User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Template:Trollwarning

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically inclined

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 May24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 September 2006 -

You may want to take a look at User talk:Publicgirluk, and the associated Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_27#Publicgirluk.27s_images. Quite frankly, the attitudes and actions of some of the editors and admins during this farce have been unbelievable. They've managed to drive away a user who attempted to contribute in good faith, and I've quit the project as I can't justify contributing to a project that treats people so shabbily. exolon 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like this "user who attempted to contribute in good faith" was likely just trolling us. The "utter debacle" I see here is that good people were suckered into defending this nonsense. "Publicgirluk" should have been indef blocked and the images speedied without so much as a how do you do. --Jimbo Wales 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to which edits you object to. WAS 4.250 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see good judgment prevail. Thanks Jimmy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling? How? If I was suckered I would like to know in what way? HighInBC 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I offer a guess (& I hope Jimbo doesn't mind me speaking for him), I'd say that he doubts that the average woman -- or at least, a woman who would prove to be a constructive contributor -- would post the pictures in question. -- llywrch 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block reason refers to Jimbo Wales, so I would prefer to hear his reasoning. HighInBC 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo's original answer is pretty informative. "likely just trolling", "nonsense" and "should have been indef blocked/speedied" should tell you what you need to know without pressing an issue in which Jimbo describes those defending publicgirluk as having been "suckered"... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not informative at all. It is a list of Jimbo's opinions; his opinions may well be based on good reasoning, but he has only provided the conclusions so far, not the process with which he arrived at them, so I can't tell. Jimbo has not described why Publicgirl_uk's edits constitute "trolling"; ie., what he has seen in those edits which I failed to see. And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan.

I understand that WP is not an experiment in democracy, but I also understand that this is a consensus-based project. I also respect the fact that as WP's founder, Jimbo's opinion deserves to be treated with respect. But so do those of the rest of the community here, which largely seemed to be supportive of Publicgirl_uk in terms of following the guidelines of WP:AGF.

Jimbo, please go back in the page history of the blocked user's talk page and read her reply to this entire debate. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with trolls here and this simply isn't one. Further, Publicgirl_uk had already posted a comment stating that rather than defend herself in this debate, she would rather her images be withdrawn and was leaving the project. That is not the action of a troll. A troll, upon stirring up so much furor, would be having a great time; they would want to stick around and have more fun by stirring the pot some more. After all, what would it cost them? In addition, I'd like to point out that in this comment I mentioned, she also stated that she expected there would be a negative reaction to her withdrawal of the images, in her words the "no smoke without fire" argument; and here it is.

I think you've made a mistake, Jimbo. Your opinion is given great weight around here. This puts a (probably unfair) burden upon you to be more careful with what you say. You can't just toss things like that off without giving a line of reasoning. Perhaps you believe that the images she uploaded weren't appropriate for the site . That's cool - we have a process for that, which was ignored in this case (images deleted without consensus). Publicgirl_uk was treated very poorly by WP and it makes me ashamed of this project. We already have ways of dealing with, reporting, and correcting inappropriate behavior at WP. None of these processes were used. In fact, quite a few procedures we have in place for dealing with "trolls" was ignored or broken here. Look at the user's talk page history and all the users who expressed their wish that Publicgirl_uk remain as a contributor. I don't mean any disrespect, but you can't just go calling all those editors, which includes myself, "suckers" and Publicgirl_uk a "troll" without providing reasons. I know I am not alone in wondering what that reason is. Cordially, Kasreyn 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please WP:CIVIL. Your comment "And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan." was plainly uncivil. I don't expect an apology given your animosity, but I'd try to cool down if I were you. 2. Your assessment of the community being 'largely in support of' WP:AGF being the most important guideline for dealing with publicgirluk's uploads is plainly wrong.The community was not 'largely in support' of either view. 3. Your characterization of 'what a troll would do' is absolutely wrong - Just disrupting WP with this behavior is enough to retire the 'publicgirluk' sock. 4. Your continued haranguing about 'how she was treated' when it's clear that she has treated the community disrespectfully with her trolling is getting very very old.

I recommend you leave the issue alone (or at least drop some of your tired arguments as they have been rehashed to death) and try to conduct yourself civilly. Perhaps Theresa's advice on the other page you're pressing these same old issues is good advice to consider - "Actually doing something constructive, rather than the endless talk (which is happening on this page) feels good." Have a wonderful day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I found your comment to HighInBC to be rather high-handed and insulting; I felt you were talking down to him and belittling his request for information. It was his place to dispute it if he wished, though, so perhaps I shouldn't have butted in. 2. I don't see how it's plainly wrong; important talk sections on this subject have been (I hope accidentally) deleted and others have been closed, making it rather difficult to even determine what consensus there was, if any. 3. I fail to see anything disruptive in Publicgirluk's actions, and her defense of herself was startlingly civil and polite, which is very rare for a new user under such circumstances. 4. I do not appreciate my remarks being described as "harangues", I do not feel Publicgirluk ever treated this community with anything but the utmost respect, and how can my questions be "getting old" when no one has given me the courtesy of a meaningful answer?

I do feel that I have conducted myself civilly, though I will admit I have been sorely tried in that regard for probably the first time ever in my time at WP. You ask me to leave the issue alone, but how can I in good conscience? I am not in the slightest convinced that the editor in question was a troll. If you have some sort of evidence not available to me, or if there has been some establishment of proof to support your claim that PGUK was a sockpuppet, then I'd be very interested to see it. You imply my questioning is unproductive; nonsense. By questioning, I am attempting to find a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. WP has lost at least two editors that I know of over this, and possibly more who simply didn't announce their departure. That is unproductive. If the talk seems endless, communication and, ultimately, answers and solutions, will be the best way for us to solve it. Regards, Kasreyn 21:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with your views - both of my conduct and the original issue of the images and the behavior of the uploader. So have many. And like them I disagree with you for all the reasons that have (again) been discussed ad nauseam by what is now dozens of particpants.

Claiming there's not been enough discussion is particularly ludicrous, when Jimbo captures it best with 'should have been indef blocked/speedied wihtout so much as a how do you do'.

You're welcome to keep spinning on this, but I've said my peace enough, and done so civilly and directly. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. Peace. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan." is not uncivil. Please explain how denying your the ability to decide for others what they need to know is uncivil? Please stop trying to block this line of questioning. HighInBC 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is uncivil. I'm not blocking anything - one cannot 'block' a conversation. You're welcome to keep pressing in defense of a troll if you'd like, but the reaction you get may not be what you (ostensibly) want, which is better policy and a better encyclopedia, right? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not say I am defending a troll, I am asking why it is thought someone is a troll. If you wish to discuss this matter further User:RyanFreisling, please do so on my talk page, not here. I don't think seeking clarification is innapropraite in this case. I am not asking you your opinions as I am very aware of them from other pages. HighInBC 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whooa! Calm it down people. Have a nice cuppa tea (or whatever floats your boat). We are all nice people here. Let's not let passion spill over into anger. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm happy to leave it lay right here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be quite natural, as you are satisfied with the way things have turned out. Others are not, and thus are not happy. Kasreyn 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was the right decision. Quite natural indeed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this over some chick who uploaded naked photos of herself? Is there an archive somewhere? ;) --kizzle 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is labeled a troll based simply on the pictures she uploaded, doesn't that mean no one would be allowed to upload pictures like that—anyone who did so would be trolling by definition? This is very worrying because there is no reason to think the pictures were trolling—they could have been trolling, but they could have been good faith, too, and my money's on the latter. Particularly so since no other behavior from the user was trollish in the least. Personally I think Jimbo should apologize for what he's said here. Everyking 21:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I might be blinded by the fact that I'm defending an attractive girl who uploaded naked pictures of herself, but Publicgirluk is definetely not a troll, as evidenced by her goodbye message. Matters of policy over what some see as pornographic material (and not copyright, as that's basically been settled at this point that these pics are hers) are important, and should be addressed, but it would seem that labeling this user a "troll" along with other instances of below-average conduct towards this user are not justified in any way whatsoever, especially given the coherence and conduct of her goodbye message and other posts. --kizzle 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I disagree wholeheartedly. She appeared with little else of value having been contributed prior, posted extremely graphic photos of a young woman without verification of the model's identity or the image's license, and then took offense at the inevitable requests for validation (due to the increased risk and seriousness of such imagery). Her 'defenders' have decried describing her as a 'troll', and claiming she was 'mistreated', but it's WP and the exercise of good judgment that's been mistreated here. She was, as Jimbo suggested, 'very likely trolling' - at least in my eyes and, gathering from the other opinions posted, a goodly number of other users and admins. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would, liberal POV-warrior... ;) I just have a hard time labeling her a troll with such a lack of belligerance or a perceptible intent to cause annoyance, as her goodbye message seems annoyed but completely willing to abandon the matter. Regardless, it's over, she's gone, and i'll be desparately looking up google cache's for the deleted images. --kizzle 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the hoary old chestnut being wrangled over here is the definition of an internet troll. For some people, this label can encompass a wide range of behaviours, while for others, it is a very narrow range of behaviours being described. I personally don't think the banned editor was a true troll, but possibly could have been one masquerading as a new editor. Or she could have been genuine. There is no way to decide. But I do agree most emphatically with the comment by Kasreyn: "You imply my questioning is unproductive; nonsense. By questioning, I am attempting to find a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. WP has lost at least two editors that I know of over this, and possibly more who simply didn't announce their departure. That is unproductive." That comment was entirely reasonable and not incivil, and RyanFreisling's accusation of incivility did not help. Of course, the real reason that "talk" over such subjects is endless is because no-one actually oversees a debate, summarises it, and moves it forward. So-called consensus building around here is often extremely anarchic, and the end result can be a bit hit-and-miss. A genuine attempt to build consensus will have someone (preferably neutral and not involved) summarising the debate and keeping the debate organised. Carcharoth 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my 'accusation of incivility' was not based on that comment by Kasreyn, but this one: "And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan.". -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please! Ryan, you tried to enforce you viewpoint on somebody else and then when they objected with a mildly snarky comment you went off to hide behind Official Policy. While Kasreyn may have been condescending it was not worth mentioning or were you trying to change the subject? Triumph's Hour 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one member who has uploaded naked pictures of himself. He is maybe 500lbs and he put them in all the articles related to obesity and nudity (I forget the exact articles). The images are very disgusting and clearly shock images. The images are more offensive than tubgirl. I won't name the person, but he was made an administrator. Anomo 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that looks like a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. I guess only ugly people can upload nude photographs of themselves. Triumph's Hour 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My faith and respect for wikipedia has been rocked, due to the indefinite ban with the flimsiest of justifications. Sure it's Jimbo's baby and his will can do such things. I just thought, because of wikipedia, that he was better than this. And no I didn't get to see the pics.--Mongreilf 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimbo I want to know something why was Wikibreak and all of it's templates are deleted I MUST KNOW!! imagine a world without wikibreak I AM SOBBING AS WE SPEAK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by False Prophet (talk • contribs)

I personally would have blocked the user for longer than one month, but with past copyvio uploaders; I did indef blocks before but they were downgraded to a month or less. This would be a good idea to where if we can just block someone from uploading images, but allow them to edit WP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: the only reason I personally did a 1 month block here is that I did not want this guy being listed as "indef banned by Jimbo" which is a sort of special status. I think he should be indef banned. Second: In general, I judge the person as a whole -- someone who is stupid/bad enough to repeatedly upload copyvio images can't be trusted to edit, either. He is probably plagiarizing as well, and/or at the very minimum we would have to watch him carefully, which is a lot of work. If someone has such a thick skull that they can't catch a clue after repeated warnings, why bother? We have no shortage of people to help.--Jimbo Wales 13:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh with that kinda attitude you won't for long. Not meaning to rain on your pep rally, but there has been an exodus of knowledgable, talented contributors this year. Click me, I'm the tip O the Iceberg!. Not all editors are expendable, replaceable cogs in this here machine of yours. Our community is increasingly at war with itself[1] in case you hadnt noticed. Especially troubling is the unilateral actions by some of the B-ro-crats over on Rfa which goes against everything the project is supposed to stand for. Maybe you could have a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Carnildo.27s_re-promotion

] Maybe you can help...hmm I wonder. Your humble Wikipeon,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expendable cogs

Hmm, I think I should clarify. We *will* have no shortage of *good* contributors if we are not afraid to get rid of the ones who are wasting our time. This is exactly right: not all editors are expendable, indeed none of the *good* editors are expendable at all. But a guy who uploads copyvios repeatedly for months and months? He's wasting the time of good people.--Jimbo Wales 12:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification, now I owe you some of the same. I was not referring to the case of User:Thegingerone specifically, but to try and draw your attention to a dangerous trend in our community which seems to be only growing more acute. *Good* longtime editors are not only exiting the project in droves, but it seems are being actively discouraged and in some cases even driven away. The recent treatment of two of my colleagues in particular, User:Giano and User:Ghirlandajo, I find disheartening and ominous. Especially considering the timing of these acts came in the midst of a highly contentious and controversial Rfa in which both took a prominent, dissenting stand.

Meanwhile actions such as this one[2] go largely ignored and unquestioned. Clearly some animals are more equal than others. If we must have a hierarchy, then let us have a meritocracy based on ability and deeds instead of a Nomenklatura based on politics or personality. I know our goal here, above all, is to create a great encyclopedia, but I don't think you want to accomplish it by allowing this project to decay into a Wikigulag, where contributors are worked to the point of exhaustion then simply replaced by freshmeat. The end result will be a mediocre work at best with a notorious reputation for unreliability and plain poor writing. We have all invested far too much in this effort to allow such to happen without a fight.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was questioned and Danny explained it was accidental. Stephen B Streater 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a bunch. I'll try and keep my eyes open as much as possible, as you mentioned in the email to the EN Wikipedia mailing list; we only know about major copyvio uploaders if someone mentions anything on one of the admin's noticeboards, so there are probably still a bunch around but we do not know about. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware that one of our least expendable cogs left on Friday last, User:Giano, who wrote almost entirely single-handedly such Featured articles as Buckingham Palace, Palazzo Pitti, Holkham Hall, Robert Lawson (architect), Francis Petre, Benjamin Mountfort, and much of John Vanbrugh. Indeed, he had two articles, Belton House and Simon Byrne, featured on the Main Page just last week. I will not repeat the sordid details (although much of it comes from his understandably indignant response when someone who blocked him for alleged "hate speech" in the pedophile userbox altercation, and was desysopped as a result, was resysoped a couple of weeks ago with just over 6 in 10 of people participating on WP:RFA in favour). A flavour of the reasons for his departure may be gleaned from this, which likens him to a "boil" filled with "malodorous filth". And this from a clerk to ArbCom.

Of the "serious contributors" listed high up Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, User:Lord Emsworth, User:Worldtraveller, and User:Filiocht are all away with no sign that they will return, and both I and User:Geogre have had serious thoughts about further participation, although we are both carrying on for now. For all the attention to improving the quality of Wikipedia, the project is in deep trouble if it cannot hold on to its serious contributors. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add my voice to this. Our best editors are leaving, contributing less, or talking about leaving in numbers that I think should be of concern. If we're serious about wanting to improve quality, these are the people we need to hang on to, but we're driving them away. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One person on my RfA asked me to withdraw because he found it so stressful! I think people need to relax a bit and be a bit more flexible, particularly where experts and reputable editors are concerned. After all, they may not be interested in the latest twist and turn on some obscure policy page. It's too easy to win the battle and lose the war. Stephen B Streater 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, want to add my voice. Others have put it more eloquently than I can, so I will not add anything. Related discussion can be found here, here, and here. — mark ✎ 14:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that several of the departures have been due to super-powerful admins with messiah complexes. Giano left becuase of Tony Sidaway, Kim van der Linde (and many others) left because of SlimVirgin and Jayjg, and dozens have left because of Kelly Martin. You've created the worst of both worlds: an anti-elitist institution with a sub-par "elite". There is no room on Wikipedia for people with subject competence -- only for those with a lust for power in the tiny crucible which passes for "community" here.

I left primarily because of the anti-expert atmosphere at Wikipedia and its incapability to maintain the quality of articles over time. The way people like SlimVirgin treated me contributed to me leaving, but was not the prime reason. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear James / Jimbo Wales: This has happened to me not once or twice but dozens of times...

I am blocked from editing by administrators citing that my user name (i dont use any user name but have your computers cite my pc ID no.) has engaged in vandalism and then cite some other user name that is NOT ME as follows (I am not and have never been Miscreat IV):

<< Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Shanel for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Miscreant IV". The reason given for Miscreant IV's block is: "vandalism only account". Your IP address is 152.163.100.196. >>

So that what is happening repeatedly is my being blocked from editing ON PURPOSE with bogus reason being I vandalize when I NEVER have vandalized...

ALL This is BLOCKING of my editing (and I am expert in dozens upon dozens of subjects ...) so that when I add such expertise, the article author almost 100 % of whom are NOT expert in any sense of the word ... use that vandal claim/ ruse to block my expertise adding to the article...

This overall means your administrators , editors are truly BAD, esp incompetent to PREVENT editing by universal expert as me...

DO something about it ...

Wette Willy with a na na 152.163.100.69/oo

Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits.

I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated.--Jimbo Wales 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This happens because you are using a shared AOL IP where others who share the IP have vandalized. Even if you get a username, you still may be blocked for others edits because you will still share the same underlying IP although admins can and often do choose to block only anon editors. In my experience, admins will usually unblock you if the block was due to another editor sharing you're IP and you explain that to them. There was a proposal to block only non-registered users who share IPs that I can't find easily at the moment. This may also be relevant [3]. Antonrojo 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how it feels! I'm an IP myself; actually, I'm one user of a school district's shared IP. I can never edit anonymously because some egghead at the high school or somewhere likes to vandalise articles constantly!

You really don't care about my complaint as currently stated

is a pitiful statement of neglect to your own creation's being vandalized by administrators !!!!

Wette Willy with a na na na for Jimbo207.69.137.12

I had a similar problem when I first started - the solution for me was:- 1. Log on to AOL, 2. Open up Microsoft Windows explorer - or some browser other than AOL's own 3. create an account. One I'd done all that I could edit away to my hearts content without any problems. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I wanted to ask you, actually two questions.

1) Who is your favorite admin?

and

2) Who do you think is the most well-known admin?

Thanks for your time, Jimbo. 216.11.222.21 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't imagine Jimbo has the time nor the will to answer this. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, sorry, another question!

Another question for you, Jimbo:

What would you do if someone put a goofy video of you swinging around a lightsaber on the Internet?

What if someone just put your head on the Star Wars Kid?

Rock on, Jimbo. 216.11.222.21 17:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As as above. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Whales! My name is Brightstar Shiner and I would like to say hello on behalf of all of us at the Homestar Runner Wiki...for no particular reason at all, as it turns out. No I'm not a sysop or a beauracrat or anything, but I'm a nice plain user from over here. You should visit us sometime and talk to more important people like JoeyDay, the proprieter of our wiki. -216.255.63.167, a.k.a. Brightstar Shiner

Jimbo, A chara, your attention is required.

Can you please review the article ban placed on User:Dbiv. I feel I am to blame for this user getting the article ban, and have asked for it to be removed (for Dbiv, not me). User:Dbiv is David Boothroyd and pretty much created the article, he became involved in a content dispute with me, which became a revert war. I revert warred far too much on many articles and am now, correctly, on "revert patrol", and when this instance was used as an example of that, both of us came to an agreement which solved the dispute. Our agreement was ignored and David was given an article ban. Now, any edit by David to the article, or believed to be by David, despite clear recognition that the article is being improved by the edits, is being reverted. An appeal on this case was lodged but quickly rejected by the arb-com. This ruling, firstly, relates in actual fact to firstly a content dispute, which should be outside the realms of the Arb-coms remit, and secondly, effectively punishes the article because of a previously resolved dispute. As you can read on the AN/I your opinion on the matter is sought. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have only just noticed this on Sunday morning (17 September), and thank Irishpunktom for making this plea. I'm currently appealing the ban through the Arbitration Committee so you may want to wait for that - though any word in the Arbs' ears would be most welcome. I would just like to say this, though, that if Arbitration means mediating between the parties, it is very strange that I am making pleas on behalf of Irishpunktom and he is making pleas on behalf of me, while the Arbitration Committee is putting in restrictions to stop us edit-warring. Would they prefer if we were fighting? David | Talk 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a conundrum. Every time anyone suggests a change to the PETA page that is not advantageous to the supporters of the organization, they bring you up saying "Well, Jimbo doesn't think Controversy and Criticism sections are good for Wikipedia!". Well, I for one think the page in question is sorely lacking structure because these fanatics will not allow for such a section to exist and tend to censor information that would reflect poorly on the organization (even if completely true). Please, can you shed some light on the subject. What is the policy on a "Controversies and Criticism" section in general as well as specitic to this article. I do see it often in other articles so I suppose it is a fine method for organizing information. I really want the answer from the horses' mouth as it were, so I can put this debate to rest. Thanks. Bytebear 20:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest that you be bold and take careful action rather than try for permission. Get some references that are of a very high standard (major press organisations, scholarly papers, etc). Then write a section that is fully and completely referenced, including counter-arguments. Then just insert it into the article. it's hard to argue with something written acording to WP:NPOV that's fully referenced. LinaMishima 21:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an official policy on external links in articles leading to unauthorised copyright content which violates copyright laws? If not, could I have your official word on it, and official Wikipedia policy on the issue? Many song articles link to lyric sites and music video content sites such as Youtube which fail to gain copyright permission - I remove the links whenever I see them but they frequently reappear. The Song Wikiproject says that if the copyright holder hasn't requested the particular content removed then it's ok, but I disagree. It's like saying it's ok to flaunt the law, so long as the law doesn't catch up with you. What's your view? LuciferMorgan 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINK states "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." LinaMishima 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the user, but IMHO, it should be a good idea, given how so many videos on YouTube are copyright violations and add little to no significance to the articles (unless, of course, a youtube video is the main reason why a person might have an article or was caught doing bad things, like some of the US politicians). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jimmy! I was wondering whether you would give your opinion and possibly support to my idea of puting ads on wikipedia and gaving the money to charities or starting our own charity that sponsors kids in poorer nations. The money could be used to fight AIDS, research against cancer, MS, heart disease. I am sure people won't mind ads on the side or even poping up if the money is going towards these places. If you fear donors will stop donating, we can make it clear the money is going towards charities. You can read more about this on the village pump here. Pseudoanonymous 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, contrary to your assumption, I would mind very much! I hope that Wikipedia never display advertisements. I rarely visit sites which do. But what about creating a "charity portal" or something like that? This would be equally effective, I think, in guiding Wikipedians in a giving mood toward articles giving information about specific charities they may be interested in donating to.---CH 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just read an article ([4]) where it details the refusal of Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia to censor the chinese version of Wikipedia, resulting in its being blocked by the Chinese Government.

I just wanted to congratulate you and Wikipedia for making this stand - I only wish that there were more like you. The way in which other organisations such as Google, Yahoo, News Corp etc have buckled to the Chinese demands in order to make a quick buck has been disgraceful, and a shame to all countries which give lip-service to the virtues and necessities of "freedom" and "liberty".

Kudos to you Wikipedia.

--Gregrosman 05:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too hold Jimmy Wales in very high esteem because of his taking a tough stance across from China! Congratulation to Mr. Wales! f.waldenberger, Austria

I agree... but he really had no other choice. Even if he had wanted to cooperate with the Chinese censorship regime, how would he have done so? Our wide-open structure doesn't afford any opportunity to impose the sort of heavyhanded censorship the Chinese government demands, which would probably extend to the English-language version as well as the Chinese. *Dan T.* 17:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask that sort of question, or you may get an answer! It's good to know that with so many mirror sites, people in China will come across uncensored Wikipedia articles all over the place. Stephen B Streater 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting issue has been raised on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. An editor has a family copy of a manuscript that contains the biographies of several historical figures. Coppies of this manuscript, some edited by recent scholars, are also held by a historical college.

Under the current policy, as I read it; this means that the manuscript is a verifiable source, since you could travel to the Randolph-Macon College, ask to see one of their coppies, and verify the contents.

I'm unsure over if this reading is both correct, and if it's a good or bad thing. There are good reasons to accept moderatly hard to verify sources, such as old newspaper articles and out of print books, but this is an extreem example of how hard it can be to verify something with it still beign verifiable.

Do you think it's something that will need to be discussed. I don't think it's something that editors can make a consensus to act on, since adding any requirment on the ease of verification would be altering the policy rather than clarifying it. --Barberio 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, such a source is acceptable. While we obviously tend to prefer online and widely circulated print sources because they're easiest to verify, such sources don't exist for all information. If someone – an appropriately credentialled researcher, if necessary – can readily gain access to a physical copy of the document in the library to confirm that it says what is claimed, then it is verifiable.

Note that an unpublished manuscript (of confirmed provenance) is a verifiable source, but not necessarily a reliable source for all purposes. That is, it can be taken to represent the opinions of the author (In an 1884 manuscript, John Smith reported that he hated cats because he believed they would eat his brain^{link to citation}.) but not as a reliable source of factual statements (Cats like to eat brains^{link to citation}.). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think, as long as the source isn't classified (or sometimes even if it is restricted, but available) and can be accessed in a national library, or even some colleges, it may be used, as long as the claims are plausible. It's the way paper encyclopedias work, actually. For questionable claims such a hard to verify source probably would not fit, though. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep comments discussing this on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, in interests of keeping discussion all in one place. Comment here was to draw Jimbo's attention to an issue that may need his or the foundation's intervention if it's felt that the policy should be changed. The current comments have been coppied over. --Barberio 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo,
As an occasional user and occasional editor, I'd just like to add my name to whatever list there might be of people that are getting tired and tireder and tirederer of semi-protection of articles. I understand that it has its very valid uses, but everywhere I look, I am prevented from casually and anonymously editing articles that draw a lot of popular attention. It seems like administrators are enacting this failsafe device vociferously and unnecessarily, as though it was infallible. You are one of the most vehement proponents of the 'you can edit this' policy, so surely you can agree that this seems a bit disillusionary for users? --84.71.118.198 21:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention it, I'd like to add my name to those strongly deprecating allowing any anon edits under any circumstances. I'd also very much like to see autosignatures of comments in all article talk pages, user talk pages, Wikipedia talk pages. Since Jimbo prefers gradual to sudden change (I can see that he has a certain point there), two possible first steps after the only already taken, banning article creation by anons, would be:

1. increasing the ease of getting frequently vandalized articles semiprotected,
2. implementing autosignatures for AfD votes (which would probably also be easier to implement).

---CH 02:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo,

We are (again) discussing the use of unfree images at the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia. Some users argue that the projects themselves may decide if NC- and ND-licenses are allowed. Are they right?

Sincerely, --Kjetil_r 22:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If this is not the proper place to ask this question, feel free to move it.

Just wondering, if you were to resign, become incapacated, or be deceased who would become the head of the Wikimedia Foundation? Hello32020 22:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seek your protection. This is Napoleon. Copy. Over. Zena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 23:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My IP has been stolen. I want it back from your Badmin Toms. Peas :D Zena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, perhaps you might be interested in my comments in Talk: Steve Biko uder the heading POV Considerations Too Old 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was forwarded to me. http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/waam-20060913.html I'm sort of surprized that this guy's article would be deleted since he's extremely well known in contemporary music circles...but I think that perhaps his experience has something to say.

The main point is this (quote/unquote)

In the "Article for Deletion" (AfD) discussion, I discovered a recurrent theme: the Wikipedia vigilantes wander around the virtual space randomly looking for articles to delete without making an effort to verify the content. As a regular though skeptical Wikipedia user, I was surprised at the extremity of this behavior.

I thought that you should at least know that it was circulating. Musikfabrik 23:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that commercial editing of Wikipedia is going to happen, and it's going to increase. MyWikiBiz is just the first in what is certain to be a long line. What we need is transparency, something which MyWikiBiz's current translation of the "Jimbo Concordat" seems to obscure. The problem with the current system, where non-paid editors post MyWikiBiz articles into the mainspace is documented in part here, where I suggested using the Articles for Creation process or to post the article in their Userspace pending review. I want articles authored by commercial sources to be easily traced to their original author, in case of POV issues etc. And the current system does not allow this, as the paid-for articles are posted by editors who are not responsible for the information. - Hahnchen 00:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! I'm afraid you've came very late to this ballgame, and hence missed out all the interesting discussion at WP:COI and on the mailing list. WP:COI is the place to go for discussing this, not here. Sadly one post on the mailing list made a point that I was forced to agree with - that we actually only put ourselves in danger if we encourage this to be entirely in the open, allowing for real lawyer wikilawyering and the like. It is worth noting however that a lot of the community there appeared to agree with userspace articles, however the google rank problem would then come into play - which is the main reason against this. LinaMishima 00:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on MyWikiBiz about the situation with Google. How is an open process going to put ourselves in danger? Rather, it would be much safer if the repsonibilities for the articles could be laid down at the user's door instead of having others transcribe your work for you. Yeah, I know this is a bit late, but WP:COI seems kind of dead and mentions the talkpage idea which has been overruled. - Hahnchen 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The email to read is this one. I still regret e-mailing the list before reading this, as after some consideration, I had to find it to be correct. LinaMishima 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The last active work relating to this, which should probably be returned to, was a document for PR firms on editing wikipedia without shouting out about it. The idea was to follow the concept in said e-mail, but make sure anyone who wanted to do it could infact do it right and in a constructive and helpful manner (which would benifit everyone, really). LinaMishima 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo,

Some editors are making statements in your name to imply that you've forbidden the use of {{promophoto}} fair-use images in biographies of living people, because hypothetically, it's possible that eventually a free image may be obtained. I started a row with Ed g2s at AN/I over 15 images of U.S. State Attorneys General, such as, e.g., Image:AG Danberg.jpg for use in Carl Danberg. Ed has orphaned all the images, and continues to refuse to allow the matter to go to an WP:IFD discussion, which would determine whether WP:FU and WP:FUC require the deletion of those images (a question to which I answer with a resounding, No!). Or, you can tell us that all fair-use portraits should be deleted. But either way, clarification is badly needed. Awaiting your opinion on the subject,

- CrazyRussian talk/email 07:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to direct interested parties to the proposals at Wikipedia:English promotional images solution, given that we probably should be replacing these images, but an organised system done over time will minimise any damage to articles. LinaMishima 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the above is a very good description of recent fair use cleanup activities. As I noted at WP:AN, if you find an image that Ed g2s has orphaned that is irreplacable and has verifiable copyright holder information, please let me know. These two points are necessary (but not sufficient) under our existing policies. There's nothing to debate at IfD if we are not meeting the barest of our requirements for image use. All of that said, I think that a remdinder to admins not involved in image cleanup that these requirements exist and that there is an enormous amount of cleanup that needs doing, may well be helpful. Jkelly 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there should be an article on Suicide methods (as opposed to Suicide) on Wikipedia? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (3rd nomination). Chelseaboy 10:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am mentally retarded and I want a pat on the head by the wikipedia founder. Rintrah 12:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Wales. Some of us over at the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates page would like your perspective on a question about NPOV in images. The debate has been over the nomination of an image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and has been pretty involved, but civil at least. From my perspective, the question boils down to 1) Does the NPOV requirement of FPs refer to the image portraying the article subject in an NPOV way - or does the article itself have to not convey a biased POV, and 2) if an image is represents the article without POV, is there a point when the article to which the image would draw attention is too inflammatory for the image itself to be elevated to FP status. It seems to be a question with broad potential impact, such as on FP candidates showing atomic bomb clouds, or air force one flying over mount rushmore, to name a couple. Thanks for any thoughts! Debivort 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV for images only really applies to blatant problems, such as added text saying that something is amazing and other aspects that do not serve to document an occasion. by definition many good photographs of key historical events are by their nature not NPOV. What matters more is the context within which they are presented within the article. LinaMishima 20:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One request -- please understand that the entirety of the debate cannot be summarized here -- the discussion on the page Debivort linked to is long, but shouldn't take more than 3-5 minutes to read. Thanks... -- Moondigger 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the above as it was presented seemed to be about the general issues. Secondly, I have just read the example in question, and quiete frankly, wikipedia is not censored. I also saw people using the recient mushroom cloud FPC as an example of nenial because of non-NPOV, when infact it was down to poor quality and lack of historical context. LinaMishima 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above commentary was sparked directly by the discussion Debivort linked to. The discussion has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Nobody suggested deleting the image or pulling it from articles. The entire discussion centers around whether that image violates featured picture criterion #9, which states that images must be neutral to be featured. I'm not sure why you brought up the mushroom cloud image, but I opposed it for reasons having nothing to do with criterion #9. -- Moondigger 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop doing that. Call of duty 23:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are on the planning stage for a Wikifoundation in the Philippines. Mind if we have soem of your help? Justox dizaola 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really suggest, as Phil Sandifer claims here, that WikiNews is acceptable for verifiability purposes? To me it looks like a wiki, which is explictly disallowed by WP:RS, and I have never heard of it having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" to quote WP:V. I fail to see what has changed when the WikiNews article was created except that someone posted something on a wiki based on what someone else posted on another wiki. There seems to be a flagrant violation of the principle of "verifiability, not truth". Every time I say this I am told that this doesn't matter because the fact in question is true, which seems to me to miss the whole point of those three bolded words. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I've reverted the change for now because it seems like a clear violation of WP:RS to me: we're an encyclopedia, not a place to publish first-party investigative reporting. If it really is OK by you, please let me know and I'll back off. Nandesuka 11:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I generally agree. I suggest posting the unverified information on a talk page so people can keep an eye out for a report in a reliable source. Then it can be moved over. I have a friend at the BBC and she says it is really annoying that they need two independent sources before they can report something on BBC World Service, which means they are often not first with the "News". But then, the most newsworthy "events" often turn out to be fictitious. Having said that, Phil does seem to be saying the Wikinews is supposed to be used. Perhaps the sources for this information on Wikinews could be used instead. Stephen B Streater 12:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the source on Wikinews is actually "Phil Sandifer's first-hand conversation." So this is still first-hand reporting. I'm constantly dealing with people inserting original research and reporting into articles, so it's fairly important to me to have a consistent story on this: that consistency helps convert people from thinking we are persecuting them into understanding and valuable contributors. I really don't want to have to explain something like "All material must be verifiable and from a reliable source, unless you have 6300 edits, at which point you are allowed to introduce 5 unverifiable facts per 7 week period." Nandesuka 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it shows poor judgement to add that a person was in "pursuit of a gender change in the last months of life" and add him to the Transgender and transsexual musicians category on the basis of comments on a wikipedia talk page or a wikinews article based on that wikipedia talk page. I think it shows even worse judgement to claim that wikipedia's policy on "Biographies of Living People" applies to a biography of a person who has been dead for years. And then for Phil to claim BLP justifies breaking the verifiability policy when it explicitly says it doesn't makes me question his judgement on determining who wrote what in that talk page. To top it all off, he now says on the mail something about ignoring the actual policies as written because he doesn't have the time or some such thing. WAS 4.250 12:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth reporting more accurately what he said on the mailing list for the benefit of those who did not see. This was along the lines that he was going back to fundamentals as there is so much small print now that keeping track of it all is hindering his work building an encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater 12:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a lot of small print. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) springs to mind. Verifiability is not small print - as I have to point out on AfD and DRV time and time again, usually to new accounts, it is a non-negotiable pillar of the encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already suggested that WP:V must be added to his original list of core policies. Stephen B Streater 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimbo! I enlarged your picture on your userpage, but somebody reverted it. But I think, you like the larger one, or not? Greets, --Radikaler Zerstörer 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a lot of users. While many of them know a great deal about the subjects they write about, how many of them know a great deal about Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia should have an informal education system, where new users could come to learn more about Wikipedia and how to get more out of their edits. J Hill 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[ Regards]] Hi Jumbo. I am an avid 14-year old Wikipedian. I am interested in creating a section of Wikimedia that regards to Idealogies and philosophies. Please contact me. bluebeans@gmail.com

```Xunex

Dearest Mr. Wales,

I am a contributor here on Wikipedia though I do not have an account. I would just like to point out that some pages at Wikipedia are endorsing pornographic images such as the Penis page and the pages for Porn actors like Anjali Kara. I really wish you could look into this as I feel these images are really too unappropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks! 60.48.219.182 18:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. Tyrenius 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the problem. Firstly, there are no images at Anjali Kara. Secondly, what is the problem with the images at Penis, specifically? Your comment was a bit vague to really plan any course of action. You might also want to know that, WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. Thanks for your time. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per concerns of WP:BLP, someone added her birhtday on July 2 [5]. She subject of the article has not revealed her DOB and it does not appear in a reliable source. I requested revision deleting on WP:AN [6] but an admin realized that deleting the birthday would require all revisions from 2 July to 6 September would have to be removed, so only a few revisions were removed. A ticket sent via email (ticket number 2006090910001839) also declined to remove the revisions, saying that the principle of BLP alone wasn't a "more compelling reason" to do the revisions.

So I'm making one last appeal to you. How far does BLP go? Is deleting half of the revision history under WP:BLP override the need to preserve all copies of the history? My only wish is that Emmalina herself had caught the revision and deleted it so the collatoral damage wasn't as huge as it is now. As for the subject herself, she's not very happy [7]. Hbdragon88 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution as stated in the talk page by myself is to create a new clean revision, include the names of all editors of revisions to be removed, and remove them. This way the GFDL is still followed whilst respecting privacy. LinaMishima 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual solution, but I like it. Done. Now could someone destroy the revisions? Hbdragon88 01:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning to hit the link to your user talk page, but I accidentally pressed the rollback button instead. This was completely unintentional. Sorry! Extraordinary Machine 01:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jimbo. User:Phil Sandifer is claiming that you told him that he can use undocumented "news" from Wikinews as verifiable sources for his edits on the Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer article. Did you indeed say such a thing, and if so, what's to stop anybody from posting to Wikinews without documentation and then claiming that Wikinews supports their accusations? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews counts as a wiki, and as such should generally not be used. If the statement on wikinews is properly referenced, then clearly it is the proper reference that is the reference for the change, not wikinews. LinaMishima 03:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Folk_Musician_Tracy_Grammer_Corrects_Record_on_Dave_Carter doesn't have any proof for the claims. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also self-referencial to wikipedia on the claim that they want to add to wikipedia. So no, this is an entirely unacceptable source for such a statement. LinaMishima 04:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked this a few sections up :-). I think we've hashed out the issue of whether this can be included for the moment - I'm still very interested to see Jimbo say publicly what he actually meant in his communication with Phil. --Sam Blanning<sup>(talk)</sup> 13:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he said something like, "I've learned not to try to micromanage the details of who gets banned and what sources are acceptable for what as I lack the time to properly inform myself of all the relevant details; but have you tried wikinews?" :) WAS 4.250 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

•The RSJ• - <sup>(spicken, a børk børk børk!)</sup> has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I'm gave these messages to everyone I know, and I decided, "Hey, why not give it to the founder of Wikipedia?" Bear in mind, it's not the wrong kind of WikiLove (lol)... Hope you're having a good day, cheers! •The RSJ• - <sup>(spicken, a børk børk børk!)</sup> 19:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am inserting the following link [8] because the honour of Jimbo Wales and his baby, Wikipedia, are at stake, in a matter which has included serious libel and defamation by a Wiki admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.208 (talk • contribs)