User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jimmy Wales)
Jump to: navigation, search

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Can you just block an IP address[edit]

Hi, just want to know a question, can anyone block an IP address of a person that doesn't have a Wikipedia account? Dylan Keane (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Admins can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, admins can block IP addresses, and entire ranges, and can choose whether the block also affects logged-in users using that address. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be fun to block everyone on April 1 :) . Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Define fun. Define April 1. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
Don't worry, it will take a while before ET can edit Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
yes, and for example Montgomery County, Maryland schools and library ip is blocked until 2017. it's an amusing form of collective punishment. apparently escalating blocks don't work against proxies; perhaps a rethink is in order. (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not punishment. It is merely protecting Wikipedia from damage. If a certain IP address is used persistently to vandalize Wikipedia, it makes perfect sense to soft-block that IP - it protects Wikipedia while still allowing constructive registered users to contribute. Deli nk (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate for anyone reading this who is not a Wiki(m|p)edia insider, shared IP addresses, such as those used by schools, if they are blocked, are typically "soft-blocked", which only prevents edits from that address by users not logged into an account. Sometimes you can still create an account while using the address. If account creation is disabled, and you don't have access to any other IP address, you can request that an account be created for you. -- (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There is some ghastly vandalism comes from Maryland (see for example but that was only blocked for a week last month. Compare that with Hackney borough, Hackney schools and library ip where administrators are claiming that, however good the edits, if the editors are unaware of the talk page then they're not going to let them edit. I don't know what part of London you live in, Jimbo, or how much you know about Hackney, but shouldn't the people who live there have the same editing opportunities as those who live beyond the borough boundary?
Incidentally, I just received a message from one JoeSperrazza dated Monday saying

This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.

Actually, it's been blocked twice, so what is this JoeSperrazza talking about? He provides a link to WP:AIV but that's a page you never tell a vandal about. The IP has only three edits, one pointing out that the borough was blocked without reason given. How is this "repeat vandalism" as claimed in JoeSperrazza's edit summary? (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We could also contact that school and ask them to install some special WMF malware on their computers that will redirect from the real Wikipedia to a fake Wikipedia copy. They can then edit that copy of Wikipedia all they like, all we need to do here is reset that page to the current page every hour or so using some bot, to prevent the schoolchildren from getting suspicious. Count Iblis (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note the IP is banned user Vote (X) for Change --NeilN talk to me 13:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The removal of MathJax[edit]


I would like to let you (and the WMF) know about the recent discussion regarding math rendering issue at #Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Future of MathJax on wiki. It seems to me that, at heart, the issue is how the whole development process is framed currently (more precisely the lack of any process at all). The math editors, myself included, has a trouble with the WMF's attitude that the math rendering not only has less priority than some other "big" stuff like Visual Editor, but in fact that the WMF has "essentially no plan." Right now, some "volunteers" maintain and develop the math rendering support; there is nothing wrong with that. But this setup has a consequence that he tends to work on what he likes not what is being asked. This consequence is unfortunate in two ways: (1) it sends messages that the WMF doesn't care about math editors, and (2) the math support in Wikipedia is not keeping up with the standard practice; this sends messages to the readers that Wikipedia is not hip anymore.

I get the "If there is a problem, fix it yourself" principle. This is not my problem; the math rendering is fast and looks good on my screen and personally I don't need any fix. But the aforementioned problem that is clearly relevant to the WMF does exist; it's not something for "me" to fix it. I think it is important that there is someone in payroll that works on this specific problem and is held accountable. That would send the messages in the reverse: the WMF does care about the editors and can still produce something "hip" that can attracts new contributors and the editors. -- Taku (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see also User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Plans. For me, the interaction is very disturbing. I hope it is a simple mistake on the WMF's part to hire a "liaison" of that type; someone whose mission is drive the editors away. -- Taku (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did you put volunteer in scare quotes? Legoktm (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That interaction is disturbing to me, too. But mainly because you are communicating like an asshole. Questioning WhatAmIDoing's competence is your first "go to" comment? I'm glad you're not a diplomat.--Jorm (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Legoktm: I used the quote to suggest the volunteers are doing the job that is supported to be done by the WMF. Volunteers write and edit Wikipedia articles, of course, but, as I understand and I think you would agree, maintaining the website and the software powers it should be the responsibility of the WMF; I mean, otherwise, why does it exist in the first place? It is a gross negligence of the WMF's part not to allocate any engineering resources to the software support for the math. -- Taku (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jorm: The interaction reflects the history between her and the math editor community. Nothing personal really, but she has been too ineffective; the job ("liaison") requires some competence and a tiny bit of expertise. For years, the WMF has simply been either unable or unwilling to understand the math rendering problem. A part of blame must go to her (either she is unable or unwilling to do the job) . -- Taku (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DBpedia and wikipedia[edit]

I wonder whether we could implement the capabilities of DBpedia right here in Wikipedia. It will allow us to explore the information in Wikipedia as a collection of related data, and not just articles and data disconnected. Although DBpedia works with infoboxes, I do not know whether they work with templates (boxes that usually follows articles at the bottom).


Logos112 (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So like.... Wikidata? Legoktm (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It works like this: See 2.3 and 2.4 Logos112 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Logos112, if you haven't seen it already, m:Wikidata/Notes/DBpedia and Wikidata might be helpful. Search wikidata itself for more. (That's all I know on the matter :) HTH Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Co-op Mentorship Space[edit]

CO-OP Logo 2.png

Hi everyone. Back in March–April of this year, a small team of us ran a pilot for a mentorship space for newer editors called the the Co-op. The work for the space was funded by an IEG grant from the WMF. The space was designed to make finding a mentor easier, and also to lessen the burden on mentors by shaping mentorship toward a specific goal or task. Here are some of our more prominent findings from our final report:

  1. Editors who engaged with a mentor remained active longer, edited more articles, and made substantially more edits overall than editors who were not mentored.
  2. Editors waited far less time for a mentor thanks to our matching system. Getting matched with a mentor takes less than five minutes, thanks to the use of HostBot. Waiting times for a mentor to actually contact an editor took less than a day, but was as low as an hour or two. By comparison, it took about 4 days for editors to begin adoption through WP:Adopt-a-user in 2011.
  3. A minority of experienced editors sought out mentorship despite not receiving an invitation during our pilot. These editors may have gotten the most out of mentorship, as they interacted more frequently with their mentor and in more complex topics compared to newer editors.

Based on our results, the Co-op appears to be a sensible way to support fellow editors, but the project won't go anywhere without mentors to provide guidance. Mentoring is necessarily more time-intensive, but we've designed the process to be lightweight. and like many tasks that we take on as editors, our most thorough work is often our best. I also invite the community to help me operate and provide suggestions to improve the Co-op whether it's in terms of how we match editors together, how we should mentor, or how we can better engage newer editors. Questions and comments are welcome here or at Wikipedia talk:Co-op. If you enjoy helping new editors get started on Wikipedia, I invite you to join us. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, for those of you who want a middle-of-the-road option for detail about the project compared to our grant report and the above post, a short report I prepared on the Co-op was just published on the WMF Blog. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

Waterloo Campaign[edit]

There was the expected rise in the numbers of view about the Waterloo Campaign in June 2015 to mark the 200th anniversary. But the article with the second highest spike might be useful as a conversation piece:

-- PBS (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Implied Jimmy Wales threat: is this acceptable?[edit]

On Drmies' talk page tough end of spectrum discussion on Cecil the lion, the pronoun "him" wikilinks to Jimbo in the context of shooting him with a crossbow. The posting editor is supposedly taking a wikibreak following an incident in which he essentially engineered the lynching of an editor involved in an old news controversy, albeit of the most distasteful kind. I suggest an immediate ban of all involved. This kind of diva bullying must stop.

While I am at it, I would like the user page of the editor Hafspajen, mentored by Drmies, edited to remove the narcissistic parody of the famous "Je suis Charlie" meme. It is grossly offensive. (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC) (Miep at the embassy)

Hmm, I just that edit, and does indeed read as a threat. The editor is writing about shooting Jimmy Wales with a cross-bow. Certainly seems inappropriate to me, but perhaps this would be better addressed at ANI? Unless some admin wants to step up right now and get the inevitable ban taken care of...
(seeing as it's on Drmies talk page, I'm surprised it's still there, with no action taken) - theWOLFchild 22:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"Threat"? Are you two serious? I don't think it's an exceptionally clever or successful metaphor, but it's in now way a threat. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am serious. I suspect Jimmy Wales would also have some serious views about the matter as well. To call it merely a "metaphor" is absurd (are you serious?) If the editor had come out straightforwardly with " I can see Jimmy Wales now ... padding majestically across the savannah ..." then we could dismiss it as a tasteless personal attack. But that's not what he did. By concealing it in this way he was indulging what is quite plainly a threat. Whether fantasy or not it is still represents what everyone in real life would recognize as a threat, as a means of making a threat. I believe you are a member of Wikipedia's arbitration committee and that you find it acceptable. I hope you you will allow me to remind you should I ever feel moved to make you the subject of a tasteless metaphor. Miep at the embassy (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory account creation[edit]

When was the last time this was opened up for discussion, debate and consensus for possible implementation? - theWOLFchild 21:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the situation that regardless of what we think on en.Wikipedia, the WMF are against it, so it isn't going to happen? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be an issue for me, unless of course pointing out the threat above is construed as a violation of terms of service. Miep at the embassy (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)