This is an archive of past discussions. 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Can you take a look at this? Apparently the article was protected at your request, so I wanted your approval before acting. Thanks. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Heloo man, Thanks for making the world easier by doing such site as wikipedia, I really appreciate it, hope u can leave a reply to my user talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Megahmad :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megahmad ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say hi to the person who started wikipedia. I have a problem;some say my userspace is a bit too my-spacey. I dunno how should I make a good user-page that is also allowed. I really need some help, ♣ Princess Clown♥ 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo. I unprotected Elizabeth Morgan per a strange but amusing RFUP request. This page had previously been indefinitely sysop protected by Alison, with a "per Jimbo" edit summary. Since protection was lifted, there has been immediate action on the article. If I screwed the beagle on this one, please feel free to revert/reprotect. Tan | 39 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy, I’m writing over an issue that has gotten some press coverage, on which I was hoping you could shed some light.
On 22 October Cindy Adams, a gossip journalist for the New York Post, wrote a column criticising Wikipedia for inaccuracy in her own biography, and for being unresponsive when she pointed it out. She claimed to have had a conversation with you that went as follows: [1]
I told [Jimmy Wales] my own personal listed information is factually incorrect and I can substantiate its inaccuracies with legal documentation.
Totally unfazed, he said, "People should use it for background - not as their primary source."
I explained the misinformation on my site is not only outrageous but hurtful.
Even more totally unfazed, he said, "Sometimes those sorts of things can be posted by someone who doesn't like you."
He ultimately agreed to a re-edit.
That was two months ago. He did nothing.
There was no further reference to what the contentious material was, so as a result all biographical material in the article was removed. Then, on 11 November, she returned to the issue with more specifics: [2]
I'm told recently The Observer incorrectly observed I'm an octogenarian. That stems from garbage which Wikipedia's founder won't correct despite proof to the contrary. This founder - now looking to stick his icky Wiki into global marketing although the thing fosters lies - said to me only: "Untrue stuff about you might've been posted by someone who doesn't like you." So fix it?! No.
I removed any references to her age or d.o.b in the article. I know you’re very concerned with issues of WP:BLP, and this is now being picked up by other news sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. It’s not exactly a potential Siegenthaler incident, but it might as well be dealt with right away. I was hoping you might be able to shed some more light on the situation, since allegedly you’ve been personally in contact with the subject? Lampman ( talk) 16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can try. (I rewrote this several times in order to be diplomatic.) I met her briefly at a conference. I offered quite clearly to her that she should email me - I gave her my email address - or email to OTRS (I told her the email address) - and that we would be eager to correct any errors. Her claim that I have refused to correct errors in Wikipedia is - let me be generous here - mistaken. She did not inform me at the time of what the errors were in her entry. My email to her to request clarification has gone unanswered. I applaud your efforts, which are of course very much our standard and in spirit with our quest for the highest possible quality.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I will, of course, respect your wishes on this subject. As the issue on Talk:Rush Limbaugh shows, I'm just at my wit's end with public people not telling the truth to their followers. But, my respect for you outweighs that. On an unrelated note, could you e-mail me regarding the Africa issues in the e-mail I sent you and Erik? I would be grateful. --David Shankbone 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Well, for founding the most wonderful project in the world. The idea is beautiful, not only for the US, but especially for developing countries where knowledge is needed. Great idea! David WS (contribs) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for trusting me enough with the mop for a whole year now. I try to avoid politics on Wikipedia, so we don't generally interact all that much, but there's always a cup of tea and a warm chair available for you on IRC, should you get too stressed with the whole project. Thanks again for the past year - it's been great. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The have a Good HeartBarnstar | ||
You have a good heart.". Wiki is always a better place when you are on duty! -- Danger^Mouse ( talk) 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
A Lucky Penny | ||
In the spirit of "See a penny, pick it up. All the day you'll have good luck", this penny is offered to Jimbo Wales as Thanks for creating WikiPedia...-- Buster7 ( talk) 06:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
I sent you an email regarding this, but in case you don't read it:
Do you think that edit summaries like this, this, and things like this should be used by an admin? And isn't it standard procedure to add Template:Block when blocking a user? Have a look into Scarian blocking User:SlayerXT and the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SlayerXT. And i'm not sure, but is it standard place to revert every single one of a blocked users edits no matter what? because Scarian reverted every single one of the edits, with no explanation. Alot of times, Scarian's reverts constituted vandalism because it removed portions of artilces (such as infoboxes) that the banned user added in. Any thoughts? I can provide examples of reverts that messed up stuff if needed. - - ' The Spook ( TALK) ( Share the Love with Barnstars) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion about the the SlayerXT puppetry issue. From his anger, I have to suppose that he found this so blindingly obvious that it outraged him that anyone would disagree. So, probably he was right about that. But no admin should ever behave in that way with the screaming and cursing. That's just not what we do around here. So I have desysopped him. However, I hold forth some hope that this was a compromised account or similar.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
When you desysopped Scarian was this a "Jimbo as constitutional monarch" action, or "Jimbo as a steward/founder" action? To put it another way, can Scarian be resysopped through normal means later?-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Wales. With all the respect, i have some doubts about the project
Thanks for the responses.
PD: My english is very bad, i hope that you understand
-- Unviejoenemigo ( talk) 19:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Heya, you desysopped Scarian earlier; well, in the subsequent discussion we thought of a wonderfully awesome idea. Copying mine for convenience.
That was my proposal; several users agree that we should go this way. I was just wondering what you think on the matter. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you should be aware that the above now indef blocked sockpuppet had previously reported Scarian to WP:AIV with a view to having a block enacted. I declined the report, commenting that ANI was the appropriate venue. For reasons that are now apparent (his own policy violations would be quickly discovered) LtS contacted you. I again wrote that ANI was a more appropriate place for his complaint when I note he had written here. While Scarian's comments were inappropriate, it should be concluded that LtS was trolling and he has exacted exactly the response he was looking for. I hope you bear this in mind when you review the many comments made in regard to this matter. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo has re-sysopped Scarian ( talk · contribs). Jehochman Talk 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I know that there is no point to this message at all, but I just want to say hello to the famous Jimbo Wales!! I would be honoured if you would write something on my talk page, anything at all!! TopGearFreak Talk 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A mirror ( SMSO.net) claims copyright on Wikipedia's content and has been contacted by numerous Wikipedians. They received a DMCA takedown notice a few days ago (I know because I sent it) and has not responded. They still do not comply. As you are on the board of the foundation, I am telling you this so you and the rest of the foundation can decide what action to take. For more information and a log of our actions, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Stu#SMSO.net. Dendodge Talk Contribs 19:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The best thing to do is contact Mike Godwin, legal counsel for the Foundation.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For creating Wikipedia, the greatest online encyclopedia ever! Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
A joint and most comprehensive Holocaust project of more than 200 scholars which International Editorial Board counted 24 world-renown scholars - a four volume book of 1904 pages collecting and desciribing all aspects of the Holocaust: events, places, actions, people involved in. This book is a reference book quoted and cited by scholars
Definition of the Holocaust on XVII page, Vol 1
... the Holocaust - here defined as the Third Reich's attempt during the period of Nazi power (1933-1945), to physically destroy the Jews of Europe - from the antecedents to its postwar consequences
Concentration camps entry is on pages 308-316, Vol. 1: The camps were subdivided into labor camps (Arbetslager), transit camps(durhgangslager), prisoner of war camps (Kriegsfangenlager) and extermination camps (Vermachtungslager). A map of camps is given on page 308. On the map is visible: one (1) concentration camp in France, sixteen (16+1) in Germany + Prussia, 1 - Austria, 2 - Croatia, 7 - Poland 7, 1 - Lithuania, 1 - Latvia, 2 - Estonia Maly Trostenets near Minsk Byelorussia is not marked on the map but it is described on pages 940-1, Vol 3. by Shalom Cholakowski
There are no other extermination camps and sites as it was suggested in the template
Jasenovac entry on pages 739-740, Vol 3. by Menachem Shelach "The largest concentration and extermination camp in Independent State of Croatia"
Sajmiste entry on pages 1323-1324, Vol 4. by Christopher R. Browning - concentration (85% of Serbia's Jews) and extermination camp (killed by hunger, diseases and gassed in gas vans)
Statements in 'discussion' here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:The_Holocaust) containing explict or implicit Holocaust denial in Independent State of Croatia:
Rjecina: 'Jasenovac has been extermination camp (maybe even greatest non Holocaust camp), but there is agreement between Holocaust scholars that Jasenovac is not Holocaust extermination camp.
VirginSlim: We're dealing with an area of history that's in flux, that's the problem, with definitions of the Holocaust changing, with even the same scholarly sources using the term differently within the same book.
Nitsansh : Bottom line: I wouldn't consider Jasenovac as extermination camp, definitely not by Nazi definition
AniMate: in terms of the Holocaust there have always been six camps designated as extermination camps
EyeSerene: Rjecina, I do see a rough consensus on this talk page that the camps under dispute can be fairly described as extermination camps, although they may not fall under a strict definition of Holocaust camps. Therefore I think your additions to the template are supported.
Ricky81682: Agree with AniMate. At the Holocaust article, Jasenovac is mentioned mostly for the Southern Slavs killed, but here, it is being placed under the Jews. I think it could go under the "Other victims" subsection as an extermination camp there.
Bottom line: Going to expose these 'experts' in newspapers or/and with help of the Anti-Defamation League. Some of the 'notables' above are your administrators. -- I am Mario ( talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A butcher can do butchery - not surgery, even when strictlty adhering to Assume Good Faith. Use reliable sources. No personal attacks. Try to make sure that what Wikipedia says is actually supported by the sources. etc. If the butcher's 'knowledge' is complemented by the utter lack of editorial ethics (fasely referencing books, articles, editorial rules, calling opponents someone's puppets, then falsely accusing and blocking them) you'll see only political pornography - not history, in the Wikipedia's articles. As a consequence - Einstein is portrayed as an Ustashe (Croatian Nazi) supporter in 1930eth ( Ustase article), and Jewish Holocaust survivors' testimonies attacked as POV (ugly Wikipedia term) and removed from the Holocaust era articles. All above will be two additional entries in my anti-defamation move against Wikipedia. Rjecina , Ricky81682, and EyeSerene 'discussions' and 'expertises' will be used as the primers of of the abovementioned pornography.-- I am Mario ( talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, I should start by admitting I am a journalist, but I still feel i can contribute and do that simultaneously. But, ignoring that, history has shown that when communities outgrow their leaders they move on and elect their new leaders. As the so-called Constitutional Monarch of Wikipedia, do you feel the project has reached that stage yet? Are you fully in-tune with everything that goes on? Every policy change, every essay, every guideline, every ArbCom decision? If not, will you not consider stepping down from your monarchical role before you suffer the same fate as King George III?
"Such has been the patient sufferance of this project; and such is now the necessity which constrains the community to alter their former Systems of Government"
In short, Jimbo, it's time for this all to change. The Wikipedia community has outgrown you. Please calmly abdicate in the style of King Edward VIII before this starts to get even more messier GTD 01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
What Wikipedia needs is for more and better leaders to step up to the plate and help lead; not for the few leaders we do have to stop helping. There is too little leadership going on, not too much. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Mankind will recall you forever for whatever you have done to the Mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapdutta ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the articles in your encyclopedia, 4chan, returns a legal complaint from Google when searching for it about child pornography. I do not wish to place myself in danger, and I would suggest that action be taken over the 4chan article because this has serious ramifications to people who might stumble across it. Thank you.- GemPiety ( talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
How do I change my signature, because whenever I put what I want in my preferences it says "invalid html tags"? P.S. I want it to look like this Iamawesome 800 THANKS!-- Iamawesome800 ( talk) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, you seem to know the person well so perhaps you might like to comment on DG's block of Giano. Is there a belief among certain long established account holders that writing quality articles is the basis of bad hand accounts, or is it simply that holding views contrary to some long established accounts sufficient? Oh, and DG stepping up as the enacting blocker might appear to some as inappropriate - given a past ArbCom where said admin was a party bitterly complained of and against Giano. All this right at the start of the ArbCom elections, too - is there not enough potential drama among the list of candidates and their reasons for standing? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
[Outdent] George, there's a big difference between requiring proven identities and allowing disruptive socks. If you think that socks should be allowed to run for ArbCom or admin or should be allowed for banned users, then I encourage you to answer the questions about those matter on your ArbCom candidacy page. Some of us spend a lot of time trying to get rid of disruptive socks. I don't think it's very funny when a supposedly good editor uses one to mess with the system and then throws a hissy fit when it's blocked. If it's a joke account then there's no need to mourn its loss, and there's certainly no reason to form a mob to attack the responsible person who brought the hoax to a close. David Gerard did the right thing (albeit in a clumsy way) and harmed no one's privacy in the process. Now let's get back to writing the encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This problem with Gerard should have been handled long ago. In fact, I was going to use him as an example in a question to all candidates (but that page seems to be protected now). So, in the light of the current arbcom elections, let me ask it here;
Imagine a powerful administrator who wants to silence some political opposition. He enters into an edit war on a Wikipedia project page and censors all criticism of his pet cause. He then protects the page on his version and even threatens to move it to Meta where he can more effectively control the content. The criticism he removed was civil and came from administrators and long time contributors.
It goes to the arbcom and parties present their cases in the usual way, except this admin who presents his case behind closed doors, in complete secrecy. None of the other parties can see or respond to what he says. Furthermore, he's on the arbcom mailing list by virtue of his previous arbitratorship, and is therefore 'in the room' as the arbitrators discuss and decide the case.
He walks away with no consequences for his behavior.
What do you all think about this? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC ?
-- Duk 17:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Those interested may refer to my (and other arbitrators') comments on the (now-archived) request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The economy really sucks...case anyone didn't notice.-- MONGO 04:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
YOu created wikipedia!!! AWESOME!! So you know everything about my account!!??-- Spittle spat 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Also please drop a message on my talk page!!-- Spittle spat 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I wrote this up a couple years back, but it wasn't brought up for discussion. See User:Kowloonese#credibility.2C_quality_control_etc.
IMO, an expert's approval mechanism can bring credibility to an approved snapshot of wikipedia without affecting daily activity of the original wikipedia.
Let me know what you think about this idea.
Kowloonese ( talk) 03:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at how flagged revisions works. I think you may find it interesting to integrate your proposal with the details of how that software works. In general, I support the notion of some kind of lightweight certification process, and especially things that can be tried without affecting daily activity.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Your action in linking to an external blog here has been mentioned here as a precedent for allowing a user to link to a site which attacks a living person on their user page. I don't agree that the two situations are comparable, or that your actions automatically create a precedent. Anyway, I mentioned your name so thought you should be informed. Thanks for creating this great project, and best wishes. -- John ( talk) 07:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
señor YOU ARE a perro and you are very astuto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.8.166 ( talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering, how come I am not able to edit semi-protected articles on here. My acoount is over 2 weeks old and I still can not edit these articles. Please get back to me as quickly as possible. Thanks -- NathanielMondragon ( talk) 05:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have mentioned you here. Feel free to return fire. :-) Jehochman Talk 12:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
G'day Jimbo - I recall that you've commented on some of these issues in the past, so thought you might be interested to take a look at this nascent proposal... personally I'm a fan of us applying a bit more rigour in deciding how to handle sexualised images, and would love to hear your thoughts :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hellow Jimbo Wales,no sé si sabes hablar español,pero trataré de hablar mezclando idiomas(porque yo no sé muy bién inglés):
Te felicito por haber hecho the Wikipedia,and porque también has crado Wikia,pero mi pregunta es:
What as hecho esto?,porque es difícil,como you has hecho todo esto?,porque hay que hacer los permisos de user,ect,y es muy difícil.
Un saludo-- 83.43.240.51 ( talk) 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
“ | Hello Jimbo Wales, I do not know if you speak Spanish, but I will try to speak mixing languages (because I do not know very well English): I congratulate you for having made the Wikipedia, and also because you created Wikia, but my question is: What he done this?, Because it is difficult, as you've done all this?, Because you have to make the user permits, etc., and it is very difficult. | ” |
Hi, Jimbo. Sorry to bring this up again, but on November 8, in regarding to the Talk:AIDS denialism that I previously brought up here, you said that a note should be placed in the discussion explaining what happened. Since User:MastCell was the one who archived that discussion, I didn't know if he should do it, or if I should, since I initiated a discussion on the matter. I left a message on his Talk Page about this, and when I received no response from him, I placed the note myself in that archived discussion. (I see now that MastCell indeed responded to me, but on his own Talk Page instead of my own.) RetroS1mone responded by deleting the note, with a clearly uncivil Edit Summary making disparaging comments about what I "understand" and accusing me of "promoting blp violations", leaving a message on my Talk Page saying that I "misunderstand" BLP, and began a discussion on the Admin Noticeboard, again making uncivil comments about what I don't "understand", claiming that you yourself "totaly said Nightscream was not understanding what censorship means what blp means". Did I misunderstand your instructions about the note, or is the note acceptable? Let me know. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you are right Daniel, I will stop beating this dead horse! RetroS1mone talk 02:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I was simply following what I understood to be your instructions from the prior discussion. Again, if I misunderstood them, I apologize. Thanks again. Nightscream ( talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Knowing that this page is monitored by knowledgeable editors I have an editing question. Recently, an editor changed "the Second World War" to "WWII". This is in an article about language and has nothing at all to do with or about war. I think it should be reverted since the term WWII seems to be more relating to articles about one of the World Wars or Wars as a subject matter. It's a military term, you might say. And the terms "first World War" and "second World War" are used to depict more a time or an era, so to speak, and are used in a more general non-military manner. Thanks-- Buster7 ( talk) 03:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This badly written article on a important figure has been greatly improved over the last few days. Maybe you could take a look at it, and tell me what you think of it? J.B. ( talk) 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo. As Chair, I was appointed by our group of concerned Ateneo de Manila University alumni and students, to convey to you our suggestion and complaint.
How do we know that you are who you say you are? You claim to represent the students of this Almeo whatsiname university, but we have no evidence of that. Also, perhaps you should familiarise yerself with WP:NLT. Namaste X MarX the Spot ( talk) 07:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Lux Lord, I'm not sure specifically what it is you would like anyone on Wikipedia to do on your behalf (or on behalf of the group you describe). Real names won't be revealed by any editor or administrator - simply, we don't have access to them. Even the Foundation will generally not have access to real names, only source IP addresses used to make specific edits. We also are not going to be able to police users who claim association with Ateneo de Manila to verify those claims or for any other reason. We have no policy on claimed affilitations that I'm aware of, and no need (so far as I can see) to begin determining whether those claimed affilitations are true. Is there something else you would like done? Avruch T 14:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been contacted by Doc United States asking to be unbanned. Someone "named" VK35 pointed me to this discussion where you indicated that you though it might be good to unblock him due to possible miscommunication or misinterpretation of checkuser information. The original admin who blocked him, Jersyko, is no longer active on Wikipedia, so I can't really ask his opinion. Any thoughts on the issue?
Thanks for your time. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
perhaps you can help me with the great article written on him to get it GA. Jouke Bersma Contributions 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This place looks like a black and white TV move. What happened? Rory the Slitheen ( talk) 20:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that any mention of money on wikipeda gets people flustered but have you ever considered as scheme whereby editors are given incentives if they develop an article to FA or GA? Improving quality is of primary importance but the number of Good Articles and Featured articles we have in relation to number of articles I'm sure you'll agree it extremely low. I wondered if editors were given a discount book -e-voucher or coupon or amazon.com voucher for every article they significantly contribute to and successfully promote it to FA whether or not it might speed up the process? If editors thought they could work towards earning a token for working hard on an article I'm convinced it would give them more of an incentive to do so. Also some form of book voucher may also result in the purchase of a book which in turn may be used as a reference to improve content on another article so it may be a productive process. Are you strictly opposed to anything like this Mr. Wales? Do you think the idea would have any success in speeding up the rate at which the number of articles are featured? Count Blofeld 14:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean money; that word is "taboo" on here. I mean a funding scheme for rewarding editors with e-vouchers who develop articles to featured status. If wikipedia really cared about quality and that "we are trying to focus on quality" as is claimed in the media we for sure would be trying to increase the rate at which articles reach featured status. If quality is of primary concern why not encourage editors to work harder at achieving it with a proper reward scheme rather than just the odd personal offer five times a year by people? I've brought it up at meta wiki. Count Blofeld 21:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.
Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? -- Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have asked David Gerard and FT2 to fill me in about the history. I have reviewed the oversight logs, and read Thatcher's summary of the situation, which as far as I know appears to be factually accurate. It is evening here, and I am going to bed. I am leaving Europe early tomorrow morning for the US, and then I will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, and traveling by car to a meeting with a Brazilian Wikipedian on Friday. I don't expect to have substantial time to devote to my Wikipedia work until Saturday at the earliest.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
First off I want to thank you for creating Wikipedia. What is your opinion/position on editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia by fighting/removing fringe theories/POV's, yet are using disruption tactics and battles? These same editors are constantly being called for their actions on AN/I. Yet, it is to the point that the admin's on AN/I have taken a stand of looking the other way with these editors because they feel that while the disruptions are inappropriate, they (the admins) do not want to do anything to these users because the users are trying to improve Wikipedia and are fighting the good fight. This has led to these editors being emboldened to bring more disruption the articles and ignore concerns of other editors who are also there to improve the article, by radically improve/change articles they feel needs drastic change.
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. Brothejr ( talk) 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy, The mess over in the Ireland articles has been going on for years, with a clique of about 10 editors filibustering and preventing any change to the article naming conventions. It's driving us mad, and preventing the articles themselves from being improved. Somehow I think we need binding arbitration. Not that I'm asking you to do it; but I would ask you to have a look. A number of us think that the most sensible proposal is to move Ireland to Ireland (island), Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland, and Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). That's a compromise over an alternative, which is to move Ireland to Ireland (island), keep Ireland (disambiguation) where it is, and move Republic of Ireland to Ireland. If you'd like to enter the hornets' nest, please see Talk:Ireland#Proposed_move_to_Ireland_.28island.29 and Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)#Proposed_move_to_Ireland. Go raibh míle maith agat. -- Evertype· ✆ 08:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems (as of today) that I am on the receiving end of editorial zeal in the Croatian Wikipedia. I say this to give context, my question is not about the particular incident but about wikipedia policies in general in cases that may be similar in nature and can be summed in essence as destruction of content as part of dispute resolution.
My first question is related to the standard of protecting wikipedia contributors and the community by displaying the full set of interaction guidelines on a prominent place on the wikipedia home page. The english version has the relevant content in the section on the left titled "Interaction". It is fairly easy to find information relevant to interacting properly with the community.
Is there a way to ensure there is a standard way to get to this information on all local wikipedia sites?
I am looking at the Croatian version, and the "Interaction" section is completelly missing from the left side. And the standards dispute resolution pages are buried in the third level.
As a contributor to wikipedia, my work has been removed for what I believe was editorial zeal, and not a specific policy violation (since none was ever quoted). Language style, while ok to call for imporovements upon, should not be the grounds of page removal. Moreover, editors should abstain from personal qualifications of the contributors. In my case, the editors have qualified myself as (I quote) a: "worshiper" of the subject of the article (a Croatian rock band). Rightfully inflammed by the provoking label attached to myself, I returned the favor with equal eloquence not on the content page but on the discussion page, after which the editor(s) have blocked my IP address and thus effectively banned me from contributing further. Note, the content itself was never subject to any serious discussion of its merits, in fact the ban was placed after I wrote a long piece on my views of the style issues which were raised.
Now this is a somewhat long lead to what I believe is the fundamental problem. If the standard of conduct of some editors in the Croatian wikipedia is at this level, then I am afraid that more information could have been lost by editorial zeal, or even agenda, which goes beyond the wikipedia policies. Before you dismiss me lightly given the (I agree) some personal circumstances in this story you should consider two facts. It has been reported in major Croatian media that the government of Croatia is using its own resources to stem the tide of popular revulsion against the government on the Internet following a series of high profile mafia style executions which shook Croatia in the past several months (including one of a major journalist figure). Second, it is indicative that the editor who decided to ban me has an avid interest in fighter planes. I am not saying, but it smells, of military interference into editorial policies. This wouldn't be a suprise in more democratic countries, let alone in Croatia. One thing is sure, the IP ban was executed military tribunal style, no judge, or jury. The larger point and my second and last question.
Would it not make sense for non-editors, or even banned users, to be able to (in read only mode) review editing decisions and edits done by the editors and other administrators. Specifically, IP ban decision and content deletions?
I believe a measure like this one would help affected contributors in preparing their argument towards the conduct of a given editor/administrator and will help the community protect the content and information stored in wikipedia.
Thank you. Debic. (empty comment for archiving purposes. Fram ( talk) 10:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC))
I wrote this up a couple years back, but it wasn't brought up for discussion. See User:Kowloonese#credibility.2C_quality_control_etc.
IMO, an expert's approval mechanism can bring credibility to an approved snapshot of wikipedia without affecting daily activity of the original wikipedia.
Let me know what you think about this idea.
Kowloonese ( talk) 03:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at how flagged revisions works. I think you may find it interesting to integrate your proposal with the details of how that software works. In general, I support the notion of some kind of lightweight certification process, and especially things that can be tried without affecting daily activity.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Kowloonese ( talk) 03:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.
Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? -- Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have asked David Gerard and FT2 to fill me in about the history. I have reviewed the oversight logs, and read Thatcher's summary of the situation, which as far as I know appears to be factually accurate. It is evening here, and I am going to bed. I am leaving Europe early tomorrow morning for the US, and then I will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, and traveling by car to a meeting with a Brazilian Wikipedian on Friday. I don't expect to have substantial time to devote to my Wikipedia work until Saturday at the earliest.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am a newly appointed Wikispecies admin. I am in dispute with mainly one other admin (Lycaon - who was also the only admin to vote against my adminship). I'm not sure if you are the right person to talk to about this, but anyway, it concerns my right to protect a single page that I created (
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stho002/New_Zealand). My reasons for wanting to protect it are as follows:
(1 - minor reason) I am doing this (in the spirit of Wikispecies) without pay, but there are others here who are trying to extract funding for similar projects, and there could be "conflicts of interest";
(2 - major reason) Taxonomy is NEVER fully objective, and the page is my take on the relevant "facts" (though still based only on (my interpretation of) published sources). If others add their opinions to my page, the result would be chaos. SERIOUS BIOLOGISTS CAN NEVER TAKE WIKISPECIES SERIOUSLY UNLESS THERE IS SOME WAY TO BE CONFIDENT OF GETTING CONSISTENT/RELIABLE INFORMATION. I believe that protecting my page provides usefully consistent information to serious biologists, while at the same time not preventing others from expressing their opinions, for anyone can still create an alternative 'New Zealand' page (using a disambiguated title) and link it to the relevant taxon pages independently of me. From their perspective, it is as good as being able to edit my page. So, I am not trying to stop others from expressing their opinions, I am just trying to stop them from fiddling with my opinions!
Sincerely,
Stho002 (
talk) 03:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see you on freenode. I know you have an account there, but why don't you go on it? Techman224 Talk 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimmy I am unaware as to the politics of wikipedia at this time but I was wondering if you could take a look at this [18] -- GlasGhost ( talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The abuse of Administrative rights is very rampant in Wikipedia. There is no mechanism in place to check this nuisance. The Administrators are not controlled and hence it results in the Admins indulging in vandalism and even blocking users without any valid reason. There is a type of Unionism of Administrators resulting in injustice to the contributors of Wikipedia. At present Wikipedia resembles the Third Reich rather than a free media. These are serious issues that hit the credibility of Wikipedia. So I hope that certain mechanisms will be put in place to prevent such type of issues from continuing. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that whole Brandt mess. It was wrong and I just want to move on forward. I hope you do well. Yanksox ( talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo -
Can you please have a look in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin deletes article per Scottish police?
Here's the brief synopsis, as I see it. AlisonW was contacted by the Scotting police, representing the Scottish courts. She was asked (as a Wikipedia representative) to take down our article on Peter Tobin for the duration of his trial, so as to avoid tainting the jury pool. AlisonW complied.
We now have a tempest on WP:AN, where some editors insist that the article must be restored immediately (WP:NOTCENSORED, it's outside U.S. jurisdiction, etc.). From what I gather, the trial is expected to be over in less than a week, at which time the article would be restored anyway.
I am gravely concerned that prematurely restoring this article has the potential to do serious real-world harm, and (secondarily) the fallout could also badly bloody the project's reputation. (Screwing up a murder/rape trial will probably draw more attention than the Seigenthaler mess.)
I'm here to ask you to weigh in on the dispute, and – hopefully – to encourage a little bit of patience. I suspect that you're the only individual on the project who is capable of acting with both the necessary speed and moral authority to make such a request and to make it stick. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's actually not the case, Jimmy, as you described. In this case the UK prosecutor or Court wants the article down because the historical references, which had been there for some time, about previous convictions of the BLP subject--he's a notable convicted and admitted rapist/murderer in the UK--may taint the jury now. They want the whole thing gone since we're high profile and have all the info in one easy to find place. rootology ( C)( T) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you re-granted yourself CheckUser two weeks ago and still haven't "returned" the bit. Are you planning on keeping it going forward? (Just general curiosity. :-) Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! I didn't know where else to go so I will make this quick as you are probably really busy.
From the beginning of the Assyrian people's article we've had problems with the ongoing nameconflict. Some identify as Syriacs other as Chaldeans or Assyrians. We have had this nameconflict going on for two long, for years. I want to ask you to move the page from Assyrian people to Assyrian/Syriac people and lock it if able. Thanks -- Yohanun ( talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UT (archiving comment) Fram ( talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you give me MediaWiki 1.14 alpha? 202.137.66.72 ( talk) 01:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
(archiving comment, this section did not get picked up by the archive bot for some reason. Fram ( talk) 07:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC))
Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.
Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? -- Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have asked David Gerard and FT2 to fill me in about the history. I have reviewed the oversight logs, and read Thatcher's summary of the situation, which as far as I know appears to be factually accurate. It is evening here, and I am going to bed. I am leaving Europe early tomorrow morning for the US, and then I will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, and traveling by car to a meeting with a Brazilian Wikipedian on Friday. I don't expect to have substantial time to devote to my Wikipedia work until Saturday at the earliest.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
A better question, IMHO, is "Why is this exact same question posted 3x on the same individual's talk page?" I count two instances in Archive 40 [19] [20] and now this one. I understand--it's an important question--but this repetition seems to approach the realm of POINTiness. GJC 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, it looks like FT2 has commented. Now, Jimbo, can you please answer my questions;
I have some new questions too;
I will answer your questions as best I can. I would appreciate it if, going forward, you would drop the hostile tone and ask your questions in a more thoughtful way.
(1) I think these oversights were not within policy, and that minor mistakes of this nature should not result in immediate removal of the power. In any event, I have never personally removed the oversight bit from anyone and I'm quite sure that me acting as judge, jury, and executioner in such cases would quite properly be frowned upon. The oversighters monitor each other; you may want to ask them to clarify circumstances in which they would recommend that the bit be removed.
(2) It is absolutely false to claim that anyone was banned for bringing this to light. If you think I am mistaken, please supply me details.
(3) I waited for FT2 to comment because I wanted to make sure I understood what happened. I'm quite sure that I ought not to go around making half-baked comments without the facts in hand. I will leave such behavior to others. I prefer to be as careful and deliberate as I can be; I hope that you will respect that.
(4) I am unaware of any delaying tactics. You asked me last week, and I looked into it over a holiday weekend as best I could. It's Monday now, and I still have some unanswered questions (not, by the way, due to anyone stalling or being less than 100% transparent with me, it's just that there's a lot of history to understand).
(5) I don't think edit histories should be falsified, so your question is invalid.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My mostly uninvolved impression here is that a line, and a big line, should be drawn under all of this, as raking over the ashes is detracting from the primary purpose of building an encyclopedia. It's sadly a measure of the maturity of any social construct that it will inevitably be drawn into self-analysis rather than actually getting on with the job in hand, and that can be destructive. *Accordingly, I put forward the following propositions:
# Any substantiated breach of this agreement by Peter Damian or any other party thereto will result in immediate and irrevocable banning from this project, including, but not limited to, bad-faith abuse of checkuser privileges. I know it's late where I am, but this does really need some balls. --
Rodhull
andemu 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy, did you possibly overstate the case against Giano? To the best of my knowledge Giano has never outed anybody. Perhaps you have confused him with somebody else and an apology is due? This situation is difficult enough without adding more potentially false accusations to the stew. Jehochman Talk 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As JWales posts above that he is standing by his allegation. Here is the truth: JWales and I had an email dialogue in early September 2008, which touched on FT2. I was concerned that allegations on WR, following hot on the Poetlister debacle were damaging to Wikipedia's international reputation. A view I still hold. My email to JWales began "I don't know if you have seen last weeks outing of FT2, on WR, nor do I know if the damaging allegations contained in that outing are true or not, and it doesn't really matter because it is only one small part of what appears to be a recurring overall problem." I obviously can't post JWales' replies but I can tell you that he did not agree that such allegations were damaging to Wikipedia and that was the end of the correspondence which consisted of approximately 6 emails.. I was not aware we had parted with any bad blood. In fact, 2 weeks later we had a perfectly reasonable exchange concerning an unwell, former Wikipedian attempting to damage the project - and we were in complete mutual agreement on handling that matter.
Last night, In an email to to third party (not FT2, although JWales may have copied him) JWales made the false claim that I (Giano) "participates in WR and aggressively participates in their outing campaigns." This has made me more than angry. Outing people has never been one of my interests, I deplore it. I frequently warn private email correspondents against giving out too much information. I know the RL names of many of those who don't agree with some of my thoughts, but I can say without fear of any contradiction, not one of them has ever worried I would out them. I have always protected everyone's right to privacy. Even recently on WR, that of JWales' own family. The only time I have ever asked for an oversight in one "my debacles" was because an adversary had inadvertently given away private info relating the Admin who blocked me. Editors RL privacy is paramount to me, no matter who they are. To those of you, (some from a surprising quarters) who have posted kind messages on my page - thanks it means a lot. I just want you all to know that I do have standards. Giano ( talk) 11:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, Welcome to my home town , Thiruvananthapuram ! I do wish to meet you but I am away in Bangalore . Anyways a warm welcome to you to India again , from the Indian Wikipedians ! -- Tinu Cherian - 12:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'll actually garner Jimbo's attention, but I figure his many page watchers might be able to help. There was a quote of Jimbo's that I read once. The guts of it was, whenever he was asked to investigate admin abuse, he was always surprised that the person asking wasn't blocked long ago. Ring any bells? Anyone got a page link? I'm pretty sure I saw it on a policy or guideline page, but now I can't find it (always possible it's been edited out). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In USA Wikipedia is registered as public organization. Does this mean that Wikipedia User pages policies should comply with rights (such as FREE SPEECH) protected by US Constitution ? Apovolot ( talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes (in part) and particularly with the following comment there, which raised my curiosity level: "Changed my vote (above) to regular Delete due to the relentless campaign by User:Apovolot, who uses arguments like 'free speech' that are not to be found in Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)" Apovolot ( talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rodhullandemu - should I consider your reply as rendering of legal opinion ? Apovolot ( talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides the legal aspect of the issue, there is also a moral one: Should Wikipedia User pages policies try by free intent to comply with FREE SPEECH protected by US Constitution ? Apovolot ( talk) 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This reply sounds like deja vu to me ... I think I have heard something like this before ? ... Oh yes: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". Apovolot ( talk) 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, isn't "our server, our rules" logic just serves as easy escape from facing moral issues question ? Apovolot ( talk) 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone from Wikipedia will readily admit that Wikipedia's collective "What we want" is in contradiction with articles of US Constitution ? Apovolot ( talk) 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This discussion (on this page, which in fact represents the *face* of Wikipedia) clearly shows to any *outsider* that Wikipedia, which I am sure was created with the noble goal of spreading the Knowledge and Truth, has eroded into "Borg-like" police state collective of brain-washed zealous fanatics, who prefer to blindly follow the "rules" instead of using their personal moral judgment. An amazed outsider will see in this discussion all vestiges of very unappealing, uncharismatic dictatorship without Human Face ... This is what happens when noble goals are pursued using wrong methods ! Apovolot ( talk) 11:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone taken a look at International Law? Because the United Stated is joined to the United Nations, it has to follow some international laws. Is there any International laws allowing free speech? Techman224 Talk 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Trodel, I think it may be you that is uninformed - at least insofar as understanding the separate implications of any free speech protections and the section 230 status of the Wikimedia Foundation. The original poster seemed to posit a 'right to free speech' - using the American constitution as a basis for that right. That is simply not true - there is no constitutional right to free speech on private property not your own, or right to freedom from limitations on speech in a private context. Obviously there is some complexity in terms of the definition of "private property", but generally speaking... rights guaranteed in the US constitution are written to prevent (or require) government action only. The Section 230 status is something apart. The Wikimedia Foundation does not directly publish or endorse any content, it provides the hosting service (and myriad other non-content services). The Wikipedia community, on the other hand, is empowered to control the content of the Wikipedia project. Editors on Wikipedia have the privilege of editing as long as that privelege is not revoked by the "agents" of the community (administrators). There is no legal right at stake. Avruch T 23:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Apovolot, I hope you realize that the First Amendment in the United States protects citizens from the government, not from other individuals or entities. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
What is going on on the front to move Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA? As the GFDL 1.3 does not allow the transition to CC-BY-SA of GFDL material from external sources added after November 1, 2008, every day that passes makes more work to find and remove any integrated text if and when the transition takes place. Even if there are other issues that must be seen to before the transition can officially take place MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning can be changed immediately to say "You irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the terms o the GFDL and CC-BY-SA". This will make it that when the transition does take place only November (and three days of December) would have to be reviewed for external GFDL contributions. To me, this seems like a no-brainer, and I'd make the change myself, but I'm afraid I'd be lynched. Jon513 ( talk) 23:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently recieved an email from somebody, requesting that this page be deleted because it reveals unwanted personal information. Can you delete it please, to resolve the problem? Thanks. -- 92.9.247.207 ( talk) 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support deletion. Please delete the page. It really does offend him. -- 92.17.56.95 ( talk) 17:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
HPJoker got temp banned a day or so ago for Uncivility. Earlier today he got his ban extended to an indefinite ban and has proof that it was not him "avoided" his ban with another IP. The IP he was using at 20:22, 2 December 2008 was 161.97.198.130. This is an IP for Fairview High School. He used an IP Tracer to find the location of the IP that added insults to Atlantabravz talk page while Joker was at school. The tracer said that it was a New York City IP. He explains it on the bottom of his talk page. He wishes that with this evidence that he can get the indef ban taken off. FYI the IP Tracer he used was this, just in case you want to try the IPs. It's basically...
161.97.198.130 A Fairview IP Address
74.50.119.142 IP address mistaken to be HPJoker
76.120.0.210 HPJoker's real IP address
Try out those IPs in the tracer above if you want to. You can reply on HPJoker's Talk Page. Thank you. 24.37.32.193 ( talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, I'm not asking for your intervention or anything, just wanted to point you to one of the most trenchant and rapidly-evolving discussions and associated articles in Canadian Wikipedia history.....as in a long-ago post here, my main observation is about the vibrancy and resilience of Wikipedia's community in patrolling for untruth and propaganda and "information war". I've been accused of blogging on this page, and granted I am a long-winded and sometimes colourfully-tongued bastard, but it's because there have been so many attempts to distort facts and misrepresent them and also to give equal weight to lies as if they were "balance" to the truth. This article and the associated debate are something to be proud of in Wikipedia-culture terms; a demonstration of the utility of Wikipedia in building a record of public events/debate as a function of a democratic society; Wikipedia takes a lot of heat in media jokes/put-downs but at times like this it's breathtaking in its cogency and communal/consensual nature. Get yourself a coffee (I recommend tossing some whiskey in it instead of cream, it's a long read) and sit yourself down to the whole page, and keep an eye on it as the day evolves - "it ain't over 'til it's over, and we haven't even met the fat lady yet" - the "crisis" is on hold at this very moment as the decision we've all been speculating/debating on that page is pending - by the minute. Don't expect to understand the crisis; we, as Canadians, don't really either - we're trying to sort it out, which is what the talkpage is a reflection of. Some aspects of what's going on are very disturbing, as has the degree by which partisan Cyber warfare has become all too evident across a whole swathe of Canadian Wikipedia articles....we can be frustrated about it; as far as Wikipedia's role in it, you should be proud.... Skookum1 ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo I am unaware as to the politics of wikipedia at this time but I was wondering if you could take a look at this [21]; I truly believe it could fundamentally change wikipedia.-- GlasGhost ( talk) 20:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you look at the Flagged Revisions extension which has been recently adopted in German Wikipedia and which I think will be adopted in English and most other languages over the next year. It may be in some ways usable for what you are proposing.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you re-granted yourself CheckUser two weeks ago and still haven't "returned" the bit. Are you planning on keeping it going forward? (Just general curiosity. :-) Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
but do you consider this an acceptable reason for opposing an rfa? PXK T /C 03:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In the website Uncyclopedia,I've found an user called Jimbo wales,is that really you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.50.155 ( talk) 17:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a courtesy post to let you know I've initiated a motion at RFAR to ask Arbcom to look at allowing user:Peter Damian to edit mainspace whilst abiding by the rest of the restrictions he agreed with User:Thatcher. kind regards -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I work principally on Mexico-related articles and put a lot of time and effort researching them, trying to write good articles, never mind featured articles. I find the process really frustrating. I have submitted articles for peer review and good article status but I get conflicting, incomplete advice. I also get condescention by some editors as well. For example, I submitted Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral for both peer review and Good article status. The second process is on hold, for reasons the reviewer stated on the review page. Some of the reasons are valid and I have started to address those, but some seem to be really nitpicking. I have read the requirements for good article, and I felt the article fit the description. But after reading the review, I feel like an idiot... not a comfortable feeling for one who works in academia (though I admit I am not a historian or architect). I have read lamentations here about how few articles have good or featured status and after dealing with some of review processes I have to wonder if part of the problem is that Wikipedia makes it harder than it has to be. I mean, for Pete's sake, this is what the page looked like before I started seriously working on it. [22] Thelmadatter ( talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making the place. ;) — C eran thor 03:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the AP has gotten hold of the current story [23]. DriedOut ( talk) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Might I invite your participation, here? TerriersFan ( talk) 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know the current IWF problem has made the BBC news website Wikipedia child image censored. DuncanHill ( talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AN#Major_UK_ISPs_reduced_to_using_2_IP_addresses. Prodego talk 16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The http://www.iwf.org.uk/ UK Internet watch program, has flagged the WMF for hosting inappropriate content. Specifically, "The UK Hotline for reporting illegal content specifically: Child sexual abuse content hosted worldwide and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK" their site says, and then ISPs in the UK I think are compelled to restrict access as this stuff is illegal in the UK. rootology ( C)( T) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That Virgin Killer image is now up for deletion here. rootology ( C)( T) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
< - echoing the 'fwiw' thread at the noticeboard - I jsut thought I'd highlight that work on a Wikipedia:Sexual content proposal pre-dates this controversy, and will hopefully move towards sensible guidelines for editors and readers alike - all help and input most welcome :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's probably a job for Jimbo and the UK ISPs or the IWF that they are delegating this to. "IWF blacklists largest encyclopedia in the world, for hosting illustrative image on a well known music iindustry controversy". Could go either way. Maybe point out that we do host non-censored material, but we never do so gratuitously and only when there is good cause to believe it has been cited in other reputable media. Members of the public trust Wikipedia for information on all areas of information, including such controversies, and largely these are handled responsibly and with considerable thought, by a wide range of uninvolved parties who examine each case individually for encyclopedic merit. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how the different laws apply to Commons vs. en.Wiki, or children vs. adults. Where does this fit in (private schools may want Wikipedia behind firewalls for pages like this, but I'm unclear on the different legalities wrt public schools, etc.). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
You have many admirers at Indiana University in Bloomington who would like to invite you to come to give a talk on any subject. If this is a possibility, how should we proceed?
Jeff Hart, Professor, Indiana University http://mypage.iu.edu/~hartj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartjeff12 ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Email me? -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to make you aware that a second article on Wikipedia, the Virgin Killer Controversy article has now also been blocked to many UK users. Regards -- tgheretford ( talk) 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone told me this, but I would love to have direct confirmation from people we know and trust. I am not sure where to ask to get this question the widest audience, but I suppose people who watch my talk page will have some ideas and get the word out that I'm wondering. Best would be a huge set of images (posted, I suppose, to flickr) showing the album for sale.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the Channel 4 news broadcast on the subject, their correspondent was able to purchase the album on High Street. Avruch T 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make an argument that the Virgin Killer image should be removed here: Talk:Virgin Killer#An attempt at a serious discussion, but it's clear (as you've no doubt noticed yourself) consensus is pretty strongly against it. While I don't wish to look like I'm asking for consensus to be overturned here... if the image is going to get removed, it'll have to be by Office Action, not through normal editing procedures. Just an FYI. Terraxos ( talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps, a Jimbo Wales initiated deletion request that can't be speedy closed, so that the community can decide definitively, the chips fall where they may. Ideally not on the IFD page, which is really unwieldy. rootology ( C)( T) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The relevant law here is the Protection of Children Act 1978, which criminalised "indecent images of children"; that Act does not define "indecency", but decided appeal cases state that this is to be assessed with regard to "prevailing community standards". This makes it difficult to assess an image today that was originally produced 32 years ago at roughly the crossover from glam-rock to punk rock, and, it has to be said, before the above Act became law. However, it's a principle of UK law (in contrast to most European law) that any act is legal until made illegal, so it could be argued that continuous availability of this image over such a long period, and even today, is persuasive as to its legality. However, until that is tested before a court, we have no way of knowing. It's made more difficult because one jury cannot bind another, and a decision made in Bristol would be irrelevant in Manchester. In the UK, however, there have been numerous examples of images reported for prosecution in recent years (some of which have been of the photographers' own children, who just happened to be nude at the time), which have come to nothing. On balance, I think it unlikely that the Crown Prosecution Service would consider any action in relation to this image to pass the tests of (a) public interest or (b) more than 50% chance of success, to sanction a prosecution. My belief in this is strengthened by the fact that any such prosecution would have to be sanctioned by the Director of Public Prosecution, and his advisers would undoubtedly be aware of recent events. -- Rodhull andemu 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, above you quite rightly state "As a community, we are already quite firm: we do not and will not accept images of child pornography". However, are you aware of the number of potentially sexual images held on WMF servers where the subjects may, or may not, be above the age of consent?
How many of the following images can you/we actually prove are from people of legal age? And these are just some examples of many:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_(female) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_reproductive_system http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation
Surely we have to stop accepting images unless full proof can be obtained that the subject of the picture 1) gives consent and 2) is of a legal age to give consent, at the very least? As things stand, we are facing a real risk. Thanks GTD 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, in reading around the net on the UK censorship thing, I came across this link, written by Neil Gaiman. It was written a few days before the UK ordeal, and I think this can be useful background and arguments for you, if you are ever asked questions about UK censorship on 'icky things' again. It provides some historic context for censoring in the UK, and about having to sometimes 'defend the indefensible'. I found it most interesting. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what the usual practice is, but if you want some food for thought, you might want to take a look at this thread. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I’ve sent reply to your mail. -- Avinesh T 09:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Can you take a look at this? Apparently the article was protected at your request, so I wanted your approval before acting. Thanks. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Heloo man, Thanks for making the world easier by doing such site as wikipedia, I really appreciate it, hope u can leave a reply to my user talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Megahmad :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megahmad ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say hi to the person who started wikipedia. I have a problem;some say my userspace is a bit too my-spacey. I dunno how should I make a good user-page that is also allowed. I really need some help, ♣ Princess Clown♥ 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo. I unprotected Elizabeth Morgan per a strange but amusing RFUP request. This page had previously been indefinitely sysop protected by Alison, with a "per Jimbo" edit summary. Since protection was lifted, there has been immediate action on the article. If I screwed the beagle on this one, please feel free to revert/reprotect. Tan | 39 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy, I’m writing over an issue that has gotten some press coverage, on which I was hoping you could shed some light.
On 22 October Cindy Adams, a gossip journalist for the New York Post, wrote a column criticising Wikipedia for inaccuracy in her own biography, and for being unresponsive when she pointed it out. She claimed to have had a conversation with you that went as follows: [1]
I told [Jimmy Wales] my own personal listed information is factually incorrect and I can substantiate its inaccuracies with legal documentation.
Totally unfazed, he said, "People should use it for background - not as their primary source."
I explained the misinformation on my site is not only outrageous but hurtful.
Even more totally unfazed, he said, "Sometimes those sorts of things can be posted by someone who doesn't like you."
He ultimately agreed to a re-edit.
That was two months ago. He did nothing.
There was no further reference to what the contentious material was, so as a result all biographical material in the article was removed. Then, on 11 November, she returned to the issue with more specifics: [2]
I'm told recently The Observer incorrectly observed I'm an octogenarian. That stems from garbage which Wikipedia's founder won't correct despite proof to the contrary. This founder - now looking to stick his icky Wiki into global marketing although the thing fosters lies - said to me only: "Untrue stuff about you might've been posted by someone who doesn't like you." So fix it?! No.
I removed any references to her age or d.o.b in the article. I know you’re very concerned with issues of WP:BLP, and this is now being picked up by other news sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. It’s not exactly a potential Siegenthaler incident, but it might as well be dealt with right away. I was hoping you might be able to shed some more light on the situation, since allegedly you’ve been personally in contact with the subject? Lampman ( talk) 16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can try. (I rewrote this several times in order to be diplomatic.) I met her briefly at a conference. I offered quite clearly to her that she should email me - I gave her my email address - or email to OTRS (I told her the email address) - and that we would be eager to correct any errors. Her claim that I have refused to correct errors in Wikipedia is - let me be generous here - mistaken. She did not inform me at the time of what the errors were in her entry. My email to her to request clarification has gone unanswered. I applaud your efforts, which are of course very much our standard and in spirit with our quest for the highest possible quality.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I will, of course, respect your wishes on this subject. As the issue on Talk:Rush Limbaugh shows, I'm just at my wit's end with public people not telling the truth to their followers. But, my respect for you outweighs that. On an unrelated note, could you e-mail me regarding the Africa issues in the e-mail I sent you and Erik? I would be grateful. --David Shankbone 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Well, for founding the most wonderful project in the world. The idea is beautiful, not only for the US, but especially for developing countries where knowledge is needed. Great idea! David WS (contribs) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for trusting me enough with the mop for a whole year now. I try to avoid politics on Wikipedia, so we don't generally interact all that much, but there's always a cup of tea and a warm chair available for you on IRC, should you get too stressed with the whole project. Thanks again for the past year - it's been great. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The have a Good HeartBarnstar | ||
You have a good heart.". Wiki is always a better place when you are on duty! -- Danger^Mouse ( talk) 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
A Lucky Penny | ||
In the spirit of "See a penny, pick it up. All the day you'll have good luck", this penny is offered to Jimbo Wales as Thanks for creating WikiPedia...-- Buster7 ( talk) 06:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
I sent you an email regarding this, but in case you don't read it:
Do you think that edit summaries like this, this, and things like this should be used by an admin? And isn't it standard procedure to add Template:Block when blocking a user? Have a look into Scarian blocking User:SlayerXT and the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SlayerXT. And i'm not sure, but is it standard place to revert every single one of a blocked users edits no matter what? because Scarian reverted every single one of the edits, with no explanation. Alot of times, Scarian's reverts constituted vandalism because it removed portions of artilces (such as infoboxes) that the banned user added in. Any thoughts? I can provide examples of reverts that messed up stuff if needed. - - ' The Spook ( TALK) ( Share the Love with Barnstars) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion about the the SlayerXT puppetry issue. From his anger, I have to suppose that he found this so blindingly obvious that it outraged him that anyone would disagree. So, probably he was right about that. But no admin should ever behave in that way with the screaming and cursing. That's just not what we do around here. So I have desysopped him. However, I hold forth some hope that this was a compromised account or similar.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
When you desysopped Scarian was this a "Jimbo as constitutional monarch" action, or "Jimbo as a steward/founder" action? To put it another way, can Scarian be resysopped through normal means later?-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Wales. With all the respect, i have some doubts about the project
Thanks for the responses.
PD: My english is very bad, i hope that you understand
-- Unviejoenemigo ( talk) 19:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Heya, you desysopped Scarian earlier; well, in the subsequent discussion we thought of a wonderfully awesome idea. Copying mine for convenience.
That was my proposal; several users agree that we should go this way. I was just wondering what you think on the matter. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you should be aware that the above now indef blocked sockpuppet had previously reported Scarian to WP:AIV with a view to having a block enacted. I declined the report, commenting that ANI was the appropriate venue. For reasons that are now apparent (his own policy violations would be quickly discovered) LtS contacted you. I again wrote that ANI was a more appropriate place for his complaint when I note he had written here. While Scarian's comments were inappropriate, it should be concluded that LtS was trolling and he has exacted exactly the response he was looking for. I hope you bear this in mind when you review the many comments made in regard to this matter. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo has re-sysopped Scarian ( talk · contribs). Jehochman Talk 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I know that there is no point to this message at all, but I just want to say hello to the famous Jimbo Wales!! I would be honoured if you would write something on my talk page, anything at all!! TopGearFreak Talk 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A mirror ( SMSO.net) claims copyright on Wikipedia's content and has been contacted by numerous Wikipedians. They received a DMCA takedown notice a few days ago (I know because I sent it) and has not responded. They still do not comply. As you are on the board of the foundation, I am telling you this so you and the rest of the foundation can decide what action to take. For more information and a log of our actions, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Stu#SMSO.net. Dendodge Talk Contribs 19:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The best thing to do is contact Mike Godwin, legal counsel for the Foundation.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For creating Wikipedia, the greatest online encyclopedia ever! Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 07:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
A joint and most comprehensive Holocaust project of more than 200 scholars which International Editorial Board counted 24 world-renown scholars - a four volume book of 1904 pages collecting and desciribing all aspects of the Holocaust: events, places, actions, people involved in. This book is a reference book quoted and cited by scholars
Definition of the Holocaust on XVII page, Vol 1
... the Holocaust - here defined as the Third Reich's attempt during the period of Nazi power (1933-1945), to physically destroy the Jews of Europe - from the antecedents to its postwar consequences
Concentration camps entry is on pages 308-316, Vol. 1: The camps were subdivided into labor camps (Arbetslager), transit camps(durhgangslager), prisoner of war camps (Kriegsfangenlager) and extermination camps (Vermachtungslager). A map of camps is given on page 308. On the map is visible: one (1) concentration camp in France, sixteen (16+1) in Germany + Prussia, 1 - Austria, 2 - Croatia, 7 - Poland 7, 1 - Lithuania, 1 - Latvia, 2 - Estonia Maly Trostenets near Minsk Byelorussia is not marked on the map but it is described on pages 940-1, Vol 3. by Shalom Cholakowski
There are no other extermination camps and sites as it was suggested in the template
Jasenovac entry on pages 739-740, Vol 3. by Menachem Shelach "The largest concentration and extermination camp in Independent State of Croatia"
Sajmiste entry on pages 1323-1324, Vol 4. by Christopher R. Browning - concentration (85% of Serbia's Jews) and extermination camp (killed by hunger, diseases and gassed in gas vans)
Statements in 'discussion' here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:The_Holocaust) containing explict or implicit Holocaust denial in Independent State of Croatia:
Rjecina: 'Jasenovac has been extermination camp (maybe even greatest non Holocaust camp), but there is agreement between Holocaust scholars that Jasenovac is not Holocaust extermination camp.
VirginSlim: We're dealing with an area of history that's in flux, that's the problem, with definitions of the Holocaust changing, with even the same scholarly sources using the term differently within the same book.
Nitsansh : Bottom line: I wouldn't consider Jasenovac as extermination camp, definitely not by Nazi definition
AniMate: in terms of the Holocaust there have always been six camps designated as extermination camps
EyeSerene: Rjecina, I do see a rough consensus on this talk page that the camps under dispute can be fairly described as extermination camps, although they may not fall under a strict definition of Holocaust camps. Therefore I think your additions to the template are supported.
Ricky81682: Agree with AniMate. At the Holocaust article, Jasenovac is mentioned mostly for the Southern Slavs killed, but here, it is being placed under the Jews. I think it could go under the "Other victims" subsection as an extermination camp there.
Bottom line: Going to expose these 'experts' in newspapers or/and with help of the Anti-Defamation League. Some of the 'notables' above are your administrators. -- I am Mario ( talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A butcher can do butchery - not surgery, even when strictlty adhering to Assume Good Faith. Use reliable sources. No personal attacks. Try to make sure that what Wikipedia says is actually supported by the sources. etc. If the butcher's 'knowledge' is complemented by the utter lack of editorial ethics (fasely referencing books, articles, editorial rules, calling opponents someone's puppets, then falsely accusing and blocking them) you'll see only political pornography - not history, in the Wikipedia's articles. As a consequence - Einstein is portrayed as an Ustashe (Croatian Nazi) supporter in 1930eth ( Ustase article), and Jewish Holocaust survivors' testimonies attacked as POV (ugly Wikipedia term) and removed from the Holocaust era articles. All above will be two additional entries in my anti-defamation move against Wikipedia. Rjecina , Ricky81682, and EyeSerene 'discussions' and 'expertises' will be used as the primers of of the abovementioned pornography.-- I am Mario ( talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, I should start by admitting I am a journalist, but I still feel i can contribute and do that simultaneously. But, ignoring that, history has shown that when communities outgrow their leaders they move on and elect their new leaders. As the so-called Constitutional Monarch of Wikipedia, do you feel the project has reached that stage yet? Are you fully in-tune with everything that goes on? Every policy change, every essay, every guideline, every ArbCom decision? If not, will you not consider stepping down from your monarchical role before you suffer the same fate as King George III?
"Such has been the patient sufferance of this project; and such is now the necessity which constrains the community to alter their former Systems of Government"
In short, Jimbo, it's time for this all to change. The Wikipedia community has outgrown you. Please calmly abdicate in the style of King Edward VIII before this starts to get even more messier GTD 01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
What Wikipedia needs is for more and better leaders to step up to the plate and help lead; not for the few leaders we do have to stop helping. There is too little leadership going on, not too much. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Mankind will recall you forever for whatever you have done to the Mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapdutta ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the articles in your encyclopedia, 4chan, returns a legal complaint from Google when searching for it about child pornography. I do not wish to place myself in danger, and I would suggest that action be taken over the 4chan article because this has serious ramifications to people who might stumble across it. Thank you.- GemPiety ( talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
How do I change my signature, because whenever I put what I want in my preferences it says "invalid html tags"? P.S. I want it to look like this Iamawesome 800 THANKS!-- Iamawesome800 ( talk) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, you seem to know the person well so perhaps you might like to comment on DG's block of Giano. Is there a belief among certain long established account holders that writing quality articles is the basis of bad hand accounts, or is it simply that holding views contrary to some long established accounts sufficient? Oh, and DG stepping up as the enacting blocker might appear to some as inappropriate - given a past ArbCom where said admin was a party bitterly complained of and against Giano. All this right at the start of the ArbCom elections, too - is there not enough potential drama among the list of candidates and their reasons for standing? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
[Outdent] George, there's a big difference between requiring proven identities and allowing disruptive socks. If you think that socks should be allowed to run for ArbCom or admin or should be allowed for banned users, then I encourage you to answer the questions about those matter on your ArbCom candidacy page. Some of us spend a lot of time trying to get rid of disruptive socks. I don't think it's very funny when a supposedly good editor uses one to mess with the system and then throws a hissy fit when it's blocked. If it's a joke account then there's no need to mourn its loss, and there's certainly no reason to form a mob to attack the responsible person who brought the hoax to a close. David Gerard did the right thing (albeit in a clumsy way) and harmed no one's privacy in the process. Now let's get back to writing the encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This problem with Gerard should have been handled long ago. In fact, I was going to use him as an example in a question to all candidates (but that page seems to be protected now). So, in the light of the current arbcom elections, let me ask it here;
Imagine a powerful administrator who wants to silence some political opposition. He enters into an edit war on a Wikipedia project page and censors all criticism of his pet cause. He then protects the page on his version and even threatens to move it to Meta where he can more effectively control the content. The criticism he removed was civil and came from administrators and long time contributors.
It goes to the arbcom and parties present their cases in the usual way, except this admin who presents his case behind closed doors, in complete secrecy. None of the other parties can see or respond to what he says. Furthermore, he's on the arbcom mailing list by virtue of his previous arbitratorship, and is therefore 'in the room' as the arbitrators discuss and decide the case.
He walks away with no consequences for his behavior.
What do you all think about this? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC ?
-- Duk 17:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Those interested may refer to my (and other arbitrators') comments on the (now-archived) request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The economy really sucks...case anyone didn't notice.-- MONGO 04:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
YOu created wikipedia!!! AWESOME!! So you know everything about my account!!??-- Spittle spat 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Also please drop a message on my talk page!!-- Spittle spat 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I wrote this up a couple years back, but it wasn't brought up for discussion. See User:Kowloonese#credibility.2C_quality_control_etc.
IMO, an expert's approval mechanism can bring credibility to an approved snapshot of wikipedia without affecting daily activity of the original wikipedia.
Let me know what you think about this idea.
Kowloonese ( talk) 03:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at how flagged revisions works. I think you may find it interesting to integrate your proposal with the details of how that software works. In general, I support the notion of some kind of lightweight certification process, and especially things that can be tried without affecting daily activity.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Your action in linking to an external blog here has been mentioned here as a precedent for allowing a user to link to a site which attacks a living person on their user page. I don't agree that the two situations are comparable, or that your actions automatically create a precedent. Anyway, I mentioned your name so thought you should be informed. Thanks for creating this great project, and best wishes. -- John ( talk) 07:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
señor YOU ARE a perro and you are very astuto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.8.166 ( talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering, how come I am not able to edit semi-protected articles on here. My acoount is over 2 weeks old and I still can not edit these articles. Please get back to me as quickly as possible. Thanks -- NathanielMondragon ( talk) 05:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have mentioned you here. Feel free to return fire. :-) Jehochman Talk 12:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
G'day Jimbo - I recall that you've commented on some of these issues in the past, so thought you might be interested to take a look at this nascent proposal... personally I'm a fan of us applying a bit more rigour in deciding how to handle sexualised images, and would love to hear your thoughts :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hellow Jimbo Wales,no sé si sabes hablar español,pero trataré de hablar mezclando idiomas(porque yo no sé muy bién inglés):
Te felicito por haber hecho the Wikipedia,and porque también has crado Wikia,pero mi pregunta es:
What as hecho esto?,porque es difícil,como you has hecho todo esto?,porque hay que hacer los permisos de user,ect,y es muy difícil.
Un saludo-- 83.43.240.51 ( talk) 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
“ | Hello Jimbo Wales, I do not know if you speak Spanish, but I will try to speak mixing languages (because I do not know very well English): I congratulate you for having made the Wikipedia, and also because you created Wikia, but my question is: What he done this?, Because it is difficult, as you've done all this?, Because you have to make the user permits, etc., and it is very difficult. | ” |
Hi, Jimbo. Sorry to bring this up again, but on November 8, in regarding to the Talk:AIDS denialism that I previously brought up here, you said that a note should be placed in the discussion explaining what happened. Since User:MastCell was the one who archived that discussion, I didn't know if he should do it, or if I should, since I initiated a discussion on the matter. I left a message on his Talk Page about this, and when I received no response from him, I placed the note myself in that archived discussion. (I see now that MastCell indeed responded to me, but on his own Talk Page instead of my own.) RetroS1mone responded by deleting the note, with a clearly uncivil Edit Summary making disparaging comments about what I "understand" and accusing me of "promoting blp violations", leaving a message on my Talk Page saying that I "misunderstand" BLP, and began a discussion on the Admin Noticeboard, again making uncivil comments about what I don't "understand", claiming that you yourself "totaly said Nightscream was not understanding what censorship means what blp means". Did I misunderstand your instructions about the note, or is the note acceptable? Let me know. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you are right Daniel, I will stop beating this dead horse! RetroS1mone talk 02:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I was simply following what I understood to be your instructions from the prior discussion. Again, if I misunderstood them, I apologize. Thanks again. Nightscream ( talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Knowing that this page is monitored by knowledgeable editors I have an editing question. Recently, an editor changed "the Second World War" to "WWII". This is in an article about language and has nothing at all to do with or about war. I think it should be reverted since the term WWII seems to be more relating to articles about one of the World Wars or Wars as a subject matter. It's a military term, you might say. And the terms "first World War" and "second World War" are used to depict more a time or an era, so to speak, and are used in a more general non-military manner. Thanks-- Buster7 ( talk) 03:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This badly written article on a important figure has been greatly improved over the last few days. Maybe you could take a look at it, and tell me what you think of it? J.B. ( talk) 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo. As Chair, I was appointed by our group of concerned Ateneo de Manila University alumni and students, to convey to you our suggestion and complaint.
How do we know that you are who you say you are? You claim to represent the students of this Almeo whatsiname university, but we have no evidence of that. Also, perhaps you should familiarise yerself with WP:NLT. Namaste X MarX the Spot ( talk) 07:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Lux Lord, I'm not sure specifically what it is you would like anyone on Wikipedia to do on your behalf (or on behalf of the group you describe). Real names won't be revealed by any editor or administrator - simply, we don't have access to them. Even the Foundation will generally not have access to real names, only source IP addresses used to make specific edits. We also are not going to be able to police users who claim association with Ateneo de Manila to verify those claims or for any other reason. We have no policy on claimed affilitations that I'm aware of, and no need (so far as I can see) to begin determining whether those claimed affilitations are true. Is there something else you would like done? Avruch T 14:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been contacted by Doc United States asking to be unbanned. Someone "named" VK35 pointed me to this discussion where you indicated that you though it might be good to unblock him due to possible miscommunication or misinterpretation of checkuser information. The original admin who blocked him, Jersyko, is no longer active on Wikipedia, so I can't really ask his opinion. Any thoughts on the issue?
Thanks for your time. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
perhaps you can help me with the great article written on him to get it GA. Jouke Bersma Contributions 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This place looks like a black and white TV move. What happened? Rory the Slitheen ( talk) 20:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that any mention of money on wikipeda gets people flustered but have you ever considered as scheme whereby editors are given incentives if they develop an article to FA or GA? Improving quality is of primary importance but the number of Good Articles and Featured articles we have in relation to number of articles I'm sure you'll agree it extremely low. I wondered if editors were given a discount book -e-voucher or coupon or amazon.com voucher for every article they significantly contribute to and successfully promote it to FA whether or not it might speed up the process? If editors thought they could work towards earning a token for working hard on an article I'm convinced it would give them more of an incentive to do so. Also some form of book voucher may also result in the purchase of a book which in turn may be used as a reference to improve content on another article so it may be a productive process. Are you strictly opposed to anything like this Mr. Wales? Do you think the idea would have any success in speeding up the rate at which the number of articles are featured? Count Blofeld 14:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean money; that word is "taboo" on here. I mean a funding scheme for rewarding editors with e-vouchers who develop articles to featured status. If wikipedia really cared about quality and that "we are trying to focus on quality" as is claimed in the media we for sure would be trying to increase the rate at which articles reach featured status. If quality is of primary concern why not encourage editors to work harder at achieving it with a proper reward scheme rather than just the odd personal offer five times a year by people? I've brought it up at meta wiki. Count Blofeld 21:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.
Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? -- Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have asked David Gerard and FT2 to fill me in about the history. I have reviewed the oversight logs, and read Thatcher's summary of the situation, which as far as I know appears to be factually accurate. It is evening here, and I am going to bed. I am leaving Europe early tomorrow morning for the US, and then I will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, and traveling by car to a meeting with a Brazilian Wikipedian on Friday. I don't expect to have substantial time to devote to my Wikipedia work until Saturday at the earliest.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
First off I want to thank you for creating Wikipedia. What is your opinion/position on editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia by fighting/removing fringe theories/POV's, yet are using disruption tactics and battles? These same editors are constantly being called for their actions on AN/I. Yet, it is to the point that the admin's on AN/I have taken a stand of looking the other way with these editors because they feel that while the disruptions are inappropriate, they (the admins) do not want to do anything to these users because the users are trying to improve Wikipedia and are fighting the good fight. This has led to these editors being emboldened to bring more disruption the articles and ignore concerns of other editors who are also there to improve the article, by radically improve/change articles they feel needs drastic change.
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. Brothejr ( talk) 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy, The mess over in the Ireland articles has been going on for years, with a clique of about 10 editors filibustering and preventing any change to the article naming conventions. It's driving us mad, and preventing the articles themselves from being improved. Somehow I think we need binding arbitration. Not that I'm asking you to do it; but I would ask you to have a look. A number of us think that the most sensible proposal is to move Ireland to Ireland (island), Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland, and Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). That's a compromise over an alternative, which is to move Ireland to Ireland (island), keep Ireland (disambiguation) where it is, and move Republic of Ireland to Ireland. If you'd like to enter the hornets' nest, please see Talk:Ireland#Proposed_move_to_Ireland_.28island.29 and Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)#Proposed_move_to_Ireland. Go raibh míle maith agat. -- Evertype· ✆ 08:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems (as of today) that I am on the receiving end of editorial zeal in the Croatian Wikipedia. I say this to give context, my question is not about the particular incident but about wikipedia policies in general in cases that may be similar in nature and can be summed in essence as destruction of content as part of dispute resolution.
My first question is related to the standard of protecting wikipedia contributors and the community by displaying the full set of interaction guidelines on a prominent place on the wikipedia home page. The english version has the relevant content in the section on the left titled "Interaction". It is fairly easy to find information relevant to interacting properly with the community.
Is there a way to ensure there is a standard way to get to this information on all local wikipedia sites?
I am looking at the Croatian version, and the "Interaction" section is completelly missing from the left side. And the standards dispute resolution pages are buried in the third level.
As a contributor to wikipedia, my work has been removed for what I believe was editorial zeal, and not a specific policy violation (since none was ever quoted). Language style, while ok to call for imporovements upon, should not be the grounds of page removal. Moreover, editors should abstain from personal qualifications of the contributors. In my case, the editors have qualified myself as (I quote) a: "worshiper" of the subject of the article (a Croatian rock band). Rightfully inflammed by the provoking label attached to myself, I returned the favor with equal eloquence not on the content page but on the discussion page, after which the editor(s) have blocked my IP address and thus effectively banned me from contributing further. Note, the content itself was never subject to any serious discussion of its merits, in fact the ban was placed after I wrote a long piece on my views of the style issues which were raised.
Now this is a somewhat long lead to what I believe is the fundamental problem. If the standard of conduct of some editors in the Croatian wikipedia is at this level, then I am afraid that more information could have been lost by editorial zeal, or even agenda, which goes beyond the wikipedia policies. Before you dismiss me lightly given the (I agree) some personal circumstances in this story you should consider two facts. It has been reported in major Croatian media that the government of Croatia is using its own resources to stem the tide of popular revulsion against the government on the Internet following a series of high profile mafia style executions which shook Croatia in the past several months (including one of a major journalist figure). Second, it is indicative that the editor who decided to ban me has an avid interest in fighter planes. I am not saying, but it smells, of military interference into editorial policies. This wouldn't be a suprise in more democratic countries, let alone in Croatia. One thing is sure, the IP ban was executed military tribunal style, no judge, or jury. The larger point and my second and last question.
Would it not make sense for non-editors, or even banned users, to be able to (in read only mode) review editing decisions and edits done by the editors and other administrators. Specifically, IP ban decision and content deletions?
I believe a measure like this one would help affected contributors in preparing their argument towards the conduct of a given editor/administrator and will help the community protect the content and information stored in wikipedia.
Thank you. Debic. (empty comment for archiving purposes. Fram ( talk) 10:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC))
I wrote this up a couple years back, but it wasn't brought up for discussion. See User:Kowloonese#credibility.2C_quality_control_etc.
IMO, an expert's approval mechanism can bring credibility to an approved snapshot of wikipedia without affecting daily activity of the original wikipedia.
Let me know what you think about this idea.
Kowloonese ( talk) 03:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at how flagged revisions works. I think you may find it interesting to integrate your proposal with the details of how that software works. In general, I support the notion of some kind of lightweight certification process, and especially things that can be tried without affecting daily activity.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Kowloonese ( talk) 03:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.
Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? -- Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have asked David Gerard and FT2 to fill me in about the history. I have reviewed the oversight logs, and read Thatcher's summary of the situation, which as far as I know appears to be factually accurate. It is evening here, and I am going to bed. I am leaving Europe early tomorrow morning for the US, and then I will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, and traveling by car to a meeting with a Brazilian Wikipedian on Friday. I don't expect to have substantial time to devote to my Wikipedia work until Saturday at the earliest.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am a newly appointed Wikispecies admin. I am in dispute with mainly one other admin (Lycaon - who was also the only admin to vote against my adminship). I'm not sure if you are the right person to talk to about this, but anyway, it concerns my right to protect a single page that I created (
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stho002/New_Zealand). My reasons for wanting to protect it are as follows:
(1 - minor reason) I am doing this (in the spirit of Wikispecies) without pay, but there are others here who are trying to extract funding for similar projects, and there could be "conflicts of interest";
(2 - major reason) Taxonomy is NEVER fully objective, and the page is my take on the relevant "facts" (though still based only on (my interpretation of) published sources). If others add their opinions to my page, the result would be chaos. SERIOUS BIOLOGISTS CAN NEVER TAKE WIKISPECIES SERIOUSLY UNLESS THERE IS SOME WAY TO BE CONFIDENT OF GETTING CONSISTENT/RELIABLE INFORMATION. I believe that protecting my page provides usefully consistent information to serious biologists, while at the same time not preventing others from expressing their opinions, for anyone can still create an alternative 'New Zealand' page (using a disambiguated title) and link it to the relevant taxon pages independently of me. From their perspective, it is as good as being able to edit my page. So, I am not trying to stop others from expressing their opinions, I am just trying to stop them from fiddling with my opinions!
Sincerely,
Stho002 (
talk) 03:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see you on freenode. I know you have an account there, but why don't you go on it? Techman224 Talk 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimmy I am unaware as to the politics of wikipedia at this time but I was wondering if you could take a look at this [18] -- GlasGhost ( talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The abuse of Administrative rights is very rampant in Wikipedia. There is no mechanism in place to check this nuisance. The Administrators are not controlled and hence it results in the Admins indulging in vandalism and even blocking users without any valid reason. There is a type of Unionism of Administrators resulting in injustice to the contributors of Wikipedia. At present Wikipedia resembles the Third Reich rather than a free media. These are serious issues that hit the credibility of Wikipedia. So I hope that certain mechanisms will be put in place to prevent such type of issues from continuing. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that whole Brandt mess. It was wrong and I just want to move on forward. I hope you do well. Yanksox ( talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo -
Can you please have a look in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin deletes article per Scottish police?
Here's the brief synopsis, as I see it. AlisonW was contacted by the Scotting police, representing the Scottish courts. She was asked (as a Wikipedia representative) to take down our article on Peter Tobin for the duration of his trial, so as to avoid tainting the jury pool. AlisonW complied.
We now have a tempest on WP:AN, where some editors insist that the article must be restored immediately (WP:NOTCENSORED, it's outside U.S. jurisdiction, etc.). From what I gather, the trial is expected to be over in less than a week, at which time the article would be restored anyway.
I am gravely concerned that prematurely restoring this article has the potential to do serious real-world harm, and (secondarily) the fallout could also badly bloody the project's reputation. (Screwing up a murder/rape trial will probably draw more attention than the Seigenthaler mess.)
I'm here to ask you to weigh in on the dispute, and – hopefully – to encourage a little bit of patience. I suspect that you're the only individual on the project who is capable of acting with both the necessary speed and moral authority to make such a request and to make it stick. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's actually not the case, Jimmy, as you described. In this case the UK prosecutor or Court wants the article down because the historical references, which had been there for some time, about previous convictions of the BLP subject--he's a notable convicted and admitted rapist/murderer in the UK--may taint the jury now. They want the whole thing gone since we're high profile and have all the info in one easy to find place. rootology ( C)( T) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you re-granted yourself CheckUser two weeks ago and still haven't "returned" the bit. Are you planning on keeping it going forward? (Just general curiosity. :-) Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! I didn't know where else to go so I will make this quick as you are probably really busy.
From the beginning of the Assyrian people's article we've had problems with the ongoing nameconflict. Some identify as Syriacs other as Chaldeans or Assyrians. We have had this nameconflict going on for two long, for years. I want to ask you to move the page from Assyrian people to Assyrian/Syriac people and lock it if able. Thanks -- Yohanun ( talk) 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UT (archiving comment) Fram ( talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you give me MediaWiki 1.14 alpha? 202.137.66.72 ( talk) 01:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
(archiving comment, this section did not get picked up by the archive bot for some reason. Fram ( talk) 07:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC))
Hi Jimbo. Are you aware of the oversight policy? There is an allegation that David Gerard abused his oversight privileges to remove embarrassing edits made by FT2 to unfairly aid his arbcom candidacy last year. Fred Bauder has confirmed the oversights took place. There are allegations that you were aware of it.
Could you please explain how these oversights were within policy, and if not, why Gerard still has the oversight privilege. Could you explain why another editor (who had contributed to the project for over five years) was banned for bringing it to light? -- Duk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have asked David Gerard and FT2 to fill me in about the history. I have reviewed the oversight logs, and read Thatcher's summary of the situation, which as far as I know appears to be factually accurate. It is evening here, and I am going to bed. I am leaving Europe early tomorrow morning for the US, and then I will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, and traveling by car to a meeting with a Brazilian Wikipedian on Friday. I don't expect to have substantial time to devote to my Wikipedia work until Saturday at the earliest.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
A better question, IMHO, is "Why is this exact same question posted 3x on the same individual's talk page?" I count two instances in Archive 40 [19] [20] and now this one. I understand--it's an important question--but this repetition seems to approach the realm of POINTiness. GJC 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, it looks like FT2 has commented. Now, Jimbo, can you please answer my questions;
I have some new questions too;
I will answer your questions as best I can. I would appreciate it if, going forward, you would drop the hostile tone and ask your questions in a more thoughtful way.
(1) I think these oversights were not within policy, and that minor mistakes of this nature should not result in immediate removal of the power. In any event, I have never personally removed the oversight bit from anyone and I'm quite sure that me acting as judge, jury, and executioner in such cases would quite properly be frowned upon. The oversighters monitor each other; you may want to ask them to clarify circumstances in which they would recommend that the bit be removed.
(2) It is absolutely false to claim that anyone was banned for bringing this to light. If you think I am mistaken, please supply me details.
(3) I waited for FT2 to comment because I wanted to make sure I understood what happened. I'm quite sure that I ought not to go around making half-baked comments without the facts in hand. I will leave such behavior to others. I prefer to be as careful and deliberate as I can be; I hope that you will respect that.
(4) I am unaware of any delaying tactics. You asked me last week, and I looked into it over a holiday weekend as best I could. It's Monday now, and I still have some unanswered questions (not, by the way, due to anyone stalling or being less than 100% transparent with me, it's just that there's a lot of history to understand).
(5) I don't think edit histories should be falsified, so your question is invalid.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My mostly uninvolved impression here is that a line, and a big line, should be drawn under all of this, as raking over the ashes is detracting from the primary purpose of building an encyclopedia. It's sadly a measure of the maturity of any social construct that it will inevitably be drawn into self-analysis rather than actually getting on with the job in hand, and that can be destructive. *Accordingly, I put forward the following propositions:
# Any substantiated breach of this agreement by Peter Damian or any other party thereto will result in immediate and irrevocable banning from this project, including, but not limited to, bad-faith abuse of checkuser privileges. I know it's late where I am, but this does really need some balls. --
Rodhull
andemu 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy, did you possibly overstate the case against Giano? To the best of my knowledge Giano has never outed anybody. Perhaps you have confused him with somebody else and an apology is due? This situation is difficult enough without adding more potentially false accusations to the stew. Jehochman Talk 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As JWales posts above that he is standing by his allegation. Here is the truth: JWales and I had an email dialogue in early September 2008, which touched on FT2. I was concerned that allegations on WR, following hot on the Poetlister debacle were damaging to Wikipedia's international reputation. A view I still hold. My email to JWales began "I don't know if you have seen last weeks outing of FT2, on WR, nor do I know if the damaging allegations contained in that outing are true or not, and it doesn't really matter because it is only one small part of what appears to be a recurring overall problem." I obviously can't post JWales' replies but I can tell you that he did not agree that such allegations were damaging to Wikipedia and that was the end of the correspondence which consisted of approximately 6 emails.. I was not aware we had parted with any bad blood. In fact, 2 weeks later we had a perfectly reasonable exchange concerning an unwell, former Wikipedian attempting to damage the project - and we were in complete mutual agreement on handling that matter.
Last night, In an email to to third party (not FT2, although JWales may have copied him) JWales made the false claim that I (Giano) "participates in WR and aggressively participates in their outing campaigns." This has made me more than angry. Outing people has never been one of my interests, I deplore it. I frequently warn private email correspondents against giving out too much information. I know the RL names of many of those who don't agree with some of my thoughts, but I can say without fear of any contradiction, not one of them has ever worried I would out them. I have always protected everyone's right to privacy. Even recently on WR, that of JWales' own family. The only time I have ever asked for an oversight in one "my debacles" was because an adversary had inadvertently given away private info relating the Admin who blocked me. Editors RL privacy is paramount to me, no matter who they are. To those of you, (some from a surprising quarters) who have posted kind messages on my page - thanks it means a lot. I just want you all to know that I do have standards. Giano ( talk) 11:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, Welcome to my home town , Thiruvananthapuram ! I do wish to meet you but I am away in Bangalore . Anyways a warm welcome to you to India again , from the Indian Wikipedians ! -- Tinu Cherian - 12:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'll actually garner Jimbo's attention, but I figure his many page watchers might be able to help. There was a quote of Jimbo's that I read once. The guts of it was, whenever he was asked to investigate admin abuse, he was always surprised that the person asking wasn't blocked long ago. Ring any bells? Anyone got a page link? I'm pretty sure I saw it on a policy or guideline page, but now I can't find it (always possible it's been edited out). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In USA Wikipedia is registered as public organization. Does this mean that Wikipedia User pages policies should comply with rights (such as FREE SPEECH) protected by US Constitution ? Apovolot ( talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes (in part) and particularly with the following comment there, which raised my curiosity level: "Changed my vote (above) to regular Delete due to the relentless campaign by User:Apovolot, who uses arguments like 'free speech' that are not to be found in Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)" Apovolot ( talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rodhullandemu - should I consider your reply as rendering of legal opinion ? Apovolot ( talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides the legal aspect of the issue, there is also a moral one: Should Wikipedia User pages policies try by free intent to comply with FREE SPEECH protected by US Constitution ? Apovolot ( talk) 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This reply sounds like deja vu to me ... I think I have heard something like this before ? ... Oh yes: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". Apovolot ( talk) 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, isn't "our server, our rules" logic just serves as easy escape from facing moral issues question ? Apovolot ( talk) 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone from Wikipedia will readily admit that Wikipedia's collective "What we want" is in contradiction with articles of US Constitution ? Apovolot ( talk) 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This discussion (on this page, which in fact represents the *face* of Wikipedia) clearly shows to any *outsider* that Wikipedia, which I am sure was created with the noble goal of spreading the Knowledge and Truth, has eroded into "Borg-like" police state collective of brain-washed zealous fanatics, who prefer to blindly follow the "rules" instead of using their personal moral judgment. An amazed outsider will see in this discussion all vestiges of very unappealing, uncharismatic dictatorship without Human Face ... This is what happens when noble goals are pursued using wrong methods ! Apovolot ( talk) 11:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone taken a look at International Law? Because the United Stated is joined to the United Nations, it has to follow some international laws. Is there any International laws allowing free speech? Techman224 Talk 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Trodel, I think it may be you that is uninformed - at least insofar as understanding the separate implications of any free speech protections and the section 230 status of the Wikimedia Foundation. The original poster seemed to posit a 'right to free speech' - using the American constitution as a basis for that right. That is simply not true - there is no constitutional right to free speech on private property not your own, or right to freedom from limitations on speech in a private context. Obviously there is some complexity in terms of the definition of "private property", but generally speaking... rights guaranteed in the US constitution are written to prevent (or require) government action only. The Section 230 status is something apart. The Wikimedia Foundation does not directly publish or endorse any content, it provides the hosting service (and myriad other non-content services). The Wikipedia community, on the other hand, is empowered to control the content of the Wikipedia project. Editors on Wikipedia have the privilege of editing as long as that privelege is not revoked by the "agents" of the community (administrators). There is no legal right at stake. Avruch T 23:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Apovolot, I hope you realize that the First Amendment in the United States protects citizens from the government, not from other individuals or entities. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
What is going on on the front to move Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA? As the GFDL 1.3 does not allow the transition to CC-BY-SA of GFDL material from external sources added after November 1, 2008, every day that passes makes more work to find and remove any integrated text if and when the transition takes place. Even if there are other issues that must be seen to before the transition can officially take place MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning can be changed immediately to say "You irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the terms o the GFDL and CC-BY-SA". This will make it that when the transition does take place only November (and three days of December) would have to be reviewed for external GFDL contributions. To me, this seems like a no-brainer, and I'd make the change myself, but I'm afraid I'd be lynched. Jon513 ( talk) 23:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently recieved an email from somebody, requesting that this page be deleted because it reveals unwanted personal information. Can you delete it please, to resolve the problem? Thanks. -- 92.9.247.207 ( talk) 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support deletion. Please delete the page. It really does offend him. -- 92.17.56.95 ( talk) 17:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
HPJoker got temp banned a day or so ago for Uncivility. Earlier today he got his ban extended to an indefinite ban and has proof that it was not him "avoided" his ban with another IP. The IP he was using at 20:22, 2 December 2008 was 161.97.198.130. This is an IP for Fairview High School. He used an IP Tracer to find the location of the IP that added insults to Atlantabravz talk page while Joker was at school. The tracer said that it was a New York City IP. He explains it on the bottom of his talk page. He wishes that with this evidence that he can get the indef ban taken off. FYI the IP Tracer he used was this, just in case you want to try the IPs. It's basically...
161.97.198.130 A Fairview IP Address
74.50.119.142 IP address mistaken to be HPJoker
76.120.0.210 HPJoker's real IP address
Try out those IPs in the tracer above if you want to. You can reply on HPJoker's Talk Page. Thank you. 24.37.32.193 ( talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, I'm not asking for your intervention or anything, just wanted to point you to one of the most trenchant and rapidly-evolving discussions and associated articles in Canadian Wikipedia history.....as in a long-ago post here, my main observation is about the vibrancy and resilience of Wikipedia's community in patrolling for untruth and propaganda and "information war". I've been accused of blogging on this page, and granted I am a long-winded and sometimes colourfully-tongued bastard, but it's because there have been so many attempts to distort facts and misrepresent them and also to give equal weight to lies as if they were "balance" to the truth. This article and the associated debate are something to be proud of in Wikipedia-culture terms; a demonstration of the utility of Wikipedia in building a record of public events/debate as a function of a democratic society; Wikipedia takes a lot of heat in media jokes/put-downs but at times like this it's breathtaking in its cogency and communal/consensual nature. Get yourself a coffee (I recommend tossing some whiskey in it instead of cream, it's a long read) and sit yourself down to the whole page, and keep an eye on it as the day evolves - "it ain't over 'til it's over, and we haven't even met the fat lady yet" - the "crisis" is on hold at this very moment as the decision we've all been speculating/debating on that page is pending - by the minute. Don't expect to understand the crisis; we, as Canadians, don't really either - we're trying to sort it out, which is what the talkpage is a reflection of. Some aspects of what's going on are very disturbing, as has the degree by which partisan Cyber warfare has become all too evident across a whole swathe of Canadian Wikipedia articles....we can be frustrated about it; as far as Wikipedia's role in it, you should be proud.... Skookum1 ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo I am unaware as to the politics of wikipedia at this time but I was wondering if you could take a look at this [21]; I truly believe it could fundamentally change wikipedia.-- GlasGhost ( talk) 20:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you look at the Flagged Revisions extension which has been recently adopted in German Wikipedia and which I think will be adopted in English and most other languages over the next year. It may be in some ways usable for what you are proposing.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you re-granted yourself CheckUser two weeks ago and still haven't "returned" the bit. Are you planning on keeping it going forward? (Just general curiosity. :-) Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
but do you consider this an acceptable reason for opposing an rfa? PXK T /C 03:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In the website Uncyclopedia,I've found an user called Jimbo wales,is that really you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.50.155 ( talk) 17:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a courtesy post to let you know I've initiated a motion at RFAR to ask Arbcom to look at allowing user:Peter Damian to edit mainspace whilst abiding by the rest of the restrictions he agreed with User:Thatcher. kind regards -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I work principally on Mexico-related articles and put a lot of time and effort researching them, trying to write good articles, never mind featured articles. I find the process really frustrating. I have submitted articles for peer review and good article status but I get conflicting, incomplete advice. I also get condescention by some editors as well. For example, I submitted Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral for both peer review and Good article status. The second process is on hold, for reasons the reviewer stated on the review page. Some of the reasons are valid and I have started to address those, but some seem to be really nitpicking. I have read the requirements for good article, and I felt the article fit the description. But after reading the review, I feel like an idiot... not a comfortable feeling for one who works in academia (though I admit I am not a historian or architect). I have read lamentations here about how few articles have good or featured status and after dealing with some of review processes I have to wonder if part of the problem is that Wikipedia makes it harder than it has to be. I mean, for Pete's sake, this is what the page looked like before I started seriously working on it. [22] Thelmadatter ( talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making the place. ;) — C eran thor 03:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the AP has gotten hold of the current story [23]. DriedOut ( talk) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Might I invite your participation, here? TerriersFan ( talk) 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know the current IWF problem has made the BBC news website Wikipedia child image censored. DuncanHill ( talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AN#Major_UK_ISPs_reduced_to_using_2_IP_addresses. Prodego talk 16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The http://www.iwf.org.uk/ UK Internet watch program, has flagged the WMF for hosting inappropriate content. Specifically, "The UK Hotline for reporting illegal content specifically: Child sexual abuse content hosted worldwide and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK" their site says, and then ISPs in the UK I think are compelled to restrict access as this stuff is illegal in the UK. rootology ( C)( T) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That Virgin Killer image is now up for deletion here. rootology ( C)( T) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
< - echoing the 'fwiw' thread at the noticeboard - I jsut thought I'd highlight that work on a Wikipedia:Sexual content proposal pre-dates this controversy, and will hopefully move towards sensible guidelines for editors and readers alike - all help and input most welcome :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's probably a job for Jimbo and the UK ISPs or the IWF that they are delegating this to. "IWF blacklists largest encyclopedia in the world, for hosting illustrative image on a well known music iindustry controversy". Could go either way. Maybe point out that we do host non-censored material, but we never do so gratuitously and only when there is good cause to believe it has been cited in other reputable media. Members of the public trust Wikipedia for information on all areas of information, including such controversies, and largely these are handled responsibly and with considerable thought, by a wide range of uninvolved parties who examine each case individually for encyclopedic merit. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how the different laws apply to Commons vs. en.Wiki, or children vs. adults. Where does this fit in (private schools may want Wikipedia behind firewalls for pages like this, but I'm unclear on the different legalities wrt public schools, etc.). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo,
You have many admirers at Indiana University in Bloomington who would like to invite you to come to give a talk on any subject. If this is a possibility, how should we proceed?
Jeff Hart, Professor, Indiana University http://mypage.iu.edu/~hartj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartjeff12 ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Email me? -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to make you aware that a second article on Wikipedia, the Virgin Killer Controversy article has now also been blocked to many UK users. Regards -- tgheretford ( talk) 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone told me this, but I would love to have direct confirmation from people we know and trust. I am not sure where to ask to get this question the widest audience, but I suppose people who watch my talk page will have some ideas and get the word out that I'm wondering. Best would be a huge set of images (posted, I suppose, to flickr) showing the album for sale.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the Channel 4 news broadcast on the subject, their correspondent was able to purchase the album on High Street. Avruch T 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make an argument that the Virgin Killer image should be removed here: Talk:Virgin Killer#An attempt at a serious discussion, but it's clear (as you've no doubt noticed yourself) consensus is pretty strongly against it. While I don't wish to look like I'm asking for consensus to be overturned here... if the image is going to get removed, it'll have to be by Office Action, not through normal editing procedures. Just an FYI. Terraxos ( talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps, a Jimbo Wales initiated deletion request that can't be speedy closed, so that the community can decide definitively, the chips fall where they may. Ideally not on the IFD page, which is really unwieldy. rootology ( C)( T) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The relevant law here is the Protection of Children Act 1978, which criminalised "indecent images of children"; that Act does not define "indecency", but decided appeal cases state that this is to be assessed with regard to "prevailing community standards". This makes it difficult to assess an image today that was originally produced 32 years ago at roughly the crossover from glam-rock to punk rock, and, it has to be said, before the above Act became law. However, it's a principle of UK law (in contrast to most European law) that any act is legal until made illegal, so it could be argued that continuous availability of this image over such a long period, and even today, is persuasive as to its legality. However, until that is tested before a court, we have no way of knowing. It's made more difficult because one jury cannot bind another, and a decision made in Bristol would be irrelevant in Manchester. In the UK, however, there have been numerous examples of images reported for prosecution in recent years (some of which have been of the photographers' own children, who just happened to be nude at the time), which have come to nothing. On balance, I think it unlikely that the Crown Prosecution Service would consider any action in relation to this image to pass the tests of (a) public interest or (b) more than 50% chance of success, to sanction a prosecution. My belief in this is strengthened by the fact that any such prosecution would have to be sanctioned by the Director of Public Prosecution, and his advisers would undoubtedly be aware of recent events. -- Rodhull andemu 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, above you quite rightly state "As a community, we are already quite firm: we do not and will not accept images of child pornography". However, are you aware of the number of potentially sexual images held on WMF servers where the subjects may, or may not, be above the age of consent?
How many of the following images can you/we actually prove are from people of legal age? And these are just some examples of many:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_(female) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_reproductive_system http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation
Surely we have to stop accepting images unless full proof can be obtained that the subject of the picture 1) gives consent and 2) is of a legal age to give consent, at the very least? As things stand, we are facing a real risk. Thanks GTD 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, in reading around the net on the UK censorship thing, I came across this link, written by Neil Gaiman. It was written a few days before the UK ordeal, and I think this can be useful background and arguments for you, if you are ever asked questions about UK censorship on 'icky things' again. It provides some historic context for censoring in the UK, and about having to sometimes 'defend the indefensible'. I found it most interesting. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what the usual practice is, but if you want some food for thought, you might want to take a look at this thread. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I’ve sent reply to your mail. -- Avinesh T 09:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)