User talk:Jimbo Wales

Hello "Jimbo", I'm The Pee-Wee Vandal(FREE SPEECH ON THIS ONE, GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE GREAT JIMBO!

I am Pee Wee Herman, the Vandal of Wikipedia, Scourge of Rome, and ruler of all things unseen, etc. I am also known as the Pee Wee Vandal. I have been vandalizing your foolish creation for 3 months now, and plan on doing it more much much more. I have no problem about vandalization:it's my hobby as much as editing is! so let me be straight with you: user:dreadstar needs to disband in order for me to disband. simple as that. if you wish me gone without harm, ban the fool. otherwise, prepare for an online Jihad!

(P.S. why is co-wikipedia founded by a perverted loser like you??

Devil's advocate as a necessary aspect of evaluating something

I tried to talk to Durova (see User talk:Durova/Archive 38#Devil's advocate) about what went wrong; and her inability to assume good faith prevented her from getting my point. Or maybe it was the hubris she has mentioned. Or maybe it was something else. We all see the world though our subjective-colored glasses. I do. You, Jimmy, do too.

Society has a long history of trying to perfect its ability to ascertain right/wrong truth/fiction. Logical argument based on evidence between opposing sides has been established by science and modern society as the best that can be achieved. The opposite of that is a one-sided star-chamber evaluation where group-think reigns unopposed.

I noticed that the Wikipedia Foundation paid an expert to help tutor the board members (I forget on what) to improve their ability to perform their unpaid jobs as board members. That was a very good idea. Maybe something similar could be arranged to help you with your unpaid job of liaison between the Foundation and the flagship English language Wikipedia's community. You have been making a lot of mistakes lately, and there no one available even remotely qualified to replace you in this role. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are here, you can advise me. What mistakes have I made lately? What would you have done differently? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to get into that; but since you ask, I'll put together a list of a few items that will illustrate what I think you could improve at. Probably today. A comprehensive list of errors would be a lot of work and to no good end, so I won't go there. Further, just because I think it would be an improvement, does not mean that it would be, so please check with many others for feedback (I'm sure you know this, I'm just letting you know that I also know this). WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. Quick introduction since we haven't directly talked before: I very much admire your values and what you've done here, and I enjoy being a Wikipedian. Since you welcome constructive criticism, however, I can point to one recent statement of yours that I think was in error. One of the things you said was, "No one is attempting to suppress discussion, look at the ridiculous length of this page." Before you made that comment, Jehochman had closed the discussion (he was quickly reverted), and Mercury had protected the page (he was reverted half an hour later). And of course a nontrivial amount of the page consists of people arguing over whether discussion should continue. So I think you were mistaken there -- some people were obviously attempting to suppress discussion. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

_________________________________________________

The below suggestions, if implemented, would in my opinion: decrease drama at Wikipedia, increase confidence in the administration of Wikipedia, decrease time wasted at Wikipedia in responding to drama, and increase confidence in your judgement.

1. Don't edit Wikipedia articles (but go ahead and talk on the talk pages). Your edits at BonziBUDDY and Mzoli's show why. Ask any Wikipedia prolific editor about it if you don't believe me.
2. Don't desyop, block or ban anyone yourself; or threaten that one will occur. Stick to higher level action like asking others to do that and being a final check on who is a member of arbcom. Your block of Miltopia, desyop of Zscout370, and threat to Giano all created unnecessary drama.[1]
3. Increase separation between Wikia and Wikipedia. See Essjay and http://lists.Wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking used in the Durova incident
4. Increase transparency. Foundation members using the rules to oversight a work document that was used to indef block a model Wikipedian claiming copyright on an email when fair use is obvious is actively decreasing needed transparency and just plain stupid when it forces people to go to Wikipedia Review to see it. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence.
5. Refocus your friends. Tell your loyal friendly admins: "Ignore teasing. Try letting it go. Don't make stuff a big deal. Stop acting like we are at war." Example: Ask User:JzG about Swalwell, Alberta and then compare [2]. (Also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Daniel Brandt Posting Anonymously? for an example of how acting like we are at war with the bad guys is just causing pointless drama and wasted time.)
6. Set a better example of no personal attacks. Calling someone a troll is a personal attack. And "Will no one rid me of these socks from Wikipedia Review?" seems to capture some of what is going on. (I'm not saying you said that; I'm saying the atmosphere around here is as if you did.)
7. Increase accountability. Ask some experts about this and take their advice.

WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We could ask Wikipedians in general to comment on these suggestions at a Request For Comment; but I really think you are better off bouncing these off experts. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some DONATE NOW could be set aside for some expert advice? Just thinking out loud. sNkrSnee | t.p. 11:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to Number 5 - b) Expand your friends; find a few people on WP you disagree with and try to engage with them. You may not convince them and they you, but you might find that some of those whose viewpoints differ from you actually really do care about the encyclopedia, want it to thrive, and are quite happy to let your tastes and ideas inform your contributions providing that theirs are given equal space. End result, a more comprehensive and NPOV resource. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (...and, no, I ain't volunteering!)

Hey Jimbo, I confess that I was thinking about posting something similar here (but probably wouldn't have considering that my comments here rarely elicit a response from anyone...sigh) after having seen your comment about Giano II (As far as I can tell, the author of more than 10 FA's and not contentious until the !! thing). But I see WAS beat me to it and did a far better job than I could have outlining the material. I do have one additional suggestion however. Why don't you create a legitimate sockpuppet account for when you edit "as an editor." This way you could avoid the drama that surrounds every edit that this account makes as mentioned in WAS's number 1. Also I am pretty sure that I am not the only editor that has concerns about some of the actions you have taken recently. I realize that you are in a tough position, but it would be good to know that you will at least take some of these comments under consideration. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 00:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe more people aren't endorsing the above suggestions. This is damn good advice, but without people chiming in and saying so, nobody -- not even an objectivist -- is likely to be able to overcome the subjective knee-jerk reaction, and see the good in these suggestion. I also agree with the modification that "Don't edit articles" should be "Use an anonymous sockpuppet to edit articles."

Remember the last episode of The Prisoner where Number Six goes in front of the assembly that dissolves into pandemonium in response to everything Number Six says? There's truth there. You could be the best contributor in the whole project, but people are going to try to shoot you down because you're the BMOC. That means even the most well-meaning action can result in a lot more than "unnecessary drama" -- hurt feelings, bad publicity, and worse are more and more likely as time goes by.

Jimbo, I urge you to take the advice above, and I hope others will join in to help convince you. MilesAgain 15:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Whew! I've been on an extended semi-break, and it'll probably continue a bit longer, but I wonder what brought all this on. Jimbo's edits in the past have almost always struck me as sensible interventions. I wouldn't like him to stop making them. Metamagician3000 11:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

His talk page edits have always seemed to help Wikipedia, but article space edits done in his own name have lately seemed to me to be causing unneeded problems. His creation of Mzoli's created unnecessary disruption at the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia, and other places for all I know. If he has done that with a pseudonym he would have learned a few things about the current state of affairs at wikipedia and avoided the controversy to boot. But the edit that makes me shake my head sadly and say, "just don't edit the articles" is [3]. He changed accurate NPOV sourced claims into mis-representations of the sources and introduced original research using unsourced weaselly phrased additions such as "most or all major reporting sites today classify it as adware rather than spyware" when sources in the article call it spyware. WAS 4.250 12:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to disagree here. I regret that I've been snowed under with my other projects lately and I've missed the excitement, but I think Jimbo has as much right as anyone else to create an article on a venue that seems notable, and there's always the AfD process if it's thought such a place doesn't meet notability requirements for restaurants or the like. It seems clear that it did, and I think that any well-respected editor should be cut some slack if he or she creates a stub and asks for a chance to improve it. This looks more to me like someone was trying to make a point about Jimbo not being above the rules, or some such thing. As for the adware/spyware issue, it's obvious from the edit summary that there was a particular sensitivity that had come to Jimbo's attention - he was open to editing the article but had some reason for making the change with a degree of urgency. He has to have that kind of power, and I don't know why anyone would want to frustrate his use of it. For Zeus's sake, there's a bigger picture that he has to worry about. I think that people should cut Jimbo some slack with these sorts of things. I can't talk about any of the other issues, so maybe he has made recent mistakes somewhere for all I know, but I can't see anything bad with either of these cases. Metamagician3000 13:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought just what you are saying at first. But the conversation on the German Wikipedia was enlightening as was subsequent comments and behavior by Jimbo concerning the BonziBUDDY article that make it plain to me that even he considers his edit to be a mistake. I think Jimbo is a hell of a nice guy and someone we can trust making the big decisions; but his article space edits suck. WAS 4.250 16:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you thought at first it's probably right - because it's how it looks on the surface. I am starting to think that some people - I don't mean you - are more concerned about how to put Jimbo in his place, whatever place that is supposed to be, than in cooperating with his efforts. I think it's those people who need to take a look at themselves. I have no idea about the German wikipedia, but I'm pretty unimpressed by the smart-arse response on the English wikipedia to the Mzoli's article. Really, if Jimbo, of all people, has been to a place in South Africa, says it's notable, creates the beginnings of an article and asks for a chance to develop it, what sort of idiot is not going to take him at his word? There are people around here who, on the most charitable reading, have no common sense. Metamagician3000 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point about "how it looks on the surface". I changed my opinion not based on additional thinking about prior evidence, I changed my opinion based on much new evidence that showed what it looks like on the surface differs from what it looks like with additional information. But you are right about too many people wanting to "put others in their place". There is way too much power tripping going on and way too much unneeded inciting of drama and way too much not taking into account that we all have our opinions colored by our POV so we need to run ideas past others who disagree with us (see title of section). WAS 4.250 15:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WAS, I'm not missing your point at all. I'm disagreeing with your point. And of course I think it's legitimate for you to express your views for whatever they're worth. It's also legitimate for people to say they disagree with them. Because I've had to be semi-inactive for a few months - just making rare edits in article space - I've missed out on a huge amount of (the usual sort of) drama. I must say that I realise how draining all this drama can be when you're even on the far fringe of it. As I've been trying to catch up lately with what's been happening "behind" article space I see a lot of people carying on as if they're bigger than the project - and I don't mean Jimbo, who is self-effacing and patient to a fault, if anything. That's just my impression, but of course I'm quite entitled to offer mine as you're entitled to offer yours. Oh well, I'll be away completely for another week by which time things will have moved on, so that's probably my last word on this particular issue. Metamagician3000 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WAS, I would say that some of your advice is quite good, but I strongly defend all the article space edits that I have made recently. I most particularly defend my edit to Mzoli's, and the creation of that article, the growth of it into a good article, is something that I take great pride in. Can we start with that? Can you explain why it was wrong for me to create that article?

Regarding BonziBUDDY, the article has quite frequently been a hatchet job, and I helped enormously with that. Were there some errors in what I wrote? Perhaps, but overall I think I did a good job. You may not appreciate how difficult it is to write about such subject matter in a fair way.

My block of Miltopia was a good block, widely supported. And my desysop of ZScout, while controversial, was the right thing to do as well, controversial or not. I am on a campaign to improve the level of respect that admins have for the blocks of problem users, and to try to illustrate that Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, and it is not ok to unblock people in that fashion.

There was other advice you gave, and if I get the time, I respond (more favorably) to that, but I wanted to go on record saying that I am very proud of Mzoli's, very proud of blocking Miltopia, and very proud of my work in assisting with difficult BLPs.--Jimbo Wales 06:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1 Well, I'm trying to take a wiki-break, but when I take a break I still lurk a little. This is important enough to have a wiki-break-break :) . WAS 4.250 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

2 Thank you for saying "WAS, I would say that some of your advice is quite good". I appreciate that. It is very important that the community act in ways that decease the drama and we all need to help in whatever way we can. I did my best to point out ways that I thought you could help. I'm sure I'm wrong about some of them as I, like everyone else, am less than perfect. WAS 4.250 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

3 About Mzoli's. The drama creating part that could have avoided is two-fold. First, you did not have to have the article created and improved with your own name. You can use an alternate account to avoid drama, you can create an article elsewhere and have someone else to add it to wikipedia. But that causes less transparency, and so causing less immediate possible drama has to be weighed against the drama of backroom-article-creation-gate. Which brings up the second drama creating thing you did, and may perhaps be the only legitimate criticism of you in regard to Mzoli's. That second thing has to do with how wikipedia has changed over the last two years from being all about content creation in an encyclopedia-in-the-making to being all about content accuracy in an existing encyclopedia that people are relying on today. I know you know of this change, you are an important part causing the change. Perhaps you are less familiar with the day to day article level behaviors that implement this. One of those behaviors lies in being quick about weeding out articles we should not have because they are unsourced and perhaps unsourceable. Reliable studies show we weed out vandalism almost immediately most of the time, but when we don't catch it in the first couple days, if can easily linger for months. This means there is a lot of effort put into deleting unsourced new articles that don't claim a reason for being notable which some take as shorthand for "probably unsourceable". You talk a lot about equality and such and some people take this to mean to treat edits equally regardless of who made the edit; which while partly true is not especially clueful when used as a bright-line rule - but the problem is that we have a lot of not especially clueful people in a non-paid pseudonym work space and that must be taken into account. The end result is that by editing the way you did, people trying to keep crap out of wikipedia made predictable mistakes, and because it was about your edits, it resulted in drama. The drama could have been avoided by creating the article in user subspace and not moving it to main space until it was a decent sourced article of the type unlikely to cause an issue with our less clueful volunteers. Most people who are regulars at creating articles make sure their initial article edit claims notability from a published reliable secondary source at the very least. This might even be a good thing. If you insist on creating articles, please do so in a way that minimizes drama - use your user subspace and ask seasoned editors to help. WAS 4.250 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

4 I agree that "Regarding BonziBUDDY [...] overall [you] did a good job" referring to all the work you did on that article and in its talk space before my edit. My objection was to your removal of NPOV (e.g. I more accurately described what a source was claiming in that "ad-ware" included spy-ware and was not a separate and distinct category), insertion of unsourced claims and weasel words, and an edit summary that I read as indicating that it was ok to use secret information as a reason for adding claims to an article. Secret/Private information can certainly be a valid reason to remove claims, but can never be a valid reason to add claims if this project is to credible. WAS 4.250 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

5 We are well rid of Miltopia but it could have been done with less drama if you had worked with arbcom or (for transparency) the community about it. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps however it was done it would have caused drama. WAS 4.250 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

6 While perhaps ZScout should have been desyoped, you should not have been the one to do it. The drama there was breaking the fundamental understanding that uninvolved people should do the deed. This is sound practice for practical and theoretical reasons. Separation of powers and conflict of interest and appearance of bias are all theoretical issues helped by this standard practice that by breaking caused drama and set a bad example. WAS 4.250 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The need for General User Survey

Jimbo, I know you are busy and this page is overloaded with crap but please take a moment to read this. I am an experienced Wikipedian (User:Piotrus with 62k edits on English Wikipedia and the 47th Most Active Wikipedian) and a PhD candidate with 1 paper on Wikipedia published, another one in review process and two more in draft stages.

I am writing to you with regards to an issue of what I and many of my collegues (scholars of Wikipedia) believe is of utmost urgency. To be brief, we need to prioritize General User Survey (a project of Wikimedia Research Network) and launch it as soon as possible.

GUS, as it is known, is described on meta here. The goal is to survey editors (not users, although if needed this could be changed), and collect basic demographic data (gender, country of residence, age, education level, income). We could also ask questions about editor's experience with Wikipedia, community involvement and so on. The survey could be advertised over a period of a week or so via the same announcement system that the fundraiser or ArbCom / Board elections are (at the top of Wikipedia). It could be easily expanded to other Wikimedia Foundation projects, and via translation, to other wikis (German and Hebrew Wikipedias have done such surveys in the past, links are at the GUS page).

We have preliminary questions ready at the above address, but with no support from developers - or anybody with software skills - we are stuck in more or less the same place since 2005. I believe that a tiny nudge from the Board that would encourage some of the developers to finish the survey and launch it is all we need.

The need for GUS has been raised on every Wikimania, at Wiki-research-l, in recent Wikipedia Weekly podcast, and several research papers. Even you yourself cannot truthfully answer in interviews 'who' edits Wikipedia, because we don't know - and each day we are losing data of immense value on our groundbreaking project/community. We should have done this survey years ago, and it should be a yearly event. Once the survey is completed, it will surely generate much interest in academia and media.

I love the topic, however, it is not appropriate for here and now. Suffice it to say that I believe WP is not a place where anyone can edit everything...ever; never has been; never will be. For good reasons and a possible "Sea change" someday, I have a vision of things being different at WP.....someday. My opinions only, for now. Cheers, it's been Nice (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The survey, being done online, should be cheap (if it will cost as at all). A time of a few developers is all we need; unless we decide to use an external service like we have done for the Board elections or use one of the services suggested at the GUS page - but the costs, if any, should be a tiny fraction of current Wikimedia budget - and the benefits will be huge.

The survey will benefit everyone - scholars will understand the unique rise of Wikipedia better; reliability of the project and wikis in general will improve as more research is done in that area; we - the editors - will understand ourselves better, media will have something to report, additional awareness will generate more funds, and so on.

Your sincerely

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the benefits of the survey are supposed to be, notwithstanding the list above, which is largely unconvincing (to me) generalities. However, a survey's principal weakness will be an inability to "prove" anything, as there is no way either to compel or to check truthfulness. Given much of what I have read on en.WP, there might well even be an underground movement to maintain the privacy (anonymity) aspect of the project by willfully and purposefully giving incorrect information. As soon as some entity wants to include me in a survey, my experience has been that somewhere, sometime, that information will be used to try to sell me something. I can understand why many individuals (be they scholars such as Piotrus, marketers or journalists) would want to take such a survey, and to have access to its results, but I can't see what benefit it is to the average editor to give out this information. Count me out. Bielle (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundations doesn't sell anything. There are no ads on the site. Academic surveys guarantee anonymity. General public doesn't understand science - for example, by confusing academia surveys with marketing ones. Wikipedia is here to educate people. Educating people about Wikipedia, and an occasional editor about what an academic survey is, fits the fundation goals. If you are not curious who your fellow editors are, that's fine. Many others are, and the foundation can use this information to make our editing experience better for all of us.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure a lot of people are very curious about a lot of things. If all Wikipedians are given full access to the survey results, then the nature of Wikipedia is such that so will everyone else on the Net be given access. How that will be used, I don't know, but someone out there is thinking about it even as we exchange comments. Most of us in the "general public" know that almost any survey (academic, scientific, marketing, census, or what-have-you) includes "identifying" questions, not usually of the respondent as an individual, that is true, but as a member of any number of groups in which the surveyor has an interest. The information then gathered is carefully analysed for the key attributes to which efforts can be geared better to "sell" something to me, as a member of one of those groups. What is being sold are products usually, but also ideas, like "Vote XX" or "Donate to XX Charity" or "Spend More Time Writing for Wikipedia". I am not sure how knowing X, Y or Z about me will help the Foundation "make our editing experience better for all of us". Would it eliminate, for example, everyone who has a nationalist agenda, or all those who think that "mine" is the NPOV and all those who disagree with me are "POV pushers"? (In spite of the flip tone to the last two sentences, I would really like to know how you see the survey improving our editing experience. I'd be happy to see a response on my talk page if it is not appropriate for this one.) My caution persists, however. To draw any valid conclusions from the results of the survey, you need to have some way, statistical or otherwise, to verify the data. Even the simplest telephone surveyer has postal codes, voices, language use, accent, along with all the data collected from the vast sources of the Internet, mailing lists and research companies against which to measure the reasonableness of the responses. What does Wikipedia have, absent checkuser: a whois location? You are a researcher with a vested interest in collecting this kind of information; I am not. And, indeed, mine is just one opinion. So is yours. It is out of many such that consensus arises. Bielle (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely any survey would badly suffer from selection bias - surely a better, fairer, way of doing a survey would be to find users of Wikipedia and survey them that way? Surely /users/ of Wikipedia are more interesting for research than editors anyhow, and it shouldn't be hard to find people considering it's the 8th most popular site on the internet according to Alexa, and contacting them shouldn't be a problem particularly if you are legitimate researchers and scholars and the resources that brings. I also really doubt any benefits of such a survey, and, as a developer myself, your expectation for other people to do software development for you for free to further your cause really made my eyes roll. Perhaps if you feel it's so essential you should find a way of funding or doing the development within the team rather than expecting development time to be handed to you on a plate? Perhaps there is a damn good reason why it's taken 2 years and you've got no progress, as Wikipedia has expanded by over a million articles in that time? -Halo (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits#2483_users.2C_some_bots_and_scripts

The University of Minnesota is also doing quite a bit of research on WP. Good luck to all scholars that want to help this place! Nice (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that scholars see the need for such a survey. That non-scholars don't is not a surprise. General public knows little about what science is, and this will never change. Letting scholars research what they want usually works better than listening to general public and directing research based on that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the Foundation isn't spending much money on this, it seems fine. It doesn't seem very Wikimedia-ish however. I was under the impression that the goal was to spread free knowledge around the world, not conduct social experiments. Mr.Z-man 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope the Foundation will not need to spend a single cent; all we need is a bit of developer attention - people who are involved with the survey are social, not computer, scientist. Setting aside the fact that Jimbo himself said "We *are* a grand social experiment of course", I would think that the need to document the rise of Wikipedia, not only as itself but as a likely model for the many future organizations on the net, would be quite evident to many editors, who after all often struggle with finding referenced studies for their articles. Wikipedia is becoming quite a notable subject for study and encyclopedic subject, and if we can generate some data for that, it would be great. Finally, study of the project would benefit editors - not only satisfying curiosity of some, but allowing us to more easily understand current troubles with the project, solve them, and foresee the future ones.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• If there is an increase in the scope and quality of expert opinions for the content herein because of work like yours, then it will surely be a worthy cause. Content providers, and more specifically, experts in nearly every topic known to mankind should actually be paid to add to this project. Someday I would hope to see the makings of permanent articles with qualified experts doing the finishing touches and occasional tweaking of same, with protection from vandals pretty much a locked up deal. I spoke briefly about this in the "Pump." It was off of a topic that JzG had started. Good luck with your Thesis. Nice (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And then how will Wikipedia still be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? We already have Citizendium and Wikipedia editors drumming up support for the for-profit site Veropedia. If what you want are permanent articles and qualified experts, then perhaps Wikipedia is just not for you. Bielle (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I love the topic, however, it is not appropriate for here and now. Suffice it to say that I believe WP is not a place where anyone can edit everything...ever; never has been; never will be. For good reasons and a possible "Sea change" someday, I have a vision of things being different at WP.....someday. My opinions only, for now. Cheers, it's been Nice (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A critical problem with survey research of this sort is that your data won't reveal any similarities in those who decline to answer. You call a thousand people: a third are voting liberal, a third conservative, and a third decline. Does the last group have anything in common? Probably. Perhaps they're older people who are more strongly of the opinion "I don't discuss my politics." Perhaps older people are more likely to vote conservative and thus you have sample bias. In actual research firms, the coding will include demographic questions that help avoid the problem: 15% of the population is over 65, say, and you close the group when it reaches that percentage of the target. (Of course, there may be other similarities amongst declinees that you're not asking about: perhaps conservatives of all ages amd backgrounds are more inclined to decline.)

With this survey, we have no way around that problem. Are people with advanced degrees more or less likely to reveal their educational attainment? Are the substantial body of teenagers on site more or less likely to answer a survey? (Probably more, which will skew the data in favour of what is already a young demographic.) The only way to avoid it is to force your cohort to answer and obviously that won't fly. Marskell (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's of course true of any survey. The proverb about small lies, big lies and statistics comes to mind :) Nonetheless surveys are more useful than not, and there are ways to adjust the results for missing data over under- or over-represented populations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jan Matejko Bilder

Hi,

ich weiß es nicht, ob du mein posting gerne überliest oder was? ich brauche zu dem Thema eine Antwort. Du bist doch der Chef hier, oder etwa nicht? Ist es in Ordnung, dass die Nutzung von Bildern des Malers Jan Matejko in der deutschen Wikipedia verboten ist (siehe die Reverts), ist dieses Vorgehen Wikipedia konform? Ich brauche hierzu eine Stellungnahme!--Interrex (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bekomme ich noch eine Antwort oder kann ich es vergessen? :-( --Interrex 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, ich brauche hier eine Stellungnahme, warum die Verwendung von Jan Matejko Bildern in der deutschen Wikipedia verboten ist (why is the use of jan matejko pictures in the german wikipedia prohibited (?), see the reverts). Ich wurde, da ich die Bilder verteidigt habe, sogar für einen Tag gesperrt, nur aufgrund von Bildern, die in den Commons frei und legal zugänglich sind. Das was auf der deutschen Wikipedia in Bezug auf Matejko abläuft ist Admin-Willkür (Admin-arbitrariness) in ihrer Reinform.--Interrex (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ich bin ein user in der deutschen wikipedia version. ich möchte dich in kenntnis setzen, dass es seit dieser woche in der deutschen wikipedia auf basis der [[4]] verboten ist Jan Matejko Bilder zu nutzen. Alle Jan Matejko Bilder wurden aus der deutschen Wikipedia entfernt (!), siehe z. B. hier [[5]] oder auch hier [[6]] Ist das ok? Warum ist die Nutzung von Jan Matjeko Bildern in der englischen, französischen, polnischen Wikipedia erlaubt, aber in der deutschen plötzlich verboten? Ich hatte hier [[7]] versucht einen Ausgelich zu finden, komme aber mit meiner Argumentation bedingt durch die Solidarisierung der Admins untereinander nicht mehr durch, hoffe dass du ein Machtwort sprechen kannst--Interrex (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia and Wikipedia

Dear Jimbo,

I don't know where else to post to get a relatively "official" position on the relationship between Veropedia and Wikipedia. I'd like to start with the "facts", if you will:

• Veropedia is described as a "for-profit" encyclopedia web site in its Wikipedia article.
• The owner of Veropedia appears to be sponsoring or co-sponsoring a contest to improve wikipedia articles, with cash prizes. I removed a sentence from that contest page that implied to me that the purpose of the contest was essentially to move improved articles over to Veropedia.
• The owner of Veropedia is a former employee of the Wikimedia Foundation.
• Veropedia user boxes and templates appear on many user pages. Unlike other "branded" userboxes, the users who place them on their pages seem in a fundamentally different position—they are affiliated with the company; or, if they are not, they appear to be affiliated because of the unclear position of Veropedia with respect to Wikipedia.
• One user has a link in his or her signature that brings the reader to a promotion of Veropedia: See User:Moreschi/If. The page was nominated for deletion, and deleted by the closer in spite of the many Keep votes because the closer felt it to be simple advertising. (Was it simple advertising?—Well, that link is how I found out about Veropedia.) It has since been the subject of a Deletion Review and has been reinstated.
• In general, plenty of linking and discussion about Veropedia has taken place over the last month on Wikipedia.

In trying to understand how this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia, I have so far posted twice on User:Danny's talk page, and I have received a few responses from related parties, which stress that Veropedia will give back to Wikipedia, and that the two organizations have compatible goals. Nobody has yet addressed my question as to the ethicality of this relationship: I am concerned that this for-profit organization is attempting to embed itself here as a casual, informal extension of Wikipedia; that it will gain through the obviously valuable halo effect that it will receive from Wikipedia links and activities; and that this, in the view of society's consensus views on profit/non-profit business ethics is, indeed, unethical. Compare any other GFDL-compliant "mirror": none of them receive this benefit. Thus, to be clear, the re-use of open content is not the issue at all; the issue is that Wikipedia appears to be the ground for the sowing of a for-profit organization's seeds. What other organization has ever been permitted this (spam attempts notwithstanding)?

Your talk page is a busy place, and I wish to state that I am not a trollish editor flying by to create a fuss. I have contributed to the wiki positively for some time and have about 9000 edits. I am not writing because I am "anti-mirror" or have had some bothersome realization about GFDL licensing—such ideas simply distort the key issue I'm raising. Further, I have had no prior dealings with Veropedia or its owner, and have no reason to spend my time examining this issue other than its ethical bearing on whether I can in good conscience continue to contribute here.

Thus, I am here to ask, in earnest, if the Foundation considers this an issue worth examining, or has it already accepted this promotional activity? Of course, Veropedia's activities here are nascent. If the current amount of Veropedia cross-pollination is OK, how much Veropedia promotion would have to be in place, scattered about Wikipedia, before it became a concern? Has Wikimedia considered that the organization appears to be affiliated with Veropedia, or "not at arm's length", because of Veropedia's similarities, because of its presence on Wikipedia, and because its owner is a former Foundation employee? I hope you would agree that now is the time to clearly state—for the benefit of Wikipedia's volunteers and for proactivity in public relations—what is the official position on for-profit website promotion on Wikipedia. If this promotional activity is permitted, it's good to know. I have an Amazon.com affiliate account that I may start linking to on-site—it too will benefit Wikipedia, because I plan to send 40% of the proceeds to the Foundation, and I'll sponsor some contests too.

My apologies if this issue has been formally discussed elsewhere; I haven't seen anything. Thank you for your time. –Outriggr § 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consider going to #veropedia on IRC where it can be explained to you by people familiar with the way Veropedia works, or wait until you contact Danny before you make up your mind on Veropedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair question. KnightLago 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See also

• Wikia

E kala mai. ;-) --Ali'i 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I see where the project stands on this. Thanks. –Outriggr § 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clearer, for posterity (who else is listening?), my above one-sentence post should have been more direct. Here's the new version:

I regret that no one will provide a thoughtful response on this topic. I'd like to be shown wrong here. One could say, for example, "Thank you for writing Outriggr. I understand your concern, but I don't see this as an ethical issue or presenting a conflict of interest for Wikipedia because... [argument]". I might have stayed with the project had anyone, not just Jimbo, ever approached me in that manner. If I'm wrong, tell me why; if I'm way off base, the reply should be easy. But all I've received so far are bromides and silence, bringing to mind that old saying "the silence is deafening". I am leaving Wikipedia, a culmination of factors: partly because of my original concern, partly because nobody will actually present a counter-argument to it [a treatment usually not reserved for the worst drama-mongerers], and certainly in protest of the recent issues surrounding sockpuppet hunts and non-transparent activities. Apparently we regular Wikipedia editors are to pretend that these issues have no bearing on us—but they do. The most productive editors are often the ones who, quietly, go away. There are ways to stop this cycle. Regretfully, –Outriggr § 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What a bureaucratic nightmare !

(cross posted from Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation)

I am an experienced wikipedian with several thousand edits, but I just wanted to quickly add a redirect, and didn't want to compromise my account by logging in from an insecure computer that I am using. After all, wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, RIGHT? Well, it's a SHAME, SHAME, SHAME what kind of non-sense one had to go through to create a new article as an anon user, even if it be a paltry redirect. Disgusting how I had to go through all this you are not going to promote yourself, you can submit your IDEA for an article, blah, blah, blah ad infinitum. Well, that'll serve me right: I'll know now how discriminating and intimidating can wikipedia be for new users. Thanks a lot! 74.94.146.241 09:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I ever edited, I got a username. I've been consistently using it since. If I want to make an edit while I'm using a computer that I don't consider secure, I just wait till I'm using a different computer. Just about anyone can do this; ergo this encyclopedia is one that anyone can edit. Where's the beef? Why the disgust? -- Hoary 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally totally agree with 74.94.146.241 -- 80.126.238.189 (AKA Kim Bruning 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Given, Kim, that you almost never edit in article space, I don't know why people should find your comments on it of note. Marskell 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The flip answer would be to say that it's due to cheery attitudes like yours ;-)

More in depth: For all kinds of reasons I often edited as an anon user, and still do so whenever I can. I haven't done it much lately because it's becoming harder and harder for folks to edit as an anon. It's gotten to the point where I've finally decided to spend time on other projects (such as coding for Omegawiki) this past year.

--Kim Bruning 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that I didn't ask a question, I don't know what you're answering, flip or otherwise.

I don't find my attitude cheery or the opposite. It was an observation. You don't edit article space, so I don't see that the opinion presented has more salience than any random opinion would. In fact, it would be more relevant if you were actually a new, anon user looking to improve articles. But you're not. Marskell 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand? Actually I did edit article space in the past, on some very tricky articles, and that's how I learned to understand how wikipedia works. Then I mediated between people, and they were the ones doing the editing and I was showing them how to do so without fighting. Now I'm off doing other stuff, and I only just comment from time to time to help people understand how things work. Are you saying that my experience is out of date, or what is your claim? --Kim Bruning 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that many administrators and a few other longtime contributors maintain a fully registered alternate account, listed on their usual talk page, for this specific set of circumstances. Perhaps the editor posting as an anon might want to consider that. (This suggestion is predicated on the theory that, by the time the group editing WP:SOCK finishes, it will still be an acceptable use of an alternate account.) Risker 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've seen the quality of 95% of the content suggested on WP:AFC, you'd realize that without those rules, the page would be totally unusable. Mr.Z-man 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP Question

HI Jimbo,

Do you have any thoughts on an issue like this (undue weight in a BLP) as a matter of principle? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Frank_LaGrotta

Thanks, --Jkp212 04:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a tough case. The version that I looked at quickly just now was certainly problematic, in that it cited only the negative accusation against this fellow, without mentioning his response. Until it all shakes out in court, at a bare minimum we need to withhold judgment. Surely one thing we might all learn from the Duke Lacrosse team case is that sometimes there are political prosecutions that don't pan out...

But additionally, I would join those who question the undue weight when this matter is overemphasized in the biography. The problem we have here is that the fellow in question is not particularly famous otherwise, and so there may be very little information about him in general. So what we have here could be viewed as a guy who is only notable for one incident, but that one incident does not give the reader a proper non-tabloid overview of his life.

My view here, and those who are following the case more carefully could easily persuade me otherwise, because I may not have all the facts needed to assess this particular case, is that the current removal of the negative information from the biography is a bit overstrong, but acceptable as a temporary measure. If it is reincorporated, it needs to be firmly balanced with a fair presentation of his own side of the story.

I think the most important thing for people to realize in cases like this (and it looks like there has been general calm and reasoned discussion here, which makes me very happy) is that there is plenty of time. It's ok for Wikipedia to be incomplete for a while. It may take time for editors to gather more information and be able to write a proper biography, and in the meantime, there is no need to rush to judgment.--Jimbo Wales 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I just wonder if there should be more direct wording on BLP policy about undue weight (that goes beyond "cover the event, not the person"), because one incident does not make a man, and therefore undue weight (where one negative incident sticks out) becomes particularly problematic with living subjects who have had some sort of negative incident throughout the course of their lifetime. I think it's ok to sometimes mention the incident, but not if it's done in such a way that it's not balanced out by a truly balanced article. I also believe the onus of having a truly balanced article should be given to the individual who wants to include the negative info. Something like, "do not add negative incidents into BLP's unless the article is thorough enough that the negative incident isn't given undue weight." --Jkp212 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Short Interview

Hello, Mr Wales. I am an IB Diploma student from Bosnia and Herzegovina, a Wikipedia fan and occasional contributor. In my course of ITGS, I have worked on a portfolio regarding Wikipedia. Now I have a task of extending this portfolio where I need to interview someone with a deeper understanding of Wikipedia, so I thought, who could have better understanding of it than its founder? I would be really grateful if you could consider answering on no more than ten questions regarding Wikipedia for my project.Bwanaunsignedhype 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

This is purely a curiosity question, Jimbo: What's on your watchlist? - Chardish 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A motley assortment of random crap. Mostly problematic WP:BLP's that I try to help keep an eye on. :) --Jimbo Wales 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Awesome Invention

Hey Jimbo, just wanted to stop by to say what an awesome thing it is you've created. "Esto perpetua" Mbisanz 09:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Objectivism

hi there- I read that you were strongly influenced by Objectivism in your youth. Could you tell me what you think of objectivism today? What do you think of "the rabid atheism" of Ayn Rand? What do you think of the current article on Objectivism?--Keerllston 12:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Still strongly influenced. I haven't read our current article, but you have awakened my curiosity and perhaps I will find the time soon...--Jimbo Wales 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Interested?

I would appreciate it greatly if you did so, perhaps writing an "official review" on that article and on the article on what I believe is the main work of objectivism - Atlas Shrugged.
If you are truly interested I'm sure wikipedians would like your input and would like to know what you consider to be quality.
--Keerllston 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Register Article

I just read the Register article on Wikipedia's "Secret Mailing List." It seems to me that Wikipedia's business model consists of lying to people to get free work out of them, combined with scamming donations out of other people to buy bandwidth to serve the content the first set of people produce. Content, I might add, whose factual accuracy rivals that of Usenet. Wikipedia publicly represents itself as this fuzzy egalitarian organization which does everything by "consensus," but that's a far cry from how it's really run. New people arrive, having bought into the PR, edit for a while, and then either align with the ruling Cabal or get disgusted and leave. Anyone who dissents is accused of trolling, disruption, or not being here to write an encyclopedia. People get banned all the time, their talk pages are locked, with no discussion permitted within the community, and appeals only to Arbcom. Given the number of sites critical of Wikipedia that currently exist, and the number of irate ex-editors who feel they were treated unfairly, do you still maintain that they are all wrong, and only you are right?

At the very least, you should update the fluffy public description of Wikipedia's inner workings to better coincide with reality, even if you have no intention of modifying your behavior. The lackluster response to the current fundraiser is a good indication of how Wikipedia's reputation is declining. 66.235.57.169 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and concern. I would recommend that getting one's new from the Register may not be the most effective way to learn about reality. Indeed, people do get banned all the time. Thank goodness. Some of our critics have some things right. Others have most things wrong. I sometimes make mistakes myself. Thanks for asking. --Jimbo Wales 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano again

Hi. I hate to bring this up again, but as a user who's only been truly active for a relatively short period, trying to do a bit of voluntary work here and there, I was quite shocked to stumble upon this[8] and this[9]. First of all, you appear to use chilling effect against a certifiably good editor. Also, you take sides in a dispute caused by another editor making it her mission to systematically not assume Good Faith, and to embroil others in that game in a non-transparent and backhanded way. Isn't the loss of one excellent editor (at the very start of all this) sufficient? Frankly, I feel you owe Giano an apology. athinaios 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Respond

Jimbo:

I think it is very rude to leave some comments unresponded to. I have seen a question on this page that remains unreplied to when it was posted over a year ago. And this is your own user page!!!

I am sorry if I seem rude myself.

Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am a little confused. What question do you want me to answer?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 ArbCom Elections

Hi Jimbo, and sorry if this has been asked before, but: how many people will be elected to ArbCom as a result of these elections? The confusion is over the fact that 'Tranche Alpha' currently consists of five people, but also briefly included Essjay making six; from what I can tell, it's essentially your prerogative how many arbitrators are created, so what I'm asking is, what are your current intentions? Do you plan to make five people arbitrators, or six, or more; or will you only decide once you've seen what levels of support they've got? Thanks in advance. Terraxos (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, out of curiosity: do you intend to vote in the elections yourself? Terraxos (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I normally decide in consultation with the existing ArbCom after the election totals are complete. In general, I think that an expansion of the size of ArbCom is warranted, in the interests of having more hands to do the work. But I have not really thought it through completely. I take my responsibility in appointing the ArbCom extremely seriously, and in particular because of errors made by me in the past. So I focus a lot of attention on each candidate, and talk to a lot of people. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Our IRC conversation today: no references to Hitler.

Hi, Jimbo. I took a look at the bit on Giano's page that you thought was Giano calling Durova Hitler. It really is nothing like that. (I knew it couldn't be. It's a ludicrous suggestion, to anybody who knows Giano.) I hope whoever told you that that little lot had to do with Hitler was in good faith... If it was Durova herself, I don't doubt that she was, I don't figure her for a fan of British sitcoms. And maybe it's only in Europe that these sitcoms are famous and beloved.

Anyway, that dialogue is a mix of references to 'Allo 'Allo!, Dad's Army, Blackadder, and (the immortal) Fawlty Towers with John Cleese. You must have some fans of these series among your friends. Please show the dialogue to such a person. To somebody you trust. Show them the thread "About Durova's evidence" and to the end of the page here. Please. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

OK, I wasn't in on any IRC chat obviously, but this has GOT TO STOP!!! That exact same conversation has been misrepresented AT LEAST 3 TIMES since its posting - Durova has accused me & Giano of being bigots, Fred Bauder included it as "evidence" of Giano's incivility, and now you are (apparently) misinterpreting it as some sort of NAZI reference. I have corrected Durova on her talk page (she insulted me and archived without apology) [[10]] and on my own (see Colditz Salad Capers [[11]]), Fred Bauder in this thread[[12]], and now you here. This is somewhere between hilarious and pathetic, and if this sort of BS is continuing on IRC where I can't see it, that's pretty damn serious. I can understand that not everyone knows about Fawlty Towers, but this is an online encyclopedia - can't people do a quick search before leaping to insane conclusions?

To quote John Cleese, you people have absolutely no sense of humour! Please do us all a favour and go watch the episode here[[13]]. You can laugh at it and yourself at the same time. I am. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 23:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ps the above was intended to address only Jimbo Wales, and not Bishonen, who has only my appreciation. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Evidence#Evidence presented by Newyorkbrad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Bishonen, I intended that to be a private conversation where you help me to understand, not an accusation I wanted to make public. I have reviewed the links in question and I agree with your analysis. Snickersnee, I do have a sense of humor, man. :) I just needed help reviewing the diffs. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just grateful that, in my instance, you asked the right person, and took time to look at the diffs. Other times this hasn't been the case, with much ensuing drama and tragedy. I don't know you or Bishonen, but I consider what she did a great service. Why did this ever need to be private? You could have just, say, asked either me or Giano, neither of us is all that shy. It's unnerving to have to keep stamping out the same bizarre interpretations over and over. But I am glad you have a sense of humour, because it would be sad to think no one else got how funny this is. Thanks for setting the record straight, I'm sure I'll probably have to quote you on it. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As I am reading this I have in front of me a copy of THE Complete FAWLTY TOWERS by John Cleese and Connie Booth (ISBN 0-413-18390-4), which are the unexpurgated scripts of said sit-com... Anybody want to mention a problem quote, and I'll confirm and give you the page number. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

...said the spider to the fly. I'm not falling for that again. But it is a small comfort to know that my inevitable block-log epitaph will be scrupulously footnoted. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 13:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh lol, lol, lol, I hope you have a sense of humour Jimbo, cos' just look who is referred to as the Fuhrer here [14] - don't ban him, he does not mean any harm, it just amused me to see what can slip through the net. Giano (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your quote in The Register

"'I believe that Jimbo's credibility has been greatly damaged because of his open support for these people,' says Charles Ainsworth."

Open support for which people?

--Jimbo Wales 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The people involved in those secret email lists. In addition to your comments in the ANI thread and on Giano's talk page in which you appeared to criticize Giano much more harshly than Durova, there are also these comments on the Wikien board: [15], [16], [17] that show your support. Do you want some names? SlimVirgin organized and administered the CyberStalking list, and Moreschi and Krimpet have pointed out that she was active in discussions on that list in spite of her claims that she wasn't. JzG has stated that he was involved in that list and also organized and administered the "investigations" list. For other names, all you need to do is look at discussions, threads, RfCs, and RfAs where SlimVirgin, Durova, Jayjg, and/or JzG have gotten involved and suddenly 10 to 20 other editors, mostly admins, have suddenly appeared within a few hours, but often within minutes, of each other to support whatever cause or issue that any of those four have taken a stand on. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would any of that damage my reputation? I have no idea where or when Slim Virgin claimed not to be active in discussions on that list, can you prove this astounding charge? Slim Virgin was by any reasonable account one of the primary participants in the list, and no wonder, since she has been the victim of really astounding stalking up to and including published nonsense that she is a spy!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cla, please check what was said. I said I was never an active participant in the investigations list, which was created by others to move discussions about sockpuppetry away from the cyberstalking list. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here you go [18]. SlimVirgin states that she posted "once" to that list, and Moreschi then points out that she is straight-up lying. SlimVirgin then amends her statement [19] saying that she may have participated in a "technical" discussion and that this was the "extent" of her involvement. Krimpet points out that this is also a lie [20].

I'll assert plainly here that SlimVirgin has an established record of having problems with the truth and others know this. Doc Glasgow just pointed out another incident of lying by her in a chat room discussion you recently participated in. This is why it damages your reputation to support "these people". As obvious as these issues are, I wonder how you couldn't be aware of them. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cla68, this is really important, so I am bolding it. Do you acknowledge the confusion here? SlimVirgin did not lie at all here as far as I can see, and you owe her an apology on this point. She talked about the wpinvestigations mailing list, which she did not at all or only barely participated in, not about the cyberstalking list, where she was and is a very active participant. Please acknowledge your mistake.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, she was talking about the investigations list, so I apologize to SlimVirgin for stating that she was talking about the Cyberstalking list. But, Moreschi did catch her in a lie about the extent of her involvement in the investigations list and Krimpet stated that SlimVirgin hasn't been truthful about what really went on on the Cyberstalking list, which that link to Allison's page confirms. Someone has pointed out to me that there have probably been other victims of harrassment on Wikipedia that didn't know about that list that would have been interested in participating but couldn't, because it wasn't advertised anywhere. If the list was used for victims of harrassment, it seems that it was only open to a select few of them. And it also appears that it was used for other purposes, such as Durova's sleuthing seminars and other vitriol against good faith editors. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin would most likely agree with Alison's summary. There is no question that the list has been noisy and at times a place for people to vent steam. That's very far from the characterization you have been making of a secret list for the purpose of cabalism or whatever. Durova posted only that one message there of the "cybersleuthing seminar type" and I believe it got no response at all. It's a mailing list. You say that Moreschi "did catch her in a lie"... that is a very strong statement, can you point me to the proof of it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember the line from Durova's email, "They don't know that this list exists"? Krimpet's statement supports that the list was used for much more than talking about harrassment. Now, the second link I provided above shows that SlimVirgin had to amend her first statement from "one post" to "eight times" to the investigations list. Perhaps not a big lie, but a lie. Anyway, are you asking for more evidence that she has ever lied? Cla68 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to review WP:NPA. Why do you assume that "one post" versus "eight times" constitutes a lie, rather than an error. I was not and am not a member of the investigations list, but I can easily imagine it being quite easy to misremember the exact participation on a list. I am happy to let SlimVirgin answer for herself, but on the other hand, I can hardly blame her if she just wants to ignore you... the assumption of bad faith and unwillingness to engage her in a sincere dialog in an attempt to understand strikes me as something you might want to drop. Remember, assumption of bad faith is exactly what got Durova going down the wrong path. Don't follow.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean this sarcastically, but did I answer your original question? Cla68 (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. It seems that you are continuing to assume bad faith in a completely unfair way. Do you have any additional factual questions? It might help you to understand how far off track you have gotten here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cla, your attack on SV is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Please stop attacking your fellow editors, or you will lose the ability to edit on this site. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cla, it just isn't reasonable to jump straight to the conclusion that a person is lying. These are the facts, and there's no point in having a discussion unless it's based on facts:

I am a regular participant in the cyberstalking list. I was subscribed to the investigations list on or around November 10 without being asked whether I wanted to be on it (and I unsubscribed on or around November 26). My memory when I wrote to wikiEN-l was that I'd posted to the investigations list once or thereabouts. Then I looked through my e-mail archives and found eight posts I'd forgotten about, where I'd contributed to a thread about headers in e-mails. So I posted an immediate correction to wikiEN-l. Between my first and second post, Moreschi had already implied that I was lying. I didn't see his post at the time because I wasn't subscribed to wikiEN-l, and indeed my own posts were taking some time to arrive because I was having to ask David Gerard to forward them for me. But really, whether it's one post or eight, the point is that I was subscribed for only around 16 days, and I participated every little during that time. In future, please assume bad memory or confusion or misunderstanding when you see inconsistencies, at least to begin with, instead of immediately assuming that a person is lying. As for your other claim, I do not have "an established record of having problems with the truth": that really is a serious and unjustified slur. Please tell me what Doc Glasgow is supposed to have said so I can respond to it; otherwise, it's left hanging on this page as an attack I can't defend myself against. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This one really, really bothered me, especially the drama comment. [21] 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The very idea that there were "secret email lists" is absurd. The rest of what follows from that assumption is mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why were the lists invitation-only then? I would be interested in knowing about any actual stalking or harrassment going on, because some of the articles I edit are probably embarrassing to some very powerful people and institutions. But I wasn't aware of that forum because it was kept well-hidden, and since I became aware of it a week ago I requested admission and haven't heard anything back. User:Alison, an admin respected enough to be one of the few to recently be entrusted with Checkuser privileges, describes what really went on on that list here [22], and it exactly describes how that list was characterized in the Register article.

Now, you say the rest is mistaken, but, I could easily find several examples to support my assertion, because I observed them firsthand. Do you want to see them? Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison's comments do not match what The Register said very much at all. I am happy to explain to you the key differences if you are interested. I would love to have examples to support your assertion, but in the interests of minimizing on-wiki drama, please send them to me in email so I can review it privately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the Register I was referring to, "a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power." Durova's email was actually the evidence that this was occurring on that list (remember she also said, "they don't know that this list exists"), Allison's post confirms that the list was being used to complain about other editors. Now, do you really need more evidence than that? Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First, calling Giano, a widely respected if often difficult editor, a "rogue editor" is nonsense. Durova's email is not evidence for the list being secret, nor evidence for the list being used for a "crackdown on perceived threats to power". Both of those things are just astoundingly false. Durova's email is evidence that Durova wrote something up quite out of character for her and the list, and sent it. Nothing more, nothing else. Of course the list was being used to talk about problem editors, and editors who tend to have a knee jerk reaction in favor of "radical free speech" instead of our traditional policies of removing personal attacks and blocking people who engage in them. And, yes, people who are hurting sometimes say things about other people that are unfair, mistakes are made. None of those potential criticisms of the list in any way support the rampant paranoia of the Register piece.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you state with certainty, that that particular list was never used to canvass support for any issues under discussion anywhere on Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can state with absolute certainty that the cyberstalking list was and is absolutely used to discuss proposals for change to Wikipedia in order to deal with the very difficult issue of cyberstalking. This includes people discussing things like possible policy changes, and other people saying that those policy changes are unworkable, or unwise. In short, like every discussion I have ever seen of Wikipedians in any place, for example, private meetups, public mailing lists, public irc channels, private irc channels, coffeeshops, wiki workshops, etc., the list absolutely was used to canvass support for issues under discussion in Wikipedia. I can't imagine that anyone could imagine that any discussion could be otherwise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The list was never a secret. It's just a private list with a closed membership. People who've been victims of cyberstalking or serious harassment because of their participation in Wikipedia are invited, as are others who've expressed an interest in finding ways to deal with it. The discussions are often very personal, with victims explaining what happened to them and what the harassment made them feel like. Alison was a member for only a very brief period — from memory, it was just over a week, though I'd have to check that. We go through periods where mostly one thing is discussed, then we change to something else, so you need to have been a member for some time to get an overall picture. The reason for the privacy is so that victims have a safe place to discuss what happened to them. For obvious reasons, no support group with an open membership could offer this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Being familiar with the stalking and trolling that eminates from Wikipedia Review, I must say that I am certainly sympathetic to the creation of a private discussion board to counter-act it. That said, I am deeply concerned that we are allowing paranoia to take over the upper echelons of the Wikipedia Community. Some of the arguments I have seen concerning BADSITES and related matters coming from respected, established admins (and even ArbCom members) are honestly quite unbelievable. And now this. Frankly, it seems that Giano called a spade a spade and was punished becuase of it. The fact that the establishment (including Jimbo) came down on him so harshly unfortunately leaves egg on the face of the entire Wikipedia project. Of course what's done is done, and it seems most everyone is in agreement that the whole thing was an over-reaction and blown out of proportion. The only thing we can do now is ask how do we keep this rampant paranoia from getting out of hand? Clearly much of it is justified, but that doesn't change the fact that it is hurting Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the email list was not about Wikipedia Review, nor about "counter-acting" it. The purpose of the email list was to allow cyberstalking victims a safe place with my support to talk about their pain, to talk about what happened to them, and to begin to think about how Wikipedia might change for the better. Of course some of that discussion would naturally mention WR and also mention people who have been supportive of the "radical free speech" culture that allows bad behavior to thrive. There is nothing paranoid about that. I have never supported WP:BADSITES as it was written and rejected, and indeed said so publicly. But we do need to grapple in a mature way with the serious issue of people making hurtful attacks off-site that would get people banned on-site. Giano got in trouble with a lot of people because he made a huge drama out of something that need not have been a drama. Rather than violating a basic rule of civility by posting a private email publicly, he could have forwarded it to the ArbCom and/or me for review. And if we refused to do anything about it, or if there was any kind of "coverup" of Durova's errors, then and ONLY THEN, he might be justified in going public as a "whistleblower". But as it is, he should not be thought of as a brave whistleblower in the face of repression and paranoia, but rather as someone who made a pretty serious error of judgment in what was already a difficult situation. (A bad block, an admin apologizing, ArbCom investigating, and people freaking out.)

The first step in eliminating rampant paranoia, I think, is to step back and take a look at where the paranoia really lies. We have all this stuff about "secret mailing lists", facts be damned. We have this idea that some secret top cabal is orchestrating whatever whatever. When what we really have is a lot of people freaking out over routine errors that could be solved with a bit of good faith and loving discussion. I really strongly support that people should relax and get over the paranoia driven by various trolling conspiracy theories...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

When Giano posted the email ArbCom wasn't, to anyone's knowledge, doing anything at all, let alone "investigating". The only action to that point which carried any vestige of authority was your statement that "a 75 minute block...is hardly worth all that drama." Far from indicating that our community leadership is attending to the problem you basically indicated that you felt the problem was solved and that we should stop talking about it. Of course you are welcome to have an personal opinion on the issue, but I think many people regarded your statement as dismissive of any concerns that the situation wasn't really resolved. The point is, I think you need to be more careful about making "pronouncements from on high" in your leadership role. Because for you to say that Giano should have brought the issue to you for review, when you had already made a prominent statement downplaying the seriousness of the issue, strikes me as a bit unreasonable: you can't expect people to see you as a neutral party when you've already taken a position. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment can be serious business; real-life stalking always is. While I support the idea of Wikipedia developing an official program for victims of Wikipedia-related harassment and cyberstalking (which I can attest personally does occur), I am concerned that Wikipedia needs to know its limits in this matter. Some sympathy and practical assistance is at the top of the list. Consideration needs to be given to whether or not the Foundation will release the collected information on the alleged harasser/stalker to police at the request of the victim; as the policy is a Foundation one, there may be value in discussing a comprehensive response process with other projects.

I will also add that I am somewhat concerned that, while the members of this group include individuals who have experienced stalking and real-life harassment, it is unlikely that any of them have any training in the skills required to assist victims most effectively. Support groups are good, but they are usually led by professionals or at minimum well trained volunteers. Risker (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your concern, and it is important to understand that this was an ad hoc spontaneous email group formed by a group of people who were hurting. A big part of what came out of it was exactly what you are saying: we contacted a professional and got some first advice, we formed a task force led by a psychologist to work on proposals, etc. This is an ongoing work in progress of course. And it is not being helped, sadly, by the rampant paranoia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, geez, Jimbo...thanks for telling us NOW. There was no way that this could have been mentioned on-wiki any earlier? You make it sound as though this planning has been going on for months. Instead of giving people hope and showing that this was an identified problem that was being taken seriously, the silence has been deafening. Risker (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have talked about it openly for a long time. I am not sure what piece of what I just said was new for you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly have you said on-wiki that you/the Foundation were establishing a professionally developed program to address Wikipedia-related harassment and stalking? Was there something from the Foundation Board that got posted there and never disseminated to Wikipedians? Something in the Signpost? And irrespective of how this information was or was not disseminated to the community, what does this program entail - big picture, I understand that details may not be finalized. Risker (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even say that now, I am sorry if this is unclear. I think we will move in that direction in the near future, but for now, there is just what I said above... I would consider this the first step in a process. What does the program entail? No clue, details are not even really started, much less finalized. This is not a cabal list that is going to hand down policy to us out of the blue, this is a discussion group to get ideas. Anyone can start a similar group, or join any of the multiple places that similar discussions are being carried out everywhere on the wiki. :-) We can start talking about proposals right here if you like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out on the wikipedia mail list by David G, http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html has some useful insights into where the Wikipedia community has been and clues about where it should go. "Any group of people of whatever nature coming together for any length of time, for any purpose, will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. [...] 'structurelessness' does not prevent the formation of informal structures, but only formal ones. [...] The rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is curtailed by those who know the rules, as long as the structure of the group is informal. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware. [...] It is this informal structure, particularly in unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites. [...] Elites are not conspiracies. Seldom does a small group of people get together and try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are nothing more and nothing less than a group of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities. [...] In a structured group, two or more such friendship networks usually compete with each other for formal power. This is often the healthiest situation. The other members are in a position to arbitrate between the two competitors for power and thus are able to make demands of the group to whom they give their temporary allegiance. [...] there are some principles we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic structuring and are politically effective also: 1 Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. [...] 2 Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to all those who selected them. [...] 3 Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. [...] 4 Rotation of tasks among individuals. [...] 5 Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. [...] 6 Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. [...] 7 Equal access to resources needed by the group. [...] When these principles are applied, they ensure that whatever structures are developed by different movement groups will be controlled by and be responsible to the group. The group of people in positions of authority will be diffuse, flexible, open and temporary. They will not be in such an easy position to institutionalise their power because ultimate decisions will be made by the group at large. The group will have the power to determine who shall exercise authority within it." WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Since Cla has said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I rather resent being misrepresented. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My comlaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying.--Doc^g 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your words were, "jwales: you really /should/ review this vile thread. In which JamesF is accused of being a liar by slimvirgin. The thread is blatantly libellous and involves senior wikipedians. But make up your own mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...little_footnote". Now, I interpreted the word "libel" as lying. I just looked it up the word libel, and it doesn't quite mean lying, although it's close [23]. So, I apologize for mischaracterizing your remarks and will be more careful in future. Cla68 (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. My words on IRC were fastly typed and badly phrased - sorry. It's best not to use IRC transcripts to understand what someone is saying - you could have asked me. What I meant to say is that very serious allegations were being made, which *if* untrue could amount to defamation. The "vileness" was in the heated tempers and inappropriate remarks being made by a number of users in that thread. That's what I did say on the talk page of the thread in question. Perhaps, next time ask me for clarification. Sorry if my words caused false impression - I offer an apology to you and to SlimVirgin. My punishment for loose talk will be a self-imposed ban from #wikipedia.--Doc^g 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

disclosure shows the public why you're right

great job on everrything you've done with wikipedia. it's a gathering place of great minds. However, perhaps more (read: full, or nearly full) disclosure over issues such as those related to the recent press would help everyone keep a cool head? more public information should, if you're persuing things truthfully, show everyone that what your doing is correct and just. Aformalevent (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. What do you want to know? Full disclosure of what? There is a huge ton of misinformation being thrown around, from the very notion that there was a "secret mailing list" to the further idea that the cyberstalking mailing list was or is premised on trying to seek out enemies of wikipedia. This is all complete and total nonsense.

The cyberstalking mailing list is a mailing list started by a handful of users on an ad hoc basis to discuss their own experiences with being cyberstalked, and to discuss the experiences of others being cyberstalked. Period. There is nothing wrong with that. The idea put forward by the Register that this constitutes some kind of sinister conspiracy is abject nonsense, which we should by now completely expect from them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... it seems that if the process of dealing with suspected malicious users was more open from the beginning this could have been avoided. Regardless, I'll be reading Wikipedia regularly, contributing a bit, and recommending it to my friends as I always have. Aformalevent (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a MedCab admin

I think an admin User:SebastianHelm has engaged on a very wasteful crusade that is nonproductive and just taking up the time of several users. He is making lots of accusations and calling his opinions "facts". Here is the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#MedCab_coordination_gone_wrong I think that he needs a reality check.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Frustrated

I'm simply saddened and frustrated by the entire situation regarding Durova, !!, Giano, and the "private" mailing lists. I like Durova, but Giano is also well regarded in my books, not only as an excellent writer, but someone committed to the project, not bound by "groupthink". I feel like it's poisonous for me to even comment on the situation. The one comment I did make, regarding WP:COI edits was blanked along with an entire section on AN. [24] It's a waste of my time, I suppose to weigh in on matters. Also, I look at my deleted contributions and noticed that edits I made on SlimVirgin's talk page (regarding policy pages, where she is highly active) were deleted. I know there was a mass deletion on her pages (and highly regret and saddened by the harassment she has dealt with), but it's bothersome to me that my comments were deleted.

The mailing lists are also troublesome. What other private mailing lists are there? I like to assume good faith, but it's difficult at the moment to maintain trust in other admins who are on those lists. I just wonder if there is private discussion regarding policy, that I'm not privy too. I have found it very frustrating to engage SlimVirgin, Jossi, et al on policy talk pages. My suspicions are likely unfounded, but it just makes me very uncomfortable and find it difficult to create a welcoming, cordial editing atmosphere. At the moment, I am discouraged from editing and have not done much editing lately. (for multiple reasons) Maybe it would help if private lists were listed on Wikipedia:Mailing_lists. Obviously I can't be on arbcom-l, the oversight list, but at least aware they exist and accept them as legitimate. More transparency would be a good thing, to help dispell suspicions.

I have also felt very uncomfortable with how we have tolerated users who are not here to help the project. That has affected me, as well. However, I am concerned about the methods that Durova used to "identify" !!, that they were entirely inadequate. There are much better ways to get it right, when it comes to identifying sockpuppets. And, I think bringing cases before arbcom is a good idea (or having some official means, with legitimacy). There should be some due process. An ethical and fair means of dealing with sockpuppets is important for the community to maintain trust and faith in the project.

I'm not ready to give up on the project. Like Giano, I'll stick with it, but it's difficult to do article editing (and be positive about the project) with a cloud of suspicions hanging over the project. [for saying anything here, I may regret hitting the save button] --Aude (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Aude, just to answer your question about policy, the only discussions on the cyberstalking list about policy have been about whether the civility or NPA policies are adequate, how to strengthen them, and issues like that. We've never discussed the core content policies, if that's what you're thinking. As for my talk page, what happened was that a harassing post was deleted a few months ago, and in the course of doing that, the whole page was inadvertently undeleted, which meant that some old harassing posts were visible again — it's a feature of the software that, when you undelete a page after deleting some edits, you can't easily see what was previously deleted so that it stays that way. So two other admins helped out by deleting everything, then beginning the job of slowing undeleting and moving the posts to archives. It's just been a slow business because there are thousands of edits to go through (from memory, it was close to 10,000), and it's a boring job. If you can identify when yours were, even roughly, I'll find them for you and restore them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are an admin. You can view my deleted contributions. As for the lists, we need to be more open about them that they exists (though understandably private). What other lists exist? Who knows, had I known about them, maybe I could have been some help to you. If you look at my userpage and see which articles I edit, it may give you an idea what kind of real life experience I have regarding investigations and dealing with people who have been victimized. At this point, I'm soured on the whole idea of "secret" lists and not sure I would be interested in them. Had they been merely "private", I (and others) should have been aware of them. Like arbcom-l and other private lists, I would be okay with that. We need more transparency on these matters, to dispel suspicions that others have and restore trust. --Aude (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

@Aude, thanks for your thoughtful contribution here. I agree with it by and large, except for your appreciation of Giano. I didn't follow any of the drama surrounding this person, nor did I encounter this person while editing. In that case I tend to accept Jimbo's appreciation, which happened to be "trolling" (or another word might have been used but I thought that was the thrust). Even Bishonen (whom I appreciate very much, having run into her in her early months here at Wikipedia where we collaborated on solving a sticky problem^ref) didn't convince me otherwise. Well, I might go on diff hunt and form my own opinion. Let's say that Jimbo's appreciation isn't weighty enough for me to go vote either way on Giano's ArbCom candidacy.

@SlimVirgin, re. "We've never discussed the core content policies [on the cyberstalking list]": strangely enough that's what I suspected since I knew about the existence of such lists. IMHO that's a weakness, not something to be proud about. It's a discomforting example of groupthink: the list (or its predecessors if there were any) weighed on the core content policies (WP:ATT and WP:RS being stalled currently was unthinkable without such lists), and then you have the audacity to tell you didn't even discuss the content of the actions you were taking as a group w.r.t. core content policy? Let me tell you this again "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages (...)" (from the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Consensus). One of the downsides of these lists (as I experienced them) was that its participants were cutting corners w.r.t. polite discussion on core content policies. I hope I made myself understandable without needing to give detailed examples. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano to Jimbo

I'm glad Bishonen raised this point here. (see "Our IRC conversation today: no references to Hitler" above) Too much is said behind the scenes that could be said here. This secretive discussion of editors by admins (and above) fuels the problems here. Let's have a more open and honest site. I think Jimbo instead of blaming everybody else in this matter. If you had instantly grasped the bull by the horns, and de-sysoped Durova immediately. This could all have been avoided. I cannot believe that you and those two dozen plus Arbs and checkusers on the list did not immediately check in your inboxes and begin emailing each other the second the shit hit the fan, which was a long time before I posted Durova's "evidence". Yet even after I posted it, and you had undoubtedly read it, you chose to threaten me rather than address the true matter. Is it any wonder people thought what the hell is going on?

My second point is to those who claim I did not need to post it, because others already had it. Why if others had it did they only act after I posted it on ANI? Either they did have it and were choosing to ignore it, of they did not have it until I posted it.

Finally. I advise editors against speaking to the press, let's air all our points openly and honestly and without fear on this site and deal with issues here. I am sick of seeing people being called Trolls etc. because they are trying to sort Wikipedia's problems this catcalling will only drive people to other off-site forums. Mistakes have been made, hopefully lessons learnt. Let's now move on now, the wiser for it. Giano (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Giano, I respect much of what you say and I suspect you have your heart in the right place when you suggest that everthing be left on the table here at WP. However, I have watched the quick archives and quick deletions for nearly two years as was done to this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive113 (See #70.)

JzG is quick to block and quick to archive something that might help clear up much of what transpired when Durova was allowed to pursue her career as a sleuth. If things are left to discuss, then that is wonderful. If they are thrown under a rug, then it must go to the authorities. I am for open free speech. I think you are too. What do you think of quick blocks and quick deletions? Nice (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is Jimbo's space to answer questions mine is here [25]. Giano (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A Error+Need of Protection

Hello, I want to report an error on Wikipedia: Perhaps it's just on my Computer, but sometimes when I put my mouse pointer on the area where there is the username of the user and link to it and the talk page link and all, it weirdely shifts to the left! And the other thing is I say the Wikipedia Intro page definetely needs Protection so only admins can edit as lot's of people vanderlise it and put ad's or usless info and such on it, and it's very effectful if it's an ad becuase almost every new user goes there. So please look into these two matters. Thank You very much!--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmmm........ well, the user toolbar problem seems to be over...--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Me

I never seen your pic till now, but I know people with beards chill hard. You should probably vote (or moo) for me.--EndlessDan 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

See Beard Liberation Front. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello, I would like to permenantly leave Wikipedia.

Can you please delete my accounts (Ricardo-Quaresma, and my two "sock-puppet" accounts JJGD and JJGD220, I have put '==JJGD==' on my user talk page to prove that they are my accounts)

Ricardo-Quaresma (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to delete accounts, because edits need to be attributed to the person who made them in order to satisfy the GFDL. See m:Right to vanish for information on the steps you can take. Hut 8.5 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP Request

Hi Jimbo,

Could you please include your two cents on this request for comment regarding a BLP. I would very much appreciate your thoughts and input on the subject.

Talk:Peter Yarrow#RfC: Conviction and pardon.

Thank you --Jkp212 (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)