User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 51

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

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

Servers, offices, and people

Apparently, Wikimedia moved to San Francisco quite some time ago, but the servers are still in Florida. With that, where are you exactly? San Francisco? What about the developers? Do they even show up? 67.180.161.183 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a global nomad. Having said that, I'm based in Florida and spend a lot of time in New York City.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is time for one last "Huzzah" from the God-King

You will be aware of the "undertow/Law/Casliber/etc." matter, and of the East European Mailing List. I think it is time for you to make one last unilateral policy decision, and impose a method by which admins, and arbs and 'crats, can be made accountable to the community and have their accesses removed if found to be in breach of their responsibilities. Something needs to be done to re-establish the trust the community should have in its enhanced privilege endowed members, and a method to quickly remove people from positions of trust where it can be demonstrated it has been lost. I will work with you on this, if you wish, and I can direct you to people who have expressed these concerns previously and have put in place procedures and proposals that can be adapted. Whatever system or procedure that may arise will likely be messy and time consuming and open to undue influence - but we have that at the moment, and it does not appear to solve the problems being discussed presently. I hope that you will consider this request, for the future interests of Wikipedia and its community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to assist with the formulation, implementation, and enforcement of policies leading to a greater degree of responsibility and trust at all levels of Wikipedia. But why should this one thing be the "last" thing I do, my friend? I'm not going anywhere. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Every new process needs a test case... ;~) I shall see if the people I alluded to are interested in putting their various proposals forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead image of human

Which image? A long-running debate - but the answer is blindingly obvious. See Talk:Human#New_Lead_Image. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to editors

It is time for Wikipedia to be bold to make the information complete.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it .....Mahatma Gandhi.

For this, you will need both the pen and the mind, Gandhi had.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is related to your comment titled "Grievance", shortly above. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does encourage its contributors to "be bold". However, bold acts are for the level-headed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Money back guarantee

I'm disappointed you chose to remove a complaint Jimbo. It may have been ranty, but that sometimes happens with people who are frustrated. I haven't looked into the issues raised, so I don't know if they have merit, but simply removing a statement like that without addressing the concerns raised seems very bitey and strikes me as being in exceptionally bad form for Wikipedia's figurehead. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Read it through, and look into the details. If you think it merits my attention, please let me know. I didn't remove it because it was a complaint - I moved it because it was a long and tedious rant full of more editorializing than actual details. When I looked into the details, what I found wasn't particularly interesting. If you think I overlooked something important, by all means, I would like the opportunity to address it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that the complainant was frustrated, perhaps some suggestions on how to proceed would have been in order?

I looked into the issues a bit. It seems to be an editor relatively unfamiliar with our procedures who is being treated roughly by our admins instead of being given the guidance, encouragement, and suggestions that would be more appropriate to a collaborative encyclopedia building effort. They may well have some sort of COI or be too close and passionate about the subject to be objective, but that happens frequently.

An AfD of the article they identified was just launched, which also seems inappropriate to me and shows rather disrespectful poor timing as it looks very much like a punishing response to the post that you removed.

So we have a frustrated editor who comes to you upset, their complaints are removed, and then the article they are concerned about gets put up for deletion by one of the editors they say they're having trouble with. Not exactly a shining example of Wikipedia's collegiality and collaboration at its best, but if you think that's a helpful way to treat editors who may be unfamiliar with our procedures and policies (which aren't exactly intuitive mind you) then it's no wonder we have the tensions and animosities that are so prevalent. But no one was called an idiot, so we can all be thankful that our high standards for civility were maintained. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My assessment of the situation is quite different from yours, I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're right. But my experiences of the double standards and arbitrary applications of the assume good faith principle and core policies like NPOV lead me to be sympathetic to those raising issues and crying foul. I don't see anything in that editor's history or their edits that is particularly outrageous and I'm not expert enough in the subject matter involved to determine whether their point of view is any less valid than those held by those disputing their edits. They seem to be editing and communicating in good faith, so I'm inclined to return that in kind. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:208.103.155.74 if the editor is truly interested in dialogue. I believe I was more than fair to them. If they don't want to discuss it with me, post a comment at their talk page, ChildofMidnight, and offer to help. I don't think Jimbo has to further dialogue with someone on a matter that can easily be dealt with through a number of other methods. Since the article was listed for deletion after their diatribe (and I know, because I listed it after having read their diatribe and reviewed the article again), I think Jimbo is right on how the situation seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Grievance

Dear Mr. Jimmy,

Just to let you know that all is not well on wikipedia. Almost all senior editors have started acting like autocrats and dictators. Many genuine facts are just not being considered for discussion, and are unreasonably termed as 'soapbox' or POV, and deleted. This is definitely killing the spirit of wikipedians and the credibility of wikipedia. This needs urgent attention! --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you got any examples of this? -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My contribution page, you can have access to it I suppose.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a sample http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gaunkars_of_Goa --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

*N.B. Gaunkars of Goa has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for disruptively making inappropriate use of talk page space, soapboxing, using this project as a personal forum, and making threats against other users.

I also have a complaint about administrators.

I have a problem with some administrators at Wikipedia who seem to think that verifiable facts should not appear on the site if they contradict majority opinion.

A simple and clear example of this is the entry on Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. A New York Times article from 1919 refers to the former German chancellor as “of Jewish descent.” The entire PDF of that New York Times article is visible online and I provided a link to it to support the claim in the Wikipedia article, but yesterday future_perfect_at_sunrise deleted the information because of what he perceived as the agenda behind it.

This is a clear example of emotion overriding reason on the part of a Wikipedia administrator, and I am afraid the three other administrators who handled the appeal of my account suspension were no better in that regard.

Not one of them gave any indication of having checked whether any specific facts that I presented were true or false.

My username is Hadding. I would appreciate it if you would consider lifting the suspension and also have a talk with your administrators about allowing verifiable facts to be posted on Wikipedia even when they contradict what “everybody knows.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.151.114 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reason with one of the administrators, jpgordon, but this was impossible. The man's arrogance goes so far that not only does he feel no need to consider arguments, he also feels no need to maintain the appearance of civility. In his response to my appeal he declared, "This is bullshit!" and then when I posted a topic on his personal talk page his response was, "Fuck you!" and without at any point showing any sign of considering my arguments, proclaimed me a "lying sack of shit." He subsequently deleted the whole topic, but I happened to have saved it, so here is an account of one of your "hive mind administrators" in all his glory.

He drew my special attention because he had posted a comment on my user talk page and subsequently locked it, which I thought was unfair. He had posted this on my talk page:

"Here is a good refutation of the fraud this editor has been trying to perpetuate. It's an old denier argument: pretend the language doesn't mean what it always meant. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)"

I went to jpgordon's own Wikipedia talk page and posted this:

__________

About Hadding

Don't you think it's a little unfair to continue making comments on my personal talk page when I can't respond?

By the way, that link that you posted there doesn't prove anything. We can all take it for granted that The Holocaust History Project claims that Ausrottung never means anything but killing. The dispute was precisely over whether they are right or wrong. I say that they are wrong.

You talk about "saying that words don't mean what they have always meant" but this shows that you are very naive on the subject of language, which happens to be my professional specialty. The meanings of words do change over time; that's one of the factors that makes Shakespeare hard to read. It's also why words don't mean the same in legalese as in colloquial English.

I can show some older German-English dictionaries that give some very different meanings for ausrotten and Ausrottung, and indeed I did include such a reference in my edit (subsequently deleted by future_perfect_before_sunrise) of the Posen Speeches article.

William Dwight Whitney's A Compendious German and English Dictionary (Henry Holt and Co., New York 1877) defines ausrotten as follows:

aus-rotten, tr. root out, ERADICATE, EXTIRPATE, exterminate, destroy.

"Eradicate" is simply Latin for "root out." "Exterminate," in older dictionaries like the 1910 edition of Webster's Practical Dictionary, has the primary meaning of to place outside (ex) the border (terminus).

So there it is.

By the way, I play bluegrass too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.151.114 (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fuck off, Nazi. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[Note that I was only trying to persuade jpgordon that the German word ausrotten in the past had more than one meaning, which is a demonstrable fact. I did not proclaimed myself a "Nazi" and I was not "denying the Holocaust" as such.]

Nice manners, jpgordon! And so rational!

Was I rude to you? Not one bit. Have I done anything other than try to reason with you?

I can add this to the portfolio that I am building to demonstrate what is so seriously wrong with Wikipedia's administrative staff.--Hadding

Go right ahead; what makes you think anyone will care about lying sack of shit Holocaust deniers? --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He banned my IP to try to prevent any response, but all I had to do was unplug and replug my modem to get around that, so then there was this:

Because some people actually can read and reason about what they have read, and it will be glaringly obvious to any rational person who reads the way you respond to my arguments that you are not rational. And they'll say, What the hell are people like this doing in charge of a so-called encyclopedia? --Hadding

Yawn. Go away and bother someone else. Your arguments aren't worth wasting time with. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't waste any time considering anybody's arguments. --Hadding

___________

jpgordon subsequently deleted this entire exchange.

So tell me, Jimbo, who here represents your ideal of the rational community objectively exchanging information? The Wikipedia administrators with whom I've been dealing are highly questionable in that regard.

I think Wikipedia is suffering from a problem that Plato noted in the Republic, that the people who have the greatest desire to wield authority are often precisely the ones who should not have it. Wikipedia needs a better vetting process for administrators, assuming that it has one at all.

--Hadding

Jimbo, would you care for us to remove this kind of thing from your userpage or leave it for you? The editor Hadding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for reasons I'm not familiar with, and has made several unsuccessful appeals. Their user page is for the moment still unprotected so they may appeal their block and have any pertinent discussions there. Indefinite blocks are to prevent any editing of the encyclopedia, including further use of user talk pages and meta-pages to press one's case. IP WP:SOCK-ing to evade the block is forbidden, and any IP posts by a blocked editor are normally removed as a matter of course from any page where they appear. On the other hand I don't want to presume to erase things from your userpage in case you care to read them. So I'm wondering if there should be an implied "appeal to Jimbo" right. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you are mistaken. One of the admins locked my userpage. I can't do anything except what I am doing. --Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.6.75 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My two cents

I certainly know the holocaust happened. However, after looking into this myself, I believe jpgordon really handled this wrongly. It doesn't matter what this guy or gal believes it doesn't give jpgordon any right to say the things he said or handle the situation the way he did. I have encountered other people on the net that have had similar issues with jpgordon, i.e. rudness, foul language, and the sorts. I wish to remain anonymous in order to keep from feeling the wrath of jp. I am sure that wrath will come in an ip block. He is pretty good at shutting people up that disagree with him. I truly believe someone needs to tone down jp.76.177.38.8 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales at Lurkmore

http://lurkmore.ru/User:Jimbo_Wales — you? Dharma Station (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems (apparently) they like you--NotedGrant Talk 15:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/new_users

I considered posting the anecdote you mentioned the other day about the feedback you got from a company on their experience with their article, but thought it might be better if you placed it somewhere on the page yourself. I am starting the ball rolling on this one to see what ideas can arise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the interesting thing is that the company had nothing to do with it. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ack. Anyway it was an interesting story and quite relevant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Supercomputer Hal (or "Jim" for Jimbo) - Wikipedia Administrator

Dear Jimbo,

I came up with a Business Proposal for you today.

(You don't have to pay me for it - just remember me as the inventor.

Acquire a Supercomputer.
Program it to act as Wikipedia's Administrator: Have it check for obusive language, 3RR violations, measure consensus (number of talkers on Talk pages), streamline votes (Merge, Oppose, Forks, etc. ... I'm you get my drift).
Next contact either Microsoft, or Google, etc., for financing, co-ventures, etc.

PS1: I just have one favor to ask you - in case to choose to ignore my proposal - could you please protect me from them for recommending to you that 99% of the be eliminated by this proposed automation. If not - well then I'm prepared to be excommunicated by them from Wikipedia.
PS2: I think I've proposed a great idea. But if anyone has the right to send it to the Trash can - it certainly is you - the primary inventor and developer of Wikipedia.
PS3: We could still use Administrators - but far fewer, and the judgment would be far more objective, instead of being arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
PS4: To the right is a sample of my contribution to Wikipedia from a {{stub}} to it's current state. I got the Cover image too. A picture is worth a thousand word's?
PS5: Some substantial contributions of mine: [1]] --Ludvikus
PS6: As an "employee" of yours, would you give me an "A," "B," "C," "D," "F," "0" (zero)?

--Ludvikus (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If an AI of this competence was ever created, it'd have far more valuable jobs than maintaining Wikipedia. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I assume you're not Jimbo, so I'd like to inform you of the research Jimbo commissioned about a year ago, or so, regarding who contributes to WP, how many are content editors - all kinds of amazing information about how WP actually works - and I remember reading that it even surprised Jimbo. So I do not think we need AI. Maybe not even a Supercomputer. I don't know the details of the Hardware used. But I know that many tasks are already automated. So I think that if we also streamline some of the ways editors are required to perform, we could then create a program that could take some judgment calls at least away from Administrators. For example: We could standardize more what it means to engage in Three Reversions. The we get a BOT to give a user notice that a 3RR has occurred. That would take some human, emotional, biased factors out of the determination of a violation. Of course, we would need also to standardize more the work of human editors. Fore example, DAB pages could use a standardized Template - that too will give automation an opportunity at evaluation. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A related suggestion: I find WP:Neologisms to be a major problem at WP. If we had an automated search of several digital dictionaries of a meaning for a word or expression, that could be a useful indicator that a term or an expression is still a mere neologism. I recently worked deleting world domination as an article. It's now a DAB. Now I'm thinking of working on world government which also appears be original research mixed with neologisms. It's fascinating what else Wikipedia has done - it's turned everyone into a scholar. So it would be great if "small talk" could be checked by some automated programs, or software. And I was partly joking with my reference to HAL (a.k.a IBM), in reference to that movie. We really may not need such powerful computers as imaginary HAL. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Ludvikus, just to address your concern about who is responding, Jimbo has scores of WP:TPWs who watch this page and respond to questions, usually more often than Jimbo himself. Sswonk (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I’ve got a better idea: 1. let’s hire a super-laser projector scope and 2. publish featured articles on the moon! 3. All in favour say Aye! PS1: Micro-Google are not paying me to say this -- 86.25.252.8 (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the offensive title page of this offensive book, or even the fact that Ludvikus had some role in writing the article about it, has any relevance to the subject of this discussion. Finell (Talk) 04:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS:Socrates: The beginning of reason, rationalism, and therefore philosophy and science, in ancient Greece. Hope that's relevant. Best wishes, --Ludvikus (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that from this thread. The image does belong in the lead of the (your?) excellent FA about the screed. While I'm not sure that any image is needed here, more frequent reminders of Socrates might do Wikipedians some good, and in any event do no harm. Thanks again. Finell (Talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Jimbo, if you could be so kind, I've a curious little editing question I could use some expert input on. (Somebody told me, I forget where, that you had been around Wikipedia for a while and sort of knew its ways.) My quandary, sir, is this. I moved a Wikipedia contributor's paragraph about an anti- Glenn Beck spoof website from Beck's blp (oops! actually it was removed by somebody else, while the matter was pending discussion on the talkpage; but anyway...) to its own article space, here: "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Yet, my problem is, that's an awful name! I don't want to repeat the website's name as the name of the article for obvious reasons (for BLP problems, that is). But the name I came up is simply lacking. Would you happen to have an opinion as to whether a better name for it might even be "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? As this, after all, is the name of the legal disagreement receiving an overview at the realiable source of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, per the link here. Btw, Jimbo, I've already started a discussion thread at the BLP Noticeboard, here --> WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn_Beck's dispute with Eiland-Hall over EH's use of Beck's name in a "parody" domain name . . . too. ↜Just M E here , now 00:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User page

You know those fellow anonymous Wikipedians? Well, I would like to be one. But, I would like a userpage. Other IPs have it, why can't I? I even have a signature. I did consult two others before, but three recommend I counsult you. Cheers, --67.180.161.183^(talk)WHY SO SΣRIOUS?_{01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}

I can't find a rule against it, so I have created a user page for you: User:67.180.161.183. If there is a rule against it, can somebody please let me know? --Tango (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, 100% permissible. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo ...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator care to join us? — Ched : ? 05:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

some sorting out of location: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Trouble in paradise?

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Jimbo Wales But why would anyone want to take away your tools? Except for one or two blocks of those you found uncivil (and you've already resigned your block button, as far as I know, unless you use "alternate account"s?). You seem relatively restrained and open to discussion and collegial collaboration as far as I'm concerned, but you know what they say about opinions and everybody being a critic.

Is it a coup? Will you invoke marshal law? Is it part of a conspiracy to consolidate power and tighten the reins?

Tune in next time for more of as the Wiki turns... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the line at the top? The one where it says that this page is an example and not an actual request? — Coren ^(talk) 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What a relief! But why are they using poor Jimmy as an example? Also, while I've got you here, an admin said it's okay to have an "alternate account" to edit contentious areas. I would also like to use an alternate account for this purpose since I've come in for a lot of malicious attacks and smears. How do I go about setting one up and how do I make sure it won't be considered socking? Do the Arbs use "alternate accounts"? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if I were not used as an example. I'm not an ordinary admin, and my position would not be subject to such a process in any event.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, too, about what you mean Chillum is claiming?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone should boldly move that page to a different title and modify it accordingly? I don't dare as I see there is a comment in favor of the desysop proposal.

(As an aside, if the founders get special privileges that does raise some interesting questions regarding Sanger... but I digress. :) I suppose if you leave the project and start a rival project you resign admin privleges, so maybe the question of whether he is also a founder is moot in this particular circumstance?)

The relevant statements as far as alternate accounts go are along the lines of: "Telling people for years that you can use an alternate account to work in contentious areas where harassment is common and then later saying they must link those accounts is not a fair thing to do to someone trying to protect their privacy." And: "I don't like how a couple of corrupt admins suddenly means that I can't be trusted to do what we have allowed all users to do for years." And: "an alternate account is not sock puppetry. Get it? I am following the policy and I have seen no consensus to change it. Hypocrisy? I just said that if arbcom wanted to know they could just ask me." And: "The fact is the Wikipedia has told people for years that they can use an anonymous secondary account to protect their privacy and it is not fair to change policy so they must reveal an account that was created with that in mind after the fact. And I have no intention of doing so."

I've refactored my previous comments to remove the name of the editor involved. I don't like singleing people out and I think the broader issue is what is of concern anyway (and that editor is taking a Wikibreak). I didn't remove it from your statement though because it didn't seem appropriate, but you are welcome to do so, otherwise we should drop a note to let them know about this discussion.

Another thing I've noticed is that in Wikispeak socking and block or ban evasion are used interchangeably which I think is unfortunate. Using socks to alter content and win content disputes is a different problem from editors evading blocks and/or bans to contribute to the encyclopedia. Since some editors are able to contribute constructively with a clean slate and a fresh start, the witch hunts and punitive punishments seem misguided. For example, one of the ironies of the Law controversy is that he doesn't seem to have done any inappropriate use of multiple accounts (actual socking) and all his contributions seem to have been reasoanble (although one or two were controversial) yet the very fact that he didn't get official approval to return seems to be enough to have him drawn and quartered. This seems awfully punitive to me.

I think the abuse of admin tools, the abuse of multiple accounts in content disputes and discussions (socking), and POV pushing by various means are much more serious problems. In fact I would be supportive of fishing expeditions to catch socks, particularly among regular contributors, admins and arbitrators. I'm sure people have had me checked numerous times, but I only use one account.

I would be at a great disadvantage to anyone using multiple ones simultaneously as far as discussions and disputes go and as far as avoiding stalking and harassment based on past actions being constantly brought up and used against me in new duscussions (a problem identified by other editors as well). For example, it was months before I had a single block, but once one was issued it was used as a basis for others (and a ridiculous arbcom sanction). So labeling and targeting is a real problem. Piling on and ganging up is quite common here.

The punishing of people who try to be honest and open about controversial issues also seems Orwellian. For example Law seems to have been telling a lot of editors who he was and trying to come clean, but the very act of admitting a history and having it exposed has resulted in torch and pitchfork campaigning. But shouldn't reform and disclosure be encouraged? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I BOLDly moved example page to Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Example. That is what User:Example is for. Finell (Talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

And I tagged the old page for WP:SPEEDY. Finell (Talk) 20:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Wiki is definitely in the tank for Left-Wing personalities and biased against Conservative American commentators on Wiki. Mark Levin deserves better than the treatment shown and displayed here. His popularity and defense of American liberties and freedoms are commendable, have been deservedly recognized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.40.10 (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does my contribution fail to show up?

Hello Jimbo, I tried to have an article published on Wikipedia about a year and a half ago about an experimental and highly active band called In the labyrinth, but for some reason it never stuck and I never got an explanation why. Today I decided it's time to make a second attempt and once again my article was hastily deleted without any further hint of what was wrong. Maybe you've seen my contribuion somewhere or did I enter it in an unapropriate way, missing out on some esssential features? I would be glad to know because I do not have the time needed to sit all day attempting to get it right through trial and error. I've read all Wikipedia's instructions on how and what is needed, so please let me know how to improve or alter my work!

Not happy with this anonymous treatment I get at your website so far, Kdkwinana (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/October

Your article was deleted because it did not contain an assertion of WP:notability, and you may wish to look at WP:BAND to see the criteria we use here. Rodhull andemu 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A brief comment to your explanation

Ok, so three CD releases having a world wide spread isn't enough if they didn't sell gold or gained price winning awards or something similar? So then I see! However, I'm sure some of your readers or researchers will be missing out on something really interesting and innovative this way. Maybe you need me to supply a bunch of noteworthy reviews with attached links and also references to various websites where music journalists have written about this act? Then you could see for yourselves what In the labyrinth is about!
But OK, if this is inadequate too, thanks anyway for your quick response! Kdkwinana (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009

Indeed, "noteworthy reviews" from reliable sources would help your cause immensely, though it is generally not recommened for anyone close to a group do the writing. Bielle (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do in due time

Then I will see what I can do as soon as I get some spare time on my hands.
However, I will only make one attempt hoping it's in line with what Wikipedia is expecting of me.
Tecnically I'm not sure I've grasped it all in detail, how to go about writing an article to meet the standards but I'll sure try!
Kdkwinana (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009

Try writing it in your user space: User:Kdkwinana/sandbox, and get an experienced editor to advise you before moving it into article space. --62.25.109.195 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How to find an experienced editor?

Thanks! But how do I get hold of an experienced editor? I haven't noticed any functions where one can choose who to talk to.
But maybe I just don't understand all the instructions presented on your website. After all, I am Swedish and needless to say, cannot comprehend every single syllable as well as most Anglo-Saxon speeking viewers would.
Also thanks a lot for mentioning to me how to initiate my article. That will come in handy once I go ahead with it.
Kdkwinana (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten Nitzelius 6/10 2009

Hey there. Thought I'd say, you don't have to start a new heading for every reply you make. Jack forbes (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you didn't answer to my question on how to go about finding, as you expressed it, an experienced editor! Kdkwinana (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten

If you go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area and follow the instructions you should find an experienced editor. Jack forbes (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)PS, it was the ip who expressed the term experienced. Jack forbes (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ta! You have been most helpful! Kdkwinana (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Mårten

Your welcome. Jack forbes (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Translators needed

Any chance you could contact some language schools and colleges to help practice their language skills by translating from Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki? For this to be a success we need numbers. Publicizing that we need translators in any language I think is an important step to make. Have you browsed French, Spanish and Italian and German wikis for instance? There are several million articles which we could benefit from having them translated into english... Himalayan 09:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding our discussion on this page a few days back

Jimbo, you may recall this discussion of last week? Well, I have drafted this rough page advancing a reasoning on why and how a policy for removing administrator privileges might be proposed. At the bottom of the page is links to two very good pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator and User:Tony1/AdminReview, which I think deserve far greater attention than my ramblings - if only for the numbers and calibre of the contributors. As it seems that there is now some part of the community that feels such a policy and process is needed, I consider that your traditional role may be of some benefit in building up the momentum that is required these days to get major policy changes (or new policies) adopted. Alternatively, if you hate the idea it is better that it is known now. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent initiative. I support the concept of this proposal 100%. I'm a mere editor here (not an Administrator). There is nothing more difficult to learn, or handle, at Wikipedia than the arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable actions of these autocrats. Anything would be better than what exists now. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Many in the community wish there were more accountability, a system for monitoring and supervising administrators, and perhaps recalling or reconfirming them or limiting their term. However, there is a very vocal core of administrators that has so far deflected all efforts to change the system or even hold an organized discussion on the topic, branding it a "perennial proposal". I think implementing any change will need some intervention at the foundation / staff level because I just don't see enough community will to overcome that hurdle. Meanwhile, Arbcom tends to punt in all but the most egregious and obvious examples, and they have only one tool, de-sysopping, which they are very reluctant to use. So we have a bunch of people appointed for life in a beauty pageant that typically occurs near the beginning of their Wikipedia careers, because most experienced editors have accumulated enough nicks and bruises through the editing process to have adversaries and a less than spotless record. We have to be very careful about allowing the community to target specific administrators for removal, though. Accountability to a voting / popularity contest could make administrators more partisan and arbitrary, not less. Here I'm thinking of the system of judges in America whereby federal judges are appointed for life (yet for the most part are very respectable and take their ethical obligations very seriously) and state judges are subject to the whims of periodic elections (and are consequently political actors, and sometimes do things to gain support rather than in the interest of justice - there is a lot more corruption within the ranks of the elected judges than the appointed judges). But in any event, judges have review boards, performance ratings, and so on. I have no solution for Wikipedia administrators, but at the very least administrators could be placed under the supervision of a body of the most trusted, capable community members, whether editors or Wikimedia staff, that could take on some role in appointments, confirmations, recalls, review and performance rating, and so on. Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The main concern to me is that administrators should not take action against edits and editors based on their own personal feeling. Presently this is done not even in a subtle way but with blatant promotion of a point of view. They don't even try to disguise it.

The administrator future_perfect_at_sunrise who suspended my account INDEFINITELY, and later locked my user talk page so that I can't even complain through legitimate channels, complained about what he perceived as my "agenda." Well, I notice that he has a barnstar from the "Rouge Admin Cabal." Does that not represent an agenda? Indeed, it seems to be a proud proclamation of an agenda.

The first admin to receive and turn down my appeal, Fuhghettaboutit, says that my agenda (as he perceives it) makes him "nauseous": how is his personal feeling even slightly relevant to what is supposed to be a matter of verifiable fact? Fuhghettaboutit's justification for rejecting my appeal was that I used "cherry picked factoids to spin articles": if that's the case then let Fuhghettaboutit or somebody else post some equally verifiable "factoids" for balance. I don't see censoring the truth as a valid way to achieve "balance." Let them add their own truth.

Wikipedia is teeming with people who have one agenda or another, but I don't see that as a legitimate criticism as long no one agenda among the admins is allowed to stifle expression of its opposite.

In the mean time I would appreciate the restoration of my account or at least the unlocking of my personal user talk page so that I can continue appealing my indefinite suspension until I hit upon an admin who is able to see beyond his own point of view. I am sure that there must be a few.

--Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.150.90 (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, thanks for illustrating why there is a need for a process by which complaints of admin abuse can be reviewed and if necessary placed before the community to consider whether the flags should be retained - and why it needs to be placed in a format so that disruption (no matter how well intended) does not obscure the task in hand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

I would like to know if you would permit a person to rejoin Wikipedia who had formerly been User:ESCStudent774441 and User:LonelyKnightRider. I feel he has alot to offer Wikipedia even if others don't. There's alot of articles that former user would like to work on, especially articles about various radio stations and broadcasting related topics. 68.236.155.30 (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Interview @ BergamoScienza oct, 18th 2009

Dear Mr. Wales, I'm CristianCantoro and I'm mostly active on italian wikipedia, I'm also a member of Wikimedia Italia. I know that sunday, 18th october you will be in Bergamo for a conference on Wikipedia @ BergamoScienza. Now, we promote as WMI a project called "Wiki@Home" (on the italian version of Wikinews) and we wanted to make an interview with you. I've already contacted the press office of BergamoScienza, but they said that they'll only organise a press conference. I was wondering if you may give us some time for a "private" interview. The interview will take about 20 minutes, I guess. Thank you in advance. --CristianCantoro (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to do it. Can you contact me by email for logistical details?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

that's really cool of ya jimboNotedGrant Talk 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New format ...

Dear Jimbo, sorry to interupt you. You are probably not the main brain in these things today but I have to say, I had a look at something on Wikia and had a few things to edit. There is a new format going on over there. I can't think of better words. There is a free 3D editor app called Blender 3D and it is to commercial 3D as Linux is to Windows. 3D is that bit more complicated than simple paint and draw. Paint and draw is a one handed operation but when it comes to 3D or even simple typing, you need two hands because by the time you have used the mouse on all the little pictures and stuff you forgot your place or something. I admit, the new input method has a few bugs but I still think that the editing method I am using right now is only complicated when you get into templates and stuff. I am writing here because as they say if you see something in America you will see it here in a few years. Sure, you could tweak the templates and the appearance but as for the bulk of it it shouldn't be to difficult as is for anyone capable of making the words. Couple of equals and a few apostophes, it's perfect. All best ~ R.T.G 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, and I'm not the main brain behind anything technical. I do agree with you completely on this: it shouldn't be as difficult as it is today to edit. I think many advances are being made in this area, and I am confident that there will be much improvement soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

How can I join wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.150.155 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:Createaccount. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Help:Contents/Getting started --Tango (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan Meetup

Dear Jimbo, We're going to organize meetup for the first time in a Pakistani city Karachi for users of the wiki projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Where we, take high tea and chat about Wikimedia projects. I would like to have your comments and thoughts on this. I would appreciate if you've some words for those, going to join Wikimeetup Karachi. Thank you! Saqib ^talk 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds wonderful. I recently visited briefly at the home of the Pakistani Ambassador to China, and a friend of mine is a television journalist in Pakistan. I am happy to hear about this first meet-up and I would be very eager to visit Pakistan and the local community sometime next year. It will be nice if the community can become active and organized so that we might make the most of such an event with press coverage to focus attention on the possibilities, particularly for Urdu Wikipedia.

For me one of the most interesting topics might be increased cooperation between the Hindi Wikipedia and Urdu Wikipedia, due to the languages being quite similar. But I'm sure you all know much better than I do what are the most interesting topics for you!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel good to know that you're very eager to visit Pakistan, we welcome you. I've just finished list of some specific topics and points to be discussed in our meetup including possibility on establishment of local Wikimedia chapter and collaboration with Wikipedians of neighbouring countries. A detailed report on Wikimeetup Karachi will follow you soon.

However, it would be great if your Pakistani journalist friend could cover report on Wikimeetup Karachi and publish it as an effort to spread the Wikipedia's concept of free knowledge in Pakistan. Thank you! Saqib ^talk 16:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please email me, and we can discuss strategy!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Did you get me email? Saqib ^talk 05:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I apologize for the delay in responding - I should get to it within the next 4-5 days at the longest. Possibly this afternoon, though, depending on how much time I get.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Two-year terms for incoming arbitrators?

Dear Jimbo

Three-year terms have been the norm for appointments to the Committee, but are starting to look decidedly long. I have the distinct impression that the community would be pleased, on balance, if the norm for new appointments were two years.

At issue, I guess, is whether a term-length (i) is sufficient in relation to new arbs' learning curve, and (ii) is sufficient to reap the benefits of staggered terms, where the experienced pass on their skills to newer arbs. This year's appointees seem to have been well prepared for the task and, where necessary, to have gained the required skills and experience rather quickly. I am optimistic that the electoral process is likely to continue to recommend highly skilled candidates.

Are you amenable to the idea of two-year terms (with the opportunity, as now, to stand for re-election)? I'm unsure of the opinions of the current arbs, although they may well be supportive. I wonder whether you might consider sounding them out on this matter. Tony (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An anon's plea

First Maurice Jarre now Rush Limbaugh, how much longer until WP:BLP is going to be taken seriously by Wikimedia? Wikiquotes is an unmonitored landmind; it needs to be scrapped, full-protected or merge it with WP, or at least get some freaking policies enacted over there (there is no BLP policy to speak of on WQ, and relatively few active admins). This is getting out of hand and permanently scarring whatever reputation Wikimedia has left. Please, address this break in the dam before it washes WP down the drain of the internet annals. --207.206.137.79 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stroh viol(in)

Hi, thanks for spotting the Strohviol – Stroh violin fork. These pages were indeed dealing with the same class of instruments, as far as I can tell. I've redirected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Puzzle globe of the Wikipedia logo.

Cool idea no? Do it!!! I would buy one. Even though I'm rubbish at puzzles... --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it might cost more to manufacture than it might raise in revenue, but it's interesting to note that ours was the subject of a starter question on last week's University Challenge, when Jeremy Paxman asked <list of various characters>..."can be found on which website's logo?" - and if I remember correctly, it was answered correctly on an interruption, so either we have product identification, or the student who answered it is a Wikipedian. Either way, it's good kudos for us. Rodhull andemu 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One problem might be that, as far as I know, nobody knows what the back of the globe looks like. PhGustaf (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the theoretical work that's been done for someday correcting the typographical errors in the logo (yes, there are typographical errors in the logo :/) has also outlined what characters would go on the back of the globe. There's also the idea that the missing pieces of the globe might be reserved e.g. for fantasy languages like Klingon. See meta:Wikipedia/Logo. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat you to it anyway, Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos#Physical versions. $©@®©Ξ 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikimeetup Karachi

Dear Jimbo, First meetup between Wikipedians in Karachi was a success. We mostly focused on development and publicity of Urdu edition of Wikipedia. You can see post-meetup media coverage and a detailed report however in Urdu. We're working on making English version of reports and send it to you as soon as earlier for your attentions. I was expecting just 3 attendees however I found total 6 including me at the venue. So sorry that I could not take photographs cause you know well about Muslim society is so conservative about that. Thank you. Saqib ^talk 11:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your email. I will get back to you very shortly with something that makes you feel happy. Now, you can see a brief report on meetup prepared by me available in English here File:Wikimeetup_Karachi_1_report.pdf. Thank you. Saqib ^talk 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgent Intervention Needed

Dear Jimbo,

The following is a part reply to my Unblock request; .....The opinion of the various uninvolved administrators who have reviewed your block and declined to lift it is that any benefits you have brought to the project are heavily outweighed by the disruption. This seems to be a reasonable assessment and there is therefore no obvious reason, at this moment, for ArbCom to intervene.....

One of the administrators said that wikipedia works on consensus. So does it mean that if the editors are not well informed, any content will simply be termed as POV, soapbox, original research, vandalism, or disruption? Also I am damn sure editors do not take any effort to verify sources provided, if so, they should not have any right for accusations. Kindly scrutinize my case and decide in the best interest of wikipedia.

A suggestion: Pull up your socks on wikipedia policies, before this pulls wikipedia down. User:Gaunkars of Goa --59.95.15.49 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Request wikipedia move to rev 2.0, from encyclopedia to knowledge base

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks so much for wikipedia. Its impact on society is huge and still growing. Would appreciate your thoughts about removing artificial encyclopedia boundary and making it more of a knowledge base. Please comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Why_is_it_so_in_the_first_place...
Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Greetings.

I know that NPOV requires all points of view to be included in articles. It is my opinion that Presidency of Barack Obama has violated this policy, by not including relevant info that is critical of the subject. When I added this negative info to balance out the article, other editors erased it. Now they want me permanently banned from editing all political articles.

I trust your judgement. I would appreciate it if you would read the discussion of my proposed ban here, and offer your opinion on it. If you support the ban, I will respect your wishes.

I am sure you are aware of the media attention that was given to past bias in the John Edwards article, regarding the exclusion of info on his extramarital affair. I hope you don't want the same thing to happen to Presidency of Barack Obama.

I am aware that you normally don't get involved in content disputes. However, the attempt to ban me is a serious threat to the NPOV policy that wikipedia is based on, so I hope you will consider getting involved.

Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require "all points of view to be included in articles", it requires points of view to be given appropriate weight judged by the sources supporting that viewpoint. So, hypothetically, a fringe theory that Obama is an alien from the planet Zarg does not belong in the article.

Your editing behaviour has been reviewed and sanctions imposed by those entrusted by the community with that function and it is now alleged that you are in breach of those sanctions. Those allegations are being reviewed and appropriate action, if any, is being discussed. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What a cop out Ukexpat. An alien from Zarg? Fringe theories? Why don't you answer Grundle's question about why packs of editors are allowed to bias and censor articles in order to push their favored POV. They've gone so far as to work aggresively to ban editors who have different aritcle interests and perspectives. This behavior is clearly a violation of our core NPOV policy, and as Grundle notes, is damaging the encyclopedia and puts Wikipedia in a very negative light. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think COM has a point here --NotedGrant Talk 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how ChildofMidnight is currently under an ArbCom restriction more limiting than the one Grundle2600 is subject to, take what he has to say on this matter with a grain of salt, perhaps even the entire salt shaker. All of this has been subject to an ArbCom case and numerous WP:ANI filings where the entire editing community has been able to weigh in, where they have consistently and reliably found these two, and their general approach to political articles to be in violation of NPOV, among other core policies. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, please don't lie. There has never been any kind of finding that my editing violates the NPOV policy, quite the opposite in fact as your attempts at censorship and bias have been noted repeatedly by numerous editors.

There has been relentless stalking and hounding of me (and Grundle) by you, Magnificent Clean Keeper and other editors, some of whom had to be issued a Wiki-restraining order to stop.

I've created and edited numerous political articles. It's been made difficult at times because of the inexcusable and policy violating behavior engaged in by you and others in your pack trying to censor and bias our political coverage, but otherwise I haven't had much problem. Your behavior and abuse of our policies is a serious issue, and its one that Jimbo and Arbcom have failed to address so far. Your statements here are further indication that you have no interest in contributing constructively to the encyclopedia, as you insist on disrupting discussions with personal attacks and smears. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM, this is the case you tried to make to ArbCom and others, but it has been roundly rejected. You aren't the victim of anything; you are, as ArbCom noted, the perpetrator. That ArbCom did not address it to your liking is your problem, and yours alone. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You, CoM, were out of the picture till you decided to put yourself back in for free while Grundle has to pick up the tab. You're really a "big guy (or girl)". Anything more I should say? No, I don't think so. Pretty much everyone here (including you) know the rest. Have a nice day. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That fell on an opportunist's deaf ear, I guess.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat, I never said anything about aliens from the planet Zarg. I created a section in the discussion of my proposed ban called, Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions. In that section, I ask the following questions:

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, can you please stop the forum shopping. You clearly didn't come here for a valid reason, and continuing the same argument you've been making on Jimbo's talk page is pointless. Grsz¹¹ 18:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See this definition. It's to make a point that it's all about weight and balance. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That might be true for Grundle's first edit here but not for his following one.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot and RfA issue

Hey! Just wanted to know, if you consider making a bot, do you have to be an admin to do so? Plus, if a user has been blocked directly, or has been mistakenly auto/blocked, will this affect the number of votes on an RfA? Cheers,--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 02:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. It is not reasonable to expect Jimbo to field routine questions from every editor. Also, it is unusual for a Wikipedian's visible signature to have no relation to the registered user name. —Finell (Talk) 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom Election 2009

Good morning, Jimbo. We've (belatedly) started the process of setting up this year's Arbcom Election, and there is some discussion about the length of terms for the newly elected arbitrators. From last year's election discussion (WT:ACE2008), the Arbcom RFC (at WP:ARBCOMRFC), and discussion for this year's election, there appears to be some interest in switching to a two-tranche system with staggered 2 year terms, rather than the current 3 year terms. Functionally, this would give us 9 arbs per tranche, with some elected this year to a 1 year rump term with Alpha, and others getting a full 2 years that would match Beta. There are arguments both ways; from a procedural standpoint, it won't impact how we run the election, but it might influence who runs. I'd invite your thoughts on the matter at WT:ACE2009#Vacancies, if you get the chance. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Jimbo, I was by coincidence about to send you the following email:

Dear Jimbo

Last week I raised on your talk page the question of whether the current norm of three years for the terms of incoming arbs might be reduced to two years, suggesting that there would be consensus for such a change in the community, and asking whether you might sound out the current arbs on the matter. I know you've been busy and in transit recently, and the section has since been swallowed into the archives.

A colleague and I would be willing to hold an RfC before nominations are called (i.e., starting very soon) to gauge community attitudes to such a proposal, framed as advisory only. What are your thoughts on the matter, and would such an RfC be useful?

Tony

A quick count has revealed the astonishing fact that only six of the 57 arbs ever to have been appointed have served a full three-year term. A three-year term now would not be replaced until 2013, which seems like a long time to take our best and brightest out of circulation. There's the burn-out factor in such a long term, since being an arb is increasingly a challenging, complex and full-on job. There's the apparently quick learning curve of the current new crop of arbs. And there the option of a second term of four not six years.

I'm unsure why the tranches are needed, if elections can be treated as "top ups" of numbers to the desired size (18?) each January. The number of seats to be filled will almost certainly vary from year to year, which shouldn't matter.

I look forward to hearing your opinions on this. Tony (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not speaking for Jimbo, but as clarification: I know of no other purpose for Tranches, beyond being a means to sort whose terms expire when. Compare Classes of United States Senators, which sorts US Senators into three staggered 6-year election cycles. It's easier to say "We're electing Tranche Beta this year" than "We're filling the seats vacated by this guy, this guy, and this guy". UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the ArbCom for their thoughts. I will act upon their guidance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please look at some of the community discussion on the subject as well. Having ArbCom control their own elections is potentially harmful. I know you are trying to reduce the amount of personal involvement you have in ArbCom elections (and I welcome that) but somebody needs to read the discussion and determine what community opinion is. At the moment, the only person that can really do that is you. --Tango (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would be particularly "controlling" for ArbCom to have even complete discression in this question, let alone to be consulted. If the question were "should ArbCom members serve for life?" then naturally there would be a clear conflict of interest. But given that the question is effectively "do you think Arbitrators' careers would be more effective if they served only two year terms", I can't think of a better group to consult than the existing Arbitrators. Take account of the community's thoughts as well, naturally, but I don't really think the wiki-default of the wisdom of the crowds being sovereign really applies here. Happy‑melon 10:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I did say "as well". ArbCom should certainly be consulted, but Jimmy shouldn't just do what they say without taking into account the rest of the community. --Tango (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think this is, or should be, a "political" decision - it's a fairly technical question that depends on a variety of competing factors. I will take into account many points of view, of course, and will seek a solution that has very broad consensus, while at the same time noting that decisions do have to be made in a timely fashion. Current ArbCom members have a unique perspective on workload, timing, etc. And valid opinions and concerns may come from anyone, of course. My goal is to be slow, deliberate, and thoughtful, and to always push things forward in a way that is productive, stable, and minimizes drama.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Jimbo. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

Hi there Jimbo. I'm curious about your take on the discussions regarding the David Shankbone article. If the article is kept at the AfD will you support deletion if there is later a media controversy involving the subject? Can people opt in or out at any time depending on how the news cycle treats them?

I ask because, as you might recall, I've been critical about the appearance of nepotism, double standards, censorship, and bias on Wikipedia where editors are treated differently than other article subjects. And as far as an "informal" policy of letting persons with marginal notability opt out of having BLPs on them, unless we post this somewhere and notify COI editors instead of blocking and banning them when they try to alter their articles, it seems like another example of Wikipedia policy being made to benefit those with insider knowledge. Can the opt out be invoked at any time? Is it appropriate to grant special treament to those with membership in the Wiki-Club? Or do you have a different take? Should the David Boothroyd article be recreated? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this, and other biographies like it, whether of Wikipedia editors or not, are clear candidates for deletion. If I were to vote, I would vote very strongly for deletion. I don't really know what your concerns about double standards and so on have to do with it, but I'm certainly willing to say that we should take the same very high moral and ethical approach to BLPs of everyone equally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If an article on a subject who is also a Wikipedia editor is kept for years and then the subject is in the news for something controversial, that would seem to increase their notability not decrease it. So it strikes me as being dirty pool to keep these articles as long as the content is favorable to the subjects and Wikipedia, but to rush to delete them if there's bad news or controversy.

And the double standard extends to how we treat outsiders who aren't familiar with our rules. They get slapped with COI warnings, blocks and bans when they try to improve articles about themselves or their business interests. But Wikipedia editors have friends to look out for them and know how to game the system (for example invoking the opt out clause if they don't want to have an article any more). And don't get me started on the POV pushing, political bias, and teaming up that goes on here...

But I do find it interesting that you, Jehochman and several of our Arbcom members who were outspoken for deletion of the David Boothroyd article as soon as the media coverage of that subject wasn't favorable have been absent from the present discussion on the David Shankbone article. I value consistency, transparency and fairness, so I object to the way Arbcom, admins and our founder seem to make up the rules as they go along. If acting on self-interest and with favoritism to our amigos isn't hypocritical and a double standard, I wonder what it is. Either these article subjects are notable or they're not. But we shouldn't be keeping and deleting them to suit our friends and our self-interests. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to distract from this discussion, but I should say that "making up rules as we go along" is how Wikipedia came to be. I think it'd be hard to find a policy that has remained unchanged for a 12 month period. The aim isn't to write good rules, or even to to enforce them fairly - the aim is to write an encyclopedia. Rules are a means to that end but not an end in themselves. Will Beback talk 00:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to explain how arbitrarily applying standards according to the self-interest of any one individual editor instead of consistently based on our community standards is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I had always assumed that accuracy and reliable sources were our benchmark. Are all editors expected to abide by our core policies? How do you get from ignoring all the rules in the interests of the encyclopedia to making up a new set of rules that is unrelated to building the encyclopedia whenever it's convenient? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been determined that any polcies are being applied arbitrarily according to self-interest. But if policies need to be altered to improve the project, then that's typical of Wikipedia's method. Will Beback talk 01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if policies aren't being applied arbitrarily how do you explain the David Boothroyd article being deleted the moment there was substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that wasn't favorable to him or Wikipedia? And I'd be very intersted in your explanation of how that biography is less notable than the one on David Shankbone. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea. But what I can tell is that the Boothroyd was deleted pursuant to an AfD. Isn't there a principle of deletions that "Wikipedia is not consistent"? If this is a concern, perhaps you should draft a guideline proposal to cover biographies of Wikipedians? Will Beback talk 03:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted out of process pursuant to unfavorable coverage in the media. The AfD pushed through by Jimbo, Arbcom and other admins came quite a bit later. I think the unwillingness to be transparent and accountable is a big part of why there is so much tension on Wikipedia. When there are so many double standards and the application of rules is arbitrary to suit those in positions of power, it's hardly surprising that moral is low. Among the questions you gents have ignored are: Can people opt in or out at any time depending on how the news cycle treats them? And: If people of marginal notability can opt out of having articles why isn't this policy made official so BLP subjects who aren't Wikipedia editors can take advantage of it? Please step up to your responsibilities and stand up for transparency and fairness. The corruption and Machiavellian cabalism isn't a benefit to the encyclopedia or its editors, and it's only going to result in more problems and more unfavorable coverage going forward as the double standards and nepotism continue to be exposed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think the policy ought to be on Wikipedians with biographies? Will Beback talk 06:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The David Boothroyd article was deleted at an AfD per the subject's request, and when that and a subsequent AfD proved to be controversial it went to a DRV where the deletion was endorsed. The content was then userfied and ultimately discussed at an MfD here, which after lengthy discussion an admin closed as "no consensus, default to delete" (bit of an "ignore all rules" close, but a good one I think, and not without precedent on problematic BLPs). The key argument throughout for many was expressed by the closer of the MfD: "Mr. Boothroyd doesn't want his biography on WP. We should not keep borderline biographies, when the subject does not want them." This, as opposed to some odd conspiracy, is the key difference between the Boothroyd article and the one on Shankbone. While it's not officially "in the rules," a large segment of the community feels that living persons with marginal notability who want their Wiki articles deleted should have their wishes respected, and that such articles should be deleted (this applies equally to Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians, though unfortunately obviously the former group are a million times more likely to know about this fact). I don't have an example at hand, but such "courtesy deletions" have happened before the Boothroyd situation. The difference with the David Shankbone article is that the subject has not to date requested deletion, and were he to do so I promise you that you would see a lot of people switching into the "delete" camp or going over to comment in the AfD to support deletion. This is not about cabalism or transparency or corruption of the guy who wrote The Prince or anything like that—the Boothroyd and Shankbone circumstances are simply different, and had Boothroyd not requested deletion his article would almost certainly still exist.

I fully agree that the policy that "people of marginal notability can opt out of having articles" is something that should be made official (as I said many editors and admins hold that view already and invoke it when commenting on or closing AfDs), and while I think some have fought unsuccessfully for that codification in the past it would not hurt to start a discussion again at WT:BLP (this currently points out that article subjects who are marginally notable could expect to have deletion requests honored, but something stronger and more prominent is probably needed). Working to strengthen/codify our guidelines on "courtesy deletions" would be a good next stop for anyone concerned about the issues discussed above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If a marginally notable subject requests deletion, we should certainly respect that, but that isn't the case here, so there's no reason to delete it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, you have a bully pulpit. Use it. Start commenting in AfDs of BLPs so that your voice actually is heard directly there, arguing for opt out and for default to delete on marginally notable. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and feedback. I understand that we try to be flexible, but deleting biographies of Wikipedians as soon as there is bad news looks very inappropriate to me. So while I am okay with a consensus for inclusion or exclusion of these BLPs on marginally notable persons, I don't think the community and its leaders should be sweeping stuff under the rug when they don't care for the way the news breaks. It's a COI situation and it's abusive. We shouldn't be keeping articles on our buddies when they're promotional and deleting them when there is coverage that we don't care for. Slim, given that David has expressed no objection to having a biography would you still support deletion later on if there is news that breaks and the subject decides he doesn't want the article included any more? Doesn't that seem like Wikipedia being used for promotion and self-interest rather than as an encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think hanging your reply under mine is perhaps misplaced. Jimbo said: "we should take the same very high moral and ethical approach to BLPs of everyone equally" so I think that's addressed your concern... Wikipedians should neither get fluff bios nor excess negative attention. Everyone should be treated the same. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Disgusted by antiitalianism

I am disgusted by the antiitalianism behind the ‎ decision to delete Maltese Italians. The "usual" trick of accusing an Italian of sockpuppetry has obtained the usual result of erasing an article that has been 1) changed totally from the initial version;2) changed the name (the last name was "Pro-Italian Maltese");3) two or three times times requested to move or delete. Wikipedia needs articles showing all the areas of encyclopedia knowledge, not only those contrary to the Italian people in their historical/geographical Italian region. Indeed there were plenty of valid and useful references in the article just erased. The wikipedian who masterminded the vote against the article, showed HATE even toward his own people, only because they wanted to unite Malta to Italy. He even forced to retire a Maltese Italian who wanted to save the article (see user:Maltalia). Do you believe this is a fair attitude? I am sure you think that an encyclopedia can't be one-sided. And finally allow me to write that Wikipedia should not be in the hands of groups that do meatpuppetry: they accuse even a simple wife of a banned user, like me, of doing sockpuppetry in order to get unfair advantage and erase the articles they don't like. Sincerely.--Mrs.Maria (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the deletion review (wp:DRV) process? Also, Giano is the most famous Italian in all the land. So you might consider dropping him a note if you think he and his talk page readers might be helpful to your cause. Veni, vidi, vici! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ChildofMidnight. The main problem seems to be that the group of wikipedians who voted for deletion at the last moment were all created in the last weeks (user:Iwillremembermypassthistime, user:Underlying lk, user:Nero the second) and seems related to each other in a typical case of meatpuppetry....or may be they are the same person. Anyway, I wish to apologize with mr. Jimbo for my "a bit rude" post in his talkpage. As a last salute have my best regards, mr. Jimbo --Mrs.Maria (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Italian Maltese is the relevant deletion discussion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a discussion on a user talk page

Hello User talk:Jimbo Wales - I have pasted the following conversation below which can also be found on my talk page User talk:Classicfilms. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this might seem to come out of the blue but there's a writer who's doing a piece for Rolling Stone who'd like to interview you about an article you wrote. His name is Jose Antonio Vargas; email joseiswriting(at)gmail.com. Please follow up at your earliest convenience. Best regards, Durova333 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful note, I appreciate your kind words.I generally respond to questions about Wikipedia articles via this user page rather than email. Since I do not know which article is being referred to here, I have to speak in generalities but while a Wikipedian may initially create an article, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles clarifies the notion of "authorship" on the Wikipedia - all edits are dictated by Wikipedia:Five pillars. I think it might be beneficial for anyone interested in the Wikipedia to first join, study and learn Wikipedia:Five pillars and perhaps edit a few articles to understand the community a bit better. After that point, if there are specific questions about an article, I would be happy to answer them on this page. You might also consider contacting Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wikipedia. I have left a copy of this note on his page as well. Best regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova is an experienced Wikipedian that is probably passing on a request received via WP:OTRS. I doubt the writer in question will ever look at your talk page. I'm sure Durova would be happy to ask the writer to visit your talk page if you ask her - whether the writer will actually do that is anyone's guess. --Tango (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll paste the response on Durova's page as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Princess Peach and the First Battle of Artois

How is it that a WWI battle gets a couple of sentences, but a minor video game character gets an extensive article? Presumably this is not based on relative importance, and perhaps is more down to the interests of the prevailing demographics in Wikipedia. Perhaps more needs to be done to get a bit more balance in those demographics, so that Wikipedia doesn't add to the perceived (by some) dumbing down of humanity and is, in turn, taken a bit more seriously by those that whose interests may not be the same as the people who write the video game articles. What do you think Jimbo? JasonBeales (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not the first to pick two random articles, note that one is longer and on a pop culture subject then bemoan the state of Wikipedia. I suspect you won't be the last. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, a slightly dismissive answer, but never mind. I'm not bemoaning it, I'm wondering what can be done to rectify the balance, attract people who are interested more by WWI battles than video game characters. JasonBeales (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Look for a wikiproject on war then note that that specific article needs help. Or you could be bold and try improving it yourself.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course I'm not too concerned about the actual article, it is just an example, I'm more wondering what could be done to "smooth out" the expertise of people who contribute to different types of articles. Yes, I could do some research and expand the article myself, I am not averse to doing that but, with the best will in the world, I don't think I can single-handedly do this for all of the gaps. Is anything actively done to recruit a broader range of expertise? JasonBeales (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias would be the closest.©Geni 13:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are all volunteers, and however we might regret it, more are interested and knowledgeable in pop culture (kinda self-explanatory) than in what some would call antiquated military history. However, on the whole, Wikipedia's coverage of military history is pretty extensive, and the Military History WikiProject is the largest and the most active. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's leaving?

I was wondering, if you can make a list of Wikipedians that left Wikipedia in the past 3 months, since Neurolysis' departure. It seems that a number of editors leave Wikipedia in a single week.

On a completely unrelated note, can you explain WHY are our trusted Wikipedians are leaving?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 06:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

cloest we have to a list would be Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Wikipedians have always left for a range of reasons.©Geni 10:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The natural life cycle of a Wikipedian. They come and they go. But I always hate it when an editor just vanishes for no reason given, a little upsetting for me as I know someone who went missing a long time ago and has never been seen since. There on the missing persons database. I just find that when an editor does that…Makes me wonder. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It may seem that some users who left Wikipedia as a registered user, instead continues to contribute using IP addresses! Worse still, they leave the English Wikipedia to a Wikipedia lower in numbers of articles (although the German Wikipedia may be the most populous Wiki these times around), and they seem to visit our Wikipedia only to find them viewing pages only! And for reasons misunderstood, during conflicts with another editor (I think you guys remember of the RickK incident with Jimbo). It breaks my heart remembering this WikiWarrior, as the incident was absolutely misunderstood and misinterpreted.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 12:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Most who leave are upset their favorite articles keep getting deleted, either in AFD, or gangs of deletionists in a Wikiproject deciding on their own how things should be, and then go rampaging through articles and mass deleting information, or replacing everything they don't like with a redirect avoiding the AFD process entirely. If you Google for phrases such as "why I left Wikipedia" in quotation marks, which gets 24,100 results by the way, you can see the same themes keep getting repeated. There was never a general Wikipedia wide vote on the guidelines, just a few dozen people at the most ever deciding them. These guidelines resulted in the mass deletion of vast numbers of articles which had been around for years. If it was a general vote, and the majority of editors clearly felt it justified, that'd be one thing, but as it is, its just one long never ending battle that leaves many people quite disenchanted with the Wikipedia as a whole. Dream Focus 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
24,100 results? I only get 16... Fram (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)&

My result was 24,300. [2] (Added link.) Bielle (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Link? I wonder what's the difference between your searches and mine... Fram (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted a link above to my results where it should have been when I first posted. Apologies. Bielle (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I get nine results from your link, Bielle. screenshot -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I get 24,300 now when I click on Fram's link. Does your ISP filter things, or do you have filtering software, or some strange setting for Google you tell it to remember? That is rather odd. Dream Focus 16:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If I knew how to do a screen shot (and the coding in the edit window for yours, M2Ys4U, I can't seem to apply to mine), I would give you one. As far as I know, I have no filters installed. The earlier link I inserted above still shows 24,300 to me. Bielle (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I get 9 results on Bielle's link, 864 if I tell it to include ommitted results and millions if I remove the quotes. On Fram's I get 11-16 of 16 on page two and 1-10 of 864 on page 1, which is rather odd. I certainly don't get 24k. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. There is no reason not to assume that everyone is telling the truth so I wonder what causes the discrepancies? This also calls into question anything "settled" on WP by virtue of number of G-Hits. There must be a filter-related technical answer somewhere.Bielle (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I went back to the link and scrolled to the bottom of the page showing 10 of 24,300 links. There are only 2 pages of results listed. When I click on page 2, I get results 11 to 14 only and then the "if you want more, similar" click here - the standard warning for "How many times do you want to see the same stuff repeated?" Bielle (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Found 24,000 results and approximately 1,000,000 unrelated results. The only thing available on my Google Indonesia search engine, was letters and letters of Larry Sanger's departure in 2003.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Something slightly unrelated to this note. What's worse than a retirement of a Wikipedian? And perspectively, I will leave Wikipedia under the current circumstances:

1)When I feel that the project is no longer fun to me (see WP:GTFO} 2)Considering too much failed RfAs 3)When I'm OLD 4)Any other reasons, other than that of "the same stuff repeated".

Any inquires? Contact me on my email (dave.gregory96@gmail.com) or leave a note on my talk page!--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Same old reasons. Insane former Wikipeidians. However, considering the Encyclopaedia Britannica or worst yet, Uncyclopedia, is a VERY, VERY, VERY BAD IDEA. And another former Wikipedian stated that "rather than another account on Wikipedia because I have autism". Sounds stupid, isn't it?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

program that converts PDF documents to Word documents

Hi Jimbo Wales

The lest year a don’t have a work, so I went in http://yi.wikisource.org/ , and I have buildet it. I put already almost 2000 texts of Yiddish. And that is my question

I want to purchase a program that converts PDF documents to Word documents, in Hebrew. I have quite a few books in Yiddish in the PDF format and have to change them to Word. That way we'll be able to expand the web site with hundreds of texts. If we don't add them, they won't be used by the general public because these books are no longer printed. They were published from 50 to 100 years ago in Europe before the war and are studied in universities. They can't be bought anywhere and can only be photocopied at the university. The program that converts the PDF costs $700 here in Israel.

--Israel.s (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How much do you think it costs in Indonesia?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Israel.s, are you aware of the Proofread Page software that we use on other Wikisource projects? You can see the statistics here. This software can be set up on Yiddish Wikisource as well, however I think there may be a bug with right-to-left languages. The $700 could be spent fixing that bug ;-)

This software works with PDF files. You can see the English Wikisource projects at s:Special:IndexPages, and I encourage you to come to English Wikisource to learn how to use it.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:12725 has been fixed, which means right-to-left languages can now use the new software. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the Proofread extension is not what Israel.s had in mind. He is looking for a pdf2txt software, or, to be more precise, an OCR software (since the PDF includes images of scanned books). To the best of my knowledge, there is no free OCR software which can work with Hebrew letters.

I guess that after he will be able to OCR all his documents, he can use the Proofread extension to correct the OCR SW mistakes.

Anyone has the money for him? -- Ori229 (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If Israel.s uploads the PDFs to Commons, and proofreading projects are set up, other people who already have suitable commercial software will be able to OCR the PDFs and upload the OCR results into Yiddish Wikisource.

Also, he could contact meta:Wikimedia Israel. They may be able to organise for a local university to do the OCR. Or the chapter could buy a copy of the software, and use it to fulfill OCR requests from any Wikimedian.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you Mr. Wales.
You direct me to many options which can help me, when the simplest thing would be that I'll have this SW and can work with it without being dependent on otheres. Since Wikimedia doesn't have the sum to fund this, I will try to collect money from my friends, which will probably take a few month. Then I will but the SW and will be able to add many hunderes of texts to Yiddish wikitext. --Israel.s (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Jimbo Wales. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Has Become the Source of Disinformation - A Public Forum To Mislead and Con the Public

Wikipedia is a free forum, unregulated, confusing and irresponsible.

Now, criminals use this forum to post lies.

Wikipedia is being used as an authoritative and trusted source of pseudo-encyclopedic information to mislead people and steal money. Wikipedia is being used to convince unknowing users to accept lies about professional requirements, to promote social agendas, and to influence public opinion - not to educate. Even scams are being perpetrated. Confidence-game practitioners and sales departments of companies are scheming through Wikipedia articles to influence busy decision-makers. This encyclopedia is used to deceive people into enrolling in education seminars or worse. People purchasing professional services are being mislead about many different legally regulated activities. The purpose of misinformation is to alter the beliefs of the targeted victim; as used in Wikipedia, its purpose is to get money from people or to trap them.

As nice an idea as it is for a completely public contributor based encyclopedia, this source of information is gradually being polluted by dishonest people who have a selfish agenda, not an interest in providing accurate and informative information. Wikipedia is now, by consent, contributing to this disinformation.

If Wikipedia doesn't do something to control the editing process so as to eliminate these misleading and inaccurate postings, and malicious deletions, two things will happen.

First, Wikipedia will become a joke and the last place that anyone will go to get an explanation.

Second, Wikipedia will get sued in a Federal or State Court for contributing to fraud and violations of many State and Federal laws.

Wikipedia has to take responsibility for what it is aiding to do, deceive the public.

ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk • contribs)

Sounds to me like someone didnt do his homework and got scammed. If you think checking one web site is enough of a background check... That Wikipedia is public and can be edited by anyone is common knowledge... and like any other encyclopedia.... research certainly can begin there but should never end there.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is that a lot of articles are checked by the media wanting to drum up the "Wikipedia is wrong" story, and most of the time they are surprised by how accurate Wikipedia is. And WP can't be "sued...for contributing to fraud" for simply being inaccurate. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No one can tell exactly what ArchitectBoiseIdaho is actually complaining about. There is no reason to speculate about it or to respond. —Finell (Talk) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But from my POV, this comment is something of what we call "the same old reason to leave Wikipedia". It looks like that he's leaving Wiki here. Plus, the lack of source, lack of NPOV, and the inaccuracy of the editor itself attributed to such criticisms. Wikipedia cannot be sued for such misleadings. And Wikipedia cannot be sued for any defamation posted. But the USER posting it CAN be. So I can conclude this as a content dispute.-Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If User:ArchitectBoiseIdaho is complaining Wikipedia's notability, or the latter of any accuracy on Wikipedia, this only requires the response of Wikipedia heights. I think he feels that Wikipedia is just not as fun as it was then. If he feels so, please, ask him to leave.-Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Clarification RE: Wikipedia Principles[3] and Five Pillars:"Anyone Can Edit"

I have been ordered to create an account:

As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs[4] at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement[5] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion[6] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [7] which interestingly may have produced this response[8] to my edit here:[9]. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage:[10] as a stub without references. This was my work:[11]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.

As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute[12] - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed[13] under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here[14] for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. A previous discussion here on this page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history[15] (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here[16]. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time.|-99.135.174.186 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Being discussed at wp:ani#Join or be banned?. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What's so difficult about creating an account & signing in, anyways? One would think it would be worth it, after all this. Regrettably, the refusal to do so creates the impression of (at worst) evasiveness (as though the person were a banned editor, avoiding a ban) or (at best) spitefullness towards those who are requesting he/she 'sign in'. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The willingness to jump to such facile impressions should be suppressed and not be allowed foothold in our fair community. There is nothing that prevents a banned user from creating a new user account, indeed the desire to appear established and appeasing the paranoia of others should if anything, be regarded with more suspicion than one who asked merely to have their edits judged on content. Unomi (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator

Ich habe soeben als Administrator kandidiert. Ich will in der Deutschen Wikipedia Administrator werden.

Es waren 24 Administratoren gegen mich. Diese 24 Administratoren haben ihr Meinungsbild basierend auf komplett falschen Informationen abgegeben. Diese 24 Administratoren haben einzig die Edits berücksichtigt. Ich habe wenige Edits. Ich bin aber ein Sichter.

Sollte ich ein Administrator in der Deutschen Wikipedia werden?

--Urs.Waefler (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I got some of that. Something about blocking. But why don't you post it in English...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's about an unsuccessful self-nomination for adminship. Nothing to write home about. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sour grapes?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Extreme sour grapes... --Geos (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

'Ich bin ein admin'? HalfShadow (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "I have just submitted my RfA. I want to become an admin on the German Wikipedia.

24 admins were against me. These 24 admins made up their mind on completely wrong informations. These 24 admins have considered my editcount alone. I have few edits. I am however a Reviewer (translation note: refers to WP:FPPR, not autoreviewer).

Should I become an admin on the German Wikipedia?"

After withdrawing his candidacy, the beginning discussion on his talk page revolved around the fact that he didn't have enough edits to pass the threshold for automatic Reviewer status, whereas Urs' counterpoint is to explain that he has, in fact, obtained Reviewer status and so that the 24 persons who voted against him (who he qualifies as admins, I haven't bothered to fact check) were not qualified for an admin job since they weren't able to recognize him as a Reviewer.

Further, he argues he met someone in August 2009 who is aquainted with Jimbo, which makes him more in the know than many other admins and more qualified for the job. MLauba (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

about 12 of the 24 were actually admins. and as far as i could see nobody had problems with his reviewer status, just with the assumption that you automatically become admin after being a reviewer and having ~250 edits. -- southgeist (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Me too I did not have all information. Now I got a deeper understanding. Thank you.

--Urs.Waefler (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

At least I gained some more edits. Also I gained some new experiences. You only win, a creative participation is all. :-)

--Urs.Waefler (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Jimbo Wales, T3h 1337 b0y has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ms dos mode (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the smile. Wikipedia is a great place to get in touch with several cultures, for instance German or English. Let's go on and smile.

--Urs.Waefler (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom RFC

Hi Jimmy. fyi, there is an RFC about the structure of Arbcom 2010: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. Your unique perspective/views would be a valuable addition to the RFC. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiLit

Have you had a chance to check out Andrew Dalby's book The World and Wikipedia? Is it any good? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet. But he's offered to send me a copy, and so I expect that I shall.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What's with the blocking of the accounts of deceased users?

This is what I'm worried about. I've seen this on their [[Special:Contributions]] page and find that they were indefinitely blocked! Any guidelines referring to this matter?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be thought of as disrespectful in any way. If anything, I suppose the motivation is likely to be to ensure that the passwords aren't cracked and then these accounts used in a way that is disrespectful. I don't know if there are guidelines or discussions about this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Another point is that the computer belonging to a deceased Wikipedian is likely to be used by another person (possibly after the computer is sold), and the computer may contain details of the Wikipedia account allowing an unauthorized person to impersonate the former Wikipedian. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You could be right.

On a completely unrelated note, can I ask users to add the number of colons?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to risk them coming back. A group of brain-eating zombie Wikipedians only sounds silly until you encounter it. HalfShadow (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo

User:Juliancolton may have retired. You need to do what any pusher worth his salt would do. Go over there and get high with him on Wikipedia again. Before the say-no-to-Wiki folks succeed in performing an intervention with him and he gets too high a count on his days of Wiki sobriety.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

~~Wow, Mr Wales hasn't editing this page in going on a fornight. You think he and Julian are in a program together~~?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Jimbo edit wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IWantToSayNo (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You can see his contributions here [17].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A nightmare for Jimbo Wales

He awakens to learn:

Somebody has shaved off his mustache & beard
Myself & friends, show up at his house, to give him a 'we're not worthy bow, for a total 24hrs straight
We have a rowdy Wikipedia convention at his place, for an entire year. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lolwut?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins taking drugs

Is this acceptable? It isn't only that they are on a highly dangerous drug, but that they are also editing while on it really bothers me, especially when they have ops. Is there any applicable guideline, standard, or tradition regarding this? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not taking into account that "is on acid" is most probably used figuratively in the sense of "very weird", it's hardly Wikipedia's place to dictate what intoxicants editors can partake in. Or, for that matter, even assess whether they are. — Coren ^(talk) 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on my opinion, I think you are wrong about the figurative bit Coren: [18]. Prodego ^talk 16:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not figurative. Chillum has also admitted to having a secret second account. You are not supposed to edit while drunk or using drugs, and I am concerned about what kinds of things may have happened. This user is an admin with ops, and admin are supposed to be neutral and have fair judgment. How do we know if a block didn't happen because of drug use or an unblock for the same? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My original point remains, though. Enforcing random drug laws isn't what we're here for. Either the editor edits within policy in which case it's not an issue, or they do not in which case the reason is immaterial. — Coren ^(talk) 16:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also possible that we have encountered an admin with a sense of humor. (Don't mind me. It's the drugs. Mostly caffeine at this point.) Antandrus (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

@OR: Besides, how do we know anything isn't done for the "wrong reason"? That someone makes a block or unblock because of a distraction in Real Life, for instance, or because they are tired? You can't. And there is no point in doing so even if we could: either the action was correct or it was not. — Coren ^(talk) 16:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Coren, drug laws do not matter as alcohol is legal. However, users are told not to edit while drunk, and drunk admin are bad. Acid is far more potent than alcohol in altering the ability to perceive correctly. I am asking about an -admin- having the ability to use admin abilities while taking drugs regularly as he has admitted. I am also asking for someone to check his secret account to ensure that there was no drug related impropriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Coren, this is a major PR nightmare. A reporter can easily attribute any problem that Chillum has been involved in to drug use, and there are hundreds just from this year. Chillum has been involved in a lot of controversial matters, for good or for bad. This compromised judgment is just the tip of the iceberg, especially in conjunction with his second secret account. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not blow this out of proportion; IIRC, it would be difficult for anyone under the influence of LSD to be even able to find enough keys to block or delete. I happily confess that I edit under the influence of drugs, and I find it helps to do so. Please stash the moral indignation unless and until it becomes an issue. Rodhull andemu 16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He could find the keys to type up a message saying he was high. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

LSD takes about half an hour to kick in fully. Rodhull andemu 16:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Were you a witness to these events? Can you verify that he took acid within a time frame that would allow him not to be high at the time of posting? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Franz Kafka, thou should'st be living now! Rodhull andemu 16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you realize that in posting that, you have exposed your argument as non-existent. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from all the very good reasons provided above to avoid overblown moral outrage, there is no indication that Chillum even edited while 'under the influence'. He made no edits between the placement of the notice [19] and its removal [20]. Based on the comments posted by Ottava Rima and Malleus Fatuorum in response to this trivial, teapot tempest, Chillum is not the editor whose conduct we need to be concerned about. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He has a secondary account and has admitted such. Do you have knowledge of what that secondary account is? If so, provide the name to verify your statement that no edits have been made under it. If not, please strike it as being incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you believe someone is using a second account abusively, you're at the wrong place. Otherwise, that's immaterial. If you believe that Chillum has taken problematic actions (regardless of why he did so) that didn't involve a separate account, you're still at the wrong place. If neither of these are true, why do you care? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is never the wrong place to ask a question. That was clear from the very top. Please don't make such claims and post off topic simply because you disagree with the question. Disruption like that is never appropriate and only means that you recognize that Chillum has acted inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done some of my best coding while stoned, it is actually quite relaxing. Munchies are a problem though, as chip crumbs are a bitch to get out of a keyboard. Then there's the issues with memory, um...what were we talking about? Tarc (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that counts should be the editing output, not the mental state of the editor. If the editor does bad edits, we can revert/block/ban him regardless of his mental state. For what I know, you may all well be a Chinese room or a Boltzmann brain , but that's irrelevant. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why so serious? I think admins should be allowed to be crack heads just as long as it doesn’t impair there vital duties.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mental state is 100% necessary for using admin ops. We have "trust" for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it silly season so soon? This is the most goofball non-issue on Wikipedia all day. November 1 must be the new April 1. If this is a joke, I think we've got it. If not, the thread is just a personal attack on Chillum and ought to be drawn to a close. On Wikipedia everyone is judged on the strength of their edits, not what they do in the privacy of their home, or what process their brain has been through to produce those edits. Indignation that somewhere a Wikipedian is doing something illegal, or that drug-taking Wikipedians are a threat to the project, is too farfetched to be worth any serious response. It may be unwise and undignified at a personal level, by some standards of decorum, to announce or joke about one's own drug-taking. But in other circles it's just fine, and we're not in any position to judge. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If the secondary account displayed unusual conduct while under the influence, I tend to think that account would be blocked or banned if the influence was problematic. If no one knows which account that is, as seems to be the case, then there is no apparent evidence that it has been used while the typer were intoxicated, and we would more or less have to AGF that it isn't. I can and do see some problems with Chillum admitting to having two accounts, and not indicating what they are, but that is a separate matter. thankgodcaffiencedoesn'tcountasbeinganintoxicatingdrugIdon'tknowhowI'dbeabletodoanythingwithoutit. :)John Carter (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AGF only goes until there is evidence. ArbCom has the right to know about secondary accounts to verify that there is no impropriety, so an Arb could check to verify that there was no such problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already told you that if arbcom wants to know this information, they only need to ask me(they have not asked). Chillum 18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on that point - it's discouraged for anyone, particularly admins, to have secondary accounts. Although we've gone back and forth regarding whether this is a requirement or just an admonition, admins really ought to disclose and register their secondary accounts with a checkuser / arb to make sure they're on the up-and-up. Otherwise, way too much drama and potential for abuse. Other than perhaps the shared connection to a countercultural mindset, I don't see what socking has to do with drugs. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) So go ask them to, if you're concerned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) OR, you have come here to Jimbo's talk page to publicise something that you yourself admit might become "a major PR nightmare". The original edit may well have been a joke. You pushed very hard towards getting it out of the twilight zone, but without success. We still don't know whether Chillum was just speaking figuratively and, upon being confronted by a hysterical editor pulled that editor's leg; or whether he was simply describing fact. It is not in Wikipedia's interest to know which is true, and it is not in Wikipedia's interest to treat Chillum's statement as a credible statement of fact on the single most effective page of the Wiki for getting such things into the papers.

From the other reactions on Chillum's talk page it should be clear to you by now that there is no general consensus to be hysterical about such things. Right things to do in this situation include contacting Arbcom privately, and they include making a general policy proposal on drug use by editors and admins and on writing about drug use. They do not include deliberately stirring drama in close proximity to the event. Please back off. Hans Adler 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you guyz need to lighten up with some weed mon. I got the shit on my Talk page. Have a party!--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Weed on your talk page? OK, I will bring something that should help. Herbicidal Maniac 18:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, it has already been proven by his multiple references that he was not talking figuratively. Please read all comments before responding in such a manner. Your use of "hysterical" in such a light is incivil and inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, consensus on his talk page? That is not only an inappropriate claim, but it is factually wrong. A few friends making disruptive claims about a direct action has nothing to do with appropriate admin actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read all the comments here and on Chillum's talk page. Has it spread anywhere else? What I have read is totally consistent with both of the scenarios that I have described. There are subcultures in which use of strong illegal drugs is considered stupid but not taboo and people may well use formulations such as "I am on acid" to express a state of mind that might be induced by entirely legal means such as falling in love. It seems clear to me that when Malleus fatuorum contacted Chillum on his talk page, Chillum primarily got the message "I disapprove of your relaxed attitude to drugs" and reacted to that message. We have no way of knowing whether his response was a statement of fact or an attempt to irritate Malleus further. His earlier response to Beeblebrox, which references "I like to chill out and smoke the herb" suggests to me that he wasn't serious. You need not agree, but it's a fact that we simply can't know what he meant. The same is true for his 16:03 response to Malleus: A paragraph with very nearly (note that "about me dropping" doesn't contain a verb) a confession, undermined by a silly trailing sentence, followed by "Seriously though, ...". And the last paragraph is a plain contradiction to what he says elsewhere ("the herb" – assuming he means cannabis – is in fact a class C drug in Canada).

Another indication that you are not sufficiently cool to read properly is your misunderstanding concerning consensus. I said that there is no consensus to be hysterical. That's clearly not the same as there being a consensus to be not hysterical. Which is why I proposed that you do something to work towards such a consensus, instead of trying to enforce a nonexistent consensus and create a "PR nightmare" on your way.

PS: I hate having to explain jokes, especially when I am not entirely sure they are jokes. Hans Adler 20:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

PPS: I just realised how strong an indication Chillum's (a confessed cannabis user's) claim to be using only class A drugs is that he was engaged in serious leg-pulling. Please compare:

"Oh, and all the drugs I do are class A, I have no time for the b grade crap" [21]
"I like to chill out and smoke the herb." [22] (Notes: I found no specific connection between the mysterious (to me) slang term "chill out" and acid. He explicitly referred to this line today. [23])

Hans Adler 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"of the scenarios that I have described." The scenarios you have described are not reflective of the reality, and you are making it seem like Chillum has a long history of making statements that are misleading and inappropriate. As such, your claims to protect him are making him look even more disruptive and untrustworthy. The appropriate response, if you were correct, is that Chillum should have stated "it was a joke". Instead, he has sparked a long dispute that has disrupted 4 different talk pages. People are normally blocked for such things, especially when others have stated that it was a joke and the original person refuses to state it was a joke, thus ending the dispute. As such, I expect that someone acting on your words would instantly block Chillum for disruption. So, what you have effectively done is show that Chillum is a disruptive user while trying to defend him from being a disruptive user. Next time you defend a friend, try a better tactic that doesn't turn him into what appears to be a massive troll. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Instead, he has sparked a long dispute that has disrupted 4 different talk pages." I only know about two, his and this one. Please remind me: Who was it again who was too excited to get the joke and brought the matter here? And he is certainly not a friend of mine. I don't share his sense of humour concerning drugs, either. If there was some earlier interaction or something I don't remember if it was positive, negative or neutral. You are entitled to not having a sense of humour and not having a sense for the nuances of communication. But you must learn to live with this handicap and not to disrupt Wikipedia with your overreactions. Hans Adler 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying it was a joke, but Chillum had quite a long time to say it was a joke. It would be inappropriate to make up information like that, so please reveal your source of the claim, and don't say you "inferred" it. That isn't proof. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse Ottava. Chillum 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If this issue is going anywhere, please take it there. It's already taken up time which could have been spent improving the encyclopedia; my impression is that it isn't finished yet, and there is plenty of scope for improvement, although I am only watchlisting about 1% of our articles. In other words, "please shit or get off the pot". Rodhull andemu 00:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your watchlist has over 30000 articles on it????????? Viridae ^Talk 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I need a new keyboard: .1% I thought I typed. Anyone care to contribute? Our Government aren't too keen on paying for that sort of thing. Rodhull andemu 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava. Please. Let it go and take a brake from this "issue" if you really have the good of WP in mind. Some words of "wisdom" for you: And the canon ball said: "It's not me doing the damage, it's the canon that fires me"...The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

With smoke less gun powder only the canon ball stirs up dust.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been asked multiple times to Chillum if he was joking or if he really takes drugs. If this is time wasting, then why has Chillum refused to make a direct answer? He owes the community a direct answer, and any "disruption" is directly placed on Chillum's shoulder for not giving a clear yes or no. So Chillum, were you joking or do you use drugs while being involved with Wikipedia as your post made it seem like you do? I expect a clear answer from Chillum, and anyone else answering for him will -not- be able to answer for him, so they are only wasting everyone's time by trying to respond. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked him on his Talk page? If so, and you are not satisfied with his answer, where's the WP:RFC/U? Stirring up up drama when consensus is so apparently against you seems to be ultimately destructive and unlikely to be forgotten. I repeat: "shit or get off the pot", and I'm, not saying "please" this time. Take it to WP:WQA if you like, but it seems to be that you have not stopped digging when you're in the hole. Rodhull andemu 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He was asked on his talk page and gave a response which people above have claimed that was just furthering the joke. He was asked by me to clarify how often he uses drugs, which he could easily have said he didn't. He has sent me an email which I will show a member of the ArbCom on request in which he accuses me of a war on drug users, which makes it clear that he was not joking. WQA does not handle administrators using drugs. An RfC/U would require two people asking for the information. Comments such as "shit or get off the pot" are not constructive nor are they anything beyond disruptive. It has been pointed out multiple times that there is no evidence for this to be a joke and you persisted in your claims. That is further disruptive. The only one in a hole right now is yourself, as you have gone to great lengths promoting something without evidence, which shines incredibly poorly on your actions. Why is it that you would go to great lengths to disrupt so openly on Jimbo's talk page in such a manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, whole-heartedly; if there is a serious issue with Chillum, take it to the appropriate venue; it not, stop posing for vanity purposes without giving chapter and verse. This was tendentious when it began, and has degenerated into little more than "sound and fury". If "shit or get off the pot" is unacceptable to you, perhaps "put up or shut up" is more to your taste. Meanwhile, this is an insubstantial witchhunt that has taken up far too much of our time here. You're an experienced enough editor to know the proper channels, and failing to use them is unhelpful. In short, do yourself a favour. Rodhull andemu 01:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated, there is not a second person for an RfC and no other venues hold this. However, Jimbo is a representative of WMF, is the Founder of Wikipedia, and is an expert on administrators and administrative responsibility. This was merely a series of questions for -him- based on his expertise. You, however, are throwing around terms that are highly inappropriate and disruptive. You keep attacking me, yet you keep going on and on. Why is that? Why do you think that some how making massive disruptions, incivil comments, personal attacks, and the rest are some how appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You have heard what Jimbo has to say on the matter, now stop this. You have been harping on me for 10 hours now. Chillum 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop what? Rodhull insists to continue his inappropriate personal attacks. I have received my answer from Jimbo, but the disruption by your protectors who are only making you look really inappropriate and as having done something incredibly wrong, continue to make vicious attacks and other hyperbolic claims. You have still refused to state if you were merely joking (which Jimbo seems to assume you were) or not. Please put forth an answer so we all know. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"there is not a second person for an RfC and no other venues hold this"; the first clause should tell you that you're in a minority very much of precisely one, and the second is plainly incorrect, since ArbCom may be emailed with your concerns. I'm not attacking you, merely pointing out the reality of the situation in which you find yourself, and in which (in my opinion) you are continuing to flail ineffectually without actually getting anywhere. As already pointed out, (1) this isn't the venue for this and (2) you are lacking in diffs to support your case. I say again, put up or shut up, unless you want to be labelled a fool forever and a day. Rodhull andemu 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rod, it is utterly unacceptable for you, in this discussion, to tell someone to "shit or get off the pot." There is no justifiable reason to encourage someone to ruin perfectly good pot. Disgraceful. Lara 02:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"the first clause should tell you that you're in a minority very much of precisely one" Prodego didn't post? Malleus didn't post? [24] Iridescent? Moni3? You sure have selective reading. And a diff to support what case? I already showed where he made statements about him doing drugs and he has so far refused to admit that it was a joke. However, I do have a harassing email from him which makes it sure that he wasn't joking about his use. And Rodhullandemu, you can say it isn't a venue all you want, but I was posting a question to Jimbo, and this is -always- a place to do so. If Jimbo didn't want it, he can ask. However, your continue pushing the issue shows that you have gone beyond what is proper. You can label me whatever you want, but you have only proven that you are no longer here to abide by our policies. If you really felt that my comments were meaningless, you would have ignored them. However, your disruption and vigor on the matter suggests that you recognize that it is a serious issue, which verifies that your response is unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides that he might or might not use certain legal or illegal drugs, is there any problem with his edits and actions as an admin or editor? If so, you should start pointing them out with dif's. If not, it's time for you to stop your personal crusade!!!!!!!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem which has been pointed out multiple times: he is 1. an admin who has a history of making controversial decisions and 2. operates a secret account whose edits cannot be put under scrutiny. Having impaired judgment from a mind altering drug would be problematic with both of these. And a personal crusade? This is one day with an individual who was claimed by his defenders like you to be joking or not be a problem, but is unwilling to come out and be straight forward about it. Instead of being open, honest, and to the point he is allowing people like you to make massive disruption in order to avoid from a severe problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So where are the dif's for those alleged "controversial decisions"????? You don't provide dif's, you don't provide any proof whatsoever. I don't know the admin in question at all and I don't know you but I know that you're throwing out accusations and don't back it up at all. That is simply bad mouthing. It is clear by now, that you have a personal agenda here, grinding an axe.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NO, you are wasting our time. Give us a brake.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Hans' comment a little further above. So let's put a fact-tag behind Chillum's "drug" statement. *smile* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously folks, reacting hysterically to someone using drugs is bad, it can really mess people up. You might start out thinking it is innocent experimentation and that you can stop anytime, but before you know it you can take over your life. Chillum 18:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Chillum, maybe you should share a little bit with Ottava. He could do with some mellowing. :) Crafty (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Our job here is to write an encyclopedia not to enforce the drug laws wherever we are located and, even here, this thread is a disgrace. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has stated that we are talking about drug laws, SqueakBox. Before you make such incivil attacks, please make sure to read the discussion. This is about operating an administrator account with a history of disruptive and inappropriate blocks overturned by consensus while admitting to long term drug use by drugs that are Class A and thus have a major effect on judgment. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Now its me making the uncivil attacks? Sigh. Isnt that a case of projection? And what apart from the law are we talking about; its none of your damn business what people do in their own homes and your using this so-called forum to harass people is a disgrace; and what do you mean class A drug? You declare that this has nothing to do with drug laws and then go about class A drugs, presumably that refer to laws where you are located but do not refer to wikipedia. This user is beiong very disruptive and aggressive. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 20:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Geez Ottava you will have to point out this "history of disruptive and inappropriate blocks overturned by consensus". My actions have generally stood up to scrutiny, not sure what you are referring to. Chillum 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, are you seriously going to claim that? Moni3 has already asked if you were currently high because of earlier claims that were similar. Other people echoed this view. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

long term? Rodhull andemu 19:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, long term. Chillum has had a lot of blocks overturned or other admins questioning his decisions for a very long time. Moni3 asked if Chillum was on drugs right now because of his highly questionable actions just today. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I already asked you to substantiate these claims about my actions being regularly overturned, you responded with incredulity, now you are repeating these claims. Where are those blocks you speak of? Provide evidence or stop making baseless claims. Chillum 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa, this gets more and more pathetic as it drags out. It is clearly not going to go anywhere, so can we just cut the vamping and move on? I'll have a few tokes for you tonight. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when do you speak for Jimbo? Jimbo has not responded, so you cannot say this has gone no where. This was a question for him. Why are you so eager to derail it unless you believe that there is impropriety? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh* Excirial wanders off to find a truckload of icecubes. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} has placed some icecubes so everyone can get a cool drink! Nothing is more important then a cool head during a heated discussion, so help yourself!

Remember to Keep cool during discussions. Overheated machinery tends to break down. :)

Unfortunately i was out of dove's, so i guess a cool drink will have to do for now. The temperature is a bit hot around here, so take a good glass of lemonade with a few ice cubes to cool down, and then resume talking. Nothing better then a cool resfreshment to cool down a heated discussion!. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly ask yourself this people-What would Jimbo think of this?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

~~Ottawa~~. Ottava. Nobody is making "incivil attacks" but you [although not uncivil] by taking this way to serious and out of proportion. You really should try to relax and let it go. There is no need at all for a "crusade" here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling something pathetic and other such claims are incivil. Now, the name is clearly Ottava. If you cannot get that right, why are you responding? And why do you seek to defend something that is clearly inappropriate? We have standards that say not to edit while intoxicated. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, sorry for not using my reading glasses all the time.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what she said.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm so drugged up that I just can find them (my reading glasses). World peace *smile* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Can an extremely high or drunk person even type properly? I would have thought that they would either make huge number of typos or just collapse and start giggling. Gizza^Discuss ^© 01:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying hard, very hard and by typing those words I'm now probably on someone's black list of drug abusing editors (even so my doc subscribed it). *big smile* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My last statement for today to and in regards of user:Ottava Rima: All I can say by now is that it's time to add a block to your block history so you have time to calm down and think about the disruption you created today.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Talking of ice...

I think the title of this section is not entirely appropriate. I suggest a pole (not sure whether it should be a North or South pole) to decide between the following two alternative titles:

Admin making inappropriate references to drug use
Multiple admins demonstrably and repeatedly abusing their privileges as a result of longterm abuse of illegal drugs of the most dangerous kind

Any preferences? Hans Adler 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we dance against the pole? Crafty (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a poll on Crafty's idea first! Bielle (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that all users, not just admins, conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism at all times. Certain kinds of references to illegal drug use would not be appropriate in any normal workplace, and are therefore similarly are not appropriate for Wikipedia. At the same time, I see no need to get too up in arms about a joke, an error, or similar. If there's an ongoing pattern of behavior which appears to be disruptive or which would tend to reflect negatively on the project, then it could be addressed - preferably with a minimum of drama and hand-wringing. But based on my experience with hundreds of Wikipedians all around the world, we are in no danger of being overrun by drug fiends or anything. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of ice cubes, what's your favorite drink? (I prefer Diet Pepsi.) Wikipedia is not a chatroom, but moderate banter can boost morale. Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bailey's, no ice. A nice girly drink. It's all fat and sugar, mind you, so Slim's not allowed it very often. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is users accusing other users of taking drugs or implying it, this should lead lead to an automatic block as it happens here way too often, ie should really be policy. Its Ottava whose actions have been extremely unprofessional. Mine is a strong bitter, non sweet coffeeeven at this late hour; explains the difference between my and Slim's and Jechoman's editing habits I guess. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 04:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox, Chillum made a statement on his talk page admitting to taking drugs. He has not denied it nor stated it was a joke. His harassing email to me verifies that he does use drugs. I should be blocked for what reason? He posted it on his talk page. Jimbo has already stated that what he did was inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour towards Chillum is completely unacceptable and you have on various occasions accused him of "being high" at other times; to say you have Jimbo's support on this issue is rubbish; if you persist on trying to get Chillum de-sysopped over this (as you are threatening elsewhere) dont be surprised if others try to see your edit privileges permanently revoked for this harrassment; isn't it anyway traditional to take psychedelics on Halloween? While if Chillum's behaviour was unacceptable last night, if he had gone on a blocking rampage etc, yes sure there might have been an issue but this is all a fabrication of your mind. Right now we dont have to obey US laws on things like drugs to edit wikipedia (laws which certainly allow sick people to take cannabis) and that isnt likely to change. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 04:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Back up your claims with a diff or you will be in direct violation of WP:NPA. Jimbo made it very clear that Chillum shouldn't have posted that statement. And what kind of strange drug taking culture are you from? You aren't even staying focused with your own argument anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Otava, there was more for you in Jimbo's comment than there was for Chillum. Maybe you should read it again. Crafty (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. Jimbo was clear that Chillum shouldn't have posted. He also assumed that Chillum was joking. Chillum has not admitted that it was a joke although it has been directly asked multiple times. Jimbo only stated at the end that he was not afraid that there would be a lot of drug taking admin. It does not mean that he wouldn't think that if Chillum was honest there would be no problem here. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please provide links to your claims or strike. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What claim do you want me to back up with a diff. And you have just (elsewhere) accused Chillum of being high - this behaviour has got to stop as it is becoming serious harassment from somebody who has no idea who may or may not be under the influence of whatever. I am getting involved because your behaviour making wild accusations is so unacceptable; you are not Chillum's boss so stop behaving like you are. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 04:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This will be the third time that I've asked you to provide diffs to where I claimed he was high. I have not. You are seriously violating multiple policies with your statements, and your claims about trolling are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(←)Whatever, O. You keep climbing that Reichstag, kiddo. :) Crafty (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Crafty, the rate of you and others posting and the hysterical levels, such as dramatically calling this a witch hunt and other such things when there has only been simple questions shows that your accusation is in the reverse. The fact that Chillum has threatened me twice via email, dramatically put himself into a "wikibreak", and I have been attacked in such inappropriate manner by people who should have known better only shows that there is an inappropriate level of hostility here from your side which has no clear connection to what has been said on my side. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the time of year witchhunt is an appropriate of what is going on here, unfortunately not for the first time against this user so any paranoia is completely understandable especially given your wild drug accusations that have no foundation. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A witch hunt is used to denote paranoia feud investigations without evidence. This was a simple straight forward inquiry about a statement a user placed prominent on their user page with no ramifications. Yes, you are speaking in hyperbole that results in an argument of the ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You have no evidence Chillum is high on drugs so witchhunt is the appropriate term; if you have a complaint about Chillum's edit last night you should go to AN/I but so far you have nothing to complain about; you are angry at previous history and you are trying to expel that anger and get a reaction; online its called trolling and should stop now, as various editors are requesting of you; this whole thread, not my contributions, is both ridiculous and disturbing; a user trolls an admin accusing him of being permanently high on class A drugs on repeated occasions. Also given that Jimbo has only made one edit to this thread I find your request for a diff to be bizarre; are you sure its not you under the influence? Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 04:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to refamiliarize yourself with the thread. I linked to Chillum's page and asked Jimbo if that was appropriate. I did not accuse Chillum of being high, but I did ask him if he uses drugs while editing. He has yet to respond, and he has not stated that the quote was a joke although he has been asked directly. I have not accused him of being high, so this will be the fourth time you've been requested to provide diffs. Your current user page soap boxing makes it seem like you will probably not be backing up your claims any time soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am jsut sick and tired of trolling editors making unrealistic claims that editors they dotn like take drugs- it mostly happens to editors who edit drug related articles but its unacceptable anywhere. If you think its acceptable maybe you should seek a different hobby, here we Assume good faith and that not every person drunk on Saturday night is not sober come work on Monday morning; I can also see you are so full of aggression right now that you aren't going to listen to what I say anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you can accuse me of being full of aggression when I have asked you to simply provide diffs to back up the claim that I accused him of being high. And I find it odd how you make a statement about unrealistic claims when there was a clear statement and post from Chillum about him being on acid at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, people edit Wikipedia all the time in what might be called altered or unusual brain states. They edit under the influence of prescription and non-prescription drugs, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine; they may be very happy or very sad, in a good mood or very bad mood, suffering from depression or grief; there may be mental illness or personality issues; they may be tired or bored and not paying close enough attention, or hurt and angry and out to do damage. It makes little sense to point to just one of these causes of less-than-ideal cognition and say, "That one's never allowed." What we do is judge people by their edits, howsoever caused, and as Chillum didn't make any, there's nothing to judge. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been responded to with a smiling actor. Hopefully this will assist you in lightening up. This notice is intended to be humorous and not to be construed as an attack. Sswonk (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No editing while high occurred

A look at Chillum's contribs indicates he did not edit while high on LSD other than to his talk page once. So in no way can his actions be considered inappropriate - professionalism means not working in an altered state, and Chillum has indeed acted to this high professional standard. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this issue may be an acnestis for some editors. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Acnestis? Thanks for the new word. It's quite recondite. :) Franamax (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried pointing that out up above, many paragraphs ago. Nobody listened. :( Also, Malleus Fatuorum has got it in his head that since Chillum wasn't editing with his primary account during the time in question, he must have been making drug-addled edits with a secondary account that we don't know about. It's all rather surreal. I'm glad the weekend's over and that people will have less free time for drama now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Now I do not know if this is the right place to respond to this, but I had a very interesting discussion about this with my wife last night. We went out for drinks at our local bar, and met up with my brother in law, Friedland. Now I have to say neither me or my wife are big dabblers in the illicit substances. My wife smoked a couple of "pipes" whilst at "art college", but I don't think you would call her a heavy user. Friedland, however, is one of those whacked-out-righteous dudes who drags away on rave puff whilst building wicker men. His biggest was a 30 foot one he made for the burning man, but that's enough of that right now. By the way, before any of you think about calling the feds, Friedland is a pseudonym.

Anyway, I'm getting off the point. Me and my wife had been talking about the "drugs on wikipedia" discussion, and as I knew Friedland was a bit of a heavy user, I thought I'd ask his advice. He gave "respect" to Chillum for taking things to the edge as he does - entering a whole new trancendental realm. He thought that was some higher power stuff, and was pleased. But he did point out the wisdom of going about it on Wikipedia. Michael Palin recently admitted to taking cocaine, but Michael Palin is considered to be a national treasure in some circles, and can get away with it. He also said that you probably wouldn't want to edit wikipedia on acid unless you were a total crazy or really really into wikipedia. My wife then said "Ah, but which one is Chillum?".

We also wanted to know that if he has a mysterious "undisclosed" account, how are we sure that this account isn't the one for all his crazy drug larks, and that he might be trying to avoid the consequences of 'shooting up the bank' whilst all heffed up on power dust. And I don't know if I like that. If Chillum is a fine role model for children, and my daughter was still of an impressionable age, I would be concerned if she was following his actions! Editing Wikipedia under the influence can lead to disasterous consequences IN REAL LIFE, and that is not something either me or my wife would want to happen to our daughter. We don't really think of Chillum as an 'adopted son', but perhaps someone in need of a bit of guidance at a difficult time. Temptation comes in many forms.

Other than that, it was a lovely evening out - me and Friedland are chalk and cheese, but we get on a treat, and bring out the best in each other. Yours, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note I go ahead, here, to Wiklink "chalk and cheese" (in the service of readers who are, um, ignorami, such as misself).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Q

Would an admin who was a member of the Native American Church be required to refrain from the use of psychotropics even when not editing?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Jimmy, please see my comment here. As a concerned member of the community I think this is something you could do to help. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Jimmy, please do yourself a favour and ignore all of the above section, unless of course you'd like to get a needless headache. RMHED (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor Jimbo...

Y'all realize Wales probably has a headache with the orange bar sticking on every few minutes... The reason for "Y'all" is that this page is practically not Jimbo's anymore :P Zoo Fari 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The price of fame is high it seems. ;) Crafty (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for contributing to your talk page nightmare. Chillum 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it hurt when I do this? HalfShadow (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was always wondering why editors do this (posting their "dirty laundry stuff" here). Still don't get it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, this talk page is the most forum-like I've seen on Wikipedia. Zoo Fari 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That, perhaps, is because people believe Jimmy to possess infinite powers and wisdom, and as a final arbiter, is some sort of deus ex machina to be wheeled out when all else fails- except it's usually when "all else" has not even been considered, let alone tried. Rodhull andemu 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

^^^This. Rarely brings about what the petitioner wants though. And nor should it. Crafty (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And still, there is no way to protect him (Jimbo) from such unless he himself would apply for page protection. *smile*. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be unhelpful unless this page were a constant source of vandalism, and it is not, since savvy vandals realise that it is among the most watched of pages here, so they go elsewhere; what is more to the point is that this page is sometimes used by those who are perhaps unaware of the various remedies available, particularly on other language Wikipedias. A header box similar to those on WP:ANI *might* reduce this, but that does not address those who come with an axe to grind. Rodhull andemu 01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict, and after the last comment above it still applies depending on how one determines vandalism). Maybe he should add one of those userboxes that say:"This page was vandalized XX times". *grin* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There ain't a datatype big enough for that counter. DMacks (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

!

Check out this listing posted at my local section of Craigslist. What!?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Craigslist staff are probably willing to take it down if asked - maybe leave a note for Mike Godwin or his counterpart at Craigslist. Paying someone to violate a website's use policy is probably some form of business tort, and may even break some anti-hacking laws. I'd be tempted to go undercover and respond to see what they're up to, though the posting itself could be a trap. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I think you [Wikidemon] should go undercover and report your findings.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If not you, someone really should!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, could you please appoint me administrator? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In regards of your edit summary and your comment here: You don't need a badge, You make it up. You don't need a gun, you make one with words. You don't need to be an admin, you make it up (as plenty of editors already thought you are one anyways).

So GO GET THEM! ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NO! The first question will ask for your user name, then the prospective employer will see if that user is an admin. That the job is specifically offered to an admin only is especially stinky. I hope a real admin steps forward to respond to the ad, to find out who wants an admin in the pocket. —Finell (Talk) 04:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's extremely alarming. I can't imagine that you'd actually require admin status to dig further though. Let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
-K10wnsta (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh just ignore it. This is hardly the first time paid editing has come up. Prodego ^talk 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page has truly turned into a [25]...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^, how so?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you dare deny this talk page is not a crazy den of pigs? :D--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, wasn't this thread called something else a few minutes ago??? (I TOLD YOU CRAAAZZYY DEN OF PIGS!)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I just now put two and two together, realizing that your handle is the traditional call to pigs. BTW, Sooo Kawii, why is that the traditional call, anyway? I'll have to look up its etymology. Still, I don't necessarily believe that Mr Wales's talkpage has become a piggery. (Hmm -- and, so, now I'm wishing I had access to the finally published The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary (whose Wikiarticle is here), to find a cooler synonym for piggery, for my use here.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kawaii is the Japanese word for cute! Silly person! see this educational video-[26] --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. (So is this webpage Japanese or Korean?)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerned about getting fair review of a complaint against an editor who is an administrator.

Hello. I'm writing to inform you of a complaint against an administrator for wikihounding, disruptive editing, and improper tagging of good faith edits as vandalism. I'm concerned about getting fair review and fair resolution of this matter, given that the editor in question, Arthur Rubin, is also an administrator and has a long history, according to his current and archived talk pages, of engaging in reversion practices that have upset a very long list of people and yet there has been no action taken in the past. The case is ongoing here. The problem began after I made a simple addition of a book to a reading list on a controversial page that I had never edited in the past. Within the next 9 minutes, Arthur Rubin not only reverted this edit and labelled it as vandalism, but hounded me by visiting multiple other pages I had contributed to where he had no previous editing experience and did batch reversions of my contributions calling them also vandalism or "not helpful", even if it included the fixing of spelling errors. Even after making it clear my edits weren't vandalism, he continued to revert all of my edits to all pages, and he'll make successive excuses as to the reasons why. I'm seeing initial evidence that some people reviewing this may be trying to reduce this matter to being a case of him labelling things as vandalism rather than taking the time to write out a genuine reason for reverting. That's not the issue here, in my opinion. I feel bullied and hounded, and it's intimidating coming from an administrator. Thank-you. MeSoStupid (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't do dispute resolution, please see WP:Dispute resolution for the standard procedures. MBisanz ^talk 06:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Links for different languages

Dear Jimbo Wales, First of all deep thanks for this incredible chain-link library you created, there are few men who believed in sharing information,sharing power. Without being too long I would like to suggest you to create a link in between Wikipedia pages in different language. I will try to explain myself better with an example: If I'm looking for "Income Approach" the english page will turn up. NOW if I want to know what is its corresponding result in Italian for instance?Or German? Since I'm sure there are their corresponding pages in different languages it will take only few second to create even an ultimate tool for translation. It sounds to me a great idea, and it will only take a few to reserve a small buttons section for languages. That will make the difference to something that already seems perfect. Hope to hear from you soon

Roberto S. <Email redacted; it is not necessary to provide personal contact information> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.186.137 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Many articles already have such links available, but their creation depends on volunteers taking the time to make them and do not have perfect coverage. The best thing to do, when you find one that is missing, is to drop a note on the talk page requesting the help of someone who is used to making them (or, better yet, learn how to do so and place them as you find them!) — Coren ^(talk) 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

This edit remained in your BLP for almost 14 hours even though over 800 accounts have the article watchlisted (I'm not one of them). Note that this happened in spite of the article being semi-protected. Perhaps you might have a personal stake in trying to expedite the implementation of a strict version of flagged revisions? Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense is of no consequence to Jimbo's reputation. I am sure Jimbo is more concerned about implementing flagged revisions to protect Wikipedia from embarrassment. —Finell (Talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You think? I'm not normally the tinfoil hat wearing type, but lately my cynical side is thinking that foundation level support is more fiction than reality. Kevin (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? There would be no Wikipedia were it not for the server farm, IT staff, administration, and software development that Wikimedia Foundation provides. So you don't think the Foundation gives enough? This whole project, and its sister projects, live solely on the Foundation's charity. If the Foundation ever gets fed up with all the nonsense and drama, they flip a switch, and you can kiss your hobby goodbye. —Finell (Talk) 09:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he means foundation-level support of FR, given the long implementation timetable. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my meaning. Kevin (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I already strongly support the introduction of Flagged Revs to the English Wikipedia as soon as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that it's the way it's going to be, but for those who haven't looked at it yet - there is a test version of sorts available at: flaggedrevs.labs.wikipedia.org. It might be worthwhile to have a look and provide any feedback to "the powers that be". Cheers to all. — Ched : ? 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI handling

Do you have an opinion on this ANI?

Admins don't like wikipedia policies. When will this end? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not compelled to like policies, only to respect and apply them. Rodhull andemu 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A project you might be interested in

Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support and rejuvenate the enwiki community. I'm looking to get a handful of people to get it off the ground, so what are your thoughts on this? Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds far too much like Wikipedia:Esperanza. We killed that once, we don't need a re-run.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote from project page: It should be noted that this project is only similar to Wikipedia:Esperanza in that its general premise is to support volunteers; it does not intend to repeat the issues tied to Esperanza. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 19:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The "issues toed to Esparanza" was that it existed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Esperanza had a lot of problems. The idea of supporting volunteers is a great one - if done in ways that are consistent with, you know, actually supporting volunteers. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I had no interaction with Esperanza when it was active. I looked at the archived talk pages and was surprised by the discussion and bureaucracy that went on. I am wary but feel a project with a quiet but firm insistence on informality and discussion (and good structure of talk and process pages rather than layers of users) could function markedly differently - i.e. open to all, users are only differentiated by activity and there is no 'council' to speak of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Supporting volunteers" is, naturally, an idea that no-one will oppose. If anyone has concrete ideas on how we can do that, then everyone should be open to them. I'm just less convinced that a new group or project is the way to go. Two reasons: 1) Good ideas are good ideas, organisations and governments generally set up special groups when they have a lack of any ideas. If people have good ideas, there are currently lots of avenues open to them to propose and develop them. So I don't see what good the project does (although it may otherwise be perfectly harmless). 2) The ESP experience was not only negative because it was obsessed with its own structures, it was also negative in that it create a feeling that there were a self-appointed group of moral guardians running about rudely telling people to be civil - which certainly did not aid in creating a supportive environment (granted, most of them were well-meaning).

I suspect I'm also suspicious of moves that begin with vaguely pointing at current dramas and tensions and suggesting that they are evidence of some new deterioration and that things would be better if we could rewind to some golden age. Are things worse? What's the evidence of that? I remember far more drama in the past, and far more incivility. What is really needed to kick off any reform is a more sophisticated identification of what the problem is that one is trying to tackle. People are people, rudeness is rudeness; it has always been that way. If anyone can mitigate against some of that - good luck to them, but until there's some specifics there's nothing much to discuss.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We-ell, discussion of civility has been floating around since last December, and once some arb stuff had settled, I threw up this - Wikipedia:Civility/Poll - to see what the lay of the land was (i.e. try to get a broader view rather than a vocal minority). Views conflicted but there did seem to be some consensus on problems with areas concerning new users. Coupled with some data about fall off in new editors, led to me kicking off Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users, which has led to more discussion, but no consensus on direction really. Might be time to revisit the page, which I haven't done in a while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get rolling the 'initiative' I talked about there this week end. I think a RFC on policy enforcement and dispute resolution is also badly needed (and some changes)... Cenarium (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Trouble on WP: an open letter

Dear Mr. Wales:

This letter is an alert, and a request for action in relation to disruption on Wikipedia that discourages good faith editors.

I am a well-credentialed contributor to WP under the user name Brews ohare, a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Laboratories, a former Editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, a professor of EE at the University of Arizona, and the author of technical books and articles. I don't think WP wishes to loose such editors. I have however grown such a distaste for interaction with the WP environment that I have decided to withdraw for the time being.

There are two major problems: one is lack of control of incivility, and the other is Administrators run amok.

As for the first, talk-page guidelines such as WP:Civil WP:NPA WP:Talk WP:Poll and others are flaunted. These violations are ignored by administrators, who even make violations themselves. The use of bans, and threats to ban, are applied unequally by administrators to sway the balance of talk-page discussion, making them bullying participants rather than administrators. The disruptions by uncivil editors and the interference by administrators make open discussion on talk-pages difficult or impossible , and these unwarranted activities encourage intolerance of even sourced mainstream opinion.

As for the second, administrators have lost sight of their roles. Administrators must be reminded that they don't run WP, they moderate it. Their role is to catalyze open discussion of sourced material, the backbone of WP, not to intrude their own preferences. Whether administrators are simply inept or subject to la folie des grandeurs, it is inexcusable for administrators to be unreflective, belligerent, and cavalier about WP welfare. A mutual admiration society is not healthy. I have proposed some sensible guidelines for administrators .

This matter has reached a point where careful review of administrators' actions is mandatory to avoid destruction of WP. It is insufficient to simply repeat to administrators their responsibilities. Some direct action is needed, and some administrators must be removed from their positions to underline the seriousness of these duties. Perhaps a committee can initiate review, which will take some time. A simpler, and possibly effective action, would add an additional approach for administrator recall to those presently under review, an approach allowing easier removal of administrators who fail to execute their duties impartially, and do not observe and enforce guidelines .

These matters are serious, and a letter cannot explain them adequately. Upon request, I'd be delighted to augment my description of the intolerance to open discussion outlined above with details from recent discussion at WP:NOR and from the Case/Speed of light. Although this particular case was completely mishandled, I wish to emphasize that I have little interest in overturning the remedies imposed there. I am highlighting this case, with which I am very familiar, simply as a blatant example of biased and uncomprehending lack of judgment on the part of administrators, where their laxity in enforcing guidelines led to a complete circus on Talk: Speed of light, and indeed, in the conduct of the case itself.

I hope action will be taken that restores a cooperative editing atmosphere on WP. I wish for WP's ultimate success in achieving a healthy editing environment, but prompt and decisive action is needed.

Regards,

John R Brews

Brews ohare (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Check this out!

Check out my sandbox! Maildiver (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

More convenient replacement for the tag "ref"

Demo sample for SciRefs script can be found here

Hello. I've made a new script instead of tags <ref> in "scientific" style (but compatible with it and any other markup). It's simpler than tags "ref", for this example:

[Greenwood, 1997|p.1202] in a body of the article, and

[*Greenwood, 1997] and description of a book - in the "Bibliography" section.

Fixed problem with page numbers in books - many links with different numbers of pages can be refer to one book in "Bibliography".
Backlinks highlighted in yellow (button "Back" in browser can be used to find backlink and not interrupt the reading).
It's compatible with any other wiki markup, but need to use {{SciRefsOn}} in any part of the article to turn script on (precaution for compatibility, if there any articles have [*...] sequence in their text).
Not cluttered article text with tags "ref".
This reference style corresponds to the convention of scientific literature.

Working sample, based on article zinc (it is not my article, I chose it at random), I've placed here: http://ru.great.wikia.com/wiki/Zinc Source code of script is here. X-romix (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard citation systems cause more problems than they solve. It fact, there isn't a problem to solve. We already have guidelines on citing sources, footnotes, and the like. Please do not substitute your new system for the existing standard usages without community consensus. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is common scientific standard (Harvard referencing system).

The two most common types of referencing systems used are:
author-date systems—such as the Harvard system, APA and MLA

numerical systems—such as Chicago or Turabian, Vancouver and Footnote [27]

It is possible to adjust showing reference (author-date or numerical) system in the personal user settings. X-romix (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support making refs easier to read and easier to use. You might want to pass this along to the usability team?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll write them. X-romix (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. X-romix (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding a Link..

Aloha Jimbo.. Just wondering if you can help me out.. I wanted to add my website link to [28] as I have the biggest and most up to date "V" website on the net.. Just wondering if you can please add it to the external link section, as when I do, it gets removed, and my last membership was banned for spam etc, when all I did was add a link, and changed it a couple of times trying to get it looking right..

My website is The V Files and can be found at [29].. Thank you for your time and patience.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VGooderV (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the external link policy when your other account got blocked? Specifically, I'm referring to this part of WP:ELNO:

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

Your website is both a personal web page as well as a fansite, and it isn't written by a recognised authority (i.e. you or your company don't meet Wikipedia's WP:BLP notability requirements). From what you've mentioned here there was a clear reason provided for your blocking - excessive linkspamming. I would strongly advise that you cease trying to add your personal website as an external link.

P.S.: Your site seems to be trying to access your secured CPanel page whenever someone loads your index page; any visitors who load your page will be hit with a box asking them to login or cancel (take it from a multimedia/IT student, that's going to confuse people). You might like to fix that. SMC (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain.. Aloha.> Well just wondering if you can explain why others can link then.. There is an unofficial forum there that has nothing to do with the show officially.. Being this:

[30] They are not affiliated with the show, at least I have backing from Jace Hall and Scott Rosenbaum, executive producers.. Also how is [31] official? Site has nothing to do with the show only a review so why can they? So why can others be allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VGooderV (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can You embed external images to this site

Hi, Hi my name is Jerem Jurey and i lived in Sidney,Iowa. Is it possible to embed by url or upload by url, as i have a bunch of Park Ridge Transit Photos that i would like to place in the article, and am wondering it that is possible,

User talk:Matt037291 13:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Talk page. Rodhull andemu 13:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know....

...that whenever I see a racist comment on any page, I plan to remove it, and I will likely block the contributor. Please let me know if you have any problems with this. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds completely appropriate to me. Be sure to carefully follow policy and of course don't over-interpret remarks. But yes, racist commentary has no place in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [32] just wrecked my head. I hate this kind of garbage, deeply. I thought about this post a bit while at work today, and I should add a disclaimer that I wouldn't remove material that is "contextual," within an article. For example, a (very stupid) politician who has made some kind of racist remark that was noteworthy, or you know, historical comments, that are part of the knowlege base in WP. But if it's just random bigotry that I happen to find here and there, well....none of us should suffer such fools gladly. Or at all. Thanks for the "nod." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. Sometimes articles need to cover racism and racist attitudes. Of course we'll need to have examples in at least some such cases. I understood your meaning the first time around. But yeah, that comments - the one you linked to, above - is clearly out of line and not ok for Wikipedia at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Doughnut Drive 2009

Hi Jimbo. I hope you're going to participate in this important event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dang! I gained 5 lbs looking at that page! Thelmadatter (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser on ruwiki disclosed the IP address of a user

Ruwiki checkuser ru:user:Ilya Voyager published the IP address of a user which he obtained using his checkuser privileges. Please check if this type of behavior is in agreement with Wikipedia privacy policy. That's the link to his edit in which he disclosed the IP address. SA ru (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Best to ask the other checkusers to look into it, as well as Russian admins. Without a more detailed understanding of the circumstances than I am able to get from reading Russian (which I can't read at all!), it is difficult for me to offer any concrete advice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Russian checkusers are not trustworthy -- at least in my opinion. Just to give you an example, they checked ru:user:Lvova to investigate the development of her love affair with her boyfriend who happened to be a banned user. Russian checkusers are very close friends; they would stand for each other. IMHO, an independent inspection is needed. In this particular case the user was accused in adding links to official sites of some musicians. His/her IP was disclosed for absolutely no reason. SA ru (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the notion of an investigation - but I'm not able to conduct it myself. I would talk to other (non-Russian) checkusers, who have the experience and ability to look into it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please forward my request to the checkusers who could conduct an independent investigation? They might also want to look at this summary of ruwiki checkusers' inappropriate behaviors. SA ru (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that the Ombudsman Commission has the mandate to investigate possible privacy violations by volunteers (in particular, use of Checkuser). You might want to contact them. — Coren ^(talk) 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I contacted Ombudsman commission in the past and found it to be mostly a waste of time. The major problem is they do not speak Russian, so it is difficult to explain to them the actions of ruwiki users/checkusers. They also tend to stop responding to e-mails at some point. In my opinion, they do not provide appropriate protection for the users against the intrusions into their privacy by strangers (nobody really conducts background checks on the checkusers) who gained access to the confidential information. SA ru (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I also contacted ombudsman comission when russian checkusers investigated my wiki-mails (ru:User:DR), but there was very small effect. Serebr (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit more information about this incident. Checkuser DR used his tools to inspect the mail usage by Serebr. Then, he published in Wikipedia the following information: "Serebr sent N e-mail messages to other users". Despite this outrageous violation, DR is still a checkuser and continues to operate in a similar manner. SA ru (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Ombudsman commission did take the case of Serebr very seriously and after internal discussions we came to a conclusion which is publicly available e.g. here. Before that, ru-Arbcom decided whether rules were broken in the same case, their decision can be found here. Note that unlike ru-arbcom we did criticize the action as not necessary, however not as a breach of the privacy policy.

Please note also that the foundation itself has clearly stated that it wishes the Ombudsman commission to deal exclusively with violations of the privacy policy (see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/048981.html). They stated that violations of the meta checkuser policy which covers important topics like unneccessary checks, political control, valid reason for checkuser should be handled by local arbcoms or, if not existing, the stewards. Obviously, we do not want to act against the will of the foundation. --Tinz (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Ombudsman commission understands privacy in a very unusual way. Serebr identified himself, and it is well known who he is: first and last name, age, residence. Therefore publishing the number of his e-mails automatically reveals personal information about a concrete person. This would be equivalent to somebody publishing your library record, a list of the books you bought in the bookstore or the number of times you had a doctor appointment. An argument "we are not publishing information that identifies you; we are publishing information that identifies what you do" would be simply stupid. People participate in Wikipedia with some common sense assumptions about privacy. If Wikipedia offers an e-mail function, it is obvious that information about the e-mail must not be published. I suggest that your commission reconsiders this issue. Alternatively you must publish a disclaimer that e-mail privacy can be broken by a so-called "checkuser", and such action is approved by the foundation. Without such disclamer, wikipedians have a false sense of safety and privacy when using the e-mail. SA ru (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not following drame on ru-wikipedia, but the IP made the same spam edits on the same article as the both accounts in the report see e.g. [33] none needs checkuser to guess that the accounts are connected. I think ru:user:Ilya Voyager would better not to mention the IP in the sock report whether he guessed the connection using the checkuser tools or not but I personally see no crime here. AFAIK ru:user:Lvova was under checkuser investigations because she been quite a trusted wikipedian (a member of OTRS, an admin on ru-wikipedia and a spokesperson for Russian Wikichapter) has shared her IP with a notorious sockpuppeeter GSB. Nobody as far as I can tell was interested in her love life. I am a proponent of creation a sort of interproject conflict investigation team to act when serious allegations against a project arbcom but I am not sure there are anything interesting in this incident Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The mere fact that the same edits were made from different accounts does not prove that the accounts are connected. Besides, the user might have revealed his IP address accidentally. There was absolutely no need to confirm the correspondence using the checkuser tools. Yes, Ilya Voyager used his checkuser priveledge to get the user's IP address. This is clear from his report. And yes, he violated the rules because the rules do not allow to publish IP addresses. It may or may not be that in this particular case no damage was done. But the next time Ilya Voyager publishes somebody's IP address, the damage can be quite substantial. I've been watching the activity of Russian checkusers for some time, and they clearly systematically violate the rules. For example, they would expose the correspondence between different users working from the same IP address. (I have proof for that, and unlikely the checkuser did not realize that those were different users.) They would conduct a check for a frivolous reason. They would even intentionally falsify the data. (This is known for sure.) Their routine of publishing the results of their checks, so that everybody can read those, does not make any sense. Why are they doing this? Does this help Wikipedia or their intention is to harass people? You are also wrong about Lvova. Checkuser Kv75 was invited to her apartment in Moscow, and he could see with his own eyes that she lived together with the sockpuppeter, and they used the same computer. Now tell me what kind of additional information about Lvova was there to find by conducting the checks? If she shares her IP with the boyfriend, her account will match his automatically. Of course, I do not know what exactly they checked because I do not have access to the logs. But Drbug has the logs in his disposal, and he testified that the checks were performed in depth, with the intention to investigate the travel of Lvova and her boyfriend and the time periods they spent together. Drbug specifically complained that those actions were an intrusion into the personal life of a young woman. Lvova herself complained about this several times in livejournal. She even sprayed one of her harassers with water at the recent wiki-conference in St. Petersburg. She also hinted that the checkusers were interested in her love life, but I would not speculate on that because these remarks are sketchy. SA ru (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to justify what mandate such team would have, however. For instance, I have a fairly clear mandate by this Wikipedia's community to investigate and solve disputes, but there is no reason someone on another project would see me as little more than a well intended newbie on theirs. I suppose it would be possible to have a "meta" ArbCom that has a project-wide mandate and would only involve itself when disputes cross project boundaries, but that's one heck of a project to start— let alone get off the ground. — Coren ^(talk) 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

*cough*m:Global arbitration committee & m:Requests for comment*cough* MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We still have the five pillars valid for all our projects. I have heard horror stories about tight cabals taking over small language projects and actually driving out all others (I have no idea is it true of false). Even for the large projects like en-wiki Arbcom can have difficulties in keeping neutrality if many Arbcom members are involved (like the FT2 or the IRC cases). The current meta-Arbcom does not seem to be of great help as it stands now. Maybe its authority can be explicitly supported by WMF? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Privacy issues should not be handled by communities because nobody really controls their procedures. As the result, complete strangers obtain access to private information. Privacy issues should be handled centrally. If there is a complaint about checkuser actions, such complaint should be taken seriously. SA ru (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The banner.

Please see this thread on it. Your input, and hopefully, action concerning the matter would be greatly appreciated.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just telling how great you are

Hey there. I know that I shouldn't engage in general chat in Wikipedia (I like to keep discussions related to Wikipedia), but I must do this. I came here to say how fantastic it is to see that a founder of such a big organizaion/company as Wikipedia is, creates pages and edits like everyone else, when I am sure that you have alot of other things to do. I must say that I admire you very greatly. Ilyushka88 talk 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I wish that I could edit more. I'm often intimidated about editing, because I don't know very much about most of the things that I'm interested in. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I think that's the reason why most people don't edit that much ;) Being intimidated as they think that they don't know much about things they're interested in... Almost every edit is a good edit if it is constructive. WP:BB. To be honest, I have no idea why I am telling wikipedia founder to be bold heheh. My apologies. Ilyushka88 talk 23:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi there Jimbo, I never expected to be able to talk to the founder of Wikipedia, but now I do! Wow. Do you ever realize how helpful Wikipedia is to the entire world? For example, everyone I know uses Wikipedia for something (myself being the only active editor). Anyway, I just have always wanted to thank you for creating the most amazing tool on the Internet. Whenever I type something in on Google, Wikipedia comes up first the majority of the time. But WP:GOOGLEHITS tells us that it is not a guideline for notability, right? Well, in this case, I think it is. Thanks again! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arbiter has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!

Indeed, Wikipedia is helpful, and it's sad that high school school teachers (including mine) widely discourage its use. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 02:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Too true. When I was in high school, Wikipedia was strongly discouraged as an "unreliable source". Now that I have rollback rights and fight vandalism, I just can't see how misinformation would survive on Wikipedia. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 18:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. The teachers all forbid the using of Wikipedia as a source, and yet, all other internet sources have the same text. You can't escape Wikipedia, and that's a good thing. --15lsoucy (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A loophole I found sometimes was to check the sources that were cited on Wikipedia, and to use those instead. Not as great as Wikipedia, but it worked. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 19:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Something I have done as well, but what I am saying, is due to Wikipedia known credibility, many sites are copying Wikipedia. --15lsoucy (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, which inevitably leads to WP:CIRCULAR. The world would be a better place if Wikipedia were considered a valuable and credible source of information, which it is, of course. :) The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

When I was at school, computer programming was learning to punch holes into reels of paper tape. I instead chose to study typing - meaning I was the only other guy in a class of 30+ - which has proven more useful in adapting to the pc enabled present ... Not sure that this helps, except as an example that education generally follows (by quite some distance) rather than leads in the exploitation of new media. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell happened to BLP?

I'm posting this here because I know that damn near everybody who's anybody has this page on their watchlist, and because I know that the Biography of Living Persons Policy is something close to Jimmy's heart.

Check this out: Sol Wachtler

What's wrong you say? Sol Wachtler is the guy who very famously said that a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich. If you can find that quote anywhere on this page, I'll email you a cookie.

Furthermore, he's apparently trying to edit his own page, and I don't blame him. Someone - perhaps multiple someones - is very obviously trying to play up his downfall. Mr. Wachtler was both a lawyer and judge, and I'm sure did his job at least well enough to create some enemies. It takes one to find their way to the internet and try to get some payback.

The poor guy is 79 frippin' years old. If anybody is left here, please help him out and get some balance.

Also, please don't tell me to do it myself. I'm actually a writer for dough now, and don't have the time or, frankly, the inclination. I'm proud of my dasy and nights here, but I look back them and realize that I somehow managed to wade into one shit-storm of editor/admin conflict after another from pretty much day one. I don't blame exactly Wikipedia for that, but after a few years of personal growth (in spite of myself), I've simply lost the taste for the drama and ego, as well as what it did to me personally.

On a more general note, I'm very sorry to say that I'm using Wikipedia less and less as even a reference in my own online writing. This saddens me greatly as both a former editorial contributor and a current financial contributor (not trying to puff myself, we're talking like 10 bucks here and there).

For example, I recently had to call bullshit on the M. Scott Peck page because I used the Wikipedia link to try to introduce someone online to his writing. As I usually do, I just trusted that Wikipedia would at the very least get the basic facts right, which I consider to be impressive for Mr. Peck. It turns out that page was (probably still is) completely jacked (to point out the Encyclopedic problems with this page would take me a loong time), and contained a totally unsourced and untrue statement about him being secretly homophobic, when in fact it's exactly the opposite.

Just writing this much makes me feel guilty and shitty because I really DON'T have the time. For friends who see this and have left messages on my discussion page, use my email. Just call me the Alice who decided to side-step the rabbit hole.

--NinaOdell | Talk 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As a jurist, I'm sure Mr.

When (rollback) knights fall ...

Hello, my King ... Saw you pass through ANI today, where it appears I may soon lose the right to post more than 100 words with no formatting allowed—the price of extraordinary measures in service of BLP NPOV. (I.E., For this complex message, it is either now or never, hence tonight.)

No request for a touch of your all-powerful hand in this matter, but will ask of those all-knowledgeable who stand watch on your page to inform me if appealing such things is possible, or preventable, however much a bad idea that usually is.

Before I go, I will mention another good knight who says he is leaving—sufficiently abused by that tribalism which so often can unbalance human affairs.

Knights know this realm is not a system of justice, but being impaled by a travesty of it is quite unpleasant. :)

A report from the front ... and perhaps my last greater-than-100-word formatted communication. I close with half of something I composed and submitted when Signpost asked for "opinion" pieces.

Two Wikipedia [English] sonnets linked by the theme of civility (1 of 2)

{WPO.001.01} ____ PRETEND "IGNORE ALL RULES" somewhere applied.
{WPO.001.02} ____ Just humor me — we know it never does.
{WPO.001.03} ____ (By now a hundred people have decried
{WPO.001.04} ____ the format of this piece. A thousand "Huh?"s.)

{WPO.001.05} ____ Don't underline, or bold, ALL CAP, or rhyme!
{WPO.001.06} ____ Don't add subtopics when the topics shift!
{WPO.001.07} ____ To make talk quick-to-skim would be a crime!
{WPO.001.08} ____ It's never done that way! Don't get us miffed!

{WPO.001.09} ____ To not talk like we do is to DISRUPT
{WPO.001.10} ____ the habits we have long adapted to!
{WPO.001.11} ____ To place your words like that is to corrupt
{WPO.001.12} ____ old standards of community toward new!

{WPO.001.13} ____ RIGHT HERE is where CIVILITY kicks in:
{WPO.001.14} ____ TO YELL at talking diff'rently's a sin.

To those honorable souls who watch this page: I hope you will indulge this gesture briefly because I have cleaned at least one bit of trash from 5,000 pages of the project. And again, if there is an answer regarding any path of appeal, however quixotic and usually to be avoided, please let me know (here, or on my talk).

(the fallen knight salutes and withdraws) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Have some dignity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.43.123 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No one loses dignity by showing respect, or deference earned ... or as the wise armor polisher said: if you're going to suck up, do it from the back of a white horse. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Since I have been acused of appealing to Jimbo (rather than what I actually did, which was be too wussy to actually ask), I will get down off the horse and kneel ... and ask the founder's extraordinary release from pissant 100-word-limit prison. Such an act of grace will spare the community endless hours of suffering from my whining about it. Dear Mr. Wales, please release me. I will never do that again. (As many sonnets in your honor as you wish.) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, Ignore all rules applies

in one place where I'd never think it would.

Where social judgment, not clear rules, surmise

the crime and punishment. Frame bad and good.

Just ask Hannah Arendt what this portends:

"The social" overriding facts and fair.

Dismissing difs for BS from their friends.

Protest or ask a question? Don't you dare!

Submit. Shut up. Or we will block you out.

Don't wikilawyer us. For that we'll ban.

No truth but accusations that we spout.

Don't think that outcasts can defy the clan.

ButThereIsNotOneTribe at ANI.

SomeSayTheySpeakForAll. But that's a lie. # # # Proofreader77 (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you care?

Jimbo, I recently stumbled upon Wikipedia:JIMBODOESNTCARE. Some of it seemed a little brash, particularly the 'Summary' .. do you agree with this page? -- œ ^™ 13:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the page at all. It seriously misstates my position. It is very good to let people know that I can't make them sysop, but the idea that I don't care is just absurd. And certainly "you're just another number" is insulting to both me and the reader. The page could be renamed to "Jimbo would love to help you, but often can't" with an explanation about why I can't make people sysops, why I generally decline to get involved directly in content disputes, etc. This would be more welcoming to the user who is trying to solve a problem, and not insulting to me personally. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said! Jusda fax 20:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that page bit the dust fast. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Technology like Google Wave

Hi

I think a good idea would be to implement a technology like Google Wave. Wikipedia would be more flexible.

--Urs.Waefler (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you using Wave now? (I just got my invitation.) Perhaps related: did you see LiquidThreads beta in Signpost? Proofreader77 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How about allowing links to Wikia, for side article information?

Since you are one of the owners of Wikia, how do you feel about allowing people to link to articles there? Since the deletionists have succeeded in mass destruction of almost every character page their rampaging hordes have ever come across, as well as many episodes, weapons list, and other valid content, how about we add a link to the bottom of every Wikipedia article to a valid entry at Wikia, where the information was copied over to preserve it? People get their basic information at the Wikipedia, and if they want more detailed information, they know where they can find it at. As it is now, whenever a link to the Wikia is added, it is almost always deleted by someone. Its often the same information that was considered acceptable on Wikipedia for years, before a small group decided to change the notability guidelines, and use that as an excuse to mass destroy all that they did not like. By this simple compromise, everyone can have what they want. Dream Focus 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think allowing links to Wikia articles would be a fair and reasonable compromise as well. Good suggestion! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! That strategy worked pretty well for Digimon (which had the good fortune to not have anyone remove those links).--Twilight Helryx 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikia suggests that links to Wikia are very much allowed... --Tango (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on who is around at the time. In articles that get less traffic, they are often removed. Gantz and other articles keep having their link to the proper wikia deleted by a certain person citing something in the current guidelines. Changing it so it was automatically allowed, would keep people from deleting the link constantly. There are 90 articles on the Gantz Wikia [34]. Add a link back to the article, and watch how fast someone deletes it. Since it is something anyone can add to, some just don't consider it anything but fancruft, and think it should be erased whenever possible, and some have also stated they didn't want to drive people away from the Wikipedia to the Wikia. Dream Focus 16:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Links to Wikia are judged on the same criteria as links to any other external site, which is as it should be. There has been a lengthy discussion on Talk:Gantz explaining why the link isn't appropriate. I'm not going to reassess it and I'm sure Jimbo isn't either. The decision has been made. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of whoever is around at the time, determines if something is considered a valid link or not. Wikias with far less views or articles get external links added to them all the time. And since Jimbo runs Wikia, I am curious what he has to say about this. Many articles deleted from the Wikipedia, have their entire content moved over to the Wikia. No sense not linking to it there. Dream Focus 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Salwa Judum

This article really needs urgent intervention, because as far as I can see, none of the users editing it are adhering to a NPOV and it wouldn't surprise me if their all sockpuppets. As a result this article is completely untrustworthy. (Posted here to gain max attention) --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place to post this - look at the dispute resolution guide. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Was this ok?

89.207.160.254~ an IP belonging to Wolseley PLC, I just sent the company an Email telling them about the vandalism from one of their computers hoping they can take action. I'm fully capable of sending professional Emails required for this, so I was pretty confident. Hmmm I hope this was ok... --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Abuse response handles this, and I'm sure they're always looking for volunteers. I wouldn't contact an IP owner without it being on abuse response first, but I doubt you've caused any damage by asking them anyway (quite the opposite, actually!). SMC (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well I haven’t received a response from them yet. Will update if I do.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgant Werle

Hey Jimmy, care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Werlé? Grsz¹¹ 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Species: The Awakening

When I put the term in this header in the search button I get sent to this non-existent wikimedia page rather than to the article Species - The Awakening which is what i was looking for. This is entirely inappropriate as the show is displayed in various listings from the UK press association as Species: The Awakening but to be honest I don't even have any idea of where exactly would be the place to air this issue which for all I know affects a number of search terms. What I would like to do and would normally do is to set up a redirect tot he article but I cannot because of this automatic redirect to a non-existent wikimedia page. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information: when I type either "Species - The" or "Species: The" (without the quoatation marks) into the search box in the left column of this page, the first suggestion up is [35], which is also Species - The Awakening. If I type just "Species", I am sent to Species where there is a link to a disambiguation page listing the sci-fi movies of the name, including Species: The Awakening. I think I may be misunderstanding the question, as I cannot duplicate SqueakBox's results. Bielle (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is an odd error. Not sure this is the place to report it though. You enter into the search "Species: The Awakening" and it doesn't link to a Wikipedia page, but instead off to the Wikimedia page instead. That is strange. Dream Focus 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki prefixes are controlled at m:Interwiki map (with irregular updates). You can ask for a removal of the prefix Species:, though it would probably cause many broken links, added in December 2007 - not sure they'll accept and it doesn't appear possible to make exceptions. Cenarium (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have commented on that page, reporting it there. Dream Focus 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fund-raising

Hopefully this will be another successful season of fund-raising. I have renewed my support by donating $100 today. I see this as an excellent investment because wikipedia provides me an excellent platform for reading others' ideas and sharing my own ideas. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. As an user, I really appreciate your great help for Wikipedia. Thank you. Jagello (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing block request

Jimbo, I know that we haven't yet adopted a policy or guideline on paid editing, but you have said "I will personally block any cases that I am shown". User Chaser has identified one such case involving Jsamuel430 (talk · contribs) and the article for The Grief Recovery Institute. I suggest that a checkuser on the account would be prudent, in case this user has been editing with other accounts as well. Thanks and regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has permanently given up use of the block tool. If there are specific accounts you believe to be sockpuppets, you can file them at WP:SPI. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor hasn't edited since December of last year, only active for a two day period. Someone found this: [36], the organization apparently trying to hire someone to do a Wikipedia page, no rule against it then, and they probably not realizing there was anything wrong with this. The organization seems to have gotten a lot of major news coverage, so it qualifies for an article. Did this person receive payment for this, and make a Wikipedia page two months after they posted that job request, or just decide since they needed help to make one? Can you prove he/she only did it for the money? I think this was done as something innocently naive in this case. Dream Focus 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I was unaware that you had pledged not to use your blocking powers. Good for you. Perhaps you can have another admin do the blocking at your behest, which at least retains the spirit of your remark quoted above? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)