User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request Review of Administrator's Action[edit]

I'm posting to request a review of administrator Timotheus Canens' perma-blocking action of 03:34, 15 May 2012. I fault the block on the following bases:

1) No warning by the blocking admin (warnings are called for by WP:ADMIN). 2) No discussion (explanation where warranted is called for by WP:ADMIN).

The block was done via Twinkle button click, which inserted pre-set text and link to WP:SOCK, but no evidence or explanation was provided by the blocking administrator to support this.

Here ( is the talkpage of the editor at the time Timotheus perma-blocked him. Timotheus did not respond to attempt to justify his block until a full year later, placing the editor in a position of "what makes him say I'm a sockpuppet" and other editors in the position of "there must be secret evidence against him."

The editor (it was me by the way) in his first post had said he was an editor of several years that abandoned a single prior account and started a new for online privacy reasons. This is unequivocally authorized by WP:CLEANSTART. The editor did not respond as politely as he could have to the several people that quickly gathered at his page to opine on him, but he had never really experienced the administrative side of Wikipedia, and couldn't tell who was administrator and who was not.

I encourage everyone to comment here right away. Thanks for looking into this matter. I appeal to each of you not to accept allegations made against me without your allowing me to respond.

Colton Cosmic 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: Since there is no idea of who watches this page, I would like to ping small groups (say, 5 or 7) of editors to ask them to comment. This is totally in line with WP:CANVASS if you look at it. Okay?

Jimbo Wales generally does not consider posting on his talk page(s) to be canvassing. I suppose it could be overdone though. I've pinged him just to be sure that this talkpage policy carries over to this page. I'll assume that it does if we don't hear from him. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Smallbones, in line w. that and WP:CANVASS' nutshell "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!" I'll now do so: @Tenebrae:, @Raabbustamante:, @Kind Tennis Fan:, @Olly150:, @Penbat:, @Tom Danson:, @Mr. Granger:. Dear people, I'm pinging to request you have a look at the discussion here at [1] in which a banned user (me) is asking for community comment on whether the administrator that perma-blocked him acted in line with policy. Colton Cosmic 00:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC). And some more: @Institutionalist:, @Magyar from Ural:, @The Vintage Feminist:, @永永世世:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Holanthony:, @Zefr:. Dear people, would you consider looking into my case. I was perma-blocked with a button click from Wikipedia four years ago, and am asking for comment on whether the administrator acted properly or not. Colton Cosmic 20:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Beeblebrox confirmed that you are a sockpuppet, and that you are trolling. Furthermore, you have been blocked indefinitely. Indefinite blocks aren't carried out unless there is certainty surrounding the reasons for the block. You are also evading your block with the use of an IP, as you have just demonstrated above. Therefore, I believe the block should stay in place. Kindest regards, --Ches (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no evidence for these charges. I am a good editor, having originally authored several articles. I agree only that I am evading the block through clearly-disclosed IP editing because all other channels of communication have been cut off to me. But this thread is about whether Timotheus Canens' blocking of me conformed to policy or had any evidence. Let's stick to that rather than "Beeblebrox says so." Colton Cosmic 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of what newcomers to this question would want to know in order to informedly opine. When I appealed to Arbcom the second time, it was arbitrator Worm_that_Turned that told me I was blocked because I "annoyed the wrong person." He was justifying it on that basis. I had never encountered or heard of Timotheus Canen before he perma-blocked me, not explaining a word. But to Worm, it was a question of status and power: essentially "an administrator on Wikipedia doesn't need a policy or rules-based reason to block a user." There is really no assertion among those that read up on my case that I ever actually sockpuppeted (I didn't). They argue for my banning based on contrived reasons ("he evaded his ban so now must be banned some more, "we must officiously continue banning him because of his 'appeal timer' which resets each time he block evades to seek to be unblocked." Ah well, if anyone is out there, I would be grateful for your help. Colton Cosmic 20:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, darn it. I can't ping-notify people while editing via raw IP. One has to be signed in (and sign) an edit for the ping function to work. Would someone do it for me? It's easy enough to copy those usernames, brackets, etc. from my edits? Thanks. Colton Cosmic 14:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


moved to TeeVeeed (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Should Bright Line Rule apply to Stanton Foundation?[edit]

Note: This has been copied from Talk:Jimbo_Wales, on guidance from a hostile antagonist editor.

Jimbo, your Bright Line Rule clearly says that those with a financial conflict of interest on a topic should not directly edit the Wikipedia article about their organization. It would seem that Liz Allison of the Stanton Foundation believes that her organization may be an exception, commenting:

I propose to edit "our" page to correct several factual errors and to expand upon the description of our activities. I understand that it would be better if this were done by an unconnected person, but we share the problem of many smaller organizations, that not many people follow our article and so the quality improvement mechanism doesn't work as well as it does with major entries.

According to a recent Form 990 report, Allison is paid $115 an hour ($180,000 annually) for her role directing the Stanton Foundation, so she has a financial conflict of interest.

She has directly edited the article to remove numerous reference sources, including an interesting mention that Stanton served President Eisenhower "on a committee that would plan the country's response to a nuclear attack", and a mention that the roots of the present Stanton Foundation were laid out on September 1, 1991, when the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund was established, and whose assets were later transferred over to the newly-named Stanton Foundation. She has changed the article to describe the "previously unfunded Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund". Federally-filed documents showed that the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund had assets of $28.89 million in 2007. Most neutral readers would not characterize that as "unfunded", would they?

Additionally, while Allison has retained mention of the controversial Stanton Foundation donation to the Wikipedian-in-Residence at (her husband's) Belfer Center, where it used to be described on the first "screen" of content in the Wikipedia article, it now requires the reader to scroll down to a third "screen" of text to find it.

I believe you have said in the past that if a violation of the Bright Line Rule is found, if the matter is brought to you thoughtfully and without a "gotcha" tone, you would consider responding appropriately to the editor engaging in the practice. That is why this message has been carried to you here today. - 2001:558:1400:10:1524:BCDC:B355:7DDD (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Kind of shameful that Jimmy would be ignoring this. One would hope that it's just the matter of his not having seen it, because it's been shunted off to this "Unprotected" holding pen. - 2001:558:1400:10:34EE:5695:F426:2455 (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
When you post a claim that you say is supported by a 129-page PDF, please indicate which page has the information supporting the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: It's on page 6, which is Part VIII, Line 1. (See: ELISABETH K. ALLISON, compensation 180,000 for 30 hours per week). - 2601:42:C104:28D0:1492:6625:9B63:169F (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

WMF banned user editing on Wikia[edit]

Jimbo, it looks like User:WayneRay, a user with a conviction for child pornography, is busy editing on Wikia. He seems to be the only user of the London, Ontario wiki, which has had such interesting pages as "Erotic Photos". I know that Wikipedia and Wikia are totally seperate things, but you prolly know who to talk to over there to get things taken care of quickly. It took weeks to get him globally banned here even after an article in the Signpost. I hope Wikia can move more quickly than that. Thanks! Anil Fischer (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This page is bullshit[edit]

It's a pointless page, because Jimbo Wales doesn't look at it, and therefore doesn't respond to anything on it. He has never contributed here. The page should be MFD'd as a trolling project by User:Smallbones, its creator. - 2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you know Jimbo doesn't look at this page? Just because he hasn't posted on it doesn't mean to say that he doesn't view it. It is not a trolling project, it has been created by @Smallbones: so new editors, anonymous editors (like you) etc, have a means of contacting him when us admins have to protect his user talk page. For this reason, I will not be deleting it.--5 albert square (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35 and 5 albert square: 2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35, this isn't Bullshit, 5 albert square, yes I would agree that Jimbo may view it time to time. he may respond, we may never know. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Strongest/weakest subjects - Library based classification system[edit]

I tried posting the following but am having local firewall problems. Can someone add it to the discussion please.

Smallbones pinged me about this discussion. I suggested something related a while back. My thinking was that it would be useful to direct users to appropriate classification numbers. I mocked up a page here (with the actual template here). I haven't done anything about it for a while though. I'm currently on holiday and have limited access, so will review this topic and add more at the weekend. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the harassment sites[edit]

A german rascist wrote 3 harassment sites. You must delete them. Its full of hate and lies.

Do you support child abuse? Do you support harassments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinfo (talkcontribs) 15:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Global banned User:Styron111 again with false accusation of child abuse. User:Styron111 sets user in danger, because Stuart Styron is deleted and salted.Schmitty (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2017[edit] (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

moved from "Socking" on regular talk page[edit]

  • Jimbo, I made a reply here, but it was reverted as vandalism or trolling. You might want to consider contributing to the discussion about whether that reversion was appropriate. (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Can you look at the story on the page? One user removes a template for a microphone, and we have the practice of short articles to mark with such a template and then delete them in two weeks (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the user removes my edits when I tell administrators about it. (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Question for Jimbo[edit]

This is a question for Jimbo and Jimbo only. Have you ever been to Latvia? --KirkVHouten (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[edit]

I am surprised that all this section was suddenly eradicated [2]:

Warning and hope for better understanding.[edit]

Dear Jimmy Donal Wales, I frankly hope that Republic of Macedonia will not have to apply similar measures as Turkish government did. There is unacceptable offensive page on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia: "Janevistan" [3] with a Nazi content there. I hope that you will realize that this page have to be deleted. Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.00:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

@ There does not seem to be a discussion at that article's talk page, which would usually be where this discussion should take place. Note that I am not replying for Jimmy Wales, I am only making an additional suggestion. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 00:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Judging from google translate I would suggest that the page should be deleted. While Google translate is very far from perfect (bordering on gibberish sometimes) it appears to be joke page which is also a personal attack on a controversial figure. I do not see any reason why any government would find it problematic, but it is not consistent with the high regard for human dignity, even of controversial figures, that I expect of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Igor Janev has been discussed many times on your talk page before: 2014-05-22 complaining about "salting" of the page, 2013-08-25, in which the deletion of de:Igor Janev was mentioned. 2014-04-06 2014-12-27 The topic came up incidentally at 2014-11-06, where the "Igor Janev spammer" was said to be User:Operahome, and at 2014-11-24, where it fueled a wall of text about Macedonia. The .sh page was specifically the topic of a sustained campaign lately: 2016-11-13 2016-12-13 2017-02-23
While there is something pathological going on here, note that the page cited is (as I said in one of those recent discussions) just a user subpage marked as humor. I doubt that there is as much trouble to be had in letting some random user host a page making mild fun of someone than there is in dignifying a long-term troll with any high-level response. Wnt (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree. The best thing to do is not host humor that makes fun of someone - even if they are regarded as a "long-term troll". Let Mr. Janev walk away with dignity and take the high ground.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Igor Janev was the guy who had drafted Macedonian Constitution in 1991, like Founding Fathers in US George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison or Benjamin Franklin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia is generally credited to the coalition government of Kiro Gligorov, leader of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia. It is one of those long new-style constitutions with more than a hundred separately written articles, perhaps not the best format (their article on freedom of expression is pretty decent, but who knows what part of some other paragraph might supersede it?). I therefore doubt it was all written by Janev. Nonetheless, Janev is a real person:[4]

According to Dr. Igor Janev, a former special advisor of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia, from the legal point of view, UN Security Council (SC) resolution 817 (1993) and General Assembly (GA) resolution 47/225 (1993) impose additional requirements to Macedonia’s admission to the United Nations. He claims that these conditions, which include “the applicant’s acceptance of a provisional name and an obligation to negotiate with another country (Greece) over its final name,” are in collision with the provisions of Article 4(1) of the UN Charter.

Some of the battle on the ground is apparent from forums like this: [5] The document by Janev is cited here as Janev I., „Legal aspects of the use of a provisional name for Macedonia in the United Nations system“, AJIL, vol. 93, 1999; pp. 157. There are some copies like this and JSTOR providing a teaser page -- the JSTOR text is readily available via Sci-Hub if you paste in the link. I am convinced, therefore, that a) Igor Janev is a real person; b) he is primarily known for making a strong argument against the legitimacy of the UN's demand that Macedonia be prohibited from joining under that name; and c) there are a lot of people who want to make trouble for him and others based on some kind of hyped-up name controversy that seems inconceivable to Americans who, for example, would not expect Mexico to demand that California be renamed "Alta California" to avoid confusion. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)