User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive A
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
(Old stuff cleared out.)
Note: If you've come here to complain about the sysops, or to tell me that I'm a tyrant, you'll likely find your purposes better served by a note to the wikien-l mailing list.
Please don't remove other people's messages from here, even if they are just being mean to me or complaining about something stupid. Yes, you're probably right that I don't need to see all that, but my concern is just that I might overlook something that ends up being important later. :-)
Messages from 2001 to 16 January 2003
I think Wikipedia should seriously consider marketing T-Shirts reading:
I am an opponent of the Cabal: Wikipedia.com
:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.255.83.xxx (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2001 (UTC)
Jimbo: what happened to the server this morning?
I couldn't reach it either. Pinging bomis.com was alright, pinginging wikipedia.com gave me a timeout:-( -- WojPob
The same with me. Kpjas
Hey, while we're asking, what's up with the meta.wikipedia.com? First I couldn't reach it, and now it's giving me a weird string of MySQL errors. --Stephen Gilbert
Jimbo tells me he has been moving servers, which explains it. Once things start working correctly again, things should be back to normal (er, I really did mean to say something informative there...). --LMS
I think I will go mention to Jimbo that this experiment is here if he wishes to watch it develop. I will also mention that this is a preliminary headsup and that if successful some preliminary experiment results may show up as a prettier more formal executive summary. mirwin
This experiment in progress at http://meta.wikipedia.com, an entry point at user:mirwin space there. It is expressed as an to Advogato communnity members on my meta home page, can not miss it. mirwin
Jimbo and Larry, I hope you do mind the easy familiarity. Some headsup data links and a proposed word change to the submit button.
First on the submit button. Unless you feel it is necessary to help establish/maintain the Wikipedian ethic and committment to the critical NPOV and pre-empt flame wars or unncessarily hurt feelings in neophytes unfamiliar with our cultural norms ...... I think perhaps "...edited mercilessly ....' sets the wrong tone. I think the word we are after is "rigorously" or
rigorously in merging with additional data ..... have to word that in context but I hope you see what I mean. Perhaps more experienced community members have a different take.
A potential lucrative market and major boost for the Basque/Spanish iw. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk:Libertarian_socialism/Todo
The work force in these coops NEED your technology and access to the a spanish encyclopedia to exercise their franchise properly against a management echelon apparently (to me) getting greedy, cliquish, mutually admiring etc. between the bank and business venture managers. CORRUPTION is setting in.
It is my thought that the ability of this technolgy to dissemate information effectively asynchrnously and allow it to start as inchoate ill informed opinion and then mutate and improve with mutual editing could restore the past strength of this social/economic experiment.
Setup, remote admins, consulting, moderating (NPOV), remote research, brainstorm/product improvement, etc. could all be revenue centers without charging for the online service, database, and periodic synch. Any way I thought you and Larry should discuss concept and ask for the communities collaboration if appropriate.
I am attempting to set up a QA/QC process for the extreme long term benefit of maintaining our GPL'd codebase and all software and data necessary to establish a mirror or fork. I will get this organized at meta as I have time. I am aggressively recruiting assistance amongst friends that stand to benefit from the free encyclopedia to "staff" by playing around so this should have no immediate impact on software development efforts unless they percieve immediate value. mirwin
Hey Jimmy, I'm working my way through the list at Wikipedians and moving user pages into the user space. I notice you have an old version of your page at Jimbo Wales. Is there any content from that page you want saved? --Stephen Gilbert
I wonder if you have been keeping an eye on the Aria Giovanni talk webpage. The situation there is out of control.
Matters have deteriorated to a highly abusive level over a website link. Of special concern is the general conduct and attitude of someone called NetEsq, who claims in his details to be a lawyer.
He has repeatedly abused anyone who opposed the idea of the website link with such tactics as net misettiquete ( eg the use of the word 'you' in capitals and bold to emphasise shouting), a poor grasp of history, the unrepentant use of such termsas Nazi, out of context quotes and attempted alienation ("only YOU opppose it").
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his beliefs, it is very advisable to bring this most unruly and arrogant person into line.
Given that your name is on the list of persons who can ban users, I thought it advisable to bring this to your attention, before it leads to persons leaving the wikipedia - something likely to stroke Netesq's already aggressive ego.
In your case, it should be added that your name has already been mentioned by Netesq. For that reason alone, you may want to step in.
Jimbo, please help us stop the non-stop vandalism done by the anonymoys people in the pro-Jehovah's Witnesses camp. Their constant slander of all JW critics is hateful. Their constant vandalizim of this encyclopaedia only proves that much of the criticism made against the JW movement is true. The pro-JW group here uses unscrupulous tactics to slander others, censor material, write bald-faced lies and literally rewrite history. Every single day they rewrite entries, and they refuse to respect the opinions of anyone at all, but themselves. If they (and we are talking about a few people here) are not banned for at least a month, then we might as well delete every entry on this topic, because their actions have made clear that they have no intention of ever ending their vandalism and censorship. With concern, RK
Hi Jimbo, I noticed you just deleted Wikipedia:Bug reports with the note Old and not an encyclopedia article, no longer of value. Was this accidental? It's in Wikipedia: namespace so it doesn't clutter the article space, and it's linked to from the front page and the sidebar, and gives the links to our bug tracker on the sourceforge site. I've restored the page. --Brion 14:33 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
Er, yeah, if I did that it was a mistake. I'll go back and try to do what I meant to do. --Jimbo
Jimbo, May I please have the Administrator password? I affirm that I will not use it in a way that is non-wiki. After you send it to me, please delete this entry, for obvious reasons. (You do not have a registered email address here, or I would have emailed the request.) Please send it to me by clicking the "send email" link on my wiki home page. Thanks. (By the way, I like your sailing picture on your Web page--I have one just like it for me!)
Reference from meta wikipedia:
Jimbo Wales has said that he would, at least as a temporary measure (until some better solution can be found), give out the administrator password to anyone who asks for it.
David 19:16 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
ello jimbo, can yoou please gte the wiktionary.org you said you could get. We can use wiktionary.com that you sya you have. - fonzy
The delay in changing cumguzzler's username is undercutting the efficacy of your policy against such offensive ones. Will you please review that user's talk page and Brion Vibber's and then give Brion the authorization to change that username as soon as is convenient for you, so we can all get back to the encyclopedia business? -- isis 10:28 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
--I second that demotion. ``Sv
Messages after 25 January 2003
Hi Jimbo, What's happening with DW? He seems to spend much of his time spreading nasty comments around. I know I can sometimes say 'sharp' things too. But so far recently I've come across deeply outrageous comments abour Deb, Zoe, ErikD and others. My latest receipt is Phonies like you who hide behind a computer can pretend to be anything and there are always enough dummies around to buy your load of crap. On some pages he edits he accompanies it with diatribes against others, including telling people that in effect if the previous version was a mark of their intelligence, they should quit Wiki.
The there is the practical issues of images being downloaded about which there are serious suspicions that he has breached copyright, but about which he simply won't answer queries or give sources for where the image came from, just another rant against whomever raises the question. JTD 01:51 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
- That should be "whoever" -- it's the subject of "raises". -- isis 02:10 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not hereto be friends and market myself. It's this little "club" here that is keeping this from becoming a good site. Question: If Zoe is going to patrol around, when she sees a better idea why not refer it to the Wiki whatever group instead of destroying it. Invention and product improvement has never in the history of mankind been achieved by closing down new ideas. But, here, Zoe and others see something being done new, better, and with a genuine real effort and immediately put the blinders on saying "Must Wikify" and change what may be a much, much better approach back to something that HAS NOT worked. And, so far, Wikipedia has not worked even remotely.
So, I come along, do a lot of hard work, and demonstrate a better way instead of begging by a written speech that you seem to condone. Why should I have to beg a little group of self-appointed Gods? In business, we embrace creativity and find ways to work with and expand it, not put it down. It is this narrow mindedness combined with a lack of creativity and insight that has prevented Wikipedia from improving. EXAMPLE, the moment Ortolan88 (a few months ago) referred to my Famous Canadians site as a "MODEL SITE", all the small minds showed up instantly to totally screw that up. It seems to me you et al don't want to surrender power and aren't open to anyone who might show you that are doing things wrong. What it boils down to is a small group of people whose needs in life have never been met so here they can get control. Got a good idea? WE will decide that, by God! (Reference: 12,683 books on psychology.) Bottom line? Get over it, grow up, and organize properly. The heading, labelling and structure of the so-called Wikipedia convention is amateurish, and of such poor design it does nothing but turn away visitors except those who need to join a club....DW, ESQ
Yep, while I’m writing here they are playing the “you and me game” already. And, what kind of an intellect judges copyright when he is not a lawyer, is not trained, and by his/her comments proves they don’t know what they are talking about. Plus, what turns me off is that they see a good, well-done article with a great effort made to ensure there is a photo (golly, gosh, that’s important to marketing -- amazing revelation) and instead of adding or improving my article (as if they were capable) or creating good new ones, they waste my time with notes and stupid queries….DW
I don't understand why DW seems insistant on repeating the lie that I'm messing up his wonderful prose. I haven't changed any content of anything he's written, except to clean up the spelling, grammar, and pronunciaton. All I've done is to make the first line of each of his articles a complete sentence and to move the birth and death dates up to the beginning, which is what the Wikipedia consensus says biographical articles should have. -- Zoe
- Except that you have to be careful with copyright in using images. No marketing professional improves graphic design by breaching copyright. If they did, they'd be sacked on the spot by their company. DW has yet to offer any evidence that his pictures aren't copyrighted, aren't the property of someone else, etc. A number of them look suspiciously like stuff that, because of age and the nature of the image are covered by copyright, in which case, they cannot be used unless full permission has been received. Zoe had done nothing but correctly lay out pages according to agreed rules. If DW wants to change those rules, he should initiate a discussion and get a consensus, as I have been doing over naming conventions on royalty. But instead, DW stays silent except for personal abuse of anyone who gets in his way. JTD 04:00 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
This is my final load because "Jimbo" too appears not to be able to read. What’s to discuss? I work hard, have created many, many articles, ALL of which are well done (I even go around fixing links with spelling variations) and I rarely ever sign in because I don’t need praise. I work on new and existing articles on public computers as well. I contribute and only ask to be left alone, just don’t destroy my hard work WITHOUT THINKING. What I suggested was a new approach: rather than Zoe (or similar) going around changing contributors hard work, (and my dyslexia makes it a lot harder than most), stop, look, and analyze. Maybe what is there is better than the so-called Wikipedia consensus. If Zoe thinks it might be better, then consult the group and YOU discuss it. Don’t force a contributor like me to beg you to improve. Be open, look and learn.
I post articles that I follow up with repeatedly if I notice additional info elsewhere and deliberately use an article to open up a chain of articles. Example: Juliet Bioche led to Three Colors Blue, then White, then Red, then Trintignant, then Jacob, then Kieslowski which led to Powsazki Cemetery to more names in the cemetery etc. etc. etc. What is happening here, is a race to see how many numbers they can chalk up without quality. Seeing the way this site operates, I can guarantee you, that Wikipedia’s little clique has not one person who has run a sizeable, successful business, knows anything about marketing, or has any concept on even who Wikipedia’s market is. (Test me: put up a page that asks who is the target audience AND then ask if Wikipedia is actually targeting them in any way shape or form.) I honestly don’t think anyone here knows the potential and value.
Here is the fact: Wikipedia has been a great success as a study in human behavior but a total failure as an encyclopedia. It does not attract a broad audience or very many people who actually put an effort into making creative “Encyclopedia” articles relative to the Internet market. Example a few minutes ago: H.L. Hunt. Anyone who tunes into this, immediately tunes out. Now that I raised a rukus about quality, a wiseguy does this thinking it’s smart because I had put the name on my page as wanted. That type of behaviour reflects the intellect one must deal with here. And, unfortunately, there are thousands more articles like it yet the “Wikipedia” committee can’t come up with a simple message to clearly tell strangers: Sorry, this is a work in progress. (Credibility)
If you are the one footing the bill for this, then you need to change the approach. You do run a business, don’t you? And yes, ban me, but we both know not really. You change your committee to encouraging ideas and improvement, rather than putting them down. I will not beg you to consider new ideas. That system failed years ago but as long as you continue to allow it, then you will go bald scratching your head as to why you aren’t getting better, more dedicated and innovative participation. Did the New York Times recommend this as a great encyclopedic source for the future? Or, did they protect themselves with generalities.
Change, otherwise, you won’t have to ban me, I’ll leave and then the little clique can chat and be happy keeping things the way they are.
- It's interesting how it's up to the rest of us to "discuss" how to do things DW's way. -- Zoe
- I'm a relative newbie here, but, from what I've seen of Zoe's edits, she works on the grammar and the clarity, without changing the original intended meaning. No harsh putdowns, or snipey comments, just editing for the better. I recently saw a harsh comment in response to a duplicate article being written. As a site that promotes itself by "come on in, try out the sandbox, and edit immediately" the expectation that all contributors be perfect can be offputting. Not saying that all Wikipedians hold this attitude, but some do, and come across as harsh in the course of editing or commenting on edits. After all, isn't the spirit of Wikipedia based on the "work in progress" idea. Why can't all be welcome, even if they might make an error, or don't follow every rule down to the exact letter? Just my $.02.
If Wiki had so little credibility as a quality source, why do some universities have their post-grads review articles on topics of their area of expertise? Why when I was seeking some information from a couple of press offices of organisations (bigger than anything DW has ever associated with, I suspect) for information for some Wiki pages, were those organisations already aware of Wiki and impressed by it? If DW stopped shouting at people and started working with people, he might have an interesting contribution to make. So far I haven't seen anything from DW that is unique, special, well researched or particularly full of insight. JTD 04:18 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo. Thank you for your great work. But I suggest you let the nasty boy go on. Bitchers like dw don't bother me very much. They merely want attention that they don't really deserve. Otherwise, they're minor disturbances in the force. :-). I almost wish people (unlike me! I was too tempted) would simply ignore the ignorant fools. (and i'm very sorry that User talk:Jimbo Wales has become a forum about this idiot.)
Arthur 11:22 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
COPY of my note to ZOE: Oh Great Godess, controller of heaven, the earth and Wikipedia. What kind of moronic, idiotic, stupidity did you use to remove the name of the portrait of Amedeo Modigliani. Is this kind of ignorance part of the "Wikipedia Consensus" that you ONLY do because they tell you to? Don't think so. As I already said, you are going around screwing up articles posted by people who know what they are talking about. I repeat: Please stop. What you in fact did to Modigliani, and others I suspect, is in fact vandalism !...DW ESQ cc: Jimbo whoever
Mr. Wales: Is this how you want Wikipedia to work? Why would anyone work so hard as I did on Modigliani (and all my other many, many Montparnasse related articles except for the 2 or 3 lousy ones by other people that I was going to fix) if you are going to AUTHORIZE a committee of people to tear down extensive, VALID hard work? Modigliani is one damn good article. If others grew up, stopped playing games and trying to get control, Wikipedia just might attract people who will work hard to create valid articles. But, they sure won't if their hard work is destroyed by appoved ignorance....DW
DW, take a deep breath and relax. I am very open to new ideas, I don't want you to beg and plead for anything, I welcome innovative new approaches, and I actually think that most of your suggestions are good. There is just exactly ONE problem: your rudeness is completely unacceptable.
You're trying to convince me to change, and yet you write, on my user page, that "Jimbo, too, appears not to be able to read." Jeez, come on man, that's just mean, and for what purpose?
Again, I say to you: you have a lot to say about marketing, and I think your ideas about that are important and relevant. But if you wish to see the results you want, if you want people to act, then you need to think about how you are marketing your ideas. If you market them in a way that turns rational and thoughtful people off, then you won't succeed. And what's the point of that?
I invite you to join the mailing list and air your grievances there. And I invite you to continue with innovative and thoughtful work on the wikipedia. But, if you keep insulting people, I will ban you and that will be that.
Do not insult people. Period. It's a very simple rule. Follow it, and everything will be fine. Fail to follow it, and we'll have to part company in sorrow.
- "Do not insult people. Period. It's a very simple rule. Follow it." Darn. What a good clarification. You should add it to the main page. I'll (from now on) follow it (although I've not always done so before). Arthur 14:52 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. is this a bug? I just edited Talk:Jesus Christ and found the article empty before my addition. The history link, however, implies that there was text there before my editing. I deleted nothing however, and hope no one thinks i did.
Arthur 15:21 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
User:Tarquin has posted a defamatory per se remark about me on Talk:Juliette Binoche. I have demanded a retraction from him, but I also ask that the Wikipedia post a message dissociating itself from his tortious conduct and, thus, from any legal action it may engender. I would think the Village Pump would be the place for it, with a link from the Binoche talk page, but that's merely a suggestion. Please believe I will NOT hurt this project, no matter what I may do about Tarquin, even if it doesn't make such a disclaimer. -- isis 02:39 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
- Jimbo, I'm not sure what all this is about. -- Tarquin 14:10 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
From his latest message to me on Talk:Juliette Binoche, Tarquin has apparently decided to try to bluff his way out of the bind he has put himself in, but what he's doing is digging his hole deeper. I would really prefer to settle this dispute (and I mean a formal legal settlement) than have him goad me into suing him, so would you (or your lawyers) be willing to take a crack at explaining to him why he would really like to find a more reasonable position that trying to prove (in court here in Delaware) that "all photos are copyright"? I'd really appreciate it, and I respectfully suggest it would be good for the Wikipedia for users to understand what kind of consequences can result from ill-considered postings here, as well as clarifying that there are few, if any, photos that can't be used in articles without infringing any copyright. -- isis 11:46 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)
I simply don't understand why Isis thinks she was libelled, and why she focus on Tarquin. He's not the only one who disagrees with her interpretation. Ericd 12:10 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)
Isis seems to forget, or never to have learn some important facts about libel. She seems, in my humble opinion, to be using libel chill to prevent fair comment.
- frivilous law suits are routinly thrown out.
- libel damages are often uncollectable. (That's why only people or corporations with money are targetted for libel law suits. Injsurance companies often settle out of court to reduce their cost)
- often defence can be agressive against the value of the reputation.( Libel suits have a habit of blowing up in the face of litigants.)
Let me put a chill on libel chill: Tarquin's best responce to a law suit would be to defend himself with the help of POACh.org. Does that possibility embarass Isis? It should. I am sure that before she proceeds she will seek legal advice: after all only a fool would hire themselves as a lawyer.
For what its worth and what lesson can be learned. Two16
- Well, I wouldn't be too worried about any threat of a lawsuit:
- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
- IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:
- K. KAY SHEARIN
- § No. 178, 2000
- § Board Case No. 10, 1998
- Submitted: March 2, 2001
- Decided: May 9, 2001
- Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
- Disciplinary Proceeding Upon Final Report of the Board on Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court. Respondent Suspended.
- Joseph M. Bernstein, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for Respondent.
- Mary S. Much, Esquire, of Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Wilmington, Delaware.
- PER CURIAM
- This opinion involves the sanction phase of our appellate review in a disciplinary proceeding regarding the Respondent, K. Kay Shearin. In our initial disposition, we affirmed the Board on Professional Responsibility’s judgment that the alleged ethical violations had been established by clear and convincing evidence.
- Before determining the appropriate sanction, however, this Court “concluded that it would be helpful, in deciding upon an appropriate sanction, to have a professional assessment of Shearin’s mental state.” That offer was respectfully declined by the Respondent.
- APPROPRIATE SANCTION
- In this opinion, we will begin our analysis by recounting the standards and contentions that are already extant in this proceeding. The exclusive authority to impose sanctions for attorney misconduct is vested in this Court. The guidelines for the imposition of sanctions are well-established. They are not designed to be either punitive or penal. The relevant factors to consider in determining an appropriate sanction are: (1) the nature of the duty violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the actual/potential injury caused by the misconduct; and (4) the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
- Shearin’s attorney points out that “although the Petition alleged violations of separate provisions of the DLRPC, all of the allegations which the Board found to have established arose from a common nucleus of facts – the substantive content of the Shearin Lawsuit that was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which was ultimately dismissed.” He argues that a public reprimand is the most appropriate sanction because Shearin did not knowingly violate the Delaware Lawyers Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel argues that a three-year suspension is the appropriate sanction because Shearin’s “statements to the Board clearly reflect that she does not recognize the wrongfulness of her conduct.”
- The Court has also looked for guidance to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the Respondent be suspended for three years from the date of its report, April 19, 2000.7 The Respondent was previously suspended for one year beginning on January 1, 1999. Since the Respondent has not petitioned for reinstatement, she remains suspended from the practice of law. Consequently, the Respondent has been suspended for almost two and one-half years.
- SUSPENSION IMPOSED
- We have concluded that a period of suspension for three years is appropriate. As in Shearin I, the record in Shearin II reflects a pattern of unethical conduct, and demonstrates a complete disregard for her responsibilities as an officer of this Court. In our view, however, given the interrelationship between the present and the prior ethical violations, the periods of Shearin’s present and prior suspensions should run concurrently.
- Therefore, we hold that for the ethical violations set forth in Shearin II, K. Kay Shearin shall be prohibited and suspended from engaging in the practice of law for a period of three years. That period of suspension will commence on January 1, 1999 and end upon her reinstatement, for which application may be made after January 1, 2002. This period of suspension shall be subject to the same terms and conditions originally set forth in Shearin I. This opinion shall be disseminated by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in accordance with the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility.
- Sl the above is really no relevant since Isis has a lawyer. In spite of what I think about the validity of Isis' claim of libel (which are not relevant since IANAL) IMO posting the above is very juvenile and unnecessarily hurtful. If anything this will make Isis determined to find something to sue on now - she still has the training and is very smart so she should be able to find something that could at least get a hearing. I'm sure Jimbo will be real happy to continue paying for Wikipedia while at the same time fighting a lawsuit (which he almost certainely would win but he still would be out thousands of dollars in legal fees). --mav
- Mav, I certainly didn't want to do anything that would increas JW's grief, and am sorry if I did. But I think you miss my point: my point is not that Isis cannot, for the moment, practice law; my point is that she has a history of frivolous lawsuits. I believe you are misguided when you write that "If anything this will make Isis determined to find something to sue on now" as she has already made her intentions clear. Besides, the information above is on her own page, which she wrote -- in other words, she has already shared this information with us, I am merely quoting the actual judgement. And Isis, if you are reading this, I do apologize if you feel this was unnecessarily hurtful. Given that you have threatened a lawsuit, I only wanted to call people's attention to facts that are on the public record and that you have yourself acknowledged in Wikipedia. My intention was not to hurt you, and if my quotation of the facts is incorrect please correct it, Slrubenstein
---
The relevance is this: lawyers digraced by ethics violations and censure by their governing body are seldom successfful with libel sits. Isis' lawyer would be guilty of ethical violations if he persude a law suit for her. The likely result of any litigation, even with Isis using the help of her own POACh.org, would be dismissal on examination. The truth of the matter is that Isis will not persue a law suit in order to prevent the spread of this information. Isis is also guilty of publisizing the libel (which prevents her from collecting damages.) Two16
- I hope you are right. --mav
If Isis sues Im gonna counter-sue cuz she called me a troll. Vera Cruz
- But in libel cases truth is an absolute defense. Just kidding you mongrel. :-) --mav
- woof! Vera Cruz
Jimbo: Having had time to consider the matter, I have decided that the free-speech issues here are important enough for me to sue to pin down some of the legal points in this developing field of Internet law. To alleviate any anxiety you might have about the situation, here's my current idea of how I would go about it, and I no longer want you to try to get Tarquin to settle, because his settling wouldn't shut up all the bottom-feeders he's stirred up about this, but a lawsuit would tend to have that effect.
I would file a pro se complaint (and IFP petition) in federal court for a declaratory judgment that under the federal copyright statute some, but not all, photographs are copyrighted, thus invoking federal-question jurisdiction. I would join with that a pendent-jurisdiction claim, under Delaware law, against Tarquin for defamation per se. I doubt he would show up to defend himself, so I'd probably get a default judgment against him, but I could still get the declaratory judgment and so establish the legal point even if he didn't, and doing that is what would make the whole exercise worthwhile. The only thing I don't like about this plan is that it could take a long time -- it might be many months (more than a year, even) before the judge got around to ruling on my IFP application (and then more delay before long-arm process actually got served), but if that became a problem, I would deal with it then. -- isis 06:10 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
- Two small problems with your plan: One, they will find your interpretation of copyright law to be incorrect. See Talk:Juliette Binoche for the details; someone has recently taken the time to dig up the relevant sections of the legal stuff. Two, I did not defame you. I said you had made a mistake. Even the greatest of legal minds will admit to sometimes making mistakes. Saying you made a mistake once does not reflect on your capacity as a lawyer. Please stop using me to prove a point. I consider your behaviour to be harrassment, and indeed a threat to me. -- Tarquin 08:51 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
I can't wait to explain to the judge how Tarquin's statement that you were wrong about a point, a point so difficult to understand that it takes a federal court an entire year (or more) to rule whether you are wrong or not, is nowhere near as defamatory as your calling me a troll. Bottomfeeders unite! Vera Cruz
I object strongly to DW being called an idiot. I resent the fact that it is considered ok to call him an idiot. He brought up some very legitimate complaints, not the least of which is that Zoe openly reverts changes based not on their merit, but merely because she doesn't like the user who made them. She is open about this, she has admitted it, she has argued, "But User:XX made the change, why should we listen to that idiot?"
It is true that wikipedia is full of argument and that this is a problem, but the problem is not merely those, like DW, TMC, or even myself the mongrel troll Vera Cruz, which engage in inappropriate behavior not because we are incorrigible, but because we honestly don't always know better. For example, DW does not know that informing JW that he has a system of approved ignorance is not going to come across well, nor did I know that arguing that it is racist to refuse to use forign spellings would be bad.
Certainly I have learned to be increasingly non-argumentative, and I am sure DW, TMC, 172, Danny, etc can definitely become even better contributors than they are. So no, I don't think we are the real problem, even if we can from time to time be offensive because we don't have a high enough level of class or protocol.
I think there is a serious problem with people such as Isis, who insults people (me others), refuses to discuss the problem with the people she hates, and then winds up threatening to sue somebody for libel, a crime she regularly commits herself!
There is an amazing difference between the two groups, the most notably difference being that Im no advocating banning anybody. Isis can call me names all day, I don't care. User:172 can go insane with insisting that his dry rambling articles are the ultimate nobel prize explanation of every subject every written. But I don't want to ban them.
Banning is for people that load goatse or change the dates of WWII to 1836-2321. Banning is not for somebody who writes, "Columbus was a slavetrader" or "The Israelis are actively conducting genocide in Palestine". Yes, anyone with brains know those statements are absolute truth, but it takes time to learn NPOV.
At this wiki, we have a group of people who are snide and elitist. They do not have perfect NPOV, they do not have perfect decisions, but they believe they do. They reinforce their belief because they are just about the only people who read or talk on the mailing list and they are arguing all over the wiki, thus making them feel that they are the wiki, and everybody else is a noobie or non-contributor.
Those people should not be banned, they should not lose their sysop privileges. But, at the same time, the bullshit has got to fucking stop. You don't sue somebody from England because they tell u that as a paralegal you don't know jack about law. You don't call people an idiot simply because they don't agree with anything u think.
Id like to talk about how I shouldn't be banned, its pretty obvious that Im somebody who is going to contribute valuable material. I don't think even my biggest opponents can deny the fact that just about every time I click submit I am adding something of value and just about everytime there is a problem, I back down or its eventually decided that I was correct.
I know Im not a problem, but I can't convince anybody of it. There is a reason that legal courts do not require a defendant to prove their innocence, its IMPOSSIBLE to prove one's innocence. It cannot be done no matter what the crime or no matter how innocent you are. Not a single one of you can prove that you were not Adolf Hitler who committed a genocide and then, via parapscyhological phenomena, teleported himself into the future.
Im supposed to apoligize to people or something so I can be unbanned. Ive apoligized, Ive apoligized ten-fold. Am I changed? I change every morning when I wake up, its a gradual sorta thing. Nobody has apoligized to me, and nobody can honestly deny that I haven't been the victim of rude abuse. I don't want your goddamn apologies, I want you to grow up and realize that from time to time somebody is gonna show up at the wiki and not only have info to contribute, but they are gonna start revising stuff that everyone of u thought was perfect. Its gonna happen next year, and ten years down the road, and its already happaned. Because Im not just a spell-checker or information-dumper, Im a reviser.
Look at that ridiculous New Imperialism, its got to be just about the most boring piece of crusty lecture Ive ever looked at, you can't honestly expect some 4th grader, or working class stiff, or even an academic, to want to read that. Thats why none of you have actually read it! Don't tell me you've read that, I know you haven't read it. If you'd read it you'd be able to discuss it with me. Yes, I know, thats argumentative, maybe u even have read it and Im sorry if you have and I just libeled you. But the point is, that article needs revision and I need to revise it and nobody will let me simply because we don't get along.
Why? Why can't we all just get along? I don't see any reason we can't get along. I've obviously taken numerous steps to try and reconcile things, Ive written a great deal of material which NOBODY has read. I admit that Im not the greatest writer ever, but Id like somebody else to take a step. Id like somebody else to consider the fact that I might be right, maybe a student of New Imperialism shouldn't be required to read a massive paragraph about the word imperialism, maybe he should just be able to click on imperialism when he decides he wants to read all that.
In any case, thats what I was doing when I was last banned and I apoligize for not apoligizing enough and instead using this opportunity to make demands and concessions, but Im pretty stuck on this territorial dispute regarding New Imperialism, and I know, if you give in at all the floodgates will come crashing open and pretty soon Ill be over on Isaac Asimov or Charles Dickens insisting that he wasn't the greatest writer ever whose greatest book ever was such and such, but yah know, I did have a point about the Asimov article being POV.
So let's like talk about articles sometime, cuz honestly, I don't know what to say about anything else. At least DW was trying to talk about whatever changes he was going on about on Jimbo Wale's talk page, I know for a fact that Zoe doesn't discuss things, she argues "This is the wiki way!", but the wiki way is to make a good encyclopedia. And I don't see how that can be done without a little more conversation and a little less resorting to law by commandment and imperial decree. Not to state that Jimbo is a King or some totalitarian, just to note that no matter how benevolent things may be, there hasn't been enough friendliness.
- Are you Lir/Vera Cruz? You didn't sign the above, so I'm not sure. If you are, it sounds like you're ready to come back. So why not send an e-mail to Jimbo and talk to him about it? I was sorry to see you go, because I felt you had a lot of interesting ideas. But you should be aware of the #1 unwritten rule in any club: don't piss off the club president :-) --Uncle Ed 18:36 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
- Ed is right (as usual in these matters). I for one have seen you change from a troll to a productive yet still annoying user. This is progress and I like to see progress. You have also apologized and said that you were wrong. I also like to see that. But for the third time now you have subverted the process by continuing to edit even though you are still officially banned. Please take Ed's advice, email Jimbo, state (again for the record) that you are sorry for your past deeds and for subverting the ban and most importantly state that you will try your best not to annoy people by being combative, incorrectly marking non-minor edits as minor and that you that you will also try to better document your edits and use the preview function more (these things are the polite thing to do anyway). In short state that you will try your best to show respect for other contributors - and then prove that you are sincere by following that promise to the best of your ability. Prove the people who want you to stay banned wrong by being a nice person to work with. --mav
Re: Issues on talk for Juliette Binoche regarding copyright:
- In order for the person to place the photo, they signed the Wikipedia requirement. No one here has the right to come along and delete the photo on speculation as Ericd has done here and on other articles. If Ericd wishes to continue, then he should provide proof of vcopyright ingringement and submit this information to the owner's site.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. I have asked several questions to DW about his photos upload and had no response. Have a look at Talk:Isadora Duncan Well I think this one could old enough to be in the public domain. I believe image uploaders should give serious references showing that what they upload is in the PD. Don't reverse the problem we are building a collective work it's the moral duty of the uploader to avoid copyright infrigement. It's not a to the community to search for evidences that uploads are not in the PD. Ericd 20:46 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)
The photo come from : http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl4dberg/juliepage.html
A sample of DW hard work to find a public domain photo : http://www.google.fr/search?q=Juliette+Binoche&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=fr&meta=
Click on the first site.
What he found on web site is public domain for him. Ericd 22:45 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)
Messages after 8 February 2003
I just cleaned this page up.
I want us to be very conservative about photo copyrights. We want to make sure that everything we do is clean and unassailable, not just in the legal courts, but in the courts of public opinion.
Someday, someone will write a negative article about us, and they might want to use the FUD that our encyclopedia is corrupted by copyright violations. We want to cut that criticism off from the start by being very careful about it.
--Jimbo
OK, here's what you have to do on the MySQL server to block a signed in user:
- select user_id from user where user_name='<name of user to be blocked>';
- insert into `ipblocks` (ipb_user,ipb_by,ipb_reason) values(<number from above>,1,"Vandalism");
I haven't checked if you can do this through the UI somehow. As for determining the IP, the CUR table stores either the user name or the IP address of a signed in user, so it's not in there. The server log should have it, if you can decipher it. --Eloquence 13:13 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
I think I got the ip. I hope I didn't screw up and get one of the good guys, but I checked several pages, and that ip number 18.56.0.30 seemed to be the first edit in each case. Someone this persistent may come back in another guise, though. --Jimbo Wales
- That's M56-129-1.MIT.EDU - an MIT machine? Seems unlikely. Also the person is now back as "IHATENAZIPIGS". --Eloquence 13:31 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
That's him, I think. IHATENAZIPIGS seems to be coming in on *.31, the next ip. Probably just hopped one seat over in the computer lab? Or, I'm nailing one of you guys by accident. But, I don't think so. --Jimbo Wales
- Just a quick word, so you'll know at least one of the other "good" IPs; My IP is 209.204.139.*, I'm guessing you can get the rest from the logs. Ducker 13:39 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
I'm officially calling this one 'the MIT vandal'. I got him on 18.56.0.30 and *.31, but we may have to go all the way to 18.56.0.* if he keeps hopping seats at the lab.
Hey, how does everyone do that cool trick to put their name and timestamp. I'm so, like, 2002 with my typing style here. Jimbo
Sven is 18.21.0.97, another MIT address. *sigh* Jimbo Wales 13:53 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)]
- Really... 18.21.0.108, 18.21.0.98 and other 18's has been seriously POVing the Kosovo War article. In fact we have already had one new user leave in disgust over it. --mav 14:03 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
Jimbo type 4 tildes Ericd 13:58 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Living in the Boston area can be useful. The phone number for the MIT computer lab is 617-253-5851. I just left a message there myself, maybe others in the Boston area can follow suit. -- Modemac 14:00 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
If anyone knows how to block entire subnetworks, we need to block 18.21.0.* and 18.56.0.*, otherwise I'm going to keep blocking him as I see him pop up. I'm finding him by grepping in the access logs, which seems adequate for now, except only developers can do it. Jimbo Wales 14:00 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
As usual you've mailed the logs and every evidence to the MIT and he/she will banned from the MIT like two years ago ? Ericd 14:01 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
I haven't done anything yet, Ericd, but that's certainly a good idea. Right now I'm just keeping my eyes open. Except, I've gotta run soon. Jimbo Wales 14:13 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
At least he/she seems quiet now. Ericd 14:17 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
Messages before 26 June 2003
Wikipetiquette is nice. I hope that flamware will decrease on French wiki.Thanks for hosting us. French wiki needs more love and kindness -- Youssefsan
- Donnes nous d'avantage de ta patience Youssef...Ant
Youssefsan, thanks for the kind words. I think that the most important thing that each of us can do is to set an example ourselves, and to push others (gently, of course!) to do the same. Jimbo Wales 21:16 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
Note: User:Abcd appears to have the same interests as User:DrFreud, namely White slave trade (see the history for this redirect) and histrionic personality disorder. Could there be a connection?
Yes, he's banned again. Jimbo Wales 18:24 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
Jimbo, could you please do something about netesq's behaviour on the no offensive names talk page. His general conduct there seems to be in violation of several wikiquette rules. Arno 02:55 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
- Just ignore him and don't engage in arguing - he will never change his mind about you, me and most other old timers in regards to our "plan" to destroy civil liberties on Wikipedia. --mav
Some Usenet wisdom:
--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Hello, Jimbo - Was Two16 banned, or did he get pissed and leave? -'Vert
Two16 was not banned to my knowledge. Clutch was, just now. Jimbo Wales 05:36 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
- In the words of some guy, "Yippee skippy!" Graft
Clutch gone. Two16 missing in action. DW choked on his own bile. My God, Wikipedia might become 'polite', civilised, boring!!! :) (Irish sarcasm there!) JTD 05:51 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that I'm happy but I am relieved that I don't have to deal with those particular anti-socialites. --mav
- I'll take your request, Jim, in this way: "Dont call people names, even if they call you names." I just got word from Clutch by email that he has been banned. Unlike some, I dont take pleasure in anyones removal. This is (was) their Wikipedia as much as anyones. I hope that these people find some ability to moderate their conduct appropriately, and that it never becomes easy to eliminate someone. -'Vert
[1] - Is this a violation of wikipedia copyright? Tarquin suggested at User:203.35.82.3 that I should raise this with you... Martin
- How? They credit Wikipedia and have a linkback to our article. --mav
- Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the recipient grants the same freedoms to others using their version and they acknowledge Wikipedia as the source (see Wikipedia:Copyrights). --Uncle Ed
From Wikipedia:Copyrights - "your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL" - they've not done that. The linkback is nice, but that's just one of the two conditions. Martin
- It looks to me like they should include a GFDL copyright notice. I'm sure they would be happy if we asked nicely. Martin, will you write to them about this? I think we should approach them with the assumption that they are tryin g to do the right thing, and we can just help them. Jimbo Wales 14:57 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
- I've made a first draft of such a letter here: User:MyRedDice/Abacci Letter - copyediting, advice, edits, etc would be nice.
The good thing about these links for people on Wikipedia is that it reminds everyone (and some do need reminding) that this isn't a game here but a serious work in progress which is taken seriously as a reliable, trustworthy sourcebook. JTD 23:28 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
I enjoyed this experiment and have done my best to contribute. However, that has now ended with a small group wishing to impose their views. And, having checked out other Users, this group deliberately attempts to drive away anyone who does not conform. Coming along to an article and changing it is part of being OPEN, but a member of a clique deliberately watching each new article so they can format it THEIR way is far from being OPEN. Am I wrong here? If so, I will leave now. It is not worth putting in a great many hours of work just to be attacked like this. See my User talk:Ron Davis and also Talk:List of communities in Quebec... Ron Davis
This 'clique', if it exists, is primarily concerned with created a unity of structure on Wikipedia, so that there is a basic standard and corporate identity. Every sourcebook requires that fundamental unity of layout, context, structure and analysis. The bigger Wikipedia gets, the more it requires people to keep together as a unit. Wikipedia will not be a success if it has thousands of articles of uneven standards and conflicting structures. Wiki isn't a game, it is a serious undertaking that has to be taken seriously. All that requires a structure, not a haphazard 'everybody doing their own thing' approach. JTD 21:19 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
- content on slogans moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans)
Mr. Wales:
Let me first state my great admiration for your work. I’m 172.
A lot of immature contributors have accused me of loving my dictators. While I admit to being sympathetic to Mugabe’s land reforms, this reputation really stems from the fact that I’m a modern historian with expertise in single-party states, colonialism, and de-colonization who refuses to tolerate simplistic history that fails to understand events and historical actors in a social, political, and economic context.
We don’t need lists chronicling all the things that make Saddam Hussein, Stalin, and Mugabe evil men. Instead, we need articles that are both illuminating and informative that describe what kinds of agendas these men have had, what kinds of often-shifting support bases they’ve cultivated or represented, what kinds of ideological, material, institutional, or factional interests they’ve represented or appealed to, what kinds of conditions, geo-strategic or domestic, have laid the groundwork for their dictatorships, what kinds of adversities (foreign and domestic) did they face and how they responded to them, what kinds of foreign interests influenced their domestic policies as well as their diplomatic and military policies, and especially how they rose to power.
Understanding a dictator's society is also critical. There are stark contrasts in the societies that have fallen under dictatorships, from Nazi Germany to Idi Amin's Ugabda (a couple of the most repugnant). Historical conditions, social systems, development levels, cultural traditions and concepts of values greatly vary throughout the work. Understanding the unique realities of a particular society is critical. What's often unacceptable and even unimaginable in the United States is commonplace and even essential in other societies.
An encyclopedia will explain why these figures are noteworthy; thus, primary attention must be paid to how their regimes responded to problems in their societies, or if they exasperated them, or if they reconciled them. If you studied the great dictatorships of the twentieth century, you’d see that they’re often riding the waves of great, often revolutionary social transformations or attempting to keep the lid on conflict in order to prevent such a social revolution. Often, when a new group seizes power they resort to autocratic forms of rule to prevent the old regime from making a comeback or to prevent rival interests from seizing power. Dictatorships, in short, are the products of conflict. And conflict tends to be heightened during early stages of modernization and industrialization, explaining why they’re very much a twentieth century phenomenon. I have yet to discover a modern dictatorship that hasn’t been.
Conflict (often conceptualized by radical ideologies) and authoritarianism (often rationalized by a radical ideology) are inextricably linked. If I’m pointing that out, I’m not defending a dictator; I’m just explaining his role. In short, I’m going to resist values-laden chronicling that would evaluate a figure like Robert Mugabe as if he were an American statesman.
And regarding the Mugabe article, I defend my edits and persistence.
Here’s that introduction to the Mugabe article that I was trying to remove:
Robert Gabriel Mugabe (born February 21, 1924) has been the head of government in Zimbabwe since 1980. Zimbabwe's hero of the country's war of independence is widely viewed internationally as an authoritarian ruler bent on maintaining his grip on power. He is sharply condemneed by Amnesty International for his human rights abuses against both minority Ndebele people, the opposition MDC (movement for Democratic Change), white residents, and homosexuals. According to South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, he is a "caricature of an African dictator." Because of his controversial policies, Zimbabwe has been refused participation in the Commonwealth.”
Is that NPOV? If that’s not propaganda, I don’t know what is. It sounds like an essay by a 6th grader explaining why he thinks Mugabe is a bad guy. Though it hurt my reputation among lay readers of history who think that I love totalitarianism, eventually I forced other contributors to tone the bias of that introduction down.
As for the Saddam article, those charges of me being a dictator-loving ideologue are even more ridiculous. Information on the autrocities brought up by one reader during the Iraq-Iran War wasn’t in the article before my contributions. Why should I be faulted for its original lack of content?
Regardless, there are links in that article that chronicle his atrocities.
In short, I don’t deserve my infamous reputation as an uncooperative apologist for dictators.
Mr. Jim Wales:
You had better explain to User:Jtdirl the laws with respect to libel and slander in the United States and the cost and ramifications to all parties in any action to mitigate any such claim. I gave the required fair warning to User:Jtdirl as follows:
The following comment and labeling is inappropriate and libelous. Any further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States. AND DO GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. Olga Bityerkokoff
(cur) (last) . . 00:52 Apr 16, 2003 . . Jtdirl (Vandal Alert)
- According to Tannin, a new user Olga Bityerkokoff is a banned ex-user. It might be Michael but probably is Adam. *sigh*
Following this due warning, this accusations were made as a derogatory response to my work on this encyclopedia:
· (cur) (last) . . 01:01 Apr 16, 2003 . . Jtdirl (rv banned user's contribution. Back to jtdirl's last version) · (cur) (last) . . 00:44 Apr 16, 2003 . . Olga Bityerkokoff (The Canadian Prime Minister has never been referred to as: William Mackenzie King)
The above threat has been posted on the wiki list. It is also being put on the annoying users page. DO NOT TRY TO INTIMIDATE ME, YOU ARROGANT, POMPOUS TWICE-BANNED TROLL ÉÍREman 01:50 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Thank you.
'Olga' is in fact the banned Black Widow. She posted the following on John Owens' talk page:
Is making fun of my name something you get off on, or is it just plain ignorance. As a supposed Wikipedia contributor, perhaps you should be more concerned with article titles called Fuck instead of my heritage that I am very proud of despite people like you. Olga Bityerkokoff
The Black Widow was preoccupied with the word Fuck prior to her departure. For example, on the VILLAGE PUMP:
I'm going to suggest that the article Fuck (and ALL others like it) be moved to a catagory under a heading that is not offensive to a great many people. I just searched Google for Norman Mailer and up came WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE FUCK. User:Black Widow.
It was a theme that 'she' hammered home regularly. Now, surprise, surprise, the "new" user has the exact same pre-occupations. ÉÍREman 02:18 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
The following threat was posted by 'Olga' on Montrealais's talk page.
- Your snide comments are a personal attack on my character and will not be tolerated on this website. Any further references to me by you in a derogatory manner will be met with a legal action in Quebec Superior Court, Montreal, Canada where I am represented by Mendelsohn, Rosentzveig, Shacter, attorneys at law, at 1000 Sherbrooke St. W., 26th Floor, Montreal. That is one block from your university. Olga Bityerkokoff
Mr. Wales, I had no choice but to give the required fair warning to User talk:Tannin as follows.
To Tannin:
Your comments and labeling of any party accessing Wikipedia through any computer at any local, public or private source, is inappropriate and libelous. Any further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States. AND DO GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. Olga Bityerkokoff
Heh. heh. You can really see a court in the US taking a court case from an anonymous user who calls themselves OLGA BITYERKOKOFF!!! The user would be lucky not to be thrown in jail for wasting court time. :-) ÉÍREman 03:35 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, I had no choice but to give the required fair warning to User and Wikipedia Administrator User:Zoe for an unwarranted attack on my name and my character as follows.
To User:Zoe Your derogatory comments are inappropriate and libelous. Any further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States. AND DO GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. User:Olga Bityerkokoff
According to their website at http://www.insolvency.ca/index.html#splash.html, Mendelsohn, Rosentzveig, Shacter are bankruptcy attorneys. I wonder if someone took a name of a law firm out of a hat wihtout checking to see what their speciality is. Oh, and by the way, I've sent them an email to ask them if they know anything about this. -- Zoe
- Actually, according to this, which is their actual website, Mendelsohn, Rosentzveig, Shacter specialise in "legal and business advice" which may well include lawsuits. My feeling is that this whole situation calls for mediation of some kind. -- Arno 11:19 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
- What it calls for, Arno, is moderation, not mediation. A simple re-ban of this already oft-banned and troublesome user will allow us to stop wasting time on this silliness and get back to our real work - improving Wikipedia. There is nothing to mediate. Next question please. Tannin
Hello
I was told you were running the place. I understood some users were banned for being rude to others; I will try no to be rude. I don't understand very well why being rude one day (was it a long time ago ?) is a justification for Maverick deleting good contributions to the encyclopedia. I think it is not good for the encyclopedia to deleted good content, and it is also making user Maveric 149 lose a lot of precious time. This is very unfortunate. I am new around. Just giving my feelings on the spot; I hope I am not being rude to anyone in giving my opinion there.John Stewart
I agree it is most unfortunate and one would hope the wikipedia can move past such squabbles. Ril
- Context: This is about 142.177 who has been periodically posting new articles here and editing. See also your post on this subject. --mav 06:03 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
- I love this third party discussion style - reminiscent of the House of Commons :)
- The post says "fair game for instant reversion." It does not say there is any obligation to do so. It does not say deletion. Daniel Mayer, you are a liar.
- Reverting a page to its previous form. When that previous form was a redlink the way this is done is to delete the page. --mav
- Again you lie. Everyone else does this correctly by page blanking, leaving text visible for anyone who wishes to restore it. You simply made up this claim about "the way this is done" to justify yourself, as usual. You are probably a pathological liar. You will certainly never hold a PhD.
- Yeah whatever - go away. --mav
- John, your concerns are my concerns, however it is important to understand the history of specific cases. It is unfortunate that Mav loses a lot of precious time on this, but for his efforts, I am eternally grateful. Here's the thing: merely being rude one day a long time ago is not grounds for banning -- we've all been rude at times. It's persistent bad behavior over a sustained period of time, coupled with a demonstrated unwillingness to change, that will get a person banned. If we don't revert every change made by a banned user, then we implicit encourage them to keep coming back and pulling their stunts over and over.
- It is a difficult problem, and I don't know of any better solution than what we've got so far, particularly since we are attempting to balance a number of competing concerns. Jimbo Wales 10:20 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't take that much time at all. It's just one of the many community services I perform around here. :) --mav
- In this context, see DissuadeReputation and PunishReputation on MeatballWiki
Who died and made you King Jimbo? 172.166.135.207
- You did, 172, you did. Jimbo Wales 10:23 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
- Jimbo obviously is speaking metaphorically but he does own the server, gives us free bandwidth and is the leader of this project. That makes him both King and a really cool guy. --mav
That makes him rich, what so "cool" about that? 172.128.204.77
- No, it means that he's rich. And since Jimbo has chosen to use his riches to make an open encyclopedia that anyone not a total asshole can help write, mav, I and presumably others think he's pretty cool. Tuf-Kat
- And the coolest thing of all is that even people who hate the whole way the project is run can go and take a copy of the free whole text of the encyclopedia, and set up the free software (using the freely provided documentation), and set up their own encyclopedia, and run it any way they like, so long as they will also pass that GFDL freedom on to others. Please feel free to do this, 172, Lir, 142.177 et. al. The Anome 17:07 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I'm not really rich. I'm just an encyclopedia geek. Jimbo Wales 12:36 23 May 2003 (UTC)
Lir/Vera's IP address is not to be confused with my user name, 172. BTW, Thank you Mr. Wales for this great service!
I was just wondering why I could not find a designated agent listing anywhere on Wikipedia to receive the benefits of sec. 512 of the US Copyright Act as you listed Wikipedia as one of the domains that Bomis operates under when you filed the interim designation with the US © Office. I've added such a page: designated agent. Perhaps it should be a protected page so that Wikipedia can be assured to be protected under this provision (preventing any federal judges from issuing ex-parte Temporary Restraining Orders). Alex756 19:23 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
- Page moved to the wikipedia namespace and protected. --mav
Please take a peak at User talk:Dewlaylomo/ban. I think an administrator should take some action. MB 02:35 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
We were just discussing something like this on wikien: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3039041.stm
For now, I'm not too worried about whether wikipedia is acceptable to
school boards. That's not our primary mission, which is to create an
NPOV encyclopedia for adults.
I'm hoping any future version for children would be the PediaPedia.... -- Someone else 18:54 23 May 2003 (UTC)
- As long as you don't call its users "PediaPhiles" ... --Eloquence 20:17 23 May 2003 (UTC)
Note: a banned ex-user made an edit at this point, which was rolled back. Those who wish to read it may find it in the article history. The Anome 17:14 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Waaaaaaaaay back in the article history, as it turns out. So far back, I wonder if the banned ex-user in question is even banned anymore. Rickyrab 17:11 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales hat Deinen sysop-Status annuliert, also "back to normal user"... --Magnus Manske 17:45, 1. Jun 2003 (CEST)
Ja, darum hatte ich gebeten - Uwe ("sailor")
- Jimbo, thank you, I asked for that.
- we endorse your project to teacher on http://www.ecoscope.com
- we often work with children not much older than Kira on the web
- I apologize for the anger our vikings caused, I was under some missconceptions and not at the helm all times - I learned.
- thank you for providing our plankton critters another wave to surf on,
- especially my krill in seven languages
- you created an exciting project and sharp new tool for the next generation
- tomorrow I will submit an NSF proposal where krill on your project plays a major role
- all the best and happy sailing from "sailor" (Uwe Kils - Oceanographer ) Kils 16:04 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
'
Could a developer check to see if User:Eddie is loging in using User:Michael's ip range (i.e. 152.163.25x.xxx)? He has been reverting articles of User:Michael's back to user Michael's content in a sneaky way. I just want to make sure it is or isn't User:Michael. If it is him, please ban the account. Thanks. MB 17:41 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
User:Fuck is Michael, please ban and delete the account, or whatever is nessesary.
Hi, I would like to be unban me please. User:Fuck was not even Michael. - Michael/NOFX
- I'd like to point out that Michael has continued to attempt to edit the Wikipedia, even though he has been banned and knows that he will not be unbanned as long as he continues to violate his ban. --Dante Alighieri 01:07 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hello, back for awhile. About that debate about f**ting I've read on the chat pages: I share the concerns expressed there about school access. Arno 11:47 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Hallo Arno
- thank you very much for your help in the war on f**ting and flagging for use of the wikiship in university. You must be a chief too, siding with the little vikings. We invite to join sailing on our projekt viking. Juts put your name But only your Christian name) or warname on our vikingship discussion page
- we made already a contribution how to flag content that should be put into a chest to be opened only by nontoddlers or in company with parent/friends. In Europa we use the term "Stark Tobak" to label or flag content or weapons we don't want in our toddlers hand swimming alone:
- It stayed there for a while, now was taken back by some younger edtors. We only wanted to start a discussion about it, and we are proud it did raise attention across all oceans. I cooperate with a highschool in Sydney
- and are without any doubt, that wikipaedia will become a sharp and far-reaching tool for our students and all learners who have amounst there tools a computer and network.
- Moin moin to Australia from "sailor" Uwe Kils (while sainling) 16:43 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hello, these users have to stop reverting these articles. I can't keep editing them. So, you have to ground them. - Michael/Weezer
Okay. I just want to clarify, that Eddie or F-word was not me. Those users has been reverting all my pages and keeps doing it. -- Michael/ban
- I could almost believe that someone like User:Zoe would be vindictive enough to do this, but not quite. MB 17:45 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I got somethine else to say. Someone erased my articles. I need you to stop those users please. They keep sneaking on my articles and erasing them. Like [[Taang! Records]], [[Def Leppard]]'s ''[[Pyromania]]'', [[Yngwie J. Malmsteen]]'s ''[[Rising Force]]'', [[Sienad O'Connor]]'s ''[[I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got]]'', [[Collective Soul]], [[Goo Goo Dolls]], [[Dinosaur Jr]] and all my articles which are erased. So, can you help me out of here. - Michael/ban
- Death threats don't help your case, Michael. --Dante Alighieri 20:37 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Michael, since you seem to have failed consistently to grasp the facts, let me point them out to you explicitly.
- Because of your conduct, your threats, your refusal to work with people, your contempt for people and the fact that for every one accurate fact you add in, you throw in two more false ones, you have been banned.
- Being banned means you have no right to be on wikipedia. While banned users have been shown leeway if they come back a second time and mend their ways, people who are repeatedly banned for the same offences are non-persons on wikipedia. In other words, you cannot contribute, you cannot add articles, you cannot edit articles. You can do nothing.
- As such everything you contribute from the time you were banned is being and will be systematically removed. Every article you create, every edit you do, every comma and fullstop you add is being removed. Articles by you aren't even been read, just automatically deleted, partly because you have no right to contribute them and partly because your contributions are so consistently unreliable, it being grossly unfair on other users to have to check every single claim in the latest piece of Michael faction.
IF you want to be a contributor to wiki, you have only one option. Get yourself unbanned. That involves a decision by Jimbo, based on your willingness to change your behaviour (or behavior -- Rickyrab 17:17 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)). As a banned user, nothing, repeat, nothing you contribute from the date of your banning, is being allowed to remain on wiki. You can only change that by convincing Jimbo to remove the ban. Until that ban is lifted, you have no right to contribute and nothing you contribute will be left on wiki. Is that clear enough for you? FearÉIREANN 21:42 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I just want to be unbanned and I want all users to stop reverting any of my latest articles I ever posted. All because of Zoe. - Michael/ban
So you want to be unbanned? OK, Michael, follow these steps.
- Stop adding articles as of now. As a banned user you should not be adding them. The more you add them and force people to delete them, the more hostility you build up towards yourself. For you to immediately stop adding and editing articles would go a long way to creating a better atmosphere towards you among wikipedians.
- Talk to Jimbo through his email. If you cannot get his email, contact me and will give you a contact point.
- Listen to Jimbo carefully and be guided by him. Only he can let you back and after your behaviour he will need a lot of convincing. But it can be done. (As a catholic I of course believe in the power of forgiveness and salvation!!! :-) )
But the first step is yours. As long as you keep adding stuff and editing stuff you will be viewed as nothing more than a vandal and anything you contribute will be deleted on sight, irrespective of quality. If you stop that and talk to Jimbo, there is a chance you may be allowed to contribute. If you don't, there is no chance and everything you contribute to wiki, whether it is over six months or six years, will be deleted automatically.
BTW don't blame Zoe. She is a competent serious wikipedian, one of the best. But she takes no nonsense, from you or anyone else. (She has clashed with me too!) If you believe in the wiki project you should be working with her. It isn't just her. People are queueing to delete your stuff, just as they queueing to delete stuff from any other banned user. Any banned user will have their stuff deleted on sight. The only way you can stop this is by being unbanned, and that requires that you convince Jimbo that you have a 'firm purpose of amendment' (as we catholics say!), ie, that you will change. The first step rests with you, then with Jimbo. If you can guarantee that you will stop contributing to wiki as of this minute, there is a real possibility that in a short time you may be back on wiki as a full accepted member. And if you are, no-one will delete your contributions on sight and will judge them (like everyone else's) on content, accuracy and relevance, nothing more. So please please, stop contributing for the time being, talk to Jimbo and convince him that you should be unbanned. OK? wikilove, FearÉIREANN 03:04 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, Kingturtle has removed a photo from the Sylvia Saint page "until we can get verification on copyright info". I was the one who found and uploaded the photo. She is wearing a bomis.com T-shirt. Could you tell us anything about the copyright in this particular case? All the best, KF 08:32 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
hallo captain!
I was asked to write an article about Wikipedia for a magazine. The ms. is at Uwe:kils:endorsement - if you want changes, let me know (I am gone sailing for the next three months, but I can read wiki on my boat) have a fine summer -- "sailor" uwe Kils 20:57 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Someone's listed you on List of notable eccentrics. IMO this page is a joke, and should be deleted. MB 18:11 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Jimbo, you may been to keep an eye on User:Joe_Canuck. Joe bares striking similarities to the multiple banned user DW in the topics he edits, in his attempts to restyle pages in the manner he likes, and more dramatically in downloading images on the presumption that everything is not copyrighted unless it is explicitly and unambiguously stated to be so. This was a major bone of contention with DW and now with Canuck. Efforts by users to get him to understand how careful wiki has to be with the issue of copyright are failing because he simply deletes their comments from his page. I have tried without success to the it through to him without avail. I think you should speak to this user urgently, as he treats every user with rude contempt. FearÉIREANN 23:12 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Jimbo, though instructed not to do so, Joe Canuck has re-inserted images which may be copyright but whose status he continually refuses to clarify. Users have had to systematically go through all the pages and re-delete the images. To prevent his continued efforts to re-insert the images, I have had to protect the relevant pages.
The evidence that Canuck is the banned user DW is now overwhelming. DW had an ongoing row with Zoe over the style to be used in pages. Canuck has inserted the exact same style, even though it runs diametrically contrary to the agreed page structure on wiki. In addition, like DW, he is exceptionally abusive to other users, issuing legal threats to anyone who tampers with his 'work'. He even placed this abuse on the Votes for Deletion page, filling up the page with attacks on other users. In the circumstances, I request that this user, who is almost certainly a banned user but who even in his current identity had breached fundamental rules over copyright, politeness, editing style etc, be banned. It is wrong that other wiki users be forced to face constant abuse from this person and that he be allowed to remain a contributor when he clearly and unambiguously refuses to follow any of the rules of wiki. FearÉIREANN 18:12 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I would like to second FearEIREANN's request that Joe Canuck be banned. He behaves very much like a banned user would, posting inappropriately and not answering other people's requests, etc., as well as allegedly violating copyrights . Rickyrab 18:34 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thank you very much for setting up the foundation. The announcement has already been translated by a Spanish in his language on the Spanish Wikipedia and on Enciclopedia Libre. -- Youssefsan 20:45 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
User:Michaelism is yet another alias for User:Michael. He's officially banned, and knows it, but keeps on coming back. He is slowly becoming more destructive, and seems to relish causing trouble: he's now using page moves as a form of vandalism, for example moving user's own pages to insulting new names. His verbal aggression has also increased. He has now driven Zoe, one of the most valuable contributors here, to quit.
It seems to me that this has reached the same level of severity as the previous problems with 24. At the moment, Michael is hiding behind the supposed IP anonymity of a logged-in user, although the actual server logs will still have his IP recorded. Can you let me know what the policy is about the expectation of anonymity for banned/abusive users logged in under throwaway accounts? -- The Anome 08:46 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Mostly messages after 25 June 2003
Note: I just cleaned house here. Rest assured that I read all of what was here, and am considering the various problems raised, including problems with banned users and so on. Thanks for the photos that were left here as a gift for me.
I do read this page, but not as quickly or as often as I read email. So if anything is urgent, email me. jwales@bomis.com Jimbo Wales 20:57 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Now to answer a few of the more amusing tidbits:
---
Hi Jimbo, Kingturtle has removed a photo from the Sylvia Saint page "until we can get verification on copyright info". I was the one who found and uploaded the photo. She is wearing a bomis.com T-shirt. Could you tell us anything about the copyright in this particular case? All the best, KF 08:32 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Bomis owns the copyright to that photo, and while we don't release all of our promotional photos under the GNU FDL, that one is fine. I always wonder what happened to the photo of Aria Giovanni on my Ferrari. Hmm... the mysteries of Wikipedia. :-) Jimbo Wales 20:57 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Someone's listed you on List of notable eccentrics. IMO this page is a joke, and should be deleted. MB 18:11 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I don't really mind the page, and I don't mind my listing there, as I suppose this is a pretty insane project. :-) But really, I'm not an actually famous person, and so for the same reasons of modesty that would lead to me oppose an article about me in the 'pedia, I'm not sure I should really be listed there.
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Anti-Semitism&diff=1104682&oldid=1103906
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Jew&diff=1104783&oldid=1104717
Hi, Mr. Wales. I came here to ask you wether those bastard users are ever gonna stop deleting my articles. I will keep adding all new articles, save them and not let a user delete them all or dispute them. - Michael
Michael, you are banned from Wikipedia. Anything you add to Wikipedia will be reverted as quickly as possible. You are not permitted to add anything to Wikipedia unless and until the ban is lifted. There would be several easy to meet conditions for the lift of such a ban.
First, you'll need to email me so we can have a chat about wikipedia etiquette. You're going to have to change your ways in many respects. For example, calling people 'bastard users' is strictly forbidden. You're supposed to be nice and co-operative. If you don't like that, fine, it's a free country, just go somewhere else.
Second, you're going to have to agree to stop creating new usernames just to get around the ban. That behavior is extremely anti-social and it undermines what we are trying to do here. Again, if you don't like that, fine, it's a free country, just go somewhere else.
Third, the substantive problems that got you banned in the first place, having to do with persistently adding inaccurate information and refusing to work with others by giving references, etc., will have to be addressed by you in a mature and responsible way.
I really hope that we can work together in the future, but I'll be frank with you -- I don't have much hope for it. You're going to have to really turn your attitude around first.
Jimbo Wales 20:32 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Just thought I would give you a heads up about a suspect IP address: 68.36.151.77. I was monitoring one of the pages that Michael had edited: Jane's Addiction And this IP has changed the page back to what Michael had made. I made a note on the page that I think it may contain inaccurate/incomplete information. Also I put a note on the Michael ban page. Thanks. Randyc 16:50 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Uh oh! Jimbo has escaped from the confines of the mailing list. Look out! :-) --mav 22:58 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, and I've chosen the highly controversial topic of 'boarding schools' to edit. I predict a fork by morning. :-) I've been reading Harry Potter books this week, and now wish that I had attended a boarding school. For wizards, of course! Jimbo Wales 23:05 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo - how much do you pay for domain name registration? I just got an email from another Wikipedian who wants to reserve http://wikiquote.org/.com for the Foundation. --mav 23:46 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
For various reasons, money isn't the most important thing on domain registrations. For me, having all my domains consolidated in one account at register.com is well worth it. So, maybe I'll just snag those right now, if that wouldn't upset anyone. After the wikimedia fiasco, we should know that within days after mentioning these things, someone will register them anyway! Jimbo Wales 23:51 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I keep kicking myself for not also buying wikimedia.com... Oh well - wikimedia.org by itself will still be a good place to host the foundation. --mav
I don't no what Jimbo pay but I can buy a domain for 12 ?/year. Ericd 23:54 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
O.k., I bought these. Email wikitech-l, and me, to remind me to have Jason point them in the right spot or whatever. I'm assuming from the name what the idea is, and I'm all for it. Jimbo Wales 23:56 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Done. Actually http://quote.wikipedia.org is already set-up. Hm. I've already bought http://wikibook.org/.com - do you think it is at all worth it to also have http://wikibooks.org/.com ?
- In my opinion, all variants that you can think of for any domain that would actually be used is worth having. Believe me, spammers will put shocking porn sites on anything that isn't nailed down. Jimbo Wales 06:06 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I just had the idea that if I stop smoking I could buy at least one hundred of domains ;-) Ericd 00:00 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- LOL. --mav
Jimmy, you have a blog! Who knew? Well, not me obviously. -- Stephen Gilbert 19:21 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I was just writing some blog software and needed to actually use it in order to decide what things to add. I never intended, really, to have a public blog, but I do post from time to time. Jimbo Wales 19:26 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Can you have a look here and consider banning PizzaPuzzle? --217.85.217.160 07:05, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
peep Wikipedia:Anti-testimonies when you get a chance.
The last quotation is my favorite. Jimbo just bought a new server for the 'pedia, and still hasn't made any money off it, hahaha isn't that funny? Jimmy? ;-) Koyaanis Qatsi 22:59, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Could you ban User:67.121.169.17 (Michael) ASAP? MB 23:25, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
Policy question: You recently edited surplus value to change "is" to "is said to be". However, the term is used only in Marxist economics, and is preambled with "In Marxist economics,...". For terms which are used only in one school or style of discourse, which actually define those terms, "is" seems more appropriate, else we will be changing every single definition in any even remotely controversial field from "is" to "said to be". For instance, social welfare function or economic growth. One might as well do a general search-replace on "is" to replace all such references with "is said to be". Is that what you want? Or is this more an issue you personally have with the Marxist terms? Clarity is important here, as Wikipedia is one of the few places one can go for a neutral presentation of all the major economic theories. EofT
- That's not a policy question! My editing the page was not meant as an expression of policy of any kind. When I edit, which is rarely, I'm just another Wikipedian trying to help out. My concern that people will inappropriately take some random edit of mine as an expression of policy is one reason I have to avoid editing, actually. This isn't the Jimbo-pedia, and so I avoid editing so as to preserve my neutral position as mediator of disputes.
- Understood. You could always edit under another name, though. Not doing so will confuse weak minds. Like mine perhaps. :-) Thanks for clarifying. EofT
- While it is true that "In Marxist economics" does help to set the context, when I read the definition, I felt that it would be a good clarification that this is what Marxist economics says, rather than an expression of an actual fact. I don't think that this implies anything about the need for a general search and replace, it was unique to this particular sentence. My feeling was that this particular sentence could lead the reader to believe that Wikipedia actually _endorses_ the Marxian viewpoint, which isn't good.
- Since it is a term defined *only* in Marxist economics, a definitive-mode "is" didn't seem to me to have any implication of authoritative, investigative or other kind of validity. I see many such blunt definitions for other terms in economics, and did not think that it meant that Wikipedia endorsed those, but maybe it does. A uniform policy is important. But as you say every sentence is unique. The term "surplus value" is particularly ideologically pointed, so perhaps that term also is unusual. As you say here: EofT
- It's relevant here that the word 'confiscated' is heavily value-laden, to such a degree that an additional layer of distance seems justified in this case, where it might not be in some less-value-laden other cases.
- Since you asked, and in the interest of full disclosure, I think that Marxian economics is akin to astrology or the use of leeches to cure illness.
- Leeches actually prevent blood clots, and, nine of the ten demands from the 1848 Communist Manifesto have been implemented in all of the so-called "capitalist" nations (the last item being land reform - "the abolishment of rents in land"). The last item is on the wish list of many very respectable economists who see it as the only way to avert a World War in the developing nations. So I disagree about the economics. But I appreciate the disclosure. To me astrology is something like "trickle-down economics". EofT
- But that really has nothing to do with the edit in question. I would support a similar edit even in a case where I was a fan of the concept, and I do acknowledge that depending on the particular case in point, stylistic considerations may lead to different results. Jimbo Wales 17:55, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Agreed - it's a small neutralization to the rather pointed word "confiscated". And, I admit, I wrote that entry only because it had sat on a list for too long without being written. I am no special expert in the concept, and it's one of the few positions in Marxist economics that I think is really just ideology. EofT
As far as collaborative projects and timelines go, you may be interested in looking at the Wiki-like solution that the Python community has come up with, http://www.python.org/peps/ Jfeckstein 17:49, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- RK vs EofT -> Wikipedia:Community case RK
The anonymous person who has been harassing me recently has also turned out to be Entmoots of Trolls. I truly wish that were not so; I was actually having fun working on articles that EoT wasn't dealing with, such as Benzene, Angels, Ethics, etc...and now I found out he is still (anonymously) following me and harassing me, and lying about my own comments. (Ex: I wrote a request for people to add perspectives from many different religions on the Ethics in the Bible page, yet EoT he wrote a rant claiming that I was preventing people from doing so. His statements have no basis in reality.) EntmootsOfTrools is now pushing his religious, political and social views on the Ethics pages, has slandered me, and then has the nerve to get a Sysop protect the Ethics page to prevent anyone from fixing his damage. For whatever reason, the Sysop is following EoT's orders. This guy is stll totally out of control. Can we do something about him? RK 21:27, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- "EoT he wrote a rant claiming that I was preventing people from doing so." False. Produce this "rant". "pushing his religious, political and social views" False. I have said nothing in the ethics article about my views on it, just listed all the views I know of, which are more than RK dares take seriously. I protest this kind of unattributed statement, and, if anyone is "following" and "harassing" it is clearly this poor incoherent fellow who believes that such section titles as "ethics in THE religion" are appropriate. EofT
- By all means, Jim, review the Page History and Talk files, and determine the truth of matters. User_talk:CGS has my assessment of the Ethics situation. I fail to understand how anyone can assume I issue "orders", I simply made a reasonable request for temporary protection. The page now has a NPOV dispute marker on it as to standard procedure, and I agreed to a ceasefire on that page that will stand until RK touches it. EofT
- As far as I'm concerned, it still stands, although, I had to restore moral philosophy just now - this page is needed so that one may refer to the Western ethical tradition as such, from the point of view of other cultures (say Chinese or postmodern globalist or Marxist), which simply do not accept the categories that tradition (which is derived from Christianity) applies. I am assuming as of now that global ethics and ethical traditions will be split off from ethics so that it regains its original scope, but, simple view of ethics and morals will be retained under some title for those with no interest in acquiring a whole ethical tradition or complex terminology in order to understand what practical ethics really is. That will make four articles. This makes it a lot easier to refer to the four separate things one generally refers to in links to ethics or mentions of ethics: ethics as efficient dispute resolution (the simple view), the whole Western moral philosophy as it evolved from the Greeks to present, ethics as it is understood in the multicultural multiperspective pluralism of today, ethical tradition itself as a determiner of what is right and wrong, with many examples, and global ethics, to focus on those schools that hold that ethics has planetary and species-wide constraints on it that now overwhelm all prior traditions and methods. Then descriptive ethics can take even more material from ethics as such, and deal with psychology as if it were just another tradition. I know this is a difficult topic and a difficult debate. But there must be some respect for truth and terminology here. If the ruling is that "what feminists, Marxists and globalists and Greens call ethics is not really ethics", then, this project is bullshit and I am gone. Likewise, if the ruling is that one phrase that is wholly owned by the Western view (moral philosophy) is not the right place to describe and criticize that tradition, then I guarantee that will lead to more chaos. Ethics is a very broad concern, and the word was invented by the Greeks, and MANY peoples inherit their traditions. Not just those working in universities. But even among those, well, certainly, what is studied in the theology department, what is studied in literature, what is studied in the Queer studies, Marxist sociology, etc., is all very much called ethics, I can assure you. It is very much the same stuff as what the Western tradition called meta-ethics, only, the selection of viewpoints and perspectives to respect is pretty much the whole game - making both normative and descriptive choices for the participants in the ethical debate, simply by choosing a language, a judge, and means of resolution. Thus these views are not really possible to frame in the traditional academic way, and descriptive ethics cannot be sidelined as it was in the traditional academic way. I think I have drastically more knowledge in this field than most others, and I have let other central issues such as scientific method rot (look at the recent page history) just to be sure that this area is brought up to snuff. It has not been easy, and there's no one else to do it. If this is an encyclopedia, then truth counts for more than harmony, and contribution for more than who likes you. I think you must make a choice, Jim, and frankly I don't think I care which way you make it. I just want to know. EofT 12:00, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I must also register a protest against this kind of thing being posted on others' talk pages: RK claims that I have "been found guilty of harassment and vandalism, and is under threat of immediate ban from Wikipedia." I am certainly aware of doing nothing that can rationally be called vandalism as that word is defined here, nor of any due process by which anyone is "found guilty" of anything. Furthermore, I fail to see why anyone. let alone a sysop, should take a "threat" or a "ban" into consideration in choosing their behaviour w.r.t. myself. This is clearly an attempt to intimidate someone via propaganda that claims in effect that it is "not worth it" to protect this person who "will soon be banned" and thereby is some kind of bad person. I am hardly the only target of this rhetoric, so I protest on behalf of all those so abused by RK. EofT
- As for this thing RK calls harassment, well, I don't know what it is. It isn't the legally defined version. People vary in sensitivity. However, use of terms like "guilty", "damage", "harassment", "vandalism", "rant", pushing", "slander", "orders", "lying", "out of control" and "no basis in reality" would certainly seem to violate various edicts of yours about names. I by contrast have lately used only two words ("liar" and "libeller") that I am very sure can be backed in a real court, and a third ("whining child") that I agreed not to use, to give you and other people in a responsible position time to deal with this. I suggest you do so. EofT
- Finally, my choice of articles is directed by Wikipedia:list of central issues, and not by any other user's editing concerns or perspective. If an issue is raised in connection with ethics or moral philosophy, in general, I review it and look around for other articles that connect to it. And I was doing that with ethics and simple view of ethics and morals long before today. EofT
What's laughable here is that the above is a perfect example of what's wrong with moral philosophy itself: an adversarial process with two "pleadings" before an all-powerful divine judge. Just like Ancient Rome. Just like Christianity. Just like any unaccountable Empire. There are problems you just can't solve this way. And there are methods for solving them that you just can't discuss with people who claim to know your intent, who claim to know your identity on a level deeper than you have stated it, and who claim to judge you. So I don't intend to discuss them, I just intend to document them, and let you decide whether to apply them. Political virtues is a good place to start. Build a governance system that encourages that kind of behaviour, rather than whining and prescriptive labelling, and you will shortly find, Jim, that you have less to do. EofT 12:09, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Jim, I'm working on a project based on the wikipedia MediaWiki engine to create a set of annotations on Neal Stephenson's upcoming book Quicksilver. It's going to be a public site. I've seeded some of the entries with text from the Wikipedia for our internal release, and I wanted to invite you to participate and also ask you whether it's OK to use some of the Wikipedia content (I realize the license is GFDL, but I still wanted to check with you). Send me email and I can give you the URL and password for the internal site. patrick@appliedminds.net --Zippy 21:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about the delay here, but I think I answered you in email already? Anyhow: great! And ask around on the mailing list (wikipedia-l) if you want more advice on the community norms for credit, links back here, etc.
Jimbo Wales 18:46, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&diff=1502800&oldid=1502751
Have you been following the debate at User talk:Cyan/Internet child pornography? I think you ought to. It has very serious legal and ethical implications for this noble project, which I gether you are in overall charge of to the extent that anyone is. Not allowing paedophiles to post "how to" articles here ought to be a matter of policy, not of interminable argument, and that policy ought to be enforced. Adam 06:53, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I will look into it. More than likely, our NPOV policy is sufficient to deal with potential problems in this area, coupled with the nature of the wiki process, which naturally forces people to take in account other people's points of view, if they want their text to survive. It's best to bring issues like this to wikipedia-l, though, for the richest debate and discussion. Jimbo Wales 18:46, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know who/how to contact, so it's here. Can you please delete my WP account (also on the German WP)? I'm leaving Wikipedia, but I might come back later on. At the moment I think WP lacks guidelines on what WP should be (the kind of WP is no dictionary). There's too many stubs and ommissions to my liking, and currently a very heavy US/UK bias. Many contributors don't seem to undertsand what an encyclopedia is (not as I do). Please delete my account. DiruWiki 14:03, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
(I might return...) Oh, and good luck!!
Medical Wikipedia
Hi. I'm a Wikipedian whose father is a doctor. When I explained to him what Wikipedia was, he replied that it sounded like exactly what the medical community needs - a centralized, living center for medical information that would be written by and for physicians. I was wondering about how a sister project to Wikipedia for physicians along the lines of Wikiquotes and Wikibooks could be set up, and since I didn't know where to ask I figured a developer might by a good start. Thanks, leave a reply on the Talk Page of my namespace. --Alex S 00:19, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of encyclopedias that all reside at the same place. One of those encyclopedias is a medical one. But all encyclopedias are written by and for everybody. No need to be exclusive. Encourage your father to contribute here. --mav 02:07, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
No one owns the interenet. And if this is to be truly open-source, no one should 'own' this site.
I'll buy some of your servers, or, even better, buy some new servers to use for this site--hence decentralising it. I have an enormous quantity of money that I'm not using for anything... Anything to prevent someone from pretending that they have the right to 'rule' part of the internet. Khranus
Old history cleaned out... check the history if you're interested. I try to routinely clear this page every so often.
If you post something for me here, I will read it, but I'm not as good at responding to this page as I am at responding to email. Email is a good way to reach me, almost guaranteed to have a reasonable turnaround time. Jimbo Wales 22:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is Khranus. I generated a random IP so I could 'discuss' this with you.
I don't think I need to use e-mail, as there is a sufficient messaging system right here in wikipedia.
I don't ever remember 'refusing' to discuss anything with you. I merely stated that I wouldn't reply to that jumbled mess of a 'letter' that Ed Poor directed me to.
There was really nothing to reply to--it was only a collection of links and complaints about my 'behaviour'.
I can continue to generate random IPs, I hope you know, so using simple tricks like blocking a single IP will not work.
- This kind of threat is absolutely the most counter-productive thing that you can do. I intend to extend every possible courtesy to you in the hopes that you will reform enough to be allowed back, but threatening to evade the ban will result in my making it permanent. Jimbo Wales
I suggest you discuss this matter with me right here on your Talk page.
- Well, you sent me email last night, so we can discuss it that way. Or on the mailing list, your choice. Jimbo Wales
- Khranus
I'll have no more of this non-sense. If you think you have the right to ban me (Khranus), you most certainly must discuss this matter. Or I will be forced to behave in just as silly a manner as you and edit articles under psuedonyms.
Khranus is clearly Michael. He's used these IPs:
- 152.163.252.134
- 64.12.96.79 and 64.12.96.139
- 205.188.209.40
These ranges are listed on User:JohnOwens:Most_Wanted.
Evercat 02:23, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Actually, I'll assure you that I AM NOT MICHAEL. I actually have no idea who that is, and I assure you, most sincerely, that what I say is true. Khranus
- I guess it could just be another AOLer (these are all AOL IPs). Anyway, it doesn't matter much if he's banned anyway. :-) Evercat 02:33, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Funny enough, another user when accused of being Michael, used to respond occasionally with the words I AM NOT MICHAEL in capitals. And guess who he was? Michael. Not only that , he used to say he didn't know who Michael is, and insist sincerely that what he said was true. Spooky! (I was surprised at Evercat's suggestion, until I read Khranus's denial and it sounded a tad familiar! What are the odds on someone who supposedly doesn't know anything about Michael in two sentences happening to use three separate michaelisms. ) FearÉIREANN 00:56, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I unprotected user:Khranus, because I don't think there is a need to protect it. Why do you think there is? If he comes back and edits the page, it's easy and quick enough to revert, and it serves as a lightning mast to detect possible returns and deflect fire from articles.
Also, it doesn't seem to be listed on wikipedia:protected page - current "policy" strongly encourages sysops to list pages they protect there, so that people know what the heck is going on, and why.Martin 19:06, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Martin, that was entirely my error. I had seen, I think, banned user pages be protected in the past, and so I thought that was the custom. I should have checked, and of course I knew better than to protect a page without listing it. I apologize to all for these mistakes. Jimbo Wales
It has happened, though I've never been entirely clear why. Thanks, anyway. I seem to be in the mood for bitching about my fellow sysops today. :) Martin 21:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo
I need you a little bit here please. User:Eslios is persistently requesting a collection of things, among which to be banned from all wikipedias. Banning people is not my job :-). Can you take care of the matter in any way you would see relevant ? Eslios speaks english so there should not be a problem for you both to communicate. Thank you Jimbo.
- Eslios is asking to be banned from all wikipedias? I'm not sure I understand that. If Eslios doesn't want to edit, then Eslios shouldn't edit. If Eslios wants to prove some kind of point, well, what could it be? It doesn't prove much if someone asks to be banned, does it? Well, I'll never understand some things. Have Eslios email me, and then I'll do it.
- I do not understand either Jimbo. But he seemed relieved I made that request to you. All his edits have been anonymised (signatures and history). Some of his pages deleted (not all of them). It appeared he was satisfyed by Looxix and I doing this, as he requested. He seems to have disappeared. I hope he is feeling better and quietly regaining his peace of mind.
- (Though I would not fail to mention I am a bit worried because I saw an edit today with his ip range. He might plan to come back.)
In regards to what is going on at Talk:Zionism. I take gross offense at the repeated and incredible falsehoods that Danny and Zero0000 are spreading about my beliefs. It is one thing to disagree with people; that's fine. But it is quite another to lie about someone's beliefs, and slander them for these non-existent beliefs. Wikipedia is a group project, and this gross violation of Wikipedia etiquette, if not libel, is unacceptable. What's more, the more I explain my position, the more they simply fabricate beliefs I do not have. They show no interest in discussion, and are now openly collaborating in crucifying me. They have stooped to trying to make me out to be a bigot by attacking beliefs I simply do not have. I don't know what to do, since an appeal to them is out of the question. Their emotion has exploded into hurtful actions. I don't think their writings on this subject can be trusted. RK 02:42, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
I will look at that page, and I'll ask them to lay off. That does sound like something that should be looked into for sure. But, I've been on vacation, so it will be at least tomorrow until I get around to this! Jimbo Wales 23:51, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo,
I imagine you've heard of me by now. I'm made a little splash since coming aboard Wikipedia a few days ago.
I would like to hear from you personally regarding my ultimate question: Will my friends be welcome to post legitimate information regarding free energy per a WikiProject: Free Energy Project Control Panel I created?
Or should I consider establishing a separate encyclopedia project for this purpose where I will not have to constantly be worried about good content being deleted by people who think they know better but don't?
- Sterlingda 08:10, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) http://www.pureenergysystems.com/encyclopedia
An update . . .
Hello again Jimbo,
I've not received a reply from you, though I note with interest that my memo to you has remained here for nearly a week now.
I just completed this evening a complete set of instructions of how to build a working magnetic motor. An associate has built one. We are waiting for two independent replications, then we will be publishing the instructions for all the world, hopefully soon. It's not a complicated design. A skilled high school student machinist could build it. The components are not that expensive.
As for using Wikipedia, based on my experience here thus far, I can see that Wikipedia is pretty well committed to keeping things to just "tried and true, mainstream" sorts of matters.
We will be establishing a separate encyclopedia project focusing just on alternative energy technology. I envision basically three concurrent listings. One we will call the "notepad," where anyone can post, and things need not be that well organized or even cleared. Just jotting things down.
Then there will be a clean-up version where the scattered becomes organized and a good deal of editing will take place. This will also be public, free-for-all, like wikipedia.
Finally, there will be a peer reviewed encyclopedia final destination that will go through a much more rigorous screening process, and changes will be much less frequent. Anyone can submit a change, but it will not go live until it has passed through the editors for that topic or topic area.
Wikipedia will be free to refer to those entries for possible variant entries in Wikipedia, but we will most likely copyright them, if we have our own database software, which we are aiming for at this point. If not, we will need to make that info freely replicable per the Wikipedia software terms.
I would have liked to have been able to use wikipedia for our encyclopedia end of things, but alas, your wikipedia community gave it a resounding "no."
They deleted the free energy project control panel page I created. I backed it up is on my user section.
I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, by doing our own encyclopedia project we will be drawing from a pool of people who are more open minded to this sort of thing. On the other hand, I can see that your Wikipedia regulars are very good at what they do here, and I would have liked to had their expertise.
I just thought you would like to know the outcome of this little controversy I stirred here.
Sincerely,
Sterlingda 06:42, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo,
Me again.
I've learned that your company, Bomis, donates bandwidth for Wikipedia.
In budgeting our Alternative Energy Encyclopedia, News, open sourcing, and academy project, I'm hoping to get a ballpark estimate of what expenses the server and bandwidth might run us. Wikipedia can give us ballpark estimate of where we might be three years down the road.
Would you mind telling me roughly how much the server costs are for Wikipedia (if they were not donated)?
How many servers do you use?
Bandwidth? CPU requirements for algorithm processing?
I found most other statistical information I needed by searching.
Please post reply to my talk page. Or to me privately via email or phone. sterlingda @ pureenergysystems.com
Thanks
Sterlingda 18:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Partial answer on your talk page. Jimbo will have to estimate his bandwidth cost. Not sure if he has done this yet for Wikimedia traffic. --mav 00:36, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ban Lir?
I hear you are back to entertaining banning decisions. Please, please consider banning Lir, if that recurrent popular request didn't already come to mind. See e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir (You can see some examples of discussions with Lir from the Talk pages in a couple of the bottom sections of that page) 168... 06:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Question about "relevance", and who decides
I'm very impressed with your vision and execution of Wikipedia, plus the quality and quantity of articles that your team has been able to generate in such a short time. It's an excellent example what voluntary cooperation can produce.
I've been working on a much smaller educational project (Modern History Project) which is a user-edited database of entity/relationship timelines for significant people, organizations and events. The relationships are cross-referenced, with notes and links to other reference sources including Wikipedia.
I tried to add a link to the Wikipedia List of themed timelines page, but two different editors here decided after a cursory examination that the site content was (a) "irrelevant", and (b) "useless". To demonstrate, see Bush, George H.W. and then click on any of the links for cross-reference or searching. While the site is new and the database is still sparse, some Wikipedia visitors might find the index capability useful, especially since they can also update the database.
It's too bad that someone can't see any value (or potential value) in the effort, and has elected to make that decision for every other Wikipedia visitor (and potential contributor) as well. I can't understand why there is room on the timelines page for a link to "timelines of things that never were", and not for a link to a database of "timelines of things that matter". User talk:Huxwell
- I'm afraid that it's late in the evening and I'm unable to form any opinion on this. In any event, I normally don't make firm decisions of this type -- I like the Wiki process, because it usually ends up right in the end. One question, though -- do you intend to license your data freely? Your software? In this community, you could establish a lot of good will by doing so, and cause people to lose interest fast by not doing so. Jimbo Wales 06:29, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. The data on the site is all in the public domain, and there is no license issue. We plan to offer the entire dataset (names, dates, notes, links) free for download. Hopefully someone will find the index functions that the site provides useful enough to merit a link from Wikipedia. Meanwhile, we will keep adding to the database. 11-Jan-2004
VfD
That you are practically a god to some of the people around here is, of course, ignored. I respect you greatly, sir. I would request an explanation of why you and Theresa are calling VfD broken. VfD is one of the few things stopping Wikipedia from turning into a madhouse. It would be like going after the stub page, or cleanup or – God forbid – the sandbox! --Merovingian 02:42, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a process, but I'm not convinced that VfD is the right process. The specific problem that I had with it today was that it resulted in a decision that I think was clearly wrong, and I fear that over time, VfD is being used inappropriately. At the same time, I fully acknolwedge that it is "one of the few things stopping Wikipedia from turning into a madhouse."
Speaking a little more abstractly, I think that the ultimate problem with VfD is tht it serves as a mechanism for legitimization of collective decisions that are contrary to the wiki spirit. One of the interesting things about a wiki authorship process is that it is not democratic in the sense that the majority rules. For text to survive over the very long haul, it has to pass universal scrutiny. Anyone who is willing to work in good faith can enter an article that the majority (or, as it works out in practice, the implicit 'cabal' of established users) thinks is dandy, and edit it.
When we make decisions by vote, even if the vote is 100 to 1, we are deviating from the wiki model. That's fine, don't get me wrong. My goal is for us to create an encyclopedia for free distribution to everyone on the planet. That is the end, and wiki is only a means. But it's a means that has worked miraculously, and I think we should deviate from it only very cautiously. VfD encourages us to think in a non-wiki way, to think in terms of 'majority rule', and I think that's a problem.
Jimbo Wales 06:30, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Departure of Danny from Wikipedia
I hope you are going to do some serious reflecting on the circumstances that have driven Danny out of Wikipedia. Adam 06:51, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Adam. I don't think your contribution to the ongoing Israel/Palestine argument was helpful as because of your position it has more weight than that of a normal user. Secretlondon 14:32, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
- There's nothing to reflect about. Jimbo Wales's pro-Israel attitude has gotten the better of his so-called sense of NPOV and he has effectively given a green light to Jewish supremacists like RK and Humus sapiens (if they REALLY aren't the same person) to turn this place into the mouthpiece of the JDL! -- 213.231.204.211 14:13, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo, I strongly disagree with your decision to suggest Palestinian views of the peace process be reverted from the redirect I created. RK has now done this, supposedly because you said he could. I was on the verge of reverting but an edit war with RK is hardly the way I want to spend my weekend!
I feel your views on VfD are irrelevant to this article as it was never deleted. Instead, what happened was a sensible discussion on the issue, where a consensus formed that the article was not suitable. Two people thought that some of it should be merged into the Palestine article, with four others suggesting it be deleted outright. No one other than you has suggested the article ought to be kept in its current form, yet people will not want to go against your decision that it should stay. Perhaps voting on such things isn't the wiki way, but I really don't understand what is wrong with going with a consensus that has formed on this issue or why you object to collective decisions. How is "the wiki way" going to work when at least six people feel the article should not even exist?
I feel the page should reflect what the consensus wants, not what you or RK want. Other people are trying to discuss how to deal with the issue at Talk:Palestine, yet rather than respond there you choose to give RK the right to ignore all of that discussion and revert to his original article!
Finally, the fact that this has driven Danny away is a huge loss to Wikipedia. He was an amazingly productive editor and one of the few willing to put up with RK's dreadful abuse. Angela. 16:25, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
In my months at Wikipedia I have met many great people, but the editor who stood out the most both in depth of knowledge and personal integrity was Danny. If he fails to return it will be a disaster of immense proportions, and you will be the one mostly to blame. --Zero 23:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I should say that my initial comment, that Jimbo should do some reflecting on Danny's departure, did not relate to the role that he personally played at the Israel-Palestine article - a matter of which I have no knowledge. I was referring to the overall structural problem at Wikipedia, for which I understand Jimbo is responsible, to the extent that anyone is. Danny is a victim of the Wikipedia version of Gresham's Law (that the good is driven out by the bad). Wikipedia gives the genuinely scholarly constributor no protection against fools, vandals and fanatics (of whom Lirath is an excellent example, by the way), and arguments can only be resolved through a process of exhaustion, which the fanatic always wins in the long run. That is why scholarly contributors leave, and why Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopaedia until their work is proected. Adam 06:05, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! Oh and I'm sure that you can guess which user(s) I'm thinking of when applying Gresham's law. Arno 00:03, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
comment retracted, Viajero 14:38, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Philosophy of banning...Lir as a timely example
At "conflicts between users" I just posted this in the context of the (redundant I now see) discussion I started about banning Lir.
- The main problem with Lir is an abundance of evidence of bad faith and, from the instances when Lir is willing to discuss things at all, a record of discussions that are acrimonious and irresolvable. I don't trust this person. Who does? Does anybody actually want this person around? If so, why? I think the burden of proof should be on people who want Lir around. Disagreeing with some others is natural and certainly not a crime, but if Lir can't reach agreements with anybody, I don't think we should regard it as our obligation or responsibility to allow Lir to play here.
I have never nominated anyone for banning before, and now that I am going through the motions for Lir, I'm getting the impression that I'm thinking about banning differently than the norm, at least differently the norm that is suggested by the posted arguments and proposals I read. What do you think about the way I am framing the issue above, and about the way I suggest shifting the burden of proof to advocates against the ban, after ample grounds for distrust has been demonstrated? I don't think it should be such a big deal to ban. Yes, we don't want to ban people on the basis of bad evidence, and I suppose reliable evidence takes a while or is hard to obtain, but I don't think the evidence should have to show a capital offence, just that somebody is a drag and doesn't add anything positive to the project. 168... 19:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I support any proposal to ban Lirath by whatever method. Adam 06:05, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
multi-posting
Sorry about the redundant posts. For some reason uploading edits is taking forever. Sometimes while I'm staring at the edit window and no uploading seems to have happened yet I hit escape and indulge the temptation to change one more word. So I guess I'm guilty of bad practice on those counts. Other times the just seems to upload multiple times by itself. This is just over the last couple days. Don't ask me.168... 19:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo, hello, I am a new user/contributor here at Wikipedia. I see that some of the material I came to write to you about has been covered before and that you are being roundly castigated by some for taking a POV that differs from their concept of NPOV. I am afraid that this is to be expected. Such is the nature of many people in the world and the source of much strife.
At the court of King Jimbo
There are two items that I would like to mention to you that are new:
1. Elon Peace Plan. I editted to page to remove all editorial content, both pro and con, listed the (half-dozen or less) main principles the plan as listed on its website. That edit has been reverted by User:Viajero and locked in place by User:secretlondon. Could you take a look please.
2. Norman Finkelstein. The page includes a charactertization of the ADL that is at odds with the ADL page. I changed the words "The Anti-Defamation League, a conservative, pro-Israel advocacy group which says it fights anti-Semitism, has called Finkelstein" to "The Anti-Defamation League has called Finkelstein". User:Viajero reverted it rather quickly. Could you look at this as well?
Thank you OneVoice 22:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am also a relatively recent arrival at Wikipedia. Could I clarify whether this Jimbo person is or is not the ultimate court of appeal on matters of article content, as the above posting seems to suggest? I was not aware that Wikipedia was a feudal monarchy. Also, why does Jimbo not deign to respond when he is criticised, or even asked direct questions, on his own talk page? Is there some court etiquette I am not aware of? Adam 00:32, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo,
There is some concern over at Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (low degree of compliance) about sites that use Wikimedia bandwidth to serve images onto their pages (i.e. they don't store a local copy of the image - just take it from the Wikimedia servers when required). The particular case under discussion right now is http://www.wordiq.com/. Some people (me included, actually) would prefer to see the bandwidth only used for directly furthering Wikimedia projects. However I seem to recall you saying somewhere that you are quite tolerant of this sort of use and we should leave things as they are right now. Obviously as you are very generously still footing the bill for bandwidth, your opinion should carry overriding weight on this issue... so I was wondering what that opinion was! Thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm not tolerant of bandwidth theft, which is what it is. If necessary, we should take technical measures (by checking the referer variable, for example, and serving up a 'blocked' image) to prevent this. I'm not agitated about it at the moment, and yes, I pay for it, rather than it coming out of our general fund, but of course there's a sense in which the more I have to pay for bandwidth the sooner will come the day when I can't afford it anymore, which would be too bad.
Has anyone tried to contact them? Are they nice people? I see that they are hiding behind domainsbyproxy.com, which could just be a legitimate exercise of privacy rights, but could also be cover for a spammer. Jimbo Wales 22:20, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
YEAH, BABY! Wikipedia is FAST. I haven't had a save that fast since the first day I setup the first website and no one knew about it but me. Jimbo Wales 22:21, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Haha. Yes, the tech situation is much improved, and we're all thankful. →Raul654 22:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm loving the new setup too! Several contributors wrote to wordiq.com previously because they weren't acknowledging that their content was from Wikipedia, and were claiming their own copyright. After several emails, the last of which was quite stern (i.e. mentioned DomainsByProxy's policy on copyright infringement, Google's policy on removing copyright infringements etc) they made the appropiate attributions. It was mav who had the most success - I and others got identical emails saying they would look into the matter. The sum of all this is that the general impression was that they weren't all that nice people. HOWEVER they said at least twice that their website was merely a school project - they didn't care what happened "as long as they got their A". This of course may be true and I personally would then have a bit more sympathy than a purely commercial outfit, but it sounds a little fishy - what with a toolbar to download from download.com, the domainsbyproxy thing, the solicitation for advertisers (though no actual advertisers). All the previous talk is listed at Wikipedia_talk:Sites that use Wikipedia for content and Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (low degree of compliance). Their email address is support@wordiq.com. Please give me a shout if there's anything I can do to help out with this. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can I ask you to refer the matter of me and Anthony DiPierro to the arbitration committee? --Wik 20:32, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
- And until a formal decision is reached, can you put an emergency stop to certain sysops' vigilanteism? RickK and Hephaestos blocked me twice each, and Ed Poor once. (Various other sysops have unblocked me.) How can five clear-cut violations like that go unpunished? The rules say sysops are only allowed to ban logged-in users for persistent vandalism. --Wik 19:56, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
- What is it that you want arbitrated? The fact that you go around reverting my edits for no reason other than "on principle?" If I'm going to agree to go to arbitration with you you need to explain what your problem is. Anthony DiPierro 20:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- As a neutral observer, I like to say that, in my opinion, Anthony makes a valid point. →Raul654 21:38, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
- As an observer of many people on Wikipedia who act as if they are neutral, I'd like to say that, sincere as these people may be in their beliefs, frequently most often they are not neutral. I wonder if the way "neutrality" gets thrown around here (as in "NPOV") has made people think it's easy for any individual to achieve. If so, the effect is pernicious...from my POV. 168...|...Talk 21:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Banning Plautus satire
Jimbo -
First, as this is the first time I've really spoken to you directly, I'd like to say thanks for Wikipedia - it's great and I love it.
I recently banned Plautus satire. Shortly thereafter, it was discussed (without my knowledge) on the mailing list, and I think my actions have been portrayed quite unfavorably. I left this explination on Ed's talk page, but I just wanted to make sure you saw it too. →Raul654 05:52, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Ed,
- I was alerted to your unblock of Plautus Satire by Finlay McWalter. I don't read the mailing list, but I think I should start. Regardless, I know you unblocked User:Plautus satire, and I can see your reasons for it. But please consider - he had already been blocked twice (by other admins, despite his claims otherwise) for trolling and vandalizing talk pages. He was warned to stop harassing other users (If Silsor's fanmail page doesn't convince you, I don't know what will). Of his many edits, only about 4-8 were valid improvements to articles. I took every opportunity to let him know his behavior was unacceptable (see user talk:Plautus satire, or talk:Albert Einstien, et al), but that he I would "wipe the slate clean" if he would stop committing bannable offenses (as mentioned above, reverting talk pages and presenting inflammatory comments as facts). He turned me down cold every time.
- I finally did block him after he reverted another user's comment on the blackhole talk page. That user had quoted him, and Plautus felt that quoting him gave him license to remove the comment because "it was his". After I blocked him, I had 4 or 5 seperate people thanke me on my talk page. I even asked mav before-hand, but he pasesd the buck saying he was just an ordinary admin. So I don't think my banning him was unilateral, or unjustified. →Raul654 00:26, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
I respectfully ask that you take a look at this user page. I feel that it is unacceptable, and would further point out (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lord Kenneth) and the fact that I have had a failed attempt at mediation with him (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/progress bulletin archive). Thank you for your time. Sam Spade 08:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Lord Kenneth did something to me on #wikipedia (Wikipedia's IRC channel) which made me unhappy. I wrote my report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lord_Kenneth#Behaviour_on_IRC -- Optim 04:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Genoa
Hi, my nick-name is Ettorre, but my name is Gregorio, i lives in Genoa and I would be very happy as all the Italian wikipedians if you came to the meeting in Genoa. It forgives my English, but I am not a god in to speak it.
Irismeister - arbitration
Hi Jimbo. I have placed a request for arbitration on the matter of User:Irismeister here. The situation has recently escalated, and he is intimidating various users with threats of lawsuits. I would be grateful if you would refer this case to arbitration committee. Thank you. :) fabiform | talk 14:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Jim. This is the first time I address you here and I wanted to say how great an idea Wiki is, and that I will help it with all my powers (which are IMNSHO not weak). Rest assured I do not intimidate anyone, and never enter personal attacks for matters of principle. If I am insulted on a daily basis, which you know, at least do not allow it to degenerate into libel against me. Not pleasant for anyone. Banning me or arbitrating is not an issue as long as insults against me in writing are stopped in Wiki. Thank you and happy editing - irismeister 19:31, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
Jim, I wish to strongly support the request for arbitration in the matter of Irismeister, and also support the view that mediation would be impracticable. - MykReeve 20:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration with Plautus satire
Jimbo - I'd like to request arbitration with Plautus satire. I've followed the dispute resolution to the letter (as have several other users), and it's gotten me nowhere. The poll on his RFC page currently has 18 people in favor of banning him, and only 2 who consider him a useful contributor (Lir and Irismeister - go figure). Attempts to set up mediation with him were fruitless -- he refuses to mediate with all concerned parties (he wants 4 seperate mediations), he insisted on having Sam Spade mediate (Sam is not a member of the mediation committee), and he said he was going to quit contributing, only to change his mind later. As many people have said, I think we've bent over backwards and then some to accomodate him. If ever there was a case for the arbitration committee, this is it. Regardless of what you decide, I'd appreciate it if you would explain your thoughts on the situation. →Raul654 00:08, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
I second this. He has been seriously messing up the Sep 11 Terorrist Attacks page with his own brand of nonsense. Arno 06:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
After seeing this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Silsor&diff=0&oldid=2521010 - Please put him on the arbitration community. WhisperToMe 05:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can we not refer him to the arbitration committee? He has wasted enough time already. silsor 05:25, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Well, we have to find the quickest legal way to ban him. Oh yea, this should strengthen the case against him: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Astronomy&diff=0&oldid=2521066 WhisperToMe 05:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I concur, please move this forward. I'm tired of seeing him try to bait people into fights. Ideally it shouldn't have taken even this long; he's been nothing but a problem from the first day he was here. Isomorphic 05:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Press Release
Associated Press' email address for press releases bounces. Could Bomis fax the press release to them? AP contacts are here. The most appropriate seems to be Business News: New York fax: 212-621-1587. ATTN: Anick Jesdanun - Internet correspondent. Secretlondon 22:53, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo,
Please check into this article and see that the NPOV is being maintained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_separatist&action=history
Thanks,
Paul Vogel
Personal endangerment
I had the sad misfortune to provide my legal name to the wikipedia. Later I went out of my way to have it changed. Unfortunately, some admins have decided to harass me regarding this, something I find to be dangerous. 03:43, 1 Mar 2004 User:Bcorr made an edit to my usertalk titled "(boring)". In this edit he used the name from my email account as substitute for his own. Prior to that, he and RickK repeatedly reverted talk:pantheism to keep me from removing my surname, which they had placed there (originally my user name contained my surname, which I later changed feeling that it was unsafe). Despite my frantic attempts to stop them, both on their user page's and IRC, I have found no relief. I feel very strongly that I not be personally endangered by the presence of my name on this web site. I understand that I have brought some of this on myself by ignorance early on. It took me some time to understand how aggressive and dangerous a place this can be. But now I know better, and it is VERY important to me not to have my name placed on public display by your administrators. Help me, please. Sam Spade 03:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- As requested at user talk:MyRedDice
- The edit to your userpage appears to have been removed from the page history, so I trust that this problem is fixed.
- There was probably a less aggressive way to request that your legal name not be mentioned than to describe that name as a "personal attack". I understand that issues of privacy raise powerful passions, but such a stance is unlikely to be in your own interests.
- As I am unaware of the background to this issue, I do not feel qualified to make further comment, but I hope this is of some limited assistance. Martin 00:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've given this a good deal more thought, and honestly I think it’s an exaggeration to say people using my name physically endanger me. I think the main thing is that it’s so easy to learn about people these days, type their name into google and there you are. I don't like the idea that my grandkids will type my name into google and find Kenneth’s "wall of shame" or some distressing harassment in regards to my name. To be frank, if flaming was rare, and reprimanded, I don't think I'd mind having my name on here, heck, maybe I'd post my address like Martin. I just don't like having my name associated w flaming or other harassment. Thanks for your kind advice, Sam Spade 07:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I feel the user:Michael should be allowed to edit again...because he has freedom of speech user:Jesus Chirst
Well, have him write to me and we'll discuss it. His track record of bad behavior is extremely long, though, and so I see little prospect for positive change. Jimbo Wales 18:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo. Can you please help to get my name off the de-adminship page. also please delete all emails with my name on, especially
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003920.html
.
I changed the page to
Only once (?) has a person been de-sysopped non-voluntarily -- an old professor. This sysop was dissatisfied with Wikipedia's inclusion of certain obscene topics and changed a pornographic page with a handbook-type advise on what lubricant to use during fisting. He was immediately de-sysopped by a young German over-eagerly sysop —Eloquence - without any discussion or vote!. —Eloquence gained fame for his pronography supporting texts and support of obscene content on the web - he did not apologise for his activities. The old professor then asked to be dismissed from his sysop status and continued to contribute to Wikipedia by donating more than 40 images in 7 languages.
but user wik rv it again and again. When one googles my name there are 588 positive entrances, and only this ugly one. Thank you for your help Kils 13:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo could you ask someone to de-admin me - i feel burntout from vandals and other crap and i don't want to do it anymore. Thank You. PMA 17:44, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Well, you could just stop using your sysop powers? Being an admin is not supposed to be any big deal. Jimbo Wales 18:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Just would help me to give them up completely i feel. sorry mate :( PMA 18:29, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
I feel user:Michael can change because I am a former vandel ask User:Pakaran....user:Jesus Chirst
if you need a new sysop i will be glad to do the job User:Pakaran could be my referance. User:Jesus Chirst
I'm curious about a couple of things: who was the first user to be banned, and when, and why? Rickyrab 18:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I believe it was '24' although it may have been 'HJ'. Of course, there were vandals who were banned by ip number before that. I live in the present to an alarming degree, so I'm not a very good historian of Wikipedia. :-) Jimbo Wales 18:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
fire department alert
We're having trouble tonight with a vandal, see Wikipedia:Block log. Some suspect it is the same user as User:Bird....if you have any way to help us stop this individual, it would be much appreciated. We are in IRC. Kingturtle 08:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Apologies for having to ask...
but a debate about whether there should be an article about you has sprung up again. See Talk:Jimmy Wales. In November 2003, you said you "would prefer not to", but there are experienced, valued contributors on both sides of the fence on this one, and a clarification statement for you might nip a pointless argument in the bud. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
ACTIVIST SYSOPS
Jimbo, you seem like a sensible person to me, can you please lay down the Law, with your sysop, my former username was user:Jesus Chirst, I understand now there is a no offenceive username policy, but:
A) I didn't intend to be offensive I love Jesus.
B) I wasn't told there was an offensive username policy (not on the page you create a username) I never even knew there was one because I have seen names that were considered offenive (i.e Micheal's many usernames, that where hardly stopped) thus, I thought Jesus was ok username.
C) I wasn't warned by anyone that my name was considered offensive until after I was banned by Mr. Ed Poor.
I feel that ACTIVIST SYSOPS (ie Ed Poor) are using their position to foward their opinions...If you Jimbo could somehow create rules (ie like a code of Hammurabi) for what is considered offenive and what is considered POV and NPOV it will be much easier for us, your humble servents--Former user:Jesus Chirst now --Plato 06:09, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, Plato, I'd pretty much say you just need to behave yourself. I'll be honest with you -- your past behavior leads me to doubt your sincerity, and I've given up on wasting time trying to hand hold people through the process of behaving in a co-operative and sensible manner. If you can't figure it out on your own, perhaps it's best for you to seek another place in this great big world to write.
If people seem particularly sensitive to what you do now, I'm sure you can understand why. You've made your bed, and now you'll have to lie in it. But, if you're really sincerely trying to turn over a new leaf, i.e. not be a vandal, not try to yank people's chain, then good for you, I congratulate you.
It would be best if you joined the mailing list and entered into discussions there so that people can get to know this new side of you.
And it would be best if you used your real name, but that's up to you of course. Jimbo Wales 18:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My Responce
Mr. Jimbo, It is quite obvious to I that you don't like what I am doing. I ask you a strightfoward question why dont you like me? Is it because I used to be a vandel? If you controlled America you would abolish our parole system, because you don't trust people who are reformed (if you don't believe me check my contributions). It has become evident to I, that wiki is Police State where those who high mighty my do what they please and everyone that raises issue or problem gets banned. NOT unlike Germany in the first world war, with Third Supreme Command (an article i must work on lol), who would fire or remove officals that wanted peace with the allied side.Thank for your time Mr. Jimbo. --Plato 00:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Why don't I like you? What are you talking about? I just gave you some friendly advice, which I stand by. If you want to edit in peace, then just behave yourself. I understand why people don't trust you, but I think things can get better for you over time if you behave.
- However, go back and reread what you wrote to me. First you ask why I don't like you, and then you accuse me of running a police state and make some very strange claims about what I'd do if I "controlled America". This is a bizarre and unfounded accusation.
- As to the claim that "everyone who raises issue or problem gets banned", well, that' s just false, and you're simply wrong about it. I tell you again, if you have something to say, the best thing to do is to sign up for the mailing list wikien-l and then say it. You'll be listened to, although if all you do is just continue to troll and insult people, you likely won't find too many people agreeing with you.
- If you're a reformed troll, then that's dandy. I don't care one way or the other. Just behave yourself now, and you'll be fine. But if you want to influence people (me or anyone else), here's a hint: you don't influence people by insulting them.
- Jimbo Wales 13:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Plato, it's not Jimbo's job to "lay down the law" any more. We have a fancy new wikipedia:dispute resolution process, and Jimbo's basically not on it. Of course, Jimbo often gives friendly advice to people, but if you're after an iron glove, you probably won't find it here... Martin 00:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
---
Hey Jimbo, sorry I sound so mad (i suffer from Manic Depression), anyway I wish to become a administrator for wiki, can you nominate me (check my user contributions, that proves im a meaningful contributor to wiki). God bless, Jimbo --Plato 04:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I never agreed with Michael that was only a joke that went to far, your comrade Plato
- Plato, you should ask again about being an administrator a year from now. As it stands now, no way, no how. You're silly for even asking. Look, I really think you might be happier at a different website. You obviously don't like us. So, leave us to our own 'police state' and do your thing elsewhere, huh? Jimbo Wales 13:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo I found a website that is obviously written by michael, i think you should take a look at it: http://www.bestandworst.com/pages/vote/vote-23922.html --131.216.163.44 07:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, 131. I've referred this matter onto a wikipedia talkpage. You're right,it's a worry. Arno 08:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a big deal. One little poll that few will read. It won't affect the reputation of any individuals or the project. Contacting the webmasters of that site and having it removed will likely cause more trouble than the poll itself. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
More Michael
http://www.bestandworst.com/pages/vote/vote-24143.html, he's telling people to vandalize wikipedia.
My Responce To Mr. Wales
Jimbo I am sorry, I'll be honest with you, I like to rant and rave!. I also have some "problems." You are dealing with my professionally, but I get kind of mad cause people like Michael get all these damn people do this. I know you are a Libertarian, so you guys are cool! Just ignore me when I'm mad (I need a girlfriend more than anything that's what really get me mad). I don't like the term "troll," sounds a little immuture to me, just say troublemaker. I really don't want to be an administrator (only a Joke!). How do join the mailing list??? My big goal is to introduce new blood to wiki more than anything. I want to be your Comrade!!!. (also I'm very serious that I'm reformed, I really stopped vandelizing.) Thanks --Plato 04:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
how to join the mailing list Jimbo Wales 15:19, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)--131.216.163.43 23:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Online polls and IP ranges
Very interesting.
http://www.bestandworst.com/vote/processrate/ratetheballot.php?24143 gives IP address 131.216.163.43 as the creator of the ballot.
Similarly, http://www.bestandworst.com/vote/processrate/ratetheballot.php?23922 gives IP address 131.216.163.44 as another.
ARIN states that these addreses belong to the University of Nevada, who have a /16 at 131.216.0.0/16.
It's even more interesting to note that the person notifying you of these polls in the first place is from the same range of IP addresses.
And this posting, with the name "Plato", above, too. [2]
Reverse DNS for 131.216.163.43 is dhcp-291.lv-llb.nevada.edu Reverse DNS for 131.216.163.44 is dhcp-292.lv-llb.nevada.edu
lv-llb = LV Lied Library? ( http://www.scs.nevada.edu/nevadanet/map.html )
which would be at 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154...
which leads us to http://www.unlv.edu/ , in all probability.
-- The Anome 00:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Dude, that's pretty interesting, I don't know. If I worried about every little tidbit like this, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning. Strange, isn't it? My guess is that Plato is Michael, and that he probably wrote those polls and then let me know about them. Well, at least I guess we know Michael may be in Las Vegas now? But, who knows, there are a lot of wingnuts in the world, maybe it's a coincidence. Jimbo Wales 22:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My Goals
Hello, Jimbo again I wish to tell you no, I am not Michael, your "little" witchhunt failed (yet again). However, I did post those two messages as an experiment (as a test as you wiki's say) to see the extent of you "ISP" tracing, and it worked. You trace right down to where a person lives (although of course i don't live in Lied Library but i do live in Las Vegas. It is quite interesting how Libertarians such as yourself worry about the governement doing this, but you condone it on your website (discussing). To be frank, Mr. Wales I will not sit and lie in my bed as rather ignorantly put it I will continue to "pester" your project until I see meaningful reforms. I am currently working a Wikipedia Constitution which will protect all meaningful contributers such as myself, and I will tell all 187 active sysops what reforms I feel are needed thank you and God bless Mr. Wales. --Plato 05:50, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If you really want to have a positive impact, then I can only recommend that you join the policy discussions on wikipedia-l and wikien-l. Jimbo Wales 19:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Are you really a millionare or is that a joke, Jimbo (i don't want to insult the 'Godking').--Plato 04:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
WikiExperiment
Hello. We are a research group and we are doing a social experiment: We choose articles that may be controversial or frequently vandalized. We submit a small useful edit but we use user names and edit summaries which may make the administrators think we vandalized the article. In this case we chose the name of a hard-banned user (Michael) hoping to make you believe Michael3 was his sock puppet. We thought the user name and the edit summary (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!) would deceive an administrator to revert the article without checking our useful contributions. We have performed many similar experiments in Wikipedia and other online communities. In this way we can understand how much respect a community has for democracy and personal freedom, whether a community is healthy, whether its administrators are doing their job well, and how paranoid they turn when they face strange vandalism-like edits (that aren't vandalism). We are a large group and our online experiments are part of a major psychological and sociological research. We are very concerned with freedom over the Internet and we have faced many unreasonable and paranoid reverts and blockings by the administrators of the Wikipedia community. Dante Alighieri was successfully deceived and blocked Michael3 noting "probably Michael" (a hard-banned user). But Michael3 was just adding useful links (for example, wikifying dates, i.e. turning dates in active blue links) and his only "sins" were his user name (similar to Michael) and his mysterious edit summaries (ha ha ha !!!). Michael3 is not Michael, he is a member of our research group. You didn't know that, because this knowledge could destroy our experiment. Michael3 could be just an innocent new user. Now we have shown that the Wikipedia community has turned paranoid over possible vandalism and unreasonably restricts the individual liberties. This has to stop. We also ask the community to take care of Dante Alighieri since he blocked Michael3 too easily, probably without checking his edits. We'll continue our experiments and we hope that your community will understand that freedom is more important than security. All yours, Michael33.
- Please only edit Wikipedia for the purposes of creating an encyclopedia, not for performing social experiments.
- I have amended our blocking policy to deal with your concern. If you follow its advice and avoid deliberately impersonating banned users, you should not have any further problems.
- Thank you for your feedback. Martin 00:24, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Michael33, deliberately provoking people is sufficient reason to ban you, whether you are or are not Michael. In my opinion, your activities here, and your arguments for them, are completely absurd and -- quite frankly -- immature. Please go away. Jimbo Wales 02
- 22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Convention
Jimbo, Why don't we have a wiki convention in Vegas??, you know I live there and all, contact me XXXVonricheXXX@XXXYAHOOXXX.XXXCOMXXX (Note remove all the XX's) --Plato 05:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Plato, quite frankly, I have no interest in meeting you. I think it would be best if you left me alone. Jimbo Wales 02:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
message
As chance would have it, I will be going to Europe in May for a week enjoying myself while traveling from Munich, Germany to Salzburg, Austria to Vienna and back again. If you have any questions about places to stay or anything leave me a message after I get back (25th). GrazingshipIV 21:35, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
about Japanese Wikipedia
Nice to meet you, my name is K.M.. I'm a Japanese Wikipedian and I'm editting English and Japanese articles about Christianity mainly. But some people including Japanese administrators erased my article completely, and they are trying to block my editing, in fact, blocked some articles. Added to this, some people attacked me personally, and spoke evil of me. They insisted I am biased toward one religious belief, but I think they are disturbing my freedom of speech, thought, religion. What do you think about this? K.M. 07:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
WikiSex
Hi. I am a bisexual (mostly lesbian lately) feminist open-minded WikiWoman from Germany. I started the WikiSex page which I wanted to use as a socialization channel. The idea was to have virtual sex with the fellows here and make friends. It wasn't pornographic or a dirty content, just some socialization chat. Your administrator Dori deleted my page. She said the content wasn't encyclopedic, but she refused to answer me about the fellows who play WikiChess on the wiki. Why WikiChess is allowed and WikiSex isn't? That isn't fair, and there isn't any policy saying Wikipedians are allowed to play chess but not to have sex with each other! Chess and sex are both ways people use to socialize and make friends, and you should either allow or disallow both. Please be consistent with your policies. Regards, I am sexy 21:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Here, they play wikiChess! User:Calmypal/Chess. Why chess and not sex? I am sexy 21:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
and here! User:Arvindn/Chess. I am sexy 21:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Arvindn does not play chess on Wikipedia; he simply invented the system. He intended it for use in chess diagrams. I have simply found a new way to use it. However, if you need a second example, there's always User:Sverdrup/Chess. - Woodrow 04:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't know, you know, I mean, really, I have to make a decision about this? Really? Jimbo Wales 03:24, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Might I suggest, Your Mightiness, that you rule that it must be worked out by I am sexy and the community and no one may appeal to you on this issue? Just a thought. Of course, a thought on WikiChess would be appreciated. It's your decision about that one, but Ias is just trying to have another hardcore chat room and not doing anything else without being prodded (i.e., moved quite forcefully with a very large stick) by the community, which made little progress. - Woodrow 04:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Request for arbitration on Wik
I would like to request a renewed attempt at arbitration of Wik. My very brief statement and the much fuller statements of two others, which I support 100%, are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Wik. — Jor (Talk) 13:42, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I left a note for Wik, I'm not sure what he'll say. I don't really understand why he continues in this fashion. Jimbo Wales 02:47, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo
Hi Comrade Jimbo, i wish to apologize for my past vandalisms of your website. However, Jimbo i find quite upsetting that you don't want to come to Vegas and see old Comrade Nick, I'm a very nice person once you get to know me! Also Jimbo I know some real cheap hotels here in Las Vegas E-mail me (you know the address). Please reconsider Jimbo thanks Plato aka Comrade Nick
QUICK ANSWER REQUESTED!
Hey Jimbo, how are you? I need you to answer to this ASAP: I was on the phone today with Mr. Stu Sacks, publisher of Ring Magazine. He wants you to call him to discuss a possibility of obtaining a copyright for a photo of Wilfredo Gomez. He wants you to call on Friday, and if not, at the latest, next week. E-mail me at the e-mail on my user page so I can give you his phone number. I dont want others to see it here and begin to fill him up with calls!
Thank you and God bless you!
Sncerely yours, Antonio Wikisexoholic Martin
Questionable Usernames
The time has come, oh gracious lord, to rule again from on high...
People can't seem to agree as to the intent of your comment re: User:The Fellowship of the Troll. Is it your intent to sanction/require the quick-banning of any users with the word Troll in their name? This of course brings up the issue of our new friend User:Telgur the Trollslayer who asserts to be anti-Troll. Then we have the issue of users like User:WikipediaSucks or User:ImGoingToAttackWikipedia which don't exist yet, but we probably ought to have a policy in place. So, mind clueing us in? Thanks in advance for dealing with this nonsense. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:14, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
- No, I assert to be a sockpuppet created specifically as an example of a username that would be banned by that policy. And how about someone whose real name happens to be "Edna van Trollheim" or something like that? Telgur the Trollslayer 23:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Pardon me, I assumed the phrase "Trollslayer" and the comments about slaying Telgur were indicative of purpose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:47, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
- That purpose and demeanor came to me once I had taken on a life of my own, separate from my creator. :-) Telgur the Trollslayer 00:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, clearly a person might innocently and with no harmful intentions have a username which happens to contain the word 'troll', which is after all a perfectly normal word which has been hijacked by contemporary Internet slang. So clearly, a policy which says that people should be quickbanned just for that would be misguided at best.
- The thing I think we should be intolerant of, to a great degree, while of course maintaining our good humor and thoughtfulness, is people deliberately yanking our chains. Telgur here admits to being a sockpuppet, created specifically to mock what he (and others?) mistakenly took to be policy. That is deliberate chain yanking, and I find it offensive and juvenile. Telgur, and whoever the real user is who created you, you should be ashamed of yourself.
- The right thing to have done, Telgur, if you felt that the policy was mistaken, (but it turns out, of course, that there was no such policy), was to simply come here and leave me a note asking for clarification. Or, sign up to the wikien-l mailing list, and ask there. Trolling, i.e. doing something provocative as a dare for people to ban you, well, that's just unprofessional.
- Are you a child? A high school kid? If so, then you're pretty smart, and smart enough to stop acting like a tool.
- Anyhow, I'm going to go ban Telgur's sock puppet for being a confessed troll and sock puppet right now. Or, wait, I'm not supposed to be the benevolent dictator anymore, I'm the constitutional monarch striving for the day when I'm the figurehead monarch, so I won't do that. Anyhow, I'm not 100% sure right now what we're supposed to do with quickpolls and whatnot. But, anyhow, Telgur should be banned. And as for the user who is pretending to be Telgur... I say we just ignore it for now (unless it turns out to be someone who is already a pain in the neck). Jimbo Wales 03:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, Jimbo—the crime is mine. I initially created Telgur solely for humorous effect in this one post, but then the alter-ego sort-of took on a life of its own. At that point I decided to continue playing the puppet until someone made a correct guess as to his secret identity, which I am still baffled never happened. I finally unmasked him when the Trolls of Navarone were accused of being Telgur's puppeteer and got genuinely upset about it.
- I admit I got a bit carried away playing the devil's advocate, but I'd never do anything to hurt Wikipedia nor do I see any harm done. In fact, if Telgur was perceived as a nuisance, I think the real question is why didn't anyone block him or even leave a stern warning on his talk page?
- No big harm done, but I think that the small harm is hinted at in your question. Sysadmins don't like to ban people, it's sort of a big deal to ban a signed in user, and we give wide latitude to people before we ban them. Therefore, if a good user is deliberately acting in a way that might give rise to a ban, it just adds extra stress onto the system. We depend crucially on mutual goodwill which is undermined by sock puppetry.
- If you feel that sockpuppetry per se is undermining, perhaps it should be categorically prohibited? Currently, as far as I'm aware, it's merely considered "uncool" to have sockpuppets not labelled as such.
- I didn't say that. What is prohibited, and properly so, is trolling behavior. Having a secondary username is not the same thing. The problem is in having a secondary username and then causingn that username to engage in problematic behaviors. Ultimately, it's the problematic behaviors that are the problem, and made worse by the subterfuge. Jimbo Wales 13:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Since you mention quickpolls, let me add that I think the quickpoll process in its current form is utterly broken. Everyone's collective time consumed in holding a quickpoll is in no relation to the punishment of a 24-hour ban, which hardly amounts to more than a slap on the wrist. It's already been proposed that a 24h ban can be imposed on a logged-in user if 3 admins agree it's appropriate and, assuming Telgur did annoy 3 or more admins, I'd be proud to be the first to receive a ban under the new rule (not to mention that I'd finally get some things done around the house.) Mkweise 14:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, my sincere hope is that sincere users, as you surely are, will passionately desire to walk the path of righteousness so that others are not pressed to do such a thing. Why would you be proud to know that you forced 3 sysadmins to do something unpleasant? I should think rather that anyone doing such a thing would feel ashamed and sorry for wasting the time of others. Jimbo Wales 15:32, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I was looking at the big picture: I'd be proud to be involved in the inauguration of the new ban rule, because in the long run it'll save all the collective time that, under current rules, is wasted on quickpolls. Mkweise 16:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe there is a bit of projection going on here. Maybe, Wales, you feel ashamed and sorry for wasting the time of the general public who is attracted to this site then engaged in endless debates over arcane rules and in battles with sysops, some of whom apparently do take pleasure in arbitrarily wielding their newfound powers. The pleasure is evident in the widespread trend among sysops to seldom compose an original query to users asking, in an empathetic tone, about their reasons for contributing. Sysops apparently seldom explore ways to develop contributors' interests that coincide with the notion of composing an accurate encyclopedia of Western knowledge. (evidince of sysops taking pleasure in "unpleastant" blocking: [3])
In your paragraph above, you hijacked the term "forced" to mean that one person is responsible for the actions of another who refuses to consider and avail themselves of choices at their disposal. You are metaphorically implying that if I look at you cross-eyed, I have forced you to hit me in the face. You are telling your sysops they are not mature enough to develop better strategies for fostering collaboration. Sysops - at least those whose names recurrently appear on the block log and on the requests for review of action page - apparently enjoy smugly standing on an assertion that "Wikipedia is not a social club" while touting themselves as leaders of some sort of community. Their scheme for community building is to play king-of-the-hill by pushing down as many contributors as they can find liable for some perceived administrative infraction. I suspect you foster this sort of arbitrary behavior among your sysops because you enjoy the symbiosis of power in which they offer you praise for ideas that were more a gift to you than they were your own creation.
In such an environment, some of the public you attract to your site is no doubt going to take steps to protect their privacy by editing anonymously, and to employ strategies intended to avoid assessment of contributions on the merits of author reputation rather than on quality and accuracy of content. Administrators would do better to recognize that contributors are prone to change behavior in response to changing circumstances and then to learn techniques for promoting users' interests most likely to conform with those of the group. Instead, we have a group of sysops who behave as if they are dolling out the privilege of donating to Wikipedia. I would think any competent middle-school level student would recognize the futility of such a posture. I would be ashamed and sorry to consider myself your friend or supporter, unless my support was oriented toward improving your approach to soliciting donations of free information from the general public.
Let me paraphrase and summarize – if the United States and Japan mutually got over Pearl Harbor and two nuclear attacks, I am confident your administrators can do much more to get along with the donors they solicit, without constantly formulating new rules that serve as the basis for their continued "unpleasant" actions against donors. SallyJensen 23:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, that's a very interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. Here's a suggestion, though. It's usually best, when trying to persuade someone of something, not to lace your discussion with a series of thinly disguised insults, you know? As to the notion that I'm gladly taking credit for ideas that were a gift to me, that's completely absurd. I regard almost everything here as an enormous gift to me, and I take credit for nothing other than having the good sense to listen thoughtfully to everyone, even people like you who seem more interested in insulting me and existing sysops than in joining a dialogue about how to improve our processes.
- Look, it's very easy for you to anonymously pop in and say "Oh, the sysops are tyrants, and Jimbo gets a thrill out of it." But in nearly all practical cases that I've investigated, I always find that the complainer is a compelte and total ass and I can hardly believe how much patience the sysops have had. So just ranting doesn't really help very much. Jimbo Wales 13:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I can't speak for others, but my reasons for contributing to Wikipedia have nothing to do with Jimbo's person and everything to do with the GFDL. I certainly don't consider my contributions to Wikipedia donations to Mr. Jimbo Wales, but rather donations to the world at large. The GFDL ensures Wikipedia's content will survive and remain free, even if Jimbo were to lose interest in the project one day. What more could you possibly ask for wrt to ensuring that your contributions are valued for all they're worth? Mkweise 14:03, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(thread bumped left for format)
Though I might make it look easy, it might not be as easy as you suspect. For example, I failed to convey the thought that "instead of scientifically exploring the nature of communication that occurs when open databases are published in a world-wide electronic communication network, the first cadre of sysops appointed after Jim Wales sponsored one such database systematically relies on hasty generalizations about human motivation to administer the production of an accurate neutral encyclopedia ". Instead I wrote comments you seem to have read as "sysops are tyrants."
To be sure I understand what you are trying to say about users who are complete and total asses, are you saying that: Wikipedia has attracted some donkeys that know how to write, Wikipedia has attracted some deformed humans who were born with (or surgically reduced to) nothing but buttocks and rectum, or A cadre of college students and mostly college-educated adults working outside their field of training can control the nature of hundreds of hourly edits in an open writing group by categorizing contributors with inaccurate and biased slang, to administer production of an accurate and neutral encyclopedia. SallyJensen 15:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)