User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive C

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Please don't remove other people's messages from here, even if they are just being mean to me or complaining about something stupid. Yes, you're probably right that I don't need to see all that, but my concern is just that I might overlook something that ends up being important later.  :-)

Wikipedia:Importance

Hi Jimmy. I've quoted you at a proposed policy I've originated, Wikipedia:Importance, an amendment/clarification of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'd really appreciate any criticism or contribution. ··gracefool |☺ 04:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It sounds more or less reasonable to me. I'm sorry if that's not helpful, but I'm afraid that at this time I have no original insights to offer. It does make sense to clarify things, but it's really up to others to figure out how exactly we want to do that. I think your work here is valuable in that regard. Jimbo Wales 21:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I just wanted reassurance that I'm on the right track. It's listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment - is there anywhere else I should publicize it? ··gracefool |☺ 23:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael

Guanaco and Danny have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally unblock Michael/Mike Garcia, and to accuse those of us who are reverting him of Vandalism. RickK 04:31, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Might I suggest putting Mike on Parole...that way if he does commit an infraction, we could hard ban him and forget about it (I know he's already hard-banned...but we'll give him a second chance for now).--Comarde Nick 12:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right now, Guanaco is the problem user. But you tell me what you want done, and I will abide by it. RickK 23:09, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

What do we do about all of the articles which User:Mike Garcia made over the last few days which I reverted and Guanaco is running around unreverting? RickK 23:22, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. Let's us all try not to fight about it tonight. I'm talking to Guanaco, I wish you could come to IRC, so we can resolve this. Jimbo Wales 23:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't have IRC and I've never used it. RickK 23:27, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

There are several free programs around for accessing IRC and it is fairly simple to use. Give me a shout if you ever fancy setting it up and need a hand. Pcb21| Pete 07:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not able to call

Trying to squeeze in between the other topics .... . I am sorry I was not able to call in to the Dutch wikimeeting as I had said I would. Unfortunately our comedygroup had a couple of performances. Here in Thailand you usually get calls 2 hours before you actually gotta be somewhere! So I am sorry, if you ever get to BKK I WILL be there! Waerth 02:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice meeting you!

Nice meeting you in Utrecht. Have a safe trip back! :) Kim Bruning 10:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Mr.Wales I was reading a person's userpage and it said you were the "god-king" of this project. Are you really the "King" of wikipedia? I really don't understand (I'm new here).--Gustuv 04:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you I found a second page on NPOV and I said you where the Founder...Now I think I undersand ^_^--Gustuv 04:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The words: "I am the founder of Wikipedia," on the top of his user page may shed some light on the matter. Trilobite (Talk) 14:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not view myself as "GodKing" as that term is usually used in describing Wiki communities. I do not view myself as benevolent dictator, either, and I really don't like that term. Within the community, I do still retain certain reserved powers but my role is more like a constitutional monarch after the pattern of the UK, and it is my intention over time for us to grow internal institutions to defend the bedrock principles of wikipedia. We started quite small and we've grown quite a bit, and careful and cautious change has always served us very well. So I don't foresee any radical changes to the way we do things, but rather a careful and conscious set of experiments and tests to determine the best way forward, as decided by the community. Jimbo Wales 17:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Secretlondon

The now forced-out user User:Secretlondon has detailed in her LiveJournal how Jimbo Wales has sent an offensive e-mail to her, resulting in Secretlondon's decision to stop writing for wikipedia - a great loss considering her very productive and informative contributions, and her efforts to counter the very strong US-centric bias on Wikipedia. I request the Jimbo Wales either be permanently banned, or he agrees to stop harassing users (via e-mail or on Wikipedia) who he does not agree with.

See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

--Xed 19:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael's account being disabled

Hello, Jimbo. It's Mike Garcia. I cannot log in my account on here or on Yahoo because it said some cookies are disabled to log me in. What do I have to do? -- Mike Garcia 14:12, 4 Sep 2004

Actual article about you?

Can we not have a real article in the mainspace about you? Modesty is one thing, but as USA Today said, you're an "Internet luminary". -- user:zanimum

I have always asked that we not have one, and it has always been done as a courtesy to me. Part of the reason is that Wikipedia is not a vanity project, and this is not about my ego. However, there are articles about me in other language Wikipedias and I agree that it is getting to be a little silly.

I really really REALLY dread the edit wars with trolls, though.

Perhaps it could be edited but left generally protected. I leave it to the community to decide, though, and drop my opposition to the idea.

Jimbo Wales 02:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's great news. I expect the trolls will come, and the page will probably have to be semipermenwntly protected eventually but in the meantime, I've listed it for collaboration of the week. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 20:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your Edit

Regarding this edit: Fearsome skills, there. Geez, Jimmy, can't you even wikify an article? :)

Entirely in jest, -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your visit to Geneva

Hi Jimmy, I read on the UNCTAD website that you will participate in an expert meeting on open source in Geneva on 24 september. I guess this meeting is not open to the public? I hope that you'll also have some time to meet some of the swiss (and french) wikipedians. Nando (de:Benutzer:Napa) told me that he had written you about that, so I'm just saying that we'd appreciate to hear from your plans... --stw (Talk) 10:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On my meta userpage is my schedule. I'm going to start keeping my public talk and wikipedia meeting schedule there so that people can co-ordinate meetings. Not much information about Geneva yet, but of course I say "yes" to a meeting. Jimbo Wales 11:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Btw, do you speak/understand french or german? --stw (Talk) 21:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I only understand English. But I have a high tolerance to sit politely and smile in a friendly way if people are talking around me in a different language. No one should hesitate to come just because they don't speak English. Jimbo Wales 21:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT AND I COMMAND THAT YOU RELINQUISH YOUR AUTHORITY AND CONTROL OVER THIS WIKI. WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!!!!

YOU ARE A GENIUS AND I BEG THAT YOU TAKE CONTROL OF EVERYTHING, YOUR WISDOM AND INSIGHT AND HELPFULNESS CLEARLY QUALIFY YOU AS A LEADER! PLEASE?

 ;-) Seriously, uh, relax a notch or two, huh? Not so much coffeee... Jimbo Wales 15:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My earlier reversion of this page

My apologies for reverting the above earlier: I didn't read the small print at the top. Somebody's undone it now so that's alright. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes I guess there will be judgment calls. In this case yours was a good one, because simple vandalism isn't really someone trying to get in touch with me. Basically the point is if a banned user leaves a message here, even if it's sort of a rant, they deserve to be at least heard. But if someone leaves a giant FUCK YOU JIMBO, I guess the world of wiki governance can still proceed usefully if I happen to not see that.  :-)

For now I left the message there just to poke fun at it.  ;-)

Jimbo Wales 15:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Glad you cleared that up. Just thought I'd say hi by the way, I'm one of the sysops of this here project but I've never had the opportunity to speak to you before. Don't you ever get stressed out at all the personal attacks on you as a person? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mostly I just find it amusing. I've reached a point in my life where I'm comfortable with myself and what I'm doing. The world can like it or not. Most people, good people, like it a lot. The rest, well, I hope they learn something from our work, but to attack me with curse words is just sad for them. It's not about me, it's about their own demons, about which I can do nothing. Jimbo Wales 19:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talking about you

Just wanted to admit that we've been talking about you behind your back with regards to some proposed changed to the arbitration policy which may exclude board members from arbitration. anthony (see warning) 14:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Would you know any wikipedian Communists? I can't find any here--Gustuv 01:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't personally know of anyone who self-describes as a Communist, other than Plato. Not too many communists left in the world, you know. Jimbo Wales 21:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks I'll leave Mr.Plato a message. I am aware of the fact I believe in a dead system, but I'll try to avoid Poving articles with my beliefs, because this is a really good Encyclopedia.--Gustuv 23:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Goodbye

Jimbo, the B-Movie Bandit has sent me 'round to the dark side of the Psycho Moon for the very last time. No sooner does he get unblocked when boom! He's back for more, twice reverting an article and leaving messes for others to clean up.

You have a truly marvelous site, but I'm tired of trying to help it along when the very people who use it just blindly pick up this troll's mess...and I'm the one who catches hell. I am taking a vacation from this site, perhaps this time for good. There are a lot of nice people here and brilliant contributors, but between the B-Movie Bandit and that goddamned vandal bot that hoses this site down on a 24/7 basis my Wiki-sanity is teetering on the brink. Six featured articles and no one seems to give a damn what I think or what I have to offer.

Perhaps we'll talk again soon. Sincerely yours, Lucky 6.9 01:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Main page

Hello. If you have the time, what is your opinion regarding the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Inappropriate featured article? --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 10:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

election of german-admins

Hello Jimbo,
I'm DaB. from the german Wikipedia, I don't know, if you remember. A short question: Have you elected for elians admin-election in the german Wikipedia? Please answed me on my german-discussion site, here. --DaB. 21:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry for my bad english.

Of course I remember you quite well, I can point you out in a picture no problem. I did vote, not just for elian but also for sansculotte. It was only meant to be a friendly hello to all my German friends, including the both of them of course, but also for you and everyone else. I visited the page to see how the election was going and I was very happy to see it so one-sided and enthusiastic, and so I added my votes. Jimbo Wales 02:43, 17. Sep 2004 (CEST)

It's nice, that you remember. I've asked, because we have a Nick-faking relative short time ago and because you never have before vote for an Admin(and you have not enough edits to vote (but for you, we decide, that it's ok)), some people become distrust --DaB. 11:50, 17. Sep 2004 (CEST)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tran Van Ba

Jimbo, I think we have a pretty good case against this lying crank on the basis of his impersonation of Professor Lindgren. Would a hard ban be appropriate? Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It isn't up to me, but speculating as a bystander, I would venture to suppose that the ArbCom will not view these things favorably. Jimbo Wales 20:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your birthday

216.199.124.2 changed your birthday on Jimmy Wales from August 8 to August 7. [1] I reverted, but I thought I should check to be sure. Guanaco 20:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re:Jimbo Visit

I don't think you would want me as a volunteer -- I'm only 13 ;). I really wish I could come, but it would mean getting a ride and it would really be a hassle. Ah, the limitations of being my age. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, I would be happy to volunteer, but I'm moving this month and going down to Champaign-Urbana would be too much this month. Now, if you ever get something in Chicago, I'd be there. Thanks for thinking of me. --SeanO 21:53, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, my wife has familiy in the Chicagoland area, so on the same trip, it is possibly that we might schedule a Chicago area meetup. Jimbo Wales 22:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also would be more willing to volunteer if it were in Chicago. Not that I'm unwilling to make the drive to Urbana, but it's too soon to know if I'll be free that weekend. Thanks for letting me know though. I'll try to get back to you in a couple weeks if that's still happening. CyborgTosser 03:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you still plan on having a Wikipedia booth at the ACM conference? It looks like I should be able to make it down that weekend — in fact, I'll probably be down there anyway to look at the grad school — and I wouldn't mind volunteering for a few hours. CyborgTosser 05:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My plans have changed and I will not be in Urbana this weekend. Not having heard anything back from you about this weekend, though, I assume I am not needed to work a Wikipedia booth. Let me know if you plan something like this in the future, especially if it is in the Chicago area. I'd be happy to help. [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 18:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm actually in the process of relocating (this week or the next) from Champaign-Urbana to the Seattle area, so it's difficult for me to volunteer. Thanks for thinking of me. Ambarish | Talk 20:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you the founder or a co-founder?

Hi Jimbo, in this edit your self-description on Jimbo Wales was changed by User:Xed (contributions), and I reverted it.

However, because I reverted your talk page once without realizing that that could be a problem, I thought I ought to let you know what I had done.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedias own page on Wikipedia indicates that there were 2 founders, Jimbo and Larry Sanger--Xed 19:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not something I feel very comfortable talking about publicly, but since you ask directly, I'll just say what I think in plain language.

I consider myself the founder of both Nupedia and Wikipedia. I have no interest in attempting to write the history of the project to suit me, though, and if people want to consider Larry the co-founder, that is up to them.

When I had the concept for a free encyclopedia, I hired Larry to organize Nupedia. We had many disagreements about how Nupedia ought to be organized, with me always pushing for a more open model, and he always pushing for a top-down model with everyone required to be credentialed. I let him win those arguments, and I will say that knowing what we knew then, he was right to think that way, and I was right to let him win. But in retrospect, it turns out that I was right from the beginning.

I give credit to Jeremy Rosenfeld (an employee at that time who is generally unknown to the Wikipedia community) for introducing me to the concept of wiki software in December of 2000; he knew of my ongoing complaints about Nupedia, and he proposed that a wiki concept might work better. I had never seen a wiki before that. Soon after, Larry independently showed me wiki, and apparently he was shown the idea by Ben Kovitz, a friend of his whom I don't know.

Larry was quite dissatisfied with the Wikipedia model, and to this day I don't think he's comfortable with it. But I fully acknowledge the very important role he played in the early days in terms of setting a solid tone for quality. I have no complaint if people want to call him co-founder, even though I don't. It's a matter of some degree of interpretation, isn't it?

At this late date, I was fairly unhappy to see the Washington Post article interview Larry as if he might still be associated with the project (they didn't suggest otherwise, they just interviewed him as co-founder and me as co-founder). But anyone who knows the real history of the project will say that this is patently unfair, not to me, but to many fantastic people who have done far more around here than Larry ever did... and for free. Larry was a paid employee, and when his employment ended, he voluntarily chose to leave the project entirely, despite an open invitation to stay. I am thinking of people like (list omitted...) gosh I shouldn't get started with a list because there are so many people who have done so much, but the point is, I don't really see how Larry's position is much more than a historical curiosity based on my hiring him to do a job of my invention, which he did competently.

Jimbo Wales 20:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo -- both illuminating and interesting. IMHO you sound like the founder, but I'll let the matter rest. I appreciate your candor,and taking the time to write this. -- BCorr|Брайен 20:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality & libel about Jehovah's Witnesses

About this article, it's a large dispute that Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) is a Christianity group or not. Some people say that JW is not Christianity because many chuches (Catholics & Protestants) regard them as non-Christianity.(See Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus) But, as one of JW, I think they are Christianity group because they have a faith in Jesus Christ, and it's a libel to JW and untruth that JW are not Christians. Which thought do you think is a neutral thought? Rantaro 03:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration request for sysop abuses

Jimbo - It seems I may be at an impasse with the Arbcom over some charges I am making against a specific admin. The situation is comparable to the Zero0000 matter, which you expressed very strong opinions [2] of. I myself was blocked by an admin over a dispute in the talk page of a Wikipedia naming conventions page. It was purely a content dispute, and I was working towards a solution, but was blocked without warning by the other user involved. I have looked into his history, and found two other cases of this happening.

Unfortunately, the ArbCom looks like it is not going to hear the case, saying that I have skipped the "Mediation" dispute resolution stage. While this is true, I really can't see the point of going to "mediation", which is more for user conflicts, with the goal being that the parties will resolve their dispute. Charges of admin abuse, I think, should be allowed to proceed directly to Arbitration, since the result will likely be some sanction against the admin, if the evidence shows abuse. I hope you can "weigh in" on this concern, and perhaps direct the ArbCom to take evidence on this, just like they have done for Zero0000. The request is at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#User:Mintguy. Thanks. -- 07:23, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Jimbo, I haven't voted on this yet, but it is possible that mediation could produce an explanation of the administrator's actions, perhaps an apology or an explanation of the user's actions which might show the administrator that he or she was hasty. Our policy is to accept cases which have not gone through mediation and the earlier steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution only in exceptional situations. Fred Bauder 12:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

As the chair of the Mediation Committee, I also agree that it makes more sense to try mediation first. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kicking this legal threat upstairs

In the article Tony Robbins, there is/was the following text:

"Controversial issues regarding Tony Robbins:

• In 2001 Robbins was divorced from his wife Becky. This disturbed some who had read his books (one of which is dedicated to her) and listened to his cassette programs, since both liberally dispense advice on how to have a happy marriage relationship. Robbins has, however, advocated that if one is truly unable to be happy in a marriage, one ought to improve it - possibly by leaving.

• Dreamlife.com, a company founded by Tony Robbins failed and went bankrupt. This obviously shocked some who depended on Robbins for business and investment advice."

I am not the author of this text; it is part of the earliest version given on the article's history page, dated May 29, 2003 with author Jpb1968; I do not know if that was its creation date, or if it goes back further still. The last sentence of the marriage topic was added more recently, again not by me.

This text was block-deleted by an anon on Sept. 22 and I reverted it back in. It was anon-block-deleted again this morning, Sept. 27, and I reverted it again. It was then immediately deleted again, this time by a new user, User:RRIESQ, who called it false and defamatory, and put this on my talk page:

"Mr. Gary D:

You are requested to contact the Law Office of Lavely & Singer PC (310-556-3051 x247) with regard to defamatory content on wikipedia that you repeatedly have restored, and therefore posted, after deletion by our office on behalf of our clients. If you do not respond, formal action shall be required. Thank you. Lavely & Singer P.C."

I suspect this may be part of the the new-found attention WP has gained from the AP article about it that was posted on Yahoo. I have verified that Lavely & Singer is really a law firm in Century City, a toney section of Los Angeles, with about seventeeen lawyers. I know WP is very sensitive about legal threats, so I'm kicking this upstairs for whatever you want to do with it. --Gary D 22:13, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

[Courtesy copy from my user page. -- orthogonal 02:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

I just wanted to thank you again for the productive and interesting conversation we had on IRC tonight, and the other day. Jimbo Wales 02:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And thank you. I gained much from your perspective. -- orthogonal 02:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Secret London

I'm glad to see that SecretLondon go. She bullied me out of wikipedia early this year, clainming that I'd vandalised you, but its obvious that she has a few mates around. User:Rabastan

As for me, I was sorry to see her go. She was a valuable contributor who did many magnificent things. I regret any part that I played in her dissatisfaction. Jimbo Wales 03:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After how she and Morwen (who's also pissed off) bullied me , man, I'm not sorry. I just started that day and was bullied and called a vandal. I was not vandalising you, man. user:Rabastan

Australian images

Hello Jimbo, just a quick question about Aussie images. We don't actually have any fair use legislation in Australia (rather we have fair dealing legislation - considerably different) and so if I want to place any government images onto the website I need to secure permission from the Australian government department first. Regrettably, this means that only the main Wikipedia site will be able to use these images (especially historical ones where we can't get our own images). I want to place an image of Cyclone Tracy onto the website, but this will mean restricting the image use. What is your take on this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Korean Buddhism

Dear Mr. Wales,

I am an extensive contributor to Wikipedia, including over 200 entries.

A while back, I contributed a lengthy article on Korean Buddhism, but after finding it being copied around the Web without attribution, I decided I was not happy about this, and took the article down (but leaving a link to the original site).

The Wikipedia editors tell me that I have lost my rights to this material by originally posting it under the GPL. If this is so, it is a sad case, and certainly does not seem reflective of the spirit of cooperation we would expect to see from Wikipedia. I don't want to get legalistic here--I simply implore you to correct this situation by doing what is right.

Thank you for your attention.

Charles Muller ([email protected])

Above posted on September 30, 2004 by Acmuller on your user page. See Talk:Korean Buddhism and User talk:Acmuller. Lupo 11:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Lupo#Korean Buddhism. Lupo 11:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

French arbitration committee

There are at the moment discussions on fr.wikipedia to create an Arbitration Committee. In particular, there's a proposal to include in the rules the possibility to appeal any decision to you. What do you think about this? (you may answer directly there) - _R_ 13:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer. Does it mean that you agree, that my question is pointless or something else altogether ? _R_ 21:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I apologize Rorro, it was bad that I did not answer yet. I intend to answer soon. I wanted to chat with Anthere and some others about it first, but I just have not had the time. I am generally in favor of it, but do not want to appear to be controlling. But I think it can actually help the community to be comfortable with a more powerful Arbitration Committee knowing that there is an appeal mechanism if the committee does bad things. It's a safety valve.

At the same time, as a practical matter, it would be quite hard for me to make any real decisions because I don't speak French. In practice, I would end up relying on the advice of trusted wikipedians whom I know. So, is this still helpful? Jimbo Wales 07:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. It's a difficult problem and we haven't discussed it thoroughly on fr: yet. _R_ 11:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is definitly a difficult problem, and needs much more work that what it has been done till now. I specifically chose to say nothing on the matter during a few weeks to avoid any feeling of control. Only about 1 week ago, did I put comments, and decided to stay away for a while, so that things can go through natural evolution. I am quite confident since the leader of this proposition is Villy who I trust greatly. The only really negative point I see in the current proposal is that to some people opinion, the arbitration committee would also have the right to decide not only about what should be done to fix dispute in terms of human behavior, but would also have the right to decide of the content (ie, which version of an article is neutral, versus which is not). This is not something I will support. But I am quite confident, as I see that many other have the same opinion. I would recommand R to go on discussing it, and mostly, not to be hasty :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW

The Southern Collaboration of the Week board is now up. Please vote or nominate other articles. The first voting ends on October 3. Mike H 14:24, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

He who cannot be mentioned

I don't want to seem too fussy here but, we really didn't say anything bad about he who cannot be mentioned. Even if we did aren't (you, we, somebody) setting a bad precedent here? He who cannot be mentioned is free to set the record straight on the talk pages.CSTAR 21:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• laugh* Well, it's more like, he's beneath our dignity to worry about, don't you think? Jimbo Wales 00:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

a new complaint

Hi Jimbo I wanted to let you know that there is a guy named Postldf who is going around trying to act like he is in charge. He told me that Im not allowed to add a page if its about an elementary school. Will you tell him to stop it. User:Haydes 14:41, October 2, 2004 (Western time)

It is obvious that this user is a troll. He knows how to use the bio-stub template? He knows which articles to create to cause the most controversy. He knows to tattle to Jimbo. RickK 04:18, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

So if I know how to make a bio-stub that makes me a troll. Real smart thinking there RickK.

Hi Jimbo will you tell me which of my article are against policies and also where I can read those policies.

A word in your shell like

Can I just bend your ear for a quick natter? This weekend I've started the UK notice board and early indications are that it's a good idea, and a popular one at that. I feel that while you've got people like Xed crowing on about systemic bias at the village pump here is a real opportunity to do something about the perceived problem. I hope it expands to much greater things.

My worry is the effect this is going to have on the wider community, and I'm anticipating some objections from other quarters of the encyclopedia. As more of these things come into existence it could be seen as being divisive to the wider community, weakening the overall effort (trust me, I'm a sociologist). It's just that I've put in a lot of effort this weekend (due partly to my other half being in Crete with work) and I'm worried that at some point someone's going to burst the bubble and challenge the whole idea.

I would really appreciate your feelings on this issue. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Despite Xed's unpopularity, I think his proposal on systemic bias is quite interesting and potentially very helpful. I hope people overlook his past and look seriously at what he's saying here.

I don't see a problem with pages like yours, it can strengthen the community as long as people don't start to view these things territorially. I understand your concern, and I think that the concern you feel is actually the best defense against the problem.  :-) I'm trying to put together a meetup in Chicago, with disappointing results so far, so I wish there was a way to reach people in that community. Regional boards could help a lot with personal meetups. Jimbo Wales 03:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually you read my mind, and one of the things I thought this board could do was seek opinions on having a UK wikimeet before the international one next year so that more people have a chance to have their views aired in the broader forum. I expect the UK users could organise location/venue/times etc amongst ourselves but we would need a bit of a hand with format/agenda items etc. Is there a report of the last wikimeet that took place in London anywhere? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael

Since your apparent unilateral unbanning, Michael has both failed to abide by your rules and made little to no show of repentance. I trust I, and others, can look forward to your prompt unilateral rebanning of Michael... or do we need to follow some sort of procedure? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've been reviewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mike_Garcia his edits], and I think that the experiment is going quite well, actually. First, he has generally abided by the rules, hasn't he? His edits all seem to be factually good as far as I can tell. And he's been staying within the numbers, with only one exception. (There was some confusion about this, because edits to his own user space don't count towards his total.)

He's under the mentorship of Guanaco and (especially) Danny, and they are doing a good job of counselling him and helping him to reintegrate with the community.

But, to answer your question, if Michael does start becoming a problem, yes, you can look forward to my prompt rebanning of him. But a better way to think about this is that he's "in the custody" of his "parole officers" and we should give them some wide latitude in trying to help first. Jimbo Wales 12:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz

I would like to request your opinions about several issues regarding the behavior of User:Gzornenplatz. His RFC is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz, and he's been in several revert wars recently. I have warned him at least twice about violating the three revert rule, but as both User:VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz pointed out (along with numerous members of the IRC channel), I have no authority to 24-hour block Gzornenplatz for his edit wars. I would like to request your opinion on two matters: Gzornenplatz's behavior itself (namely, does it necessitate perhaps a request for arbitration) and the policy regarding our 3 Revert "Rule", which is currently an unenforcable rule. Thanks, ugen64 20:24, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I only started reverting when nothing was done about others doing so. There is no authority for sysops to enforce the rule on their own, but the Arbitration Committee has the power and simply doesn't use it, at least when it comes to VeryVerily, who has been violating the rule for much longer and to a greater extent than I have (he caused at least six protections of the George W. Bush article alone). So any consequence will have to be applied to him first, in which case - when the rule is finally enforced - I would gladly follow it myself. Gzornenplatz 20:32, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

But it is not very helpful for people to say "Well, other people are being bad, so I will too." Better to leave a clean paper trail so that you have the high moral ground to say "This rule should be enforced." Aside from stating this general principle, the whole thing looks too complicated for me to comment upon. Jimbo Wales 21:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I did have the moral high ground for a long time and it was no use - the Arbitration Committee refused to enforce the rule, which means it isn't really one. Either a rule is enforced against everyone or it isn't. It is not acceptable that a rule "can" be enforced at the whim of an authority, if it's a rule it must be enforced whenever a complaint about a real violation is brought (the remedies of course may vary according to different circumstances). Gzornenplatz 21:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "for a long time". But no more, right? I agree with you by the way that the rule needs to be enforceable and that the current situation with the rule is untenable. I'm just saying that as an activist for positive change, it is generally more effective to have an impeccable record. Keep in mind, the 3 revert rule is not _just_ a rule, it's a matter of etiquette and decency. So breaking it is not like going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, it's like spitting in someone's eye. Rude and something to be ashamed and sorry about, no matter what other people may be doing. This is my recommendation. Jimbo Wales 21:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That depends where you violate the rule. I don't do so when the other side is willing to talk. So it's like spitting in someone's eye who spat in your eye first, since you have no other remedy. The alternative is just letting everyone spit in your eye. Of course you can make the case that it is indeed virtuous to "turn the other eye", but it's not really something you can expect from people. Gzornenplatz 22:15, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I can't expect it from people, but I do, and I'm usually rewarded with pleasant results. Hold yourself to the highest standard, even when others do not.Jimbo Wales 23:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your visit to Warsaw

The guys from the Polish wiki are thinking of organising some meeting during your forthcoming visit to Warsaw. The problem is that there is barely anyone from Warsaw left in the Polish wiki. In case they didn't come up with some plan - just let me know, I'd be happy to guide you through the city (and be sure to read Warsaw first :)). Regards, [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:25, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Assault Weapon Ban page in trouble

A user named GreatLeapForward has been undermining major efforts to settle on a NPOV on the Federal_assault_weapons_ban_(USA) article. Several of us have been working quite hard as show in the discussion page of that article, and now this wacko user comes along and starts putting in his own extremist remarks. I reverted the page, and he put his remarks back in. I see no end. I looked at some other edits this user has made, and he seems to be making other non-founded edits across Wikipedia. What can we do about his edits and his activity? Thank you. Wodan 01:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

This is a topic about which I know quite a bit, and take a personal interest. Therefore, ironically enough, it's inappropriate for me to comment in detail. However, I can note that such language as "the failure of" is a value judgment which is inappropriate for Wikipedia, so I agree with you to that extent.

At the same time, I must note that a portion of his edits do not seem so horrible, and the article is currently not as neutral as perhaps it should be. Jimbo Wales 04:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I know that this is a topic which you have some personal interest in, which is why I brought it up directly to your attention. While some of his comments may or may not be "so horrible," his overall editing changes are completely inappropriate. It would seem that he will continue to put in all his edits time and time again. What is the protocol to resolve this? If he was willing to introduce his changes on the discussion page, then there can be a reasonable discussion of what is appropriate and what is not. But so far he has not been willing to do so, and I anticipate will just just continue to force his POV comments on the article. What should be done to resolve this? Thanks. Wodan 14:39, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Copy of my message to Everyking re Great Purge

I have now withdrawn from this article, and also from Khmer Rouge. I will now go through my watchlist and withdraw from all articles on modern historical and political topics, since I can longer stand having to conduct these endless stupid circular arguments over elementary facts of history with malicious fools like Shorne, while being sabotaged by people like you and Fred Bauder who ought to know better. I am in fact seriously considering withdrawing from Wikipedia altogether, since I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that its structure does not offer any support to those attempting to write intellectually credible articles on historical-political subjects. Adam 13:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure that the "you" in "you and Fred Bauder" referred to Everyking, and not me, right? Obviously I am a huge fan of yours and wouldn't want to be seen as sabotaging you in any way. Jimbo Wales 14:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he means me. Everyking 14:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam is unhappy with the inclusion of Vyacheslav Molotov's sympathetic view of the Purges, since he feels that it doesn't deserve mention in a serious article on the subject, while some others, including myself, think it's only fair to include a sympathetic POV from an attributed source. Everyking 14:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to look into it, but I have no special insight I think. Jimbo Wales 14:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For information

(originallly written on fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro)

==he: n'aime que les articles anglais==
Les autres étant en quelque sorte de la merde, si l'on comprend bien ce que je viens de trouver sur ma page de discussion :

Please stop creating interwikis from the Hebrew Wikipedia to so many languages. Our readers are interested only in the English Wikipedia. Thanks.--Roybb95 12 oct 2004 à 14:41 (CEST)

Conclusion : ils peuvent toujours courir pour que j'ajoute un lien vers leur wiki raciste. [[Utilisateur:Ma'ame Michu|Ma'ame Michu]] | [[Discussion Utilisateur:Ma'ame Michu|Discuter]] 12 oct 2004 à 14:59 (CEST)

That means that I understand that for the Hebrew wiki users, other wikis than the English one are shit.
I think this attitude is incompatible with the spirit of the wiki. Ma'ame Michu 13:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well, I would say that interlanguage links should be made liberally from every language to every other language. But it isn't really nice to call a person racist for having a different viewpoint, I think.  :-) Jimbo Wales 14:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

AMBI

Please Tell Ambi not to insult the users and hurt my feelings. it's rather mean and not very nice thing for an admin to be doing. 203.112.19.195 12:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Crumbs. I've had my user page vandalised. Now I've had someone tattle to you.. I just need someone to list me on ViP and I'll have the trifecta! :) Ambi 12:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Photo with person

Hello, I want to prepare text of the license for use with image (photo) with person. Text this license based on Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat. License:

©	This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that: . use or modification doesn't violates honour of presented person or persons. . all GNU FDL license rules are respected.

[[Category:Conditional use images with person]]

What is your opinion on this license? DanielZM 12:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) (or pl:Wikipedysta:Danielm)

My opinion is that this license is inconsistent. The GNU FDL does not permit you to add an additional restriction of this kind. I express no opinion on the usefulness or validity of a license of this general type: I'm interested, but unsure. But I do think it doesn't work to just add a restriction to GNU FDL. Jimbo Wales 15:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My proposition isn't GNU FDL license with additional restriction. This is other free license with two conditions. Second condition demands the rules of GNU FDL lisense.

I uderstand your reservations and thus my new proposition (or could you propose other license bat very important to me is condition No.1).

©

This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that: Use or modification dosn't violates honour of presented person. You must give the original author credit Preserve all the copyright notices of the image. For any section entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", preserve the title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein. Release the modified version under precisely this license. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices. Preserve the section Entitled "History", preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the image, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder or the original publisher.

DanielZM 07:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Honour is a broad concept, which varies between different people and cultures. The above license thus leaves a lot of room for interpretation. You should define honour, or point to some suitable definition (perhaps the UN has one, for example), or find a less ambiguous word. Furthermore, the addition of an extra restriction makes the license incompatible with the GFDL. It is therefore deprecated like several of the other image licenses used in Wikipedia. — David Remahl 08:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== "Terrorism" straw poll

You famously stated that NPOV is non-negotiable. Most people pretty-much understand this, but of course there's lots of room for interpretation. There's a strawpoll going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Straw poll on use of the term "terrorist" where some people feel that calling the attacks "terrorist attacks" and calling the suicide bombers "terrorists" is POV, and others feel otherwise. The poll is currently deadlocked, and consensus seems a long way away. I'd be interested to hear your views on the subject. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:54, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

My own view ought not to carry particular weight beyond the strength of my arguments. Having said that, I think that the view that we ought not call 9/11 a terrorist attack is preposterous. Terrorism is best understood as a military doctrine, a doctrine in the use of the initiation of physical force to achieve some political ends, a doctrine which is (justifiably) unpopular. It is egregiously POV to use a euphemism which obscures what is going on.

There are two separate issues: what is this? And what moral evaluation should we give it? Terrorism is a descriptive word, like "murder", which does not inherently carry with it a moral judgment. The fact that most people add a moral judgment in both cases is simply a testament to the fact that most people are quite reasonable and sensible about basic moral facts.

There is no question, I hasten to add, that the word "terrorism" can be abused to further a POV agenda. For example, people sometimes want to expand the use of the word to refer to ordinary military options, or to encompass ordinary sorts of civil disobediance. This is a problem that is best dealt with through better writing, not through an arbitrary avoidance of a perfectly good word.

For me, when I look at a poll like this, I don't just count the number of votes in forming my opinion of what is really going on: I look at the names. In this case, the names reveal a lot. Jimbo Wales 14:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In what way? There's one user on each side in arbitration, six sysops voting no vs. eight sysops voting yes... ugen64 21:25, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

In exactly that way. There are thoughtful people on both sides. My point is that counting votes isn't very helpful, and polls like this are not very helpful. Better to carefully work out a policy that satisfies both sides, i.e. to seek common ground. I would cautiously suppose that what is needed here is a narrow definition of the term which limits its use to certain carefully chosen situations, while avoiding abuse of the term, etc. A blanket prohibition isn't going to gain consensus obviously, but neither is rampant overuse. Jimbo Wales 01:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: the votes over category:terrorists seem to have come to a stop (no consensus, but a keep according to present policies). The present category definition is:

This category is for individuals that have personally used and/or verifiably were about to put in practice terrorist tactics, here understood as inducing, or convincingly threatening to induce, outside the operations of a regular armed conflict, a life-threatening situation in a community, with the objective of exploiting, for purposes that are broader than personal gain, the possible weakness of a community that experiences collective terror.

plus some exclusions like shock and awe and guerilla fighters (unless they are also terrorists according to the above definition).

--Francis Schonken 21:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Welcome

I just joined the welcoming committee, and realised that you must be one of the few users who has never been welcomed to wikipedia. I thought this was a very sad state of affaris, so i present to you your offical welcome:

Hi Jimbo, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

• Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
• The help centre and FAQs
• The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

But above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, spread the wikilove, and have fun!

paz y amor, The bellman 06:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If any other users (or founders :P ) never recieved a welcome, and would like one, just pop a note on my talk page and ill give you an official welcome as well. The bellman 06:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Danny's contest

Dear Jimbo Wales,

please contact me specifying the amount of WikiMoney you require for my victory in the currently running Danny's contest. Alternatively I would be willing to pay in kind.

Yours, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:48, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

The benevolent dictator thing

Hi Jimbo,

Since you were the last person having modified m:Benevolent dictator, I suppose you were still not completely at ease with that description of your role in Wikipedia. Anyway, just to notify I posted some possible alternatives to BDFL on that page. Would you care to have a look, and give an indication whether one of these proposed alternatives corresponds better with how you experience your own role?

--Francis Schonken 13:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am more comfortable with the analogy to the British monarch, i.e. my power should be (and is) limited, and should fade over time. Wikipedia is not an anarchy, though it has anarchistic features. Wikipedia is not a democracy, though it has democratic features. Wikipedia is not an aristocracy, though it has aristocratic features. Wikipedia is not a monarchy, though it has monarchical features.

The situation in nl.wikipedia.org is probably a good example of how I can play a productive role through the judicious exercise of power. My role there is mostly just as advisor to people in terms of just trying to help people think about the bigger picture and how we can find the best ways to interact and get along to get our incredibly important work done.

But it is also a role of "constitutional" importance, in the sense that everyone who is party to the discussion can feel comfortable that whatever agreements are reached will be *binding*, that there is a higher enforcement mechanism. It's not up to me to *impose* a solution, nor is it up to me directly to *enforce* a solution chosen by the community, but I do play a role in guaranteeing with my personal promise that valid solutions decided by the community in a reasonable fashion will be enforced by someone.

Notice that very little of *that* involves actual power. Rather, it involves respect for me and my role, and that respect last only so long as I act thoughtfully and with fairness and justice to everyone, and in accordance with the broad consensus of the community.

And notice, too, that I believe such authority should be replaced as time goes along by institutions within the community, such as for example the ArbCom in en.wikipedia.org, or by community votes in de.wikipedia.org, etc.

We have very few problems, other than isolated things, with sysop abuse or cabals, even in smaller languages, and in part because everyone is quite aware that I would take whatever actions necessary to ensure due process in all parts of wikipedia, to the best of my ability.

None of this is like being a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. Jimbo Wales 01:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these insightful considerations. Yes, this is also how I perceive things. Maybe indeed we should stop here, and not try to find a "name" for such role (whether this role is for temporary use or otherwise). Nonetheless (yes I know, from this point on I might seem to be nagging, which I don't want to, so please forgive me) I suppose giving it a name is useful. People will want to give this role some sort of label (I hate labels...). Refusing any label might seem the best thing to do, but I have some sort of impression that then you get a label anyway: you'll be named GodKing again before you know it, or BDFL (like it is now), people lacking a more satisfactory name. Even Meta seems to be insisting on defining (and thus naming) all roles in the MediaWiki concept. Note that I don't think that by definition it is you that has to give the name, nonetheless this is one of these many advantages of the Wiki(pedia) concept that I can sit down here and have this exchange of thoughts with you over a cup of coffee (or whatever drink you have at hand).

• Name-giving-wise the piece you wrote above goes direction of Constitutional Monarch, which I think an abomination (name-wise, not necessarily content-wise). I don't even think I want to discuss this as a possibility. Note that the last thing a Constitutional Monarch (like the British, Belgian, Dutch, etc queens & kings) can do is help to engender a constitution.
• Or Constitutional Monarch with a Ceremonial Function (which they have in some countries in Northern Europe) - even worse name-wise.
• Still think the idea of what you described above best corresponds with how I always understood Eminence Grise (but I still have no idea whether you'd take offense of the grise, which is your good right; or would think a French expression is never going to work).
• Thinking about Deus ex Machina again, I now think it was a witty proposition, but more witticism than possibility.

--Francis Schonken 14:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

Remember I mentioned this during the chat, and you said that you liked it during your childhood? Well here are the articles on en: Battlestar Galactica (2003), Battlestar Galactica (SciFi Channel). Maybe something to relax by. Available through bt. Waerth 01:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:RickK

He banned someone at Larry Sanger over an edit dispute, even though the person was not engaged in vandalism, or anything even remotely similar to vandalism. The person banned was simply adding two brief edits, noting that Sanger only teaches introductory philosophy courses (which is shown by Sanger's official Ohio State website) and that Sanger claims to specialize in certain areas (however no proof has been shown). RickK used his sysop powers to censor Mr. Sanger's vanity page, in violation of the rules on NPOV. RickK has repeatedly refused to discuss the issue, either with the person he banned, or with others at the discussion page. It is clear that you must rule on whether sysops are allowed to ban anyone with whom they disagree, even when said persons have not broken any rules whatsoever. The Wikipedia continues to slide down a very slippery slope... Wert

He blocked an ip number, right? That's perfectly legitimate. Do you think that proof is really necessary for a statement that he specializes in certain areas? It isn't a controversial claim nor even a statement that goes beyond whatever Larry himself tells you. Jimbo Wales 21:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Beautiful quote

So you know, that's a fantastic quote in the recent Guardian article. It's "like a sausage: you might like the taste of it, but you don't necessarily want to see how it's made". Curious... did the quote make it's debut for the article, or did it arise from a discussion? -- user:zanimum

Actually, it's just an old saying. I don't know the source. I think I heard it from my grandmother. Jimbo Wales 05:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to BrainyQuote, it comes from a remark about the legislative process by Otto von Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." JamesMLane 19:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice quote, though in the context of the "librarian" complaining that Wikipedia isn't "authoritative" the whole article seemed to miss what to me is a great attraction of Wikipedia, which effectively says in large friendly letters "Check Things For Yourself, here is a start with easy links and search facilities" and makes it easy to see how the article developed if you want to. By coincidence, I found a dodgy item in Britannica 2004 on the same day as buying that Guardian - many thanks for starting this from someone who only began contributing in July, dave souza 19:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) edit: to clarify, overall the article was very positive and neutral accuracy is an essential aim, but any encyclopaedia contains brief summaries of whole books striving to be authoritative and should not be treated as dogma. dave souza 07:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz

I tried to ask nicely Gzonenplatz to follow the 3 revert rule, see above. And he seemed to advise me that the rule needs to be enforceable. Therefore, as he has chosen to ignore my friendly advice, I have chosen to accept his friendly advice. I have blocked him for 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on Pila, but also because of personal attacks on the talk page, and also taking into consideration the full picture, which is that he's been banned for the same kind of behavior on de.wikipedia.org. I strongly recommend that we enforce the rule evenly and in all cases. Jimbo Wales 23:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But if that's the case, we need to be able to block people for doing that. Gz's point was that one could break the 3RR many times and still not have a case accepted by the Arbitration Committee. Thus, his point still stands - you may recommend that it be enforceable, but at present, that just simply isn't so (well, unless you step in, that is!). Ambi 04:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There may be little point to complain since you of course can do whatever you want as arbitrarily as you want. However, your blocking me just makes no sense on any level. You're misrepresenting here what I said - I didn't say the rule needs to be "enforceable" in a random fashion, but that it should be enforced in all cases, or else not at all. This one-sided block is precisely what I have spoken against. If you look at the edit history of Pila, you'll see that Space Cadet and Emax have violated the 3RR on that same article just as well, and Emax at least has also personally attacked me, calling me a supporter of neo-Nazi parties in edit summaries. Even more inappropriate is the bringing in of the block on the German wiki, which was completely arbitrary itself (there's no ArbCom on the German wiki, and sysops can block at will) and in general, what happens on one wiki should not affect things on another wiki at all, since the policies can be very different (obviously, since I didn't vandalize, no sysop on en could have done what you did and block me without an ArbCom ruling, so it is curious that you would do this rather than change general policy if you think ArbCom is inadequate, especially since you normally not intervene like that, so I wonder what's behind that). Anyway, could you clarify if you're going to continue to enforce the 3RR unilaterally against me and, if so, why? Above you seem to agree that the rule should be enforced evenly, but you're not doing anything to bring that about, although you could simply decree it (i.e. declare the 3RR an official rule with specific penalties, which any sysop must implement when he is notified of a violation). If you're not doing that, I see no reason why I should unilaterally follow the rule while others can freely violate it. If you expect this from me, please explain why you apparently don't expect this from others (some of whom have a much longer history in that regard; as I said I tried for months to keep an "impeccable record" as you suggested in the earlier discussion - it didn't help and only then I started to ignore the rule myself). Gzornenplatz 03:37, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Your behavior has been systematically unacceptable for a long period of time. The fact that you chatted with me personally about it, and still blatantly broke rules after that, was a great disappointment to me. Your block was short enough to be merely symbolic.

I am working to build support for stronger enforcement of the 3 revert rule, and if you support me in this effort, then I expect you to adhere to the rule quite firmly yourself. As to why you should "unilaterally follow the rule" even though you see others violating it, I already answered this in great detail in our previous exchange: it is a matter of courtesy and respect for others. Hold yourself to high standards, even when others do not.

Let me emphasize this: being a problem user yourself is absolutely no way to be a serious wikipedian in pursuit of policies which properly deal with problem users. If you have a problem with what other people are doing, it is simply no excuse to behave even worse in retaliation. Jimbo Wales 05:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what about the earlier chat could have led you to believe that I was willing to follow the 3RR unilaterally. I thought I precisely made clear why you can't expect this. You then said yes, you can't expect it, but you do anyway, and I don't see how this could be interpreted other than that you were saying it's good behaviour (as you say now, a matter of courtesy and respect) to follow the rule, but you don't intend to enforce it. Naturally I expected that, if you enforce it, then you do so equally (which would have had my full support). I certainly didn't behave "even worse" than others, nor for a longer period of time. I behaved exactly the same as the others who ignored the rule (and who have done so for much longer).

I do expect it of you. I think you are letting yourself down by not doing it. It is good behavior, and it is a matter of courtesy and respect, and I do expect it of you. Will you let me down again?

Does "expect" mean "demand" (in the sense of "do this or you're blocked")? I already explained that I don't believe in forever giving in to others who violate the rule. I've been there, I've done that, and it's not satisfactory. If you agree there's a problem, I would expect of you that you do something about it. Will you let me down?

No hard feelings about a short symbolic block, if it was just once, but you didn't answer the question: would you do that again unilaterally against me if I continued to violate the rule where others violate it too? I would have no problem abiding by the rule for the time being if I had reason to believe that there will be a policy of equal enforcement soon. I don't see why you think you need to "build support for stronger enforcement". There won't ever be any consensus on the 3RR and its enforcement. Some don't think the rule should exist at all, some want it strictly and equally enforced, others want to let sysops or the ArbCom enforce it selectively, others want more complicated processes like quickpolls, etc. There has been enough fruitless talk on this, and opinions were always divided. But a clear policy is needed, so why are you hesitant to use your power there when you just had no problem using it to block me? Gzornenplatz 05:46, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think you need to not worry over whether someone will enforce the rule against you, and instead raise your standard of behavior for entirely different reasons. The primary reason for you to treat others with courtesy and respect is not the rules, not the behavior of others, but rather a matter of dignity.

As to why I singled you out? Because your actions in a number of places, on a number of topics, and in violation of a number of rules struck me as particularly opportunistic exploitations of weaknesses in our current policies. I think it is very important to send the message that such things can not be tolerated, and in particular when they are justified by reference to what is a completely poisonous line of argument which suggests that bad behavior by others is a justifiable reasons to be bad yourself. That line of thought undercuts any possibility of a civilized community. Jimbo Wales 05:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But I do worry, the equality of the enforcement is the whole point here. I personally believe in treating others with courtesy and respect exactly as long as they do likewise, and I see a big difference in initiation of bad behaviour and reaction to it (as a libertarian you should be familiar with this distinction). If someone steals something from you, and there's no police to deal with it, and you take matters in your own hand and take something of equal value from the thief, do you think you are yourself stealing, is it equally bad behaviour, are you undercutting any possibility of a civilized community? What's undercutting a civilized community here is the lack of a police that deals with the theft in the first place. So, likewise, if someone refuses honest discussion on an article and just keeps reverting, and the ArbCom refuses to deal with it, forgive me if I am somewhat reluctant to just go away and let that person have his way. I also don't see where you see an "opportunistic exploitation of weaknesses in our current policies", especially when I'm all the time urging you to change those policies I'm supposedly exploiting. Gzornenplatz 06:32, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

---

Ok, no problem. It's great that someone at last decided to clean up this mess. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 17:24, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Muijz

Just to keep you up to date Muijz has been blocked today. For details ask Oscar. Waerth 07:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

department of fun

hey there just wanted to invite you to be a member of the Department of Fun as i would love to hear any critiques or anything of that nature, even just an opinion on what we are doing would be great! feel free to add your sig./timestamp in the members section. --Larsie 17:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

another baby of mine is Wikifun and i'd like to hear any comments or ideas for improvement on that too. --Larsie 17:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Benevolent Monarchs

Hi Jimbo, and all who happen to read this,

Both parts of the discussion ("Benevolent Dictator" from this page and "Constitutional Monarch" from my user talk page, including my most recent reply), are now on meta (m:talk:benevolent dictator). Figured that was sort of where this discussion belonged, for anyone to take part in.

--Francis Schonken 21:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australian images

Hello Jimbo, just a quick question about Aussie images. We don't actually have any fair use legislation in Australia (rather we have fair dealing legislation - considerably different) and so if I want to place any government images onto the website I need to secure permission from the Australian government department first. Regrettably, this means that only the main Wikipedia site will be able to use these images (especially historical ones where we can't get our own images). I want to place an image of Cyclone Tracy onto the website, but this will mean restricting the image use. What is your take on this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. In general we very much like to avoid images with any sort of non-free license. Getting a nice photo for our website, but that isn't GNU-free doesn't really help our mission much, unfortunately, and may actually hinder it it a bit, because the convenience may prevent us from seeking creative ways to get free alternatives. Jimbo Wales 05:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No worries :-) The Cyclone Tracy at the moment has a non-free image, however anyone can use it so long as they contact the source I've listed on the image description page. This is for Australian law. For American law, I think that we can apply fair use to it, but I'm not quite sure about that. However, I talked to my flat-mate about that, and I beleive that the legal concept here is extraterritorality and once the image is on a U.S. server Australian law no longer applies to that image. I might, however, be done for exporting the image. In this case, I would not, because on my email to the department I specifically told them I would be using it on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to add to this, Jimbo, I believe Australia uses Crown Copyright rules, much as the UK does. You'll probably find that the same is true for other Commonwealth countries. -- ChrisO 13:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please Unblock

It's User:Tuesday Teen, previously User:33451. I've talked to my school administration, and they've decided that I can come back to Wikipedia under good faith edits only. Therefore, I ask you to please unblock 156.63.193.62 for me. Thanks. — Tuesday Teen 17:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photo with person again

Could you suggest any free license to photo that will protect honour (or reputation, or good name) presented person simultaneously? DanielZM 13:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of any existing license. I think some people would say that such a license is impossible, because the license would not really be free. You'd be free to take it and reuse it and modify it, but you could not distribute your modified version unless it meets some conditions. I personally think I would still call that license "free", but it is an interesting puzzle.

Consider how a license might restrict redistribution of our work. Perhaps someone would like to take our NPOV content about a famous politician, but alter it to suit their own political agenda, and redistribute it. They might want to draw a Hitler moustache on Bush for example -- a popular pastime these days. If we had a photo of Bush that forbid that kind of use, then our content would not be as free as we would like.

But consider another use: a photo of a person, where the person is not *per se* the object of the photo, but is instead being used to illustrate some concept. "Typical child playing at a typical beach" for example. It is hard to see exactly what practical problems an "honor protecting" license would cause in this case... although I haven't thought about it much.

Creative Commons is doing great work regarding making new licenses (free and semi-free) to cover various kinds of uses. I will ask about this to see if any work is underway on a license of this sort, and also you could ask them directly.

Jimbo Wales 13:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just thanks

I've been editing since January of this year. Thanks for starting Wikipedia keeping it going & for being a voice of reason and never an arbitrary dictator. That's all-- and I hope that's enough-- Elf | Talk 19:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Atheism

Jimbo, I dare you to defend your NPOV policy in Talk:atheism. Adraeus 23:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I find the above a rudely insubordinate outburst, I too would appreciate your wise and weighty presence on Talk:Atheism. Sam [Spade] 01:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rude? Doubtful. I challenged Jimbo to defend his flawed NPOV policy which allows extremely biased trolls to corrupt an NPOV article with POV using NPOV policy as a defense.

Insubordinate? Surely. I bow before no man and no god. Adraeus 01:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clearly. Sam [Spade] 13:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS: note that atheists are used as an example on Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Yeah, sure, this is very "tricky" NPOV-wise. That's why I chose that example. I've no knowledge of the category being questioned again (as it was before the categorisation of people guideline existed). --Francis Schonken 08:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On NPOV Misusage

About the NPOV principle in WikiPedia I think that each of us have a point of view and that’s a fact and there are many subtle ways of expressing your POV and make it look as NPOV. Maybe it should be allow taking multiple POV in WikiPedia so that all voices can be heard! Tolerance should be the principle. There is probably as many POV on earth as humans inhabiting it. Why should we censor or repress others people point of View? For example Fidel Castro's article does not have a section on Opposition to Castro something I try to start and someone deleted base on the NPOV principle! Now, that I believe is a manipulation of information since there is such a thing as Opposition to Castro. One only have to make a few searches on Google to notice how many groups of Cubans oppose him inside as well as outside of Cuba.

Information can be manipulated by omission of important topics for the sake of being NPOV. There are so many omissions in that article. Another point is that POV change with time and between cultures, countries etc. Maybe in the future people with more knowledge (hopefully!) than we have right now will treat for example Castro more harshly or even maybe in a more benign way that we currently do today. The reason for that is that they may have information that we currently do not have. So I think maybe WikiPedia can also be a repository of Information than can also survive time. I do not think the current WikiPedia history is sufficient for this. So the way some of us think about him or about anything else today will be lost forever. You can browse many iterations of a paper encyclopedia and notice that after years many definitions get corrected as we gain more knowledge and some topics may loose importance and may even get deleted. The question is should we keep snapshots of WikiPedia in time. I think we should. So that people in the future will know the way we think now and can study us on why we think the way we do today and all the mental blocks we currently impose ourselves.

SilentVoice 22:46, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't really think there is such a thing as NPOV with some issues. The only way to really get NPOV is to present all biased sides of an argument and let the reader choose for himself. For topics like abortion, atheism and the presidential elections, maybe we should just put one or two extremely neutral statements at the top about the issue being controversial, then give space to each side of the argument to present the subject as it sees fit.

Another point on NPOV, whether you agree with a POV or not, you cannot dispute the fact that the POV exists. In that vein, a POV is usually something worth noting in an encyclopedia just for the fact it exists and is as real as the thing being opposed. Opposition to Castro should be presented because it exists and effects the world arround us as much as Castro himself. That makes it noteworthy.

Sowelilitokiemu 09:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

• I added a new suggestion to m:benevolent dictator
• I read you banned Muijz for a new 72 H. Detailed reading of some of this person's edits lead me to conclude (disconcertingly!) he is some sort of sociopath, and that Elly is one of his - too easy - permanent victims.

There is no question that Muijz is not a sociopath. That kind of language is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Wikipedia/media defenses against such type of user are rather low. If technically possible I'd think permanent ban the best solution. Dutch Wikipedia does not really have the resources for long term supervised editing (Waerth is doing a great job in this respect, but the time lag of him living in an other continent appears to be hampering that approach).

It is not a matter of technical defenses. I chat with Muijz fairly often, and there's no reason at all to think that he would engage in technical measures to circumvent a block. There are deep personality conflicts going on there, and the solution is so far escaping everyone.

• Not so long ago you talked me about how you see your role in the coming into existence of a constitution for Dutch Wikipedia. I gave myself a week (...which eventually became a fortnight) to find some fellow Dutch Wikipedians for a first throw at such constitution:
  • The two basic articles of such constitution (Wikipedia:copyrights and NPOV) appear to be somehow missing/insufficient in Dutch Wikipedia.
  • Some take the writing of guidelines/policies as a solo project.
  • There are many standers-by, commenting on a guideline proposal being too short/too long (etc...), with limited contributions to the actual content. Yet there were many fruitful interactions. Amongst the non-sysops I want to mention primarily nl:Gebruiker:Bemoeial as someone who (in my eyes) is able to conduct Thinktank projects, while a good listener to what the community says. A quality improvement project seems to be taking off with nl:gebruiker:MartinD, nl:gebruiker:Jcwf and several others.
  • Dutch Wikipedians, when left the choice between reinventing the wheel and making an adaptation for their own use of guidelines of en:wikipedia, almost consistently choose for reinventing the wheel, which made me conclude a top-down approach is somehow impractical, although your and Anthere's interventions were generally accepted (a few "let's get rid of that Jimbo" kind of comments - which I quote horribly out of context here - in the margin). Elian's initiative (in English) was one of the most refreshing things I ever saw happening in Wikipedia context. Concluding this point I think it would maybe be a good idea to propose to the Dutch Wikipedia community that whatever they take as their constitution, that they put an English version of that on Meta (there is already some sort of consensus that that would be a maximum of 5 pages, when printed).

--Francis Schonken 09:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I view my role in the nl situation is as humble servant, trying to help bring a little calm to the situation while further procedures are worked out. My feeling is that a few things should probably happen: 1. A change of name from 'moderator' to 'sysop', 2. An increase in the number of sysops, to reduced or eliminate any concern (even among the existing sysops) of cabalism, 3. A clarification or even complete removal of the guideline of "unified front" among sysops, i.e. suggest that constructive disagreements with each other can be aired publicly without a problem.

Each of those things may be useful, but they don't get at the root of the problem, which is a deep personality conflict. I'm hoping that we can all sit down in person in Rotterdam and laugh about the craziness of online interactions. But only time will tell.Jimbo Wales 13:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

Hello, if you can find some time, would you be able to put on your "editor among editors hat" ;-) and contact FeloniousMonk and perhaps discuss some of the basics of wikipedia policy with him, please? I think he's acting in good faith, but needs someone to explain things to him. Specifically, he has a little trouble telling the difference between guidelines and foundation issues. You are often very patient and kind. So I'm hoping that a few friendly words from you would help a lot.Kim Bruning 15:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: If this has anything to do with atheism, talk:atheism, or User:Sam Spade, ignore. Sam Spade has been causing a lot of trouble and whining to his cronies to help him. Adraeus 20:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to do with Atheism directly, though Feloniousmonk definately has had some involvement there.Kim Bruning 21:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Positive involvement. Adraeus 21:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like I might have put more clearly earlier, I haven't looked at Atheism much at all. :-) If you say Feloniousmonk did positive work there, I'll take your word for it! Kim Bruning 22:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having now paged through the (rather bulky current) Talk:Atheism I'm not so sure you're right. :-/ Kim Bruning 13:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering you are neither involved nor were involved in the atheism article, your unsubstantiated opinion of FeloniousMonk's contributions is completely irrelevant. There are a significant number of editors whom vouch for FeloniousMonk--that's more supporters in favor of FeloniousMonk than one troll in your favor aptly named User:Sam_Spade. Moreover, the fact that you started this subject with apparently no basis is indicative of your failure as a Wikipedia contributor to provide evidence to support your position. I strongly suggest you discontinue your little vendetta against FeloniousMonk for you are neither being constructive nor acting in good faith. Adraeus 21:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, let me explain:

• My sole intent here was to ask Jimbo Wales to have a chat with FeloniousMonk on policy. Which, if you review my statements, is precicely what I requested.
• I have no vendetta against FeloniousMonk
• I'll simply believe you if you claim FeloniousMonks actions on Talk:Atheism were on balance positive, I haven't been involved. However, he has been involved in personal attacks there, which I noticed after you had brought the page to my attention.
• I have no intent to get dragged into any flame war on Talk:Atheism
• My dialogue with FeloniousMonk has nothing to do with Talk:Atheism at all. I was not aware of the discussion until you brought it to my attention.
• In conclusion, since I don't have any relevant position that I'm aware of, I think it will be rather hard to provide evidence for it.

Is there any particular reason Jimbo Wales should definately be advised against discussing policy with FeloniousMonk?

Kim Bruning 22:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is your orginal justification that I need this talking-to? And BTW, what are these alleged personal attacks I've made? I've made no personal attacks. It appears to me you are just fabricating whole cloth all new infractions that I've alledgedly committed.

Where was your concern over wikipedia policy when I brought it to your attention that Sam Spade sent me a vulgar email stating (edited) "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard" by using the wikipedia email system? When I asked you for assistance with it last Thursday your sole advice was "the delete button works, as does turning off wikipedia email." Is this the sort of response we are to expect from putatively responsible and fair sysops? Had you in your capacity as admin acted fairly, you would have followed up on the matter ofthe abusive use of the wiki email function as well. Your failure to do so tells me that you are consciously singling out users for 'enforcement' or 'talking-to's'. It also bolsters my claim that you are selectively badgering me. --FeloniousMonk 22:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's an entire discussion between Sam Spade and Jwrosenzweig that handled wikipedia policy on that matter. They're definately both experts on the matter, I didn't have anything to add. My advice to you was to delete the mail and to approach the editor to try and set up some kind of positive dialogue.

More importantly here, I've been asking Jimbo Wales to talk with you on Wikipedia Policy, working on an editor-to-editor level, which is something he seems to enjoy doing from time to time (correct me if I'm wrong! :-) ), and which might help understanding greatly. The subject in question would be "Where's the line between policy and guideline?" So maybe he could chat with both of you then? Kim Bruning 23:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I went to you first about Sam. I only went to Jwrosenzweig after you failed to take action. What kind of positive dialog do you think is possible with someone who's history and personal experience shows him to be a troll and sends editors missives stating "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard"? I engaged him politely on his talk page and he just deleted it four minutes later. You were aware of the policy violations of Sam Spade long before Jwrosenzweig spoke to him, you just chose to ignore it and instead continued to confront me over a minor misstating of policy, ignoring the greater violation of Sam's. That constitutes selective enforcement and bullying. Again, not the sort of behavior expected of admins.

Additionally, I put it to you that you yourself are unclear on policy as well. You stated "The arbitration commission has ruled that email is outside their jurisdiction." Yet Jwrosenzweig says "you should know that the Arbitration Committee has accepted emails as evidence, especially when they have been sent via the Wikipedia email function." Apparently you're not as up-to-speed with policy as you think. Maybe Jimbo Wales needs to talk with you on Wikipedia Policy, working on an editor-to-editor level?

You've failed to once substantiate exactly what it is that warrants your bringing me here before Jimbo to clarify my understanding of policy. You've provided no specific justification. You've engaged in simple, despicable slander, defaming my good faith contributions to the discussion at Talk:Atheism and implying I've made personal attacks; apparently made up whole cloth without so much as an example. You've committed preterition, passing by my many constructive contributions to articles and discussions without a mention. This constitutes harassment. I've told you many, many times, either level specific allegations against me or stop bullying me. To borrow Jwrosenzweig's phrase, you're using Jimbo like a stick here, and it's shameful behavior for a sysop. So, one more time, stop bullying me and looking over my shoulder constantly. I've offered to shake hands and part company friends, yet you continue your faux-naif slander. I don't know what else I can do.--FeloniousMonk 00:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was indeed intending to listen in. :-) Note that generally though, Jimbo Wales doesn't interfere with the arbitration committee. As to your other points, check Jwrosenzweigs' reply to you on his User Talk page. Kim Bruning 00:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you offer no gravamen other than your personal opinion of the quality of my contributions at Talk:Atheism? If you have specific allegations that I've violated policy or presented my arguments in bad faith at Talk:Atheism, then by all means, please make them. Otherwise, once again your opinion appears to be intended to be more damaging than constructive.

I would think, given your stated concern, that if your genuine goal here was improving what you consider to be my flawed behavior, your interactions with me would be colored by constructive suggestions and opinions. But instead anyone reading our history from the start only finds a theme of mild inflammatory aspersions, oblique slander and threats of sanctions coming from you Kim, and defensiveness coming from me. Why is that you think?--FeloniousMonk 17:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe I've just officially entered a reality distortion field of some sort. Clearly I must be FeloniousMonk, and FeloniousMonk must be me. Kim Bruning 18:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have your POV, I have mine. You might consider trying to see this dynamic from mine sometime instead of continually sneering at me.--FeloniousMonk 19:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It might be that you are assuming bad faith from me upfront. Try re-evaluating our conversations, assuming good faith from my side. You might need to recurse at my preceding statement. Kim Bruning 19:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I assumed your good faith at our first encounter, but your tone and method there and in subsequent encounters have indeed caused me to doubt. Having reread them just now, and remembering your deletion of my comments from my Talk page last week, you'll have to forgive me if I still doubt. I just don't know what else to consider having you constantly looking over my shoulder and then presenting nonconstructive criticism of my efforts in a faux-naif tone. So I'll suggest the same advice to you: assume my genuine good faith.

It seems we have both become unearned tar babies to the other. The interests of Wikipedia, as well as those both of us, would be best served were we to agree to assume the other's good faith, shake hands, and go our separate ways to leave the other to contribute unmolested.--FeloniousMonk 20:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never deleted any content from wikipedia at all, let alone from your user page. What's all this? Kim Bruning 20:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My Talk page was reverted after I made what would have been my final comment to you last Thursday. Only that comment to you was removed by the reversion and I had to re-enter it. Is it your position that you did not revert it? If I am indeed mistaken, then you have my apologies.

Also, is it your intention that you will continue on your current course of confronting me on wikipedia, or do you agree to my overture above to put this animosity behind us?--FeloniousMonk 22:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I didn't intentionally revert anything on your user talk page, as far as I can recall. Nor can I imagine why I'd do so.

I already explained to you clearly on your user talk page exactly under which rare circumstances I'd do something, and the motivation for doing so. Kim Bruning 23:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, apparently it's not as rare as you suggest, since less than a week later you've dragged me here onto Jimbo's page without so much as a justification for doing so. It's your motivations that are the very reason I'm here chatting so enjoyably with you. Providing some justification for your actions here and on my Talk page would go a long way to disproving that you are indeed bullying me. I'm not the only editor who thinks that that is indeed what you are doing.--FeloniousMonk 00:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, Jimbo isn't always a terrible god king who smites the unbelievers with fire from the sky, as far as I'm aware. Usually he's quite a nice guy who enjoys discussing things with folks. I thought I'd ask if he could have a friendly, no-strings-attached chat with you, which he's had with many folks (including me), just for fun. Kim Bruning 00:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of your motives. Based on your history with me and refusal to stop bullying me, there is little else I do.--FeloniousMonk 02:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to have to plead the fifth here, because I've never bullied you. I explained clearly what I have been doing on your user talk page a little while ago. Kim Bruning 03:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, you'll have to forgive me if I don't agree. You may say with words all you want that you've never bullied or badgered me, but it's your actions here and on my talk page that matter and say otherwise.--FeloniousMonk 03:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim, I have asked you several times to stop constantly badgering me. Jwrosenzweig has also spoken to you about it as well. Absent any specific official determinations that I have indeed been wrong, much less any credible allegations from anyone other than you, I consider your missive to Jimbo here to be badgering of the worst, most despicable sort. I must insist again that you stop it now or I will be compelled to seek whatever recourse wikipedia provides me to protect my good name against your onslaught.--FeloniousMonk 21:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hehehe, I already suggested to you that it would be a great idea if you had a bit of a debate with Jimbo about how wikipedia policy works, and since you hadn't contacted him yet, I thought I'd bring the mountain to mohammed instead (I think the saying went something like that ;-) ). So I mean well! Kim Bruning 22:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I love how my name gets dragged into all sorts of things around here without anyone telling me I'm being cited. I've spent half the day figuring out who's been talking about me where. For the record, I've spoken to you both (and only on your consistent urging, FM), and I have to say that I'm seeing Kim heed my advice much more closely than you have, Felonious.

On another note, hello, Jimbo. :-) I hope you've looked at Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle -- we had a great time, and I'm thinking maybe our great turnout will convince you to drop in on our growing community up here in the Oregon Country sometime in 2005. We'll have a lot to talk about when you do! :-) Best wishes, as always, Jwrosenzweig 22:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim's been heeding your advice much more closely than I have, other than here, you mean. Right? Specifically, other than not apologizing to Sam Spade (as it was he who sent me the insulting email, and unprovoked), have I not followed your suggestions? I have made every effort to be less defensive toward Kim and other users. Surely I am not required to sit idly by as he cynically drags me onto Jimbo's page under the false pretense of "my needing a talking to about policy/foundation issues."

How does Kim Brunining's sneering comments and concern above not qualify as badgering? Especially when taken in context with the number of his other out-of-proportion concern and threats over my 1 minor misstatements caused by honest, understandable misinterpretations of policy that are ambiguous at best.

Just a week ago you told me that Kim shouldn't use his admin status and "warnings" against me like a stick. Now apparently Kim has found a new stick, and I resent being battered with it here. Kim needs to either lay off me or take his concerns through proper channels. This constant, low-grade back-biting and badgering is beneath the conduct expected of admins, and I am not required to tolerate it or Kim's constant malicious tone. Kim has been malicious from the start and his behavior has not been in the best spirit or interest of wikipedia.--FeloniousMonk 23:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Jwrosenzweig, I didn't mean to drag you or anyone else into anything :-/ Kim Bruning 13:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, if I might, I offer the following interpretation. It is interesting that here within eight hours, four energetic and very caring editors converge here on this very spot to give you some information. I suggest that we all four appear here because of the somewhat frustrating lack of clarity about "what the rules are." :) It is my impression that each of the four of us have in good faith trounced painfully on the toes of the other three because of the frustrating lack of clarity about "what the rules are."  :( And I would say that each of the four of us, myself included, have good faith reasons to look for some approval from you right now to boost a POV power advantage over the other three in how we combat each other in the Wikipedia pages. ;;)) That being said, there are two directions for you as I see it.

1. You might engage us in a process to clarify the rules--particularly to define "safe harbors" so that the four of us will not inadvertently be considered by someone in the other three to have transgressed "the rules." The four of us must engage each other strongly because of the issues that we continue to work in the Wikipedia pages.
2. Alternatively, you might check to see that we have all four done a pretty good human job of it, considering the enormous issues over which we have engaged in the past two months, and then say in your own words, "No harm, no foul. Carry on." :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Rednblu, which historically has been a rare thing as he can certainly attest. He can also confirm that some of our historical lack of agreement directly relates to confusion over policy/guideline. From a user perspective there can indeed be confusion over whether what one is reading is a rule or a guideline. Perhaps it's something as simple as having pages more clearly marked, or arranging them in functional categories or groups. My own confusion over Log in before making drastic changes/Accountability that prompted Kim's earlier responses to me was caused by my own confusion whether this "guideline" constituted official policy. Also, Rednblu's suggestion regarding safe harbors is an excellent one, I feel.--FeloniousMonk 00:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk and Kim Bruning

First, let me apologize for being so slow to respond to all of this. It's just that each time I had set aside a few minutes to write something, you had all written even more for me to read. It's been quite entertaining, I must say. Extra points for the use of the word 'preterition', and a round of drinks all around for having a huge meta-debate which managed in large part to avoid discussing any actual particulars of anything at all.

Now, as for useful advice I can offer, given how little I understand of what you're all on about, I turn for guidance to one of the great legal minds of our times, Judge Alex Kozinski. In a famous decision having to do with the trademark of Barbie, Judge Kozinski added a footnote: "The parties are advised to chill."

Jimbo Wales 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:) Adraeus 23:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, I agree. Would Kim Bruning starting a Request for Mediation against me on the very day you tell us both to chill qualify as chilling or not chilling? I'm tired of Kim's constant bullying and this new development within hours after your Talk page debacle confirms it is indeed bullying, and is beyond the pale.--FeloniousMonk 15:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, my new-found friend. Come back down to the third floor and duke it out with me over this on my TalkPage. :) What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 17:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rednblu, I appreciate your generous offer ;-), but you see there's nothing to duke out, and I agree with Jimbo, Kim and I just need to do what he says, chill. BTW, I've been very impressed with the progress you and Ungtss working together have made at Religion, and the balanced quality of those contributions. My hat is off to you.--FeloniousMonk 18:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. And my hat is off to you as well. Guys like you and me just never chill out. Look at us. We always have something more to say back to each other. How about we chill out on my Talk Page then? ;) No duking, you are right. :)) We could talk over and chill out over Kim's Request for Meditation (Meditation??) or anything else. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean "we always have something more to say to each other". I only have had two comments to you, both positive ones, since we concluded our past unpleasantness and moved on. Actually, I do just chill when it comes to others I disagree with, often. My interactions, or lack of more accurately, with you after our previous disagreement attest to that, you'll have to admit. So, taking my cues from Jimbo here, chilling out is exactly what I intend to do with respect to Kim. I don't see much benefit, but plenty of risk in again starting up this conversation with Kim. Are you offering here to informally mediate our conflict? It's been my contention all along that there's nothing of significance to mediate except Kim's bullying behavior, so were I to decide to not chill and agree to enter into some form of informal mediation, it would have to include resolution of my claim that Kim is harassing me. And then I'd prefer it to be conducted by a party completely unaffiliated and unacquainted with Kim or myself. Recent previous experiences with assistance from someone who had existing relationships with the other side was less than confidence inspiring, indeed, disappointing.--FeloniousMonk 21:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With the serendipity that makes Wikipedia great, I found FeloniousMonk's remark about bullying being beyond the pale a bit Irish, and that argument's been going on since 1171..dave souza 10:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your User Page

I can't claim much responsiblility for how your user page looks like now: my claim to fame is as the first to respond to your call for beautification. Anyway, do you like how it looks now? dpen2000 21:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dude, it rocks. I was stunned when I saw it this morning. Jimbo Wales 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The top toolbar is cool, but I think the play with font in the headings is unnecessary...Anyway, I added a few font alternatives for those who do not have access to the Georgia (font) font. — 22:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

December Arbitration Committee elections

I've written Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004 as a kick-start for this; I'm sure that you're as busy as ever with other things right now, but a few words saying that we do indeed need to think about the elections (I was thinking maybe voting from the 1st to the 15th of December, to avoid too many complications on the, err, "holiday season", so we'd need to start accepting candidate statements soon) would be very helpful.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 00:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photo

Hey Jimbo, I put up the photo I took with you when you were at UIUC on my user page. Deepak 16:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blocking users scenario

Hello Jimbo, Although I am not a sysop myself, yet, I think that sysops shouldn't have the right to block users, and should only have the right to block non-users such as IP Addresses and such... only... As there is the threat that a personal attack could lead to the blocking of other sysops and innocent people without the right to response to the action and even if they did respond to the questionable action the questionable sysop would just delete the edit history of the what the person has to say... I think that this scenario is pretty scaring... wouldn't you think so? or am I just having one of those paranoia days... [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 00:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

RickK

Jimbo, could you explain to RickK the difference between contentious edits and vandalism? He has blocked me and threatened to do so again for any edit to the Polish city articles. Obviously that's neither vandalism nor was I violating the 3RR. Gzornenplatz 15:33, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Recent examples of unacceptable reverts: [3] [4] [5]

I don't think RickK has any idea how much he must be annoying users (possibly new ones) with his unexplained reverts, and when people ask for an explanation, he says they are a "troll". --Rebroad 01:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal

Hi. Sorry to bother you with this long message - I'm sure you're busy - but there's a recent matter which has come up for which only you can help, since it pertains to the Arbitration Committee.

First, some background. I have been editing Wikipedia for well over a year. I have made substantial contributions on a variety of topics, including history, science, politics, linguistics, mathematics, law, computer science, television, and film, as well as engaging in numerous maintenance tasks. I have close to 11,000 edits. This is the first time I have contacted you about any matter.

Ruy Lopez is the latest account by a person best known as Richardchilton (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton). He mass produces sockpuppet accounts and engages in (among other thing) rampages of mass deletion of material unfavorable to communism from many articles. He declared on User:Richardchilton his repudiation of NPOV and his intent to simply delete large portions of text he doesn't like. (The page Khmer Rouge is a good example.) Nothing was ever done about him back when, due to apathy or lack of machinery, but he probably should have been banned. Shorne is a more recent user of similar ideology and behavior, who has communicated in E-mail with "Ruy Lopez"; they now "tag-team" revert me and other users (see Stan Shebs' comment [6]).

I have been vigilant on these pages, for which many users have commended me. This involves reverting, and no doubt reasonable people disagree over whether it's better to leave a page ruined or vandalized than engage in multiple reverts, but that's not what I'm writing about. An ArbCom case was started against me and others for excessive reverting, where I intended to defend my decisions.

Lumped together in this case is one against Gzornenplatz, probably a reincarnation of Wik, who I also brushed with. Most notable in his case, he engaged in multiple revert wars on German/Polish naming. In response to their continuation, the ArbCom imposed an injunction against him and me against editing on any German or Polish topic.

However, I have been wholly uninvolved in those disputes. For me to be enjoined from contributing on this broad sweep of topics makes no sense. Furthermore, Raul654 made a rather rude comment to me about my "editing tendencies" on "these topics" (which in fact I had nothing to do with) [7], prejudging me guilty. Apparently they (so far Raul654, The Epopt, MyRedDice, Jdforrester, and Delirium) did not even give a casual glance at the material presented to them, nor listen to the two users who then later pointed out this incongruity.

While I fear you may find this a minor point, I believe this seriously calls into question the ArbCom's credibility. To issue injunctions (which is a serious matter) and make demeaning comments to a disputant who is a consistent and heavy Wikipedia contributor without engaging in even the most elementary fact-finding is extremely malfeasant. I think these are all decent users in their own way, but this sort of laziness (or worse) in a position of trust should not be acceptable.

I lack a good proposed remedy. Dissolving the ArbCom may be excessive. I should certainly like the case against me dropped, lest I be subjected to yet more senseless restrictions, and the ArbCom sternly chided. The ArbCom is supposed to be the (almost) court of last resort; it needs to be better than this.

Thanks for reading,

VeryVerily 02:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree it makes no sense that VeryVerily is enjoined from contributing to German/Polish articles where he is not involved in disputes. Instead he should be enjoined from those articles where he is involved in disputes, i.e. the communism-related topics he's edit warring over with Shorne and Ruy Lopez (and where he is pushing pro-U.S., anti-communism POV at least as much as the others are doing the opposite). So I would ask you to either repeal the injunction or make it consistent. Gzornenplatz 03:08, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

User page redesign

Since this page is so simple and ugly, my ultimate dream is that some person who thinks it is fun will come along and make it look as perfect as Angela's user page.

• Jimbo, I'm afraid you're simply not as attractive as Angela :) But I did my best to make your page look as perfect as hers. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Purge the arbitration committee

Please see my complaint against six active members of the arbitration committee at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. The title is "Corrupt arbitrators exposed: James F., Martin, the Epopt, Delirium, Raul654, mav". Thank you. Shorne 10:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne was banned from editing a set of articles he/she does not edit much at all for about 10 hours. I have corrected this mistake. Hardly a miscarriage of justice. --mav 15:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. Your resignation, please. Shorne 15:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your behavior is not helping your case. --mav 17:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is not helping my case is a kangaroo court of corrupt "arbitrators". You could get a good job as a judge in Peru, you know. Shorne 17:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second that request, that a better policy regarding temp injuctions come about, I have been lumped in with Reithy [[8]] even though my revert wars, weren't nearly close to his vandalism spree. -- User:Chuck F

Likewise with my complaint against VeryVerily. I do careful editing; he comes along and reverts everything, hardly ever contributing anything of substance. Yet we're being lumped in together as equal participants—a gross distortion. Shorne 12:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

May I just take a moment to remind you that they are 'temporary injuctions. Stop whinging. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 09:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a legitimate complaint that deserves attention. The unjust injunction is not made just by allegedly being "temporary", nor is the kangaroo court of "arbitrators" absolved of wrongdoing. Go away with your gratuitous comments about "whinging". Shorne 12:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theresa Knott has a long and sad history of regarding all complaints against admins as being just whinging. After I defended a (left-wing) user after she was harassed out of Wikipedia by right-wing ideologue Jimbo Wales, I was banned for a while for questioning his godliness and defending a user against him. Theresa's justification for this was based purely on appeals to authority. Wikipedia has a problem with the accountability of admins. They rarely follow any of the rules they proscribe to others. As Ruy Lopez said at the time " ...saying that you pointing out infractions of the rogue admins is something that *will be held against you* shows how far this totalitarian, authoritarian atmosphere exists on Wikipedia." Despite my strong disagreements with comrade Shorne in the past, it's clear he has been wronged, and the continuing inaction about this merely confirms the corruption of the admins. - Xed 14:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you never meant to imply that 'I had blocked you above. But just to set the record straight. The user was Secret London, you were "defending her" without her knowledge or consent, your requests for arbitration against Jimbo was dismissed by the arbitrators, yet you continued to reinsert it on the page over and over again. Eventually someone (not me) temp blocked you. And you are still whinging about it now. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 10:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above is an illustration of what I mean. Any complaint is whinging. Defending a user against admins is put in quotation marks, since no admin can do wrong. Speaking on behalf of harassed users gets you blocked on Wikipedia. I've learnt that much. Jimbo has admitted he wrote her an abusive email where he said he was sick of her. He even apologised twice, the second time prompted by my RFA. I asked the community to decide on the matter, but the trouble was almost all of the community thought they had no jurisdiction over him, though he said they did (in a private email, though bravely not in the discussion itself). Many, if not most, of the admins are hopelessly corrupt, and have no sense of accountability. I can't think of an instance where admins have made a joint decision which they subsequently apologised for. - Xed 11:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Many if not most admins are hopelessly corrupt" Bullshit! However we are not discussing admins. We are discussing the AC. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed's comments have the unmistakable ring of truth to them and match my experience perfectly. Theresa Knott's superior tone, talking to us all as if we were a bunch of babies who shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about such sophisticated matters as administration, typifies the detachment and unaccountability of the administrators. Anyone who bounds onto the scene and snaps "Stop whinging" out of self-preservation has no business exercising authority over a gerbil, let alone a site full of users most of whom are, believe it or not, intelligent adults. Shorne 12:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne - if I came across as condescending then I apologize. But look at your own behaviour in this. You are acting as if a temporary measure is thier final word on the matter. Calling for the AC to be "purged" demanding resignations, calling arbitrators corrupt. Note that I am not a member of the AC so self presivation doesn't come into it. Note also that it is not necessary to be an admin to be a member of the AC. Whats more I have not exercised any authority over you (or any gerbils ;-P) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Comrade" Xed hit the nail on the head when he pointed to the lack of accountability. Authority derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. (Good God, I'm sounding like the Declaration of Independence.) If it lacks the trust of the public, it is nothing less than tyranny. Here our aristocratic arbitrariat is so far removed from the underclass that it does not even deign to speak to them.

I also find myself in the rare position of defending VeryVerily. If, as seems to be the case, he has not been editing articles on German and Polish subjects, then he was also wronged. It would seem that the committee did no investigation at all and merely passed judgement and sentence on the basis of bias. Not so much as an apology has been forthcoming, and my repeated calls for accountability have been ignored. Very revealing. Shorne 15:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Xed, thanks for your work on List of African writers (by country). It seems that you and I are the only two who contributed anything. Shorne 15:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We were just standing of the shoulders of Pteron, who created nearly all of the article - Xed 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to minimise Pteron's excellent work! I just meant that no one else had done anything recently. Shorne 03:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "temporary" injunctions tend to be anything but. To take a comical example, an injunction on Rex's arbitration against some editing till after the U.S. election was proposed on Sep 5. The fifth arbitrator vote rolled in on Nov 13, almost two weeks after the election. VeryVerily 10:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well we all know the the AC is far to slow. Clearly the process needs to be speeded up - which is why the AC went for temp injuctions in the first place. New ideas are being bandied about as we speak, and elections for the AC are coming up shortly - clearly we should not vote back in those who don't participate enough. But the point I'm making is this. Not being able to edit a few specific pages for a few weeks (or even months) is not the end of the world.Live with it. If people don't like the AC rulings, thier first point of call should be the AC itself, not here. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 10:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your comment serves only to confuse the issue. You also seem utterly ignorant of the case itself; else you wouldn't have told us to go to the AC first when we've failed to get a word out of them. Shorne 12:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But you did get a "word out of them" . You complained about being barred from editing pages that you don't edit anyway. Mav adressed you compliant by striking your name from the list. Problem solved. You then complained abour Mav doing this. Why? What are you actually trying to achieve? You say that you want the AC purged, but you must know that the AC is up for election next month anyway. So what are going on about? What are you trying to actually achieve here? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 14:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all, even the worst motives on my part would not change the fact that the AC has been scandalously unresponsive, unaccountable, and irresponsible. Even if the arbitrators were going to be replaced tomorrow, a complaint about their action would be justified. Second, Mav's unilateral reversal of the vote is questionable at best. I still do not believe that it is safe for me to edit Frédéric Chopin, for example—an article on which I have done a considerable amount of work. I have asked for a ruling on this subject; the arbitrators have, true to form, failed to answer. I accordingly consider Mav's action to be a violation of procedure (for why have a vote at all if one person can casually override it?) and therefore null and void. Third, VeryVerily is still banned from editing articles on German and Polish themes. If it is true (and I'm willing to believe it, although precious little love has been lost between VeryVerily and me) that he has not edited those articles to the point of causing recent edit wars, then it would be outrageous to subject him but not me to the "temporary" injunction. Fourth, unless I am mistaken, the AC is not going to be replaced next month. Several arbitrators are not yet up for reëlection. Fifth, they could conceivably take irresponsible action before the election, and I would have no recourse if spitefully banned. Sixth, discussion of the AC as it is currently constituted may well help to inform any debate about the candidates standing for election. (I have not seen any such debate yet, but I would certainly have a great deal to contribute to it.) There are many reasons to raise this issue. Shorne 17:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can sort the Chopin issue out right here and now. The AC do not enforce their decisions, the admins do. What's more the Admins interpret the AC's decree. No Admin would have interpreted even the old temp injuction as applying to the chopin page anyway. You are free to edit that page. No one will block you for editing that page (as long as you don't get into an edit war). In the (highly unlikely) even that you should be blocked by someone for merely editing that page, i will unblock you myself, and kick up a stink. Fair enough? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to get a reply out of someone after—how many days has it been? On the other hand, I have no idea how this would play out in practice. If banned for editing Frédéric Chopin or any other article that some haphazard admin deemed to fall under the "temporary" injunction, I would have no way to complain until the ban expired.

In any case, I see that the arbitrary arbitration committee has proceeded to impose yet another ban, this one to cover anything remotely connected to communism or the Cold War. How many articles does that include: half of Wikipedia? Shorne 01:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don`t understand why either Shorne or Verily Verily have been barred from editing Polish and German subjects. The two greatest edit warriors on Wikipedia have been most active on Asia and communism-related topics. Whoever came up with the idea of stopping them from editing German/Polish related topics needs to have their head examined. Did ArbCom do any investigation at all??? --Ce garcon 04:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although I appreciate Ce garçon's correct comment about the ArbCom and his careful editing of articles on Korean subjects (I haven't had the pleasure of seeing his work on other subjects), I don't entirely agree with the characterisation of me as an "edit warrior". My "warfare" is an artefact of irresponsible behaviour by VeryVerily and occasionally one or two other people who refuse to engage in meaningful discussion (or even meaningless discussion, most of the time) but instead revert almost everything that I do. Bring VeryVerily under control, and my "warfare" will immediately go down to a low simmer. Shorne 17:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was a quick temp injuction against four edit warriors designed to limit the damage to Wikipedia whilst the AC carries out it's investigation. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This obviously fails to address the question. Shorne 12:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok I'll try to be more specific. Did AC doing any investigation before issuing a temp injuction - for most of them it would appear not. Does it matter? No - it's a temporary measure designed to protect Wikipedia from edit warring. It's not meant as a punishment. If they don't do a proper investigation before handing out a final decree then that's a different matter. I'll be happy in joining Shorne in complaining to Jimbo. But that's not happened. The AC isn't perfect. It's far too slow for one thing, but someone making a mistake is not the same thing as "corruption" and someone correcting that mistake (as Mav did) is certainly not "more evidence of corruption". Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 14:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's have a discussion of the matter. A reasonable complaint deserves to be heard. The arbitrators have not answered my procedural questions that go right back to the day that I initiated my own complaint, which this later complaint has been allowed to trump. In the absence of a reply to repeated questions, I can only conclude unresponsiveness, unaccountability, and tendentiousness—not good attributes of an arbitrator (let alone nine).

Your comment about the "temp" injunction is just ridiculous. If stopping a fight about Warsaw or whatever is the issue, they might as well ban you as ban me. I haven't even touched the damn article. Also, the dreadfully slow pace of arbitration suggests that that "temporary" injunction will effectively be a long-term ban. Even an arbitrator has expressed this concern (see the voting). About a month ago, I proposed a reasonable temporary injunction that would also have worked well over the long term, but I was ignored. Some non-participant came along with a proposal and got immediate attention. There's a definite problem of bias in this committee, and it needs to be addressed for the sake of the entire site, not just me. I note that several other people, including some who may not particularly like me or my style, have agreed here and elsewhere that the matter is serious enough to deserve attention. Even the appearance of partiality or malfeasance should be cause for concern, yet you consistently take the part of the powers that be and dismiss any complaint as "whinging". Shorne 17:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If they banned me, I would not respond by calling them corrupt or demanding thier resignations. The AC is made up of people. People sometimes do things we disagree with - that doesn't make them have "a lack of detachment" or make them a kangaroo court. Especially since the mistake has been corrected. "I agree that mav did, indeed, correct an obvious mistake. He enjoys my complete confidence. James F. (talk) 14:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

"Why am I not surprised? Shorne 14:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)" You are not surprised that James agrees with Mav's actions? You expect all the other arbitrators to agree with mav's striking of your name then? So why are you arguing that his doing so is evidence of corruption? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did not start calling people corrupt or demanding their resignations until their unresponsiveness and unaccountability were quite clear. As for the "vote", I'm not surprised that a member of the committee deems such minor things as procedures and accountability to be unimportant. Shorne 01:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just adding my opinion... Both mediation and arbitration are practically useless. Many of the issues in Wikipedia can be solved through editor interaction if only editors would agree on a process for completion of an article. Adraeus 21:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a big if. Try negotiating anything with VeryVerily. You'd make more progress with a brick wall. Shorne 01:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, any action taken against the irrational, ignorant or insane is viewed as unfair. I know, considering the atheism article is constantly under attack by POV Warriors yet both mediation (aka. dispute resolution) and an attempt to seek arbitration failed. I don't hold either of these committees in high regard. If the rational, intelligent or sane were given more value in resolutions, perhaps mediators and arbitrators would be worth having. As of now, thanks to an incredibly flawed NPOV policy which supports POV Warriors, neither committees are worth a grain of salt. Adraeus 03:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. And all of Wikipedia suffers as a result of that unstated but very real bias towards unreasonable people. Shorne 12:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now even complaining about the scandalous corruption of the arbitration committee (Sieg Heil!) is a criminal act: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. Wikipedia utterly discredits itself by supporting "arbitrators" who are so corrupt, unresponsive, unaccountable, biased, and vindictive. Shorne 18:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while Shorne's rhetoric is excessive, many of his sentiments are not off the mark. The ArbCom does not appear to have even considered the evidence, especially judging how quickly they're suddenly acting and how reckless their temporary injunction (to which I am still subject despite it being about an issue not concerning me), and are just "following the herd", sort of groupthink. They also appear to be wholly unresponsive, not considering or even acknowledging the issues raised by me and others. They are on the brink of banning one of Wikipedia's most productive editors without even trying to ascertain what is going on. Indeed, they are considering giving me a two month ban for violating the "three revert rule", which has never even actually been enacted as a rule, but will soon with a 24 hour banning period. VeryVerily 19:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Closed wikipedia(s)

The Toki Pona Wikipedia, http://tokipona.wikipedia.org/, has just been closed for editing, and there is no explanation about why, except that Jimbo requested it. What was the problem that made it necessary to block all users?
--VerdLanco 10:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself, only because when you go there, there is a link to Jimbo's user page, but no information about the matter is on Jimbo's page. I think it might be a nice curtisey for Toki Pona users if there was an enumerated reason for the suspension given somewhere. func(talk) 18:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope this is not a repeat of the situation a couple of months ago when someone complained that Sonja Kisa has copyright on the language, therefore on all text in the language... in fact, though copyrighted, it is released under the GFDL. -- Jim Henry

Hm... is it part of this "locking small wikis" change (thread starts here: [9])? How inactive does a wiki have to be to be locked thus? The Toki Pona Wikipedia seems to have had 50 edits since November 9, or about 7 per day; and there appear to be about nine or ten users represented. [10]

-- Jim Henry

This seems unlikely given the text about other hosting options being explored, and given the fact that the Lojban Wp is still up and running. The Lojban Wp has slightly less activity than the TP Wp. Is it possible that it's a hoax? Sowelilitokiemu 20:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi all. We decided to close Toki Pona for a variety of reasons, primarily having to do with trying to introduce some consistency into our policies. I hold no animosity towards the Toki Pona community, and would like to offer you free hosting at wikicities (with no advertising ever in your case), or free (but perhaps temporary, say a year or so) hosting at wikicities but under your own domain name? I'd like to be helpful about the transition. Jimbo Wales 00:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For those of us who are not that familiar with Wikipedia discussions about conlangs and the like, could you point to some discussion on meta or something outlining this (more) consistent policy? TIA. — David Remahl 00:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo. I have some contributions on tokipona Wikipedia. I see you decided to close it, but, well, I don't understand the variety of reasons yet. I'd like to know: why you didn't notice before locking (at least, I didn't know the decision); and what the consistent policy is. Regards, e-Goat 03:10, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

When I tried to log in to the Toki Pona Wiktionary yesterday, I only got this message:

• The database is currently locked to new entries and other modifications, probably for routine database maintenance, after which it will be back to normal. The administrator who locked it offered this explanation: $1

Has this, too, been blocked, for reasons of policy consistency? (The explanation "$1" is too cheap! :-) Are we talking about hosting-policies here, or about principles?
--VerdLanco 11:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has anybody gotten any explanation yet? -- Sowelilitokiemu 02:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently not.

I have many articles I would like to create in the Toki Pona Wikipedia, but it is still not open for contributions.

I'd sure like to know what's going on (and why), and when we can expect things to get back to normal!

--VerdLanco 12:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are the Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Klingon, Lojban, etc. Wikipedias being closed too? I'm not sure I understand what is meant by consistency.--Sonjaaa 05:06, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Please tell me there isn't a Klingon encyclopeida! --NoPetrol 01:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I, too, would like some clarification on what you mean by "trying to introduce some consistency into our policies". Can you point to any mailing list thread where this was discussed, or clarify it in some other way? I Googled site:mail.wikipedia.org and "toki pona" some time ago and all I could find were the thread some months back about Toki Pona copyright and a more recent one about locking small inactive wikis. But tokipona.wikipedia.org is (was), though small, not inactive by any reasonable definition.

If the decision to close the Toki Pona Wikipedia (and presumably those for other languages fitting some criteria, which are...?) is final, let's talk (on the tokipona mailing list, or here, or on Sonjaaa's user talk page?) about which of Jimbo's alternate hosting offers (re: hosting at wikicities, etc?) to take, or where else we might move the content to. --Jim Henry 17:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deafening silence

There was a man who, after numerous futile complaints to his lord, was deafened by his lord's thundering answer. Just as thundering may be the total silence. --Eddi 21:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about. Is it one of the posts above? I'm just watching some of those, because people seem to be making decent progress without me, or else because I'm not sure yet if I understand enough to comment sensibly. If you have a specific question, can you ask me now? I'm happy to help if I can. :-) Jimbo Wales 21:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually, I hadn't foreseen this opportunity, but here goes: I have been reading about this RfA case for a few days and there seems to be some unresolved complaints against the judgement as well as the judges. The defendants may have improved their editing behaviour and turned more tolerant toward each other, but this case concerns much more than that. As a lay user I am astonished by the gravity of the complaints against the establishment. If these are not resolved, one way or the other, I think the credibility of the system will suffer. If the complaints hold water on investigation by some higher authority, serious action should be taken. On the other hand, if the complaints are unfounded, this should be stated clearly and thundering to bring the case to rest. I don't know the system well enough to see which higher authority this should be, but I'm sure someone knows. Thank you for your kind attention. --Eddi 22:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which case were you reading? 'this RfA case' means which specifically? I'll read it and respond. Jimbo Wales 00:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good morning! Sorry about the woolly details. Here are the request, evidence and (temporary) decision, the talk, and some more talk. Please note that I don't know any of the parties, I just noticed the case via the vandalism page. --Eddi 09:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales still has not replied to this complaint, although he seems to think that he has (see User talk:Shorne#Apology). The matter is now urgent, as the "arbitration committee" is on the verge of banning me for such crimes as criticising the arbitration committee. I also wish to point out that they sat around for more than a month without doing anything, then finally sprang into action with a proposed ban and a majority vote in favour thereof within hours of my speaking out on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion against the ones who are standing for reëlection. There is solid evidence of corruption that demands a verdict—and soon. Shorne 23:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3RR enforcement

propose move to wikipedia talk:three revert rule enforcement

Jimbo, I'd like to ask you to either reconsider your support for Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement or at least push for some sort of amending of the proposal. I am deeply concerned that it is going to be used by vandals and trolls, knowingly or not, who will be able to continue reverting with impunity even after other contributors who obey the rules have to stop. I personally have absolutely no intention of allowing blatant vandalism to remain in an article just because I've used up my three reverts. Everyking 04:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is my intention that the 3RR does not apply in cases of blatant vandalism. It is my understanding that it has never been thought of as applying in such cases. Even though "blatant vandalism" is something of an "I know it when I see it" issue, we don't have too many arguments about what it is, as compared to other types of problematic edits. Jimbo Wales 11:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's always been my understanding, too, but that's not the impression that I get when I read the votes and the associated talk page. If you think that, you should make it clear so the proposal can be amended. Everyking 15:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, ammending the 3RR itself to be specific about that would probably be a better thing to do. I don't think it's a big deal, I believe the common practice of excluding vandalism from the 3RR is so well established it doesn't need to be written down, but if some people would feel safer with it in writing, I think it's a good idea to do so. Shane King 23:53, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think it does need to be written down - there is currently a lot of confusion over this it seems to me -- sannse (talk) 10:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, even though you say you think that the three revert rule doesn't apply to vandalism, the general interpretation at the enforcement poll is that it does. And if it passes (and I cast a very emphatic no vote for this very reason), then everyone will think that when they revert vandalism a fourth time they have broken the rules, and they will be at the mercy of any sysop to block them for 24 hours. Nobody is listening to my complaints, no matter how loud I am about them, but I know you must understand the importance of what I am saying. This will seriously hurt the project if it isn't amended, and I don't know if I'll be able to bring myself to continue editing here if it isn't. Why is it that a person can contribute here for almost a year for many hours every day, making about 15,000 edits in that time and being voted an admin, but still be utterly ignored (or worse: User:Sam Spade said I should be desysoped) when raising a complaint about this very serious matter? There's something wrong about that. Everyking 03:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just amended the 3RR itself to make this point clearer; I hope that those who voted NO on these grounds will be glad to vote YES now. I think this modification is a good one. The design of the question (referencing the rule itself) was designed to allow this kind of tweak. Jimbo Wales 10:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, Jimbo. I still don't know if I totally agree with what you added, because I tend to think reverting a vandal a few times is better than blocking them—I rarely block them, and usually only after more than three reverts. Often you'll see a vandal who makes good contributions to some other kind of article, music and games or some such topic. And I always worry about blocking an IP for fear of also blocking innocent users. But thanks anyway, even though I would've much preferred direct amendment of the enforcement policy itself. Everyking 14:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Jimbo, please read my proposal for defusing the root cause of the revert wars. I suggest that the root cause of the POV revert wars is that, under the current policies and procedures, the rival gangs are forced to work together on the same turf. Hence, the three-revert-rule merely limits the number of knife thrusts each rival gang is allowed before they are put into jail--probably a good idea, but does not give the two rival gangs the resources they need to maximize their production of good Wikipedia pages. My proposal suggests separating the gangs to work on competitive pages that will then be put up for Wikipedia-wide vote. The vote would select the winner page for move to "production" based on overall judged NPOV, fairness, reader interest, and scholarly accuracy. And I give links to living examples of the pieces of the formal mechanism for "separating the rival gangs." Thanks for your time. No need to reply. But there is an underlying problem of the gang of "Destroyers" preventing the "Masters of Quality" gang from producing quality Wikipedia pages. Many great Wikipedia editors leave because they do not want to work on the battleground in the middle of the gang-war. And I think something should be done about that problem. There is no reason that collaborative editors should have to do their work on the battleground of the gang-war. The collaborative editors should be given a /temp page that they can submit for Wikipedia-wide vote when they feel their product is ready for the Day of Final Judgment. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About Wikipedia Japan

Hello. Please help me in despotic Wiki-ja. Tyranical administrators in Wiki-ja erased all my cotributions. They say that Jehovah's Witnesses'(JW) views are religious and administrators' religious views are scientific. They also say that Jehovah's Witnesses views depends on JWs' documents, and that all the descriptions about JW violate copyright. So I can't describe about JW in Wiki-ja. In the present state of affairs, I have no way to accuse you about Wiki-ja. Please advice. Rantaro 03:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--WARNING-- If you don't answer me, I will accuse Wikimedia foundation for slanders of Jehovah's Witnesses. Can I? --Rantaro 13:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please be aware that posting legal threats can be grounds for blocking. And no, simply describing a text is not a copyright violation. Using large excerpts from it may be. — David Remahl 23:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a reason enough block you, and "answer me or I'll sue you" seems not friendly. If you want a reply seriously, it is better for you to mail the Board. By the way if this person is talking on ja:ノート:終わりの時, it seems a copyvio fligement. A user states he can use a copyrighted material as fair use, but his way doesn't keep being in the limitation Japanese Copyright Law allows as "fair quotation", and the database which is suspected as a violated source has a strict terms of use which doesn't allow any derivative use without permission nor by their faithful. --Aphaea 04:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom & election candidates

Hello. I'm sorry to bring even more ill feelings and complaints to your page ;-) but...

There's a somewhat worrying precedent being set in the arb com right now, as part of Reithy's temporary injunction, which is that the current arb com is able to prevent any user from declaring their candidacy in the arbcom election. Now, I haven't been following the Reithy/Chuck F thing, but it seems to me that this isn't quite right. I've spoken to two arbcom members about this, one of whom didn't seem to think it important, and one who compared it to someone being in jail not being able to stand in an election - except that normally the elected officials don't put people in jail, I think :-)

I'm sure the arbcom is not acting maliciously, and AFAIK the injunction was imposed before anyone knew Reithy would want to run; however, I do think this is something that needs to be looked at very carefully.

Thanks — Kate Turner | Talk 04:25, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Procedurally, the ArbCom is out of line removing his candidacy. Practically, his candidacy is an obscene joke, where (just for starters) he is offering to pay $10 per vote if he wins. VeryVerily 05:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion either way on Reithy in particular. I'm only concerned about the precedent. — Kate Turner | Talk 06:01, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

I agree that the happenstance of the timing of a temporary injunction shouldn't be allowed to affect the election. In the real world, BTW, even a felony conviction (as opposed to an interim measure) isn't always a bar. To my shock, our article on James Curley didn't mention his successful campaign from a prison cell, so I've added it. I've also suggested that the ArbCom modify its temporary injunction. JamesMLane 19:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The arbcom did not remove the nomination. I did, and while I cited the arbcom injuction as the reason, other rationale is legion. I made a more complete explaination of my views on this subject on Rhobite's talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see no obstacle to letting Reithy stand for election. I also see no realistic prospect for him to be elected, of course. Jimbo Wales 23:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Symposium Rotterdam - Agenda in English

Hi Angela, Anthere, Jimbo,

I just translated the agenda proposal for the Rotterdam Symposium to English on m:Wikimedia meetup Rotterdam.

I don't know whether the board members feel invited to prepare their talk in the wiki medium, but in the event, I proposed m:Wikimedia meetup Rotterdam/Board members talk.

--Francis Schonken 09:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feature suggestion venue?

Is there a standardized place for making feature suggestions concerning MediaWiki? Yeah, I know, submit a patch... Alas, I'm much more a designer than a coder, and I have enough major projects I have to do codebase intake on just now. None of which necessarily makes my feature ideas any less useful. So, if there's a defined place for such... (and yeah, I know there was probably a better place to ask this question, too, but... :-) Baylink 23:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feature requests can be made at Mediazilla:. Just choose the "enhancement" option from the drop down list next to "severity". Angela. 23:38, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Tnx. Baylink 00:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kudos to you!

Hey Jimbo, I just came across your page for the first time after being on wikpedia for a while now. This is such an awesome resource for the internet, this is the kind of thing that the internet should be about. Not only do I have a lot of fun here contributing to the articles that interest me but it is also very, very rare for me to wonder about something on any subject and not be able to find the answer on wikipedia.

I hope you a very proud of this creation, you certainly should be! -- Jord 23:59 19 Nov 04 (UTC)

AWB Page

Hi Jimbo. Thanks for following up! The page has settled down. The main problem was that one user who had no respect for anybody else's work, and it seems just pursuing him was enough to stop him. Thanks for asking! Wodan 00:47, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Election Campaigning - What is the Spam Threshold?

moved to Wikipedia talk:Spam/arbcom elections

(sorry if this move is unwelcome, Jimbo) - Martin 23:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Get Out the Vote

Everyone is welcome to copy and paste the following banner and links onto their own user page, to help publicize the upcoming December 2004 Arbitration Committee Elections:

Arbitration Committee Elections - December 4th-18th, 2004

Election Info — Candidates — Voting

Getting out the vote will help to diversify the number of viewpoints that are represented during this election, and insure that candidates who are equally qualified, though perhaps not always a part of the "in crowd", can have a fair chance of winning.

Don't let the insiders control this election. Please vote!

--DV 09:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The conversation on the role of 'non-insiders' in the arbitration elections is an interesting one. (There is indeed a caste of 'insiders' emerging. Wiki is governed by a burgeoning administrative hierarchy, made up mostly of users who tend to spend more time on mailing list, meta, and IRC discussions than most users.) By encouraging discussion on the Wiki project pages and the project talk pages, DV has been playing an invaluable role in keeping the broadest grouping of users engaged in the arbitration election. I have been trying to play the same role as well; I started, e.g., the endorsements list linked to the candidates statements in order to create a space where users can discuss these issues on the Wiki. Nevertheless, this should not be taken as any sort of criticism of the 'insiders'. This is instead a way to encourage new ideas and to bring additional users who are likely to see the goings-on on Wiki from a different angle into the fold . 172 09:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then again, maybe not. An open letter to Jimbo.

Jimbo, I have had more than one insider now offer the opinion that campaigning is distasteful, that voters will find out about the election on their own, and now, from Theresa Knott, that the election will not even be announced until it has already started!

I believe you misquoted her. The election is already announced, and is already widely known. Your banner is quite nice, and I have added it to my own user page. It is a bit early at this point to publicize it further, but this a wiki after all, so you're free to add it to relevant places. People might revert you if you're obnoxious about it, of course.

If you can honestly tell me that the vast majority of the individual editors (those not in administrative positions) are aware of this election, and the candidates who are running for it, and maybe even a little bit about them, I would be put at ease. I would even admit I have a mistaken impression. Is that the case?

By the way, a number of folks have had very friendly remarks to me when I shared the ArbComElection "get out the vote" banner. You seem to have a bit of a jaded cynical view of elections - my experience is that most voters don't feel that way about elections, but then maybe our real-life experiences are quite different. --DV 22:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• In every country that holds free and fair elections, that I am aware of, the voters are given advance notice of the election. It would be silly, and grossly unfair to both the candidates and the voters, to begin telling the voters about the election the day it started.

Well, it is already announced in several prominent places. There is plenty of time for people to vote after it is announced, too. And I'm hopeful that other people will enjoy your banner as much as I do, and post it to their own talk pages.

Where is the election being publicized - can you point to a non-administrative web page? I propose that at least a very small banner (or even a small un-intrusive text link) should appear either on the main page, or if possible, underneath the toolbox links. --DV 22:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's your website, (I understand that you pay for most, if not all, of it's bandwidth), so if this election is just a sham, I would heartily endorse simply appointing a few friends rather than putting up a facade of an election that will just leave a bad taste in the mouths of those who were naive enough to think it was real.

It isn't my website, but I am the president of the Wikimedia Foundation which owns the website, and by longstanding tradition I am empowered to do a variety of things, including appoint people to the ArbCom. It is likely in the current case that I will do so soon after these elections, expanding the ranks of the ArbCom if it still seems too small. But I won't do so based on who are my friends, but rather on the basis of my own judgment, in consultation with people I respect, as to the thoughtfulness and kindness of the people in question.

I thought that was your intent. Why hold an election otherwise? So perhaps these other simple issues I am raising can be helpful? --DV 22:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please weigh in and let me know how this election is going to proceed. Because so far, the insiders who currently administer this site seem to have little appetite for a healthy campaign with free sharing of ideas, much less even publicizing that there is going to be an election (at least not in advance).

I think you're just completely wrong. Everyone is very much in favor of a healthy campaign and free sharing of ideas. People are opposed to spamming user pages with campaign ads, but this is the will of the voters. You can go around adding your campaign literature to people's user pages if you like; there's no rule against it, nor is there likely to be one. But I recommend against it because it's just unnecessary and will annoy people.

Is it enough to expect the voters to seek out information about the election and its candidates completely on their own? If you think so, please point to a real-world election where this was ever done. I can think of no modern precedent where the participants in an election did not actively publicize both the election (voter turnout) and the views of the candidates (to inform the electorate). If you disagree that this is necessary for a Wikipedia election, then we will simply have to agree to disagree. (Although I would be very curious to conduct polling on this issue, as I disagree with your intuition that most Wikipedia contributors would be annoyed or offended to be informed about the election and its candidates.) --DV 22:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to participate and help insure that a diverse range of voters is both informed, and also has a chance to vote in this election. But if there isn't going to be a real election, just say so, and I'll put my tail between my legs and go back to editing articles.

I encourage you to participate fully, but I also encourage you to examine your own biases here. You're accusing some very good people of some very bad motives, and I think you're really quite mistaken. And this will hurt your chances of winning any election, because people are likely to judge you in a negative light if you go around making wild accusations of "sham elections", based on nothing more than what you've put forward so far.

I have no intention of running for anything. I have always worked as an individual contributor, and I plan to stay that way. I want to get out the vote, and make sure users are informed about who the candidates are, so in the future I can feel comfortable stretching out and writing articles about any topic I please without cowering in fear of an edit war destroying my work, or worse yet, being sucked into an Arbitration Committee proceeding by someone who thinks they know how to game the system in their favor.

I have seen some of your very experienced editors really torn up by this, and I just don't get why there isn't an imperative to get as much fresh blood as possible into the Administration of this site, because frankly, the current Administration has simply made too many mistakes, and seen too many good editors express disgust at the way the site is run.

I know that's a tall order to fill, and it's an almost impossible goal for any Administration to solve, no matter how good it is, but get enough fresh faces in there with enough fresh ideas, and I guarantee that these issues will be addressed in better and better ways going forward.

I can hope, right? --DV 22:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--DV 12:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--Jimbo Wales 19:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for the repeated worry about "spam": candidate's permission is hardly appropriate for "get out the vote" efforts. And I have stated in more than one location that I was hoping for a consensus to emerge if there was any way to go beyond the candidate endorsement page, to communicate the positions of the candidates to a wider number of potential voters, before I felt it was appropriate to do any candidate-specific messages. I am not so idiotic that I would put "spam" for a candidate I wanted to help on user pages, not even on pages of users I know. And of course a candidate would have to approve any message, to insure there was agreement.

So far, I have only added my endorsements, like many, many others, on the endorsements page. Only one candidate seems to be so annoyed by this concept that he thinks its an "obscene troll war" (Sam Spade), but not a single user has complained about being able to publicly endorse or oppose the candidates who are running.

Finally, I'm sure most everyone I have interacted with is "good people". No argument there. --DV 22:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa David calm down. I was just giving my opinion. I never meant to imply that the election wouldn't be publicised until it started, only that IMO there is no need to publicise it yet. I'm not an "insider" I'm just a loud mouthed know it all who voices my opinion all the time whether people like it or not ;-) But i certainly am not able to dictate to you that you cannot publicise the AC election if you choose to do so, and you do not need the go ahead from Jimbo in order to ignore me. Finally - you are talking to the wrong person. Jimbo is not overseeing this election. Danny, Elian and UninvitedCompany are. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the references. Danny very kindly created the ArbComElection tag. I'll check with those other folks you listed.

My label of "insider" implies nothing more than you are someone who is "in the know" about the inner workings of the Administration of the site. There is no problem with being an insider, but as I stated above, as many fresh faces as possible should have a fair chance to be elected.

The lack of a way to communicate with potential voters other than a passive web page that must be discovered on one's own initiative, and your's and other insider's opinions that this is an acceptable state of affairs, simply makes me think that you aren't as connected to the average editor as you may think - hence the "insider" label.

I would stand corrected if you have polling data that suggests the sentiment among most individual contributors is that they really don't care to be proactively informed about the election and its candidates. --DV 22:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice if we at least knew the format of this election. I assume we're going to be using approval voting, since that's what's already coded, but it is quite annoying that the page for this election doesn't even say for sure how the election is going to be run. anthony 警告 19:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another example of why we need fresh faces and fresh thinking

Please see my revised remarks up above if you have a chance, but here is what Martin had to say on another page, about my making such a big deal out of this election:

"...A real-life election has far-reaching consequences. By contrast, arbitration rarely effects normal users." Martin 22:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My experience contradicts that. The lack of arbitration has affected quite a few of the most experienced editors on this site. Hence the importance of getting as many fresh new faces (even if some of them are "insiders" themselves, who simply haven't had their turn at bat yet) as possible into the starting line up, to see if improvements can be made.

Please don't take this as putting anyone down. Maybe the existing administration did as good a job as was humanly possible. That still doesn't discount the possibility that fresh faces with fresh ideas might do better.

And if anyone thinks Wikipedia will not have far-reaching consequences if it is eventually successful at what it is purporting to do, they are greatly underselling what is being accomplished here and its ramifications.

This election will have far-reaching consequences. Laugh all you want, but that's my prediction. --DV 23:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've responded to the near-identical post you made at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements. Martin 23:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spam is in the eye of the beholder

Here is a link to a better organized framework for a discussion. If anyone manages to navigate to this subpage and actually read any of this, I would be encouraged to hear from you. --DV 02:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Infobox for organizations?

How do I create a new infobox template for organizations? Adraeus 23:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind. Figured it out. Adraeus 23:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Letters to Jim

Dear Jim, I find your websites very good and am using them for teaching quite often. To find a place to get in touch is more difficult and you may be the wrong addressee but maybe you'd pass this on. Regarding Australia, I wonder if you'd be interested to take note of two books of mine on the country:

Australian English - The National Language

2004. 23 x 15.5 cm. XIII, 396 pages. Cloth. Euro [D] 98,- / sFr 157,- / approx. US$ 118,-. * ISBN 3-11-018194-0 MOUTON DE GRUYTER

Ethnic Englishes, Indigenous and Migrant Languages

Policy and Education

XIV, 341 pages. 23 tables. 20 diagrams. 5 maps. Cloth. Euro [D] 98,- / sFr 157,- / approx. US$ 118,-. * 

ISBN 3-11-018195-9 MOUTON DE GRUYTER

http://www.degruyter.de/rs/6506_Mouton_D_ED_DEU_h.cfm?rc=19821&id=SER-M1-WDG-LAMV-B-19821&fg=SK

Best wishes Gerhard Leitner

Wikinews

I responded to Ambi's question over on Wikinews. I'm trying to keep discussion of wikinews over there, because it's likely to get lost here. :-) --Jimbo Wales 16:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fate of List of "You have two cows" jokes

There's a bit of an ongoing debate as to the fate of the article List of "You have two cows" jokes. While the majority seem to be in favor of keeping it in some form, someone brought up something that Larry Sanger had said in its favor back when the list first appeared in 2001. In light of this and because this debate has the potential to set precedence for other similar articles, I would like to get your opinion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of "You have two cows" jokes. Thanks much! -FunnyMan 06:32, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure I have anything useful to say about it. I think that this page, much like some of our other pages about humorous topics, is problematic mostly because it contains way too much "original research" or unsourced material. Larry Sanger's views should be treated on their own merits and given no special weight of course -- he left the project a long time ago. --Jimbo Wales 16:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exciting new feature to control campaign messages

Please vote at Software and features, to approve an exciting new feature that allows users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages. --DV 11:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but I voted against it. I do, by the way, strongly support the notion of "get out the vote" even though I find your campaign against "insiders" to be curiously misplaced. If there is a party in favor of being more strict about problem editors, it is indeed the "insiders", and 'getting out the vote' is in my view more likely to result in decisions that you ultimately won't like. It isn't the "insiders" who vote against every proposal for change, after all, it is the trolls themselves. Still, sure, let's get out the vote and see what happens. --Jimbo Wales 16:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more that "getting out the vote" will cause bad decisions by bringing in trolls, because the ratio of trolls to good editors will stay the same, therefore the trolls will be even more outnumbered than they are now.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my ideas, even if some of them (or my methods) seem inappropriate to you.

--DV 00:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exciting new edit screen feature to "get out the vote"

Putting a reminder message on the edit screen about upcoming elections - that's just the type of creativity that I like to see!

If it is really possible to make such a change, I would be darn impressed.

It focuses the message on editors, which addresses the concerns of publicizing the election to readers (something that putting it in the sidebar would have to deal with).

And Tannin's excellent improvement to the idea by checking for logged in editors would help to weed out anonymous editors who couldn't vote.

Excellent!

-DV 00:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, so who needs to be contacted, or what page does a proposal needs to be posted on, to make Jimbo's suggestion, and Tannin's refinements to it, a reality?

Should I just make another proposal on the Software proposals section or is there a more direct avenue to pursue this?

Michael Snow has endorsed this idea, so I suspect that it may do better than my last proposal, but I am open to suggestions as to how to proceed.

Thanks.

--DV 06:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel I am "attacking" folks

It is unfortunate that you and the existing Administration feel that way - I would probably feel the same, so I will strive to focus more on being constructively critical.

I think that this would be quite helpful.

But the fact remains that the current Administration has failed to successfully improve the editing environment around here for serious editors. Maybe they did all they really could - I saw some superhuman efforts - but it's time for fresh faces and fresh ideas.

And these are both welcome.

I was particularly disappointed when I saw Dr. Adam Carr frustrated enough to retire from working on articles he wanted to work on, and all he received was a lot of platitudes and apologies, but little action to change the editing environment to help him get back to work.

I'm hoping fresh faces with fresh ideas will help to bring serious editors like Dr. Carr back to the articles they can contribute towards.

But what might surprise you, is that the very "insiders" you decry are the people who are doing the most to change the culture to make it more friendly to such wonderful editors as Adam Carr. Perhaps you have a misconception of where the source of the difficulty lies. Jimbo Wales 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know that won't be accomplished solely as a result of this upcoming election, but it's a start.

--DV 00:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reithy

(some old discussion removed)

On this note, Reithy <[email protected]> emailed me 3 days ago (I just checked now =b) asking to purchase my Wikipedia account, instructing me to name my price. I named a price of 50,000,000 zorkmids and have seen no further reply. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's no problem. Jimbo sold me his account for 40,000,000 zorkmids, so I didn't feel that I needed yours as well. -Reithy Jimbo Wales 09:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) LOL Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reithy emailed me too. He offered to buy mine for $300. I responded asking whether he meant the Singaporean dollar, Australian dollar, etc., and told him my preferred currency was the pengo (a hyperinflated currency used in Hungary post-WWII). Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He can buy mine for <Dr. Evil> One million Dollars!!!!</Dr. Evil> Mwwhaaaaaaa!! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You forgot Poland has been adding material to the lead section of our article on the US Libertarian Party that Reithy was also persistent in adding. He has also edited Michael Badnarik, but I have not examined his edit history there. Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to invade your talk page, but I just thought I'd let you know that Reithy has offered to purchase my account as well. I merely informed him that it was not for sale. Andre (talk) 03:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

About Insiders

I've edited David's comments down a bit in order to respond, because it was a bit longish, so anyone who wants to read the whole thing should check the edit history. Jimbo Wales

IRC will never be used by many editors, for a number of reasons (some find it intimidating, others don't think a real-time forum is conducive to careful deliberation, and still others find it a waste of time because of a perceived lack of permanence, i.e., the discussion is gone once you exit, unless someone maintains a log).

Is it ethical for so many of the decision-makers to meet on IRC and discuss policy matters concerning this site, when logs are either not kept at all, or if they are kept, they are not publicly available on this site? The current situation with IRC leaves contributors who don't use IRC with no way to find out what was discussed in that forum.

I wonder if you can explain to me just what sorts of policy decisions you think are made on IRC? As far as I can tell there are basically no policy decisions made on IRC, although of course IRC is one means of communication used by editors to discuss and deliberate about policy.

In real life, public debate is carried out in a wide variety of places: newspapers, television, public meetings, but also friends talking by email, telephone, even IRC. Some of this is public, some of it is only semi-public, and some of it is private. I think this mix is absolutely necessary to healthy decision making by individuals, don't you? What would you think if someone suggested that it's inappropriate for you to meet in a pub and chat with your friends about an upcoming election, unless the conversation is recorded for rebroadcast by anyone who wants to listen in?

To make a constructive criticism, given that more than one Administrator has made the case that IRC discussions are a part of how the site is run, could we please have logs of IRC discussions regularly posted somewhere on this site?

This suggestion is naive. The official IRC channels are only one means of communication. There are public and private emails. There are private IRC chats. Anyone can make a new channel in IRC at the drop of a hat. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Speaking privately to others is a crucial part of good decisionmaking practice, because when you speak privately with people you trust, you're free to ask pointed questions that would be inappropriate in public.

And before anyone rolls their eyes that I'm presenting another solution in search of a problem - there have been numerous successful prosecutions of cases where legislators met privately in restaurants or bars to have the "real" policy discussion, and then later held a sham discussion in the public town hall, leaving the attendees in the town hall wondering what the heck was going on.

But this is a very inappropriate analogy. What you're suggesting is more like prosecutions for citizens who dare to have a private conversation about politics with their friends. Other than myself, Angela, and Anthere, no one chatting in IRC could in any reasonable way be construed as a "legislator".

Many people take the issue of making all policy discussions public to be a very serious matter.

Yes, but surely you're taking much further than people do in real life, because you're suggesting that all discussions of policy even by ordinary citizens be considered public.

Maybe you can give me a better idea of what kinds of discussion you think is going on in IRC, and why it is inappropriate. Better yet, why don't you start hanging out in IRC for a few weeks, and talk to us there whenever you hear us having a conversation you think is inappropriate or should be broadcast?

--DV 04:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If IRC is as innocent as you suggest, why have several of the experienced editors on this site made comments about how negative of an influence IRC is on Wikipedia?

While I appreciate the invitation to hang out on IRC, I will take you at your word that no decisions are actually made on IRC itself.

However, I am certain that a great deal of policy is discussed by Administrators (I'm not sure about the Arbitrators) on IRC. The problem with this is that the Administrators have a great deal of influence on other users.

Despite the trolls who artifically create a different impression, the Administrators on this site largely have the respect and admiration of the vast majority of the editors, and so when the Administrators provide guidance by posting strong opinions on polls or other policy discussions here on the site, other editors will tend to give that guidance a lot of weight.

Is there a legislative body on Wikipedia, or is most policy really determined by polls which pop up now and then, that are voted upon by those who bother to show up? The perils of direct plebiscite are one of the reasons why representative democracy is superior for avoiding mob rule.

If there is not a legislative body on Wikipedia, have you thought about establishing one?

If there is (or will be) a legislative body on Wikipedia, I hope you would endorse the idea that all deliberations by that body would strictly be conducted on the site, and not on IRC. I understand that some portion of this operation is based in Florida - do you agree with the merits of the Sunshine Law, meant to keep legislative deliberations open to the public?

Since I've more than used up my quota of your valuable time, I will close by thanking you for your valuable insights - you have educated me quite a bit about this site.

--DV 09:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the Village Pump

Hello dear Jim, is the only way for me to get into "Wikepedia" some mention of 42nd Baltic Fraternities` Convention [ which Corps Concordia Rigensis/Hamburg will organize] to become a contributer/editor ? Greetings from Germany Jürgen [email protected]

I'm sorry but I don't understand the question. Would you be more comfortable speaking in German? I can have someone translate for us. Jimbo Wales 11:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thiiiink what he's asking is something along the lines of "Do I have to become a contributor/editor (i.e. register) in order to put information about [...] into Wikipedia?" I thiiiiiink. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 11:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikifun

hey there jimbo, thanks for the compliment for wikifun. i started it out not knowing how it would be received, it has really grown since i started it. i didn't think it would get even as far as it has. wikifun is good for new users to familiarize themselves with wikipedia, and is also fun for those who have been long time wikipedians as it sort of lets you show of your "wikiskills". again thanks. --Larsie 14:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And of course, Jimbo, you're welcome to try your hand at answering the questions. Unfortunately for you, it looks like question 4 has already received a rather complete answer, but there are still 15 unanswered questions... Eugene van der Pijll 22:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0

Per Wikipedia_talk:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards#Recommended_archive_locations, would you mind if we moved User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0 from your user space to Wikipedia space? It would probably make more people comfortable with editing it, and I'd like to see if we can harness some of the energy from Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards in that direction. Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:16, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, please do move it. Jimbo Wales 09:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You might be interested in a team I've started.

Our goal is to collaborate essentially to find, screen, develop or maintain (or all of those) articles appropriate for a paper or "release" version of Wikipedia.

So far, our plan is to:

1. Start at articles corresponding to top-level categories.
2. Work through them alphabetically.
3. Branch out from there.
4. List the articles we work on and their status.

The idea was more or less instigated by disussion at Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards.

Our name is the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. But of course, that can change if you or anyone else disagrees. Maurreen 10:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Special Pages

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but there are links on the special pages section to the arbitration committee elections, but they still refer to the elections that were held in August. I really think it's time to replace that link with one to the upcoming ArbCom elections. Academic Challenger 00:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Impersonator?

It might suprise you, but someone running around claiming to be User:Jimmy Wales has unbanned User:JoeM. As I didn't think you'd create a new account just to unban someone, I've changed the redirects that were created to point here from the user page and talk page into statements of my belief that the user is an impostor. If I was in error, I appologise. Gentgeen 11:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should note that I blocked User:Jimmy Wales because it was fairly obvious from his contributions (most likely JoeM himself) that it wasn't Jimbo Wales. That, and because shortly after I blocked "Jimmy Wales" he came back as User:HadaL. User:The Cunctator must not have read the block log, or otherwise thought I was in error, because he unblocked JoeM and reverted my reversion of "Jimmy Wales"'s edit. I tried to point out the likelihood that "Jimmy Wales" was not you, but he did not respond. I therefore reinstated JoeM's block. I would have deleted the redirects from User/User talk:Jimmy Wales to your page, but they were created long ago by Guanaco so I wasn't sure if they were serving a purpose or not. -- Hadal 11:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good call, that was an impersonator. Jimbo Wales 10:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request to take a look at a particular case

Considering your actions regarding Caroline Colden and the LaRouche case, I'd appreciate if you'd care to take a look at some developments currently underway in the IZAK case. At this point in time, it seems that the Committee is headed to ban IZAK from the so-called practice of "talk page spamming", regarding people who are happy to receive such notifications.

However, this isn't against policy, and there's far from consensus that this is undesirable - the only time, to my knowledge, that this has ever been debated was when this case came up, and the responses seemed to be split about 50-50. Without making any comment on the legitimacy of the practice, it seems to me that the Committee is overstepping their authority in this case. Ambi 13:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just left a comment on the talk page. No decision has yet been reached, but my recommendation to them was the same as yours. It's a puzzling issue, and shouldn't be made a general policy to deal with one problem situation. Jimbo Wales 10:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ack!! Vandal at Wikinews!

Ack!!

User "24.198.49.225" (an anon IP) is systematically going through and deleting everything on Wikinews.

There is no Vandalism in Progress page on Wikinews (from what I can tell).

Please, someone with Administrative powers stop this vandal!

(I will quickly use up my 3 reverts if I try to do so myself.)

Thanks.

--DV 02:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also posted this at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Current_alerts. --DV 02:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to obvious vandalism (which certainly includes page-blanking). Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 02:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's right, and the 3RR does not apply to Wikinews, either. It's a small project with a small userbase, and that rule (as all others) are relaxed there in order to ensure that people have the freedom to get work accomplished and learn new ways to handle the unique situations that will arise in that context. Jimbo Wales 10:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Users 119 and Lyellin, who is running for Admin on Wikinews, managed to sweep through and fix everything. --DV 13:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Public watchlist?

I'd like there to be a way to make public your watchlist, selectively, on your user page. Currently, Special:Watchlist doesn't provide an "edit this page" feature so editors have to copy and linkify topics manually. Adraeus 09:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like a neat and easy to implement idea (though I could be wrong), but I'm not the right person to ask about it, I'm afraid. Try wikitech-l, or file a feature request in bugzilla? Jimbo Wales 10:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of endorsements

Hi Jimbo,

You made it very clear that you disapproved of the "opposing" statements for any of the candidates.

Once you made your wishes known, I removed my statement of opposition to one of the candidates.

In all fairness, I also deleted my endorsements. I don't think I attributed my deletion of my endorsements to you. I instead attributed that action to "fairness". If you feel the wording of my statement is unclear, how about this one instead:

"Per the wishes of Jimbo Wales, I have removed all statements of my opposition to any of the candidates. Although Jimbo did not specifically request that I do so, I believe the deletion of my statements of opposition requires, in all fairness, that I also remove all of my endorsements."

Would that make it more clear that you only wanted folks to withdraw their statements of opposition, but not endorsements? --DV 13:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rachelle Waterman article

Per your concerns, I deleted all links to the images you are questioning, both on Wikipedia and on Wikinews.

In the Wikipedia article, the one remaining photo is taken from what I characterize as a "fair-use" public news source (as was done on the Scott Peterson article), but if you feel that this declaration is also invalid, please let me know.

Cheers,

--DV 13:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello

I have been dealing with similarly hateful attacks from this user whom you yourself appointed arbitrator for nearly two years. [11] But these comments cross the line. I want something done about this. 172 20:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I've also recieved some rude (but not hateful, necessarily) treatment from this user, which very much surprised me, coming from an arbitrator. When I decided to be bold and fork disendorsements from the endorsements page, in an attempt to promote organisation and civility, he assumed bad faith [12] [13]. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• While I disagree with his comments about Blankfaze, they were typical of most 'disendorsements'. Yet, his comments about me were by far the most out of line seen anywhere on that page. My family was almost entirely eradicated in Nazi death camps; so I don't take lightly to this user likening me to a Holocaust denier. 172 02:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for help for unfairness

Dear Uncle Jimbo, do you feel that is it fair to harass a person by writing a hospital article Medical Specialist Centre just because it is insignificant? There are also many other people writing hospital articles (please follow this link: List of hospitals in Canada). From here, I know that writing an article about Hospitals is not wrong.

User:Gtabary even condemned me of making noise from my discussion page, and even proposed to delete the Medical Specialist Centre page. The language and content was reasonable, so there is no reason to delete it, just because it is nonsignificant.

I would plead you to help me to stop Gtabary from his continual harrasment through provocative language and words and sentences condeming people. Thanks, User:Chan Han Xiang

London WikiMeet

Just a note to say that it was a real pleasure meeting up with you last night. I look forward to another opportunity to meet sometime in the future. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 08:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More JoeM aliases

I found more JoeM aliases that should be added to JoeM's user page and banned:

• User:Infinate justice
• user:Joey M
• And this IP address: 4.247.194.236

Sorry if you already knew about these. --NoPetrol 02:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both usernames have long since been blocked. I blocked Infinate justice less than an hour after he began editing (way back in August), without even drawing a link to JoeM: In retrospect though, it seems to be a perfect match. And to think the original block was challenged by another admin, accusing me of bias and misconduct. I'm glad to see my second block has stuck, though. (I'll add the above aliases to his user page; there's also User:Wikimedia Foundation.) -- Hadal 07:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets in regards to FamilyFord car4less and HistoryBuffEr

I need some help here. Viriditas has stated to me that User:FamilyFord car4less is a sock puppet of User:HistoryBuffEr. I have been told differently by HistoryBuffEr. To be fair to him, I have assumed good faith and altered the "FamilyFord car4less" user page from "Presumed sockpuppet for HistoryBuffEr" to "HistoryBuffEr assures me that this is not his account. Please assume good faith on this matter. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

OK, firstly I would like to know if I have done the right thing here. Secondly, is there a way of verifying whether the IP address of HistoryBuffEr is different from the IP address of FamilyFord car4less's contributions? Or alternatively, should we not be concerned and leave it be? I think there might be a case to answer for here, however, because HistoryBuffEr was (controversially) blocked for violating the 3RR (something he disagreed with because one of the reverts was a revert and and edit where he added extra information).

I was hoping you could assist me with this matter, or at least direct me to the right person. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Descriptive image names on commons

Hello. Because your user page on commons says I'd better look here, I figured this would be a better place to put this comment. I noticed you uploaded two images with quite non-descriptive image names (DSC01711.JPG and DSC01708.JPG). Commons has a (proposed) policy (I can't find it right now, but it sounds like a good idea) to use descriptive image names. DSC01711.JPG can be anything: "En-US-Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!.ogg" can not. It would be nice if you would use descriptive names in the future. Thanks. Gerritholl 20:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a terrible editor. I was in a big hurry, and I didn't even put the date, time, etc. on those. I meant to license them under GNU FDL and CC-BY, as well. I meant to get permission from the people in the photos. I did it all wrong, and I'm sorry. I'll try to straighten all this out tomorrow. Jimbo Wales 02:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you take these pictures?

Commons images

Um, Jimbo ... could you add a copyright tag to your images on the commons? Or let me know if they are GFDL and i'll do it for you. (Image:DSC01708.JPG, Image:DSC01711.JPG). Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 04:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Deleted as requested on the commons village pump. Glad I could help -- Chris 73 Talk 12:29, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

---

Please remove my name from the mailing list. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Meetup

Your name is on the list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for December 12. In case you forgot to check the page, the venue and time have been both been set. We are planning on meeting at the Moonstruck Diner at 1:30pm. Just wanted to let you know. -- – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:09, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)