be merged into the new entity and edited by experts with real live experience, strength and aged wisdom.

I believe Jimbo has probably lost the last remaining chance he ever had to take the tiller here. It appears that the ship is adrift; on a collision course with reality. Step 3 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has nothing to do with polls, by itself (though polls can be used as a tool at times, and currently they're being abused too often on en.wikipedia again) . See Consensus decision making, among others. So you are correct that polls do not lead to correct information by themselves. It's a good thing that policy says we use consensus instead.
If you believe that wikipedia cannot work on the long term, you could consider joining Citizendium instead. :-)
Do note that you are not permitted to use any encyclopedia as a reliable source in university. Encyclopedias are useful as a quick reference to gain a background to help with your search for those reliable sources.--Kim Bruning 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus = tribalism. C.m.jones 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
One must consider both the benefit and the harm of democratic processes. I believe Mr Jimbo Wales' comment is correctly asserting that the primarily aim of the Wikipedia Project is not to uphold the principle of democracy, but to produce information resources of quality. Democratic decisions are often good, but may be corrupted or distorted. Consider situations where the majority thinking is incorrect; wise benevolent dictator intervention may be beneficial in achievement of aims. Wen Hsing 03:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (English useage made more fluent by WAS 4.250 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC))
Thank you Mr Was for correct my error.Wen Hsing 06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to my tribe, C.m.jones. :-) --Kim Bruning 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Dictator, governor, owner, leader, founder, president, chairman, elected director...

However leadership is defined, in any language on earth, the concept must be accepted and implemented, or there is the ever increasing possibility of chaos, anarchy, and the demise of any machine and / or social system.

"Too many egos/cooks will spoil the broth."

With certainty "One bad apple will spoil the whole bunch."

Here, we have kids running the "bunch" into the ground. From laptop to ipod to cell phone to Wikipedia. Too many "underemployed" people in charge with far too much time on their hands. "Get to work, or get to school." Wikipedia will soon be treated by employers much like other sites. (e.g. iTunes and MySpace.) This site will be off limits during working hours. That would be a good thing. People would be forced to do their real jobs. Then, however, we will have nothing but students and the underemployed running the show. Editor addicts will have to go to a local WiFi or internet cafe on their lunch breaks. Unfortunately many of the cafe IP addresses are being blocked by kids, because everyone can edit with fake profiles as an anon. No, the only way to run Wikipedia, is as a real company, yet, it may be too late for that.Step 3 14:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Such a position would destroy knowledge intended for everyone and undermine the project in general. Ephebiphobia is no reason to despise those who want to learn but can't afford an encyclopedia set. Perhaps some don't like Wikipedia because they invested in a company run by people with "real jobs" and Wikipedia did the job better. With no money backing it, Wikipedia can theoretically become more NPOV which is very popular in an era of spin. I don't see many business sites that can claim a NPOV. In terms of consensus, a better system of arbitration between parties would be effective in ensuring Wikipedia's continued development and ensure quality.

I thank those who develop ever improving bots to fight vandalism.

I think the problem some have with Wikipedia not having a leader is that the system works and it scares them because they don't know how to deal with the freedom.Blue Leopard 23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Good summary. --Kim Bruning 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC) And there's more organizations that work this way. :-)

mmm......some good points, except for the fact that there is a vast difference between being afraid of youth (Ephebiphobia) and knowledge of what youth means to a civilization or a business. Being young is wonderful but it carries with it some very distinct characteristics that are not conducive to running the world. (e.g., young people do not have the life experience required to make decisions based on said experience. Therefore, many "kids" make uninformed and / or compulsive decisions that are later considered "mistakes." Consequences of and from the actions we take in life are not always apparent without having lived through the experience first. Knowledge is bliss, but patience, experience, and wisdom, go along way in helping us to use our knowledge for the best interests of the whole planet, not just our own personal worlds.) I say yes to freedom and I say yes to having a voting age; a driving age, ad infinitum. Power and freedom to the people that have attained the "age of majority." Without leaders, we end up with "Lord of the flies" or wolf packs. Innocent people get hurt. Just some "food for thought"?

Image:IMG 1794.JPG

Shortly after you labelled this as a "free image", Commons deleted it. I think that under the Commons rules this image may not be allowed, but it should be fine for Wikipedia. Could you weigh in here? Thank you, I know you are a busy man. Nardman1 15:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


What actually happened to all the credential proposals? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef block of NBC reporter Lisa Daniels

On Friday Thursday Lisa Daniels reported a news piece on NBC news discussing the recent (?) controversy about the reliability of wikipedia and colleges banning its use as a primary source (see MSNBC report and Video Link). As part of the report, Lisa Daniels (using account User:LisaDaniels) edited/vandalized her own page on wikipedia on air to demonstrate the ease with which anyone can edit this encyclopedia (see edit).
Soon after the news aired admin Prodego blocked the user LisaDaniels account, fearing that it may be used by an impersonator of the reporter. He promptly undid the block after he was satisfied that this was not the case (see discussion here and here).
However since then, another admin and very experienced editor Alphachimp has blocked the user as a "vandalism only" account with this message, and is unwilling to undo it (see discussion here). I want to invite Jimbo and the larger community to comment on the appropriateness of such action. My reasons for objecting to the block are as follows:

  • User:LisaDaniels's first edit was reverted within a minute of being made and she made no attempt to vandalize the page again. Instead her second edit was aimed at improving the page.
  • The user's first edit was a violation of WP:POINT and she should have been (gently) warned for this. However blocking her indefinitely seems to be a violation of WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK (specifically, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure." and "Vandalism — Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism. Dynamic IPs: up to 24 hours. Range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 24 at most, to avoid collateral damage. User accounts with persistent violations may be blocked indefinitely.")
  • There is no credible fear IMO (I agree that this is subjective) that a public figure like Lisa Daniels will use a account under her own real name to vandalise wikipedia willy-nilly, if for no other reason, out of fear of her activities being reported to NBC or general media watchdogs. Subjectivity aside, at least there is no evidence of this till date.

If the above reasons were all I had, I would have posted this message on the WP:ANI notice board and not here. However I think this case touches upon larger questions of how wikipedia reacts to neutral/critical reporting in media and how mainstream media, in turn, will view the reaction.

  • As discussed earlier on this page and on Talk:Lisa Daniels, many editors take issues with the balance of the news item and the reporter's choice of vandalizing a page in order to illustrate a point. Note though, that unlike Colbert and the-instructor-whose-name-I-don't-recall, Daniels did not encourage viewer's to vandalize wikipedia articles; only pointed out the ease with which they can be edited. Of course, this attention, would attract both vandals and genuinely interested editors to the projects.
  • I don't think blocking or rebuking a user who (relatively non-disruptively) reports on shortcomings of the wikipedia model is appropriate, even if one disagrees with the criticism. To draw another, potentially flawed, analogy, it is akin to disinviting a professor to a conference for the 'sin' of exposing a flaw in a widely used cryptographic algorithm that the public (mistakenly) relies on. I would presume that such a security-through-obscurity approach would be an anathema to a open/free project like wikipedia and that it would instead aim to encourage (constructive) critics and neutral reporters to join in the conversation rather than ban them from it.
  • Looking from the external non-wiki perspective, the action of blocking LisaDaniels will be perceived as a retaliation for her reporting and that cannot be good for the project or its public image. I can imagine Jimbo being asked why a anonymous editor (such as, say, (talk · contribs)) receives multiple warnings before being blocked for a short period of time; while a well known reporter is blocked indefinitely, without warning, for a single edit made under hear real ID on national television to educate viewers.

I invite your views on the above points. I hope it is clear that I am not attempting to defend reporter Lisa Daniels original actions (I myself am conflicted about that) or even complaining specifically against Alphachimp (since I believe he acted out of sincere conviction, and his views are probably shared by many others). My aim is get your feedback on how you believe wikipedia should react against mainstream critical media coverage and the concerned reporters. Thanks. Abecedare 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

She's been unblocked now. Tyrenius 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I share Abecedare's concerns here. We certainly should let her know that we don't approve of that type of thing, but had this been any other editor, they would've gotten a test1 or test2, and after following edits were productive no more would've come of it. Yes, we should let her know that we don't encourage or approve of that type of thing, but at this point I don't think an indef block is necessary to prevent further harm. (Now, of course, if she does it again, that's another story.) If anything, it might be more productive to contact the news station, and ask them to run a correction or clarification that the false information was quickly reverted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we see public relations functions handled (well or not) by basically random, anonymous and unaccountable individuals. Does anyone realize how ridiculous we'll sound if and when she tells the public she was blocked by a fellow named "Alphachimp?"Proabivouac 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly speaking - this is who we are - this is what wikipedia is - this is how we react. If this is not who we wish to be then we could change. But until we change, if we change, accept the reality. Admins are not accountable in real life yet they affect real life. WAS 4.250 03:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish people would take a longer term view of things like this, there was no immediate need for this block. We give malicious vandals more time than was given here, a little discussion with her would have gone a long way. We should try engagement first... RxS 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I know I am supposed to assume good faith, but I believe that the reason Lisa Daniels was blocked could be because she was not just an anon. IP and some editors were piqued by the content of her off-wiki reporting, rather than her on-wiki actions . Note that an anon IP (talk · contribs) who made the exact same edit as Daniels received only a gentle warning on the talk page and no block. This is the reason I brought up this issue on this page, since IMO it concerns reaction to media reports rather than simply a matter-of-course block of an editor for vandalism. Abecedare 03:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Alphachimp's block was against the rules, since it did indeed block without warning as a "vandalism only" account, an account whose only two edits had been 1) to make a point, and 2) to fix the previous edit and make constructive additions to the user's own biiography (which proves QED that it cannot have been vandalism only). Which means Alphachimp not only violated policy, but also blocking her indefinitely seems to be a violation of WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK (specifically, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure." and "Vandalism — Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism. Dynamic IPs: up to 24 hours. Range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 24 at most, to avoid collateral damage. User accounts with persistent violations may be blocked indefinitely.") As has been pointed out. I see no reason why Alphachimp should be hauled up before ArbCom and threatened with desysopping, if not actually desysopped for a time, as punishment. Let's have some accountability in these triggerhappy sysops! I've yet to see it. This is how Essjay started (poor blocks, with refusal to reconsider), before self-immolating. And nobody did a thing about HIM, until he finally smeared everybody. SBHarris 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
To be frank, I'll be hesitant to propose any action like blocking etc against Alphachimp, since I think that would be punitive too and unnecessary unless his action with respect to Lisa Daniens reflected a pattern of behavior. My suggestion is that we not turn this into a blame game against a single admin, but rather reflect upon how wikipedia (and as WAS 4.250 pointed, that is just a collective noun for "us") should react to media reports/reporters in the future. I am certain such occasions will arise with increasing regularity as wikipedia's size and impact increases. I don't think we need new policies/guidelines to handle such situations though; just some discussion where a basic consensus can be reached and which can be referred to when we are next faced with similar circumstances. Abecedare 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Reactions like this, above, are precisely why administrators are starting to hate volunteering to help Wikipedia. I simply blocked an account that was created to vandalize, and I'm threatened with desysopping? Whatever. You're welcome to continue debating it ad nauseum on this page, my talk page, or any other page. I'll be busy blocking vandals and reverting their vandalism -- helping the encyclopedia. You guys should try it too. alphachimp 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo! The account was NOT created to vandalize (I can show you examples of such accounts) but rather to make a point. Yes, in violation of WP:POINT, but newbies don't know much about WP:POINT-- it's not exactly one of the five pillars of Wikipedia which newbies are greeted with, you know. And this person then (without needing warning) not only proceeded to correct their vandalism (which consisted of claiming on obvious fun to be a rock star, in their own bio!) with a more factual and detailed account of their biography. In other words, behaved in every way responsibly in cleaning up their own minimal mess. Following which, you blocked them indefinately, without any warning. Perhaps with some idea that people who PUBLICALLY attack Wikipedia are in for special penalties which aren't in the guidelines. And you have no indication that you find anything wrong with this. Even now. Instead, just the same stuff we got from Essjay about volunteering and being criticized for all the good work you do. Save it. You know how I knew Essjay had gone round the bend, BTW? He matter-of-factly threatened to desysop a sysop who defied him in removing a "nominations open" tag from her own userpage. That was when I knew the man was power-mad. I knew it before Brad and Jimbo and Angela and whoever they are, at Wikia, knew it (I'm not even certain they know it now). But I knew it, by watching how he USED his power. And by his complete refusal to come to grips with the idea that stomping on a newbie with an indefinite block, for a unwarned marginal problem (something Essjay did to me, also) might be a symptom of a problem in the admin himself. SBHarris 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Who's threatening a desysopping? In fact, most of the comments above have specifically made a point to say no action against you is wanted/necessary. The point is that the account made one vandalism edit and one good edit. With all due respect, clearly it's a much more nuanced situation then dealing with a vandal only account. Part of being an admin is being able to take a certain amount of civil criticism from good faith editors without lashing back at them. In any case, my point was that a public figure deserves at least the same amount of engagement as a anon writing poop on the dog page. RxS 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So... a reporter demonstrates how to vandalize (as opposed to contribute to) Wikipedia on-air - thereby increasing the amount of work the rest of us must do and/or decreasing Wikipedia's overall quality should her viewers follow her example - and a respected admin's response is to indef-block her account. My only hope in all this is that the indef block appeared on-air, too, so as to demonstrate to this irresponsible reporter's audience that we have the means to actively defend our work. Since this is a special case of vandalism and no policy exists describing what to do in this special case situation, WP:IAR appears to apply. I also think Alphachimp's response was made in good faith, and suggestions that he's "power mad" are entirely without merit. Rklawton 02:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't (or shouldn't be) about Alphachimp. The point is that decisions on how to deal with the media shouldn't be made by Alphachimp. However, it's not his fault to have acted, as there is currently no one designated to do so. I would guess that the foundation hasn't the resources to do it. We need to identify a small group of trusted editors, operating under their real names and mature enough to make the right calls for the good of the project. These will be entrusted to deal both wisely and ethically with the press and the public. Other admins shall be directed to the a new noticeboard, WP:AN/PR, when situations like this arise.Proabivouac 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As I have said before, I completely concur that this isn't/shouldn't be about Alphachimp. And I think applying WP:IAR is the worst possible path to go down in situations where the public image of wikipedia is concerned. If an admin/editor is not certain that their course of action under such circumstances is the right one (i.e. something that they would stand behind publicly with their real world identity attached), they should just stand back and let cooler heads prevail; or at least wait for consensus on the proposed action to develop. The potential harm they can cause the project with their unilateral hurried actions exceeds the likely good. Abecedare 02:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
And indeed, how in the world did we decide this was a WP:IAR case? Because a sysop broke the rules and we'd like to not talk any more about that? Come on! It's just a case where somebody didn't know a vandal from shinola. The women in question is a news reporter whose bio reports her to be a substitute anchor rather than an alternating one. She was probably about as ticked as if you read a wikibio on yourself and found it wrong in a way to make you look less (unauthorized bios are a bait for problems on Wikipedia, but it's a problem nobody is willing to fix). In the process of fixing this (she made 2 edits total) she made 1) saying she was a rockstar (reverted in 1 minute by somebody else) followed 14 minutes later by 2) her own more extended and accurate update to her own bio. End of her contributions. She got the sandbox #1 warning, very appropriately for a newbie who doens't know WP:POINT. Over the next few days a lot of people vandalized her page, including one user:donwano (as in Don Juan) on Mar 22, who redirected her entire page to POS News Reporters with an unflattering comment on her intelligence. For this, he received a warning. On March 23, Ms. Daniel got the official Welcome to Wikipedia 5 pillars message. On March 24, with all this before him, Alphachimp decided to block her indefinitely as being a "vandal account." Wups. So here we are. Not fixed till somebody admits a big mistake was made, and won't happen again. Which I have yet to read. So help me out. SBHarris 04:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sbharris, would that not be you above that complained about ignoring WP:AGF and in the same paragraph demanding Alphachimp be desysopped? I don't think what Alphachimp did was bad or wrong, and he obviously had good cause to do it. I think it's just something that brings up a matter we need to discuss. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I asked that the man be THREATENED with desysoping, or desysoped for some fixed time (a token time only would send the same messsage). He's done a huge amount of good work, and I'd hate to be misunderstood as asking for him to be fired! If he'd just admit the mistake, indeed the problem would be fixed, and I'd be satisfied. I don't want an apology: what I want is a recognition that a bad decision was made, so that I can be confident it won't happen to somebody else. Fair enough? SBHarris 05:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as we're on the subject, I must concur that Alphachimp erred, exactly as you put it. People will err if they are given responsibilities for which they are plainly not qualified. Presently, there is no assumption in RfA that the candidate is to act as WP's representative to the press.; instead it's described, in a turn of romantic asceticism, as a humble janitorial duty involving a mop and a bucket. To blame such janitors for performing poorly in PR functions is to miss the point: the fault is of the system which puts them in this position without ever asking whether they are even minimally qualified.Proabivouac 05:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. An NBC Reporter vandalizes Wikipedia as part of a story (a violation of WP:POINT). She gets blocked. She later gets unblocked because she's unlikely to repeat the vandalism. Why, again, is any of this a problem? Seems to me like the system working fine and I'm not sure what the remaining concern is (note that I am not unaware of the PR ramifications, having spoken my peace during the Essjay incident). To me it seems like WP worked properly and since any reporter worth her salt would necessarily write about the response of WP to her activities as part of her story, I honestly don't see the downside nor any need for recriminations of any kind against anyone in this matter. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. She made the 2 changes Mar 19 and got indefinitely blocked March 24. Now, what possible reason would there be for an indefinite block 5 days later, which was lifted for some reason after THAT? A short block at the time of the edits would have sufficed to allow the community to decide what to do about her unusual "crime" (if fixing your own inaccurate bio while violating POINT in public can be called that). But the time frame is wrong here for the use of ANY block, either short or long. Help me out on your reasoning. Indefinite blocks on individuals need good reasons, and finding one placed as what looks like an afterthought, after a newbie had been sandbox-warned then welcomed to wikipedia, is bizarre. I think the judgement on this one was just bad. BAD, that's all. Can the Wikipedia community not agree to this much, ask the sysop involved not to do something anything remotely like that ever again (a no-warning indef block, applied 5 days later), and have him agree not to, and let's move on? SBHarris 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for anything different here than with any other block. Blocks are often contested, since we are not an autocratic body where all act with one mind. They are often lifted, applied, etc. amidst disagreement and for bad reasons. Most importantly IMHO, NBC/PR concerns etc. are irrelevant to the issue at hand (a contested block) since we should act objectively without regard to such affiliations. Again, I don't see why this is any different than any other contested block and why the 'community' should make an agreement regarding it. Beyond discussing it with alpha, I recommend you skip to the 'moving on' part and that we not call for anyone's head because of this. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a policy on blocks, and the important part of it is that they not be indefinite, except under very special circumstances. That wasn't followed here. If you're suggesting we ignore our own policies when it comes to celebrity editors, then I would suggest we change the policy. Otherwise, let's have some (minimal!) accountability for sysops who violate policy. The part that really gets me here, is that we've all seen true vandals (and not just IP vandals, but people with usernames) dealt with ineffectually, after they've added page after page of the grossest, most impossible to assume good faith stuff-- page after page of deletions, obscenity, random typing and messages to classmates. With these people warned dozens of times and blocked with 24 hour limits. Then we get this incident, where a celebrity was first baited by an inaccurate wiki-bio of HERSELF (which is another of my own hot-button issues), and then blocked days later for fixing THAT as a newbie, because she did it in a way that embarrassed Wikipedia, basically, with WP:POINT. How sad for the process. But how ironic is that long before that, she'd behaved in an entirely adult and responsible fashion, fixing her own edit, and improving her own bio, all before any warnings. Then she got welcomed to Wikipedia. Then she ran afoul of the chimp. Having once been a victim myself of an indefinite and flawed block by a bad sysop, all I can say is that you have to have been on the receiving end, to really "get it." And to understand that this kind of thing goes right to the heart of the problems with faceless administratorship on Wikipedia. So no, I plead guilty to helping raise the stink on this one, when I could have kept silent. But it hit just a little too close to the mark for me, to do that. Sorry. SBHarris 06:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
All I can say (given the rather heated response you've made to my comments) is a bit more dispassion on your part might serve you (and WP) well. If it's so important, surely another admin will agree and press as hard as you are, but my instincts tell me your emotion on the issue is not productive. I'd stop with the unkind comments ('ran afoul of the chimp', etc.) and show some good judgment by example. Obviously, people make mistakes. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Good advice. I've said my piece and more, and will now quit. Discuss amongst yourselves. :) SBHarris 06:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If she hadn't fixed it, I would have supported any kind of block, and maybe have it on the news too. "journalist banned from wikipedia for vandalising on live tv!". But... she fixed/reverted herself, so as far as I'm concerned that counts as a "never happened".

Shoot. She displayed sanity, restraint, and wisdom. Oh well, we'll find someone to crucify someday. O:-) --Kim Bruning 04:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My own personal experience is that indef blocks are handed out pretty freely. I imagine this is due to the fact that most admins are disaffected kids who like to have at least some sense of power (and that is assuming good faith, you should see my thoughts on these individuals when NOT assuming good faith). IMO the key threat to the long term success of WP are the admins (way too much authority with little to no accountability--a structural imbalance). At a minimum I think all indef blocks should pass a peer review first.MikeURL 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would think alphachimp was too harsh. But think about it. She demonstrated to every punk who happened to be watching the news how to vandalise wikipedia. This extreme circumstance needs to be taken into thought. Whether she reverted or not, the intentional damage was done in front of the entire nation. An indef-block too harsh? Hell, I'm suprised there wasn't a lawsuit. Mattbash 23:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:THIRD, I'll submit my perception of this situation. Plenty of vandals who have vandalized Wikipedia in this manner have been blocked, maybe not of an indefinite duration, but blocked nonetheless; this user is no different. Instead of bringing this matter, which seems to have resolved itself, onto Jimbo's talk page, you should have just asked alphachimp to apologize on his or yours. He is human (contradictory to his name), and as such, he will make mistakes. If you would not have blasted his character in this manner with a normal vandal, why would you do so with one who happened to vandalize on national television? What's next, creating a request for arbitration just for a user who was blocked and, soon enough, unblocked? This whole debate is frivolous and should end (i.e. Abecedare, please let it go; alphachimp, please apologize).  ~Steptrip 20:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Real Vandals

What does Mr.Wales mean by real vandals? Does he mean people who are actually harmful, such as for example, someone who practises subtle changes of dates and information? -- The Serene Silver Star 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you give some context of when/where I said it?--Jimbo Wales 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Where you list your principles about how wikipedia will run. -- The Serene Silver Star 15:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious lapse by Admins

Jimbo, I have copied the text of the link below, in what is concerning a very serious incident on and the failure of the Admin section to issue a warning at the very least to the offending party. If the Admins fail to do their job of censure in these extreme personal attacks, at least someone at the TOP should Admin the Admins for their failure to even act in this regrettable episode. Because of that failure, there is no other option left but to inform you on your personal page.

Outrageous remark, backed by Admin? I have come across an extremely serious breach of standards here on Wikipedia. It concerns one editor encouraging another editor to do an extreme deed. I don't know the depths of this dispute, but this remark under the circumstances is totally intolerable, and I may have to bring this to Jimbo Wales, and the way WP has dealt with the issue. The quote is or at least followup on your threats with decisive action, and the link is [3]. It's for you to investigate. - 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The user quickly realized the comment was unnecessary and retracted it. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
it not enough just wipe out that extreme attack and everything is OKAY. An apology is called for here , and a blocking. - 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what will the blocking do? I mean, it is the apology that matters, right? The Behnam 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the apology is implicit in the user retracting the comment. This is the Internet, this particular conversation was heated, we make mistakes, the user recognized his or her mistake and retracted the comment. An apology may be warranted and may be forthcoming, but dragging this out at ANI is unnecessary. --Iamunknown 01:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, editors are being blocked for much lesser attacks. This attack is ultra extremely offensive and should at the very least be challenged. It is the worst attack that I have ever seen on Wikipedia in my three years here. It's your call. - 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Three years? This IP has only been editing today. Do you have another account? IrishGuy talk 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to your whole comment, "No." --Iamunknown 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no continuing disruption and the statement was retracted, much like a fourth revert. I don't see any reason for a block, as these blocks are not meant to be punitive, last I checked. The Behnam 01:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Is the user disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT? No. Did he or she violate the 3RR rule? No. Is he or she deliberately comprimising the integrity of Wikipedia? No. On top of all that, he or she retracted his or her comment. --Iamunknown 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a isolated incident. The editors that have been blocked for much "lesser attacks" have received warnings and have PAed despite it. And they didn't retract their comments like he did. --KZTalkContribs 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hope that I haven't caused any offense to anybody by bringing this issue to your attention. I really do believe that personal attacks where editors encourage self destruction to other editors should not be tolerated for one second. - 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for brining it up. It is always good to engage in discussion and clear up any misconceptions. :-) Regards, Iamunknown 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, there are no worries for me here. I would be concerned for the well being of others, whoever they are. I am not looking for punishment (blocking), as I mentioned earlier, but I did suggest it, as no amount of punishment can redeem some situations. I would like to take this incident up with Jimbo later.- 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP address, which has 15 total edits,[4] has been blocked for 1 week for disruption and probable sockpuppetry. DurovaCharge! 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And for block evasion on another sockpuppet IP, both IP addresses are now blocked for 1 month. DurovaCharge! 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack article

Hi Mr. Wales. I have been trying to correct an article which seems to be motivated by personal attack. There has not been much I can do since I seem to be greatly outnumbered by the other side. You might want to take a look at it: Barbara Schwarz. To me this doesn't seem to be in the proper Wikipedia spirit of fairness and neutrality. Thanks. Steve Dufour 10:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • So...this "poor" woman sued 3000 defendants at the same time in order to "prove" she lived in an underwater base in Salt Lake and is married to a man who she claims is in the custody of the US government, but which she has no marriage certificate for and is actually a free man, and we're the ones who are biased? Nardman1 12:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope that Wikipedia has a higher standard. I wouldn't mind if the article was utterly deleted, but I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to attack a "crazy person". Steve Dufour 12:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This issue was handled at length in the last four unsuccessful AFDs. Smee 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
The article's group of fans might be a little crazy too. :-) Steve Dufour 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


I used to come on here a long time ago, and there was mention of a vandal called Willy on Wheels, has kniowledge of him been hiden to prevent people from wishing to achieve his level of infamy? -- The Serene Silver Star 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:DENY. Hut 8.5 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Implement plan semi-willy-nilly

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

--Jimmy Wales Tue Feb 11 11:55:00 UTC 2003

I think the time has come to actually do this. Most people agree RFA is broken, you're one of the few in the position to do something about it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talkcontribs) 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I would just like to say, as a very recently promoted/appointed sysop, that I was both proud and humbled to receive the trust of the wiki community in my RfA. And I do not agree that RfA is broken - I failed one last year, which in hindsight I agree with. This year's decision, I hope, I will demonstrate was correct. But surely, the important thing is to have admins who are simultaneously competent and trustworthy. No?--Anthony.bradbury 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is arbitrary requirements like ten million edits in every namespace and a perfect record, that turns adminship into a big deal. --Random832 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody asks for that. And "adminship is no big deal" does not mean that it is trivial.--Anthony.bradbury 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It was hyperbole. But there's really no good reason for requiring large numbers of edits in each space - even in article space. I think part of the problem is it's so hard to take it away, so there's an irrational fear of not "getting it right the first time" and so people who should get the bit don't.--Random832 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there are good reasons to require some experience and some personal attachment to the project from an admin of a top-ten website. Besides I simply do not understand how a person can be present on Wiki for half a year and do not have 3K+ mainspace and 0.5K+ wikispace contributions (or what is the highest requirement). Why would he want to be an admin? Alex Bakharev 04:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If you actually make your own edits rather than leaving them to a glorified bot like VP or AWB, 3K+ mainspace per six months is a very high requirement. If each edit takes an average of five minutes (not unreasonable, if you're actually looking for things to edit and thinking about what to put, rather than trolling recent changes for vandalism to revert), that's 60 hours a week. You're basically saying that for someone who actually does stuff (rather than just running scripts) to be an admin, the wiki has to be a full-time job. --Random832 12:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is twenty edits per day or less than 2 hours a day according to your own estimates. I do not see it is an extremely excessive. Admins are suppose to be accountable that among other things mean that they present onwiki for a few hours everyday. Obviously not every edit can be done in five minute time. Some may require hours. On the other hand vandal reversion, tagging for cleanup, simple formatting according to MOS, categorizing, etc require significantly less than five minutes. I guess people writing FAs using an external editor might have problems with an edit count, but I never heard that somebody with a number of FAs was denied adminship based on the edit count Alex Bakharev 10:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My two pence: I fully agree with the views of Jimmy: "I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position." While I do have full confidence in the process of RFA, sometimes the process gives highly distorted results in the name of consensus as happened in the case of Ambuj: Ambuj’s RfA. In case, you decide to make a bunch of people sysops, please remember Ambuj and many editors like him who should be endowed with the administrative tools to function more effectively. --Bhadani (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than call upon Jimbo to implement a suggestion he mentioned four years ago when Wikipedia was a much smaller project, I suggest heading over to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests where 48 people are awaiting coaches. I've been coaching several people and it's pretty easy and fun. DurovaCharge! 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, thank you for your inputs. I will surely try to help as far as possible. Frankly speaking, after noting my comments, I discovered that the views expressed by Jimbo were the old ones. Wikis do not allow deletion (everything happily or sadly resides in the historical archives and after-thoughts are not useful) so I just left my two pence to accumulate some interest here despite having discovered that Jimbo's comments were the old ones and the wikipedia community has traversed a long way since then :) --Bhadani (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it shouldn't be a big deal, deadminship should be less of a big deal too. Then people would be more willing to give adminship out, and it'd cause less possible damage with having bad admins, you know. (And even then, it shouldnt be a big deal for them to get it back if they reform...) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In theory I agree. In practice that has two drawbacks: it would draw a lot of energies away from editing and administrative chores into desysopping and resysopping and the people who would take the greatest interest in that process would be the ones who got blocked by that particular administrator. We already have a voluntary process at Category:Administrators open to recall. DurovaCharge! 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I am verry smart and educated and techincally savvy, so I should be made an Admin by Jimmy Wales very soon. Or allowed to be one otherwise I'd say within a month perhaps? Gatorphat 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • RfA is not broken. It is functioning quite well. A few people dislike some other people's reasons for supporting or opposing candidates. They need to get over it and realize that those other users are entitled to make up their minds based on what ever criteria they would like to select. Johntex\talk 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help

I have recently came across Wikipedia in Bosnian.To my astonishment it is hugely biased, any atempt to talk or edit is being dismissed with no explanation. This particular Wikipedia grossly destroys what Wikipedia is all about. Personally I started doubting accuracy and reliability of information found on Wikipedia. For example it does not have a single tag for neutrality even in most ambiguuous or controversial articles. The language in its form only exist for several years and speakers of the language have very turbulent recent history,and the country where the language one of the three official languages, constitutes of three nations.However administrators and registered users come from only one of these nations and are hugely unfair towards the other two. I have tried to point out some geografical factual mistakes,tried discussing -no reply,tried editing all changes are reverted with no explanations, finally blocked with no warning nor discussion. I hape I came to the right address to point this out, if not my apologies, pointing out to whom I shall write would be hugely appreciated.A.P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

You could go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and solicit outside opinions on that article. DurovaCharge! 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to an Administrator...

Please review the "Gary Lavergne" page and consider reverting the last set of changes. The assertions have no basis in fact and is accusatory. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Onorem pruned the accusations down somewhat - good enough? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is of an living person. The last paragraph is argumentative because there is no standard definition of mass murder. Some define it as the successive murders of individuals who were individually targeted--like Whitman, the San Ysidro McDonalds, or the Luby's Cafeteria tragedies. The Kehoe incident does not fall into that category--it was a bomb that killed indiscriminately and simultaneously. Please understand that the person writing that comment has been permanently banned (a.k.a. SubwayJack)on more than one occasion and has a long history of vandalizing articles connected to the Whitman Murders (Charles Whitman, Ramiro Martinez, Houston McCoy, and now Gary Lavergne). Check with Jimbo--he knows about this and what I am talking about. That is why I ask for reverting to the April 8th version, and the assignment of an administrator to monitor the entries. Again. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

A Greeting lost?


I have been here for 11 days editing and nobody has given me a welcome. I would be great I think if you were the first to personally give me my "welcome to wikipedia" message that everyone else gets. That would be awesome! Thanks, Gatorphat 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikia Search

Just some questions about wikia search. I'm Sorry for contacting you on this page, but I think that you may react faster to this one.

The wikia-Search project seems to be not active at the moment, because there are no comments on the mailinglist or in the forum. So I'm wondering how the project shall make further process.

For the moment it seems that we have rare ideas how we could make a fully new way of doing such a search - the most advanced may be mine while the others are more into distributed search and nothing radically new.

So, if you are really interested in this project you might have to invest more effort into. I think it will be needed to ask some AI-and-search experts from various universities if they can help. I therefore think on peoples linke Michael Strube who invented the WikiRelate! algorithm or Shaul Markovitch who invented an even better way, because they are already combining AI and Wikipedia for doing classification and search.

What r u thinking about?

MovGP0 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

German De Wikipedia Unscheinbar aka Carol Christiansen is back

If there should be a Holy Lord I beg that German Wikipedia is not going to be poisened again from this man.

Bliming heck when will they understand that this kind of people behave only like German former Blockwarts. Please have a talk to the responsible people at Wikipedi in Germany Thank you. Kind regards-- 09:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with Wiki-rules.

Hi Jim,

My compliments, you look and seem like a great guy. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and thus I'm trying to understand its structure. I posted a link - that I've come to learn that Wikipedia rules discourage posting your own like, but don't prohibit it. However, I did and an individual ( Ruhrfisch) reverted the link, failing to follow Wikipedia rules and had no justifiable reasons for doing so. When I questioned his actions he became highly defensive and attacked me...a course of events that Wikipedia rules state will happen when someone like Ruhrfisch does what he did.

Now, I'm having the most difficult time trying to find anyone in authority at Wikipedia who will make a ruling based on Wikipedia rules and not on opinion. Everyone seems to say that no one will do this, which begs the question - Why have rules if no one is going to uphold them?

Please direct me to someone who can assist me in taking this issue through the proper channels so that it can be resolved civilly, based on Wiki-rules. Thank you! DaVoice 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to the post? --KZ Talk Contribs 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
On closer look at the RFC, it seems to me that Ruhrfisch acted properly when removing that link. As the RFC stated, the link failed the guidelines of WP:EL. And also, may I remind you that consensus by many editors usually reflects the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, not personal opinion. --KZ Talk Contribs 05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my point exactly...Ruhrfisch did not act according to Wikipedia rules as I've indicated numerous times stating Wiki-Rules throughout that discussion. He only states opinions and yes in his opinion it fails. However, Wiki-Rules clearly state that a link that supports, gives credence to, items stated in the article are allowed. How is it that a link to photographs and articles about Newton Falls, Ohio and to the events listed in the article do not give credence to the article or fail to meet Wiki-Rules? Is it this clique? The very clique that Jim Wales speaks against having at Wikipedia? For Jim's allow a link to photos of a tornado, how less then is a link to photos about the Car Show, Bike Show, Cake Walk, Carnival, 44444 Event, Fishing Derby - or articles about the winners? Anyone can make a statement based on opinion, this is why Wikipedia has rules - or is it? Are you suggesting that I go around as a "watchdog" reverting links similar or worse than, such as the Youngstown Vindicator - Baltimore Sun? If a link to the | Newton Falls Leader is inappropriate, then based on Ruhrfisch's opinion a link to these newspapers should be reverted! DaVoice 16:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim - Can only imagine how busy you are...but I'd like to get this issue settled. I realize that in the realm of things, this is minute, but this is also about Wikipedians like Rührfisch and his distructive behavior here at Wikipedia. A 1,000 pages on his watchdog list leaves a huge venue for abuse, and as a founder, I would hope that you are concerned about people like him destroying what you've created. DaVoice 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking at VCU

I am very much looking forward to seeing you speak tomorrow at VCU. It will be very interesting to finally meet you. I'll see you tomorrow. All the best, ^demon[omg plz] 06:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It was nice to meet you today. Unfortunate that you had to leave really quickly and get to the airport, but a nice experience nonetheless. I think the audience was very receptive to your speech and ideologies. All the best, ^demon[omg plz] 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, great presentation. It was great to meet you and talk to you, even if only for a minute. :) --Coredesat 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep up the good work. --StevenL 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI: per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Department_of_Art_Education_-_Virginia_Commonwealth_University__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D I've full protected the Virginia Commonwealth University article for one month. DurovaCharge! 08:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

After receiving some polite communication from the faculty I've unprotected the article and launched Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination as a venue where professional educators can get guidance with experienced Wikipedians about incorporating Wikipedia writing into classroom assignments. The idea had been at proposal stage for nearly a month and generated some interest so it was easy to implement it now. I'd like to get get the word out about the new WikiProject, perhaps a few lines in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and am interfacing with people from the Foundation toward that end. DurovaCharge! 03:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gift for you

M1850 Staff and Field Officer's Sword Reproduction.JPG Dress Sword of Wikipedia
In appreciation for being the genius behind Wikipedia, I present you with this dress sword. Feel free to wear it at any black tie event or other ceremonial affair. SU Linguist 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Concern regarding zealous admin

Writing a biography for recently deceased Education Administrator Cliff Turney, I found the article scheduled for deletion.

I understand the process involved, and believe that articles should face ruthless editing.

My concern is that the reasons given for the deletion are illegitimate. The article details a person notable under every single category listed for Academic.

The work is unfinished, and if it is to be deleted out of hand, I don't feel like doing more .. of anything.

It gets more concerning for me, as the person who listed it for deletion has done so for other articles I have proposed, in the past. When I go to the talk page to write in support, I'm faced with a Greek chorus who don't seem to be acquainted with the notability guidelines, but they just make the ambit claim it doesn't match. Some comments, like "non-notable academic who probably, like the great mass of men, lived a life of quiet desperation." I similarly recall such a comment on a previous, unrelated article. DDB 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of appealing to Jimbo (who almost never intervenes in matters like this), why not try voicing your concerns directly to the editor who nominated the article? This encyclopedia is a collaborative project, after all. And if your statement above is in reference to the very brief conversation that you had at Talk:Cliff Turney, then you've mis-characterized it completely. A Traintalk 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Also be aware that deletion discussions usually remain open for several days. You can continue improving the article and very possibly get it retained, if you really can document through independent sources that the person satisfies notibility standards. DurovaCharge! 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is whacked

Larry Sanger has gone from "co-founder" to "founder" SakotGrimshine 15:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Several newspapers are doing this: [5][6] Hut 8.5 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
And the Guardian: [7] Odd that they'd all do the "founder" thing in their articles - I wonder if Larry Sanger's reaction came in a press release or something that provided all of them a basis to work from. (addendum: the Guardian story does later in the piece identify Sanger as "one of the founders" - but originally IDs him as the founder.) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What I find funny is that that journalist from the MEN (Manchester Evening News, that's what we call it here in Manchester) made a mistake. He said "the Irish town of Mayo". Uh, no, that's Swinford in County Mayo. So he really has no right to go on about reported inaccuracies. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Heritage Alliance

I think we need a great deal of clarification on this article. One of the administrators continues to strip the article down to it's bare bones and there's a disagreement about what is considered to be legitimate sources. For example, this administrator has said that documents form the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can not be used as sources unless there are sources from the mass media to back them up. The administrator is also stating (I might be putting words in thei person's mouth and if I'm wrong I apologize for that) sources from interested parties such as Matthew Lauder are unreliable (I include a sample of articles): [8][9][10][11][12]

I think we would all appreciate some clarification on what is and is not a proper source. Thank you. AnnieHall 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The best place to go for that is an article content request for comments. DurovaCharge! 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I hereby request permission to alter Wikimedia Logos for my own public, non-profit use.

I know that those logos are copyrighted, so I am asking for permission before altering them in any way, or posting these alterations publicly. I have created a Google Co-op Wikimedia search engine for my own use, and I would like to combine - meaning place side by side in one image - several project logos in order to create a title image to use in place of the default text supplied by Google: "Wikimedia Search". The Search Engine is located here: Alex460 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You can also try asking m:User:Anthere, currently the chair of the board of the foundation. She might be faster to respond, since Jimbo is a bit occupied in general. --TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 12:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested/concerned

I've just left the following at WP:AN/I, touching on an issue that's concerned me for a while (not the specific question but the general one):

I've somehow got entangled in a large set of articles — one for each episode of a couple of Disney situation comedies (for children): That's So Raven and Cory in the House (neither of which I'd heard of before, and both of which I wish I never had). See, for example Ain't Miss Bahavian, on which I've just done a lot of work, reduced from this (not the worst by a long way).
The articles were typically long and sprawling, often with immensely long and poorly written plot "summaries", trivia sections, poor formatting, etc. I did my best to tidy them, and met determined opposition from a few editors, one in particular – Kid1412 (talk · contribs) – getting very emotional and abusive, though calming down after the intervention of a couple of other editors, and being cooperative for now. He or she has now admitted, though, to writing the plot summaries (or some of them, at least) while watching the series. There are no online or other sources so far as I can tell.
Now, it's not important in one sense; as with more than half the articles here, the subjects are trivial, and who cares whether the summaries are accurate, well-written, properly formatted, etc.? (The same goes for the pop-music articles that I try to clean up and defend.) From the Wikipedia point of view, though, it presumably does matter. Or does it? Is our position that the guidelines and policies are only really for proper articles, and the fanzine side of things can be safely ignored, and allowed to go its own way? There are countless articles documenting the entire outputs of minor pop singers and bands, every episode and character in minor children's television series, discographies going into obsessive detail, all breaking many if not most of the formatting guidelines in the MoS and the relevant WikoProjects, including the fair use of images.
My specific question is: what should I do about the case that I mentioned at the beginning? In theory the plot summaries should all be removed (in theory, I think, all the articles should go as being insignificant and making no claim to significance).
My general question is: are we going to pay attention to the vast mass of the Wikipedia iceberg which most editors and admins prefer to ignore — the fancruft below Wikipedia's plimsoll line? If so, then I'll just remove all the articles from my Watchlist and breathe a sigh of relief. If not, then I'll need a lot more help...

I thought that you might be interested (and share my concern). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My take is that as long as it is in principle attributable to some stored version that has beenpublished on the air or over cable and can be expected to soon be on DVDs that it should not be deleted on grounds of WP:ATT. WAS 4.250 10:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been a number of responses at WP:AN/I, many of them sharing my concern. The opinion has been offered, and seems to be popular, that Wikipedia is just doomed to have a significant number of SIG areas that go against Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and we should more or less rope them off and let editors there do what they want. It would make my life a lot easier, but I can't agree. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"If you aren't having fun editing Wikipedia, then you are doing it wrong" is what I always tell people. WAS 4.250 14:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I say that that's not only simplistic but straightforwardly false. Hell is (at least very often) other people. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See this, SqueakBox 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Wikitravel uses the MediaWiki software, which is also used by Wikipedia. However, Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project; it was begun independently. Unlike Wikipedia, it uses the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license rather than the GNU Free Documentation License. What I wish to ask is that can I also start up with any such project like wikipedia or wikitravels with the help of mediaWiki software and that to free of cost. Thanks Sushant gupta 10:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure, the MediaWiki software is free to download and use for whatever you want. Go to for details and downloads. --Sherool (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all Wikimedia projects are GFDL licensed; a notable exception is Wikinews, which is CC-by-sa. hbdragon88 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A minor correction: Wikinews uses CC-by, not CC-by-sa. --Dapeteばか 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Disclosing my real life name and my real IP by checkuser Dmcdevit

Hi Jimbo. I am worried about this situation and I made a report at [13]. Please look at it. Thanks.--MariusM 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision of history

Six years ago I said this was an interesting experiment, two or three years ago I pointed out fundamental problems causing Wikipedia to distort and conceal facts from the public. You ignored my suggestions then, perhaps you think we Xanadu people are too old for you and don't have any good ideas - I don't know why you've allowed this to devolve into a social club for self-righteous and those with a vested agenda. 12:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LegoAxiom1007 (talkcontribs) 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Mr Wales, I met you recently, you came to my school ASIJ. Thought I'd mention that. Why do alot of Admins delete accurate information on wikipedia, insult me, then inform me that the information is inaccurate?

Yours Sincerely, Alexander Turner

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobjane (talkcontribs) 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smokizzy (talkcontribs) 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been impersonated on IRC

Hello Sir. I am just leaving a polite message to warn you that last night (14th April) / early hours of Sunday morning (April 15th), a user on IRC calling himself WoW8 (it is suspected he is a Willy on Wheels clone), changed his nickname to JimboWales7, and was attempting impersonate you on the #wikipedia-en, and #wikiversity-en channels on Freenode. After changing his nickname to JimboWales7, the user was asked to identify himself with your cloak, which He refused to do. Following a request to Freenode IRCops, one of the operators, Christel, placed a K_line against his IP (which is static) as a full network ban. I will be keeping a lookout on IRC in case he pops up again under a different IP. Thank you for your attention., Sir. Thor Malmjursson 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he claim to be Jimbo Wales or did he just choose that nickname? --Thus Spake Anittas 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
From memory, used nick and also claimed to be Jimbo despite objections and obvious evidence to the contrary. ShakespeareFan00 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Another impersonator appeared recently on #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en today under the nickname Jimbo_Wales2. // PTO 18:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


I want to thank Jimbo for making Wikipedia. Now I can research (almost) everything whenever I want to! Right here on the 'Net. Wikipedia truly is an innovation of teh Internets. Thank you.

I am from Uncyclopedia, though. I largely ignore their Anti-Wikipedia stuff. Even though I am much more largely associated with them than here.

But thanks for Wikipedia.

-- An IP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello - Question

Hello Jimbo. I'm having a bit of a problem with one of wiki's users. His user name is Kronecker. The problem is that i have been adopted on Wiki and am doing lessons with my adopter. Ive edited some articles and write dome also. I have made some mistakes as you do (we all start somewhere, like you did when you co-foundered wiki) and he is picking up every mistake i do and posting it on my wiki page. I would not mind that bud he is doing it in a unnice way and calling me an idiot. This is what he said (hes done it twice):

Are you an idiot? That plot synopsis wasn't encyclopædic at all. You shouldn't capitalize titles either - use italics. --Kronecker 07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

so i said privatly: I would appreciate it if you do not call me an idiot on my user page. I have been adopted on wikipedia and am learning how to write articles properly, so i don't need you to tell me im an idiot because: Alec1990 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Quote > Are you an idiot? That plot synopsis wasn't encyclopædic at all. You shouldn't capitalize titles either - use italics. --Kronecker 07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC) <Quote

This is immature of you and i would appreciate it if you would not do it.

Thanks Alec

Then he said: Why have you labbelled all your contributions minor edits. You are an idiot. --Kronecker 00:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ive asked him privately to stop and via his talk page and he has done it again. Ive had a look at the user dispute page and i just don't get it. its complicated for a newbie.

He has done this in the past and has been blocked before.

I would really appreciate if you could help. Thanks Alec

I've issued an NPA reminder to the editor in question, and will leave a note on User:Alec1990's page as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Daniel Brandt's notorious Hive Mind page which gave info on various editors and admins who work here including yourself and myself has been taken down. I thought you would be interested to know, SqueakBox 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if that was my doing. I have recently sent wikipedia-watch emails demanding that I'm removed from the page on the grounds that my username is no longer Dbiv and I am no longer an administrator, contrary to what my entry used to say. I would like to claim all due credit, naturally. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suspect not as if that were the case he could easily have removed you. There is an internet page where DB explains his motives but I wont be able to link to it as editors have been blocked for linking to said site. Nice to see you still here, David, SqueakBox 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's another veiled legal threat by Brandt ([14]) . Careful, he's trying to build a good argument, and he's probably setting us up for his proverbial "home run". Nothing pleases Brandt more than taking down a huge sum of information to preserve his own "privacy". // Sean William (PTO) 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New rules and policies

Some admins have come up with new policies about edit-waring, and been enforcing arbitrary 1RR or even 0RR on many articles, and blocking some users at one revert. The issue seems controversial though and has instigated a debate among the admins. Could you please elaborate on the legality or illegality of such methods and subjective limits which are inconsistent, and may allow for administrative abuse: Regards. ArmenianJoe 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Biocrawler

I know that there are a lot of sites that re-use Wikipedia content. Under the GFDL, this is permitted, with proper attribution. But one particular scraper site raises concerns. apparently uses an automated script to change all instances of the word "Wikipedia" to "Biocrawler." Sometimes the results are merely humorous, such as this discussion of the "Biocrawler is Communism" vandal or the numerous reference to "Biocrawlerns". However, there are many cases where the Talk page comments of named users are altered by this substitution. For example, here there are a lot of comments by individuals (some using their real names) that were meant to say Wikipedia, but now say Biocrawler instead. Is this sort of misattribution of talk comments permitted by the GFDL? I find it problematic because words are being put in peoples' mouths that they never said. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see the external links here. Larry Sanger would no doubt be surprised to learn that he's written an article entitled "Why Biocrawler Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism." Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
That is very funny. El hombre de haha 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Is WP:IAR actual for Wikipedias in other languages? - VasilievVV 06:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR is interwikied to about twenty other Wikipedias. I think it's basically a common sense policy for any WMF project, but I can't speak for Jimbo on that. YechielMan 15:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for new WHOIS ip locator


This thing is incredibly precise. Any other locator tells me I'm in Illinois, but this one not only knows I'm in British Columbia, Canada, but can even tell me what city I'm in. HalfShadow 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if I am using a proxy, like righ now or like this edit here at the sandbox, it will show that I am in Winnipeg when in fact I am in Ottawa. Mind you it is annoyingly slow to try and do this. -- 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are some more proxies.--CyclePat 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be more precise, but it's not necessarily more accurate. I use that IP locator all the time, and it almost always identifies a city a couple of hours away from where I actually am (I'm in the LM also). Anchoress 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to concur: that site assures me that I'm in Kirklees, which as far as I recall is not a place I have ever visited (actually right now I'm in Amersham). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of murder victims

There is an interesting discussion about the notability of a murder victim at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. Your comments would be welcome. One side argues that the simple fact of a violent death does not confer notability; the other side argues that the extensive media coverage of the killings means that the victim is now the multiple non-trivial published works, and hence notable, regardless of whether she was before. --Eastmain 00:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example of notability creep. You are starting to see bios of the Virginia Tech victims even now, and photos. However, it's not so bad, since they're dead and thus out of bounds for WP:BLP. The problem is much more acute for victims of spectacular crimes (or disasters or anything else that falls on ordinary folk from the sky), who manage to SURVIVE. SBHarris 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Not so, we have hundreds of articles on murder victims, many of them of years standing without afd's ever having touched them, eg Amanda Dowler, SqueakBox 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What's "not so"? As I said, the problem really doesn't exist for dead victims. It's the live victims who suffer directly from unwanted notoriety. I've never had a problem with dead people being bio'd on wikipedia for any reason. They're out of the game, and bless 'em. SBHarris 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What's not say, IMO, is the WP:creep re murder victims. We have to be very careful wuith living people, that is why we have BLP, SqueakBox 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a creep with murder victims. No room for this many in a paper encyclopedia. These are often people who've been bio'd as memorials. Despite the supposed idea from WP:NOT that WP is not supposed to be used as a memorial repository. Again we run up against the problem of interest. Why DO people write articles without pay? Because they care about the subject, positively or negatively. So now, POV. Inescapable. Are you going to bio somebody you don't care about? SBHarris 01:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No room for a lot of stuff in paper encyclopedias. Which is why we are better than the paper ones (along with search without scrolling through hundreds of pages), SqueakBox 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll let you have the last word after this comment. But please consider that constraints of some type (such as space and length constraints) are sometimes GOOD things. They make sonnets and concertos. Wikipedia can be like playing tennis with the net down. SBHarris 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


You are the best Wikipedian in the world and one of my greatest heros.Djmckee1 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For lunch I had three Soft Serves. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rogue admin account

Today's Main Page shenanigans bring up a few issues. Is it worth considering once again removing the bit from sysops who announce their departure (or, perhaps, those whose accounts become (totally) dormant for a certain period). As they'd already demonstrated their trustworthiness, it wouldn't be too difficult to create a simple mechanism for them to resume their mops if/when they decided to return, without needing to jump the hurdle of RfA. --Dweller 10:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The answer is the same as always - active accounts are more likely to be compromised than inactive accoutns, so this does not in fact solve the problem you want to solve, and it has undesirable side-effects. >Radiant< 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I genuinely can't remember what those undesirable side-effects are? The ones listed at WP:PEREN? Carcharoth 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Or rather, not listed... :-) Carcharoth 11:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Added now. It arguably makes it less likely for inactive admins to become active again. >Radiant< 11:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
        • If Radiant doesn't mind, I'm happy to debate this at his talk page, to keep Jimbo's uncluttered. Equally happy for it to move to my place if preferred. --Dweller 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that would have prevented anything. An admin will just use his account every week or so to avoid losing his bit even if not really active. What is more active accounts are more likely to be compromised. Also, no real damage was done, it was responded to quickly. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal request for clarification


Per the conversation at WP:CSN, I would like to request formal clarification regarding the unblock of Daniel_Brandt (talk · contribs). Is this a WP:OFFICE action, or is the final disposition up to community consensus? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY () 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a WP:OFFICE action. I wrote about 20 emails to the wikien-l mailing list last night, and I recommend those as reading material on this matter.--Jimbo Wales 06:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

People are generally not very happy about this unblock. We need to know if you using your veto authority on this matter, or if it is something the community has a say in. The consensus is not allow this person to edit, so unless you are using your special authority(office actions, act of Jimbo etc...) it should not stand. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has made a statement about this issue on WP:CSN (see [this diff) but it doesn't explicitly address the question that HighInBC and a number of other editors have posed. We need to know—are you formally overruling the ArbCom's decision and making the Brandt unblock a WP:OFFICE action?

If the WP:OFFICE has decided that there is to be no more discussion of this point – or at least that further discussion would be fruitless – then someone needs to say so clearly. We're spinning our wheels here; a large part of the community is very upset about your actions, and your silence is extremely frustrating. Your input is both welcome and desperately needed at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Jimbo authority. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I dont agree with HighinBC that there is any consensus that Brandt should not be unblocked and I personally applaud your decision, though there are clearly some editors upset by this, SqueakBox 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If you were going to make a unilateral action against community consensus, you should have deleted the article instead. Unblocking DB is disrespectful to the (hopefully) valued editors and admins whom he has harmed through his outing activities. Morven said on the mailing list, "Magnanimity is a good card to play against malice, when in a position of strength." [16] This is a sentiment with which I generally agree, and try to practice myself. However, magnanimity, like forgiveness, can not be forced on someone who has been harmed. Furthermore, Wikipedia may be in a position of strength, but editors and admins who are concerned about their privacy are not. Hopefully this decision will indeed be a way forward, but I feel the repurcusions to the project overall have not yet been tallied. Thatcher131 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with that. There's no point, as far as I can see, in unblocking him without deleting the article as well, unless Brandt has decided to compromise and I don't know about it. What's the point in IARing Brandt without doing the same to his bio? And if the bio is to be IARed, then why unblock him at all? Moreschi Talk 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the Zoe incident all over again. Do you care about problem users more than your Wikipedians? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference is Zoe isnt blocked, SqueakBox 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No, just humiliated by that memorable rebuke on ANI, which is worse. Moreschi Talk 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I hope she comes back (in spite of not always seeing eye to eye she was overall a good editor) but that would have to be her choice, SqueakBox 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo has been negotiating about this, I think we have to leave it in his hands. Metamagician3000 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a case with different parties. If he has only been negotiating with one party (Brandt), then chances are that some of the other parties will be angered or frustrated. Welcoming back a known problem editor (with good contribs as well) when it has a good chance of at the same time alienating some generally more respected editors is not a good thing, and since this is a community project, we have to question such actions and the reasons for doing them. Fram 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


So, anyone besides me think this page should be protected? --PAK Man 02:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Someone has too much time on their hands. You think they could come up with a cleverer message. — MichaelLinnear 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an good idea for a wiki

I originally come from Israel even though I currently live in Chicago.

Israel has so many problems to solve within it in addition to the problems the country needs to solve with the neighbor countries. Unlike most countries in the western world, Israel has many different political forces and opinions which split the country and prevent the country from taking the really though decisions.

There is a common feeling in Israel that there are currently no real leaders in Israel whom can really shape the future of Israel.

My idea is to try opening a wiki which will give the citizens of Israel a platform where everyone could log on and try to define what needs to be done in order to improve the country on all aspects.

You have probably heard of ideas like mine before... I would like to know if to your knowledge this has been attempted before and has such an attempt proved to be successful..? How would I be able to open such a wiki in Hebrew on a private server or on a wiki farm?

--Acidburn24m 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr Wales I not sure this is the appropriate forum for my problem. Basically I have been communicating and sending emails for about 1 month after my article on Dr. Jonathan Fielding was removed as a copyright violation. I have tried to explain on numerous occassions that I was just using his standard bio/brag sheets (which he supplied to me at my request) so that I could create a short bio article on Wikipedia on this very important Public health figure (of course his similar materials are used in many places on the web as he is on various committees, Universties, etc.). He has even attempted to send emails to the permissions and foundation indicating that the information is his, and that Wikipedia has permission to use it.

However, it seems that I am caught in the ever increasing Kaffa-like web of the huge beauracrtic structure which has grown up around Wikipedia. For example, the copyright information page which I was directed to was incredibly difficult to decipher. I even opened a case up on this problem, but received little help. An identical problem occurred when my article on Dr. Ciro de Quadros, the father of the Polio Eradication Program, was also removed for the same reasons.

I am appealing directly to you, not so much to deal with these 2 cases, but to view this as a possible symptom of something larger going on, which may need your attention. If you need more information I would be happy to supply it to you regarding these two articles. All the best. Dr. Strassburg Los Angeles cell 213 458-1868 email: Mstrassburg

A couple of suggestions

You are probabaly aware of this, already, but I think it would be good to have a Wiki toolbar to gain easier access to search on Wiki. Other features could be added along, such as today's DYK, seperate search on Wikisource, etc. Apart from the toolbar, the search feature on Wiki could also be improved. One often needs to type in the correct text they are searching for, but if they're not certain of the correct spelling, they may get the wrong results, or no results at all. I also don't understand why the search engine makes a distinguishment between lower cases and capital cases. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably have better luck discussing this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). —Remember the dot (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

U know, Jimbo Wales, u should have time 2 post on everyones talkpage Bluwiki123 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


I think it's time for the people of Wikipedia to stand against the ArbCom and add back in links to ED. Many of us also edit at ED, and would like links to edit it back in. What is wrong with ED? They are very informative about LiveJournal evemts! Hopefully you approve, or we poor workers will overthrow ArbCom and you! August 2 2005rps 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What's "ED"? -- Hoary 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not going to happen. ED is Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site that is well known for its attack pages on Wikipedians. // PTO 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I would add its attempts at disruption of Wikipedia process as well. For example, this attempt at an AFD by the above user. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice how people from ED with 1 or 2 edits go around nominating articles for deletion because ED got deleted (including the original poster of this thread). The site basically goes around bashing everyone who works to help any wiki that's not ED -- they even impersonated an administrator here and claimed she had a miscariage for her pregnancy and spread all these horrible rumors. ED is always spreading false rumors and should be banned forever. SakotGrimshine 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They also have the Wikipedia logo on their page about us, a clear copyright violation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
We have tried to come up with enough evidence to shut it down but the page we collected it on got nominated for deletion, which attracted a whole bunch of other Wikipedia editors with ties to ED. The result was delete (reminds me of "Landslide Lyndon" and I wasn't even born then). —  $PЯINGrαgђ  16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's because you put the whole thing on Wikipedia, which didn't want to be directly involved. It should have been on another site. And don't use as I read somewhere they matched the server IPs to find out that's a fake site set up by ED for trolling. SakotGrimshine 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regaining Identity! User:Jeffrey Newman

I spent a little time with Wikipedia in 2005 and have returned occasionally to read stuff but could never log-in. My impatience level is high so I did not hang around. These past couple of days, I have realised that, since I want to do some serious work, it is worth persisting. But I am told that since when I originally created my account, I did not supply an e-mail address, it is impossible. Nothing is impossible - so I've come here to ask for help, hoping that you will not personally have to be involved but that someone else may pick up this request. As far as my queries re CIA, perhaps I watch too much West Wing (I received the whole set as a "65th" present from my family - I'm in the UK) but they would be stupid NOT to be ensuring Wiki survives - and though 'intelligence' might not be a characteristic, that level of stupidity is unimaginable. Experiences logging in to Wikipedia in Moscow were also interesting! But, since I have nothing to hide, I might as well join in. More than anything else, however - many congratulations on getting this whole enterprise up and running. It is 'awesome' (which is not an everyday word from an elderly Brit! Thank you. 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Why does "User Name:Jeffrey Newman" come out in red, not blue? - Jimbo: I really do NOT expect you, personally, to have to answer this!

The email reqirement is I believe for those who lose their password and want a new one emailed to them. If "nothing is impossible" them remember your old password. Otherwise, some things are impossible and you perhaps should create a new account. WAS 4.250 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I presume you mean User:Jeffrey Newman, and that is your real name. The procedure to recover your account would be as follows: Find an administrator (or other well-respected Wikipedian) who lives close to you and prove your identity to them. They should then contact a developer, who will set the email address on your account to the address you choose, and you can then use the normal password recovery system.
Developer time is a precious resource, and they probably would prefer not to get such requests, so as an alternative, consider getting a new account, perhaps User:Jeffrey X Newman where X is your middle initial, or User:JeffreyNewman without the space, or User:Jeff Newman if you don't mind the contraction of your name, and then move the old user and talk pages to the new name. This is the easiest way to go.-gadfium 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. NZ is almost as far from UK as it is possible to be (though we shall be there in December!) How do I find out if there is an Administrator in London, to whom I could pay a visit, or send a copy of my passport, or something? 04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at Category:Wikipedians in London, and pick a name you recognise from 2005, or look for an intersection with Category:English Wikipedia administrators, neither of which will be comprehensive lists. You could also ask at the talk page of the Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board. Before you go to any trouble, wait to get some responses to my idea, as the developers might not be willing to do such a thing, or it might not be possible for technical reasons (if the email address is encrypted in the database, for example).-gadfium 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any intersection of those categories, so the notice board is probably your best bet.-gadfium 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is generally quite rare for an account to be usurped, especially if the account does not have any permissions beyond "user" (though even then it's rare) and especially if no e-mail address was specified for the account. Nonetheless, proving your identity should not be all that difficult. I'm going to assume that you have an e-mail address with If this is the case, please contact and ask them to e-mail me (or another admin) with confirmation that the e-mail address belongs to Jeffrey Newman, and then send me (or the same admin) an e-mail from that account verifying that it was you who made this request. Per the terms of their privacy policy this should be acceptable, and it should serve as adequate proof of your identity. The request can then be passed on to the devs, though it will likely take a very long time to complete. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, an interesting thing I just ran across, you might register with Never used it before, but it looks like a fairly reliable way to prove one's identity. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Only for Americans, as far as I can see. It is geared around doing record searches based on a social security number. Metamagician3000 08:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is sorted. I attempted to register user: Jeffrey Newman but was then blocked by user:Misza13. I find this whole issue makes me extremely angry. It is a waste of energy and time. All I want is to be able to use my name, not a pseudonym. No developer is helping and I apologise that I cannot follow AmiDaniel's advice as I do not understand the hieroglyph's in his e-mail account. I simply am insufficiently at home in this Wiki world. user:Jeffrey Newman 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction on userpage

Your userpage says "You can edit this page" but an admin recently protected the page. I suggest removing this section of your userpage or removing the protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IBeatAnorexia (talkcontribs) 00:31, 23 April 2007

Fixed. --cesarb 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adelaide Meetup

It was nice meeting you. Thank you for giving up your Monday morning to have breakfast with the Adelaide Wikipedians, and I hope you enjoy the refreshment :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, enjoyed meeting you and the other Adelaideans, thanks for giving us the opportunity to get together. I hope the rest of your Aussie tour goes well! Cheers, – Riana 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yay Adelaide! And Riana, thanks for unblocking me. :) --Jimbo Wales 05:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries, you don't often get to put a name like that on your unblock log ;) – Riana 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the awkwardness Jimbo, but I do hope you enjoyed that beer. Good man, good times. michael talk 06:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for meeting with us Jimmy. I hope one day you'll return to our fine town :)--cj | talk 08:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup

I would really have liked to get to be at the meetup while you were there but unfortunately you are going to be around a bit late in the day for me, given other things happening in Sydney on ANZAC Day. I hope your conference presentation is well covered in the press, there has certainly been plenty of coverage leading up to it. Enjoy your time in Australia, and especially Sydney - I hope you get to enjoy one of our major national days rather than being pushed by a gruelling schedule.

Looking forward to seeing some input from you regarding future direction for Sydney Wikipedians at Meetup/Sydney/November 2005 (well, someone else typing what they think they remember you saying in a busy street is more like it!) Garrie 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your visit to Spartanburg

Nice to see you at the Twitchell Auditorium at Converse College on April 10th. We're the guys with the one "character" who wears a box on his head and has the dingy blue lab coat on. We know you were probably confused (or worse, terrified Smiley) at such a sight so we wanted to explain that the character you posed with is named Slobot, and currently has a job with (the online site of the local newspaper, the Herald-Journal). Basically the character goes to various points of interest around Spartanburg and poses beside old decrepit mills, out-of-service bridges, statues, local events (such as your appearance at the college) and many other places usually of historical significance. The pictures are posted on the online site every other week, accompanied by a narrative that fills in details about the subject, its history, its importance, and any other bits of vital information. Our purpose is to spark interest in these locations in the hopes to both expand awareness of these usually unknown places and to fuel efforts to preserve them for future generations. We also hope we're filling in some gaps in the history of Spartanburg as not many people know what has happened here and what kind of important events and people have had an impact on the town. In our work, we find that we ourselves learn things we never knew, and it's a pleasure to pass this new found knowledge to the people that live here. As mentioned, you can see us every other Monday on or our archival site,

Again, it was a pleasure to meet you and we appreciate you allowing our odd friend Slobot to pose with you! Darklight1138 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perth Meetup

On behalf of all Wikiproject Western Australia editors. Thank you for attending our early morning meetup. We commissioned a commemorative userbox to so you can remember the occassion. User:Gnangarra/Userbox/Perth Meetup Jimbo

Also your chauffeur to and from the venue appears to have cornered himself with a bar tab for the next meetup, though we may excuse his rash statement if you can drop a note on his talk page. thanks again. 8-) Gnangarra 08:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

London Times

You may be interested in this letter which was pulished in this morning's edition of the London Times [17]. Perhaps it is about time Wikipedia had an official spokesman/person to counter these negative claims in the British press. Giano 08:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominate that fine user, Giano. Trouble is, there's an element - only an element - of truth in these claims. People who falsely claim that obscure Australian TV journalists have rock-star siblings don't help, for example. Neither does all the fannish cruft. That said, the writer of this letter sounds like someone with an axe to grind, and lots of people will surely see him this way. Metamagician3000 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several points here. First, that correspondent does indeed seem to have an axe to grind. Secondly, as ongoing events continue to show, there is indeed more than a kernel of truth to what he claims. Thirdly, there are positives and negatives in the British press (excepting the gutter press, which is unlikely to take an interest in this particular area anyway) just as there are everywhere. If you don't like the letter or the article, then send your own counter-argument to The Times. It might get published, it might not, but I think cranking up the Wikipedia propaganda machine is unlikely to help and may in fact be ultimately counter-productive. Badgerpatrol 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The (London) time is well known for printing seemingly controversial letters on various topics, However, it is also known for allowing people to respond to letters it prints. These need not be from offical bodies. Personally, I think the letter writer is wrong on some points. The other argument being if he thinks edits are being removed by cabals why doesn't he raise this with the community here? Presumably he tried to.
Why didn't he try? Because people who do that get banned repeatedly by admins working for cabals for the must spurious of reasons. It happens so frequently that its not even funny. So what happens? Someone writes a letter to a newspaper and your immediate response is to ban the person (or who you think the person is) for a spurious reason without proof (sockpuppetry). But the real reason you do it is because behind the facade of commitment to open development and freedom of speech, Wikipedia is an authoritarian, paranoid beast which lashes out wildly to any criticism no matter how well founded. The only reason the user was banned was that he spoke a truth that you don't want to hear. Now ban this IP address - you know you want to -- 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
er, actually, if the writer *is* the former WP editor as mentioned below, he was blocked way back last year sometime; the blocks had nothing to do with the letter being published. Sorry to burst that bit of your bubble. TINC. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
er, actually, then why was he banned for sockpuppetry when the account used his own name? Shome mishtake shurely? The great thing about the "sockpuppetry" gambit is that its impossible to disprove - editors have been banned for being from the same ISP (like AOL) as someone else. You haven't answered the substance of the complaint - that editors are regularly banned from WP by admins which are part of POV cabals. That, more than anything else is the greatest scandal of Wikipedia and its a matter of time before that bomb goes off in the media.-- 08:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
His original account was Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He had a history of edit warring, sockpuppetry, and hysterical outbursts. He was blocked indefinitely. Then, Robertsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appeared. As far as I remember, he was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user (confirmed by checkuser), but, following a discussion among admins, the new account was unblocked, as a second chance, under certain conditions. He resorted to his original behaviour, and was reblocked. I wrote an account of the case at the time, to help in admin discussion: it can be found at User:Musical Linguist/Robertsteadman. And of course you can be a sockpuppet even when you use your own name. If your main account, which doesn't use (exactly) your own name, is blocked, and you try to evade the block by registering a new account in your own name, that's a sockpuppet account. Personally, I think the best approach is to ignore him. I wouldn't feel comfortable with having the Times publish an account of his career at Wikipedia. While he's certainly no friend of mine, he does have a job and a wife in real life, and as long as he isn't trying to cause any harm to individual editors in real life. Wikipedia is surely big enough to be able to put up with a letter to a paper saying how terrible we are! Musical Linguist 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, someone has pointed out to me that since it's an old dispute, and gives the real name of someone, there's no need to keep User:Musical Linguist/Robertsteadman around, so I've deleted it. Jimbo, I'm sure you have more pressing issues, but if you do want to read about it, you're able to see deleted pages. :-) Musical Linguist 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Frankly and actually, all of us know this to be the truth, Mr. Steadman, and unfortunately, vandalism and "power politics" can be a reality here because there are no restrictions on "editing." Quite often, the "kids" here, do not have the experience to make adult decisions. The above is clearly a fact of life; certainly nothing new. Gangs, or packs, or cabals of editors, many times people less than the age of majority; much like what happens on MySpace, can control this project--- by "consensus."

It is the very nature of the consensus thinking, without well thought out laws or leadership, that is at the heart of this matter. 13:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, has endless triva that is accepted, however there IS a lot of well sourced infromation in Wikipedia that would not be in other encyclopaedias with 'closed' edit models. A case in point being biographical details on obscure opposition leaders in questionable regimes. In addition, Wikipedia is not censored, hence in respect of articles on religion what might appear to be biased, when is in fact valid comment, just not palatable comment.;-)

ShakespeareFan00 13:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Metamagician, but no I don't talk to the press in any way shape or form, and the unseemly spectacle of various editors airing their differences publicly in the Times would be enough to put people off their breakfast and wikipedia for good. A Minister of Education endorsing Wikipedia is to be encouraged here, not allowed to be undermined by the likes of Larry Sanger and other disgruntled editors so Wikipedia needs to respond officially to all such public comments as this. Millions of people find our work here helpful and useful - we should be proud of that and not allow it to be demeaned. We the editors put in the work - it is up to "senior management" to defend us and our efforts. Giano 13:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt if The Times is going to offer itself up for editors to have a pop at each other over trivialities. However, it may print a reasoned response outlining in s substantive form a counterargument. Generally, the use of Wikipedia should be encouraged, obviously- it's a fun way to learn new things which one can then check and independently verify. It's my experience that schoolchildren (and indeed often even university undergraduates) may lack the skills needed to differentiate between different sources and weigh up their usefulness. If the education secretary is suggesting that Wikipedia is a usable source for school essays and the like, then he is frankly wrong. It's possible that he doesn't actually understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. In any case, it's silly to get involved in Wiki-propaganda or tit-for-tat press releases and so forth, that's not the Wiki way. The success of Wikipedia (for what it is) is manifestly obvious to all. Badgerpatrol 14:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a random English language Wikipedia article is more reliable than a random mass media article. WAS 4.250 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. And double hmm. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm indeed! If we were certain it was him, then I would write a fully referenced section in his biography reporting his hobby of writing letters rubbishing wikipedia to national newspapers (see the talk page [18]) - but there could be two people of that name both domiciled in Matlock - so we have to give benefeit of doubt. If on the other hand Wikipedia felt that the co-incidence was too great to be in doubt, then the foundation could inform the Times their correspondent was in fact permanently banned from editing the project. Hence even The Times is not exempt from publishing dodgy information. Giano 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Speaking about The Times publishing dodgy information, the story that inspired the letter starts "The founder of the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia criticised the Education Secretary yesterday for suggesting that the website could be a good educational tool for children." Who dat? More importantly, the feedback on that page is generally pretty good, and the kudos from the UK Education Secretary sound interesting........dave souza, talk 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I liked the comment from the last guy on the "Have your say" to the original April 11 article.
  • Wikipedia is actually a better educational tool because pupils know that it can be edited by anyone. It forces pupils to check sources, and to determine which details are worth tracking down and which can be accepted without real risk. There's nothing like a crtiical attitude to one's textbook. --Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
Yes, and my response would be: you can find all kinds of interesting things down at the city dump. But its still a city dump and children shouldn't be playing there, no matter how well informed they are about the dangers of dumps. -- 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is Malcom McLean of Bradford, UK one of us? --Rednblu 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether I am in the wrong, but even if I am, I am happy to accept whatever gets thrown at me, including blocks, bans, or an indef. I don't care. I have just emailed The Times with a direct reply to Mr. Steadman's criticisms of Wikipedia, from the point of view of myself as an editor. I will be making the text of this email available on my Talk page, which gives you all the opportunity to view what I wrote and to comment upon it. Administrators, you are welcome too. Please don;t hold back, say what you think, but think what you say! Thor Malmjursson 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are you holding a gun; threatening to shoot people?

Certainly not a timely, or seemly idea of what a spokesperson for Wikipedia should look like, in my opinion.

Firstly, please sign your posts, it helps us know who posted what, and when. Secondly, the picture used on my Userpage is merely humour, nothing more. It was originally posted for April Fool's day, and carried the caption "This user is prepared for April Fools Day". However, I kept the image afterwards, and used it for my work on Recent Change Patrol, to signify the fact that I was ready for anything. For what its worth, I neither own, nor carry a gun, and if you look to the box on the right of my userpage, you will see exactly what I look like. I agree, maybe not the best picture, but only intended to be there out of humour and nothing more. In light of recent events however, I will remove the caption since I believe that it could be construed in bad taste. Thor Malmjursson 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

<for information> In this speech to the NASUWT teachers' union, the UK Education Secretary Alan Johnson made a passing reference to us, saying "The internet has been an incredible force for good in education. Wikipedia enables anybody to access information which was once the preserve of those who could afford the subscription to Enyclopedia Britannica and were prepared to navigate its maze of indexes and content pages." before describing the downside as cyber-bullying etc. This made the Grauniad which emphasised complaints about Wikipedia from the union secretary who "said the union itself had been the victim of scurrilous claims on Wikipedia". The Times featured Larry Sanger who seems to be trying to launch something, and Nick Gibb the Conservative Party (UK) schools spokesman who said: “A huge amount of the current curriculum, particularly in history, is devoted to teaching children to be discerning when it comes to information on the internet. It appears the Secretary of State is not quite as modern as he needs to be in this information age.”, indicating that the Tories are unaware of Wikipedia's ethos and practice. I was thinking this should go in Wikipedia in the news etc, but have run out of time, so if anyone more experienced with reporting such items can contribute a piece I'll be most grateful. .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Times ("London Times"? Ugh!) carried an excellent letter in response yesterday. It can be seen (here). It was sent by "THORSTEINN A. MALMJURSSON Wikipedia member and editor Ely, Cambs" --Dweller 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Mail published a similar letter from Robert Steadman last Friday. I sent a response refuting the points that he had made and that was published by the Mail yesterday. If you would like to see the key points of either of these letters, they are on the talk page of the Robert Steadman article. TomPhil 10:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested to learn that Petronella Wyatt had an opinion article published in the Daily Mail dated 23rd April, recounting her horrid experiences when her article (which she admits to writing herself) was vandalised, how she contacted WP, threatened to sue, etc. LessHeard vanU 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol, not exactly Daniel Brandt then? The editor who started it lated added the word glamorous as a first description (more lol), SqueakBox 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Learning german


Hallo Jimbo, schön das du weiter Deutsch lernst, es gibt auch zwei deutsche Seiten die ich dir empfehlen möchte:

  1. oder direkt in Google Earth ein Wikipedia-Layer in 17 Sprachen.

Das Beste an den Seiten ist, dass es davon auch jeweils englische Versionen gibt;-)

Greetings from Germany de:Benutzer:Kolossos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Afrikaans and "true" African languages


Was intruiged to read your comments on, published here:

To be honest, I've always admired you for being level-headed, fair, and reasonable, especially in a place like the Internet where ego often trumps reason. However, I have to say that your comment "In Afrikaans, there are 7000 articles, but in true African languages there is almost nothing", is offensive to me, and probably to millions of other Afrikaans speakers. Wikipedia's own page on Afrikaans goes into this in quite some detail, and to say that Afrikaans is not an "African" language, despite being indigenous to Africa, just because it comes from a Germanic, and not Bantu base, is quite incorrect. I realise that there was most probably no malice on your part, and that the comment was nothing more than a careless slip of the tongue, so I would urge you to be more careful in the future, otherwise people's feelings might needlessly be hurt.

Kind Regards, MichelleG 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Or one could ask "for what meanings of the word 'true' does the sentence make sense" and then suppose that is probably what he had in mind. Since he is always going on about a free encyclopedia for people without even an internet connection, the relationship of language to level of affluence could be seen to be behind his meaning. Then again I'm forever assuming favorable interpretations and later finding out the other really did mean exactly what they said and just didn't know better. WAS 4.250 14:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My exact wording was "non-European African languages".--Jimbo Wales 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talkpage - thanks for clearing that up. I tend to get a bit defensive about Afrikaans as being a white South African living outside of South Africa, I tend to get stereotyped negatively a lot, which is sometimes unfair. So, I apologise if I was a little too strong or harsh with my above comment.

Again, thanks for the reply.

MichelleG 10:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I do see your point regarding the sparseness of WikiPedia articles in the "non-European African languages" of South Africa and in support of that:

The most common language spoken at home by South African is Zulu (24 percent speak Zulu at home), followed by Xhosa (18 percent), and Afrikaans (13 percent). English is only the fifth-most common home language in the country, but is understood in most urban areas and is the dominant language in government and the media.

The major reason for the disparity, which you referenced, is that English and Afrikaans are both literary languages while the remainder of the official languages are essentially oral languages for the majority of the population. The WikiPedia statistics for the top four indigenous languages, in usage:

Wiki Articles
in South African Languages
Language  % Usage Wiki Articles
Zulu 24% 92
Xhosa 18% 33
Sesotho 38
Venda 33

Afrikaans, while holding a primacy of only 13%, is reported as 30 times more popular than Zulu as a second language and is the most popular primary language in both the Eastern and Northern Cape provinces. There are a number of daily newspapers published in Afrikaans as well as other periodicals.

Of course, English is the single most common language in print in South Africa.
--Lmcelhiney 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy Proposal

A proposed policy for dealing with articles which have lacked sources for a long period of time. The current proposal is to place the articles in to a "warning" status after a period of time, and then to delete them after another period of time if sources are not added. The purpose of this is to make Wikipedia more reliable and accurate, making sure articles do not sit indefinately without sources, as required by various policies. In short: get sources or get deleted. Paul Cyr 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jimmy Wales, saw you on australian TV

Hey Jimmy, i saw you recently(today) on the Australian Network Nine show Today. Where could i find that interview, on youtube?

Can i ask, will wiki be a pop culture phenomenon or is now a pop culture?

Is wiki really the biggest web site in the world?

Congratulation on appearing on Australian television. Pece Kocovski 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The video is here, by the way. Daniel Bryant 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Triple J radio

Just heard your interview with Robbie Buck. Enjoyed it :) – Riana 07:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace must go! Great interview Jimmy.--cj | talk 07:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If I had 100 million dollars?

Jimbo, last year I think you asked people what should be bought up with a lot of money you possibly had access to. I suggest buying up U.S Historic Newspapers Archives Inc. 1592 Hart Street, Rahway. NJ 07065 Toll Free: 1-866-850-0423 Fax: 732-381-2699 I'm pulling together a List of the writings of William Monahan and his New York Post stuff is possibly hidden away within that company's vaults, so are a lot of other newspapers it seems, like the Wall Street Journal. There's a lot of first drafts of history in those old newspapers. Would be good for Wikipedia, no? Best, BillDeanCarter 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do those people actually own copyright to any old newspapers, which could be sold to Wikimedia and relicensed under GFDL or another free license? Any papers from before 1923 are public-domain (in the USA), and it's possible that any newer papers they're using are under some kind of limited license from the copyright owners (generally the papers themselves) and can't be sold or relicensed. (Their site came up too slowly when I tried to access it, so I can't actually check it to see what their copyright status is.) Some papers might also have freelance-contributed articles that have different copyright status according to their contributors. *Dan T.* 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The point here is not necessarily to create free web content, although that would be great, but to preserve the physical newspapers themselves. Nicholson Baker has done important work in this area and, if I had the proverbial $100 million and wanted to invest some of it in information preservation and dissemination, I would spend some of it supporting efforts such as his. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal for their FAQ question "How do I order back copies?" says "To purchase issues no longer available in our office please contact the Historic Newspaper Archive Co. at 1 800-221-3221." [19] The New York Post similarly redirects you if you email them. The web site "Historic Newspapers" is simply keeping them archived for anniversary gifts, which is fine, but if they were bought up, and all those newspapers were digitized, there could be some actual use made of them newspapers. The concern isn't really to put them into the public domain, but to make them accessible for reading and referencing. Newspapers don't really care about their old papers, but the public does. So keep the business running as a side show, while Wikipedia digitizes the newspapers, and proofcopies them in a massive distributed effort. Best,BillDeanCarter 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia with an inevitable American systemic bias. That would be made much worse if such a proposal went ahead, SqueakBox 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This would be a start, and if there are other old newspapers to be bought up, then for sure, Wikipedia should do it.-BillDeanCarter 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing we need to do (as a free culture movement, not necessarily as Wikimedia), is to take the PD newspapers that are currently only available through restrictive databases (or indeed, sometimes they haven't been digitized at all), and make them available through open databases. It would probably be a waste of money to buy the rights to still-under-copyright back issues of newspapers, and I don't think any major media organizations would want to sell these either.--Pharos 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that "Historic Newspapers" could, if taken over and turned around, be used to make old newspapers available on the web, rather than individually available to people as birthday presents, which is a ridiculous use of history. There's a responsibility (I don't know whose, but generally) to preserve those newspapers, and make them easily accessible to Wikipedians who are writing about history. It's true that most old newspapers are available on microfilm in public libraries, but they're usually not indexed, and really difficult to navigate.-BillDeanCarter 04:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be unaware that the archives of at least several major newspapers have been digitized, and are available online to researchers (or indeed, ordinary college students) via restricted services that universities subscribe to. For example, the entire archives of the New York Times are online in a restricted database, although the pre-1923 editions by every right belong in a free database if someone would only set one up. There is, however, a good open database for the Brooklyn Eagle until 1902 created by the Brooklyn Public Library. That is the only significant open newspaper resource that I am aware of.--Pharos 04:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean LexisNexis, but the New York Post isn't included amongst them.-BillDeanCarter 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The first, and most important, thing I would do if I had $100m to spend on Wikipedia would be to open Wikipedia Research Centres in major cities throughout the world (including, of course - as a Brit, London). It seems to me that one great failing of Wikipedia is the over-reliance on web-based sources. The research centres would subscribe to ProQuest (a UK newspaper archive) and American equivalent, and various academic journals. They would also stock a range of reference books, and join the inter-library loan system, so that others could be procured. The centres would provide quiet reading space and web terminals, and ideally youth hostel style accommodation. Additionally, Wikipedians could submit requests for sources and get the results back by e or snail mail.

(A cheaper alternative might be if the Foundation arranged for Wikipedians to have access to university libraries).

Another thing I'd like to try is bursaries or even salaried positions for editors and admins. This has worked well in the free software world. Should somebody else come along with the money, I'd certainly be applying - I believe I could make a bigger difference helping Wikipedia than I would in other jobs, and I could do whatever the community wanted: rewriting AWB, dealing with image deletion backlogs, churning out FAs, whatever. --kingboyk 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

With $100M, I'd put it in some sort of investment fund/account/plan/management, and run wikimedia indefinitely off of the interest (interest would be several $M/year, more than we currently need) . (But you already knew that :-) ) --Kim Bruning 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dull dull dull. You could at least hold a cabal party! --kingboyk 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Dull maybe but yours is the most controversial suggestion I have heard in a while. Who would get invited? and who wouldn't? And what would that signify? Even claiming the cabal exists in such a way would be extremely controversial and I think Jimbo has enough controversies to deal with already, SqueakBox 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup

I initiated a bit of discussion on the Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 5 page about whether we need any agenda. It looks like everyone, including me, wants to keep it freeform and friendly and informal, but if you have a look there you might get some advance warning of issues that people are likely to ask your current thoughts on. Metamagician3000 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a quick thanks to Jimbo for sharing his thoughts with a group of us this morning. Also, it was great to meet you - and, indeed, all the other folks who were there. Metamagician3000 00:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Wikinews has a new look, with a different background and colour. Let us know what you think on the Water cooler! --Brianmc 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sydney seminar - Mr. Ten Questions

Hey there.

Just in case you hadn't figured it out already, I thought I'd just drop by and explain the guy at the conference who stood up and asked questions like "Jessica Rowe and Peter Overton - will it last?" - which must have seemed rather bizarre out of context, especially when the rest of the audience applauded at the end of it all.

The man in question is Andrew Hansen, a member of The Chaser, an Australian group who basically make it their business to jostle people a little. Their current project is a TV Show called The Chaser's War on Everything, which includes one section called "Mr. Ten Questions", in which Hansen attends a conference and asks the keynote speaker ten questions in a row in the manner you would have observed at the conference.

Chances are, every Australian in the room who could see his face would have recognised him and instantly known that his question(s) were going to be somewhat out of the ordinary, hence the applause.

I just love the (strangely ironic) idea that, finding yourself in the middle of such a bizarre and unexpected situation, all you had to do afterwards was look it up on Wikipedia. 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano

You deleted this article -- perhaps because it became corrupted. It was a valid article at one time -- see the Google cache here. Its talk page is still here ...

Can it be undeleted and restored to its "former glory"? Thanks, --mervyn 07:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Have now done the DRV procedure:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Giovanni_di_Stefano. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. mervyn 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, please come by this one and clarify - David Gerard 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate

Lately when I was requesting a clarification of an ArbCom case, I spotted Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate, and everything appears that Mr. Wales, you, made the decision to block that user. While I totally respect your decision, because you are the head of Wikipedia, can you specify which policy did this user violate? What I saw was that the user posted some sexual pictures on relevant articles, which isn't any violation because Wikipedia is not censored (but I haven't seen these pictures so it's not my role to comment on them). I just want a clarification of the policies, however if you say you made the decision notwithstanding the current policy, I'll still respect and defer to it. Thanks! WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo did not block Publicgirluk. She was blocked by Nandesuka. It was removed then reinstated by Dragons flight.[20] The photos are not of an English student, as claimed, but of a Swedish porn actress Linda Lust and therefore a copyvio. This issue has been explored to death. Tyrenius 06:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

****Wikipedia Sucks****

Could someone please tell me what is the point of leaving comments on this page? Jimbo hardly ever replies to them! And he probably never even reads them! And Jimbo if you happen to read this comment: YOUR SITE SUCKS . I have honestly never seen a more in-efficient website, spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, punctuation errors and worst of all INCORRECT INFORMATION. Tell me something else, why is it that when i add more detail and info to a page, users delete what i have written when it is correct and accurate and at very least adds to detail within the article, because these idiots contributing to wikipedia think they know it all, i have a university degree and the person who deleted my info is a school student! And why are editors so rude and abusive.

And one final thing, wikipedia policy says that biographies of people can only be on wikipedia if they have done something substantial or significant, why then is there a bio of Florence Nibart-Devouard, all she is, is Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, shes done nothing significant! Shes only on wikipedia because she is chair of the organisation, she doesn't deserve to have a encyclopaedia article about her! Which means that one must ask the question Is wikipedia a useful and informative website or is it just about big-noting oneself? (Anna Vida 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

I must agree, at least, that the article Florence Nibart-Devouard fails to credibly establish the notability of its subject. I have commented accordingly on the talk page.Proabivouac 07:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a sgnificant web site (top ten), its chair is notable. There are many thousands of articles on living people who would not rate an article in a traditional encyclopedia. Rich Farmbrough, 08:38 27 April 2007 (GMT).
"There are many thousands of articles on living people who would not rate an article in a traditional encyclopedia."
Many of these should be deleted. Our standard here has been the availability of mainstream sources which assert notability; here we have none.Proabivouac 09:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There is precedent for using corporate websites for non-contentious information about corporations, such as names of officers. Unless, of course there is a real dispute about who chairs the Wikimedia Foundation? Rich Farmbrough, 11:12 27 April 2007 (GMT).
To answer the first point of your question; it is a forum for discussion on topics that may possibly not be appropriately discussed elsewhere. Whether Jimbo responds or even a reads a particular comment is irrelevant; the potential is there. In the meantime the community responds, in the manner that Jimbo established, so the purpose is served. LessHeard vanU 08:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to bewail others' mistakes of punctuation, you might wish to pay more attention to your punctuation. In particular, your prolific use of exclamation points helps to suggest that you're merely ranting: a pity, because the charge that WP is riddled with vanity articles is a reasonable one. -- Hoary 09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

i add more detail and info to a page, users delete what i have written when it is correct and accurate and at very least adds to detail within the article, because these idiots contributing to wikipedia think they know it all, i have a university degree and the person who deleted my info is a school student! And why are editors so rude and abusive.

First of all, just saying you have a university degree is not a substitute for a source or an explanation of an edit (since this isn't apparently your main account, we can't tell if your specific concerns have any base to them). We learned this the hard way here. Second, I would hope an educated person such as yourself would not be so quick to judge. Not everyone here is a school student (You aren't) and the vast majority of people here are not rude or abusive. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


I was phished earlier and the person who did it left nasty edits that went under my name. I have changed my password, so it won't happen again. I was hoping to achieve Admin status next year, but I don't think that that will happen now because of things that I didn't do!! It also happened on my MySpace. I have since changed anything harmful that "I" did. I am so sorry that it happened, and could someone give a little advice to me? Thank you Gdk 411 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked your editing history, and I have every reason to believe that your claim is genuine. The three page-blanking vandalism edits are completely out of character with your other activity here. If you do apply for adminship in the future - and you are at least three months away from being prepared - just briefly mention this incident, and nobody will give you any trouble for it. As a veteran of WP:RFA discussions, I can assure you that a minor spurt of vandalism by someone who hijacked your account is not a concern. If you want, you can request to change your username, but the edit history will stay with the new name. YechielMan 19:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought people would be responsible for their own account. How did someone just take his password? I would oppose the RFC for incompetence.--Dacium 02:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of Worms? They are great at getting your information by tracking you. It wasn't my fault. Thanks. Gdk 411 11:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo

Remember me? We were at school together, and I was the guy who used to draw all over your textbooks. How you doing anyway? I remember when me and some of the other kids used to call you "Jumbo" due to your rather "cuddly" frame. Ah, those were the days eh? Anyway, never thought you'd make it as far as you have, so let this be an official congratulations from myself for exceeding my expectations of you! Well done shaggy!--Daniel Goff 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, is it always true that every thing you say goes with no discussion or consensus?

Hi there! I love your work! :)

I'm very new to Wikipedia and already embroiled in discussions about WP:IAR, how Deletion Review is run, policy and interpretations of policy and other administrative backwash. I do not want your influence to help or hinder, and am not asking you to make any extra time save this:

It's been asserted by folks I'm in discussion with that what you say goes, with no argument or discussion or interpretations.

Now, I am hardly in a position to refuse you what you authoritatively say should be in an official capacity, speaking for the Board and other folks heavily invested in Wikpedia and Wikimedia, and I wouldn't dare try to. At the same time, I'm not sure if you intend to be the walks-on-water-24/7 guy. If you're okay with all your words being taken as gospel, I'm okay with that too. The boundaries will have been set and I'll just quietly go about my business and not ever try to get in your way.

At the same time, if you're not okay with that sort of role, I'd love to know it, because I think I can help better Wikipedia if I have the leeway to effectively disagree with you (or more likely, others' interpretations of your often very precise and concise words).

If you have time to respond, I'd love it. If you don't, no big deal. Thank you in any case for your time. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not true; while Jimbo can do that (see WP:OFFICE), he doesn't do it often, and things he says are often discussed. See also Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. --cesarb 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the links. I didn't think that with an organization this size that kind of thing 24/7 would be wise, but I didn't want to presume. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP and urban legends

Jimmy, I noted that you have a lot to say on WP:BLP and would like to ask you a question of policy about inclusion of urban legends in articles. The topic in question is Richard Gere and the infamous gerbil story. Discussion here: [21] Some editors say that it violates BLP, but isn't it the rule that contentions material should be properly sourced? My point is that however distasteful the legend is, and irrespective of whether people think it is true or not, the legend does exist. It is in mentioned in many high-quality sources, including biographies about Gere, and in many books on urban legends. It is also debunked on

I have also noticed that some urban legends seem to be allowed (Michael Jackson and the oxygen tent, John Gilchrist (actor) dying of pop-rocks and soda). If these legends/rumors are properly sourced and allowed then why shouldn't Gere's legend be allowed? Your comment regarding policy would be most appreciated. Sparkzilla 07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • And there you have is a good metaphor for WP:BLP itself! It's dirty. It's gutsy. It resembles a frantic hypoxic gerbil following the twists of a Hollywood actor's colon, looking for a way out of a bad situation. Nevermind truth-- is there a proper paper trail? Will time run out, before the present anal-retentive policy relaxes?? Only one person probably knows, and he is usually as silent as the Egyptian Sphincter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Hmm. I wasn't aware this had been brought here. I suppose both sides may be warranted in this case. The issue isn't really that it's "disgusting", but rather a few other issues: There are cited sources that people say that other people have said that other people have said that he performed the act. In other words, hearsay of hearsay of hearsay. But no evidence from a 1st party (or even 2nd party) source that anyone believed it, or was willing to directly make the claim themself. What's more, there's an issue on whether the rumour has any significance or notability regarding Gere himself. (Yes, when people hear "gerbilling", they may think of Gere. But is the converse true?)
I won't be offended if you don't wish to get involved, but, if you do, then your opinion regardless of which side that is would be very much appreciated, both on the BLP side of it, and also on any other aspects you might see fit. Bladestorm 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It could be interpreted as being akin to WP:FRINGE; it is not a mainstream viewpoint, but has generated enough discussion by reliable sources (whether they are noting it or dismissing it) to establish notability. Remember WP does not require proof but verifiability. LessHeard vanU 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, if you were going to liken it to a FRINGE theory, you'd have to at least directly tie it to someone who held that theory. For example, if I wanted to include the face-on-mars thing, it'd definitely be better to cite someone who believed there was a face on mars, rather than to cite someone who heard from someone else who heard from someone else that there was a face on mars. (which is, literally, the current quality of references provided) Bladestorm 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Finding an original source for an urban legend is impossible, far more so than finding a central source for a Fringe theory. Both the face on Mars and the gerbil story would be best sourced to reputable sources refuting same, that way the claim is both established as existing and also explained/debunked. LessHeard vanU 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL, I cannot believe I'm reading this argument. Are we really going to have to add some special note in WP:NOT to make sure that wikipedia is NOT about things like the alleged gerbil in Richard Gere's colon?? Or shouldn't be? Have we really reached the point where common sense, common decency toward the living, and the lofty goals of an enclyclopedia cannot prevail against a system of rules, relentlessly applied by a hoarde of wikignomes--- until somebody finally pulls the plug on the madness? SBHarris 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Evidently we haven't reached that point yet, though we've reached the point where we have people who are complaining that we haven't. It just means that we need to continue to use intelligent editorial judgment about what belongs in an encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The myth exists. It is verifiable as existing. I knew about it, when reminded, and dismiss it. I could not, however, name you 5 films featuring Richard Gere (I would be pushed for 3). So, should Wikipedia ignore the urban legend (and on what basis?) or note the myth with appropriate cites? LessHeard vanU 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason in present WP policy why not. If it's well-sourced, the question of whether it's true or not, is irrelevent. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, in fact officially doesn't believe in the concept. Gere's gerbil is a signficant part of his public personna, as everyone who knows who he is also knows thes story, and if the story finally makes it into his Wikipedia bio, it will be an even larger part. Wikipedia is capable of making things notable by simple fiat, you know. If they weren't notable before Wikipedia mentioned them in a bio, they are certainly notable afterwards. So in that sense, Wikipedia is incapable of making a bad decision in this regard, if those are the only rules it runs by, for people who already are notable for other reasons.

And where is our "old news" editor anyway, when it comes to bios? Howard K. Stern was notable for claiming to be the father of Anna Nicole's baby. But now that she's dead and DNA proves he's not, why is his bio still here? Well, because he's now notable for having once having been notable, and the size of his Wiki proves it. Sort of like Warhol who was famous for being famous, and is now famous merely for once having been famous, even though now dead. Except Stern remains alive, and profiled in Wikipedia as one of this year's biggest has-beens. SBHarris 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with what you're implying, I'm not sure that using extended irony is a good idea with a debate like this. Metamagician3000 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that some editors at the Richard Gere entry continue to deny that inclusion of false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable sexual allegations violates policy. Any assistance would of course be welcome. FNMF 00:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But the weasle word "non-notable" makes this policy unusable. Certainly for Gere, since this story is known by more people than know how to differentiate a simple algebreic function, or what the capital cities of Madagascar or Burkina Faso are. The word "false" there is also a weasel word, and muy hypocritical, since Wikipedia doesn't believe in truth. And as for the rest of it: "unsubstantiated malicious sexual allegations", the biography of William Kennedy Smith consists mostly of them, so how does it manage to survive wikipedia policy and remain as as a Wiki? Would the man's bio be notable enough to include without the unsubstantiated allegations?? Inquiring minds want to know. I've asked the same questions about the bios associated wtih the Duke U. Lacrosse rape case. No answer. SBHarris 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree: notability is a key element of WP:BLP. Note the example given in that policy about details of a messy divorce (quote: ""John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out."). Even true, sourced details of a messy divorce may well need to be excluded if they are not notable. What does notability mean then? It means notability in relation to the subject of the entry, that is, it means notability in relation to the general notability of the subject, that is, in relation to their work or their other non-trivial reasons for notability. Of course, there is judgment required to determine what is notable and what is not. But that does not make it a weasel-word. On the contrary. For example, Gere's notability derives, essentially, from his work as an actor; secondly, perhaps, from his Buddhism; thirdly, perhaps, for other activities such as samaritanism, etc. He is not notable for any reasons to do with his sexual behaviour, and there are no sources to indicate that he is notable for any reasons to do with his sexual behaviour. This is purely and simply non-notable material that must be excluded on policy grounds, however many people "know" about these allegations. "False" is certainly not a weasel-word: one of the allegations editors wish to include is false; the other allegation editors wish to include is unsubstantiated and has been explicitly denied by the subject of the entry. False allegations must be excluded on WP:BLP grounds. Unsubstantiated, malicious and non-notable allegations denied by the subject of the entry must be excluded on WP:BLP grounds. Notability is a meaningful and important concept for BLP entries, and the policy questions concerning the Gere entry are very clear. FNMF 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, what if the subject is notable primarily for unsubstantiated sexual accusations, like William Kennedy Smith? Don't you see the problem? And listening to the subject "deny" an unsubstantiated claim (like Brandt wanted to do on his TALK page), and connecting that to presumed "falsehood" in the absense of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is totally against the philosophy of Wikipedia for everything else BUT biography-- and not always even there. Not that I object, but I'm simply trying to get you to realize that this is one of those problems that can't be fixed by applying policy uniformly. Which is fine by me, but drives some Wikipedians (for whom a foolish consistany is the hobgoblin of their, ahem, minds) crazy. "truth" and "falsehood" are not Wikipedia terms. They SHOULD be, and BLP is the place to start with them, if anywhere. The allegations against Kennedy Smith and Gere have not been proven, have been denied by the subjects, and THEREFORE should be PRESUMED false by Wikipedia and not included in either bio. But in Smith's, they are, and in Gere's, they aren't. Oddly enough, that's because there isn't much left of Smith's bio, if you omit them. That should be a clue, no? Perhaps the whole Smith bio should go? Same for the bios of the couple of members of the lacrosse team at Duke. For Gere, a very brief review on his acting roles would go in the Britannica, and that's it. From this, we should learn on Wikipedia. Our lack of space limitations tempts us into evil. SBHarris 04:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a big difference between false or unsubstantiated rumours, and a courtcase resulting in an acquittal. The latter, in the case of a figure who is notable for other reasons, may well be notable. Of course, the fact of the acquittal must be made sufficiently clear in order to maintain NPOV, but discussion of the existence of a courtcase clearly does not necessarily constitute a violation of WP:BLP. On the other hand, it may well be the case that the WKS entry should be pared back to a minimal, factual entry. In the Gere case, on the other hand, we are dealing with two allegations. The first is false (this judgment is not because Gere denied the allegation; in fact, Gere has never mentioned it); the second is unsubstantiated (and denied by Gere). No notability can be established for either allegation, and Gere's notability does not derive from anything to do with these allegations. Furthermore, the allegations are insensitive, contentious, controversial and non-encyclopaedic. So my response to you is to say that policy does indeed cover the difference between the WKS and the Gere cases. It just requires editors to be clear enough about what policy says in order to make the difference. FNMF 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the Lacrosse team members you mentioned, if there are no other grounds for their notability (as appears to be the case), then I think there is a very strong argument for deletion of the entries. Despite a tabloid sensationalist interest in these people, they have a right not to be included in an encyclopaedia for the rest of their lives purely for tabloid sensationalist reasons. Again, it just requires editors to be clear enough about policy so as to be able to enforce it (obviously this is difficult in the face of concerted opposition). (Additional note: User SBHarris informs me that, upon checking, he has discovered that these entries have recently been deleted, which would appear to be a very sound decision.) FNMF 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is not to protect people from their pasts, but to refelect what actually happened through reliable sources. To tell what actually happened, not what we would have liked to have happened if real life didn't get in the way.

Above you said, "there are no sources to indicate that he is notable for any reasons to do with his sexual behaviour." that is completely untrue, and the person who tells us is Gere himself. Gere/Crawford took out a full-page ad in the Times to address rumors about their marriage and sexuality. When a celebrity makes such an enormous public denial it means two things 1) the rumors were very widespread and 2) they felt strongly about them that he had to make a statement. Without the denial you could possibly argue that the rumors were unsubstantiated, but their letter proves that there were rumors about their marriage and their sexuality. By excluding their denial on Wikipedia you are 1) not telling the story and 2) not helping Gere. Gere wanted that letter to be shown so that rumors would at least be addressed. You have no right not to mention it on Wikipedia. Sparkzilla 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) It is not a matter of "protecting people from their pasts," but rather of protecting them from unsubstantiated and false malicious allegations. Do not confuse the two. (2) The fact that Gere took out a newspaper ad to deny one of the allegations does not establish that he is notable for reasons to do with the sexual behaviour. In fact, he took the ad out to make clear that he is not notable for his sexual behaviour. Taking out an ad does not mean he wishes to have the allegations published along with his denial. Rather, it means he wishes people to stop printing the unsubstantiated allegations, and certainly not in an encyclopaedia. (3) The rumours are unsubstantiated, that is, no evidence has been given that the rumours are true. In such circumstances, including these rumours clearly violates WP:BLP. (4) Including unsubstantiated or false malicious and non-notable allegations in an encyclopaedia does not "help" Gere. FNMF 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
1. Wikipedia is not about "protecting them from unsubstantiated and false malicious allegations" -- it's not about "protecting" anyone. 2. He specifically addressed each allegation in the ad, therefore they are notable to him. 3. It does not matter on WP if the rumors were true or not - all that matters is that he verifiably denied them. 4. Including the denial does help Gere - it's part of his story.
Anyway rather going through this again, I would like to open an RfC for this specific issue (with a vote). Will you abide by the result? Sparkzilla 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
(1) If Wikipedia does not have to protect people from unsubstantiated and false allegations on its pages, I wonder why you think WP:BLP exists. (2) The ad does not establish notability. As mentioned, the reason to place the ad is to stop people from repeating unsubstantiated malicious allegations. (3) It certainly does matter whether allegations are verifiable or not. There are no sources to indicate these allegations are true. They are malicious and non-notable. They should be excluded. Please feel free to open an RfC. Please note, however, that a vote cannot make it OK to blatantly violate WP:BLP. Only a change of policy could make it OK to include false and unsubstantiated malicious and non-notable allegations on the pages of Wikipedia. FNMF 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be another case for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If you have to take out an ad to tell people not to spread accusations about yourself, then the fact that you have to do so indicates that the accusations are notable. Taking out an ad is an extreme action that few people would do without massive provocation. And nobody sane would take out such an ad unless the accusations are already so common that taking out the ad won't spread them much more, again indicating they are notable.

On the other hand, it's ludicrous to use someone's attempt to deny accusations as our justification to include the accusations.

We're better off saying "Yeah, technically, the ad shows the accusations are notable, but using the ad to show notability is obviously against the spirit of the rules" rather than stretching the rules and pretending that the ad doesn't demonstrate notability. Ken Arromdee 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Original research holding hostage to key Wikipedia pages

FYI: This is only an alert. I would suggest that there is no action to be taken at this time. You might look in on the Paranormal RfArb case. At some time in the future, it may be necessary for an authority figure to declare the obvious lack of consensus among Wikipedia editors for the tiny minority view of believers in the scientific method whose OriginalResearch is being forced on key Wikipedia pages, including false, misleading, and agenda-driven attacks on living people. --Rednblu 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we going around in circles?

Jimbo, After listening to you at, and speaking to you after the conference, I thought I would take the bait and add at least on extra piece of information to your Jimmy Wales article. And now people are asking for it to be cited? Can't we get some sanity around this? See QuackGuru's talk page for a discussion I've been included in about the need for references.

Want to provide some guidance in this matter?
--ric_man 22:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What is IAR?

This is related to one of the above discussion threads here. There has been some debate recently as to what exactly WP:IAR is. Is it a policy, a guideline, a meta-policy, an essay, something totally different? I've always considered it policy, but discussion at WP:VPR and WT:IAR suggests some do not. The main concern revolves around your edit summary here. Were you speaking "ex cathedra" there and declaring it policy using your role as Wikipedia's benevolent dictator or simply stating a fact or consensus of the time as an editor? If you personally could clarify this somewhere, it would be much appreciated. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules/Straw_poll . This archive any good? (look near the top) --Kim Bruning 03:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I hate to be a wet blanket, but the earliest version of WT:IAR also includes Jimbo, in a list that's clearly taken directly from the Rules to consider list. That list was later reformatted to the number list format that exists in the straw poll, but the fact that he's in the straw poll does not indicate any direct action he took to indicate his opinion on the straw poll, it was just grandfathered in from the list from Rules to consider, which I must note were not originally stated as policy. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This week's debate

I just thought that you need to be clued in on this weeks hot debate on whether Fair use images are allowed in List of _________ Episodes. The Placebo Effect 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was whether or not Mstislav Rostropovich was born in the USSR. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


hey Jim, i am currently in the process of doing a persuasive speach on Wikipedia being a creditable source and i was wondering if i might be able to get your input on this topic... im performing the speech next thursday but if you can get back to me as soon as you can that'd be amazing.... thank you for your time, Ancientanubis, talk 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd go and do my own research if I were you. Jimbo does seem to get around to getting back to some requests, but not all of them, and not often that quickly. Guy's a very busy man. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


--Pupster21 Talk To Me 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean?

"It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." (Jimbo Wales)

I thought this meant one thing, but people seem to think differently. Anyway, it seems important to figure out what it means, since there's even a quote on WP:ADMIN. There's a small thread about this on the talk page. The question is: does it mean that "admins have more access in the technical sense, but not more authority in the social sense" or does it mean that "the fact that the powers given to sysops are not given to everyone is merely a technical matter?" If the correct answer is the second, then: what is the technical matter that prevents most users from becoming administrators? A.Z. 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that vandals could wipe out teh Wiki in no seconds flat if they were given admin powers. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If every IP and account just became an administrator today, yes. But, if administrators started to lose all their tools when blocked, then there would just be a lot more administrators to stop the obvious vandals -even vandals who are administrators. Plus, if there were a small threshold to become an administrator, for instance, 500 edits during at least three months, being that the edits would only be considered if they were considerable in size and not made by a bot, it seems to me that the active users could and should all be administrators. If they abused any of the tools, they would be blocked by the rest of the community. A.Z. 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Jeff Merkey

In light of the promise he made to you to not edit on en:wp I thought you should be notified that, after discussion at WP:AN, Mr. Merkey has been allowed to create a new account and resume editting. I would hope that Mr. Merkey and the admins involved would have already notified you, but I did not want to blindly assume they had done so. I am not specifically requesting any action on your part, simply seeking to keep you informed. --MediaMangler 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey began his appeal on the Foundation mailing list, of which Jimbo is a member. He also mentioned last fall a desire to be unbanned for Christmas (not sure which mailing list that), so people have been thinking about it. This wasn't a hasty move. MediaMangler, you seemed to have been fascination with Merkey since your earliest edits. I hope you are not planning to cause trouble. --Duk 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Your insinuation of bad intent on my part is not appreciated. I have acted to defend Merkey in several of his previous incarnations. He has thanked me for that help almost as many times as he has made personal attacks against me. I removed various items from Wiki in keeping with his expressed desire to vanish. Certainly his never retracted (albeit silly) legal threats against me do cause some concern. I wish you better luck dealing with him than I had. --MediaMangler 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, point taken. But I have no intention of "dealing with him", only trying my best to make sure that he gets a "fair shake" --Duk 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff Merkey is an odd and occasionally abrasive fellow, but he does seem to be basically a good guy and onside with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. His work on Cherokee and other native language Wikipedias and MediaWiki software issues has been kick-arse, for example - David Gerard 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with David. And to clarify my last statement which sounds bad -- didn't mean to imply that I wanted to avoid him, only that having a negative mindset about 'dealing with him' is unhealthy. --Duk 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Password blocked for security reasons – but no answer?

Someone had the (for security reasons) famos idea to block all user where username=password. Unfortunately without preventing them before. I am on als: de: fr: en: meta: commons: and ln: and at the last I had for historical reason an other username (ln:User:Bombo) & username=password - shame on me (not on the others!). I tried with help pages and FAQ, but there was just a little information to contact an developer what I did, but unfortunately I had no answer. Why I hesitate just to open a new account is because I am one of only two admins on ln:, a growing central african issue of Wikipedia (not as big as afrikaans or kiswahili, OK).

To prove, that I am me, I wrote on 28th of April to Jon Harald Søby, a Steward: "How I can proof, that's me: On ln: my name is Bombo. On meta: de: als: it is Eruedin (from my real name). The user pages are linked and to write this eMail I am logged in at meta:. From the user page there is a link to There are two interwikis. One to and the second (Lingála) to The word "Moyángeli" is lingala and means Administrator. On the de: user page are some details about me. If you have some doubts, I can scan my passport. There are same name/firstname/birth year/origin=heimatberechtigt.

Other way to proof my identity: search the three words "***" "***" "***" in google. there is no link (because of noindex-tag) to the following "secret" page in the deep web with my CV: http://***index.html" (I changed here in the public space four words to ***, but if need it, I can email you - it is so: the three not english words are main words from the title, so the site should apear in google on the top).

If there was an answer like "sorry, no way", but just silence?! Maybe you can tell me who I has to contact to find a solution. Thank you. --Eruedin 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talkpage. WjBscribe 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Community sanctions noticeboard

Jimbo, I'm not so much surprised by your position at the MFD discussion as surprised by your reasons for it. The board was created in support of banning policy language and the disruptive editing guideline that had been in place for several months and has succeeded at making the community sanctions process more open and equitable. The principal argument against it seems to be that only sysops deserve any voice in community banning, which runs counter to your well-known statement about how admistratorship is supposed to be no big deal. To delete the board would leave the community enforceable mediation process in limbo, which you supported during its proposal phase, and no alternate mechanism has been proposed to make partial community sanctions such as topic bans or revert parole feasible. When such actions were challenged at arbitration the Committee supported the community's decision.

I had sincerely believed I was acting in the spirit of Wikipedia's traditions and in the service of your public statements when I proposed, maintained, and supported this noticeboard. Not only does your vote mystify me, I believe its deletion would leave several months' worth of careful progress in shambles and shoulder the arbitration committee with unnecessary burdens. DurovaCharge! 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say the same here. It is in absolutely no way "counter to our traditions" to try a new way of doing things. At least, not in any way that I know of. (Since there has been a lot of additional support for keeping, it would probably also help if you clarified whether your comment was a mandate or just an opinion.) But alright, let's hear it. We're having flameouts at a pretty alarming rate, every system we have is operating way beyond capacity, and it seems every time anyone takes a half of a step to try and fix that, there are reflexive screams of "BUREAUCRACY!" and out come the torches. How do you propose to fix it? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What is "community enforceable mediation"? Isn't that an oxymoron? --Tony Sidaway 07:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/faq. DurovaCharge! 08:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


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

Embargo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for 48 hours for repeatedly creating an inappropriate user page, see Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content, also [22] and [23]. It is my opinion that administrators may continue to block him as long as he continues this activity. See also [24] where he removes a rather ordinary Israel userbox. Fred Bauder 15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Jimbo believes, in general, that userboxes are divisive and should not be used on Wikipedia. I guess this thread kind of supports that opinion.  :-) 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
He may believe some are thus but not all and has explicitly supported language skill user boxes, which are on his page, SqueakBox 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me... I wasn't thinking of language userboxes as the type of userboxes in question at the time but, of course, you're right. Jimbo's userbox suggestions are in the archives of this page. I was merely trying to enlighten those who might not have seen his previous comments on the subject and, perhaps, keep him from having to comment on something he has commented on so eloquently in the past. Carry on...  :-) 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embargo, Wikipedia is not a forum for the expression of opinion. If you have sourced and neutrally presented material you'd like to add to Hezbollah, go do it. Your personal opinion is irrelevant except insofar as its upsetting some other editors.Proabivouac 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Embargo, trust me I've got many other things to worry about than your userbox (check my contribs, I'm doing other constructive things on wikipedia), I just don't like you upsetting other users with the statements you make on your userpage. Instead of filling Jimbo's talk page with this, why don't you take it to WT:USER? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, you don't like it when I upset other users with the statements on my userpage. You consider stating support for Hezbollah upsetting. I consider stating support for Israel, Zionism and the many Israeli political parties equally upsetting. In fact, all userboxes are upsetting to some at one point. But why are these upsetting userboxes allowed when others are not? Why is stating support for Israel, Zionism, Yisrael Beytenu and others allowed whereas stating support for Hezbollah considered inflammatory? This is Jimbo Wales' talk page and I'm addressing him and not Ryan Poslethwaite or Proabivouac. I really can't see why Jimbo Wales is avoiding this. Please give your final word. Emбargo 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, I brought it to WT:USER a month ago, and it fizzled after a few replies. It had a big to-do over at WP:AN/I for a week or so, which resulted in some good conversation and some crackdowns on some users that Embargo has long complained about, such as this one, but that was all. There are still two overall problems that remain; one is that, as mentioned in the first post of this topic, there seems to be this sentiment that some political boxes are OK, while others are not. The second is that one admin will judge that a user box is OK, and then another one comes along and deletes it. Why is it so hard to ask that these two issues be addressed? #1) Either delete all political-related boxes, or allow them all. #2) Require all admins to adhere to a uniform standard when upholding #1 Tarc 13:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The thing is Tarc, there have been numerous threads on AN/I regarding Embargo's userboxes, he doesn't seam to understand that they aren't allowed. The userboxes which Embargo keeps quoting that shouldn't be allowed are no where near as offensive as his, he is consistantly attempting to make a point, his contributions show that his major concern on wikipedia is attempting to get his pro-Hezbollah userboxes to stay, what he often forgets is that we are trying to create an encyclopedia, not campaign against countries - this isn't the UN. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"No where near as offensive" is entirely subjective, and that is at the heart of the problem here. All I want to to see some damned consistency in applying the "no polemical statements" rule...maybe its just me, but WP:USER doesn't say "nearly offensive polemicals" are ok. Its like the silliness of Nearly Headless Nick; either his head's on, or his head's off. There's no logical in-between. Tarc 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Have you actually read WP:USER? It clearly states that polemical statements aren't allowed, I find it quite difficult to believe that some people can't see that embargo's userboxes are polemical. Numerous AN/I threads regarding Embargo's trolling over his userpage should make it perfectly clear that the userboxes he is using are inappropriate for wikipedia, especially where civility is key. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A "polemical" statement would be one that constitutes a "refutation of the opinions or principles of another".[25] If supporting Hezbollah is considered "polemic", I can't for the life of me see this userbox is not. The Iraq war was opposed by millions of people worldwide, including the UN. If a user is proud to have participated in an act considered illegtimate by the majority of people across the world, then that is just as "polemic" as supporting Hezbollah.Bless sins 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
hmmmm, have you actually checked over Embargo's userpage history? He's not simply supporting Hezbollah, it's far more inflammatory than that, take a look at this nice little userbox of his (note what the words are wikilinking to), polemical enough for you? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a registered user of this site so perhaps that makes my opinion of the matter less valid to you, but I agree with Embargo's stance. It is double standards to consider support for Hezbollah any differently to support for George Bush. The argument about polemic is redundant and inappropriate - polemic is, by definition, an argument. A userbox is not an argument, it is a reflection of support. To rule a userbox supporting Hezbollah as polemical (and thus against the rules), you would have to do the same to every userbox suggesting political support. I'm sorry, but I think Embargo is being completely reasonable in his stance. You may not agree with it, but it's not polemical by definition and it doesn't seem to be against the rules. Any other user page content he might have had in the past is irrelevant to this specific debate. 09:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the above, it does fit into secondary definitions of polemic. My point stands, however - his userbox is no more or less inflamatory to various groups than one supporting Bush or Israel. Rulings such as this should be objective and unbiased, and the ruling that his userbox is a violation but others aren't is far from objective, and far from unbiased. 09:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that if you ban a user box supporting one illegal war, you ought to ban ones supporting another; and probably ones supporting just about anything else. I'd add that the specifics of where Embargo's links are linking to (yes, I did check) and what his box says are not relevant. In effect, to me it is not obvious that it should be OK to support one group and not OK to support another, and arguments such as "come on, it's obvious" aren't going to fly. So, I'd like to hear a logical criterion for allowing or banning such user boxes based on something other than a particular editor's whim, and I'd like to see it applied. 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Do you really endorse this policy?

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

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


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

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

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

Not everyone can keep up with it, bud—settle down. Personal attacks happen every day and probably everywhere and we just don't have enough people to warn everyone. It might seem like playing favourites, and I felt the same way as you when I was in your position, but it is impossible to get to everyone. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. The lesson I am drawing from all this is that the rules are meaningless, because they apply unevenly. Til Eulenspiegel 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. But only because it is almost impossible to apply then evenly because there are not enough enforcers. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)There are mechanisms in place if you have a serious complaint, AN/I, Rfc and ultimately arbcom. I dont believe Jimbo has the time to be enforcing this type of policy personally and having a policy that is agreeable is one thing and seeing it enforced is quite another, and no reason to think he doesnt endorse the policy, SqueakBox 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, it might be a simple fact of Eulenspiegel willfully misstating what has occurred. I know the admin involved very well and she is not known for playing favorites (contrary to Eulenspiegel's "your talk page clearly shows that you hold your buddies whom you yuck it up with and slap on the back, to a much lower standard and look the other way when they call me "pathetic"" comment). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The willful mistating of the situation is not mine. The pathetic comment directed against me was actually only minor, incidental and would have been easily overlooked, and is obviously not the 'intolerant hate speech' directed against a religious minority I am referring to, as on my user talk page. I found this truly alarming and seemingly done with admin approval, but so far the only one to be repeatedly censured was me, and I haven't even done anything wrong. Til Eulenspiegel 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This isnt the place to deal with disputes between users, SqueakBox 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the place to communicate with Jimbo Wales, and try to get a response from him, thank you. This project has very short order become unbearable for me, because it soon becomes apparent to anyone who tries to help here that there are certain "favored" individuals here who have free license to spew whatever venom about others' beliefs they want, all they want, whenever they want. This appears entirely likely to continue, since involved administrators seem to be doing NOTHING to rein these users in, rather, they tend to congratulate them and even join the attack against anyone who notices or complains. The personal attacks and intimidations against me on my homepage are continuing even now. I don't know what I ever did to start any of this, other than be bold enough to notice that some of these guys are practising hate speech against minorities, and to actually dare to say something about it. If there are truly no rules here, or rather, if the rules are applied so selectively and in such a biased direction, then I don't give a hoot WHERE your bureaucratic formalities say I have to file the complaint -- Your project has just succeeded in making another enemy, and I'm parking myself right here until I get a response from the one person who should know what his project really looks like. What's it to you anyway? I was actually talking to Jimbo, not asking for a whole team of spindoctors to paradrop in. Til Eulenspiegel 11:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and also, FYI, the said administrator advised me on my homepage, more than once, that trying to get this even heard in the dispute process would never even stand a chance, because they would refuse to hear such allegations of abuse against one of 'their own', so to speak. (You know what this is beginning to sound like, by the way?) So, on the basis of that admin's advice to me, I concluded that this here would be the best route to go to bring attention to this. Til Eulenspiegel 12:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, you "advised" me to take it to Rfc and AN/I, while at the same time informing me that it would never see the light of day, so naturally I took your word to mean that doing so would not be productive. Til Eulenspiegel 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what post of mine led you to the erroneous conclusion that I was stating or implying that "it would never see the light of day" but it is clear either there is considerable difficulty in communication one way or the other, or you are deliberately mis-stating my position on all things. I prefer to AGF; please post a diff where I stated something which led you to believe your concerns would "never see the light of day", so we can clear up this misunderstanding. If you do not know how to post a diff, ask me on my talk page, or yours - and I suggest this conversation be moved back to your talk page, as Jimbo's talk page is not appropriate for this discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[26]. Til Eulenspiegel 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"This will not be accepted by the mediation committee" is not the same as "this will never see the light of day". Many requested mediations are rejected. This does not mean there is not an appropriate venue for dispute resolution for the issue, or that it will be buried, but rather that it simply won't be handled by the mediation committee. Is this clearer now, or do you still have issues with that post of mine? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever - your message on my talk page to tell me "There is nothing to mediate. As a member of the mediation committee myself, I can tell you this will not be accepted" gives me the clear indication that the entire system is corrupt and stacked against fairness to religious beliefs, so my decision to short-circuit that process was a very logical one. The comments I am complaining about have the effect of demonizing people of a certain faith and declaring their firm beliefs "invalid", but this is apparently acceptable here because as of yet I am STILL the only one to be specifically rebuked over this affair. Obviously, if as yousay, the mediation committee (of which you are a member) will not hear this compaint about you, I have to go right to the top. Also please note that it is incorrect that you told me asking Jimbo's input would be "inappropriate"; rather, you stated that he and arbcom are the only authorities on wikipedia higher than yourself, and then you expressed doubt that they would even be interested in your gross abuse of power, as if suggesting there's only one way to find out. I'm still waiting to hear from the one person I came here to talk to. Til Eulenspiegel 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I have already heard your opinion on the matter several times, thank you. I am now waiting to hear Jimbo's. If that fails, I will start writing in many, many other forums around the world about my experiences on wikipedia, which is beginning to look very much like a place where all kinds of bigotry is not only rampant but encouraged by the administration, as long as the target is not one of the "favoured" groups. Til Eulenspiegel 12:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Go post everywhere that you didn't get support for an edit you wanted to make to an article, and instead of following the policies and guidelines, you indulged in personal attacks and incivility on other editors, and when warned about this, you started accusing the warning administrator of favoritism, religious bigotry, and all manner of other faults; that you utterly failed to interest anyone in your bizarre persecution theories, and all of that constitutes "proof" that Wikipedia is biased and evil. Have fun with that. I'm done trying to help you. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't personally attacked anyone. Not once. And this isn't about the edit or the article. This is about the fact that I am constantly being accused falsely of personal attacks and incivility, etc. while editors who routinely demonize entire religious groups and spread intolerance get your approval and encouragement to continue. Til Eulenspiegel 14:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the basic message I keep getting from you is "Yes, it is anti-religious bigotry -- but so what? What can you do about it? Nobody but you cares!" That's why I am here. This can't seriously be your policy. Too much has been invested over the last 400 years in achieving some measure of tolerance to just throw it all away now. Til Eulenspiegel 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Til. You seem to be very worked up about this. Almost anywhere on the Internet, including Wikipedia, being in a lather means people will have a hard time taking you seriously. I'd encourage you to go for a long walk and not sit down at the keyboard again until you are cool as a cucumber. Thanks, William Pietri 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I have been waiting for a response for days so far, so I guess my answer is that intolerance and bigotry really are acceptable here. Til Eulenspiegel 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are wrong in that, although naturally you're welcome to your own opinions. However, it's my theory that your refusal to calm down is making it hard for you to fairly consider what I consider to be the mountain of evidence to the contrary, like the large archive of ArbComm descisions, the regularity with which people are admonished or banned for egregious violations of WP:CIVIL, or the fact that two of our five pillars are about neutrality and kindness to our fellow editors. So again, and in sincere amity, I'd encourage you to take a break until your sense of outrage subsides. Then come back and chat with some of our religious editors (and perhaps even a pastor or two) and ask them how they feel they've been treated. If we have a real problem here, you won't lose anything by waiting a week to expose it. And if you have, as I believe, made a mistake, then you'll gain a lot by coming back and taking a fresh look at things. William Pietri 15:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The facts aren't going to be any different a week from now. First of all, I am already completely calm. Please do not project an image of uncalmness onto me with your words. That's almost like user:Orange Marlin trying to project a heart attack on me at my talkpage. Didn't work. It only convinces me further that certain editors here have a special permission to say whatever hate speech they want, and they know they are never going to get called on it because of their "favored" status here. Til Eulenspiegel 16:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Eulenspiegel, there are people here who say pretty much whatever they want and get away with it. This has been a topic that has caused me much distress and I even wrote an essay about it. The fact is, it is not that different than real life, there are people who get away with alot because of who they are. I hope that this issue does not cause you so much stress that you feel this project is not worth the time, because it is actually a great project. If you have any questions or if there is anything I can help you with, or answer for you, please contact me on my user talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Chris, in real life there have always been "people who get away with alot because of who they are." Here are some examples: Marie Antoinette... Tsar Nicholas... George III... Imagine if everybody just let it go and said "Oh well, maybe this will just stop on its own" Til Eulenspiegel 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It becomes a question of choosing your battles. I have some strong opinions and theories on why WP:CIVIL. WP:NPA and WP:AGF are vital to the functioning of wikipedia. I have not written the essay but plan to get around to it sometime. When I see any of these policies fall apart, or prove worthless in situations where it would appear that they were needed, it hurts me a little and makes me question my role as an administrator, an editor and my role overall as a participant of this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're sure you're calm, you might ask yourself why several uninvolved parties get the impression that you're not. It's true the facts won't be different in a week, which is precisely why I'm suggesting you not treat this as an urgent problem. If your goal is actually to make a difference here, then we would all benefit by thoughtful examination of your concerns. Your style of interaction, which certainly does not come across as calm, is going to bias almost any reader against taking your concerns seriously, regardless of their actual merit. William Pietri 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Why should they be blocked? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems awful close to trolling to me. I could be wrong though, so don't take me too literally. :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Could be, but I at least believe the premise of his concerns to be valid. I have actually contemplated asking jimbo what his take on the policies are before. While he may be dragging it a bit far, he stands for something he believes in, and I have much respect for that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe Til to be trolling, as that implies insincerity. I do think he's wrong, and I think he's handling things poorly. But that's no crime, and I think suggesting blocking him is premature and unlikely to aid him in calming down. William Pietri 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Seems rational to me, David. Folks get used to communicating with other people who share their views, and the voices of those who do not seem "alien" to them. Til really does need to chill on the allegations of bigotry though, as it is simply a matter of differing viewpoints. As a nontheist I have no animus toward religions per se, but, on Wikipedia, I have a significant problem with folks who seek to imbue articles with a specific theistic or atheistic viewpoint. There is such a thing as a middle-ground. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yet another "unjustified reproach" - I have in fact not been uncivil at all. All of the personal attacks have been directed against me, not from me. Til Eulenspiegel 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There are some really nice people giving you advice, and you are hitting back with anger and false accusations. Pastor David is like one of the real gentlemen on Wikipedia, he even left a very balanced and calm message on your talk page, and you attacked him. You'll claim I'm being uncivil, but really you are embarrassing yourself. Orangemarlin 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
How exactly do you accuse me of "attacking" him? Til Eulenspiegel 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think you are the one who ought to be pointing out what you think might be a speck in my eye when it comes to personal attacks, Orangemarlin... Til Eulenspiegel 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I also read it as incivil to such an extent that I apologized for asking him to get involved in this unfortunate situation. You may not have meant it to seem hostile and belittling, of course, but that's how I read it. A useful lesson to draw from this is that it's easy to misunderstand people on the Internet. And you might consider that in the same way you believe other people have misinterpreted your words as more hostile than they are, you may also have misunderstood the intent of others. William Pietri 01:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Everyone who has talked so far has been right AND wrong. Nobody is perfect and everyone makes a mistake, now and again. I understand where Eulenspiegel comes from as well as those he is accusing. Eulenspiegel did not "attack" David. What he said was very hurtful, but not an attack. We need to understand the difference between "hurtfulness" and "personal attacks". If we don't, than this discussion will go on forever. Come on, people. Gdk411 03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think what was being used was the loosest meaning of attack, and not the wikipedia policy definition of attack. That said, I agree. I did not take it as an attack, just slightly uncivil. Pastor David (Review) 03:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)