User talk:Jimbo Wales

International Symbol of Access and licensing

I apologize for asking this here, but I believe that this is the only place that it can be brought up, since it was you that made the decision to not allow "with permission" licenses. I also apologize for reposting this; unless I missed it, you did not give any indication that you had read it. Here's the issue: the International Symbol of Access (that wheelchair logo you see everywhere) is copyrighted. Its conditions of use essentially make it a "with-permission" image; the only place where fair use applies is on the International Symbol of Access article itself. At Wikipedia talk:Fair use#The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead? I discussed this with other users, and made a free replacement - - that the uses of the copyrighted symbol have been replaced with. I do agree, however, with many of the people that commented that this seems pretty silly: the symbol is an international standard that people recognize. Can you please offer your view either here or at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead?, or at least indicate that you have seen this and are OK with status quo? Thank you. --NE2 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you will lead a quick project for people to compose an email to the people who own the copyright, I will be happy to email it to them under my name, asking them to release the logo under a modern free license. It seems likely that they would be happy to do that. Where are people wanting to use it at Wikipedia, though, other than places where fair use would work fine? --Jimbo Wales 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I don't think our fair use policies would apply here: the image is "replaceable" (as has been done), and every use of it would require a rationale on the image page. As for free licensing, I would assume that the ICTA thought about the issue in 1968 and decided to copyright it to ensure that it is not "misused". Trademark protection might provide the same effects, but I do not know whether it would have as much "teeth" and whether it is too late for them to register the trademark. The issue is that, unlike media companies, they have nothing to gain by releasing it under a free license for our use, and possibly a lot to lose if others start "abusing" that license to mark non-accessible things with the symbol. If you think about it from their point of view, we can already use the image; it is just our policies that prevent us from doing so, and they have no reason to change their license for our benefit. --NE2 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The ISA is used in Template:Infobox Disney ride as a simple, effective way to indicate that a ride is handicapped-accessible. NE2 has a point — the ITC ICTA may not want to release this image under a free license and risk abuse. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1968 is a long time ago, though.--Jimbo Wales 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So is 1928, but I don't think we'll have any luck there. So can you clarify your position with respect to the current license and the replacement? Thank you. --NE2 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a message I received from Tivedshambo regarding this issue:

"Hi. With regards to your changes to various railway line articles, I was wondering why you have replaced the official International Symbol of Access with the current rather crudely drawn wheelchair symbol. The official symbol may be used within the terms of its copyright for uses defined in International Symbol of Access, including "Indicating an accessible transit station or vehicle". Furthermore, I have worked with people with disabilities in the past, and have found that badly thought-out or stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offence, [sic] and therefore the most prudent option is to stick to official symbols."

I have researched this and the symbol's copyright is simply to prevent misuse of the symbol. Using the symbol here on Wikipedia to note accessible rail stations is perfectly ok. I uploaded a new image (Image:isa.svg) and its fair use detail are listed there. I also changed {{access icon}} to include the new symbol I uploaded. –Crashintome4196 07:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Using the symbol here on Wikipedia to note accessible rail stations is perfectly ok". Don't seek sanctuary in the law. If we can do with free material, why would we do with unfree? --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the 'free' alternative is unfamiliar, potentially confusing, and possibly offensive, while the official symbol is clear, attractive, designed for the purpose, and permitted in this application. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would still use a free alternative even when a better unfree one is available. The free alternative has only to be good enough, and I believe this is the case. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. I hope to resolve this issue once and for all at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

That page serves no encyclopedic purpose. I think it's inhumane to maintain it and would urge you to use your execute ability to delete it.--CSTAR 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, put the article up for AfD so there can be a discussion on whether to delete it. No need to ask Jimbo to do this. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 15:33, 26 March 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.

Regarding the situation at Christopher Michael Langan

Hello, Mr. Wales.

Wikipedia administrator FeloniousMonk, who is unquestionably guilty of serial defamation and obsessively controlling the article Christopher Michael Langan (along with fellows and sympathizers of "Wikiproject Intelligent Design" including jim62sch, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua, Arthur Rubin, ScienceApologist, and a constant stream of trolls and single-purpose attack accounts), has just further abused his/her sysop powers to issue a retaliatory block against FNMF, the person who most recently blew the whistle on him here. The stated reason for the block is that FNMF's editing patterns are allegedly similar to mine, which of course comes down to a suspicion that he (she?) is identical or at least personally known to me, and/or that I am prompting him in some way.

Accordingly, I hereby inform all concerned that to the best of my knowledge, FNMF is not connected to me in any way. Indeed, a checkuser was already run on FNMF, and his location is already known to be geographically uncorrelated with mine. I don't know him or even know what his initials stand for, and as nearly as I can tell, there is no reasonable, legitimate suspicion that he is, or is related, to me or to the subject of the biography article that he has been constructively editing. I do, however, know that his corrections to the article have been almost 100% accurate, and that the reversions made by his administrative opponents have been almost 100% erroneous. This leads me to believe that what we have here is simply a tedious continuation of the malicious behavior on the part of certain wayward sysops which you recently responsibly interdicted. (Thank you for your intercession.)

This is an old story for FeloniousMonk, who has long been a liability and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I happen to be attuned to this situation because FeloniousMonk and his meatpuppet brigade - since "meatpuppet" is one of their own most cherished epithets, I'm sure they won't mind wearing it themselves - are largely responsible for snookering the Arbitration Committee into banning me indefinitely from the CML article even though I have no significant history of editing that article. (Of the two or three minor and entirely justifiable edits that I made to correct errors and improve intelligibility, the most recent occurred almost half a year before the ban was issued.)

This, of course, raises a question: given that FeloniousMonk has a long and colorful history of manipulatively abusing his sysop powers in order to prevail in personal, editorial, and procedural disputes, and also to exact sweet revenge on those who dare to challenge his various abuses, why is he still tolerated here as an administrator, and why is his word preferred with such blatant prejudice over those of his victims? It simply fails to make sense, given that Wikipedia is actively promoted for its supposed neutrality, reliability, and compassion.

For my own part, I'm trying to be as understanding as possible about this. Indeed, I've been angelically tolerant of it for almost nine months now. But as any neutral observer can plainly see, the Wikipedia sysops who have been specializing in this article are among the very worst elements ever to endanger the reputation and future wellbeing of the Wikipedia Project. Unfortunately, nobody seems to want to do anything about them. This is an intolerable and therefore unstable situation.

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that you instruct FeloniousMonk to lift his abusive block against FNMF and stop persecuting better and more responsible editors than himself, and if at all possible, to pry this ill-intentioned administrative troll and his cohorts from the article in question and shoo them permanently away from it. As I hope you'll agree, letting this kind of recidivist policy violator retain special powers to anonymously censor honest editors and torment Wikipedia biography subjects reflects poorly on the entire Project, and could ultimately cause it to be subjected to unwelcome and exacting forms of scrutiny.

Thank you and best wishes, Asmodeus 02:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

File a calm, pleasant, and informative RfC is my recommendation. I am not going to personally get involved in the details of this, although I do think that the block of FNMF was not warranted in this case. FeloniousMonk has been an admin for a long time, and knows what to do, and not every little thing I disagree with really warrants me doing anything about it. But I do think this is worthy of a bigger discussion.--Jimbo Wales 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response, Mr. Wales. Your RfC suggestion is duly acknowledged. However, I feel compelled to point out what I now consider to be a proven fact: the Wikipedia dispute resolution process is catastrophically fallible. It is too easily hijacked by those with the means to do so, and too often leads to the sanctioning and amplification of abuse. I know this because I've experienced it repeatedly.

As mentioned above, DrL and I have already tried to obtain relief through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process and were punished for it. I was banned from an article I edited three times in perfectly justifiable ways, and DrL was banned for trying to protect its accuracy against slurs and falsehoods calculated to harm its subject. Was this due to other infractions on our parts? I don't think so. Our only "infraction" was self-defense, and self-defense is not a crime. Not a single move made against us here by a Wikipedia administrator has been justified, and we do not regard this as an accident. Experience tells us that trying to obtain relief through a process that has already failed us, and was in fact turned against us, would only lead to further attacks. The attacks were vicious and baseless the first time around, and they would be equally vicious and baseless the second time around. So where is our incentive to pursue this process? Why should we invite further harm to be done to us as Wikipedia administrators again circle the wagons to shield one of their own from the consequences of his actions? Perhaps you can see our dilemma.

Let me speak frankly. I understand that you want this site to run itself...you want it to conform to the Internet ideal of freedom and democracy, and for everything to come out right. That's a noble aspiration. But in real life, ideals are seldom realized, and human nature is notoriously unfriendly to this one in particular. Bureaucratization corrupts freedom and democracy; they inevitably deteriorate as power-seekers make their way to the top, form alliances, and help each other exert their wills, exercise control, and suppress opposition. It's the way of the world. Because you wanted to create an encyclopedia, you were forced to bargain with the devil, so to speak, and establish this kind of bureaucracy. I understand your position and appreciate its difficulties. But as reflected by your supreme stature in the Wikipedia hierarchy, you are finally responsible for controlling that bureaucracy and reversing its failures, and if this is not possible, for reforming it.

As regards your belief that not every little thing you disagree with really warrants action, I see your point. But as I'm sure you're aware, the personal reputations and nonprofit endeavors of Wikipedia biography subjects, and the accurate representation of their work and ideas, are not "little things". As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia can succeed only by encyclopedic prioritization; accuracy and neutrality must always take priority, not only over the administrative prerogatives of Wikipedia sysops, but even over the bureaucratic protocols and procedures through which they function. After nine months of misery on their account, I'd appreciate it if this could be born in mind.

Again, thanks for your help and advice. While you are deciding how to handle DrL's request below, I request that you keep a watchful eye on this still-volatile situation lest it once again degenerate. Asmodeus 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

List of tamgotchi characters

Can you talk to User:SuperDJ about him trying to delete the tamagotchi charactr list?

Translation under GFDL

Hi, I am 百楽兎, mainly writing articles on Japanese & Chinese Wikipedia. Because more and more articles of English Wikipedia are translated to Chinese Wikipedia, so recently a complicated problem and argument regarding GFDL still has no good solution there.

GFDL said "Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4." Easily speaking, it means translators have to obey GFDL, but there are technical problems when translating articles from one Wikipedia to another Wikipedia. For example, how to keep histories and contributors' names in a translation version?

I think it would be better if Foundation could officially give all wikipedians an instruction and explanation regarding this copyright problem. Thank you for your attetion.--百楽兎 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The pratice here to ensure translations conform to GDFL is to include a link in the article to the specific version from which the translation was made. For example the article Bernadette Chirac includes the template:

{{Translation/Ref|fr|Bernadette Chirac|oldid=13261887}}

Which produces:

• This article was initially translated from this Wikipedia article « fr:Bernadette Chirac » , specifically from this version.

There shouldn't be any problem with a permanent link to the history on another Wiki. WjBscribe 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation WITHIN Wikipedia is a diffferent matter from translation under the GNU FDL. Contributors are implicitly giving additional permission (beyond the GNU FDL) to allow for the normal operation of the website under our longstanding traditions. So this means that while attribution is a courtesy, it is done for internal policy reasons and this has NOTHING to do with the GNU FDL. I do not think it is wise to have permanent links between versions in the actual article space, a mention in the edit summary is more than enough.--Jimbo Wales 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, just to make sure we're on the same wavelength- we mean translations from one language Wikipedia to another, not just those within the same Wikipedia. But if you think the links are unnecessary/unhelpful, I'll let Wikipedia:Translation know to stop including/take out those links. Having the specific link available is useful for checking the original translation- would the link be an appropriate thing to include on the talkpage in your opinion (which would avoid users having to fish for the original edit summary)? WjBscribe 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I mainly wanted to sort out the legal question from the practical question. There is no GFDL reason to include such links, as it is all within the Wikipedia site. There are practical reasons why such links might be helpful or useful, and I take no very strong position on that. In the very long run, though, we should try to avoid a culture in which a translation (even a partial translation) from German to Thai (for example) means that the Thai Wikipedia article must have a special link back to the German version even 17 years from now! :) A think that a notice in the edit summary combined with information on the talk page should usually fulfill our practical needs. But I respect that some people may have a different view, and I take no very strong position on it myself... other than saying that GFDL has nothing to do with it.--Jimbo Wales 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I don't see why 'our practical needs' would not be served by an edit summary and talkpage information, but will raise the matter for further discussion in the right forums. WjBscribe 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another question, because this is a copyright problem, should our foundation officially release a newsletter to announce the solution or policy? Many wikipedians think "Translation between Wikipedias has to conform GNU FDL.", and many other wikipedians also think it is not reasonable. Consensus may be difficult, but at least all wikipedians shouldn't be opposite on this matter. --百楽兎 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a user Pi rate. Sounds like Irate, no? Prodego ^talk 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. More like Pirate. --Carnildo 08:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this a very strange position, given Wikipedia's vulnerability to issues like this one. I was the main contributor to this Wikipedia's article on Yagan. It got translated to German and posted on the German Wikipedia, without any attribution of authorship to me. As a result, anybody who visits de:Yagan will be utterly unable to ascertain my substantial authorship of the material in that article. That is a clear violation of the license under which I released my copyrighted material to the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't care about the violation, but I care that you don't care, if you know what I mean. Hesperian 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore I strongly suggest our foundation make an official announcement, make a formal policy for this matter.--百楽兎 02:15, 1 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, 151.196.183.248 (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 71.12.214.213 (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)

Comment on "blocks"

The presence of a "consensus system" where thousands of teen administrators block people from editing an encyclopedia, will be the downfall of this project, in my opinion. Would we want people without an ounce of wisdom, running the world? 16 year old human beings can be very smart about things that make sense to 16 year old human beings. They are not likely to ascertain enough wisdom to raise a finger to vote on anything in the world that has substance, let alone run a business, or a foundation.

Without a leadership that is wise, this experiment will self destruct into a dull noise, not an encyclopedia.

The real journalists of the world will pick up the pieces called Wikipedia and merge it to a real encyclopedia with a board, and shareholders and people with something at risk. Here, with most people not even using real names and credentials, life experience, there is no risk and too many opportunities to allow vandalism.

I agree with the university bans against Wikipedia that are being established around the globe.

Consensus? That is a joke. More like lynch mobs. Blocking has become more important than editing. ErgoEgo 02:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine

In the 2 April 2007 issue of Time Magazine, you made a comment:

"We're looking at software tools that will allow the community to quarantine edits from people we don't know. No one in the Wikipedia community would write that Sinbad is dead [as happened on March 15] and leave it up there. That would be a bannable offense - no question"

1. As for these software tools, did I miss a discussion somewhere? How long have these been in the works? Also, can you please elaborate on what you meant by "quarantine." It sounds like a good idea though.
2. Wouldn't making something the Sinbad case a "bannable offense" violate WP:AGF, WP:BLOCK and WP:BITE if it was a new user who made the edit, or did you mean only vandalism that got major attention from the media? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stable versions have been in the works for a long time. They were announced as an upcoming MediaWiki feature at Wikimania 2006 (Signpost). And in my opinion purposely perpetrating a hoax as damaging as that is an immediately blockable offense. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have heard of stable/live versions, I've just never heard them referred to like that. But with the hoax/vandalism, who determines whether it was done maliciously or as simple vandalism? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Time was reconstructed from the reporters notes it seems, as those are not my exact words. But the gist of it is correct and not in any way an announcement of anything new or unusual. Bbatsell is right: the software under discussion is "stable versions" which I am told is Coming Very Soon. As for the other part, I was not talking about vandalism by either anons or newbies, but rather how the core community would treat such vandalism if undertaken by an actual member of the community. Not "immediately blockable" but "bannable". That is, if we can even imagine such a thing, just imagine if some upstanding normal Wikipedian put something like that into an article. There would have to be quite a good explanation and a lot of apologizing to avoid a ban, I think, and the damage to someone's internal reputation would likely be permanent.--Jimbo Wales 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, would you elaborate on that statement and update WP:BAN? That post of yours will probably get quoted at community ban proposals. Those of us who volunteer with that developing area of Wikipedia spend our time weighing what to do with the individuals who make that sort of post or something similar, and it would be a great help to us to know exactly how far to extend that boundary and where it should bend. Durova^Charge! 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Electrowinning

This probably isn't the place to post this, but last evening I was perusing material on the Web about copper refining, and looked to see if Wikipedia had an article on "Electrowinning."

Indeed it does, but unfortunately, the article begins "Electrowinning, also called electrorefining..."

Although both electrowinning and electrorefining use electrolytic cells, they are distinct processes. In electrorefining, you use an anode of impure metal, and plate pure metal onto the cathode, thereby refining the material. In electrowinning, the goal is to extract all of a metal from a leach solution containing it, and you use an insoluble anode. Oxygen is liberated at the anode, and the metal is replaced in solution by hydrogen ion as it is all plated out onto the cathode.

To make matters worse, I noticed while Googling "Wikipedia electrowinning" that this boo-boo, amongst others, was cited 18 days ago in an article titled "Accuracy of Wikipedia" about the EssJay controversy, and distributed over Shoutwire.

Currently "electrorefining" is a redirect to "electrowinning", and the electrowinning article is written from the POV that the terms are synonyms. "Someone" needs to fix this. If we have an "Articles That Are Wrong" list, this article should be added. Hermitian 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and DIY -- feb^talk 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question, Hermitian. I hope you know more about Electrowinning than I do, and will edit the page accordingly. ;) ... dave souza, talk 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Admin Are Rude

In general, your admin and admin hopefuls are on power trips. As such, their conduct is often rude and flip to those they have pre-judged as guilty. You've got high school juniors acting like the "trolls" are vermin who must be exterminated mercilessly and the way they treat people is outrageous. They feel it beneath them to explain their actions. It makes Wiki a joke, which is part of the reason why Wiki gets so little respect in the offline world. I think the problem is that you give these jokers real power to castigate and banish members of the populace. But THERE'S INADEQUATE OVERSIGHT. That's the beauty of the US government... checks, balances, oversight. When people in a position of power know that they have people looking over their shoulder, they get their act together real quick. But in Wiki, it's so difficult for the powerless to fight back and the process takes so long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"So little respect" eh? It's not like virtually every student uses it as a reference or anything. --Deskana (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with what 12.20.13.2 says, and I've been in Wikipedia for ~2 years. (Wikimachine 16:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

I just don't like administrators being generalised in such a way when I try my hardest to be fair. --Deskana (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a few, however not too few to be ignored. Sorry. (Wikimachine 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

But should the actions of a few mean new rules for all? If we have too much "checks, balances, oversight" there will be such a bureaucracy, things will never get done, like in the US government. Edit wars will go on for days while admins secure approval from the Page Protection Committee. Blocks will become useless as appeals will become easier. Its not like admin actions are irreversible. Any other admin can reverse an admin's decision. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The IP that began this thread has been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jonawiki. Durova^Charge! 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Is Exploited As Brochureware

Too often I am seeing Wiki used as an opportunity by those with vested financial interest to exploit Wiki as a propaganda machine. They insist that every major negative point about their company/institution be "balanced" by a minor positive point for the sake of NPOV. Through their experience on Wiki, they "game the system" by using personal attacks, sockpuppet accusations, NPOV, RfC as their tools to quash dissent and run off anyone who dares to expose anything negative about their employer. It seems that the bias on this site is to add positive feel-good trivia. But GOD FORBID people malign the good reputation of such and such with statements written neutrally and in compliance with WP:ATT. Again, this hurts the credibility of Wiki because it acts an obstacle to reaching true NPOV when dissent is constantly under a witchunt. this experience makes me want to never use Wiki again, tell everyone I know what a joke this site is and write editorials to the NYTimes and WashingtonPost explaining my experiences.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please give the site's existing processes a chance to work. Post a request to the administrators' noticeboard that supplies relevant details and page diffs. If the complaint has merit then things can get sorted out. Durova^Charge! 13:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Invitation of create account

I am the administrator of Classical Chinese Wikipedia, hope that you can go the here to create an account in order to prevent others register this name, thanks a lot! --KongMing 09:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

With unified login supposedly coming in next month, that seems kinda pointless. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Christopher Michael Langan - request from DrL

Dear Jimbo,

First, I would like to thank you for your positive intervention at Christopher Michael Langan. Over the last several months, this article has been fraught with problems involving editorial and administrative hostility toward its subject, along with blatant disregard or misinterpretation of a number of important Wikipedia policies including WP:BLP and WP:OR.

Asmodeus and I were banned from editing the article last December, after grave abuse of the administrative process by rogue Wikipedia administrators including FeloniousMonk, Arthur Rubin, and others. FeloniousMonk engineered two bogus "3RR" blocks against me and then convinced the ArbCom to impose an indefinite ban against me and Asmodeus. Absurdly, Asmodeus was banned from editing an article that he had only edited three times, and not at all in the six (6) months preceding the ban.

Although the real motives behind these actions were more or less evident from the start, they became unmistakable when Wikipedia administrator FeloniousMonk and others inserted, over the strong objections of Asmodeus, a package of defamatory misinformation provided by certain litigious parties hostile to the subject of the biography, under obvious protection and encouragement from his/her fellow administrators (Arthur Rubin, Guettarda, jim62sch, KillerChihuahua, and others).

You have now stepped in, and pointing to the relevant policies, have made it clear that WP:BLP and WP:OR were indeed being violated. Of course, since you are finally in charge of the Wikipedia Project, it is not surprising that your word is being taken as law. However, the exact same things have been pointed out to the violators by others many times before, and were merely used as occasions for fun, belittlement, and administrative persecution.

I would appreciate it if the nature of my editing of this entry could be reviewed in this new light. I believe that I was banned not because of "disruptive editing" as put forth in the "ScienceApologist" RfAr, but because I was suspected of being the wife of the subject of the bio and a potential defender of NPOV from those Wikipedia administrators who wished to skew it or let it be skewed by others. While I never admitted or denied being personally involved - as long as anonymity is allowed at Wikipedia, that will remain my prerogative - I always tried to follow Wikipedia policy and maintain neutrality in my editing. I firmly believe that whenever I made an edit to the article, it was an improvement in terms of neutrality, accuracy, and flow.

FeloniousMonk has compiled this "evidence" against me. I stand by the neutrality and factual accuracy of all of my edits. The main argument against me, while hinting at all kinds of imaginary misdeeds and ulterior motives, ultimately revolved around the fact that while Langan was being aggressively portrayed as a militant ID advocate (despite no declaration to that effect by Langan himself or anyone who knows him), I had tried to balance the article by removing obvious violations of WP:OR. This argument was clearly no good. It has now been consensually established that while Langan is a fellow of ISCID, to label him an "ID advocate" is to go beyond verifiable facts, and thus to violate WP:OR. So it would now appear that I was right all along. Yet I remain under an indefinite ban which was designed to let FeloniousMonk and his friends do whatever they pleased, right or wrong, without answerability or meaningful opposition from anyone with actual knowledge pertaining to the article. Since this ban was abusive and wrongfully imposed, I would like my edits to be reviewed in this new light, and the indefinite ban to be lifted.

Of course, the ban against Asmodeus should also be lifted. The large green tag at the top of the article's talk page gives everyone the erroneous impression that Asmodeus and I were legitimately found to be disruptive and "self-promoting". But this is not actually the case. Asmodeus rarely edited the article, did not edit it at all for six months prior to the ban, and is unlikely to edit it in the future on anything but an emergency basis. We have no shortage of other matters that demand our attention.

There is a good reason that I am writing to you personally instead of opening a Request for Comment. The reason is this: after the RfAr mentioned above, and this previous abusive Request for Comment, I no longer have faith in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process or the integrity of many of its administrators. Asmodeus and I have already wasted a huge amount of time and effort trying to obtain relief through the channels allegedly provided for that purpose within Wikipedia itself, but were only abused for our trouble. Quite understandably, we are hesitant to throw good time after bad.

Thanks for your attention to this matter, and for anything that you can do to rectify this error and prevent future abuses of this kind. --DrL 17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please either post a dif of my "obvious protection and encouragement" or withdraw the accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In the series of edits beginning here you reinserted, distorted and further edited contentious material in violation of WP:OR and WP:BLP in spite of the fact that the user that you believed to be the subject of the article (as well as others) had repeatedly complained about the content of the passage being biased, innaccurate, and potentially libelous. Policy would indicate that this material should have been removed by an administrator. By reinserting and reediting such material, you are putting your stamp of approval on it. In an instance such as this, where there is obvious contention, your actions are not in keeping with your role as administrator. It is not only against policy, but puts Wikipedia at risk, since it is not merely users who are engaging in harassment and defamation, but Wikipedia administrators. Granted, you were the least offensive of the administrators hovering over the article, but you lent enough support to further their cause. I don't feel the need to remove your name from my complaint. --DrL 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I reverted a whitewash, then edited to format references and reworded some questionable content from the revert. You are discussing a content dispute, in which you assert that fully cited content is in violation of OR and BLP. You are in error. OR would be inserting content not fully supported by the sources, or drawing original conclusions; not including well-sourced content. BLP is not violated by well-sourced and non-libelous content. All of which is completely ignoring my request that you either provide a diff which supports your allegation of my "obvious protection and encouragement", or withdraw it. Adding the spurious charges that I have inserted OR and violated BLP is not either withdrawing your previous accusation, nor providing any evidence to support it. I repeat, either provide difs or withdraw the accusation that I gave "obvious protection and encouragement". KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding, "the user that you believed to be the subject of the article" is complete nonsense. You have absolutely no reason to imply that you have any clue what I do or do not believe about the user who made the edits. As it happens, I do not know, nor do I at this point much care, who that editor is. All editors are black text on a white background to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to respond. And this is just my opinion. It seems to me that an RfC phrased in the witty, informative, and even-tempered style of your above comment would be very useful right now. In particular, it seems to me that you should challenge the wide Wikipedia community in such an RfC to deal with its responsibility to make sure that what is on the Wikipedia page is factual--by trimming to only what can be cited to published reliable sources that have verified their facts. --Rednblu 18:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And how would you ascertain that a source has verified their facts? Best we can do is to describe the opinions and reporting of facts, published in sources that are considered reliable, and when there is reasonable doubt about the veracity of these facts, we attribute the opinion to the notable person/book/journal/newspaper that published it, without asserting these as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr L: Ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non qui negat, "...under obvious protection and encouragement from his/her fellow administrators", aut criminationem proba aut revoces! •Jim62sch• 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, my friend. It seems to me that we have to depend on the published opinions of the reliable sources within any discipline to judge whether any other particular source has verified their facts. That is, for example, in the assertion of facts about a living person, we should make sure that some secondary source has used the assertion of a primary source in a way that implies that the secondary source as a professional within that particular discipline has verified the assertion of the primary source. We could work out this verifiability algebra for any particular Wikipedia page as case-in-point, if you wish. Just attributing the opinion to a reliable source is not enough -- because what is a reliable source that the statement was made may not be a reliable source for whether the statement in the opinion is true. Truth matters, and we must depend on secondary reliable sources to assess that truth for us. And truth matters much more for living persons than it does for the interesting and fascinating rumors on whether or not Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar. --Rednblu 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium and copyrights

Does Wikipedia plan to do anything about Citizendium using material without attribution, in violation of the GFDL? I checked out a few articles by name and then hit random page a few times. The majority of the articles I saw were substantially identical to their Wikipedia counterparts. None of them had a list of editors. A few linked back to Wikipedia. Some articles, including Jesus, List of inorganic compounds, and Ciénaga, Magdalena were obviously block copied from Wikipedia with no attribution of any kind or indication that there were any editors outside of those listed in the page history on Citizendium. This is in violation of the GFDL. --Born2x 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should try politely asking them first. I'll see if I can contact them. --Deskana (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They have an awesome "Contact us" page. Perhaps I'll register and try to find some place for centralised discussion. --Deskana (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, trying to register led me to be able to aquire an e-mail address. I'll write to them. --Deskana (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking nicely isn't likely to help. According to their forums they believe they can violate the license... and even lock up content derived from Wikipeida under a non-free license. :( .... Worse, it seems that the primary motivation from this is to prevent us from benefiting from their work like they benefit from ours. ... No matter what you think of their approach to quality, their approach to ethical leaves a lot to be desired. :( I'm sure once they've been burned by losing all license to distribute a few articles and being called on it (if you violate the GFDL you automatically lose your license) they will begin conforming strictly while taking every legal measure to avoid helping us as we help them. ... I think we should still wish them luck, as we did with all of Sanger's prior unsuccessful Wikipedia forks, but I sure wish they wouldn't behave fairly.--Gmaxwell 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I sent them a lovely little e-mail telling them it's a legal copyright matter, not something they can just shrug off. If they ignore me then I guess we should inform the foundation or something. --Deskana (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Open Content License violations aren't pretty for the violator. I wonder if Eben Moglen would like to do the honors. GFDL enforcement might be an interesting line. --Kim Bruning 05:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are more articles that dont comply with GFDL licensing discussed at Wikipedia talk:We aren't Citizendium. Since these arent the only articles that are a concern, maybe we should documenting all of these in one place with difs say somewhere like Admins Noticeboard/GFDL issues. Especially if legal issues need to be followed beyond the current email. Gnangarra 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like register my opposition to Citizendium unethic exploit of Wikipedia Project work.Wen Hsing 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, there is a process on Citizendium for giving attribution to Wikipedia (a special template I think). People just forget sometimes, just like editors do here, when they end up plagiarizing. It's certainly not uncommon, and you are just as responsible for that as Citizendium is for their violations. So don't be hypocritical and arrogant, okay? It's never fun.

And if you really want to talk about GFDL violations, just look at Wikipedia:Oversight. 67.86.86.217 04:12, 3 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)

Michael Aquino article

Just to let you know, I responded to your comments, I'm not clear on whether or not you simply read the (less than accurate) summaries on the talk page claiming it is an "attack page" or that I am a "character assassin" - or if you actually took a look at the article. I don't think any part of the article took information from the conspiracy theorists, it dealt only with the established facts. The conspiracies are things like "Aquino was protected because the Attorney General's office was filled with Satanists" or tried to tie Aquino with the Franklin Coverup Scandal which alleges that Nixon and Bush were involved in a pedophile-ring. *That* sort of crap certainly does not belong on Wikipedia - I agree, but the actual information about the investigation, and subsequent dismissal, is in no way painting Aquino in any more negative a light than we paint Richard Jewell - in fact, as the primary author, I'd have to say that it seems the article is overly sympthetic towards him, highlighting the media's "witch-hunt" attacking his mother, mentioning that his critics are largely considered conspiracy theorists, and such. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

As you will likely be hearing about this in any case, and you were involved in this discussion, I'd like to let you know I've protected this page. I have not been involved in the discussion, and there's been a tremendous edit war over its wording for several days. If you believe this will be unhelpful, please reverse me, but I believe this will help those in the dispute to come to a resolution on the poll's setup and wording. I think it's an important discussion for the community to have, and it can't start while its framework is being warred over. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy, Jimbo!

Trampton 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chess

This may be a bit of an odd question, but do you like to play chess? It's for your article, and I just noticed the discussion on Talk:Jimmy Wales. If you could, reply there so it's more visible to the people interested in possibly adding this somewhere in the article. Thanks, Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with User:Bubba73 in the chess category; he is one of its most helpful contributors. I guess in this context, a userbox would do the job. YechielMan 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Paradigm Wikipedia

Dear Jimbo,

I would love to hear your ideas on the following:

Wikipedia is an excellent base for knowledge. That is: generally accepted knowledge. However, it fails misarably in cases where the generally accepted knowledge or paradigm happens to be false — or, might be false. Imagine wikipedia existing in the era when the Earth was still flat. Wikipedia would than ridicule or delete any articles which would describe the Earth as a sphere orbiting the Sun.

I understand that this is a choice wikipedia had to make: the dominant paradigm rules, as this is the one that has "reliable" sources etc. But I also think Humanity would be served with a wikipedia in which the underdog-paradigm can be explained. Without fear of being wrong. Simply reflecting the opinions and knowledge of large numbers of people, even when it is "only" indigenous knowledge or "common knowledge" and is NOT supported by mainstream "knowledge".

How would it be for you to have something like: alt.wikipedia.org Or, if we do not even use the wikipedia name, something else, e.g. alt.fringepedia.org or something like that.

With love, and gratitude for your projects,

— Xiutwel (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

the Netherlands

This seems more suited to being on wikia, it doesn't really fit under wikipedia at all -- feb^talk 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Feba,

thank you for your suggestion. It helps me to get more clear for myself what I want. Wikia is not what I am looking for. I want something which is encyclopedic, but which is also free in the sense that a certain modesty prevails, in stead of a dominant paradigm which tries to exclude or ridicule all knowlegde and all viewpoints which do not align with it. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe such alternative project existing already current, it is called Encyclopedia Dramatica, however it is many large problem. I try to read and correct inaccuracy but I am misunderstanding and ineffectual. I am offend by the article concerning China on this Encyclopedia Dramatica project. Information technology countermeasures may be only likely method of correction of defamatory and racist remark.Wen Hsing 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Stephan Barrett

I am a new editor, and a really slow learner I must say but on this talk page there are people talking who are repeating the same thing and it's getting no where. I thought that since you are one of the one's to start Wikipedia, that maybe your help is desperately needed here. If you would check it out, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, --Crohnie 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Try opening an article content request for comment. Durova^Charge! 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, blatent attempt to make a page about (effectively) themselves

Hello Jimbo, i'd like to bring to your attention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenoharbingers. While it was initially a fairly obvious piece of vandalism on the part of my friend (and by searching through the various socks you can see other pages he's made for himself, such as Kojiami), he has decided to bring sock and meat puppets in to complicate it, and he has told me (over MSN) that he plans on making false sources, such as podcasting, using friends in his local paper, and other various things to keep his site up. Even if this weren't about half a dozen different types of policy violation and vandalism, i'd consider this a violation of WP:POINT to prove the concept of wikiality. While I could go deeper in the story, the basic concept is that i'd appreciate it if you would look over the article and the AfD (along with the various sock/meat puppets voting keep, compared to the history and talk pages of users voting delete) and would delete the page and protect it from recreation. I don't care about people that dislike wikipedia, but people who have such contempt for wikipedia that they turn to trolling and vandalism very much piss me off. If I have to report a friend, so be it, he wasn't much of a friend anyway. -- feb^talk 21:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, another admin speedy closed this. Hopefully it will be prot'd against recreation -- feb^talk 22:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sign my autograph page!

Hi jimbo, could you please sign my autograph page? Then sign Annafoxlover's and Qmwnebrvtcyxuz's sig books? They would be really grateful. Please? :-)  Pengwiin  /  talk  I worship you.

See the first item on this talk page (#Signature). —Doug Bell ^talk 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Screens at live performances

Somebody asked about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Screens at live performances. So, I mentioned Image:Kate Walsh Ted Global 2.JPG again, which is an example of such an image. --Rob 08:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rough times

Wikipedia succeeds because you have lead it to place ideas over objectives. Wikipedians continue to participate in Wikipedia because you created a place in which they can trust and come to like others and may be supported by others in return. These are rough times, but it is your leadership through kindness that has gotten us where we are today. With your continued trust in your own judgment and the ideals that you set in place long ago, we all will get through these rough times together. -- Jreferee 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A biased AfD closure

If you look here you will find that an admin seems to think he has an overriding vote in the AfD. Out of all the almost identical votes on each side and ranting and raving, it was clearly a No Consensus closure. Also, Most of the delete votes and the nomination were WP:IDONTLIKEIT and wasn't a game guide and WP:FC and WP:LC are not policy and are just concepts forced upon people to get articles deleted. Can you please do something about it. Henchman 2000 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is unlikely to. Try taking it to WP:DRV. --Deskana (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not intended to be a told-you-so

Last year, I stopped editing on Wikipedia because I stopped enjoying it. In large part that was because of my dealings with Essjay and the fact that when he abused his powers as an administrator, I couldn't get enough help to go through the multi-layered and time-intensive process to stop the abuse. I even posted here and was ignored.

Basically, and in my opinion, Essjay was a bad admin. Not enough attention was paid to his actions in administration, and now it is clear that not enough attention was paid to his using false credentials in order to 'win' disputes.

I do understand and am very glad that the result of the controversy will be a tighter watch on claiming credentials in disputes. I also hope that more attention will be paid to administrators' foibles and failings and that when an editor such as myself with a history of volunteering for Wikipedia brings forward a serious complaint, there is help to get them through the long process of dealing with that complaint (or the process is made clearer and more compact...I couldn't afford the tens of hours it would take me to get through it all to a point of resolution...who can?).

Thank you for your time reading this comment on Wikipedia. I've now returned to editing in hopes that it all improves from here...the way a community-driven project should. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay was a good admin. I do not think anyone has questioned that; no one even suggested he never abused his privileges. Rather he claimed to be someone he was not, and used that to his advantage in disputes. Prodego ^talk 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And many of us are saddened that he had to go. He was a good editor and a good admin and we miss his efforts. He made a mistake, and he has been held accountable for it as needed to to be done, but that is all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but we will have to disagree about him being a good admin. Good admins don't give account suspensions to people who simply have asked questions that the admin is sick of answering, which was the case I was involved in. Jossi, you know this. While in general he might have been ok, in specific circumstances (and my case was not the only one) he abused the volunteer non-admin editors, and therefore abused his administrator abilities. Further, his refusal to participate in non-binding conflict resolution procedures put in place to help admins and editors solve problem made it clear his disdain for 'ordinary' volunteers. His actions turned me off Wikipedia entirely, and it wasn't until I heard the news that he was leaving that I was at all tempted to come back. I know I'm not the only one in this situation as well. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship ain't easy, and we all make mistakes. Look at any active admin's blocklog... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. I've reverted the wrong edit before, and consequently left a warning on the wrong editor's talkpage before. I've even closed an AfD I had voted in. We are all humans; we have just received a promotion of trust in the community to use these tools. — Deckiller 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay made a mistake, like everyone does. He also made it very early, when he did not know the consequences. It all came back to haunt him later, since he couldn't deny what he had said before... The longer he put it off, the worse it got, and eventually it imploded on him. Yes he should not have used his 'position' to gain an edge in disputes, but a few incidents are hardly enough to merit such a reaction. Prodego ^talk 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Highly problematical category; advice needed

I have some serious WP:BLP concerns about Category:Anti-Semitic people. I nominated this category for deletion, but it appears that, as with the previous 6 attempts, there will be no consensus. I'm asking you to weigh in - not using your "God King" powers, but rather, giving your opinion as a respected member of the Wikipedia community.

This category was created by User:Battlefield, a sockpuppet of banned User:SirIsaacBrock. Ever since its inception, it has been the subject of controversy, edit wars, and POV arguments. It is clearly intended to be placed on biographical articles; this creates inherent WP:BLP issues, since very few people in the modern era self-identify as antisemites, and many would consider such a claim to be highly insulting. Since such classification is a matter of opinion, the category violates WP:NPOV. In most cases, it will not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article to outright state that someone is an antisemite. Instead, if they have been called such by prominent groups like the ADL or SPLC, this should be indicated, with citations. If they've made prominent anti-Jewish statements, those should be documented and cited. If they committed atrocities against Jews, list that, again with proper cites. But it is unencyclopedic to openly brand people antisemites, whether in the article or by category. If anything, a category is worse since it is free-floating and contains no documentation of the claims contained therein.

Most of the "keep" arguments seem to me not to be well founded in Wikipedia policy. WP:USEFUL comes up a lot. Many users say something like "Keep, antisemitism really exists and is really a problem." No one disputes that. Racism exists too, but Category:Racists was deleted and salted for the same reasons I listed above. Other users say "keep, since it's been nominated six times before", but GNAA was nominated nearly 20 times before finally being deleted.

This category is an embarrasment to Wikipedia. It really needs to go. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the category is useless flame bait and always going to be POV pushing. Perhaps a neutral alternative that serves whatever legitimate navigational purpose could be created? Not making a decree, I am just saying.--Jimbo Wales 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The ATT merger poll you requested

Hello Jimbo. Per your request, we've been attempting to assemble a straw poll through which the community can express its opinions regarding the Wikipedia:Attribution page and the merger behind it. Unfortunately, a great deal of disagreement has arisen as to what structure the poll should take. After over a week and work by hundreds of people across a variety of pages (drawn in by the previous Watchlist notice to make sure it was properly advertised), the final form of the poll is beginning to take shape and the discussion is basically down to the form of the main Question in the poll. In an attempt to gain a clear concensus, a last straw poll is up and running to decide the form of "Q1" as we called it. The pre-poll is divided between the top five most desired forms, based on all the previous discussion. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Pre_straw_poll_straw_poll_for_Q1 . Your comments will be appreciated. The target date to start the actual poll on ATT that you asked for is 04/02/07 at 00:00UST. This pre-poll for Q1 is tentatively slated to run to 04/01/07 22:00 UST to hash out this last major detail. - Denny 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently informally mediating between people on the Attribution project. If possible, I'd like to talk with you as well at earliest convenience. I hope you have 10 minutes at some point in time. --Kim Bruning 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup, 27 April

I've created this page - Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 5 - to coordinate efforts for the proposed breakfast meetup on 27 April. I'd better get you to sign up on the page to make sure it's set in stone. :) Metamagician3000 07:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV review

Please look at the most recent versions of Southern mafia and Unholy Alliance. There was unusual interest in their deletion by self-identified deletionists, religionists, or conservatives. After edits addressed original criticism, they continued to attack the articles to get them killed as "inherently not inclusionworthy." As a result, the considerable information in those articles got buried. There have also been threats against and vandalism of Dixie Mafia. I ask that they be restored and protected from edit for six months, and that you look into possible similar activities of users Arkyan, Blueboar, and Anthony. Thanks. --MBHiii 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Niddhogg Poem

I've written you a short poem.

Will you be my friend? With haste Niddhogg, To the healing spring of Jutenheim. Nay hath actually a spitpool. I'm not even f**king joking. So lay waste to the roots of the world tree, Lay waste to the shadows of Midgard Thankyou for reading

212.219.57.126 14:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been accorded a new honorary title.

Jimbo, if you'd like a warm chuckle have a look the allusions in this post (which ranks among the wittiest support reasons ever posted to WP:RFA).[1] Durova^Charge! 14:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ASIJ

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 aturner@turnerzworld.com

Question for Jimbo from DrL

Hello, Jimbo - DrL here. I'm hoping that you've had a chance to read my last letter to you.

I know how busy we all are, but I'm still wondering how editors who have not violated Wikipedia policy get banned from editing particular articles even when they have conspicuously refrained from editing those articles in a disruptive way (as opposed to removing slurs and falsehoods planted there by Wikipedia sysops and others, or merely enhancing their accuracy and flow).

My first letter was admittedly a bit long, so I'll try to reduce it to just one question. How is it that Asmodeus has been banned from editing the article Christopher Michael Langan when he only edited this article two or three times, and never in a disruptive way? In fact, Asmodeus had not edited the article at all in the six months prior to the ban. This makes it look as though he was banned from editing the article simply because he was suspected of being its subject...a kind of "punish the potential criminal before he has a chance to commit the possible crime" sort of maneuver. (I haven't yet gotten a chance to see the sci-fi movie Minority Report, but I understand that its plot runs along those lines.)

Regardless of RL identity, what Asmodeus and I have done is not against the rules of Wikipedia. In fact, the rules explicitly allow it, especially under the circumstances that existed when we were forced to do it. Even if you think of it as "bad form", it was still immeasurably better than allowing CML and CML-related articles to be trashed by those hostile to him and his ideas. (Not to seem impertinent, but the New Yorker says that you edited your own bio 18 times in the space of a single year. Unlike those who have been harassing Asmodeus, I choose to exercise good faith, and therefore assume that you had very good reasons for doing so. Is it really too much to ask that the same good faith be applied to Asmodeus and me?)

If you can't bring yourself to address this situation, then is there some kind of "Supreme Wikicourt" other than the ArbCom - i.e., other than the court whose bad decision I'm appealing - to which I could make my case briefly, conveniently, and without wasting too much more of my valuable time in pursuit of another ridiculously inequitable outcome? Hopefully, any such august panel would consist of real people rather than anonymous sysops, many of whom have been causing significant problems for Wikipedia by way of administrative abuse.

I'd appreciate any constructive advice that you could give me. --DrL 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(aside) Please wait before trying the following advice in detail until those who control the file edit permissions have figured out how to do this. I will fix the links below once the permissions controllers have figured out a solution. Thanks for your patience. --Rednblu 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please assemble an RfC on this matter? I looked at how you might do that; someone else may have a simpler means for you to file a good RfC on this matter. First, you might fill out the Facts, Policy interpretations, and Redress of remedies that you would request of ArbCom at a Placeholder I created on the Workshop page for the previous ArbCom decision. Second, to ask for wide community involvement and comment, you could put a request for comment at RfC with a brief summary and link to the above Workshop page where you have already filled out your Facts, Policy recommendations, and Requested redress sections. I speak merely as myself, just as one Wikipedia editor who hopes that Mr. Wales would correct something in the Wikipedia process that has completely gone wrong. But by my judgment, Mr. Wales already has done all about this that he should do. And I would appreciate it if you would assemble your argument for RfC, including the historical record of the necessary corrective intervention that Mr. Wales has already made in this matter, for which you have so graciously thanked him, so that the RfC process could get the Wikipedia community to deal with this issue--which, in my opinion, extends to many current pages. And then I would say, you should appeal this to ArbCom to get some things changed, but I would appreciate getting the views of many good thinking editors in an RfC on the issue you so eloquently present here. Does anybody else have some better advice? --Rednblu 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, the only avenues to appeal an arbitration committee decision are the arbitration committee or Jimbo himself. There is no precedent for the kind of community discussion you are contemplating that I am aware of, although if you are successful in gaining wide support, ArbCom would almost certainly take notice. I'm not sure where to suggest you host it, although the arbitration subpages are not appropriate unless ArbCom agrees to re-hear the case. One good place might be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asmodeus 2, although you would probably want to use a non-standard format. If you established it in user space (such as User:Asmodeus/RFC) you could work on the formatting to present your case effectively (even allow selected users to help you if you wanted); then move it to the project space via the move page button and make an announcement of it at various places where involved people will see it (such as the RFAR talk page and the article talk pages involved). Thatcher131 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will ask DrL what direction should be taken. --Rednblu 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MyWikiBiz reblocked

I've reblocked this account after he (inexplicably, in my view) created the obvious sockpuppet User:Zibiki Wym and made a series of posts documented here. In my opinion they are a not particularly subtle attempt at legalistic intimidation, and while not normally something blockable, in the case of a user blocked indefinitely twice they are. There were certainly no signs that he was going to become a productive user.

From my own personal correspondance with Kohs, I am of the opinion that he is an extremely unpleasant character who would not be able to work with Wikipedians long even if he wasn't being paid to edit, and from an email you sent to me last October I was under the impression that you at least partly shared this view. If you must allow him to edit, you're the boss, but I reblocked him under the assumption that just because you youself unblocked him, it didn't mean that further unpleasant behaviour would be tolerated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the thread is here a little lower on the page. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Autographs

Hello, dude! Hey, mind if you sign your name into my autograph list? :) IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs • Sign here!) 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If Jim wants to sign the autograph pages, he'll do it himself. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

Dear Jimbo, I would like to ask you what is your opinion on Association of Members' Advocates. This, because a user has opened an MfD against us as anyone could and has given some reasons. Mainly, the concerns were already told us by the current ArbCom: that we are to close to wikilawyers in arbitrations and I sincerely think that our perfomances in arbitration are really bad. But we never have received a complaint from MedCom nor from you.

My answer about our deplorable results on arbitrations is that a group of AMA (including me) have created The Arbitration Team, to help advocates with some training and give advocees the chance to have more experienced and balanced advocates on their arbitration. Yes, I recognize the team isn't working, but no one want to give us even a chance.

I'm not AMA's coordinator to guarrantee that all AMA members will respect the MfD result; let's hope that no "rebel" party appears (that would be a shame)... My only concern is what will happen with the people that have an unanswered advocay request; could (in case of a deletion result) the deletion be postponed until we answer all remaining requests or for a certain reasonable amount of time?

Thanks in advice; if you don't reply on time, I'll understand you couldn't and that we had bad luck. If you think we're the most useless thing on earth, I'll understand it too.

Best regards, Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 09:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment at Main page FU discussion

Saw your comment at the Fair use exemption discussion and thought you might also be interested to comment on a similar discussion about Fair use in Portal space.IvoShandor 09:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Thank you. - Denny 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The MfD has been closed as a speedy keep. the wub "?!" 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why nominate something as important as this for deletion? I don't follow the reasoning at all. Was it just to make a point? Metamagician3000 23:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time there was fairly fervant opposition to the poll even happening from certain administrators (see the summary in the MfD). As so many people were heated up over this, I made the decision to nominate it to see if people actually did want it all over and done with, and the poll not ran. It seemed like a logical thing at the time... - Denny 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, no harm done. As Yeats said, "You throw the sand against the wind, And the wind blows it back again." Maybe certain admins should bear this in mind. Metamagician3000 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

The poll is now open at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The poll is not yet open. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was open, until you and another editor closed it after more than 20 editors made their opinion known. This is unnecessary drama, only serving to polarize and politicize the discussion even more. After seven days of discussion that yielded nothing, a simple poll to seek feedback from editors was the best we could do, and even that was stopped. Oh well... I definitively had enough of politics to last me a year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll was re-opened. Pardon our dust. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Prof. Hewitt

Yikes! Censoring Prof. Hewitt will further sully the reputation of the Wikipedia. Do we need more of this?--70.132.21.226 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Written by the professor, himself, I believe, as are most of the articles on concurent computation. Therefore, they present his views on the subject, rather than mainstream views. However, he is not blocked under his own account from commenting on talk pages. Only his alter egos are blocked. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium?

I've read all the news articles I can find on the topic, but none of the interviews with you discuss your views on citizendium. While any personal feeling you have are interesting, I think the public record would benefit from your expert opinion. Is the advent of citizendium going to negatively affect wikipedia in any way? Is the editing process of citizendium in any way an improvement? If so, why weren't these changes merely incorporated into Wikipedia? At any time in the future will divulgence of Wikipedia's editors names be mandatory, especially as more and more people become adept at circumventing IP tracking?

I wrote an article on my blog on the subject that you may or may not find interesting, and any comments clearing up these murky gray areas would greatly be appreciated.

http://letstalkabouttheweather.blogspot.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.208.120 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

April Fools and Vandalism

This is just my suggestion, you don't really have to take it, but here it is: it seems to me that there is a large amount of vandalism on april 1st (April Fools Day). You probably remember that hoax article, created on April 1st 2005, which was only removed January 2006 (see Criticism of Wikipedia). Therefore I propose a semi-protect of all articles on April 1st, or at least on creating new ones. Why not? -Use the force ^{(Talk * Contribs)} 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree we should do what we always do revert or remove. There's vandalism everyday how's one particular day any different? Xavcam 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectful care necessary, please remember

Dear Administrator of Wikipedia, Mr Jimmy Wales, I would like congratulate you on high quality and powerful influence website. I must respectfully warn of you to avoid defame the admired Communist Party of China, or great nation People's Republic of China. To do so creates many problem between our government and Wikipedia, as well as general relation with the West. I do not intend making threat, but I obligated to remind you that commercial operations of Wikipedia in People's Republic of China is dependent on government tolerance, and great appreciation will be shown of your assisting in producing editorial environment conducive to Wikipedia in China, including Taiwan Province related article. (I have zero affiliation with Communist Party of China). Wen Hsing 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

TIP OF THE DAY

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered helpful or constructive and have not been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Tewy 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, Wikipedia:Tip of the day/April 1, 2007. --Tewy 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

I saw you on the Sunday program this morning. You spoke well, especially on Essjay. I was confused though as to what you were wearing? An interesting item of clothing.

Also, wishing you a Happy April Fools Day! and as much fun as this crap line of coding can bring. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaack, no blinking! I missed it by about 10 minutes myself. On another note, the Sunday Age is apparently running a story about how Wikipedia deals with April fools. I'll poke around the website for it. And Jimbo: Your shoelaces are untied. --Michael Billington (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you recovered well from the Bernard Fanning thing, which could have been a lot worse if you got nervous. Nice work. Rothery 05:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wearing interesting clothing? Really? Didn't mean to be doing that, but then again I am a pretty ridiculous person all in all so there is no telling. Can you tell me more about it?--Jimbo Wales 12:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to the Sunday program interview: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/feature_stories/article_2167.asp FNMF 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Day

The mop was Deskana *Glares* --Andrew Hampe | Talk 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't tag Special:Recentchanges as historical like I was planning to. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

...So? lol I think the joke pic should go back up. lol Not the Captain Jimbo Wales though. --Andrew Hampe | Talk 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I didn't protect the page. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Never said ya did. --Andrew Hampe | Talk 02:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? --Deskana (ya rly) 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

ya rly :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ich lerne Deutsch on your User page.

Dear Sir, I notice from your user page that you are learning German. I am a pretty good German speaker, and I would be happy to assist you with your learning if you would welcome such assistance. You may reply to my talk page or here, whichever you prefer. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 02:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ich auch! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Important" Video message

Your important video message won't play on my computer because it uses Java. Anyway, is this an April Fool's Joke? A• •F•O•X ¡u6is April Fool's Day 2OO7 02:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

^demon, you didn't watch the video. Please don't misinform people. --Gmaxwell 02:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Who says he didn't? And how much harsher could you be, Greg? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Great ASCII art

To Jimbo (and other readers):

I copied an ASCII art rendition of the Wikipedia logo to my user page. Apparently it was created anonymously and placed on the talk page of an IP address. Please take a look! YechielMan 04:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

Smokizzy 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Systemic bias in Wikipedia

Pls check images there on Muhammad page and the images were not there last year on the same page, aren't we annoying/turning away Muslim Wikipedians and also aren't we creating physological barrier for them to come on board. If this can annoy a Hindu Wikipedian like me then think of how it will play on minds of Muslim Wikipedian. Also check titles of some pages like Alexander the Great and quoting this another page is titled as Ashoka the Great. Isn't this a blatant systemic bias and this could hamper growth of Wikipedia in third world countries and I along with many other secular/neutral Wikipedian will be saddened. This issue is identified by some Wikipedians hence there is a project for the same, check Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_origins_of_bias.

One way to counter systemic bias is by empowering active Wikipedians say by introducing point system and anybody above a certain threshold can have some say in say dispute resolution/locking/unlocking/admin selection/admin removal etc.

Your views pls. Vjdchauhan 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC). (Don't go by the 1'st April date, its a serious issue and am concerned)

Actually that particular issue has been through extensive mediation and many editors participated. Durova^Charge! 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But since the issue persists that means mediation failed and systemic bias persisted. Vjdchauhan 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The systemic bias of which you speak, Vjdchauhan, is encoded in WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. In many regions of the world, one is expected to speak of Muhammad only with extreme reverence and appending honorifics to every mention of his name, just as it is to disallow depictions of him. To treat him neutrally, then, as any other historical figure, constitutes bias against the cultures of those regions. Such "bias" is, as they say, a feature, not a bug.Proabivouac 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a valid excuse/explanation, anyway it was for consumption of Jimbo Wales only. Thanks. Vjdchauhan 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Merging Accounts?

Hi, Jim,

I have a question: Do you have any plans, or the foundation, to implement the merging of accounts? I have too many accounts but i can't usurp because there have been edits made. And there are no e-mails set. This is a software limitation, right? Thanks. Gaclbusiness 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a legal limitation. The copyright of any edits that have been made belong to the account holder- if edits have been made then the ownership of the account cannot be transferred as that would involve tranferring the edits to your account, without adressing the copyright concerns. As far as I'm aware, and I may well be wrong, on a technical level you can usurp accounts with edits, it's just not allowed for legal reasons. --Deskana (ya rly) 18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So, in theory, a vandal could register 100 user names everyday, and some years down the road only 20 character user names will be available while at the same time there are thousands of unused accounts? Gaclbusiness 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are no edits assigned to them, then they can be ursurped. Otherwise, they cannot, due to legal issues. --Deskana (ya rly) 19:21, 1 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 @:)--74.138.102.134 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)

Just wondering

With all of the things you have going on, how often do you check this page for messages? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite often I imagine, he just doesn't respond to many of them. --Deskana (ya rly) 20:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam on Wikipedia

I understand you are the founder of Wikipedia, and its most high-ranking executive. I must draw your attention to the emphasis on anti-Islamic views in articles here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Islam&oldid=119621991. It seems the understanding is that articles defining Islam is permitted on Wikipedia, and articles about the condemnation of Islam are permissible, but not articles about the people who've expressed admiration of Islam. I don't oppose the article hosting negative views, as I don't like censorship. But allowing only the condemnation to be featured here while praise is excluded is neither neutral nor honest. Most of the articles on Islam on Wikipedia focus on emphasizing negative aspects of the religion such that the reader would have come away with disgust. I understand you have a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia. Is that policy really being applied? Coldbud 01:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Often controversy as neutrality difficulty in define. Probably consensus of participant reflect in article stance. Perhaps it is just their true believe a neutral person should have negative view of Islam, because of certain interpretation of text. If fewer Islam supporter participate on English Wikipedia Project this is result. Always respect should be given.Wen Hsing 04:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pedophile infiltration concern

Also problem exist on page Pedophile, Pedophile activism - too many pedophile supporter view given light of day. I urge you Master Administrator Jimbo to use power to silence deviants and criminal. Be careful of infiltration of upper rank by those with agenda, if our Chinese Government perceives problem with Wikipedia, access freedom may need some careful measures. We see some concerning report in Western media, and within Wikipedia and related Wikitruth project. I hope you will make decisive and public actions. You do not require label of 'censorship' - I prefer 'content refinement' for benefit wider society.Wen Hsing 04:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Forgiving Policies on BLP Vandalism

This editor, from CBS no less, has been warned 10 tens over months. Now he/she's having fun vandalizing Lou Dobbs. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lou_Dobbs&diff=prev&oldid=119361298

Jimbo, why don't you just cut to the chase with BLP vandals and blcok their IP's instantly before you get wikipedia sued again and again, more Sinbads, etc. These IP's are given 3 chances or more, usually more, while BLP's go on for hours with edits like "Lou Dobbs mom was a prostitute". This is just one example. Block the IP's instantly. AGF does not apply to people and IP's that are putting wikipedia/wikia/you in financial danger and media laughingstock status. Piperdown 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A request

Could ypu please change the rules and let Wikipedia comment on speculation? Thanks. Mike J FOX 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What is justification for allow unverify speculation, rumour and dissident propaganda? It is a strength of Wikipedia Project that verify fact is requirement. Many speculation is made in personal blog.Wen Hsing 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jimbo rarely changes rules in his role as "benevolent dictator." Most rules are created/changed through community consensus. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny- A CNET "headline" that involves you

I don't know if you're aware of this yet. "Wikipedia founder's bold experiment" --70.179.170.119 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a good April Fools' joke. Come on, who doesn't like the idea of wiki-based eye surgery? PTO 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. Dfrg.msc 10:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

Mr.Wales,

First of all, I was banned a few months back for editing the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page. But that is not why I am here. Recently a user, User:OFF232, edited that page, by the looks of it to try and clean it up. However, other admins have deleted his work, and even gone so far as to permenantly ban him, as well as delete 2 other pages he created over the past 2 months. I think this is unfair to do to someone, considering they did nothing wrong but edit a page that was in controversy.

Even though I am banned, I check back on the page once in a while, and have noticed that they keep reverting the edits he made. He has edited under IP's 75.37.134.182, 75.22.74.118, 75.41.182.188, as well as his username OFF 232. Now, my IP's are always 69.237.xx.xxx . As you can see, his and my IP numbers are not the same, but he is still being wrongly accused of being me. I think it is wrong that he is being treated this way, having all his hard work deleted because bitter Admin's on the page do not want ANYBODY to edit Anaheim Hills, and when people do, they accuse those people as me. I think a huge injustice has been done to User:OFF232 and his edits today that he keeps trying to revert, but get deleted by superior and abusive admins. Please check the situation out. 69.232.63.99 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Alternative Paradigm wiki ?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=118317890&oldid=118295554

Hi, I'd love to hear an answer, if you could find time to....!

— Xiutwel (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Argumentum ad Jimbonem in defense of name calling

I just wanted to let you know that an editor has cited your comments in regards to the removal of negative unsourced comments about a living person. The comments in question: "Basically a self-confessed mud-slinging bullshit merchant throwing anything and everything at his pet hate." When this comment was removed, he insisted that doing so was the wrong thing to do per a comment you made: [2]. Just a heads up, feel free to respond or ignore. Thanks. --Minderbinder 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My intent was never to defend someone who has made personal attacks about anyone, especially a WP:BLP, I was merely stating what I was told was the proper way to handle such attacks. In this particular case, the first part of the edit (on a talk page, BTW - not directly in an article) is actually from the subject's own words skeptic.com intro. The Wikipedia editor was apparently paraphrasing the same comments from that website - so there is indeed a source for the editor's opinion. I don't approve of the wording at all, but neither do I approve of how Milo handled the situation. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) {revised for clarification} Dreadlocke ☥ 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"self-confessed mud-slinging bullshit merchant" is a heck of a paraphrase. And yes, this comment was on a user talk page, I forgot to mention that. --Minderbinder 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the commentary was really about how much of a reliable source could a website be that admits: "The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects....I hope that an occasional missile hits its mark." The skeptic.com website is used as a WP:RS throughout Wikipedia to present the "skeptic's" side of paranormal issues. The quote begs the question as to whether or not it should be used as a source at all. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And the way to make that point is with name calling? --Minderbinder 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't approve of the wording, but is it egregious enough to be considered a personal attack that violates WP:BLP and is something you should just be able to delete from the user's talk page, instead of politely asking the author to kindly rephrase, soften or just to remove it himself. That's the question here. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Milo, do not ever edit my comments! [3]. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not edit your comments, I restored them to the version I responded to [4]. Don't edit your comments after other editors have replied, per WP:TALK. --Minderbinder 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi,

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.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/topics.mv?id=22

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=103983

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=104040

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=104179

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 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC).