User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

WP:ITN embodies the sui generis potential of Wikipedia to not simply be replicative but transformative of how knowledge can be created and communicated. News of all types from across the world are often featured on ITN and expose readers to up-to-date, detailed, and high-quality encyclopedic articles to provide a context for issues that no newspaper can. Moreover, the active community of editors who participates there has developed a strong ethic and set of rules that allows them to weed out the trash new and infotainment that degrades and demeans journalism as an essential component of a free and open society and to instead focus on issues of international importance and encyclopedic interest.

However, we're currently in the midst of a debate about how we might go about including the deaths of people of important encyclopedic and social importance. This year alone, the deaths of Suharto, Pavarotti, Arthur C. Clarke, Edmund Hillary, Bobby Fischer, and Charlton Heston were not included because of the existing rules despite a consensus that they should have been included anyway. However, we are again faced with the unfortunate task of debating whether or not to include the deaths of two scientific luminaries, John Archibald Wheeler and Edward Lorenz.

The compelling and often contentious manner in which consensus emerges among a dedicated group of editors, it is not ultimately up to them to take action. Like many tasks on wikipedia (deletion, banning, etc.) editing a template that appears on the front-page is prudently restricted to administrators only. But administrators are placed in the unenviable position of having to err on the side of inaction or straight-laced interpretation of the rules even in light of a consensus suggesting otherwise for fear of being accused of acting too quickly, employing poor judgment, reversing precedents, using imperfect information, being reverted by another admin, or upsetting vocal minority constituents (of which I have certainly been a member sometimes). The effect is, we have a cycle of logjams in which there is a consensus to make a change, a case in which the new consensus might be enacted, but an inability to effect the change leading to frustration. After a round of archiving and change of membership, amnesia sets in but in time another instance of the issue raises its head, the same consensus for change re-emerges, but is again unrealized.

The reason why I bring this to your attention is not for you to take a side or otherwise ask for your blessing on a policy matter, but to ask your advice on how how a community of editors can go about implementing change when the means for enacting that change are reserved to another class of users? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Jimbo, obviously, but an admin. If you need the attention of admins, the best way is the administrators' noticeboard. A brief post like "we have reached a consensus here (link), but need an admin to do X" should be enough to get a few of them over to the discussion, and to either do what you want them to do, or explain why they don't (too small a consensus, problems not thought of before, whatever). If you did this already and it had no result, then you can always contact me or any individual admin to come over and have a look. Fram (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the discussion and it made me very proud. It seems like just the kind of thoughtful discussion that leads to progress. My own opinion (and this is just one person's opinion, and in fact the opinion of someone who does not directly participate in the particular case and may be therefore wrong in some important way) is that those who think the criteria should be expanded to include certain highly notable individuals who are not heads of state, etc., is a step in the right direction, and thoughtfully writing it up in such a way to minimize controversy and capture our general community spirit of what should be there is a good thing.

As to the question of what happens when there are editorial considerations in the general community that might not be reflected in the opinions of the admins who are able to actually implement those changes, well, I am not aware that there is a serious conflict in this area. I think if people generally get to a good solution here, there would be no issues with it being implemented.

The really great answer to this, of course, is flagged revisions, which will allow us to open up the editing of homepage elements for the first time in several years.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo, I have been trying to remove a large amount a of fancruft from the article prehistoric park. It is a fictional documentary (possible "mockumentary") about extinct creatures brought into the real world via time travel and put into a zoo called "prehistoric park", starring Nigel Marven (who plays himself). This article is riddled with fancruft, and has even been forked off into these pages. The "plot summary" almost contains the entire script. Being appalled by this, I started a user subpage to perform test edits, and I am being assisted by a another user, Dinoguy2 who agrees that this article is filled with fancruft. I also notice that most articles about fiction have original research in them, have huge plot summaries and are written in in-universe styles. Although Some wikipedia guidelines discourage this, I think that overall, wikipedia needs to be more strict about this. T.Neo (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree that this is a problem. An encyclopedia is not a data dump. An encyclopedia is not an in-universe fan guide. It is difficult to draw the line, and I generally try to stay out of it. But it seems to me that an insistence on sources is a good place to start.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Have you seen the Wikpedia chapter in Jonathan Zittrain's book "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It"? It's very interesting, and delves into many detailed issues that sometimes come up on this talk page. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good book indeed, and well publicized. Seth, if you or others wish to help expand Jonathan Zittrain that would be great. Hoping for DYK a couple days from now. It's within 3,000 chars of the five-fold expansion requirement at the moment. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you know...that cyber law author and professor Jonathan Zittrain (pictured) co-founded StopBadware.org to distribute the task of collecting data about malware to Internet users at large?

Hello. DYK length is done now, and whether it is chosen of course no way to know yet. Corrections for both the article and DYK hook most welcome. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Boy I still don't know if highlighting the issue of malware or leaving it out to make a positive message is better. Alternate below. Thoughts anyone? The more I read the more this gentleman convinces. I apologize for the extra posts here but think this topic is worth it. -Susanlesch (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

...that scholar Jonathan Zittrain (pictured) sees the future safety of the Internet not in walled gardens but in the principles on which the IETF and Wikipedia are founded?

Jonathan is a personal friend of mine, so of course I am keeping out of it. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a student at Oxford (Hertford College) as well as a Wikipedia editor and administrator. I have heard rumours that you will be speaking at the Oxford Union in early May - is this true? If so, I look forward to meeting you there. Walton^One 19:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss this message? Walton^One 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did, sorry! Yes, it looks like I will be at Oxford in early May. Look forward to meeting you there!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you taking on adoptees? Because I would like you to adopt me for WP:AAU. Nothing 444 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you ask Jimbo. I seriously doubt he's adopting. Please ask someone else. Unless for some, beyond reason you would accept Jimbo.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean unless Jimbo would accept you? Anyway its not a good precedent or everyone would want to be adopted by him. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I meant that. BTW, User:Nothing444 already has 2 adopters, is it possible to have more?--RyRy5 (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one editor with Jimbo's autograph... but how many can boast Jimbo as an adopter? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Having watched Jimbo's edits for more than a year now what I see is that he attends to this page and otherwise his main role is adopting articles not editors, and I would advise him to continue in this role and let we volunteer editors adopt other users. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(I don't wanna be adopted by him; he smells funny. Oops.)) HalfShadow (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I watched a documentary tonight, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but it appears that many of the scientists interviewed for that film are in cognito contributors at wikipedia. Isn't this the encyclopedia that anybody can edit? They are making up rules intead of forming concensus throught the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Yhvh777 (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone can help out build this encyclopedia, as long as they aren't blocked or banded from wikipedia.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but usually we expect better edits than, say, this one. Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits like this are not needed here. Also, edits like saying "this is the greatest" or "this is my favorite" are not needed here aslo. We should always stay nuetral when writing articles. Also, I do not understand User:Yhvh777 comment. Please clarify.--RyRy5 (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the documentary, although I suppose I might. I do not have any particular interest in debates around evolution at this time: I explored the topic to my personal satisfaction some years ago. In terms of Wikipedia policy, I strongly support our ongoing work at favoring peer-reviewed academic research over newspaper articles. I think that Wikipedia itself should never take a stand on controversial issues, but instead should merely report fairly and in an appropriate place on relevant controversies. Good behavior should be expected of everyone. Edits like that made by Yhvh777, linked above by RyRy5 and Abecedare, are completely unwelcome and contrary to any spirit of true inquiry. Insults and personal smears have no place in thoughtful discourse.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good-point. There are many people adding nonsense edits which are quickly reverted, wheather it is false info or true info, nonsense is not welcomed here.--RyRy5 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing this editor seemed particularly aggrieved by was our IAR test of a manual implementation of sighted revisions at Evolution/draft article (as discussed in this post at the admin noticeboard) This was mainly a way of dealing with a particularly persistent vandal and his huge sockfarms. So far the experiment looks promising, with several constructive edits, and even an IP editor contributing today (which wasn't possible previously as the main article has been indefinitely semi-protected). The vandal has made a few more attempts to disrupt the article and talkpage, but seems to have become discouraged since his page blanking will now only affect a draft. This situation is temporary, since sighted revisions will hopefully be implemented soon, and we can switch over to that. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the BLP stubbing principle and 3RR exception apply to any violation of BLP, or just the verifiability side? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Jimbo, but it's clear from my reading of WP:BLP that the exception pertains to verifiability:

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source".

If it's Giovanni di Stefano you're worried about, everything in there is well-sourced. If that article has a problem, it's undue weight, not poor sourcing or conjecture. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the "BLP stubbing principle" refers to, exactly. I mean, yes, sometimes it is perfectly appropriate to stub a biography as a part of a hardcore "reality check" on every single thing in the article, but I don't think we have really formalized it into a set of principles or guidelines as to when that's the right thing to do. But in general, I would say that being extremely firm about potential BLP violations is always the right thing to do, whether it is a verifiability problem, an undue weight problem, etc.

Nothing I have just said should be taken to be a policy change. Please, no one quote it anywhere in support of anything in particular. I am just saying: be bold in protecting human dignity, and be bold in making sure that no harm is done in Wikipedia entries.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry if quoting you on the GdS article was out of line. Feel free to remove it if you like, I wouldn't mind. Avruch^T 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been stubbed blanked deleted etc quite a number of times. People still complain.Geni 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asking as a general question, and di Stefano was an example (but not something I'm going to go over 3RR now). Your description is correct - stub the article to something utterly uncontestable (Subject is a nationality job-title) if there's significant BLP concerns - see a few deleted edits on Rachel Marsden around 29 December 2007. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. What do you think of this add for vandal fighting:File:The more you know.gif--RyRy5 (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

hehe, I actually asked him once before, when it was up for deletion on wikicommons(which is stayed obviously) If I remember correctly, his response was "That had not occurred to me, dude.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)" you can find that here. but because I'm not sure what that meant, by all means do tell ;) --Pewwer42 Talk 04:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

note: I've been considering remaking it with straighter lines, I didn't know the key to make straight lines then.--Pewwer42 Talk 04:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My response is a movie quote. Well, I pretty much do not like it, and wish it were deleted. I do not understand what purpose it serves, really. :) But, you know, whatever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since that is you view, I have requested it to be deleted (I did add it after all) and what movie is that quote from?--Pewwer42 Talk 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

... this isn't you? Cheers, PatríciaR ^msg 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world has created a "draft" article of 4x previously deleted content on a sub-user page. On this page he is basically making up "practices" and "beliefs" of the group Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission based on creative selection of various primary sources and foreign language blogs or sources. He ignores good faith comments from others here and accuses those who disagree with him of having a COI, calls them "cult" members, or just rudely dismisses their detailed opinion. And this isn't even the worst of it...

The truly objectionable part of this user page is that he quotes verbatim from a newspaper article found libelous and defamatory by a high court in India. (Yes, a court found the article libelous and defamatory, this is a fact, not just an allegation.) This issue was first brought to admin attention on an MFD for the article here. (The article was kept after a sanitized version was reviewed by an admin here, and then User:Cult free world immediately reverted it to his libelous OR version here. Several editors tried to revert the libel, including myself (because I thought all editors had an obligation to revert libel on any space), and we were eventually penalized for "violating" Cult's userspace. At least four complaints were filed on the BLP board by four different persons () and no one so much as cautioned User:Cult free world.

Most alarmingly, when one enters "Sahaj Marg India" (the title of this user page) into Google, it gets a #1 hit... An article based on court-ruled libel and defamation!

So here's my question: Is it true that a user can post whatever they want on their user page? Even libel and defamation as the whole first paragraph here was found to be by a court of law?

If yes, how does a Wikipedia user page differ from a www.blogger.com?

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been answered on one of the Administrators Noticeboards, where the answer was, "Yes, within reason and Wikipedia policies". As you will be aware, the page is not the editors Userpage, but a sub-page where the editor is working on a proposed article. You have already been blocked once for edit warring (by me, to ensure there is no question of me not declaring an interest) on this particular issue. I would also comment that the material - albeit in different versions - has survived previous attempts at deletion, contrary to your suggestion above. There are appropriate avenues to pursue your concerns regarding this content, some of which you have already exhausted, and I really recommend that you investigate the others rather than attempting to circumvent WP's processes. Even so, you may have to reconcile yourself to the possibility that you may not get exactly what you want in this situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you acted in good faith based on what the user posted on the ANI board, but I also believe you did not know the full history of this malicious user (see this).

This page has not survived multiple deletion reviews, as Sethie pointed out here, where his request to be unblocked from your block was approved (I filed an unblock request too but the block had already expired). This page survived one MFD with 12 delete and 7 keep votes. (there were a couple of speedy delete templates on the user page before the libelous material was added that were removed without review; emphasis on before) Other admins supported the reversion of libelous material despite numerous complaints filed by Cult (most ignored) ().

Your block was placed without hearing the other side, which was given after the blocks here.

To the contrary, the full page and variations of this user page were deleted multiple times and the only review it passed (the MFD) was one where a sanitized version was kept (see the closing admin remarks, where he notes that no libel appeared in the version he kept, "a quick review of the article did not indicate any such issues. Therefore, these matters have not been considered in this closing". Consistent with Cult's previous vandalism, he immediately reverted the user page to the libelous version after the closing here.

If users truly can put libel (not just alleged libel, but court-found libel) then I am surprised. LessHeard - This is not about what I want - It's about rules governing wikipedia and everyone abiding by them. Thank you for clarifying. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, Your (or others') response to this post will set a precedent for all other user pages, so it is critical we understand the answer.

If I understand the complaint and response above, a user may post a pseudo-article containing court-found libelous material that receives hits on Google as if it were a mainspace article. But, because this pseudo-article is in user space it is okay to contain material found to be false, baseless, derogatory and malicious by a court of law?

The libel and BLP policy reads otherwise (Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space).

Your answer is critical to the future use of user space, where I fear malicious articles will crop up on all sorts of topics -- persons, groups, clubs -- if this precedent is set to allow court-found libel anywhere (I understand if it's allegations, but here a court found libel, this causes me confusion with regard to the response here and the libel policies).

Your response below seems to indicate that the libelous paragraph mentioned above should be immediately removed (like it was when it was undergoing the MFD review). Thank you in advance for your thoughtful insights. I enjoy Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and pray that we keep it clean from vandals and others who might use it for promotive purposes. 75.125.166.4 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody can use their user page to violate our living people biography policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. However, without endorsing in any waythe material that CFW is attempting to place in his draft, it never has been clear to me based on the links that proponents have provided that Allahabad court found libel in this case. I didn't mention during the MfD because that decision was all ready bogged down, and I didn't want to encumber it further. I believe that what the court did was assume for the purposes of the deciding the preliminary issue of whether there even could be suit brought by the complainants, that the things printed in the newspaper were defamatory. I think that a later proceeding would still have to determine whether the allegations printed in the newspaper were true or false before we truly could say that the court found libel in the case. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the way the material is being used; I'm just not certain that in the strictest sense the court (at least in the link you provided) found the newspaper article to be libelous. I suspect this may be part of why that article survived the MfD Xymmax (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. This helps. I will have to research your points further.

When I read the document the judge says he found the "allegations and news article are prima facie libelous and derogatory" and he says that the newspaper offered no further evidence in support of their article, other than the interview with the subject of the newspaper article.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, I would think that this would not meet the standard of WP:V given it is an extreme claim, by one newspaper under a lawsuit, and that it would need further secondary sources corroborating it to put in an article. Does that sound correct? Thank you again for responding. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the court document that we both have cited is a primary source, and cannot be considered a reliable source for the truth of any of the underlying allegations that are in dispute in that case. I also would have great concerns about the reliability of the newspaper story if (and this is a big "if" as I have not read that article) it merely repeats a person's negative statements without further investigation. Take care, Xymmax (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Xymmax and Thank you Jimbo Wales' talk page for helping to clarify this. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey.. if you are discussing me.. then as a token of curtsey, you should notify me also, so that i can respond, BTW, this matter has been discussed in detail here at MfD .--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no BLP to start with, in anycase, it has been addressed here --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you ever plan to visit Montréal in the future? --Creamy!^Talk 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure I will make it there eventually, but I have no current plans to visit Montreal! Sorry!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the high school student from Ohio that just interviewed you via email regarding network neutrality. Thanks for everything, it's truly appreciated. Phuzion (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of the recent lawsuit against the foundation and several volunteers here your intervention would be much appreciated. This isn't the sort of thing that should be handled by the community. I understand that you cannot speak publicly about the lawsuit but surely you can make an executive decision on the fate of the article. What ever happened to WP:OFFICE? EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin has been notified. At the present time, I personally see no reason to believe that there has been a lawsuit filed in any jurisdiction, though it is of course possible. I see no reason at the present time that the article should be treated in any special way. Mr. Giovanni is a well known and colorful character about whom there are many reliable sources. As a general principle, Wikipedia articles on living persons should report faithfully on what reliable sources say, with due consideration given to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. In complex cases, especially, WP:NOR must be given careful consideration as well. We need to respect human dignity, and the best way to do that is to write and monitor carefully and with a loving outlook.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jimbo for commenting on the AfD and your response here. Apparently there is some confusion about what was posted on his website. I'm sure you would know if we were actually being sued for 50 M Euro! Cheers, EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, time will tell I suppose. In the meantime, I hope that Wikipedia will have a high quality article which sticks rigorously to high quality sources without editorializing at all. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Purely as a general comment, if a lawsuit against Wikipedia for that sort of money is actually filed, it will be reported. There will no confusion as to whether it has actually happened. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If this "lawsuit" isn't even real, why are we still discussing the page on AfD?--Pewwer42 Talk 16:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's saber-rattling. How seriously you take it, and how you react, is another matter. Again, just speaking in generalities, for someone to write something like that is a good indicator that they're pretty upset. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pewer, we are discussing the page on the afd because someone afd'd the article and there clearly is no snowball. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What the heck, I'm a Real Journalist, I'll ask him what's up (asking the Wikimedia Foundation will of course be at best useless, and at worse get me flamed). Maybe I can break some news before Valleywag :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to run a search for John Murray and di Stefano. Actualy in a completely unrelated case (involveing a german hacker) someone did try and take legal action against the foundation but the letter telling them this ended up in Russia.Geni 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) He didn't reply to me today, but maybe he's busy with other matters. At a Site Which Shall Not Be Named, a poster claiming to be him wrote "The UK News Media will be publishing details of the Italian Criminal and Civil Actions in tomorrows papers". We'll see. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First mention I've seen in Google News, though it's just reporting what he says, and is a minor item -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard back from him. I'm trying to understand what he said, it involves complicated (to me) Italian law. In any case, it seems to be in a very early stage. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, Jimbo, I've just closed the AfD. I'm fairly certain someone is going to bring it to DRV, but they have a huge consensus to overturn. Thanks for your input here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I hope nobody does challenge it, its run the 5 days and given the consensus DRV is not the way to address the very real issue in this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so sure it will end up on DRV. Allegations of state terrorism by the United States was much closer than this one and that one didn't end up on DRV despite simular drama potential. I think there is broad concensus that the BLP issues must be dealt wih through editing rather than deletion. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the afd was an excellent idea and I would have gone to DRV if it had been closed well before the 5 days but this article does not need more drama or the attention of those looking for drama. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Wales,

I recently passed my A Level computing with a Distinction and was wondering if i could be a developer or a steward as i got the highest mark that you can get (100%) I was wondering if i could upload my programme which does the same work as 10 stewards and automatically reviews the requests for admins and the Bureaucrats. Would love the opportunity to use my software on the wiki and would be proud to offer exclusive rights to the wiki organisation.

Yours Sincerly

Chris19910 (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Best to ask Brion Vibber or some of the stewards....--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

i was in Edinburgh town centre this evening and I walked past someone who looked (and sounded) suspiciously like you. I wanted to say hello but wasn't actually 100% sure if it was you or not. I looked on your travel page but sadly it is a bit out of date and so I couldn't actually tell if you were due to be over here in Scotland.

Was it you, or are you going the way of Elvis?

Cheers, Mike (formerly User:Astral)
137.195.250.2 (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking this here because, even though the community election suggests the members, you do the actual selecting, and so your insight concerning "membership" would seem to be something that would be likely invaluable.

From another discussion (which is still even barely in its formative stages) We were making comparisons to the length of terms of an arbcomm member.

And it would seem that 3 years is quite a long time. Is there any particular reason for this? Or is it merely that 3 is nicely scalable to 3 tranches, with yearly elections?

If the latter, would you be willing to entertain the idea of 2 year terms, with 4 tranches, with semi-annual (6 month) elections? (This would, by its nature, increase the membership from 15 (3 tranches of 5 seats) to 16 (4 tranches of 4 seats).)

I also think this might help with the burnout and inactiveity that seems to come with the job (quite a few seem to have become inactive and/or quit before the duration of their terms.)

What do you think? - jc37 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will raise the question with the ArbCom when the time comes, but one of the reasons for such a long term is so that ArbCom members have a certain amount of "judicial independence" needed to make possibly unpopular decisions. Another reason is that we want our ArbCom to have a strong "institutional memory". And finally, it seems to me that experience matters. At the same time, I do acknowledge that the long terms do lead to a situation where members may burnout or become inactive before their terms are up, and that's worthy of taking note of when thinking about the optimal length of terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with all of the above. Thank you very much for your thoughts and consideration. - jc37 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My initial reaction to your post, Jc37, is that 3 years is a very short time, i certainly don't think we should have arbcom elections more than once a year, if anything less as it takes up a lot of community energy. Most political elections are for 4 or 5 years and for the reasons Jimbo outlines. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The internet, and interactions thereof, is quite different than RL terms for political office. (Noting also that Arbcomm shouldn't be considered a political office.) My belief is based on my own personal observations of "online" interactions. And I remember a quote from a friend of mine (who was probably quoting someone else) essentially suggesting that "Online, 6 months is this side of forever". It's very similar to the service industry. In a restaurant, it's not uncommon to see entire crews of employees "turn over" in a 6-month period. And Wikipedia is a volunteer service. 2 years is still a fairly lengthy amount of time, and I think it would provide the "cover" and stability necessary in the position, as noted above. - jc37 22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that 3 years seems like quite a long time. That said, a considerable amount of effort is used on the Arbitration Committee elections already. Do we wish to double the time we spend electing people? I don't think that's a particularly good way to solve a problem, personally. Not that I have any better suggestions... --Deskana (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While I could indeed be wrong, I think having the elections semi-annually would actually reduce the "amount of effort". Personally, I think much of the "extra effort" is because it's only "once a year". The time in between is so lengthy, that much ground is re-tread. And with more than a few new faces. So essentially the elections suffer somewhat from needing more of that same "institutional memory". But, again, that's just my personal observation of last time. - jc37 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think 3 years is a reasonable time, but perhaps Jimbo could do an health check each 3 or 6 months, and if an arbitrator has become inactive/burned, then he could appoint someone to take over the rest of the term. _→AzaToth 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any stats available for inactivity/quit/removal? - jc37 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a timeline at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee showing when people joined and left the ArbCom. At a quick glance, it looks like less than half of all members serve out the full three years. --Carnildo (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I had seen that, but was hoping that more statistics (with more information) might exist somewhere, or that some person "in the know" might helpfully be willing to create them : ) - jc37 16:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than perhaps because the internet population is younger than the meatspace population i disagree that 3 years is a long time online (and it certainly shouldn't be) and I don't think your restaurant analogy is fair because people waiting on tables are in low skilled jobs which maybe you can learn in a few weeks, and if a hamburger chain had that high a turn over of its upper echelons it would be run out of business very quickly, and arbcom is at the intellectual/demanding end of wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Going by the burnout rate 3 years is a long time but that burnout rate means we can't really afford to shorten it.Geni 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you give your consideration to signing this pledge from doc Glasgow. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Do all the signees to the pledge agree that:

"Writing about a living person anonymously is blatantly cowardly." ?

I am surprised and disappointed, to say the least. Abecedare (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo does not edit anonymously anyway so that bit does not apply to him, and if you think the terminology is too strong please consider changing it, its an open to edit page. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

True, Jimbo doesn't edit anonymously. He prefers editing with his own user account.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Anonymous" here means "does not disclose any personal information" rather than "unregistered". Hut 8.5 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

His user page gives his identity. The cowardly bit is gone. doc Glasgow was a serious editor addressing the most serious issue wikipedia faces as it grows successfully, ie BLP. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded on my comment here. And now, having writ, move on. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What's to stop someone from taking the pledge with the real name, and then violating it by anonymous editing? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What happens when someone pledges to stop drinking or taking drugs and then breaks that pledge? Same thing I would have thought. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really, and those who'd sign the pledge legitimately probably aren't a problem when they edit biographies either - but neither of these are really the point. Wily D 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm anonymous and I created the initial WP:BLP proposal. Was that ok? I'm a nice old retired man with serious health problems and I need to keep my stress levels under control. Does that make me "cowardly"? WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are marginally anonymous as your user name at least gives your former (and perhaps current) location, and certainly IMO one of the least cowardly editors around, if we have to use that word that I never wanted to anyway. I am not asking anyone to endorse cowardly anything, or indeed to endorse anything, just give doc's pledge consideration. I think of you in much the same light as I think of doc Glasgow. I didn't know you were old and retired (I'm middle aged and have to work hard) but it does not surprise me. Thanks for creating the BLP, a truly inspired move. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention () that you and William are acquanted. Currently (User:HooperBandP/Sandbox4), an Arbcomm case is being prepared to have his adminship removed do to some reasons. If it is true that you are acquanted with him, Arbcomm may be unwilling to rule even if he has broken policy as we believe. Even if we are wrong, we would love to have your input in the situation since it is of such a sensitive matter. We want the ruling fair and NPOV whether in support of us or William, and if you are acquanted with him, it may be best for you to atleast be aware of it. Hooper (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, this user has been canvassing several article talk pages about this, as per []. Jtrainor (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Its what I assumed was true but good to have for the others. Also, you are our celebrity, so don't be humble. You're to wikipedia what Chuck Norris is to WoW.com, and what Pedophilia is to 4chan. Now that I say that, I'm not sure exactly how good that last one is.... ;) Hooper (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am a wikipediholic, I am Top 10 user in ko: wikipedia.

You are interviw with korean No.1 newspaper, korean No.1 consevative newspaper, The Chosun Ilbo. I read it.

My feedback. listen, please.

Korean wikipedia's main problem is you.

Why? you know korean language? no.

Many korean user speak english well? no.

When some big problen is here, all users see "the president". you.

but you don't speak korean, we don't speak englsih.

So, we see 3 beurocrats. ko: wiki have only 3 beurocrats.

but, problem is...3 beurocrats!! :( dictatorial, bureaucracy, irrational. :(

2 beurocrats are came from other kroean own wiki. they are dictatorial. All admins are their party, their code, All admins are "democrats"!!

There is no diversity.

So, one basic user come here -> they rule him (dictatorial, bureaucracy, irrational) -> and, he is go out. never come again.

This is my private opnion. I use ko: wiki for 3 years, I edit over 10,000. I am Top 10 user.

How to solve?

I think...

Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts this article's korean version is ko:위키백과:기여가 많은 일반 사용자 명단

all user in there, make them all to administrator. all user in there, make them all to beurocrat.

and, admin groups argue meta:Polls_are_evil for their dictatorial, bureaucracy, irrational.

make precise "vote polcy" to ko: wiki.

and, make precise fair use polcy to ko: wiki. They attack beginner for no fair use. and they announce "legal" problem to begninner. In korea, "Legal" means so terrible. They send away begninner. so loose fair use rule is needed.

All admins and berocrats argue "no fair use!". EVERYONE!! :(

Make precise "problem solve procedure policy" to ko: wiki. they don't know how to solve. we don't know how to solve.

Etc...in ko: wiki, I feel so many reform. And, I need..."YOU", Jimmy Wales, EARNESTLY!!

Thank you for reading. :) -- WonYong^Talk 05:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In your perspective it would be best to consider Jimbo as the founder of an off-Korea software company (the software in this instance being the wiki method applied to encyclopedia building). Jimbo invents the software concept of "Wikipedia" and gives the license to use that software to any that wish to use it - however, he is not responsible how the software is used, providing that it does not contravene local laws. Therefore, it is up to the license users to determine how it should be regulated - and it is also the responsibility of those license users in their dealing with the Wiki aspect. In short, it isn't something that Jimbo can intervene in - and it is something that needs resolving at the Korea level. It might help if you took Jimbo out of the equation.

If this is counter to how Jimbo has operated in the past - or is just plain wrong - please feel free to remove this response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! It's great leaving a message to the guy himself... I've always loved Wikipedia and, thankfully, have no complaints. Question - gee, it's hard asking this without sounding like a desperate fan, begging with wide eyes and sweating like a pig - may you please sign my guestbook? If it's breaking some sort of policy, there's no need. I'm currently trying to collect as many signatures as possible, as a side hobby to editing. Thanks again! --^La Pianísta! 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

you should make yourself an admin.--Altenhofen (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo can band user's from wikipedia, and a lot more things. He has better tools than admins I think, I mean, he created wikipedia. I think he'll be alright. Right Jimbo?--RyRy5 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo already is an admin. Hut 8.5 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

and yes he has other user rights too, see here for an idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured he was an admin. But nothing on his userpage said he was one. Well, you wouldn't want to brag.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That fixes it. An admin icon.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed a simple solution. Aleta ^Sing 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But still, something clarifies that Jimbo's an admin. So good job I guess.--RyRy5 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

His record in working in the admin capacity is not without its... history. Jimbo has created a classification of "Founder", in which capacity he has access to more levels of site control than any admin (or 'crat or Steward - I believe) and perhaps shouldn't be "limited" by the badge of sysop. In his analogy of being similar to the Queen you don't generally use the minor titles - you stick with the familiar major one. Generally, that has been "Jimbo". It seems to be enough. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This admin had blocked literally thousands of IP addresses from anonymous editing. He has in effect arbitrarily done away with concept of open editing at Wikipedia. He has done this to control who edits Wikipedia. I am here to tell you with certainty he has failed. The editor who he has sought to block has continued to edit maliciously using several different user names. The editing is done in such a way as to be virtually undetectable by a bot or the casual vandal ranger. In fact George's actions merely incite those with a malicious bent to continue to work to have Wikipedia die the death of 10,000 cuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfpshfxjmmjbnifscfsu (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I see a number of rangeblocks by Georgewilliamherbert from back in March, all relating to activity by User:Wikzilla. GWH's block log. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of the recent activity regarding this figure I have made some major structural changes to the article. It appears to be well referenced but perhaps covers too much of his "negative side" and controversies rather that actually documenting the bulk of his legal profession work to date. There is a tag and claims that it is inaccurate. Could somebody take the liberty and inform me just what is claimed to be false, is it his 1986 fraud case or what? The articles uses reliable mainstream sources BBC, The Guardian etc so an article on him using such sources mus thave some validity even if it is not written in a completely neutral and balanced way ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an evil troll from the Wikipedia Review disrupting the Postmodernism article with his trollish edits. Stop him now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.180.53 (talk • contribs)

Actually you're doing rather well with this article, cutting gibberish. Now, do everyone a favor and stop dicking around here, OK? -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous. I have just said I am a banned user. Someone has to block me! 86.133.180.53 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh do shut up here and continue to improve the Postmodernism article, there's a good fellow. -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The board restructure ^[1] says that you will have a seat on the foundation for as long as you like. You said that you would stand down from the board this year. Is that still going to happen.

Thanks and happy editing,

--Smallbig (Anonymous101 on Wikinews) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that I would stand down from the board, not sure what you meant by that. My term still expires at the end of 2008 and can be renewed by the board for another year. There is nothing which guarantees me a seat for "as long as I like" but presumably I am likely to be renewed as long as I am contributing appropriately as a board member and want to continue. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, other Wikinewsies have said you said you will stand down from the board. --Smallbig (Anonymous101 on Wikinews) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, not sure where that idea came from.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're swell. -- Me ^Holla! 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Deletion log); 23:21 . . Krimpet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Houston McCoy" (Courtesy deletion)

Well that's confusing, I miss something? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as a courtesy to a living person who objected to some of the discussion on the page remaining available. See WP:DP#Courtesy blanking. krimpet ✽ 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that's what "courtesy deletion" was, my curiosity stems from the fact the subject's lawyer just eMailed me to ask why it was deleted and cursed WP for deleting it...Is there an OTRS ticket or something for the request for deletion? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, OTRS ticket #2008042710011139 - it was forwarded from the requester to OTRS by Jimmy Wales, who made the deleted comment in question and suggested a courtesy deletion. He may be the best one to ask about this issue. krimpet ✽ 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could help clear this up? I don't personally care, but Moore's somewhat harrasing, and I'd rather be able to explain to him why it was deleted if he's legitimately confused. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you follow up with me by email? I am having trouble remembering exactly and I will need to do research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, now he's laughing at me saying it was him all along - the guy seems truly certifiable. Assuming he has no issues, I don't - I say we leave well enough alone. Sorry to bother you

I am in complete agreement with User:Newyorkbrad on the Google indexing issue, as he has outlined here. This change needs to happen, and the foot-dragging on issues such as a WMF Cyberstalking policy and the Google indexing of discussion pages is getting to be intolerable for many long-standing users. Some leadership on this would be nice, Jim. --David Shankbone 03:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement, too. I missed that thread, as I barely read wikien-l lately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear that many editors have the technical ability to make such a modification. Noindexing the various talk spaces (Talk, User talk, Wikipedia talk ...) would be uncontraversial enough, and if you made a more concrete "This would be a good idea", maybe as a "test" acress enwiki-l or wherever, that would go a long way. Wily D 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, I wonder if you can comment about this article. As you know people sometimes make threats of violence on Wikipedia, most disturbingly on articles for high schools threatening Columbine-like attacks. There is currently an essay which I am doing my utmost to get upgraded to guideline/policy, which would require that such threats are indeed taken seriously and reported to the police. Its located here. Your input is sought on the talk page. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, thank you so much for your participating at WP:TOV. Might you be able to answer this question? Bstone (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was very dissappointed that you misunderstood and restated your version of my attitude on WT:TOV. Not once did I lash out, and not once did I say we should not report to ANI. Please read the entire talk page to grok my attitude and concerns. Even read the version of the page that I posted. You will understand then that I do not discourage caution and reporting.

As you are the project founder and project leader, I will not oppose this page any longer, instead I will defer to you. I will leave it to you on whether you correct your statement of my attitude. ~~I am very disappointed.~~ As much weight you carry, you would say that. You should phrase these things carefully. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure people know who see this, I have written a clarification. By "attitude" in this context, I simply meant "A state of mind or a feeling; disposition", and did not intend any negative connotation that NonvocalScream "has a bad attitude" or anything similar. I am quite sure he is arguing in good faith; I simply disagree with his basic approach to the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Incidentally, I don't think I have a good solution to the problem on TOV other than the status quo. If other editors have a solution better than that, I won't specifically argue against it, unless there is something new and profound to bring to the table. This is after all, a project of collaboration.

And thank you again for the clarification. :) Best esteem, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo:

I'm bringing to you a concern that I think we must share.

A BLPWatch tag was recently put on this article by FT2, a member of ArbCom.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley‎

I'll just blurt this out.

Frankly, I think that too little care is being given to the concerns and sensibilities of some of the people who are the subject of articles. I think this is one of those cases.

I think there is often an unwillingness among editors to assume good faith on the part of people who are the subjects of articles, an unwillingness even to be polite to them, and a willingness to provoke them unnecessarily.

There is a discussion in the talk page Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Article is broken - how do we progress from here?‎ which I hope you will have time to look at, and comment on if you see fit. (In the discussion, "Mofb" is used as an acronym for the Viscount.)

If you wish to discuss any of this further, I am at your service.

Wanderer57 (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The following is strictly personal opinion: I suspect the Viscount may not be an easy person to deal with. He has opinions that some people consider strange, myself included. That being the case, I think that in dealing with him editors should pay particular attention to policy and civility. I fear that less is being paid.

P.P.S. I will also advise that the first Viscount of Brenchley, the grandfather of the present Viscount, was made a Viscount in recognition of extraordinary service to the British Royal Family.

When are you coming to Pittsburgh n'at? DB9 (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, unfortunately, no current plans to be in Pittsburgh.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, have you seen this? http://www.newwikipedia.info/ They copied wikipedia's articles and put paid ads on the website and they use the wikipedia name. Is this legal? I suppose they shall not use the wikipedia name, because it is a trademark, right? Greetings from huwiki :) --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 11:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Wales,

I have recently passed my A Level Computer programming course with a distingtion which was the best in the college. I was wondering if you could make me a system developer or a steward as I feel that I could programme the wiki servers without any help. I have written a programme to do the job of 10 stewards but I need the access of either a steward or of a system developer in order to access it. Would really appreciate a message or an email back.

I know that I left a comment on one of your other talk pages but none of the stewards that I have spoken to have got back to me. Neither has Brion Vibber. I was wondering if it would be possible for you to grant the access to be a steward even if it is temporary for 6 months or so that should be long enough to trial my software.

Yours Sincerly

Chris19910 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From m:Stewards, "Stewards are elected from and by the international community of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects". Nakon 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You could always install your own version of MediaWiki to use as a test environment. I think that, generally speaking, our stewards and devs are a little twitchy about using our main installation to test much of anything. - Philippe 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Understandably so given the heavy traffic 24/7. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Any chance that Jimbo Wales would have a say in this? Chris19910 (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the community's decision. Nakon 15:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the overall descision is with Jimbo Wales. I am much more qualified in computing than you are and i know how to programme in assembly language which is the most basic of languages you can write in. And also stop thratening to block me aswell Nakon. Chris19910 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you haven't read the meta page on stewards that I linked above. Please do so and cease your disruptive editing. Nakon 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is just one person, and stewards are elected by the community. An appeal to him is bound to be fruitless. (not trying to be rude, just saying that you shouldn't pin your hopes on him granting your request) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Rename_user

--Chico-br (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have seen this, but it seems a concern for the ongoing health of a collaborative community. I apologize for taking your valuable time, if you are keeping abreast of this development, or it seems to not be a concern, and I am over reacting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed_decision#Sourcing_Adjudication_Board (olive (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Concern is in context of other comments and larger picture rather than this case per say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing#The_way_forward:_The_homeopathy_case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing#The_way_forward:_The_homeopathy_case (olive (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

I dont see India on your calendar for sometime now. Any chances in the near future? The Amsterdam program in June, any details? Prashanthns (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Already 3 events fixed until 2010, if my knowledge is correct. Jimbo may think it future. --123.237.128.191 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Golden Wiki Award
		I just don't know what to say. You were the founder of the website which has basically become my favorite hobby. I don't know how much I can thank you for everything you do here and at Wikia. Seriously, you deserve hundreds of these. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo Wales, I don't know how to thank you for bringing something so useful as Wikipedia to this world. -- ₮inucherian ^(Talk) - 06:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sort of new to here and I just want to ask a question

How do you get people to join f1 wikia when it is classed as spamming to add a little note that it exists?

Oh and this--

		The Golden Wiki Award
		You deserve this for creating a site that anyone can edit which not many other sites allow. Thanks for the site. Chubbennaitor 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Chubbennaitor 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

is what I would give you, but it doesn't exist so this'll have to do:

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For making Wikipedia. The best Website since sliced bread.com...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For getting three of these awards in a row already.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo,

The "In The News" section on the main page is broken. Whereas all of the other sections, like Featured Articles, get updated every day, ITN gets two or three new news items a week. The same picture of Fernando Lugo has been on ITN since April 20, almost two weeks. The problem is that editors on WP:ITN/C are very reluctant to add new content, and when editors like me propose new items, the ITN editors always cite past precedent. This means that deaths like Arthur C. Clarke don't make it to the main page, nor items of "local" interest like the London mayoral election. I think that we need to completely reform the ITN section, but I'm not sure how to get the ball rolling on such a process. I think a lot of editors would support something more open and dynamic, and I'd like your help to get it started.

Thanks,

Lovelac 7 12:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an addition to the front page..."Business"...Food for thought. Like a Rainbow (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have written up a formal proposal for ITN reform, though I'd like to get some input before I start to hammer out specifics. Please see Wikipedia:In the news 2.0 for more information. Lovelac 7 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo,

Please take my plea at Wikipedia Talk:Open proxies#This policy is killing people upon yourself to decide for all of Wikipedia, once and for all.

Please, I throw myself, my countrymen, and the non-free world on your mercy. I beg you, in this day that the number of edits is no longer growing, the civil liberty of anonymity for those whose lives depend on it.

Please make this decision, once and for all. 75.61.97.179 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Resilience Barnstar?. Chubbennaitor 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is see WP:BARN for the list of all the barnstars, and the Resilient Barnstar is located at Template:The_Resilient_Barnstar. Hope this helped! The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I have some questions. Firstly,what program do I need to become a Recent Changes Patroller to revert vandalism? I understand that you need a program, only I do not know what the program is for Windows XP, which I have. Secondly, what do you need to do to be able to be a recent changes patroller? Qualifications, prerequisites etc... Thanks! Camcd93 (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a program to be a recent changes patroller, you just use the "edit" or "undo" buttons. You don't need any qualifications either, although some familiarity with our policies is obviously useful. (especially WP:VANDALISM, WP:BLP and WP:CSD are useful for recent changes patrolling, but also WP:BITE and WP:AGF). There are a few programs to make recent pages patrolling faster (Twinkle, AWB, VandalProof, Rollback, etcetera), but none of these is needed, and I would suggest that starting patrolling without these is better, so that you take your time to consider your edits. Fram (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A "Recent Changes Patroller" is someone who goes to this page (usually by clicking the "Recent changes" option in the "Interaction" navigation box to the far right on this and other wikipedia pages) then looks at those recent changes and evaluates them and acts on that evaluation. Sometimes you see obvious vandalism and so revert it. Sometimes you see someone make a good but not good enough edit so you improve the edit or offer advice like ^{[citation needed]} or go to their user talk page and welcome them to wikipedia and provide advice. Sometimes you see something that requires an administrator so you go to WP:AN or some other noticeboard and leave a note saying what you have seen. Sometimes, and this is the most fun for me, you learn interesting things reading articles you never would have thought to read but have to to with things happening right now in the world. Have fun! If you wish to do this as part of a group see the page Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol; but you can do it without that group too. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

list of tools you might be loking for

{{Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools}} WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Jimbo Is Kewl Barnstar
		For founding the wikimedia foundation and well, existing, I guess... Editor510 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't I get a barnstar for just existing? It's the hair isn't it? Dfrg_msc 05:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I found you were the first contributer of the entry, JapaN (with captitalized 'N'). Is it just a wrong capitalized, a historical meaningful word, or some? If it is just a wrong capitalized, I'd like to make a suggestion to remove it. because we have automatic spelling completion at the search box. And... When a user is trying to type "Japan", your JapaN is shown at the top of the candidate list. I think it would not be better. --Carl Daniels (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Redirects with old history for an explanation. I know I learned something! --jonny-m t 04:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't notice that. ^^; If you have some evidences, I'd like to know where JapaN is used. I am working at wiktionary. I'd like to add the entry of JapaN with the evidences you have. In advance, thanks. :) --Carl Daniels (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, you might wish to take a look at the discussion on Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, which I have proposed moving to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, her official title. Despite her prominence, I'd reckon that only a handful of readers would recognize her based on the present article title, and WP:NC(NT) states there is only "limited support" for the use of a maiden name on the death of a royal consort. Even though it's an FA, there has been surprisingly little outside discussion of the move. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned this elsewhere on Wikipedia and I thought I'd bring it to your attention. There are two stories in the news right now, accusing Wikipedia of being pornographic in nature.

Now, these are just internet newssites (meaning low publicity), so it's not really that big of a deal. But I thought it was a bit interesting, if not hilarious.

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, "Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Pornopedia. Providing clinical images that may assist people in research is one thing, but many of the images and videos featured by Wikipedia are gratuitous and obscene. They're entirely unnecessary and amount to hardcore pornography, plain and simple.

"These actions by Wiki founder Jimmy Wales and other executives with Wikipedia are reprehensible. By disseminating this obscene material, their misbehavior is no better than that of the sleazy smut peddler at the XXX bookstore down the street. They should be ashamed of themselves. In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) should look into whether Wikipedia may be in violation of federal obscenity laws.

A guy named Matt is the the policy director for Concerned Women for America? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardcore pornography? seriously? some moralist groups just have a tendency to jump from decency to incoherence. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You want hilarious? The organization was formed to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment. --Carnildo (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They should be relieved that Conservopedia has provided an alternative source of information where no such "pornographic" images are found. :) Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great! Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Pornopedia? I'd use it more, my friends would think I'm hardcore. Pornopedia admin! Maybe Matt is short for Mary? Being exactly the same amount of letters and all. Cheers! Dfrg_msc 06:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is really disappointing. It must be my web browser or the fonts, but at first glance this looked like Pomopedia. An Ozzie free version! Alas, no such luck :-/ ... dave souza, talk 07:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too! I came here to check out this Pomopedia thing and instead I'm confronted with this unexpected pornography. Disgraceful! Who picked this font anyway? :)Franamax (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They got the wikipedia URL wrong. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I read both of those articles and my first thought was "Why the hell are kids looking at the articles for Striptease. And also, someone should tell thoose people wikipedia is NOT censored. The unfair biased statements in those articles where pretty much Cheating good media away from wikipedia. It's not pornographic. Well, not that much, there are some pictures, but they are used to illustrate a point, i mean, you probally should expect some nude shots in the article for Nudity. Wikipedia is one of the greatest sites in the history of the internet. [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that pomopedia was all about postmodernism. I was very pleasantly surprised when I found out it was full of naked women. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But postmodernism is about naked women - you just can't see it. :) Franamax (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gahh, now it looks like I'm commenting on something that happened after modems. Teh interweb is brokening! Franamax (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my user name is nanadiane and I'm new to Wikpedia. After reading the ridiculous bio on Senator Joe McCarthy, I joined Wikpedia to make some factual corrections in the text. My corrections have been labeled VANDALISM by Redspruce and Badger Drink.

Now, I have looked at your policys and understand that:

  1.  Simply because Redspruce and Badger Drink don't agree with me, they have chosen to label
      my corrections as vandalism.  How can facts added to the body of a bio be considered 
      vandalism unless the bio is not a pursue of facts but a political lynching.

   2. According to Wik., a good faith effort to improve Wikpedia is not vandalism.

Is Wikpedia to be held hostage by those editors who wish only to have their views presented???? Please write back and let me know what the situation is.

Thanks, Nanadiane--Nanadiane (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Your edits violated it. Hut 8.5 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But the reverting editors still should have used the NPOV template in Twinkle to warn the user, and not the vandalism one. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The article List of homeschoolees states that you homeschool your child, but this statement is unsourced. Is this true or not? Are you aware that you have been desysoped on the English wikibooks? Z gin der 2008-05-08T22:35Z (UTC)

My opinion is that such statements, unless sourced, should be removed on sight. Again only in my opinion, an article like that needs to be really cleaned up and most of that removed unless and until people can provide sources. And of course, Wikipedia should never take a stand on controversial issues. People love to POV in subtle ways all over the encyclopedia and probably should be reprimanded for it.

Yes, someone notified me about being desysopped for inactivity in wikibooks. I think automatic desysopping anyone for inactivity is a really horrible idea and should be rejected, but there you go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally I visited your page and saw this statement above. As automatic desysopping for inactivity has been decided per community decision at the german wikipedia and I supported this idea may I ask why do you consider this a really horrible idea? (just out of curiosity) --Umschattiger (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The only positives that I can think of would have to do with security around potentially compromised accounts, but that seems pretty far fetched. In general, if someone is good today as a sysop, but goes off for a bit to work on something else, they will be just as good when they come back. I can't think of any positive reasons for automatic desysopping for inactivity. Have I overlooked some?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand that a post on your talk page does not count as a reference, but do you homeschool your child? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He was already asked that question above and chose not to answer it in his reply. It's not anyone else's business really. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a reliable source which is relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, further to what you said above about Admins going away and coming back after a while, sometimes policy, or interpretation of policy, can change in that time and there's no guarantee that the Admin will be aware of those changes. Of course, it is likely that this would be detected before long, but there is a cost associated with that. While I'm here, do you know a Huntsville steakhouse called "Butcher Block"? Used to do great cook-it-yourself steaks and I spent many a happy hour there. As I did at Joe Wheeler Lake. But that was a long time ago now. Regards. --Rodhull andemu 22:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. Z gin der 2008-05-10T23:08Z (UTC)

Concerning desysopping: Thanks for your answer Jimbo. Well, I didn't intend to start a huge discussion (we had it already), i was just curious. But if there should be a need / interest to discuss, no problem at all... The main reason for me was that policies can change a lot, a de-sysopped admin could be re-elected (if he did a great job, it wouldn't be a problem to be elected again, I assume), and the admin will be informed before become desysopped and he has the possibility to avoid desysopping by doing only one silly edit... More reasons - against and supporting the idea - have been discussed profoundly in the german wikipedia ([:de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Entzug von Adminrechten bei Inaktivität]] (following your babel, you should understand it I hope). More than 400 users participated at the german general opinion (Meinungsbild) (a rather high rate of participation) and 80% voted in favour of desysopping (usually we didn't have such clear results). The decision have been put in action in january, some admins lost their extended rights and as far as I know there haven't been any compliants. This shouldn't mean you're wrong but at the moment I can't see why desysopping should do harm, but I see reasons, why not desysopping an inactive admin could do harm... But we'll see - sometime, maybe ;). (ps. sorry for my english, but I'm really not practised in writing...) --Umschattiger (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some new suggestions i thought of.

1. There should be an OFFICIAL welcome user button. I have one from some script package, but i think it would be awesome. And to have the warn tools like in some of the scripts be Official. Also, if an editor makes improper humor edits to wikipedia, (as much as you probally wouldn't like this..) they should be redirected to Uncyclopedia. Because that's where the vandals belong really. They can make there funny articles there, but here, it's not tolerated.

2. a question. I've been working on the article for Trey Lewis and i can't seem to find a picture to use. I've put them in there before and stated the correct sources and a non-free use claim and everything, but they still keep getting deleted. Is there some kind of loophole where if an article has no picture and there really aren't any free alternative pictures currently available, that one of them could be used? [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bots are annoying. I've never felt any kind of genuine sense of kinship from having a computer program spit out an automated message at me and a million other people.

"Improper humor edits." Yes, those are horrible and people making such edits should be banned immediately. There is this user named Zenwhat who is particularly troublesome. I would almost agree with you that such people should be redirected to Uncyclopedia. However, Uncyclopedia isn't even funny.

As for a picture of Trey Lewis, have you considered drawing a picture? You might want to search the commons. There might already be a hand-drawn picture there. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

well, i doubt there is a picture there. And i Can't draw very ~~good~~ Well so yeah. And your right that unencyclopdia isn't funny. But the people who use improper humour on wikipedia are simple enough to think that it is funny. [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 02:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As a relatively new user I can't believe the amount of people that have used sockpuppets. My question is, why can they not be banned permanentaly. I find when they get back many of them troll or just generaly cause trouble. --Jack forbes (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that banning is a little far off in sockpuppeting situations. An indef block is good enough. A ban should really be used for major problems, but I've never wittnessed one before.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An honest question. How long is an indef block? --Jack forbes (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, does one sockpuppet have a certain ban and two another? when does it get too much where they are banned for good? --Jack forbes (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To your first question. An indef block is forever unless another admin unblocks the user for a good reason. To your second questions, you should read WP:BAN. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a novice here, but I think if someone uses a sockpuppet even once they should never be allowed near wikipedia again! But who am I to say.--Jack forbes (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An indef ban is a ban that does not have a designated time to end and is used for bans meant for "forever" as well as bans meant to last until the end of a conversation about how long the ban should be set for. Some of our best editors have made the mistake of creating and abusing socks. We are not going to cut off our nose to spite our face. Each case is decided on its own merits. The rule is to prevent damage, not to punish. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If our best editors are creating and abusing sockpuppets, then we really need to raise the bar and re-define what "good editor" actually means. Because there are plenty of good editors which do not abuse sockpuppets and lumping them in with those that do is nonsensical. It would be like a businessman saying, "Some of our best employees have snuck out of the office early!" It's apologetic nonsense.

I agree with Jack forbes that the sockpuppets are seriously out-of-hand and we should take a more strict stance against them. To give you an idea of what I mean, me and Gregalton have dealt with User:Karmaisking for months now. The man is insane and he returns every month or so, with a new incarnation, in order to push conspiracy theories about fractional-reserve banking. I gave up. Greg has no incentive to stay other than out of altruism, as a good samaritan. Take a look at the list of Karmaisking's sockpuppets and their contributions. There is probably a much worse sockpuppeteer out there, though, perhaps one we're not even aware of yet! ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood me. I used past tense ("have made"} referring to mistakes made years ago. You, in response, use present tense ("are creating and abusing sockpuppets"). WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "Some of our best editors have made the mistake of creating and abusing socks" sounds a bit wishy washy to be honest! Let's be clear, their fingers did not accidentaly brush against the keyboard and hey presto, a sockpuppet!! They created them to force their own point of view and distrupt the work of honest editors. Can a leopard change it's spots? I don't expect there is going to be some kind of massive rethink just because of a few words I have typed here, but I do think a lot of editors would agree with my sentiment. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. Life is imperfect. Realists make compromises. Those who have screwed up and now are acting better do need to be watched. But not evicted merely due to a two year old error in judgement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo Wales, Mww113 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 19:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

Over on Wikinews we have been nominating all the users who haven't edited for a while for de-adminship. As part of this, you have been nominated for de-adminship. You might want to comment on this page or here.

Thanks,

Anonymous101 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiNews rocks. Adminship is provided on the basis of necessity. It's a mop and bucket, not a badge of authority, as they say. This is great because it demonstrates a lack of favoritism. If Jimbo complains and gets sysop back, I'm going to have to eat my tongue, though. This comment by White Cat is incorrect:

Jimbo will restore his adminship when he feels like it. He exists above policy and guidelines.

☯ Zenwhat (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is White Cats reply, he posted it on Wikinews: As does all board members. They will not hesitate to re-admin re-bcrat or re-oversight themselves should the need arises. They (Foundation) own the site and they make the rules. Just because they let us decide some issues on our own does not mean they do not reserve the right to interfere. The removal of their access is hence symbolic. -- Cat ^chi? 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous101 (talk • contribs)

Hey, first off, thanks for creating this website so I could ask this question. Second, is there anyway to tweak my watchlist so it has a live RSS feed? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean so you can, put it into an rss reader. There have been 81 changes to my watchlist in the last hour and if I had it in my reader it would be pinging on average every 45 seconds. For people with a small watchlist it would be a useful feature, though, tot he point of creating a second watchlist with just those highly important articles needing watching, so a nice thought. Perhaps suggesting it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thanks, SqueakBox 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's why it's a live RSS feed, so you don't have to update your watchlist. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo Wales. You great wiki-lord and ombudsmen. You are chekuser terror. Thank you. Samohvaloff. Russian Wikipedist (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

well, as much as I hate to admit it, i have this feeling that one day, somehow, the people who vandalise wikipedia will eventually take over. so i created WP:Takeover. It's my first attempt at a page like that. [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 02:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Your idea of Wikipedia itself has brought me and millions of others, saviour in school assignments and research - THANK YOU! Juggernaut0102 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me thank you for your role in creating Wikipedia, which has been a tremendous resource for me and most everyone I know. I have felt honored to help contribute to this project.

I've never written to you before and, with all due respect to you, have always looked askance at people who run off to tattle to Jimbo in a dispute. However, the issue I'm dealing with at the moment cries out for your contribution, not only because of your role with Wikipedia and Wikimedia but also because of your experience with Bomis.

I am referring to the presence of pornography on Wikipedia, by which I mean sexually explicit images and videos, not mere anatomical nudity. According to Wikipedia:Pornography, you have, in the past, frowned on this kind of material, on one occasion citing 18 U.S.C. 2257. You probably know that some "family values" types are making a fuss over pornography in Wikipedia. While one may disagree with their point of view, I know they have the ears of many politicians and prosecutors.

In a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), I have tried to impress on people the dangers of having porn on Wikipedia, as well as the problems with having "NSFW" content without a warning to users. But defenders of porn on Wikipedia refuse to compromise, saying the "not censored" policy leaves them free to upload whatever image they want, no matter how explicit.

I believe you can add to the disussion at WP:VP/M. Another discussion may be starting at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.

It would be a great shame if the inflexibility of a tiny minority of users -- those who upload porn -- were to jeopardize the success of the entire project.

Your help is greatly appreciated. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I take a very strong stand against having sexually explicit images (those that would trigger USC 2257, especially, but ignoring the pre-1990 versus post-1990 distinctions to err on the side of sanity) of any kind on Wikipedia. Most of the hysteria that happens in this area ignores the fact that mere nudity, or appropriate educational illustrations, does not constitute the problem, and even highly conservative critics are likely to appreciate the need for, and appropriateness of, such illustrations.

Illustrations in this area, as in all areas, should be tasteful, encyclopedic, and directly to the point. We have to understand that a lot of really juvenile people want to tweak us about this by uploading whatever they can "at the fringes". And that there is a lot of kneejerk, "oh yeah, you can't censor Wikipedia!!!!" The issue is not censorship, the issue is the creation of a great encyclopedia.

I have removed the rest of the discussion because I thought it was confusing and off-topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, the Foundation Board recently passed a resolution to maximize privacy of users at WikiMedia projects, as I'm sure you already know. I would like you to consider asking that encryption be placed on the board agenda for some future meeting. WikiMedia could enhance privacy and set an example by supplying the option of user encryption so that content to and from WikiMedia web servers is encrypted with copy-left encryption software. One year from now we could be the major source of a new paradigm in web browsing privacy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't we already have this with SSL? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Encryption would take it even a step further. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have encryption on the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, but they are on another server. Please see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/ for the secure English Wikipedia site. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 08:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the further requirement for encryption? When you see https: at the start of the URL, and the little padlock, you're using SSL session-level encryption which is about as bulletproof as it gets, for practical purposes. We're not operating continental electric-power grids (yet) and we haven't seen vulnerabilities in SSL yet - have we? WAS, LC, do you use the secure server every time you connect, and can you identify any specific failures when you've used it? Franamax (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarify here, the security vulnerability is the fact that wiki-edits have an amount of text sent to the client, then returned largely intact, with the changes often at the end of the text. The text motif ~~~~ is often involved. This makes the traffic amenable to decryption - but only to someone who cares a lot, cares more than the people trying to get your credit-card number. If someone cares that much and sees you using impenetrable encryption to contact wikipedia, they'll be knocking at your door anyway. Anything above the SSL model involves massive infrastructure which is itself inherently vulnerable to both technical and social engineering attacks. If you're concerned about truly vulnerable people, let's keep working at letting more people edit over open proxies. Franamax (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it's WR's resident high school music teacher, TheFieryAngel, but somebody has been engaged in trying to whip up conservative frenzy over pornography, tarring me in the process and bringing in Wikia boy scout stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Here are two posts on "The Lonely Conservative" website (the second clearly placed by a WR member - perhaps the one who suggested they bring it into the mix: TheFieryAngel):

So, for all you Wikipedia people who go on WR, if the defamation of the Deputy Director of the WMF wasn't enough, and their extortion negotiations of Newyorkbrad wasn't enough, now we have a porn smear campaign that doesn't even involve our website. --David Shankbone 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

AAaah Help Conspiracy.... I'd like to point out some things you may have missed:

1. WR is a forum, forums are generally populated by more than one person. If there are 2 or more people talking on a forum you have 2 or more opinions (See Wikipedia) Newyorkbrad was NOT extorted by "WR" and specifically stated he did not leave because of "WR". Now individuals on WR might have had a bit more to do with that, but that would be up to them.

2. I don't see what lonelyconservative.com has to do with WR, WR has a news scraper that picks up wikipedia related articles, that was one of them...

3. You aren't exactly neutral, you're abusing WP as an ad platform by posting (porn) images made in a company you own or know and then highlighting the fact that the images come from "insert name" company. Very subtle and possible effective. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, wie läuft's mit deinem Deutsch? Jared Preston (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Es geht, aber langsam. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, as BLP was your baby: There is a discussion underway to see if consensus exists to remove the 3RR exemption from BLP. I'd like to ask you to weigh in as soon as possible with your views on this, on the talk page itself, rather than here. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the 3RR exemption is often not being applied, or not being applied correctly. Some people see this as a problem. This is something that needs to be sorted out by carefully studying practice, and fixing the issues in a systematic manner. It's not something one can fix by waving a magic Jimbo fairy wand and declaring it so, unfortunately. (If it was, I'd have asked you over myself ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC) personally I'm opposed to running the poll at this stage, as it's not really providing any useful data. OTOH it's being very well run, so it's not doing much harm either, and consensus is mostly to repoll at a later time so far.

Just FYI, I think it's fair to say that this whole thing got a bit heated, and a bit de-railed, with a few ruffled feathers on all sides. I don't think there's an ongoing discussion at this time. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, here's a barnstar.

		The Original Barnstar
		For being Mr Wales. SimsFan^{Talk to Me • Commons} 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you will get these requests a lot, but I was also wondering if you could sign my guestbook at User:SimsFan/SignBook and anothers at User:The_Canadian_Roadgeek/Guestbook (NB:For The Canadian Roadgeek, would you put I asked you to sign.)
I would really appreciate it if you could take a few moments. Thanks. SimsFan^{Talk to Me • Commons} 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC) JIMBO, YOU ROCK.

How do you create a WikiProject? --BRTman666 (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)BRTman666

Hi there, reading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide might be useful. Hope this helps! The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that you stated that you think the actions of an OTRS leak at Wikinews was unacceptable. I just want to say a few things. We are a news agency. We report news, regardless of who its about or what its about. We consider our original reporting to be very valuable, but it seems that in my opinion Wikimedia doesn't care. WMF uses secret mailing lists, secret wikis to discuss stuff that I or other Wikinewsies e-mail the staff about. We rarely get any exclusive statements from you or WMF and we certainly are not on the top of the list for giving statements to. I think we deserve some respect. We IMO get none from WMF. I think the recent actions of the staff have shown that they don't want to contribute to WN in any manner. Its really disgusting that we have to force our way into getting information from WMF. As a news agency, and a project of WMF, we should not have to do that. I think this battle has gone on long enough. Please, show us some respect. We more than deserve it. I have been on WN for 2 1/2 years and I never have seen such a great amount of disrespect from WMF. DragonFire1024 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, in my only remarks on the subject, I stated very specifically the Wikinews should be given the same respect as the New York Times. If an OTRS volunteer leaked an email from a 3rd party to the New York Times, I would regard that as a grave abuse of the trust that people place in us when they send us private email. Far from showing a lack of respect for Wikinews, my point is that we should treat Wikinews the same as any other news agency! I will also clarify this over at Wikinews.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the abuse part, but also note if the Foundation, the board or anyone else affiliated with WMF in that sense, would make an effort to contact us, or reply to are requests for statements even if to defend themselves, we might not have had a leak. The information in the ticket, at least the specifics as to who from (name of person[s]) and such can still be protected while at the same time, providing us with valuable information to a story. Even if not the ticket, I am sure there is someone who could have commented without violating privacy.

The lack of respect part comes form the foundation ignoring us and only showing interest in us when they see us doing something they call "bad". The lack of respect comes from the fact that some people have comment on the situations, without reading the information. They see a headline or a word or two and panic. I honestly think that no one involved with the deletion or articles and the so called abuse complaints, read anything in any of the articles. If they had, they would have clearly noticed a few things immediately: 1) Neither of them were published, ever. 2) Both were in some form of preparation/development. Had anyone read them, which means looking at the sources and such, then they clearly would see that, and have seen that the information present, and not finished, was all backed up by sources.

I ventured somewhat off track but my point is, WMF goes around moaning and crying when someone misquotes them, but when we step up to present both sides of a situation we get shot down without any consideration whatsoever. "should treat us like the Times" or "any other agency" is a lot different from doing. DragonFire1024 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, this is NicholasTurnbull (now at Wikinews) here. I'm afraid to say that I don't believe that your logic regarding Wikinews being treated with "the same respect as the New York Times" really matches what has happened. The actual circumstances are akin to the Foundation, assuming it had the power to remove material from the New York Times at will, deleting a column from publication simply because it contained material unfavourable to the Foundation that had been leaked in an unauthorised manner. In other words, if the Times published the leak, the Foundation could not simply step in and remove the material; in this case, because the subject of the article has ultimate control over the publisher, this conflict of interest has allowed a whitewashing that is unacceptable in terms of journalistic ethics. Wikinews is meant to be presenting news neutrally from the views of the Foundation and cannot be considered to be its propaganda organ. Circumstances where the WMF disagrees with the publication of material should be dealt with as if the WMF was an external party, and to do otherwise is a blatant violation of the Foundation's stated principles of ethics. I call on you to please keep your statement on how we are to be treated, then, and in the future raise disputes over article content just as if you were doing so to the Times: engage in dialogue with us, rather than abusing your power to remove that material. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas, I had nothing to do with anything related to removing any material from Wikinews. I barely even know what this is all about. The only thing I have commented on or been involved with is from the OTRS side. I work closely with the OTRS team, and my remarks were simply about what I think the right approach for OTRS is. My objection was that my words about that matter were being misinterpreted as disrespect for Wikinews, and I think that is not fair to me.

As to the question of the material being removed *for legal reasons*, I have no opinion about it, as I am not an expert on the law, do not really understand what happened and why, etc. I think it rather absurd to assume that the reason Mike Godwin made his request had anything to do with PR, and certainly I am aware of no discussions anywhere that would support such a view. You do know who Mike Godwin is, right? Not exactly Mr. Censorship! Eventually I will likely come to an opinion about this as I learn more about it. In the meantime, I think it is important to recognize that there are always going to be times and circumstances when legal constraints will make it necessary to pause and assess before blindly rushing forward with a story that may well be false and damaging. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Wales, unfortunately i sued some of your german admins for using my pictures without permission. I revoced my permission, because some of them banned me, without any reason: it is all a libel and slander. I wrote a mail not only to Wikipedia Germany, but also to Wikipedia International. Nobody answers. I only wanted to tell you, because I think you should know there is going something wrong with your idea. I was interested in working for Wikipedia, but the german admins are a little like IM of the Stasi, while Wikipedia is definitely NOT the StaSi. Maybe you will read this and look for a solution. Yours sincerely: --Gwynplain (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

*rofl* - wouln't it be so funny, it would be possible to take you to the court, because of these insulting insinuation. Marcus Cyron (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Sour grapes gone wrong... this copyright has expired and de:Spezial:Contributions/Gwynplain and Special:Contributions/Gwynplain.--Hu12 (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(BK) Wait Marcus, he/she/it sued Wikipedia already respectively he/she/it charged against person or persons unknown for felony at the federal prosecutor in Augsburg. He/She/It posted it here and e-mailed something the german OTRS-Support-Team, certainly not only the german. Achates (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You (= Gwynplain) can write a lot - what you do is important. And so it would be interesting, what would happen, if her really has done it. With Edits like the one above he will be "very successfull" ;). Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If he really send it in, it is obvious against Wikipedia:No legal threats, and he should be banned from all projects. -- Tobnu (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true and the indignation and the lack of behaviour (AGF) of the german admins is the reason for it. I will complain every admin of the german wikipedia (not wikipedia herself!), who violates my rights and tells libel and slander. It is no violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats to complain single user-admins, which abuse their rights. You can't hide behind Wikipedia:No legal threats for your mistakes, it is wrong to believe that. The german admins and their behaviour is a shame for wikipedia. Not wikipedia! But maybe I am wrong? It is also possible, I also do mistakes. But not this time. Tobnu, Marcus Cyron & Achates should be banned from being admins. You are not automatically right because you are admin. I gave every admin the opportunity to talk nice and friendly with me, but they spit on it. Also I think I am the one and only banned user, who organized a meeting of wikipedians: de:Wikipedia:Augsburg, the first ever there. And I was there tho they banned me without any proof. By the way: it is the story of Augeas, not the Sour Grapes, the only grapes here are The Grapes of Wrath, seeded by incompetent admins, who think they are owner of the german wikipedia. And as the last: maybe this will change the social interaction in the german wikipedia, the german wikipedia loses every day authors: Einer der Hauptgründe: Der Umgangston innerhalb der Gemeinde wird immer rauer. Translation: One of the main reasons: the conversational tone within the community is getting rougher. I am only the top of the iceberg and i have the courage to tell it. Ban or listen to me - it is your decision. I will leave Wikipedia now until your decision and when you decide against me, forever. No problem for both sides, I hope. Please send your answer by e-mail. I want to enjoy my life, with our without wikipedia. --Gwynplain (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First: Jimbo don't have the power to take our Adminship. This only depends to the Comunity of the german language Wikipedia. You're begging and crying at the false point. And I belive, Jimbo isn't really interested in your personal problems. Second: please read the article exactly, Gwynplain. The article don't speaks about the german language Wikipedia - there's written about the english language Wikipedia. Third: You are on the false way. You can't take back a given free licence, because of the bad admins are so cruel to you.... You should had think about that before. Fourth: I hope you will be blocked for all projects soon because of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's that Thank You Award, for signing my guestbook.

		The SimsFan Special Thank You Award
		For Signing My Guestbook, Thanks. SimsFan^{Talk to Me • Sign Here and Get a Thank You Award} 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you like it. SimsFan^{Talk to Me • Sign Here and Get a Thank You Award} 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
JIMBO WALES!!! YOU ROCK!!!

Hello Jimbo Wales, ShakespearesZombie has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(date to archive this) Fram (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo Wales, Samohvaloff has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(date to archive this) Fram (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ive Nominated you for Bureaucratship. For obvious reasons. Trees Rock^MyGoal 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was told to withdraw it. Trees Rock^MyGoal 00:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To Mr. Wales, I appeal the indefinite block of ESCStudent774441. Unable to reach blocking admin. Although I don't foresee getting that account unblocked. I just leave it here in your hands and wish to get back to work. 68.236.154.131 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI would be a better place to make your plea. It's watched by a good thousand or so.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 02:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At least, according to User:Filll, about a week ago. That section of the Talk Page is archived, but he said it again here. Can you shed some light on this, perhaps in that newer section? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does mean neutral. "Actually, even Jimbo gave a speech on this subject a couple of years ago at one of the Wikimedia meetings where he pointed out that the term 'NPOV' was a very unfortunate choice of terminology because it confused people into thinking that the articles were supposed to be neutral." I have no idea what this refers to, actually. I do not agree with it at all, and I have no idea what I might have said 'a couple of years ago' which might have been misinterpreted in this way.

The important question that Filll is raising is how we reconcile the notion of neutrality with the notion of "in proportion to their prominence" but for me that seems pretty obvious. If you have an article about the moon which treats equally the idea that the moon is made of rocks, and the idea that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have neutrality, you have extreme POV pushing for a radical minority view! How, in practice, to sort out a proper sense of proportion and balance is always going to be tricky and involve thoughtful consultation and dialog, of course. There is no magic formula. But a recognition that some views are widely held and grounded in a reasonable analysis of evidence, and that some views are extreme fringe views and not based in evidence, is pretty important to achieving neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But what Filll is arguing is the opposite usage of the word "neutral". He's saying that when an article properly describes a conflict by accurately stating that a vast majority holds the mainstream consensus, and that a tiny minority fringe holds a different view, that this is "not neutral", because, as he argues, when one side has more weight, that is "bias", and therefore not neutral. I've tried to explain to him that this is not what those words refer to on WP, and that neutrality refers to when the viewpoint of the editor or some group colors the presentation of the material in a way that is not accurate, and not when proportionate weight is accurately described in favor of one and not the other. Am I right here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. What we are looking for is often a way to "go meta" in a way that different parties of different beliefs can agree to. Normally, descriptions of how prevalent a particular belief is can be something that people on all sides can successfully agree upon. I hold that X is true. You hold that not-X is true. As a rough cut, we can say that although X is a view held by a minority of economists (suppose), some of them quite prominent, not-X is generally more widely held by economists, and there is a lively debate about it, or perhaps there was a lively debate about it, but now that debate has died down, or... this is all useful information for the newcomer trying to understand the field.

Normally where this tends to get contentious is around beliefs that are not like my X-example, above. In my example, we have a generally respectable belief whose validity is being actively debated. Some other examples where we might have trouble would be beliefs that are so far out that virtually no one serious holds them (crackpot pseudoscience), or beliefs that are so politically popular that alternatives are perhaps unfairly discriminated against. Tough issues, and of course everyone who holds a crackpot pseudoscientific notion is likely to view the situation as a valiant fight against unfair discrimination, etc. EVEN SO, if we remove the opinionated words from the above, the advocates of the view are likely to agree to the factual situation, which is that virtually no one believes the theory. There is no magic formula to tell us when someone has crossed the line from sensible advocacy for the inclusion of a minority viewpoint into pointless advocacy for the inclusion of nonsense. Good editors have to think about it and talk about it in an atmosphere of respect to try to sort out a solution that balances a lot of competing concerns.

This is not easy, but it is what we do. And when we do it well, we can be proud to call ourselves Wikipedians.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that User:Filll's concerns have to do with situations where there is solid expert opinion that differs from popular opinion ; that seems to be resolved by identifying some articles like evolution as scientific subjects that contain a balanced NPOV account of scientific opinion and omit popular misconceptions as they are covered in articles dealing with other than the science itself. Creationists wish to insert creationism in evolution claiming NPOV says it should be there; which is nonsense. The other extreme I encountered at AIDS denialism where some people got it into their head that since there is no good science for it, the claims of the AIDS denialists should not be covered in that article; which is also nonsense. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design views on evolution are fringe with almost zero support outside the US (one twentieth of the world by population and evolution is not a US subject) so we do not need to tag evolution as a scientific subject merely to keep that POV out of the article. We are not a scientific encyclopedia but obviously science is mainstream and we treat science subjects according to mainstream beliefs, just like with everything else. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of complex situations :) Unfortunately I think Nightstream and Filll are talking at cross purposes to some extent, and Filll is far from arguing that "saying that when an article properly describes a conflict by accurately stating that a vast majority holds the mainstream consensus, and that a tiny minority fringe holds a different view, that this is "not neutral"." He's actually saying that in an article about a certain film which is viewed by 91% of film critics reported by Rotten Tomatoes as a turkey, and which promotes pseudoscience regarded as a religious view and not science by over 99% of the relevant scientific community, the article should reflect the majority views and should show the majority responses to claims the film makes when describing the claims, not in a separate "criticisms" section. It's as much a question of "equal validity" as anything else. Of course the views presented in the film have to be described neutrally as the minority views they are, but they have to be shown in the context of the majority views. As I understand it. Of course I welcome further clarification in this tricky situation where consultation and dialogue is currently in progress. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How can they be described as neutral when several users have challenged the neutrality and denied the discussion? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you expressed that well, Dave. We have been having these problems at pro-pedophile activism, sure we need to cover this fringe group but according to how they are seen by the mainstrweAm, not by how they see themselves. RC, if several POV pushing user challenege mainstream neutrality that does not mean ana rticle is not mainstream and neutral. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And just to return to the original analogy, in an article about A Grand Day Out we take care to ensure that the most credulous reader is made fully aware from the outset that the idea presented in the film that the moon is made of cheese is an extreme minority view :) . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that things aren't so clear-cut and easy. The view expressed in the film that science is atheistic is not that fringe. The general problem is that I feel Wikipedia is taking the view of US pro-evolution lobby, ignoring the non-fringe minority view, expressed for example by the world's most prominent atheist in The God Delusion, that a true understanding of evolution does lead to atheism. Merzul (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A false dichotomy, like so much else to do with intelligent design. Proportionate weight depends on the specific claim, and while pro-science sources contend that the film portrays science as atheistic and equates inclusion of supernatural explanations into science as demanded by ID proponents with religious belief, a majority of mainstream faiths hold evolution to be compatible with their religious position. Hence the need for careful consideration of each aspect on its merits to comply with WP:UNDUE. . . dave souza, talk 15:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Wales!

A bit over a month ago I asked you to remove the insult "Idiot" that was directed against me. Link: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Sarah_Wiener&diff=44603377&oldid=44603351 See edit summary there.

Seeing on some discussion-pages how fervently you seem to hold up the principle that any insult 'have to be removed immedeatly from Wikipedia', I now asked you: Why did you not remove this?

Second question: Though I know examples where it did not happen, in general it seems to be a rule or a principle on wikipedia that a person who sues wikipedia is banned from Wikipedia (forever).

So I ask you: How is selling a possible claim to a law firm, so they could possibly sue wikipedia, classified in relation to sueing wikipedia oneself?

In case you are again not thinking it worth your time to answer, I will ask the same questions on the wikipedia-discussion-page about Biopgraphies of living persons.

Don't principles always exist to be questioned upon?

Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.16 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that comments of that sort should be courtesy blanked. I am unable to read German well enough to understand it, but if anyone from German Wikipedia happens to read this, hopefully they will comment here about what is going on. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the SRS here!

Hey, Jimbo, since I know you are practically the living legend of Wikipedia, do you think you can help me with something? My status bot keeps saying that I'm "Somewhere." Do you know how I can get it up and running correctly?

Peace Out! :-) SexySeaFlounder^{The $R$} 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't really be a question to ask Jimbo, he's probably too busy to respond. Next time you should go to WP:HELPDESK or use {{helpme}}. It still says "somewhere" probably because you haven't left it on long enough, it will eventually work. If it still doesn't work after a while you ask me directly on my talkpage or ask User:Soxred93 who is the controller of the current statusbot.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, plus I have no idea about status bots. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:east718 deleted my page. he sent me an e-mail of the coding then protected it from being re-created. I NEED MY PAGE! I NEED YOUR HELP! please! I live for that page and need it to be revived. please help me and please strip him of his powers for doing this to me. I am only ½ of a person because of this! I WILL DO ANYTHING FOR YOU IF YOU HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I need you Jim, I NEED YOUR HELP!!Altenhofen (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that after deleting one of his subpages and noticing that he has been rambling on multiple talk pages, I'm feeling somewhat tempted to block this user for trolling. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Amusing bit. The account has almost been used exclusively for crap relating to his userpage. seicer | talk | contribs 22:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Wales, it's quite nice, if a little intimidating, to have an excuse to introduce myself. I'm a sysop (bailiwick: all the tech) on the west Frisian wictionary.

We seem to have a case of impersonation here: fy:wikt:Meidogger:Jimbo_Wales. I assume anyway, since this user replaced my user talk page with a fake "banned indefinitely" template, but I still seem to have all my sysop powers and I don't appear on the logs. (Have you considered using a bot to log into all the projects and lock your global account name? I hate to give this person the satisfaction, but for about 5 seconds, before I realised it had to be a hoax, my heart skipped a beat, and I broke a cold sweat.)

OTOH, if you really did try to ban me, it didn't work. You'll need to override my banning you, and try again. ;-)

Snakesteuben (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) fy page: fy:wikt:Meidogger:Snakesteuben

Heh. You guessed right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo! Thre has been one of those discussions like the Guestbook/Esperanza thing recently. My adoptee has created a Welcoming squad. It has been posted under MFD because it seems like a copy of the Wikipedia welcoming committee. Is this a good reason to delete it (link: here)? Could you possibly vote? I know I am asking way to much, but it needs an expert opinion, the expert opinion. Thank you so+o¹⁰⁰ much! WikiZorro^sign 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have heard interesting discussion over the matter of limiting access to anti-vandalism tools (e.g., Twinkle). The main debates were over whether Wikipedia should require users to register for anti-vandalism tools, and pass only if they meet a certain requirement (such as number of edits). In essence, the process would be the same as AWB, the Auto Wiki Browser, which requires users without 500 mainspace edits to give a reason why they should receive access. Please note (speaking in general) that I would like Mr. Wales (you) to respond to this question, and understand that this question could be brought up elsewhere. If you could be so kind as to give me your opinion on this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. :) Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You signed User:SimsFan/SignBook, you can't expect to get away with signing one and noone else's, so please sign mine or I'll ensure that everyone else pesters you to do theirs...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God - as embarrassing.... Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was only joking, my full message (that I couldn't complete because the school bell went) was going to be:

You signed User:SimsFan/SignBook, you can't expect to get away with signing one and noone else's, so please sign mine or I'll ensure that everyone else pesters you to do theirs.

No, seriously, you'll get the 'First-Jimbo-to-sign-my-guestbook-award' if you do. You know, just to make it fair and all...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't have time to type it, so I submitted where I was up to. So basically a small ad: Sign and get an award (and a slightly higher edit count) ;)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for an + edit count, sign it one letter at a time.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol :D...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SimsFan has subsequently been blocked for sockpuppetry and I'm about to delete that sub page. So I think this thread is best just dropped, on balance my friends! Pedro : Chat 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, at Wikipedia:Help desk#Arb Com Unblocking SimsFan said Arbcom (and Jimbo) have offered him a second chance. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but the block notice no longer applies. If this is untrue, Jimbo's 'New messages' banner should trigger him to get involved and say it was a lie. And I was only joking about the above anyway...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a jwales(at)wikia(dot)com volunteer who forwarded my email to arb com. Jimbo himself, will not know about this, it was arb com who gave me the second chance, not Jimbo. 92.5.91.181 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have not lied about the above. I can forward the email to anyone, if they want. I'll tell you the story.

I send email explaining the situation to jwaleswikia.com
A volunteers answering the email asked me if they could forward this to Arb Com.
I recieved the arb com reply, detailing my second chance.

Look, I will even give out my password to prove it. I can send a screenshot or forward the email or give a password (to jimbo). I will forward the email to jwales

wikia.com, and ask they post a confirmation here. 92.5.91.181 (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I have no idea what this is all about, but I recommend that SimsFan be given a second chance, and recommend to SimsFan to not goof around. Work on the encyclopedia. No sockpuppeting. No POV pushing. I have no idea, I should repeat, what this is all about. But as per usual, I recommend that we all chill.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo I just want to know your feelings on the User:FritzpollBot. It would massively create thousands (possibly even millions) of stubs on little known areas. This would be a massive undergoing but I want to see how you feel about such a proposal. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Potentially over 1 million new articles but I'm not counting me chickens before their full grown adults!!. Wouldn't it be awesome to have a detailed article on every friggin place in the world? Fingers crossed that it can be done and that indeed they can later be expanded. As for addressing uneven geographical coverage; well this is about the best we can do. Saludos! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something that needs a lot of discussion before actually doing it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. Something massive like that just isn't create "on the spot".--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it has been discussed for several weeks. I proposed the initial draft several months ago but we are figuring out how to combine the most reliable sources, e.g using the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency data on global coordinates and relief etc. I anticipate that once this has been done some time in the future another bot can be programmed to add statistics on population etc of these settlements obtained from official government sources. This way there are no "dead mans land" or vastly uncovered areas to the geo coverage as such on here although it will clearly be years before it is possible to have completely even coverage and full articles on everywhere. Obviously obtaining completely reliable statistics on many of the third world countries will be difficult and of course countries like Burma and China. Things are starting to look more promising though and I have seen goverment data released on countries such as Rwanda, Mozambique and Madagascar of late. Two years ago I could find nothing on Malagasy settlements. Now we have over 1000 articles which are not bad starter articles using government data etc. At the end of it of course we want to see full and complete articles across the world but we have to take a major step and think sensibly towards making this happen.

In terms of strengthening our encyclopedia I see this as an important task, I;ve always thought of articles on places as a backbone to any good encyclopedia anyway and many other articles are inextricably bound to place whether they are biographies or landmarks etc. Basically I consider "real world" content the most important and a priority on here and also to enhance the intergrity of the site and counteract any false claims made in the media that we are obsessed by articles on fiction or video games. I'm currently thinking about a way to generate articles on species and genera of which I'm sure you've noticed in browsing are severely sparse in places and if we are to take another step towards the knowledge totality thing we need to be thinking about how to cover areas of natural science and biology more fully. Naturally we are the encyclopedia editors who write the articles, but I believe we need to think strongly about how to give the project a further boost in some of the most important areas in the most efficient way possible initially, which of course is automated article generation (kind of like RamBot has done in the past but on a much larger scale). It seems highly ambitious but it is a possibility and an encouraging prospect for wikipedia at that. Feel free to offer your thoughts. Ideally I think several of us should get together (online as well as wikimedia meetings) and have a good discussion about what really is important to a respectable encyclopedia and subjects that would give us the most credibility and seriously plan concievable ways in which we can enchance these areas on a large scale, particularly if they are poorly covered areas of potential high encyclopedic value. For me geography and nautral life on the planet are amongst these. Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case it sounds good, but keep in mind the following points.

Will there be enough information for the articles to be a valid stub?
Will we have problems with the articles being orphaned?
Will having all those articles be...excessive?

But it sounds like a good idea in the making.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To your questions:

Of course. The articles would look something like that of User:Fritzpoll/GeoBot/Example.
They won't be orphaned, the bot will add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places/country of location. Plus, there may be additional links from a higher country subdivision.
I certainly don't see how it would be excessive. We want to, hypotheticaly, cover the world as evenly as possible. If we use bots like the rambot to create all the articles on towns in the U.S. why can't we have another to cover the world. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know this discussion was taking place over here (stumbled through Editorofthewiki's contribs) - I can answer any technical questions about it, but it is going through the bot approval process at the moment, and these guys have outlined the principle of the thing. Fritzpoll (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I already used a bot User:Phoenix-bot with exactly the same job as this bot. It created 300 stubs on little known places in Russia, China and kazakhstan without any prior discussion. I assume that's where the idea for this bot came from anyway...--Phoenix -wiki 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Blofeld/Editorofthewiki - I just responded to a request at Bot Requests. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, was good meeting you in Sydney.

Our policy of no CC-BY-SA-NC images on commons is about to cost us nearly 2000 really good images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Fabelfroh_2008

The images are high quality, encyclopedic, including a bunch of QI and FP. The user is allowed by their employer to release CC-BY-SA-NC but not CC-BY-SA. If we insist on CC-BY-SA or nothing, we're going to get nothing. I know that CC-BY-SA is more useful, but if we insist on people giving up more freedom than they can give up, the result is that we get less images than if we let people choose more, ahem, freely. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We've had mass deletions before. Long term the impact tends not to be as great as you would expect. Plant and animal pics are something we are fairly good at makeing for ourselves.Geni 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, by getting rid of suspect images we actually improve our overall collection. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspect? These are high quality images. 32 QI and 1 FP, so far, and more in the queue. About 2/3 microscopic photographs. We don't have a surplus of those. And who knows how many good images we just never see because people are taking them elsewhere. We are really asking for someone else to set up an equivalent but different repository, that does everything commons does and also allows NC submissions. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to do so. If you want more microscope pics it is probably a matter of finding someone who has acess through a school or a university.Geni 01:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not the quality that matters its the legal mumbo-jumbo that matters, and matters a lot. If by removing 2000 high quality images we assure the rest are legally safer then it gets my support. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a line in the sand issue, and these images are on the other side of the line clearly the author knew exactly what the limitation means. Therefore we loose a few images, even if they in an area of under availability but encyclopedic necessary. Then again its also an opportunity for a group to fill the void and make these types of image free through some form of funding like the Greenspan project. Gnan garra 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo? How's everything in life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.86.157 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Block this user. It is a sockpuppet. It is also a SPA. It nominated the Seconds from Disaster template for deletion and never edited again. Please block it! Please!!!!! (And please restore the template!) 122.54.93.104 (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of other people supported the deletion of the template as well. If you want to contest the template's deletion then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review - Jimbo is very unlikely to restore it. Hut 8.5 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but just interested in knowing what you think of the article Intrada? Is this suitable material for Wikipedia, in your opinion? - Fawn Lake (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, as the tag notes, "written like an advertisement". The lack of any sources leads the reader to wonder whether the place even exists. Overall, it is not, as it stands, at all acceptable for Wikipedia. Having done no research at all, I can't say as to whether we could have an article about this company or not, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, pretty poor, but we have many in much worse shape. The problem is that if it gets past NPWatch and there is no reason to speedy delete, it's pretty unlikely ever to be taken up by anyone. Whereas there is a Wikification Project, they don't really look at this sort of article, and have a huge backlog anyway. I suppose we should be grateful it's been tagged, but as far as I know, nobody goes round looking at these articles and fixing them. Sadly, it's not something Admins necessarily have time for, but I've tagged it for notability; someone may pick that up. --Rodhull andemu 21:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the question for NPWatch is if it is verifiable - not necessarily whether it has the sources (and encyclopedically written) presently included. WP:PRODing the article might concentrate the efforts of the interested parties - and article deletion does not mean the article may not one day exist in an appropriate format. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't PROD it because it largely seems to be the project of one sporadic editor, apart from having large amounts of irrelevant matter removed, but I will do so & advise that editor. --Rodhull andemu 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw your user page (User:Jimbo Wales). You also have IDs in other language (such as German, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, etc......). But why you don't have a id in Korean Wikipedia? (probably they called "Korean Wikipedia" in "한국어 위키백과" or simply called "위키백과" (Wikipedia) So I recommend that you create a id in Korean Wikipedia.--Abigail alderate (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Jimbo is SUL:ed _→AzaToth 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedian Administrator blocked my contributions about Jehovah's Witnesses by making accusations. Then please help me.125.199.137.118 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to try and answer you question. Do note that I'm not doing so on behalf of Jimbo Wales, I'm just an editor like you. I have been looking over your edits at the Japanese wikipedia, but have not found any evidence of a conflict. There is no entry on your talk page, and you don't appear to have taken this up with the administrator, or the Japanese help desk, or the Japanese arbitration committee. Those really are the steps you will have to follow when having an issue. If at some point you really think Jimbo Wales has to know about it, you will have to provide a clear statement on the issue, and tell him what you expect to be done. - Species8473 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless he means this user. But unless there is a translation of the reverted edits and the blockmessage on the talkpage there is nothing the most curious non japanese editor can do. Agathoclea (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The block was for abusive language on two user talk pages and as related to a POV conflict over the Jehova's Witnesses aricle (that discussion is here). In particular, this edit is an accusation of POV-pushing against a user and a legal threat against Wikipedia, as is this edit (although the latter threatens to sue "all of Wikipedia" instead). And last but not least, the block was only for 24 hours. In other words, there's nothing to see here.... --jonny-m t 09:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked permanently for not logging. Forthermore, my edits was clear by Japanese Administrators because of derangement of information(I think this is false accusation. Maybe they understand they add POV edits). Then how can I do? 125.199.137.118 (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

申し訳ありませんが、これはジンボさんが解決すべき問題ではないため、これ以上の議論は私の利用者・会話にてお願い出来ますでしょうか。日本語でも構いませんので、お気軽にどうぞ。 (Just noting that this is not something that needs Jimbo's attention and asking that the user move it to my talk page, in Japanese if need be.) --jonny-m t 14:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but I don't want to talk with Japanese Wikipedians any more because I think they are all crazy men who are abusive to me. 125.199.137.118 (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is not using {{hangon}} in Marco flores, instead, it is removing deletion templates in that page. Do something. This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 09:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with elsewhere - but didn't anyone ever tell you that "please" and "thank you" is effective when requesting assistance? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. At least it's over, for now. This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 10:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The article Jimmy Wales reads that Jimbo co-founded Wikipedia with Larry Sanger, but his own userpage reads that he is the sole founder. I assume that the statement in the article is the correct one, as it is sourced, and the same statement is also found in the Wikipedia and History of Wikipedia articles, so why does his userpage state that he is the only founder? I personally think that, if not mention Sanger directly, it should at least give the truth that Wales is the co-founder, or if this isn't the truth, all of the articles I read should be worded differently, as they currently clearly state that the site was founded jointly by Wales and Sanger.--Urban Rose 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, UR, that even if he says something others disagree with Jimbo can do what he wants with his user page, certainly to the same extent as any of the rest of us. Adding co-founder to an article is a content dispute whereas adding it to his user page would be treated as simple vandalism. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Jimmy believes he is the sole founder, but the the comminity in encyclopedic articles goes with what is neutral, verifiable etc. Since this is user space, Jimmy can do what he wants. He can declare himself King of the World here, but that does not make it true, or neutral. Z gin der 2008-05-17T21:41Z (UTC)

Words can and do mean different things to different people and different things in different contexts. There is nothing wrong with Jimbo being the sole founder in some senses of the term and also co-founder in other senses of the term. See semantics. If natural language was at all logical, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo would not be possible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue highlights for me some of the problems that Wikipedia has in achieving neutrality. Wikipedia is not supposed to take a stand on controversial issues, but in this case it does... against me, of course. This is mostly due to trolling, in my opinion. A proper encyclopedic approach would be for Wikipedia to not take this stand, but to merely report appropriately on the controversy. This is impossible currently because some people are such extreme POV pushers on this topic that it is impossible for good editors to maintain the article in a reasonable state of compromise. I try to mostly stay out of it in this particular case, lest I be accused of undue influence. It is a bit sad for me, though, that we fail so badly in this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm I know what you mean. Its bad enough having serious POV issues within articles let alone entire articles devoted to one view. Whether each of us regards George W. Bush as the worst American president of all time or not I don't think it is right for articles like Criticism of George W. Bush to exist. Sure one can claim we are giving an encyclopedic article on how he has been criticised but the whole stance of the article is wrong in that it tries to completely argue a single side to a story. This in my view is not what an encyclopedia is about. There are numerous other examples I'm certain. P.S. whats the deal with Sanger? To the casual eye it seems he is actually reducing his credibility by claiming to have co founded wikipedia. Isn't it rather like (forgive my British example here) Simon Sugar claiming that he "co founded" Amstrad with Alan Sugar??? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were to declare yourself King of the World, that wouldn't be controversial either, just incorrect. --Random832 (contribs) 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article does not describe Larry as a co-founder, it reads "together with Nupedia's editor-in-chief, Larry Sanger, Wales created Wikipedia" in an attempt to avoid the Founder terminology completely and not take a view on this. There is then a section about the dispute. The real question here isn't "Were Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger co-founders of Wikipedia" but "If person A and person B are both involved in the creation of project X, is it correct to describe both as founders where person B was in fact the employee of person A". Larry Sanger does not deny being the employee of Jimmy Wales at the time, on the other hand a number of news reports do describe him as a co-founder. The actually facts of which of them did what are not, as I understand it in dispute, merely what "labels" should correctly be used to describe their relative contributions. I don't think the snarky "King of the World" comment is called for - Jimbo is not making an absurd claim (his role in founding the project is understood) and he has a valid basis (that Sanger was his employee) for regarding it as inappropriate to describe Sanger as a co-founder. Were Jimbo not involved in the project and voicing his dissatisfaction through OTRS, he'd have been treated with a hell of a lot more courtesy. WjBscribe 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, do you have any source that somehow supports the notion that an employee cannot be a co-founder of something? I don't think so. Furthermore, even if you wanted to take an inappropriate legalistic view of the matter, you would still be wrong. Sanger was not an employee of Jimmy Wales in some personal capacity. He was an employee of Bomis, and Wales was not the sole founder or the sole owner of Bomis either. So there's no basis whatsoever for viewing Wales as sole founder of Wikipedia. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think I have taken a stance when I have not, other than that Jimmy should be being treated with more courtesy and less snark. The problem is that "founder" is not a recognised legal role like "executive director" or "company secretary" which are matters of record. So the only way to really determine this would be to look up who are recognised as founders of what organisations. What is the relationship between them? If you ask the question, "What does someone have to do to be considered a founder of an organisation?" I expect replies will be fairly varied and to some extent contradictory - it's rather a nebulous concept really. My point was that Jimmy has a sensible reason for advocating the position he does and it should be treated with the same respect as anybody else who feels that Wikipedia's coverage of them or their organisation is unbalanced. WjBscribe 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of record in that all the official press releases until 2004 described Sanger and Wales as co-founders. That's pretty definitive. It's hardly conceivable that this escaped Wales's attention or that he just didn't bother to say or do the slightest thing about it all that time, yet suddenly becomes extremely concerned about it in 2004. The only explanation is that he considered himself co-founder until that time, and then got the idea that he could try to change history, which indeed he might have gotten away with if it hadn't been for what he now calls "trolling" by a few critical users. So, he doesn't have a sensible reason for advocating his position, or he would have advocated it before 2004. It is clearly self-serving self-aggrandizement, in order, among other things, to be able to go around and collect five-figure speaking fees. Anybody else would be treated the same way, maybe as an outsider with more formal courtesy, but with the same result. If the available sources show someone was co-founder of something and he claims to be the sole founder, we will not change his article just because he says so. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not calling himself the King of the World. A few years back Sanger was better known and wikipedia not so well known but here in 2008 Wales is commonly known and described as the founder of wikipedia, not the sole founder or the co founder. Having seen various examples of people inserting refs about Jimbo allegedly being the co-founder into articles which are not about Jimbo but in which he gets a passing mention I would say the evidence is clear that there is unquestionably trolling going on around this issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What Wales is commonly known as today is the result of his own self-promotion. "The founder" of X is the one who actually founded X and this can not change at a later time. No one, not even Jimbo himself, called him the sole founder before 2004. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wales self-promotion is something we must take a neutral view on as editors (personally, though, I would say well done, nothing wrong with self-promotion). I disagree that how things are seen does not change over time, they clearly do. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do; what I said was that actual historical facts do not change over time. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the question then is whether someone being the founder is "how things are seen" or what actually is - and furthermore whether it is a matter of historical fact or current fact. If one takes the view that it's a historical fact; i.e. Jimbo - or Jimbo + Larry - founded wikipedia and therefore is/are the founder(s); then obviously you can't change history. But one could make the argument (it's an extremely fringe view, I think, though) that it's a current fact - i.e. Larry was the founder yesterday, Jimbo is the founder today, ?????? will be the founder tomorrow. --Random832 (contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that at the start of Wikipedia, no one called Larry co-founder. It would not have occurred to anyone at the time, because he was not. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2002 "The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project." via. I hope I can let that just speak for itself. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is the sole-founder of Wikipedia. Let it go already.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable but it doesn't really matter. Wikipedia as we know it was heavily shaped by others (who is more complex although software wise Magnus Manske was one of them).Geni 20:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for Parakeet parakeet Parakeet parakeet parakeet parakeet Parakeet parakeet. --StormCommander (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh...you do realize that Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is an actual article with lingustic backing? John Reaves 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How embarrassing for Seth Finkelstein to find that quote mere hours after one of the two founders claimed that the other guy was never called a co-founder. Technically, though, Wales is right. Sanger was called one of two "founders", not "co-founder". Another quote from the next year's press release was, "The project was founded by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales' Bomis.com search engine has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger led the project during its first year as a full-time paid editor of Wikipedia." So, to use Wales' logic, we might again say that while nobody ever called Sanger a "co-founder", Sanger founded the project. -- Fawn Lake (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fawn, I did not say that "the other guy was never called a co-founder". Please be accurate. Seth is quoting texts from a full zear after the period of time in question. They have some bearing on the overall question, of course, but are irrelevant to my point. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did say "It is a historical fact that at the start of Wikipedia, no one called Larry co-founder." It's not a wild stretch of the imagination to rephrase that statement as "the other guy was never called a co-founder". Unless you're splitting hairs to win an argument. Is that what you're doing? - Fawn Lake (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the sensitivities of the topic - and Jimbo - I'll try to do this reply in as much of a just-the-facts manner as possible. Note New York Times September 20, 2001 "said Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder ... said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales". Since Wikipedia was started in mid-January of that year, this is a reference approximately nine months from the start. Non-rhetorical question: What evidence would be deemed sufficient to disprove the claim "It is a historical fact that at the start of Wikipedia, no one called Larry co-founder. It would not have occurred to anyone at the time, because he was not." As in, a reference found calling Sanger a co-founder within time X qualifies as "at the start of Wikipedia" - WHAT IS "time X"? We now know time X of "one year" is deemed insufficient. I assume that after the above reference, "nine months" will be deemed insufficient. I hope "one day" isn't the requirement, since that would be absurd (as in, no reference probably exists, so the statement would then be a triviality at best and misleading at worst).

It is certainly a historical fact that Larry Sanger was described as co-founder or the material equivalent at nine months, one year, two years and three years. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO Jimbo you are much more of a household name than either the founders of Google or those of YouTube, let alone Larry Sanger, much more like Bill Gates who some claim was co-founder of Microsoft with that other chap. I do not believe calling Sanger co-founder helps his reputation one bit. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought here but why does this matter so much? Wikipedia exists and as far as I know neither Wales nor Sanger have found a way to collect royalties from a free site. So why all the controversy? No idea, as is shown by Wikipedia, is developed completely independently and without outside influences. This all seems like a lot of semantics to me. Anyways just my two cents. --EpicWizard (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sole founder of wikipedia, co-founder of wikia munchman | talk; 13:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems Arbitrator views on external linking to this site are being pre-emptivly overuled by attemps at talk page democracy. Linking to the homepage of ED can easily make way for "featured articles" to be viewed, such was the case in "MONGO", which led to the initial Arbcom ruling. link of inerest Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#External_Link_to_site. Any input or clarification may help cull, this already contentious situation from becoming a log-term honeypot of drama. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, in the past the arbitrators forbid the link to ED's website, not the usage of the URL's name without there being a link. Not even allowing the name of the URL to ED's site is blatant censorship. As somebody pointed out in that discussion, the most recent ArbCom ruling on attack sites has been for the community to figure it out and they did, through Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. If ArbCom has or does in the future specifically request that ED's URL be censored, then they should be ignored -- not for the sake of democracy, but for the sake of rational individualism. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so ArbCom rulings hold no greater authority than democratic mobs. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings do in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying "ArbCom rulings hold greater authority than community consensus"? I think that this Jimbo-ism might get a few more backs up than normal... Martinp23 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying exactly that. The idea that somehow "the community" could ever overrule the core principles of Wikipedia, for example, is just wrong. The ArbCom will desysop people, and quite appropriately, if they try. As a practical matter, of course, the community does not act so stupidly, and the ArbCom is quite properly deeply respectful of the normal community processes. But the community can vote 1000-1 to overturn NPOV, or NPA, or similar, and that would just be too bad, and likely some bonkers admins would get desysopped over it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and never has been.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is one significant problem with your ideology. These "core principles" are neither founded on objective facts or truth, but on the democratic mob rule which you speak against. The majority thought both WP:EL and WP:NPOV (among others) should exist, and hence they do. Monobi (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the community would ever "vote 1000-1 to overturn NPOV" is silly, and thank goodness all those POV pushers to those myriad of subjects they push will never get together 1000 votes because theya re only interested in their POV and not in the project but even if they did get together there would be a lot more than 1 resistance vote. The arbcom are not here to ensure we have NPOV but intemrs of its application and enforcement, that is indeed their work, as I see it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Quite right! So, we decide things through discussion and not by voting. I'm suggesting here that the discussion process which the community might undertake to determine (in the ED case) if links to so-called harassment sites should be allowed on the articles in question has precedence over the voting process (in the closing stages of a case) used by ArbCom. Martinp23 21:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: Where the URL is from should not matter. If it is used in an article to source a piece of information, then it should be allowed regardless of where it points to. If WP/WMF doesn't like ED and what they have to say or not say, then too bad. This is not a censorship game and ArbComm has no authority to rule over community consensus. They also have no authority to censor a link because they don't like their content. My question is why the sudden censorship spree? DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DragonFire1024, the community consensus strongly disagrees with you on the topic of random links to hate speech. Thank goodness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's a straw man, because I don't think any reasonable community participant has been advocating "random links to hate speech". Links with a valid encyclopedic purpose that happen to be to a site that others find hateful, on the other hand, have been a source of great contention. And, as far as your hypothetical examples of the community trying to "vote out" the core principles of this site, I don't see that happening now either; those who disagree with ArbCom-imposed link bans are, in general, supporting this disagreement with lines of argument that are soundly grounded in those very core principles, such as WP:NPOV demanding neutrality about everything including things that are hateful to our own community members. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking in general. And again, if the information is vital of an article then it would depend on what that information is and what it is in reference to and etc etc. But to suggest that a link is not allowed simply because someone might not like the site, or the content, or for whatever reason that is a personal point of view, really isn't grounds to not include it. I think the question should be is how important is the information that's wanted/needed? Does it add anything to the article(s) in terms of encyclopedic value? And so on. DragonFire1024 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are an editor here at Wikipedia with your own account, that means you have signed-up as a volunteer to help the project. As an editor here, its your responsibility to respect ArbCom decisions, and assume that their intent is only positive towards Wikipedia.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:CENSOR:

While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

We put ArbCom there, without us there would be no wikipedia, the community is extremely important, and the link is relevant, and should be included.--Phoenix -wiki 21:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the fundamental principle of consent of the governed still holds true here. —Animum (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying to hell with ArbComm...but merely that people are letting their personal point of view get in the way of what can be cited in articles, depending on the case, be considered useful. One idea of NPOV is to take those views and put them aside. If your views are too great on a subject then maybe that person should take a step back and cool off or whatever. But because a site does not hold good views about WMF or anyone else, does not make it entirely bad for WP or anyone to use as a reference. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that somehow "the community" could ever overrule the core principles of Wikipedia, for example, is just wrong. Right. But, that by itself does not mean that ArbCom has greater authority, since neither could ArbCom ever overrule the core principles of Wikipedia. Do you in fact have an argument? --Random832 (contribs) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom itself (or at least their authority over the community) is a core principle of Wikipedia.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is not a "core principle" because it was founded out of the will of one person, not by the community. Monobi (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Without that one person, there would be no Wikipedia at all, so there would be no community.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The real question is not about what the philosophical basis of the authority of the ArbCom is, but rather to simply note as fact that the ArbCom's decisions are binding and enforceable with actions including desysop and banning. And this is a good thing. Wikipedia governance includes with good reason an arbitration committee whose purpose, function, and authority has arisen historically and has been impacted by a number of different factors.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the philosophical basis of the authority of ArbCom matters, and what it does is irrelevant to the basis for its petty existence. If I was to create a committee out of my own will and claim authority to desysop and ban users, this "committee" would not hold legitimate authority. I see no difference with ArbCom. Monobi (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you aren't Jimbo for a start,and your description is pretty poor for what arbcom means. And what do you propose? Anarchy. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What do I propose? A minimalistic "governing body" that is created out of community consensus, with the "members" selected by the community, for 6 month terms and two term limits for a two year period. At any time any member or the entire "governing body" can be removed by the community and restarted for any reasons or lack thereof. These "rulers" and authoritarians will quickly learn they need the editors more than we need them. Monobi (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were complaining about Jimbo having too much say over the arbcom but your own recipe is less democratic. We have arbcom elections which are strongly monitored, which you appear to be replacing with community consensus, which presumably is whoever is around at the time and who watches a particular page. To allow "the community" to remove arbcom members is about the worst idea I could think of as it would seriously lilit the freedom of action of these members. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as limiting freedom of action. The ability of the community, as a whole, to remove problem arbitrators would make them more accountable. WODUP 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The real question is whether you actually believe that ArbCom rulings cannot be overruled by community discussion (read: not mob rule. community discussion) further down the line. The whole idea is somewhat blurred by the fact that ArbCom rulings are often contradictory. If I'm interpreting what you're saying here correctly, I have to admit that, despite your esteemed position, I think you are wrong. And it seems others agree with me, or are equally confused. Please clarify your thoughts on this... Martinp23 12:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that Martin's comment has dropped all the way down here in the past 12 or 13 hours or so, but I must say (as did he) I do agree with him. WODUP 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys have got to be kidding. Censorship? Community overruling Arbcom? You don't own the Wikipedia. You don't run the Wikipedia. It is your privilege to use, edit, and contribute to the Wikipedia, but ONLY within the guidelines, policies, and systems already set up. WMF has the right to run the Wikipedia, not you. Consent of the governed only applies in that you are free to not edit, and therefore not be governed. If Arbcom makes a ruling, or WMF "says so" then that is the way it is. If you don't like it, tough, you are a VISITOR, not an owner. No matter how loud the masses cry, WMF is in charge.--JCrenshaw (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about the Foundation. I agree that what the Office says goes, but the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is below that. Regarding the rules, we, the Community, make the rules, the rules can change, and if need be, they can be ignored. I think that if ArbCom makes a ruling, and the community at large disagrees, consensus should prevail. Arbitration is for when the community cannot reach a decision, but if the community agrees on a decision, even after ArbCom rules, the community's decision should stand. WODUP 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Arbcom is an extension of the office. It is a simple matter of authority and delegation. In order for Arbcom decisions to be fully binding the entity which created Arbcom must have a) had authority to do whatever Arbcom can b) had authority to delegate that authority. Since Jimbo was already handling these things (arbitration, banning, etc.) we can assume he had authority. I don't think anyone can argue whether he had power to delegate that authority. This means that Arbcom derives it's power from the top, not from the community. It is also, therefore, accountable to the top, not the community. The top will keep it in check as needed because it wouldn't be good for WP if everyone got mad and left. In this case there is a very unpopular decision, but Arbcom had the right to make it, has been granted the power to enforce it, and the top agrees. There is nowhere to appeal to, the decision is final.--JCrenshaw (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is not an extension of the office. The office tends not to get involved in the projects, by custom, and ArbComs can be set up by the project if needed. Nothing to do with office. Martinp23 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the English Wikipedia AC, they do indeed derive power from the top, not from the bottom - it's been upheld many times that ArbCom solutions are binding and not overturnable by consensus - for example, before she was unblocked, quite a sizeable portion of the community wanted Poetlister to be unbanned, but each proposal was turned down because it was an AC matter. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the understanding I'm hearing. Martinp23 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Extension of the office in this case means: "Granted permission by the powers that be to act in their place, so that they no longer have to get involved directly." By nature this implies that the office will no longer get involved in disputes that can be resolved by arbitration.--JCrenshaw (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They never did. There is no "no longer" about it. The ArbCom was, I believe, around before the foundation, or at least before the foundation passed the resolution linked below(?). Are you telling me that you believe that the ArbCom should act as the governing body of wikipedia? Martinp23 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to WP ArbCom was created in 2004 by Jimbo to resolve disputes that, until that point, only he had authority to handle. It is the "last resort, to be employed when all else has failed" which should include the community discussion being advocated here as a follow up. Community discussion, if any, happens before, not after, arbitration.--JCrenshaw (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's inject a bit of common sense into this. Would disallowing the community to overturn, by a discussion, Arbitration Committee rulings be in the best interests of the encyclopedia? —Animum (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, disallowing community overturn is absolutely in the best interest of Wikipedia, which is why, as Jimbo said above, it doesn't work that way. If the community could overturn an ArbCom ruling by discussion, the arbitration would be pointless anyway, since the dispute could continue on the grounds of "community discussion about whether the ruling should be overturned."--JCrenshaw (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that the authority of the ArbCom to decide issues is a foundation issue and is essentially beyond debate. If you're uncomfortable with this fact, find a different project. - Chardish (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the link you provided doesn't seem to support what you're saying. If you'd examine my contribs, you'd see that I've pretty much left the project anyway, due to other commitments, but you'll note that in my time I've done a hell of a lot of work for this place, so I'd appreciate not being told to fuck off when it comes to a disagreement. I'm not doing the same to you so I'd appreciate some reciprocal behaviour. Thanks, Martinp23 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A few things: 1) If everyone ended up leaving because this is undebatable, we would have no good contributers anymore.2) Removing a link form the ED article is ridiculous, we want the article to be great to our readers, not deleting the link cos some silly editors actually feel offended by people they know are fucktards, they really shouldn't give a damn about what ED thinks of them.--Phoenix -wiki 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The link DOES say exactly that:

"foundation issues [are] essentially considered to be beyond debate...[and include]:...The Arbitration Committees of those projects which have one can also make binding, final decisions such as banning an editor."

True, you vote with your visit, and if everyone leaves over an issue, they might change their minds, but I don't see that happening. Other than that, you have no vote after ArbCom, since their decisions are binding and final.--JCrenshaw (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

After some reflection, everything's fine in this case; per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Amended decision, the article and its contents are up to the community. I still think, however, that if ArbCom rules, and ~~the whole community~~ everyone else in the community disagrees, the community's decision should prevail. (Hopefully, we'll never need to test this.) Of course, it seems unlikely that the ArbCom would rule and not amend their decision in light of overwhelming community disapproval; they're chosen for their judgement, after all. Cheers, WODUP 07:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom are members of the community as well. Thus it's impossible for ArbCom to rule one way and for unanimous community opinion to be the other way. - Chardish (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How's that? WODUP 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, to start with. Oh, and you never get "unanimous consensus" - it just doesn't happen. Martinp23 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking how's that regarding his statement; it was regarding the amendment to my own statement. Sorry if that wasn't clear. WODUP 19:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If some decision is controversial than there is no consensus. Z gin der 2008-05-25T12:53Z (UTC)

Be very careful. The amendment ONLY states that an ED article is neither expressly prohibited, or allowed, however, it in no way overturned numerous other principles/rulings, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Outing sites as attack sites, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Enforcement. It looks to me like, although the existence of an ED article is specifically left up in the air by this amendment, LINKING to ED is still a major offense, and one you can still be banned for.--JCrenshaw (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The amendment says that the article is neither prohibited nor encouraged; it is simply allowed. The decision to link to ED in the article falls under ordinary editorial process. Linking does seem to still be an offense outside of the article, though. WODUP 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can buy that. I expect that, even in such an article, linking to pages that sexually humiliate or harass any WP user would still be off limits, but a general link to ED from that article would be, as you say, normal editorial process, and perhaps expected.--JCrenshaw (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes well it certainly is not nice to be humilated by some troll, and wikiepdia should take active steps to afford compounding that humiliation. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo. Just to let you know, User:Halo added an updated picture of you to your user page. I actually think it looks better than the last one. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually prefer the older one for now. I think I have a goofy expression in the new one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that an editor from Citizendium with Sysop responsibilities and tools who has made disparaging statements about Wikipedia to the media (a simple Google search will reveal comments to AP reporters) while abusing the anonymity of Wikipedia to use socks to build consensus on his pet projects. He also has generated a way to get his original research on the Trinity United Church of Christ inserted( difs and links provided below. is the first edit to Citizendium on Trinity page by User:Stephen_Ewen ( please follow link to Citizendium: first place User:CyberAnth shows up and his sock puppets making edits consistent with the Citizendium article. shows gnu release from Citizendium on the 8th of May.On the 9th of may at 0102 he added this to Wikipedia : after creating the essay with a March date . At 0849 he added the same to Citizendium. a shows his edit to the shared alma mater the Harriet Wilkes Honors College shred by Ewenss and Stephen Ewen. are the credentials of User: Ewenss. The same credentials shared by User: Stephen_Ewen with his Citizendium account . Die4Dixie (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wales, I understand IRC is the primary established chatroom for IRC. However, I find it hard to use. I was wondering if I could obtain your on-wiki consent, to create a Windows Live account like en-wikipediahotmail.co.uk, so users have a choice. The password for this email address will be given out to yourself, Wikipedia staff and established volunteers. Users can add the email to thier list of contacts and then ask away. I would like to involve the HPP in this. Could I do this? I would be very grateful of you could answer this on my talk page or answer here and use {{talkback|Jimbo Wales}}. Thank you for your time. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 19:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) PS: Could other users not answer this, I need Jimbo's consent.

I have no idea what any of this means, and I neither consent to it nor forbid it. I have never used Windows Live and I do not know what it is. I do not want the password to anything like that. I would prefer to not be involved in this at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Thank you for answering my question. It's great to see that people respond to others' thoughts and concerns.</sarcasm> :-( Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, this is a reponse to your answer (or lack thereof) to my question, which can be found in Archive 36 of your talk page. It is titled "Limited access to anti-vandal tools." Just in case you want to answer it (or just look at it and not answer it). Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kodster, I am sorry I did not answer before. I have no opinion about the question you asked. None at all. I have no idea. I do not use any automated editing tools and therefore do not feel myself qualified to opine on their use in any way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for my uncalled-for remark above. Sarcasm gets people nowhere; I understand this more than many. I just wasn't feeling well that day (I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak, but...). Anyway, thank you for responding, and I realize that you probably didn't have time to see it or just did not have an opinion (as you stated) and did not want to respond. Again, I apologize for being uncivil, and I thank you for (among many other things) responding. Have a great day! Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's this new invention called the razor blade that is very efficient in fixing that Problem on your face. Just a suggestion. By the way, will I get blocked for saying this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabe Wiki (talk • contribs) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Face shaving is a conspiracy to make men look like females. It's all part of the millennium old transvestite plot, started in Egypt, brought to Europe, and since has insideously infected the mind of the public though commercialism. Resist the mind-controlling transvestites! Wear a beard! WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What a terrible piece of advice from a wannabee. I am going to post this link for the third time on this talk page. Beard Liberation Front is actually a UK group otherwise Jimbo would stand a good chance of becoming Beard of the Year. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps recreationg South Pole Strip, which is apparently blatant advertising. DO SOMETHING! Sgt_Pikachu5^{talk contribs} 15:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This situation doesn't seem to call for Jimbo's opinion or action, any administrator could take care of it. I gave Powermcz a final warning, if he/she adds it again, the user should probably be blocked. FusionMix 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Wales. As I write this, I am wearied and seek rest. I will keep this short for the sake of returning to my work. I have been reflective in the last few weeks since I last partook of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I, as I said elsewhere, am a Congregationalist Christian who seeks forgiveness. I seek forgiveness of you, but I won't force it and I won't expect it. It's your choice. I don't seek to be unblocked or any other hope of award. I just want you to know I am sorry. I withdraw in Christ's name my threats of lawsuit against you, the Arbitration Committee, the other administrators and all other users I have hurt. To conclude this message, to make you feel better, I am resigning from the Wikipedia project. I wish you well Mr. Wales. God Bless you and those who remain here. God Bless and keep safe. I love you all, as my brothers and sisters in Christ. Resignation now in effect. End message. ForeverSearching (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish you the best. I forgive you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you ever want to converse in person, I could email you my phone number. A phone conversation would be a nice way to sort out our dealings and seek an agreement. ForeverSearching (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I really don't even know who you are. But it sounds like we are sorted. It sounds like you are all set now. I wish you well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And no one is home at PAW or pedophile mentorship: -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Or the return of BLueRibbon. Remember him on this talk page, Jimbo, he promised he would be back and he is. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see three people flaming each other. I'd recommend giving all of them cool-down blocks. --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Except one of them was just blocked for making legal threats, which apparently didn't cool him down at all. (He has added less than a dozen references to articles in the entire time he's been here, and has also been engaging in abusive sockpuppetry...) Wikipedia takes too long re disruptive fringe editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia, and because this case is tangentially a pedophilia issue, no one will touch it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, I would block User:Jovin Lambton, User:SqueakBox, and User:PetraSchelm. It might not cool anything down, but it would give the rest of us some respite from the fights they're spreading all over the place. --Carnildo (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would you block me? This seems a very incendiary statement. Its Another Sollipsist who has been attacking me and not the other way around. You want to unblock editors like Vigilance Prime who advertise as pedophiles and block users like me who are just trying to stop the pedophile articles returning into their former state of pro pedophile activism pushing. And remeber I have far more experience of what is going on than you or any of the eother editors involved in these articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Witness SqueakBox "just trying to stop the pedophile articles returning into their former state of pro pedophile activism pushing." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting statement, SqueakBox, since in the linked section of Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship, I don't see a single post by User:AnotherSolipsist. --Carnildo (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And so what? Look here for in stance, and AS certainly edits PAW articles, as do many of us. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Although what AnotherSolipsist has been doing lately is repeated complaints to AN/I: . -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to use this as a temporary name for a new country that will be added to the Dept of Fun and is maybe going to be rules by someone that is not you? Or should I keep the name and pronounce you as the ruler of it forever until someowne deletes it? Thanks for your time oh mighty one.--Darkside2000 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I dunno. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

okay never mind. If you change your mind just reply on my talk page Darkside2000 (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a high school teacher. My students always ask me if they can use Wikipedia. They seem stunned when I say they can, and they often reply with an astonished "But is not reliable - anyone can edit it!" I simply laugh them off and and share the countless studies that have shown Wikipedia to be in the high 90% reliable range.

I am curious though...what would you have teachers like myself say to students conducting research on Wikipedia concerning its reliability? SkipperClipper (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the English language Wikipedia is far more accurate than the average newspaper article but so far slightly less accurate than Britannica, and not even close to the accuracy of peer reviewed scientific papers. As far as students conducting research into this goes; I would think the most important thing the students can learn is proper methodology for conducting research of any kind, followed by appreciation for how hard it is to create a standard of reliability and accuracy in the first place to measure something against, and finally to understand that all sources are unreliable in their own ways to varying degrees. (It will be interesting to see what Jimbo will say.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For subjects that are covered in high-school curricula, I would argue that our articles are excellent as a first step in their research. Many articles are getting better and better sourced as time progresses. My son, who is a junior in high school, always hits WP first, and from the sources and materials he finds here, he gets to work on his papers and presentations. His comment: "Wikipedia rules!" :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am saddened to report that this Newblock user is again up to their old tricks. When I recently applied to be an administrator I fell onto his radar and I have received a flurry of EMAIL's from at least 5 different users (persumably all Newblock based on the writing style..or lack thereof). I have done some research on the history of this user and I saw that you where the one who blocked them, and rightly so. I simply wanted to let you know that this user has continued to make verbal threats and insults off wikipedia via EMAIL. Not that I think that they intend to or have the capability to follow-through but I wanted to let you know anyway since this is such a long going issue. I have all the EMAIL traffic if you want it. I am sorry this reason is the first opportunity I have had to leave a message on your talk page, I had hoped it would be under sunnier conditions. Cheers.--Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you email me all that stuff?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is totally not true and must be rejected, more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=215830039&oldid=215829811

Hello Mr Wales. What is the policy with regard to someone who was disruptive due to a psychological disorder, that got them banned, but now that they are officially on medication and are better, would like to return? Can a softer line be taken with them in letting them back, since they weren't fully aware/responsible of their actions when they were under the influence of their disorder? Thanks. 78.146.252.52 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am generally in favor of forgiveness and second chances for anyone, for whatever the reason. The important thing is always the future, not the past.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second that. This is a very forgiving community toward people who are genuinely sorry for problems they've caused and want to reform, whether because of illness or anything else. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see this and compare the IPs before even considering unbanning. Jimbo, if you are going to consider the past unimportant here you will at the same time be considering the time invested in this by checkusers and editors like me and many others unimportant. There are people who are banned for very good reasons. They should stay banned for the same reasons. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think, from Jimbo's post above, we can infer that he plans to unban anyone. The concept is that people aren't banned for past bad conduct - they are banned to prevent future bad conduct. If the chances of future bad conduct are low, for whatever reason that we can have some reasonable confidence in, then an unban should be at least considered. In this particular case I'd say the person behind these accounts and IPs would have to make some extraordinarily convincing argument for this latest explanation/plea to result in unbanning. Avruch^T 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest sending the info on the illness confidentially to either Jimbo or Arbcom. Z gin der 2008-05-29T17:34Z (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I might as well post the illness here, since it has already been spread all over wikipedia and wikipedia review. The disorder was Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a disorder which causes extreme moodswings, hyperdepression, constant attention seeking for comfort, etc. If the community feels uncomfortable with a complete unban, could a trial, with restrictions be somewhat of a compromise? 78.146.252.52 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not making any recommendation about the case in question, just trying to answer about the general principle. I agree as well with EconomicsGuy when he says that some people are banned for good reasons and should stay banned for those reasons. At the same time, when we see signs of a genuine change of heart, we can offer a gesture of goodwill. It is easy enough to reban if it doesn't work out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Jimbo. If the community is willing to unban and we can work out some restrictions and we have your support for rebanning without the usual bureaucracy I'll support that we investigate the options avaliable to us for rehabilitating this user. Ít needs to be an open community discussion though as a lot of users here were affected by this user's disruption. He caused a massive rangeblock of some 200.000 IPs (basically a substantial part of his ISP) when he was creating socks at a rate of 10 new accounts per hour on different IPs. Add to this his repeated unwillingness to accept consensus and warnings and I hope you will understand my concerns. I trust you Jimbo and if you think a solution can be worked out here then I won't stand in the way of letting the community work out an arrangement. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all of those accounts were made by me. As I said before, some of them were made by people I know, while others, I have no idea who they were, or how they ended up being labelled as me, but yes, apart from that, I did make lots of other accounts to cause disruption. However, I do accept full responsibility for my actions, and I know that what I did was wrong - if I was in a clear frame of mind at the time, I wouldn't have done it, but I wasn't able to see clearly then, since my disorder caused me to keep constantly attention-seeking, and to have hyper-sensitivity, which is why I reacted so badly to some comments by some users.

Yes, unfortunately, there are users who won't be prepared to forgive me. However, over time, I have been appologizing to several people I have been involved with, personally by email, including User:Jeffpw (my old mentor), User:Philippe (from the election committee), and User:SteveBaker (someone who I got into conflict with when I was first here) etc, and they seemed to be understanding. I have tried sending appologies to Arbcom several times, but without even a reply.

With regard to me being unable to accept consensus, I think you are referring to the time when I originally created this page: GHD (the hair styling brand), and people kept telling me it wasn't notable. I wasn't familiar with the system here then, and even though I knew it was notable, I wasn't able to find sources to prove this. I kept arguing against its deletion, since I knew it was notable, and it wasn't until someone else found sources, that it was removed from being deleted. Now that I am quite experienced with all the procedures, I understand about WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, etc; something which I was not benefitted with before.

Before anything else is discussed, I would like people to know that shortly after I was banned here, I went over to Simple Wikipedia, and soon after, was shortly made indefinitely blocked (for similar reasons as I was banned here). I am stating this now, so that everything is out in the open, but I would like to add that since I was only cured of my disorder after I had been blocked at both Simple and here, it shouldn't really change this case.

With regards to unbanning me, I will respect anything that Mr Wales tells/advises me. I have been trying to request for unban for around six months now, and yes, along the way, I have made sockpuppets, and even though they were editing constructively, I know this was still wrong, since it was evading my ban. I hope that if you have read my ArbCom appeals, you will understand how sorry I am, and I just can't appologize enough for everything, but I have been told several times by one user (at simple wikipedia) that my appologies are worthless, so I won't place a massive 1000 word appology up here. I am sorry though, to everyone whose time I wasted, and to the project itself, for wasting its checkuser resources, and damaging it. 78.146.227.27 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to you; no you were not (entirely) responsible for what happened on Simple Wikipedia. That needs to be said. I can vouch for the fact that you can make good edits. You are not a bad editor which is why I became increasingly upset with you because you were wasting your potential on fighting a war rather than focus on being a good editor. This still needs to be discussed with the rest of the community though. No more arguing about things that are the way they are for a reason and no more socking okay? If we can agree on this then 6 months is time served in my opinion. A lot of people will be watching you though so some kind of mentoring might be a good idea possibly with some restrictions for some time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to any conditions that may be imposed on me, of course. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay then let's hear what others have to say including Jimbo when he has the time to consider the above. We still need an admin who is willing to unblock and a debate about the terms so this will need to go on AN soon. I don't think Jimbo's talk page is the place to have that debate. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I've dealt with Benniguy/Iamandrewrice a lot over the past few months, and we've faced many problems since he's been "cured". Just over the past few days we've had hundreds of sockpuppets created attacking our users, and personally I'm certain it's him and his friends. If possible, could we get your CheckUsers talking with ours to discuss the IP information (and how it matches up with everything else)? They would probably be able to give you the best answers on what they most likely did/didn't do. Archer7 (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above, I believe what Archer is talking about is the mass of accounts that has been created there lately. I have no objection to a checkuser, since those accounts are NOT mine. I do however know who they belong to, but that is irrelevant, as her actions have nothing to do with mine.

Please note, this is not the first time that other users have impersonated me. I once tried to make an account at French wikipedia, and look what I found: . The account had one contribution, and it was to "Kent", the county where I live, meaning that the person who was impersonating me obviously knew information about me, and the name coincidence was not just be chance. Thanks. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Archer I think it might be faster for you to look at the bottom of the checkuser case on Iamandrewrice. The IP ranges known to be them are noted there. Alison is the checkuser here who is familiar with this case. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not a CheckUser, I have no IP or client info whatsoever, but users like simple:User:Creol or simple:User:Eptalon have dealt with this user before and have more knowledge than anyone else really on who edits from what etc, so might be able to talk to your CUs a little more openly. Just an idea... Archer7 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think the best thing for them to do is e-mail Alison and ask her if she has any relevant information to share with your checkusers. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't object to the checkuser.

Additionally, I would like to add something. Among the recent mass of accounts being created at Simple, was a collection of "IUseRosary2", "IUseRosary3", etc, which are impersonations of IUseRosary (someone who people know I am friends with in real life).

These accounts then went to the Requests for Admin page, and put IUseRosary up for adminship. Some users at simple then went on to say that they believed the set of IUseRosarys to be sockpuppets of either IUseRosary or myself.

We find this an utterly bizzare claim, since there would be no apparent reason in making a username so obviously alike to IUseRosary and putting him up for adminship, unless we wanted to get found out, and by all logic, this would of course not be true.

The same is true with the rest of the account creations there, which seem to purposefully do things associated with myself and IUseRosary. For instance, it is well known that both of us have had problems with Gwib (a user there) before, and low and behold, the recent account creations are all aimed at insulting Gwib.

I hope people will not be fooled by this like they were with the original series of sockpuppets created at EN. But a checkuser should clear this up. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If this is what we are talking about I don't really see how that points to Iamandrewrice. His IP ranges are well known and unless your checkusers have missed any of them I'll go with assume good faith here. Your checkusers should contact Alison. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is part of it, yes. There have also been a rash of other accounts, made in a similar way, and several of them feature profane words. People who have so far encountered me will know that I do not swear, but anyway...

It seems their checkuser (User:Eptalon) is online now. If people wanted to about the IPs used there, they could perhaps enquire there now. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Must... avoid.... pointing... to....

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So far no-one has lost their temper or passed any inappropriate remarks. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a link to the discussion on Simple. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have spent a great deal of time speaking with Ben by email over the past couple of weeks, and have expressed to him my very strong belief that this community will tend to be forgiving - in time. I told that I believe the community has not yet healed from the divisions he caused (whether due to a psychological "break" of some type or not, it doesn't change that he hurt people and THEY need to heal). This is a very complex case with massive sockpuppetry and accusations of bad faith: these things don't heal immediately, but they do heal. It is my opinion that he should not yet be unbanned, but I'm personally leaving the door open. - Philippe 18:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This really should be at WP:AN by now, but I have reason to believe that this editor has recently used an open proxy to out my previous account here. It might not be him but, as I believe EconomicsGuy has mentioned in the past, my ability to assume good faith with this user died a long time ago. He has also bombarded me with PMs on Wikipedia Review, incidentally. Even if that message (on my talk page) was not left by him, it's clear drama follows him around and he openly admits to knowing people in real life who disrupt Wikipedia. We are here to protect the project and if that means some collateral damage, so be it. This user has exhausted the community, and even when he asked the Simple admins/community to let him back, going as far to offering a doctor's note, they refused. Six months is not enough. A year to 18-months, perhaps. George The Dragon (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"he openly admits to knowing people in real life who disrupt Wikipedia" - Is that somehow my fault?

If I am no longer a threat to the community (since my medication), then it is apparent that the only reason I remain to be banned is punishatitve and not preventative. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not up to us to tell you who to associate with in real life, but given they follow you around and cause drama, if the only way of stopping that is by keeping you off wiki, that option has to be considered. Between you and your friends, you've probably created more than 300 socks on here and Simple. It's not on George The Dragon (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... okay I made an effort but this is exactly the sort of thing I was afraid of when I posted my first message on this thread. Clearly there is significant opposition to the unbanning. I support what Phillippe wrote above as well. Are we ready to move this to AN now? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfair that you would ban me just to make sure my friends don't come here.

And anyway, banning me won't have any effect on my "friends" here:

May I draw the attention to: User:Dramaqueen6999 who was here even when I wasn't.

78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take further discussions to the thread at AN George The Dragon (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[1]
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announcement

[1] [1]
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announcement

[1]

list of tools you might be loking for

list of tools you might be loking for

ITN

Fancruft inquiry

Wikipedia chapter in Jonathan Zittrain's book "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It"

Visit to Oxford

Adoption

Help

BLP

Advertisement

I guess...

Is it true that a User can put anything he wants on his user page?

Question

Thanks for everything

Giovanni di Stefano‎

System Developer/steward

Edinburgh?

Question concerning the Arbitration Committee's terms of office

Wikipedia:Responsible Editing Pledge

Request for Arbcomm for User:William M. Connolley

Feedback to Jimbo Wales' korean news interview

Trifling thing...

admin

Anonymous edit blocks of Verizon customers by admin Georgewilliamherbert

More on Giovanni di Stefano

Vicious troll from Wikipedia Review

Board restructure

What's Crackin'

Deletion

Cyberstalking and Google Indexing Discussion Pages

Wikipedia inaction to Threats of Violence

Discussion

BLP Issue

Hay Jimbo.

newwikipedia.info - with ads

Steward/Developer

User Global

For "what" the Bell Tolls

Antwerp/India

Award!

Thank you

Questions

Diamond Wiki award

Award for Awards

ITN is broken

The open proxies policy is killing people

Barnstars

Questions

Barnstar

JapaN

RM: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Pornopedia?

falsely accused of vandalism and I need help

Homeschooling

a question.

Simple question

Smile

Wikinews

suggestion

Hi

Takover

A barnstar from me? (a n00b at wikipedia - juggernaut0102)

Your assistance requested

board privacy resolution and encryption

Wikipedia Review Part of the Porn Smear Campaign

Deutsch

Removing the 3rr exemption from BLP - your input there requested

Hi Jimbo

How to create a WkiProject

Wikinews

The German Admins

Guestbook

Smile!

Smile!

Bureaucratship

Appeal In Re ESCStudent774441

NPOV does NOT mean "neutral", and you yourself said so!

2 Questions: I asked you to remove the insulting word "Idiot" used against me, but you did not. Why?

Ho do you get the status bot working?

MY PAGE