Hey Jimbo, I don't know where to report this, but someone has attempted to hack my account, as well as they are not well like by the community as it is: 67.51.126.162 was the IP sent to me in the password reset email. ~〖 Charles Timko   Talk 〗 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I get those emails from time to time. I just ignore them. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup not a problem - just some would-be "hacker" who doesn't know how the password reset system works. Ignore and move on. – ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

An open letter to the founder of Wikipedia - Jimmy Wales from Geser Kurultaev

The present Bulgarian section of Wikipedia is comperatevely one of the worst ones (A lot of the rest are much better and good enough). The administration and the moderators in the Bulgarian section behave in such an abnormal way. Many ordinary users are against them, but there is no way to change it, so I am writing to You in order to inform you about the main problems "there":

-They use LIBELS as "arguments" against somebody. For example 2 times already they wrote that Geser Kurultaev is a "pseudo-scientist" and "self-appointed", but, in fact, it is a person with Master's degree in Philosophy (Philosophical Anthropology).

-They use INSULTS as "arguments" against somebody. For example Geser Kurultaev was called "graphomaniac".

-They use CENSORSHIP against the users who they don't like (such as bann, delete, etc.)

-They use SELECTIVITY and DOUBLE STANDARD.

THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THERE ARBITRARY AND TOTALITARIANISM. IF YOU NEED I WILL FIND, LINK AND TRANSLATE IN ENGLISH FOR YOU.

Here is only one example:

http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB:Bggoldie

With a translation of the most important sentences of this original-and-objective protest made by a former Bulgarian Wiki-member :

"See you, "free" editors of Wikipedia, see you pastors-repressors!... ...here is no (real) knowledge, nor freedom. I refuse to be a part of this fraud, called "Wikipedia", EXPECIALLY ITS BULGARIAN SECTION... ...mob law... ...court without a conviction... ...abuse of power..."

Best regards: Geser Kurultaev. Master of philosophy (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

http://kurultaev.com/?p=170

Just an FYI: There is a topic ban discussion devoted to me with a focus on my worries about BLP violations relating to Arthur Jensen. I make (inappropriate?) use of a comment you made in that debate in my own defense. If I am using your comment unfairly, please let me know. If you felt like confirming that I have not twisted your meaning, that would be cool too. David.Kane (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

can you delte it. Smartimus Maximus (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an image from Commons and should be nominated for deletion there. Rodhullandemu 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious, the male appears to be curiously uninvolved: "Lie back and think of England." As its use is restricted, I doubt this will be considered porn in any article on sexual intercourse. Bielle (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This image was already deleted by commons:User:TheDJ, discussed in commons:Commons:Undeletion requests, and undeleted, since it's in use in several projects to illustrate its subject. It's not the best image in terms of quality though. Dcoetzee 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

moved to commons. Yonidebest Ω Talk 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am appalled that Wikipedia is hosting pornographic pictures, and on the Main Page, no less! There has been a heated discussion on the talk page, but I am worried that some editors do not realize what negative publicity this type of thing could be. It would be preferable if the file in question was deleted, but, barring that, we should not have this type of smut for every grandma and first grader to see on our most visited page. You have shown that you are willing to take on the community for the moral good of our society, and so I ask you to do so once again. Buddy431 (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

Let me continue our dialogue.

Would you like to add something to your message which was sent to me by you at 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)?

Галактион Терёшин Галактион (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to what you are talking about?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about your message which begins, "I can't read Russian, but I used google translate to get the gist of this. I do not know anything about your dispute, but ..."

You may find the mentioned message in the section "29 About defamation (III)" of your archive (see "User talk: Jimbo Wales/Archive 58"). Галактион Терёшин Галактион (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am under the impression that you, Mr. Wales, are the Queen like the Queen of England (your analogy, if I am not mistaken). If parliament needs to be shut down, you will do it but you will also not meddle too often.

You may be of help in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Checkuser and oversighter selection . There, Arb Com selected several people to be potential checkusers. One won. Others lost. There is the proposal to change the rules so that more people are declared the winners.

Changing the election rules after the election is a very bad idea. Imagine in the USA, if after the 2000 election, Al Gore were declared the winner because he received the most number of votes. Or declaring that Bill Clinton would not be elected President of America because he received less than 50% of the vote in the 1990's. Or changing the rules to say that anyone who is divorced cannot be Prime Minister of Finland, making Matti Vanhanen ineligible to be the PM.

Unlike governments, Wikipedia elections are virtually free. There is some bandwidth use, but no more than allowing video game articles. There are no ballots to print, poll workers to hire, or national holidays to declare. A discussion then new election could be done and finished by early or mid July. Now is already June.

If you believe that changing the election rules after the election has taken place is a bad path to take, this might be a good time to act as Queen. A full declaration by the Queen is not needed, just a polite suggestion from the Queen.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, you know best how you feel. And I know that you tend to let editors play about, within reason, on your page. But while the last photo was good and the one before was ok the current one makes you look like a painting by Caravaggio that has not been cleaned. Please check and decide if this is how you want to be presented? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it, although it should be vertically mirrored - Never Have A Person Look Away From The Page. DVdm (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a disembodied head floating in the darkness. Is this a metaphor?Camelbinky (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, there is an RfC on a perceived BLP issue underway here. As you have often expressed an interest in BLP issues, you might be interested in having a look at it and commenting. --JN466 03:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been Banned forever in the es-wikipedia by discussing the terms of use GFDL which I had given an article to Wikipedia of 2005. No legal threats. Also for complaining about the reversal of one edit and referencing a campaign of personal attacks against me orchestrated by several librarians on a blog in which they participate.Mjoseph (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I can not write in English and want to appeal to you as a last resort. (spanish text) Disculpe pero no se escribir en inglés Deseo apelar, por favor ya que en la wikipedia española no hay CRC ni Lista de Correo, en realidad no hay ningún procedimiento de recurso que ofrezca garantias a un editor y en cambio hay muchos foros externos de bibliotecarios. No voy a entrar en las motivaciones que llevan a un grupo de bibliotecarios a expulsarme para siempre. Solo expondre lo contradictorio de su posición. El artículo “Tai chi chuan” que lleva unos 5 años publicado sin especiales problemas con excepción de los creados por los bibliotecarios ha sido cuestionado por citar en referencias la web de su principal autor que cedió el contenido bajo licencia GFDL. Como se disponia de un articulo de la wikipedia alemana, un bibliotecario planteó o bien eliminar la referencia o bien substituir el artículo. En realidad mientras yo intentaba exponer mis argumentos se procedia a la traducción rápida del artículo dando por supuesto que el resultado final seria substituirlo. En la discusión he sufrido diversos ataques personales en Wikipedia y insultos en foros externos de los bibliotecarios. Finalmente yo mismo solicité un borrado rápido por copyvio. Hasta aqui hay una politica con la que puedo estar de acuerdo o no y que acato. Lo que me sorprende es la incoherencia del hecho de que hay otros dos artículos que como yo mismo he expuesto están en las mismas circunstancias: “Chikung” y “Líneas de transmisión del tai chi chuan”. Estos dos artículos sobre los que solicité también el copyvio los han decidio mantener con la referencia que se solicitó en la licencia. ¿ Entonces que coherencia hay en esta decisión ? En la medida de lo posible mi comportamiento se ha limitado a discutir y apelar al “Tablón de Bibliotecarios” por una reversión de edición que consideré injustificada. Resultado se me expulsa para siempre con el cargo de “Sabotaje”. Mi opinión es que en la wikipedia en español no hay libertad de pensamiento, se persiguen determinadas ideas y no hay ningún procedimiento que garantize la libertad de pensamiento. En realidad, en mi opinión hay una especie de ideología hacker que subvierte cualquier derecho moral de los autores robándoles sus contribuciones más allá de los principios de wikipedia de cederlas para la difusión del conocimiento, para alimentar la vanidad de los bibliotecarios. No creo que la situación de la wikipedia española tenga solución. Mjoseph (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of this and the talk page on es.wiki, it seems that the controversy is about the fact that Mjoseph, who seems to have been the major contributor to the article, used a self-published website of his as a reference. When this was realized, it was decided to transwiki the article from de.wiki to ensure that there was no possible remaining conflict of interest or original research. Mjoseph then appears to object to either the fact that his contributions could be changed or that his website could be removed as a reference given that he was the author and the website somehow served as attribution, using an argument based on the content of the GFDL, which didn't seem to hold water. Regardless, doesn't seem like a concern for Jimbo. --Michael White^T·C 01:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I appeal to Jimbo the Banned forever decision, please. I agree your exposition except for that I agree with the contribution was changed in the terms of use of the GFDL. I think that this is not the question for a Banned forever nor sabotage. I have not tried to defend my point of view through WP:POINT Thank you for the translation. Mjoseph (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another editor who leaves (forced or frustrated) Wiki. As they have been, and are, in droves. Because of serious conflicts of interest now dominating articles to produce propaganda.

There is no rule against two individuals working on an article. Those are two separate IP's, two separate people but with related purpose. But as Jayg pointed out, "Wiki is Wiki."

It's easy to give up because there was no chance.

Here's serious content bias, some more serious than the missing or misleading information in Circumcision. Take a look at [[1]], and find subtle downplaying of the health risks. Compare that impression (from Wiki text) with [[2]]. Lots of money made selling RUSH and stuff, but that's probably only a coincidence. Wiki is Wiki.

In Circumcision we have suppression of information about frenectomy (>25% of circ's require), exaggeration of HIV applicability (see discussion), downplaying of the AMA and other med assoc statements, downplaying of the complications (should distinguish between complications to discharge and complications to 2 years), downplaying meatal stenosis (broken link, and should state prevalence of 7% - 22%). Wiki is Wiki.76.191.224.25 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, help me in the article earthquake prediction. In this article there's lot's of original research, but they don't let me to remove it. They believe I'm a vandal. I'l translate two charachteristic paragraphes:

VAN method is an experimental method for earthquake prediction. VAN is acronym of the names Varotsos, Alexopoulos and Nomikos.

Today VAN group is resides in Physics Institute of earth's solid crust (Solid Earth Physics Institute - S.E.P.I.) in Athens' University. Professor Varotsos, Sarlis, Skordas, Lazaridou are the active scientific crew.

The earthquake prediction is based on SES(??) Seismic Electric Signals.

And the second:

Tsiapa method is frequently referred in greek mass media. The supposed method was developed from the amateur seismic phainomenos' researcher Tsiapa. According to this method, earthquakes that happen in central and North America tend to immigrate to eastern Mediterranean with a speed of 1,8 degrees per day...the theory of earthquake migration is not accepted by professional seismologist...

I try to remove these parts because they don't respond to Notability, but to a fight between greek seismologists and their original researches, but they don't let me to do it. (There are three other users who deal with the issue, two of them seem to agree with me, or at least they want to discuss it and the other believe I'm a vadal paid by mister Tsiapas!)--85.72.111.109 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy, You may recall that I invited you to register for the Guild of Copy Editors May 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. You were pretty busy and did not respond to the invitation. I wanted to let you know that during that drive, we cleared all the {{copyedit}} tags from 2007, and in this next drive, starting in July, we aim to clear all of 2008. It would draw significant attention to the project if you signed up on our participation page, and after the drive begins, symbolically copyedited a single article. As I know you're busy, I'm sure we can find a short one for you. I know that you prefer "quality over quantity," and this will significantly increase the quality of the articles currently available. The event page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010. Please consider accepting our invitation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a content noticeboard discussion on the best way to handle explicit images of bondage practices. I think we have three choices here in en:Wikipedia -- display them openly (the status quo), put them into a collapsible gallery, or replace them with a link to a relevant Commons category. Each of these has potential advantages and drawbacks. As you've expressed an interest in these issues in the past, I thought you might like to comment. --JN466 12:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo- I am the person who started the RFC on the List of Scientologists. Thank you for participating in the RFC. I suggested that given the controvery around scientology and the real world consequences of being associated with it, that the best criteria for inclusion on the list is to have reliable sources showing people self-identifying as scientologists. There seems to be a lot of support for this approach on the RFC thus far. In the mean time however, two users Cirt and Coffeepusher done over 100 edits on the list in the last 48 hours. Someone else suggested that they were advancing an agenda. I hate to put myself in the middle of it but I am now inclined to agree. In your comment you suggested that the two sides are talking past each other. I think it is more a case of one side is ignoring the main question of the RFC. I read the policy about disruptive editing and saw WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That certainly seems to be the case on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Scientologists#Please_leave_as_a_list_until_the_RfC_process_has_completed I hope you would be willing to come back and weigh in on this specific issue. Thank you for your time and consideration. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, Jayen466 (talk · contribs) and I have come to an agreement regarding the nature of the list page, and I agree with his recent comments, [3] and [4]. Jayen466 commented on the formatting changes that I have made to the article, "Nice job on the table formatting too; must have been a lot of work." Jayen466 commented with regards to an amicable solution, having a subsection on the page for those that participated in courses, "We now have a section on course participants who have not been identified as (former) Scientologists; I think this is probably the right way to go here." I agree with this. This is the best and most logical way forward. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is the bare minimum that is necessary. It is not at all clear to me that a listing of course participants is actually in any way encyclopedic, but I will have to review the list and see what I think of it. I have friends, now in Wikipedia, who at age 18 or 20 or whatever got persuaded to take a single Scientology course, found that they weren't interested (or, perhaps, found the whole thing to be fundamentally wrong), and never went back. Such people might, at some point, mention this to a reporter and it gets mentioned somewhere. It would be absolutely wrong to refer to such a person as a former Scientologist, but it would also be irrelevant and pointless to put them on a list.

Do we treat other religions in this way? Do we have a list of people who have attended a Catholic mass? How about a list of people who attended a Catholic baptism prep course of some kind? I just don't see the relevance of such trivia. It certainly isn't likely to be relevant to the biography of someone (unless it *is* relevant, i.e. they identify the class and rejection of Scientology as a turning point in life, for example). And it seems not very relevant to Scientology.

But I will review the list and think about it more - my opinion here is unsettled.

I should add that, of course, I'm interested in this issue as an ordinary editor and as one of dozens of examples that I like to study when I think about BLP issues - but I'm not making any kind of special ruling and people shouldn't cite this opinion of mine as policy or as being particularly special in any way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Having reviewed now the 4 who are listed as "Course participants" I don't have a problem with it. Enough information is given to see why it is relevant to the lives of the people involved (although in most cases, I would argue that it doesn't belong in their biography) and why it is relevant to our understanding of Scientology as a movement (i.e. what do some prominent people say about why they took a course, and why they didn't go on to become a Scientologist).

I am still concerned about the abstract case I mentioned before. I am thinking now of my own life: if I had taken a course when I was 20 (I didn't!), it would be completely irrelevant to anything today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Having reviewed now the 4 who are listed as "Course participants" I don't have a problem with it. Enough information is given to see why it is relevant to the lives of the people involved". Thank you. I agree with this. We can deal with "abstract cases", when and if they crop up, though I do not foresee that occurring. The issue is whether or not secondary sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V provide enough context as you have described, and this is satisfied in these cases. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Jimbo. This revision should not be introduced. That is a feature which violates not only WP:NPOV – how one language in an international project can be more important than another? – it's also dangerous. It is endorsing – very surely unintended but indeed it does – chauvinism, racism and discrimination. Therefore such a software feature should not be activated. Please consult this with the WMF board and please do everything that such (or any similar) mechanism will never be part of the software. Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me what the feature does and why you are opposed to it? I read the page but I didn't understand. "dangerous", "chauvinism, racism, and discrimination" - I'm not sure that your outrage is helpful here. Don't tell me what conclusion I should reach: give me an NPOV summary of what the situation is. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The new feature limits the interwiki links in the left column on five entries (if there are no more than eight, then all will be shown). So who and what determines which iw-language-links will be provided? The biggest WPs per number of articles? Per number of active users? Per page views? Per browser presetted values? E.g. Reichstag (building) (let's climb together) exists in about 40 WP languages. If the per default output is limited to five, say DE, EN, FR, ES and PL for all other language versions another click will be necessary to open a drop down.

Why? Is the Bengali or Mandarin chinese language less important than any of the above? Is any of the about 33 remaining language lesser then any of those mentioned in the example?

Do we really want discussions why per default (in my example) PL is shown directly but RU or PT could be reached only after clicking those small triangles for pulling down the whole list? I don't think that Wikipedia should do anything what could imply that there might be class A+ WP language versions and class B wp language versions. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (having tried my best to report the issue NPOV but having failed)

If you take a look at the comments in the diff you link to, you'll see this:

+		// This is a list of languages in order of Wikipedia project size. This is the lowest fallback for choosing
+		// which links to show in the primary list. Ideally the browser's accept-language headers should steer this
+		// list, and we should fallback on a site configured (MediaWiki:Common.js) list of prefered languages.

I think that answers your questions on how the links will be prioritised. It seems like a good method to me. It's not about determining the importance of different languages. It is about determining their utility. Clearly, the best way to determine which languages will be useful to a user is to let them tell you, via their accept-language headers. Failing that, you let each project determine which other languages their users typically speak (this isn't very useful for English, but it is for much other languages). That should never fail, but a good programmer would never make that assumption, so a fallback is included, based on which projects are most likely to have good articles on a topic (project size is a very crude metric for that, but since it shouldn't be used much it isn't worth the effort of coming up with a better one). --Tango (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So to make sure I understand: if I show up on a page, 5 languages (chosen either by the project in the usual consensus way, or if they haven't done that yet, chosen by simple algorithm) will be displayed by default, but to see the rest, I'll need to click on the little triangle to expand the list?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It has received much discussion. See hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2 - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to appeal to Jimbo Wales as a last resort, please. I have been permanently banned from es.wikipedia es.wikipedia don't have procedures to protect against arbitrariness and has installed a single thought. In my expulsion there has been no discussion or evidence, there has been coercion from blog. Mi removal is only due to my thinking, there have been acts against wikipedia or their rules, only talk. Wikipedia is part of an American foundation and america is a country of freedom of thought and talk. The local Wikipedia can not be different. More information.Mjoseph (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm with you, man. This is an educational project, but one glance at the images being added to the site shows that people, under the guise of "Wikipedia is not censored", have decided to turn the website into an ever growing pile of smut.

Wikipedia in many ways is a democratic institution, but democracy is like a fire. It's the backbone of civilization, heating homes, cooking food, and active in our internal combustion engines that transport us on our daily commutes. But that fire must be contained and controlled. When fire spreads uncontrollably it is destructive. Democracy, too, while good for our daily lives, is destructive when not controlled. That's why the ancient Greeks feared a mobocracy.

That's why the founders of America limited democracy to a representative form. That's why the unbridled fire of democracy now plagues us with the Tea Party. It's why we're plagued with reality TV. And now it's why Wikipedia is overrun with vandalism, pornography, and laymen posing as defenders of free speech.

Just yesterday the voters of South Carolina made Alvin Greene, a bum with no job and pending felony sexual misconduct charges, the Democratic candidate for the Senate. The mob is out of control, ousting established leaders for bums. Now you to are seeing your power taken away and thrown into the hands of bums, many of whom also don't work and would like to turn Wikipedia into a virtual repository of sexual misconduct.

I support you, and I support you not giving up your power, but using your power to be a check against the mob. If not you, then someone or some small group that still has its heads on straight, must be the voice of reason, must be the philosopher-kings, the Supreme Court, if you will, when the layman-kings of Wikipedia attempt to tear down in days what took years to build. Keep fighting the good fight, my good friend. Maypigeon of Liberty (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not given up any power - be careful what you read in the media, they often misunderstand what is going on around here. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, South Carolina. The same state that has an adulterer as a governor, Jim DeMint as a senator (can't really make jokes about Jim DeMint, as the best comedy is the fact he's Jim DeMint), and had the Confederate Flag on the State Capitol until very recently. Greene's just par for the course, really. That said, there is a reason why we say that "Wikipedia is not censored"; if we did, we'd be removing relevant images from articles based on the whims of the prudish; something we learnt full well not so long back. That said, we do go over the top... perhaps we should instruct people to not use more images than absolutely necessary? It's a good idea, and not one that could be solely limited to articles about sex. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't we do that already ? Just because we HAVE images, does not mean we insert all of them in a single article. Having images however is needed in order to make good editorial selections of images. This is something many people are forgetting. Having 40 images of vulva's is not a problem. Using 40 images of vulva's in 1 article is. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I too must confess that I was misled by the media into believing that you had relinquished any power, Jimbo. I am much relieved to hear that this is not so. I really should have known better since the media consistently gets the fact of you being the sole founder incorrect. But I am confused as to why you have allowed the pornographic images you deleted to be reinstated? Perhaps you could demonstrate your power by having those images redeleted? 96.15.33.187 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo. Is there any way you could force the staff to revert the latest interface change or at least pay more attention to what is going on? People are outraged. Many users claim they avoid using Wikipedia now, because of the recent changes.^{[citation needed]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.57.216 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are they not aware of the "Take me back" link at the top of every page? Or are anonymous users? Reach Out to the Truth 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just couldn't resist adding the citation needed tag a la xkcd :)prashanthns (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lazarus Effect (documentary) was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Chzz  ►  08:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

...And it's now been created. Were you testing AfC? I did a huge double-take on seeing your name in the stats list and thought someone had hacked it. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, well. I suppose you might as well have one of these then, to finish it off;

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and The Lazarus Effect (documentary) was created.

• The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
• Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
• If you would to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Cheers, Mr. Wales. I'll have a lie down now, and get over the shock.  Chzz  ►  10:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt nervous and unsure about the article so I thought I'd go through that process instead of just randomly starting it. The last time I randomly started an article (Mzoli's), I accidentally created news headlines. :-( This was fun.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's actually good to see you getting involved in the editing side of things. Just goes to show you're just another humble editor like the rest of us. :) -- œ^™ 11:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not be surprised to see the "I hate Wikipedia" people claim that there is a conflict of interest because of your friend Bono's association with this 30 minute ad for saving African lives from death by AIDS while they in the same breath continue to make fun of your quote about Wikipedia helping African children. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I've got over the shock, a short postmortem;

Looking back, I should have Googled and found sources in the first place; I often do; this is not an excuse, but it's true to say that there was a backlog at AFC, and I was moving through them a bit too rapidly. I know it wasn't totally incorrect to reject it and request more sources; I just wish this had been one of the many other occasions, when I'd gone the extra mile to help more.

That said, as you noted, AFC is not 'entirely unpleasant' - it does at least give a polite decline, with concrete suggestions on how to fix it - and when you did, even though at that point I realised who it was, the procedure was normal - helping fix the ref formatting and so forth. I would also have followed up on the users talk page with this;

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook">
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/>

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

And...

For more help, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

(Adding this here, just so you have a more complete picture of what normally happens)

The AFC process is far from perfect; every time I check the recently processed articles, I find several that were either declined incorrectly, or accepted incorrectly. One of the problems we face with help in general - there is no control over who is providing the help.

However, mostly, AFC works well - certainly, more chance of help than just creating a live article, which often results in warnings, big messages about CSD/PROD, templates all over the article, etc. I always encourage new users to create their first article in a user-space draft; realistically, the days when it was possible for Joe-average to simply create an 'acceptable' article, from scratch, without spending an hour or two learning Wikipedia policy are gone. But if users create things in userspace (or in the AFC Wikipedia talk: namespace) and ask for others to check them, they mostly get good help. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You should definitely write more often. I also noticed that you joined the GCE's July backlog elimination drive, so good luck! —fetch·comms 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo - would you like to join the film project?! Thanks Lugnuts (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello! The Signpost's WikiProject Report is featuring the Guild of Copy Editors' Backlog Elimination Drive in an article to be published next Monday. Since you recently signed up to participate in the next drive in July, we would love to have a few words from you. We've set up a little section for you with a question on our interview page. Feel free to say as much or as little as you'd like. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number, so the exposure this project receives from your participation will be incredibly helpful. If you would like to take Noraft's suggestion and symbolically copyedit a single article, one of us would be happy to choose one for you if you want; just let us know. Or if you have time to do more than one, that would be great too. As the drive communications coordinator, I thank you on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors for your support! --Diannaa ^TALK 04:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

After hearing your interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education, I thought you might like to read an essay that three Wikipedia editors who are also academics have written about ways to teach with Wikipedia and what questions it raises: User:Awadewit/TeachingEssay. Awadewit (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thank you for calling this to my attention!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it! Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good essay. I would add only one thing as a teacher who uses assignments in WP for English as Second Language students. The teacher really has to have a good idea of how WP works to make appropriate assignments and to act as an efficient guide. I use WP in my classes far better now (granted smaller exercises due to my current teaching load) then when I first worked with it in 2008. All the articles I have written since 2007 has taught me a lot.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The archive bot spluttered over my 'referencing help'; I've sorted it out, but please note there was one other reply there - now in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 60#Your submission at Articles_for_creation.

While I was at it, I fixed your archival header to show the new 'archive 60' from June 4th.

It's hard to communicate via your talk; you're just too damn popular! So please ask me on my talk if I can help with anything at all; I'd love to help you re. adding new articles etc. (as I do for lots of other users); I know you're a busy man, but I see enormous benefits in you having a greater awareness of the real procedures and appearance of Wikipedia to new users trying to add stuff to the project; I am extremely keen on making things as easy as possible for them.

As you appear to want the same thing, I am reposting below comments I earlier raised in AFC talk, which I think is very important to consider, and I post it here in the hope that you can drive for change;

The messages that a non-registered user will see if they try to create a page are not exactly user-friendly. If they type in a non-existent article name, it goes like this;

1. "There were no results matching the query", "You may create the page "(NAME)", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered."

(There may or may not actually be any results)

Note, this is a bit wrong already - the anon may not create it.

2. Clicking on the red link produces; Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

• Start the (NAME) article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it.
• Search for "(NAME)" in existing articles.
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

3. Clicking on the 'Start' link then produces a page entitled 'Unauthorized', which says;

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact title. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

• Log in or create an account to start the (NAME) article. (which links to special:login)
• Submit the content that you wish to have created. (which links to AFC)
• Search for "(NAME)" in existing articles.

There are quite a few problems there, and it's certainly not a very 'friendly' start.

Surely, if a non-registered user tries to create an article, they should be seeing some nice, friendly message - suggesting that they sign up, offering alternatives, and certainly highlighting the basic need for reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  16:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Just thought I should tell you that I'm "remodeling" your award page for you - since you said that your user space is open for improvement by everyone. My work-in-progress version located here. I'll try not to really change any of the content. (It looks bad and much too colorful now, but it'll be better when I finish). I'll drop a copy off when I finish - thanks! Oh, and here's another award!

		The Jimbo Barnstar
		I hereby award you, Jimbo Wales, this barnstar for being you, the founder of Wikipedia! Thanks for giving all our readers an indispensable resource and all us editors something to do with our free time! |:-) QwerpQwertus (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 03:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise despite of being formerly temporarily desysopped, and then resysopped after three months, but without permission to act administratively in Hellenic area of Wikipedia, repeatedly violates this restriction by reverting, banning and sockifying innocent IP and account users in Hellenic area of Wikipedia.

en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2#Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise_temporarily_desysopped

25.3) Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.

Upon regaining his administrator access, Future Perfect at Sunrise will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area. Should Future Perfect at Sunrise violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or alter the restriction.

Passed 7 to 2 (with 2 abstentions) at 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of that, he should be already permanently desysopped, but no one cares, even in WP:ANI. 91.215.157.98 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs or no one is likely to care. Also, this doesn't appear to be at ANI, and both here and ANI are the wrong venue. And I oppose desysop. Verbal chat 08:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a need to post diffs. However, it took me about 2 seconds to find fairly obvious violations of the restriction. This is a situation that should be reviewed. I would say that ANI is the right place for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say you should advise them where to take and format there complaint, but leave your opinions on "fairly obvious violations" to the appropriate venue, no? And not make accusations unsupported by diffs. It should be taken to ArbCom, per what it actually says in the restriction above. Verbal chat 08:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the first appropriate avenue would be Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page, which is where I posted diffs. It is appropriate to ask him for an explanation first, before anyone takes it to ArbCom even, because it is a little bit surprising that he's violating this restriction so blatantly, and so therefore there might be some useful explanation possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

More prejudging? Verbal chat 08:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean 'prejudging'? I looked at the diffs. It's obvious. The blocks, as far as I can see, are probably good blocks - but Future Perfect at Sunrise is under an explicit ArbCom restriction not to make them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

More misrepresenting people, Verbal? This is what Jimbo posted on the admin's talk page (which has been deleted by the admin)[5] Follow the dif. Verbal relies on people not following dif's for his innuendo's to stick. Anthony (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry I don't understand you, there was no innuendo. I don't think it's good for Jimbo to make pronouncements such as the above before having the full facts, and when his opinion is (and this is not his fault) given an inordinate amount of weight, which might prevent any kind of fair hearing. Jimbo's post to the users talk page was a good step, one I didn't see as I don't follow that page, and I think we should respect the fact they want to deal with this by email and it's an AC matter. Unrelated to the issue here, Anthony, please stop this - it's not going to end well if you continue, and I want to avoid any more unpleasantness. Verbal chat 11:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Make pronouncements"? He didn't. Follow the dif people. Verbal assumes you're not going to, so his statement, just above, sounds rational. Anthony (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, back off. This is irrelevant and not particularly civil. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 12:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. "More prejudging?" was particularly sleazy. Behave yourself, Verbal. Keep it civil.Anthony (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So, a lot of sock blocks. And this is supposed to be abusive? Speaking of socks, here we have an anon whose first edit is to gripe about an admin at Jimbo's talk page. I'm afraid AGF doesn't really stretch that far. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "abusiveness" is the real issue here. It's that Future Perfect at Sunrise is under explicit ArbCom restrictions not to do this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely this cannot possibly be considered blocks with a content topic area. This has nothing to do with a topic area; these blocks are not due to edits in an area; they're because the user in question in banned sitewide. What area those banned users happen to edit is hardly relevant, as they're unwelcome to edit anywhere. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather genuine good faith newbies arbitrarily classified by FPAS alone as they would be socks. Note that FPAS did this himself without consulting that with anyone, so abusiveness is here defined as preemptive prejudging newbies despite of their genuine non-vandal and good faith conduct. 91.215.157.98 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose this IP is also blocked as part of a continuing campaign of harassment, as outlined above. Verbal chat 10:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP was blocked a short while ago as an open proxy. Not an unfamiliar pattern. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. Jimbo, I hope I haven't offended you with my forthright expression of my views - I believe you're able to handle it :) Verbal chat 12:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I know little about this situation, but I know that there are few admins on the very difficult area of ethnic conflicts, and it is unfortunate if we lose one of these few. Sole Soul (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously better is for Wikipedia to have less, but constructive administrators than more, but disruptive administrators. At least slow progressing is better than fast degrading in matter of content changing. 188.165.85.129 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, from the above behaviour of the open-proxy IP user it's becoming more and more clear that he is banned Wikinger (talk · contribs). Well known behaviour profile. Should have been blocked-reverted-ignored from the start. Whether the two previous blocked accounts were also him trying to set me up, or the Greece-related criminal harasser I thought they were is basically moot. About the rest, I'm willing to discuss everything with the Arbcom in private. No more comment here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m sorry to bother you, Mr. Wales, but I need your advice about how to handle something that I can’t find explained at any policy pages.

Earlier today, I was blocked for two weeks by the admin 2over0, with the explanation “for repeated edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith.” I’m not aware of having engaged in any of these behaviors recently, had not been recently warned about any of them, and there aren’t any recent discussions about this at any admin noticeboards, so I asked for my block to be reviewed. I also mentioned in my unblock request that since I was an involved party in the race and intelligence arbitration case, I should not be prevented from participating in it. After I’d been blocked for around three hours, the blocking admin unblocked me with the explanation that this was so I could participate in the arbitration case, but that I’m still banned from editing all other pages. The discussion about this is at the bottom of my user talk page.

Since as far as I know I haven’t done anything to warrant these sanctions, I would still like to appeal 2over0’s decision to ban me from editing everything but the arbitration pages. But since he’s technically granted my unblock request, I can’t make use of the template to ask that my block be reviewed in order to appeal this decision. I have two questions about this that I’d appreciate you answering. First, is it standard for a user to be blocked without any discussion or warning like this, so that they aren’t aware of what specific conduct they’ve been blocked for; and for the blocking admin to grant an unblock request while also stating that the formerly blocked user is still banned from editing all but a small group of pages? And assuming that this sort of unofficial block is a normal course of action for admins here, what are the normal channels for appealing it? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting case that may be worth mentioning here because it involves the issue of how to handle a topic (Race and intelligence and several related articles) when the underlying science is poorly established and where the topic attracts people who have learned how Wikipedia works: they know to be civil; they know how to argue that their source complies with policy; they know not to stray over WP:3RR. The issue confronting Wikipedia is more general than this case because in time enthusiasts will learn how to get along here, and they may make it very hard to maintain WP:NPOV on certain classes of articles because a small number of enthusiasts can overwhelm the one or two editors who may better represent NPOV (for example, there have been 939 edits to Race and intelligence since April 1, and the talk page and archives 76–81 total over 1.1 million characters since January 11). Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if asking about this here is one way for my block to be appealed, I guess I’d like to do that. Now that I can no longer request that my block be reviewed using the template for that, the only other option that 2over0 has mentioned for how to do this is by posting a thread about it at AN/I. And I’d really rather not start another AN/I thread about this, since you’ve probably noticed how threads there about articles related to race and intelligence tend to degenerate into pointless arguments where it’s impossible to obtain a consensus about anything.

I’m not really sure what I ought to say here with regard to appealing this block, since I still don’t completely understand what the reasons for it were. But David.Kane and WavePart have both disputed the validity of this block on 2over0’s talk page here, and I agree with their comments about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Outside opinion

To justify blocks based on content-based issues, I think it important that diffs should be provided, with rationale. This assists other editors in assessing whether there is a substantiated problem. Having said that, while there is a pending ArbCom case, one should expect a general moratorium on editing until the issue is resolved, from all parties. There is no particular reason why disputes should continue to be pursued until there is a resolution, and in fact, continuing to do so merely clouds the waters and makes the situation all the harder to deal with. Although passionate beliefs are commonly expressed here, once an article comes within the jurisdiction of ArbCom, some introspection appears to be worthwhile. This is on the basis that if your interpretation and use of reliable sources is acceptable, editors have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, those pushing a point of view without regard to our principles should not be surprised by the imposition of sanctions. Rodhullandemu 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My history with Occam is only per my recent involvement at Race and intelligence, however, I have to say this is the first block I've seen that provides no diffs supporting the itemizing of disruptive actions. I assume actions at this article are the source of the block (unclear), but I have not seen disruptive behavior there on the part of Occam. Nor do I see what purpose the block has. Editors are attempting to get back to the article and away from the mediation angst (which precipitated the arbitration for which commenting Occam was selectively unblocked) and are back to discussing issues, including the results as such of the mediation, at article talk. What acts are punished by Occam's block? None--the article is currently protected so the only activity has been discussion of content, which has been civil (if opinionated) by all. What is the purpose of allowing Occam to comment at the arbitration? Only to continue the conflict, and enough has been said there already. So:

1. block with no diffs or mention of articles?
2. but a copious list of (unreferenced) bad behaviors?
3. and a selective unblock which only allows for continuation of conflict?
4. when there is no immediately discernable behavior which merited a block?

This really does need to be overturned, it's not helping; it accomplishes nothing except the escalation of bad faith. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus in 2over0’s user talk is this block was inappropriate, and according to ImperfectlyInformed, 2over0 actually does not have the authority to impose it. If 2over0 does not have the authority to impose this sanction, should I regard it as invalid? Or do I need to still respect it regardless, until 2over0 (or another admin) specifically tells me that it’s been revoked? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried groveling? A good 75 percent of admin reply very well to that. Some do have good intentions and will base their decision on merit alone but they are like Condors. Not seen often. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That really is unhelpful. Admins are perhaps under more scrutiny than other editors, and are perfectly aware of that. Grovelling isn't, in my experience, likely to achieve an unblock when the reasons for blocking are clear, and the reasons for unblocking do not address the issues of the block. That, of course, depends on the blocking admin giving at least a basic reason for the block. That is what the templates are for, and in my experience, very much most of them are not even challenged, and when they are, I can't remember a single instance in which a block of mine has been overturned on its merits. If "grovelling" means subscribing to our policies and guidelines, so what? If you disagree with them, you are free to discuss changes, but don't be surprised of you encounter some opposition: that's the nature of a democratic community. Rodhullandemu 04:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not previously considered this particular sort of case, and I would like to hear from some uninvolved admins on this. Not on this particular case, which is interesting and should be resolved quickly (my own view is that the restrictions should be lifted in this particular case by the blocking admin in the interest of harmony and generosity).

But I am interested in hearing more and thinking more about the "constitutional status" of a topic-area ban put into place by a single admin, what it means in detail, and what best practice should be for appealing such a situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the community rejected topic bans imposed by an individual administrator at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions. I intended this to be a simple lifting of the software restriction on editing to facilitate participation by Captain Occam at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. They are a major participant in that case, and it does not strike me as fair to reject their input for so long or require that someone else post their responses by proxy. Had this not been the case, I would not have unblocked (unless normal discussion mechanisms indicated, of course). It was my understanding that a conditional unblock of this nature would be completely non-controversial, though I welcome input if I am mistaken in this. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What you're doing here isn't any different from a topic ban. It has all of the same effects, and all of the same problems, including the fact that there's no clearly-defined process for how to appeal it. Captain Occam's need for participation in the Arbcom case is self-evident, but additionally the entire block is altogether unreasonable as several editors have already pointed out in your user talk. You have been asked several times to provide diffs or other support for this unexplained and sudden block. I find it confusing why you're ignoring them.

The consensus seems to be that the block is unjustified, which includes Jimbo Wales asking you to lift the restriction. What is the proper course of action at this point? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to note any real-life relationship with Captain Occam, for the record, Ferahgo the Assassin? Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I know Captain Occam outside Wikipedia; this has been stated before and I've made no attempt at hiding it. In this case, though, I think it's completely irrelevant - Occam is not blocked from responding on this page, so I'm not acting on his behalf. I'm just pointing out the obvious. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The real problem is not so much the block per se but the process. 2/0 provides no diffs indicating precisely which recent edits by Occam justify, in his view, a block. As best I can tell, neither 2/0 nor any other admin provided any sort of warning or guidance to Occam prior to the block. At the blocking policy talk page the consensus seems to be that the blocking admin, in a case like this, has an (unstated) obligation to provide specific diffs. Isn't that true? (Side note: I would be curious to know how 2/0 came across Occam and decided to block him.) David.Kane (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Second David.Kane. The block was out of the blue with no warning and no evidence and certainly no disruption in the current conversation at Race and intelligence where Occam has been active, which I can only assume is the problem area, as 2/0 doesn't indicate that, either. I should mention I have no idea yet whether I even generally agree or disagree with Occam on what should comprise the article, this is strictly about process (lack thereof). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 12:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think people are making this more complicated than it needs to be. This is not a good example for discussions of topic bans imposed by single admins. This is an example of an admin blocking someone, then allowing limited participation an ArbCom case (in lieu of having people transfer his comments from his talk page). I would look at it like this: Captain Occam is still theoretically blocked, but has been given the ability to participate in the ArbCom case. Per 2/0 above, this has been done many times, and is usually uncontroversial.

To me, the obvious solution if Captain Occam wants to contest the block is to just use the unblock template anyway, and treat this like any other block that is being contested. If he explains why he's using the template in his unblock request, I would hope a reviewing admin wouldn't remove it on a technicality. Then, it can be handled like any other unblock request, and if an unblock is granted, a note to that effect can be inserted into his block log. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: Would you agree that the blocking admin has an obligation to make clear the reason for his block? None of us can identify any diffs in which Occam has behaved poorly. Would you also agree that a block with no prior warning or guidance is problematic? David.Kane (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

David, obviously a blocking admin has an obligation to make clear the reason for his block; I doubt anyone disagrees. My thoughts align very closely with TenOfAllTrades below: you get warnings most of the time, there are a few limited instances where you don't, and I haven't looked to see if this is one of those cases. I have not looked at the facts behind this block, I was only addressing the fundamental question of this thread; "How does one appeal an unofficial block?". I think, in this case, you appeal it the same way you would appeal a normal block: (a) ask for blocking admin to reconsider, (b) use {{unblock}} and have the reviewing admin handle it, (c) ask someone to bring it up on ANI, or (d) mail the unblock mailing list. My whole point is that blocks are appealed every day, and there is no need to treat this any differently. If you've all discussed this with 2/0 and he won't unblock, follow the next step. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is the same as Floquenbeam's (that is, this isn't a topic ban, but rather a full-force block wherein a narrow exception has been opened to permit the blocked user to participate in an Arbitration), and I would endorse his/her proposed approach to resolving it. The blocking admin should make the reason for a block clear. In this case, the stated reason was "for repeated edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith". If there is concern or confusion about whether those stated reasons apply, it is reasonable for someone (the blockee or a polite interested party) to ask for clarification or explanation; if such explanation is not forthcoming within a reasonable time frame, it is appropriate to request an unblock (perhaps via the {{unblock}} template).

As a general note, warnings and guidance are often recommended prior to a block, but they are by no means compulsory — particularly in cases where there is previous, related misconduct, or where the behaviour in question is something that a reasonable adult ought to know just isn't appropriate. I have no comment on whether either of those conditions might apply to the extant case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I (and others) have asked for "clarification or explanation" from 2/0 here, at the block and at his Talk page. He has failed to respond. I am happy to assume good faith and assume that real life prevents him from addressing these concerns. (At least 5 editors have expressed displeasure/unease with his actions.) But, since we do not know how long 2/0 will be away from Wikipedia, wouldn't re-instating Occam now be the polite thing to do? Once 2/0 is back, whenever that might be, he can block Occam again while providing reasons for doing so. Occam has done nothing in the last 6 months "that a reasonable adult ought to know just isn't appropriate". David.Kane (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since 2over0 is continuing to edit other Wikipedia pages, it seems unlikely to me that the reason he’s not addressing these concerns is because of real life interfering with his participation here. I'm really at a loss as to why he's failed to respond to any of the requests on his userpage for an explanation of the block.

Do other users think I should use the unblock template at this point? It would be most efficient if other admins can agree that this block is unjustified based on the discussion here and on 2over0’s userpage, and lift it just for that reason, which is the type of solution that Mr. Wales was suggesting. If other people think I still ought to go through the normal process of using the unblock template though, I’ll do that. Please let me know which course of action you think is appropriate. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Verbal chat 19:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think JW was saying the block was "unjustified", exactly. He said he thought it should be lifted in the interest of "harmony and generosity". The thing is that generosity dries up very quickly when it becomes apparent that it's going to be abused. Example: we say, "The block is overturned in a spirit of generosity." Captain Occam turns around and says: "The block was overturned because it was unjustified." If we act in a spirit of generosity, we might expect that Occam will in turn ease up slightly on his dogged single-issue advocacy, in the same spirit. On the other hand, if our generosity is going be twisted into an excuse to continue the long-term pattern of agenda-driven single-issue editing, then I can understand the reluctance to extend it. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Race_and_intelligence#FAQ_Q3 has Captain Occam in full NOTHEARING mode. Also, long-term pattern of WP:CPUSH. Also, long overdue block. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As for edit warring, see edits in Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ: [6][7]. Sorry, but, for long-term patterns with editors that have already been repeatedly warned about edit warring[8][9][10][11] and has already been blocked 3 times for edit warring (24 hours, 72 hours and 1 week) you don't need to provide edits that are less than 24 hours old or some other arbitrary time. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If one of you thinks I’ve done something that warrants a block, can you please be specific about what? This question is for MastCell in particular. This pattern of severe-sounding but nebulous accusations against me is something I’ve seen very often, but as soon as anyone asks for specifics (as David.Kane, ImperfectlyInformed and Xxanthippe did when asking 2over0 why I was blocked), nothing that justifies the accusations is generally provided. Apart from the fact that blocking policy requires the blocking admin to explain what specific behavior the block was based on, there’s another problem with this: if there’s anything about my behavior that actually is a problem, I don’t see how I can be expected to know how to improve it if it’s never pointed out to me.

Enric Naval, you’ve provided two diffs of me reverting something, showing that I reverted it twice in a single day. Aprock and Verbal have both done the same thing. I wasn’t aware that two reverts in a day was considered grounds for a block; and if it is, why am I the only person being subjected to this when my behavior is no different from either of theirs? If you think I’ve done something wrong in the long discussion you’ve linked to, you need to be specific about that also. I was trying to get Arthur Rubin to answer my question about why his point about the effects of editors being driven away applies any more to the mediation than it does to the discussion on that talk page, and even at this point he still hasn’t answered it. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out an error in the above, I edited once and reverted once (supported by consensus). This is not, as Occam describes it, "doing the same thing". I also engaged in discussion in good faith. Verbal chat 09:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You removed the same content twice (blanking content added by another editor is always a revert), even though the only two users who were discussing it (me and Arthur Rubin) both agreed that it should be included. You also did not engage in any discussion about your removal of this material until after having already removed it twice, and even then it was only in response to my complaint that you were making no attempt to justify your edits on the talk page. Please stop misrepresenting your actions here. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are just wrong on this one. There was one edit, one revert, and then others came to a compromise solution which made clear the entry didn't have consensus. Verbal chat 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"but I haven't reached 3RR" excuse[12] when a) you have already been blocked for 3RR b) you should be aware that edit warring can happen without reaching three reverts c) you are editing against consensus of several editors d) you are aware that the whole topic is under 1RR....

Also, several people have explained why Mathsci's edits were good and the edits of you and other editors are not[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] so stop saying that you are behaving just like the others. Also, in light of these diffs, your statement in your opening post: "Since as far as I know I haven’t done anything to warrant these sanctions (...)" is pure IDIDNTHEARTHAT bullshit. Other editors think that you are a very problematic editor and that should be topic banned from all R&I articles, and you have replied to the thread where all those comments linked above happened[21]. This comment is quite clear at this respect[22] and you made a direct reply to it[23] so you can't pretend that you weren't aware of other editor's objections to your actions. Painting yourself here as a good-behaving editor that receives a block out of the blue is purely deceptive. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1: Based on how freely others were reverting the FAQ, my impression was that 1RR applied to the article space, not extensions of the talk page. (Which is what the FAQ is). But either way, you haven’t addressed my point that two other editors were engaging in the exact same behavior that I was, with the one difference that they weren’t willing to discuss their reverts on the talk page even when I was asking them to. I don’t see how it’s possible for something to be “against consensus” when the editors who oppose it are refusing to participate in the discussion where its inclusion is being argued for. You haven’t explained how 2over0’s decision to single me out with regard to this, when I am not by any means the worst editor involved in this article, is anything other than him using his admin powers to take sides in a content dispute.

2: You’ve linked to a lot of diffs where other editors have expressed support for Mathsci (in a content dispute over how to interpret BLP policy), only one of which mentions me specifically, and none of them provide any diffs or examples of specific behavior from me or other editors that’s a problem. This is actually a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I already said in my last comment that there’s no shortage of these nebulous accusations of misconduct against me and other editors, but whenever anyone asks for specific examples of problematic behavior from us, nothing is provided. If you read the comments from me that you linked to, you’ll see that I made a similar point there, and as usual no attempt was made to address it. The point I’m making isn’t that nobody has ever accused me of being a “problematic editor”, a “POV-pushing SPA”, or any other derogatory term you can think of; it’s that nobody provides specific examples of how my behavior is problematic. And unless someone does, these nebulous accusations tell me nothing about what anyone expects me to be doing differently. Do you not understand the point I’m making about this?

This isn’t very different from arguing over a claim that’s in an article here. We can have situations where there are a lot of editors who believe that something is true, but nobody can find an actual source for it other than just the opinions of other editors. However many editors there are who think something, if nobody can find evidence that supports it, it can’t go in an article. In the case of the accusations that you and others are making about me, this evidence hasn’t been provided, not even by the admin who blocked me based on these assumptions. And I’m not by any means the only person pointing this out: most of the editors who aren’t part of this feedback loop are also commenting on how unreasonable this is, even those who don’t agree with me in terms of content.

Mr. Wales, could you please offer your opinion about this situation? The reason I brought this up on your talk page, rather than at AN/I, is because I was hoping this way the discussion was less likely to turn into just another extension of the same feedback loop. But it seems like that might be starting to happen here anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) My point, which has not been addressed, was that constructive dialog was going on and there was no disruption by anyone at R&I when the block was suddenly enacted. If a dog pees where they shouldn't, you don't bring them to the spot days later and then tell them BAD DOG! All the sturm und drang here just throws gasoline on the fire. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because dogs, unlike editors, can't tell why you are angry if you don't catch them "in the act". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like an answer to my initial question.

“To me, the obvious solution if Captain Occam wants to contest the block is to just use the unblock template anyway, and treat this like any other block that is being contested. If he explains why he's using the template in his unblock request, I would hope a reviewing admin wouldn't remove it on a technicality.”

I’d like to point out that I’ve just tried this, and the template was removed on a technicality. (“As you're technically not blocked, this is the wrong way to go about this.”) Mr. Wales, I still would like to know what the appropriate practice is for appealing this type of block under these circumstances. The only other suggestion I’ve received is AN/I, which as I’ve said I’m certain won’t lead to any positive result regardless of whether or not my block is justified, because of what threads there related to race and intelligence topics invariably turn into.

Despite all the drama here, I still don’t know the answer to my initial question. I would like to know the answer. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been told by the blocking admin and the reviewer to take it to ANI for review. Jimbo is not a judge. why not try taking it to ANI? Remeber to keep it short and to the point, but supported by evidence (diffs), and not to repeat mistaken claims that have been corrected here. Verbal chat 12:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I already answered this question in the comment that you’re replying to. If you’d been following the recent AN/I threads related to these articles, you would understand what I mean when I say there’s next to no chance of something productive resulting from a thread there about this. In addition, since this block was enacted by a single admin without any community discussion, obtaining a community consensus shouldn’t be necessary in order to revoke it.

Jimbo isn’t a judge, but he’s able to clarify ambiguities of Wikipedia policy that aren’t clearly stated on policy pages, and what the appropriate practice is for appealing a topic-area ban put in place by a single admin is an example of that. He stated in his own comment here that he also thinks this ought to be clarified. I’m not asking him specifically to revoke my block, but I would like him to provide some guidance about what the appropriate course of action is for appealing it. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I under-estimated the desire for bureaucracy; I suppose my advice was more for the Wikipedia in my head, that runs the way I think it should run, and not the actual Wikipedia. At this point, ANI is probably the way to go, whether you like that page or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Occam your best bet is to restart he thread and make it clear you are looking for Jimbo's opinion. This page has a hundred people that think they need to cover for Jimbo and somehow protect him from questions of the community. It is important to note though that appealing here does garner very little action by Mr Wales as he does try to act like a normal editor most times. Then again he will sometimes surprise you. Good luck with your case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal and Enric Naval aren’t here to cover for Jimbo. Both of them are editors who have long-term content disputes with me over this article, and they appear to have just followed me here from the other places we’ve been arguing. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a long term dispute with you. The blocking admin, and reviewing admin have both said ANI is the appropriate venue. You've also been asked not to post here. This is a repeat of part of the problem: WP:IDHT. I'll leave you to it. Verbal chat 16:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cmon people does the tile of the page really mean that much? Is going to another page other then rehashing everything is going to accompish anything more then what's happening now? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"I don't have a long term dispute with you"

I think that anyone who's observed your recent arguments with me on the race and intelligence talk page, as well as our arguments over the Race and crime in the United States article going back to last summer (such as here), would find this statement pretty inaccurate. I think it makes this even worse that most of the editors posting here aren’t familiar enough with our disputes to be aware of what a distortion your statement is, so you really do have a chance at making yourself look uninvolved if you’re dishonest about it.

What do you hope to accomplish with this? Are you trying to make it appear as though the editors arguing that my block is justified are impartial observers of my behavior, rather than members of the same small group of editors that’s been locked in content disputes for the past several months against the group of editors that I’m part of? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Standard disagreement is not worthy of the level of dispute, in my opinion. I'm not involved in the arbcom case and not involved in any long term disputes with R&I either. I'm sure you're a great editor. What I hoped to accomplish is to point out an error in what you wrote about me, and to direct you to the best place for your appeal - in effect helping you overturn this block (though I do feel it is correct). A last piece of advice, if you take this to ANI please focus on why the block/restrictions should be overturned and on your behaviour rather than the behaviour of others. _{(Also, I think this has got disjointed from where it should be but I don't want to cause offence by moving it.)} Best, Verbal chat 17:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have no background with the editor in question, and I am one of the ones who advised him to take this to WP:ANI, as per WP:RESTRICT. Realistically, he's not technically blocked - an unblock request is not correct, so I declined it. I for one will unblock him should anyone accidentally block him for asking for a more complete unblock at WP:ANI. Running to papa Wales for administravia such as this is a rather odd and off-putting thing to do. I have his talkpage on my watchlist until this is settled (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my initial comment in this thread, I’m not specifically trying to appeal my block here; I’m just trying to get advice about what the proper course of action is to appeal it. Since this ban was enacted without community discussion or consensus, it doesn’t seem like community consensus should be required in order to overturn it. When a single admin enacts a ban without any discussion and without providing a specific reason, and is unwilling to explain the reason in his user talk despite repeated requests for this from multiple editors, shouldn’t there be a relatively simple way to get an uninvolved admin to review whether or not it’s justified?

Hell in a bucket suggested starting a new thread here to ask Mr. Wales about this a second time, while you and the blocking admin are telling me I need to go to AN/I with it. Hell in a bucket’s suggestion sounds more reasonable to me, but I’m really not sure what I ought to be doing here. Jimbo stated in his own comment that he’d like the answer to this question to be clarified also. Can any other uninvolved admins offer any advice about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question is that no accepted and defined procedure exists, so you are best off trying to focus on your individual case. I understand your reluctance to go to WP:ANI (yes, I've looked at recent threads). As you have been declined both an un-ban and an evidence-based justification of the ban from the imposing administrator, and as you are already involved in an ArbCom case, perhaps there is an alternative approach... maybe you could propose a motion on the workshop case page that your restrictions be lifted as improperly imposed / unsupported by evidence? Make it clear that you are asking for action from ArbCom or Clerks so as to avoid another protracted ANI thread. Provide brief, factual evidence (diff-supported) of the irregularities in admin behaviour. Allow the Clerks to act if responses from others start to get out of hand. Perhaps an Arbitrator will see things similsrly to JW aboe and act to vacate your restrictions unilaterally. Just a suggestion... EdChem (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I suppose that’s as good as any other suggestion I’ve received, but I still have some doubts about it: doesn’t it generally require several weeks for Arbitrators to come to a decision about something? If so, I would imagine that by the time that happens in this case, my two-week ban (which has 11 days left at this point) would have already expired anyway.

I’ll follow your suggestion if nobody else can suggest anything better, but I would still appreciate hearing suggestions from other admins about this. (Or other suggestions from you, if you have any.) --Captain Occam (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

First, in the interests of openness, I am not an admin. Second, motions on the workshop page and interim actions can be sorted out very quickly; they do not require completion of the full case to come into effect. Third, you could try asking at the Clerks Noticeboard WP:ACCN whether they or the Arbs might feel inclined to act, and if so, what is the best way to request a rapid review of your situation. That page is watched by Clerks and Arbs but is much lower profile than here. Fourth, aplying to the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee (BASC) of ArbCom is another approach, though they may procedurally decline in the absence of an ANI review, or may take a while to act as they mostly look at cases with indef bans. Fifth, you could seek advice at the talk page of one of the Arbs. Sixth, you can offer evidence about this ban / restricyion in your case... though it would not result in the restriction being lifted, the Arbs may be sufficiently disturbed to include some sanction (admonishment, rebuke, temporary desysop, etc), especially if there was evidence of other irregularities from the samne admin. I should add that I don't offer any position on your restriction or on the efficacy of these various options, I'm simply trying to list the alternatives I see as available to you. EdChem (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I’m regarded as banned from everything that isn’t specifically related to my ban or to the arbitration case, I don’t think I would be allowed to bring this up on the talk page of one of the arbitrators. I appreciate your other suggestions, though. However, I would still like to get feedback from others about this.

Here’s another question, which I’d like to get an opinion about from you or any other uninvolved observer: I’ve just looked through the list of users under editing restrictions at the Wikipedia:RESTRICT page that BWilkins linked to, and I’m not on it. What’s more, there is no category at all for editing restrictions imposed by a single administrator: the only categories are editing restrictions imposed by Arbcom, and those imposed by the Wikipedia community, neither of which has happened in my own case. BWilkins has made a decision that I’m not actually blocked, and according to Wikipedia:RESTRICT I’m not under an editing restriction either. It can only be one or the other: either I’m blocked, in which case it should have been possible for me to appeal this block via the normal route; or I’m under an editing restriction, in which case it appears as though 2over0 did not have the authority to single-handedly implement this restriction. (ImperfectlyInformed also pointed this out here—there is currently no policy for admins to be able to implement discretionary sanctions except on articles where ArbCom has specifically authorized it, which they haven’t in this case.) With this in mind, I need to ask: what specific type of sanction is my account under, and is it an actual type of sanction that’s recognized by the Wikipedia community? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please answer this? At this point, the impression I’m getting is that if I can’t use the unblock template because I’m not blocked, and I’m not on the list of users under editing restrictions because 2over0 does not have the authority to single-handedly place me under one, that by unblocking me and then telling me I’m still topic-banned from every page on Wikipedia except for the arbitration case, 2over0 was attempting to place me under a type of sanction that does not exist at Wikipedia. And this seems to be reason for the difficulty appealing it: how can Wikipedia have a well-defined appeal process for a type of sanction that isn’t recognized by the community?

I would appreciate it if someone could confirm whether this is the case. And if it isn’t, can someone please tell me what specific type of sanction (recognized by the community) my account is under? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI Verbal chat 05:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That isn’t helpful. At the moment I’m not specifically trying to appeal my sanctions, and when I am, it won’t be at AN/I. Right now I’m just looking for an answer to my question about what type of sanction my account is under, and whether it’s a type of sanction that’s recognized by Wikipedia. I’m much more likely to get a useful answer to this question here than I am there.

I also stated in my last comment that I want an opinion about this from an uninvolved observer. You and Enric Naval are not uninvolved. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can’t anybody answer this? It seems completely unreasonable that I’m being told I can’t edit, but nobody can tell me what specific type of sanctions I’m under, and that for that reason there’s no specific process for how to appeal them. Jimbo Wales’ question about the “constitutional status” of these sanctions hasn’t been answered either. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"The community may also impose a number of different editing restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior, usually at an administrator's noticeboard. Such restrictions may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary" - it's effectively a community-imposed restriction, so take it there. As I've said, I support your taking it to that location, and logically it belongs there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How can it be imposed by the community if it was enacted by a single admin without any community discussion? For single admin to impose a sanction without any community discussion is a discretionary sanction. And if it were a community-imposed restriction, wouldn’t it be included in the list of community-imposed restrictions at Wikipedia:RESTRICT? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not all admins remember to add to that list ... in fact, I think I've neglected it before as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI filed

Based on what I have percieved as a fear to post on ANI due to a possibility for re-block (as originally stated on the user's talkpage) I have asked for review on WP:ANI. This will either confirm this as a community restriction, remove the block completely, or re-block fully for the duration of the original 2-week block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My name is Nineteen Nightmares but you can call me Kato. I wish we could disagree on something so I could get one of those neat red boxes where you have the stern face and it says something about "this Wikipedian disagreed with Jimbo" or something of the like. Do you know what I am talking about? There is also this thing called a Vandal Whacking Stick! Can you believe how cool that is, a Vandal Whacking Stick?" Sarah has one. She's from Australia and a Supervising Editor here or whatever the title is, but anyway, she is real cool and nice, too, and then she was helpful on top of that. She also had here own day. She is really an Awesome Wikipedian. Doesn't that sound cool? Awesome Wikipedian! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

		The Surreal Barnstar
		If I put a Surreal Barnstar here could I have one of the red boxes? Jimbo, did you like Peter Jackson's take on the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Hi Jimbo! I'm Gabriele Deulofleu from it.wiki, in this season will deliver the Award G. Deulofleu - Més que un usuario and I need a great host for my event, you have no job, I will do everything, I just need your permission to write your name as a special guest. If you agree just send me a confirmation-message in talk, and you add in the section madrina/padrino, I would love to have you with me virtually, Ciao. talk 22:52, 5 June 2010 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.255.165 (talk)

I am honored but I am not sure I really understand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Глубоко Уважаемый Господин Джимми Донал Уэйлс! Пожалуйста: Почему фотография писателя Валерия Николаевского на русский Вики в Черной рамке (еще живого человека?) Угроза? Много гадостей... С глубоким уважением! -- Jahggy 11:38, 12 June 2010 (CET)

Google translate: Deeply Dear Mr. Jimmy Donal Wales! Please: Why the picture of the writer Valery Nikolaev on Russian wiki in a black frame (still alive man?) Threat? There are many nasty things ... Sincerely Yours!

I have no idea, to be honest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to be referring to ru:Николаевский, Валерий Михайлович. But the image on that page looks normal, and I can find no recent edits that would have made it look different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I believe I have addressed your concerns with a comment on the Files for deletion page. One editor, Rockfang, struck his delete support after the files were redacted. I understand your concerns about the privacy, I should have realized that myself, however, I have knowledge that all addresses have changed since the documents were made with no possible way anyone privacy is at issue, but I didn't realize others would not know that. Amends have been made. There is one issue you can help with, how do you delete the other file which is not redacted? According to the discussion, no one seems to know, and suggests it may need to be done by someone with inside access. Would you mind deleting the original files and leaving the redacted ones so the McCoy page can be restored and the deletion process withdrawn? Thanks in advance! Victor9876 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is re. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 June 13#File:Power of Attorney.pdf  Chzz  ►  02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: With no comment towards the deletion discussion for any other reasons I have deleted the versions of the file where the addresses showed (the blacked out version still remains). James (T C) 02:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: did it to the other file as well (didn't see it at first) James (T C) 03:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This does not address the issue at all. The point is, these files are original research at best. I know of no reason to think they are not completely manufactured from scratch. There is no reason for Wikipedia to host them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be an original document, but there is no good faith reason to assume it is original research or that it is a fake document. It is clearly signed by a notary public, something that can be researched and confirmed if need be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot about this particular case that would lead one to have grave doubts about it - a lot of history around this article which you may not know about. Having said that, it would be WP:OR in any event, please read the section on primary sources in particular. What you don't know in this case, in terms of making an interpretation, is whether the document is authentic, whether it is still in force, etc. We don't merely need a "good faith reason to doubt" - we need reliable sources, not someone's personal legal documents to try to push a particular agenda.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(OD) What particular agenda are you speaking of Mr. Wales? I addressed your WP:OR claim and you never responded to it, so in good faith, I proceeded to have the documents redacted to remove the privacy issue you raised, re-uploaded them, as a non-admin could not remove the originals, asked for help to do so, some very helpful and courteous administrators came in and resolved the issues, and now you, through your vagueness and some itenerari known only to you, are wasting everyone's time with more vagueness, which is disruptive!

As to your claims that the document is manufactured, Wildhartlivie makes a valid point that it is notarized. As to the "it may no longer be in force" comment, that is irrevelant to the time it was in force. The names are the same on the power of attorney and the TWCC Award for Mr. McCoy, so there had to be an agency involved for both documents. Therefore, both documents are authentic and reliable sources, that have been mentioned in newspapers and other media outlets. All of these issues were stringed and connected in the OR revert you did on the McCoy page. I prudently waited and tried to satisfy all your concerns, did so, and now you are raising issues known only to yourself, and claiming a real or imagined history, that as far as I can tell, violates lots of WP policies, for your own agenda. As to my agenda, a corrected history that is verifiable was my motive, not some act of subterfuge like you are undertaking. Please come clean and express your concerns in a manner that can be addressed appropriately. Thank you! Victor9876 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, you asked WHL to read the "Primary" sources in WP:OR, it states - "though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

The files that you are calling into question, were used in conjunction with newspaper articles from the Austin American Statesman and others. The article is here [[24]] and here [[25]]. Both articles refer to Mr. Moore, as Power of Attorney and for helping McCoy with getting help for PTSD. If there is a synthetic claim, it is supported by the articles, which were not written by Mr. Moore! There is no original analysis! There is this however, [[26]], which shows McCoy's daughter living in Copperas Cove where McCoy was interviewed. There is this reversal on the McCoy page which shows having originated from Copperas Cove, Texas [[27]], which was part of a reversal war before you showed up and reverted claiming WP:OR. This suggests a cabal, and that you may have received an email from McCoy's daughter, asking you to join the cabal, and by looking at the facts around this issue, I can only suggest that may be the case.

If that is the case - it only supports this article [[28]] which is on the internet and I hope it isn't true. I respectfully request that you recuse yourself from this topic. Respectfully! Victor9876 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy is right. We don't upload original documents for use as sources. We cite the document in some reliable and verifiable way (we may upload it for convenience, but not for the purposes of a citation). There is no way to know if that document is genuine. AGF isn't the criterion for sources, verifiability is. If there are newspaper articles that say he was granted power of attorney, then cite those newspaper articles. If that document is available somewhere reliable, then cite it with a reference to that place (a country records office, or something). You can't just scan a document in, upload it, and call it a reliable source. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Replaced previous non-response for this one) Tango, WP:OR..."though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Victor9876 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Victor9876, please identify yourself. How did you come by Mr. Moore's personal legal documents?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is attempting to reveal the identity of a Wikipedia contributor the best way to approach this? Weakopedia (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a case of "outing" for goodness sake! He uploaded what he alleges are personal legal documents. It is perfectly sensible to ask for the provenance of those documents. Additionally, he has willingly now self-identified as a user who has been deeply involved in POV pushing and sockpuppeting on this article and related articles for years. I think that's relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a primary source. It's an image on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not related to the subject. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Version at Commons

Just a FYI, I've listed the version at Commons for deletion. In addition to the concerns here, Commons has a different scope which has this educational purpose requirement and doesn't generally approve of PDFs for essentially raw text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those links seem to go anywhere. Weakopedia (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Links fixed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

Glad to see you're going to help out with the copyediting in July! I took the liberty of adding your name in the totals section so you have a box to track your progress like the rest of us. I look forward to drive!--~TPW 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the GWB article should be included in Day 1 of the queue (see WP:PCQ) as it has been used as an example at several press outlets:

• Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, said the new system would open up articles, such as the Wikipedia page of former US President George W Bush, that have, until now, been protected in order to prevent malicious edits. The Telegraph
• Up to 2,000 articles, including a page about former US President George W Bush, will have their strict editing restrictions relaxed BBC News
• The trial of the new system will cover a maximum of 2,000 pages, including such frequently vandalized ones as that about former President George W. Bush. Network World

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Queue#George W. Bush which you might be interested in taking part in.

Regards (and good night, as I'm off to bed) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have just read a post on GoRight's blog entitled The mysterious sock puppets. It seems that the climate change gang are trying to (almost certainly falsely; I know GR) label the banned editor GoRight as a sockpuppet. Since you have given these editors administrative rights that other mere mortals don't have it might be good if someone trusted could review GR's complaint. It sure doesn't look good to the general public. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that the complaint will be reviewed thoughtfully. I don't think it looks bad to the general public, for a number of reasons. If the allegation is that someone is creating sock puppets who edit exactly like William Connelley in order to get someone who doesn't like William Connelley falsely accused of sockpuppeting - well - I just don't quite see that as a reasonable conclusion. I also find it unreasonable for someone who wants to return to editing after a 6 month break to do it, either. What would the motive be, it makes no sense to me. But then, sockpuppeting seldom makes sense to me, so what do I know?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wales, I thought it would be polite to let you know I removed your "reviewer" right, since you have the admin bit, into which the reviewer right has been "bundled", so to speak- rather like rollback and autoreviewer. If, for some reason, you want the redundant right, then by all means revert me (or one of my fellow admins lurking on this page may do so!). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Phew. Good to know I'm not getting a summary desysop! ;) Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I just read that you are in SP and willing to have dinner with Wikipedians! Great! I'm game! What are your whereabouts?

I can manage to organize something, I think. If you wish, you can contact me.

all the best!

--Betty VH (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, I sent you an email. I removed your email from up above just to perhaps slightly help with avoiding spam. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reported an editor twice for edit warring. Both times excuses where made by admins for their behavior nothing was done, even though I showed that the editor engaged in a 4rr vio. This person has no record of being blocked nor their conduct being condemned. I had one disagreement with User:Peter Damian I post a complaint (oops to the wrong location on here) about it and I got blocked for 24 hours. Wikipedia is not being fair in how it is enforcing its policies. My current issues are not being heard and admins are to busy too be admins (and actually read what is going on) and to quick to attack the messenger and not actually address abuses. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful to me if you could show me diffs. While I am extremely unlikely to do anything directly, of course, I do like to keep an eye on things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive130#User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: No violation) - Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope Jimmy doesn't mind me butting in here, though I'm sure he's used to random editors appearing out of nowhere on his talk page. I had a look at the link posted by the IP and the first thing I noticed is that the administrator who dealt with the report is very experienced at dealing with edit warring and 3RR violations and someone whom I hold in high regard. I looked at the diffs and it didn't appear that there was an edit war going on- nothing outside the normal editing processes, just bold, revert. There's supposed to be a "discuss" after that, but I didn't see much evidence of that. That aside, the report is from the start of last month, so any action now would be purely punitive, which is not the way blocks (the usual remedy for 3RR violations) are supposed work. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the second report that the OP refers to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive130#User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: No violation) - Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are going to be in the DC area but in case you are I thought I would extend this invitation to the June 2010 DC Meetup. In the meantime, enjoy Sau Paulo. --Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The first two Dramaout festivals were a qualified success. To refresh your memory, it's a 5 day non-binding, informal commitment to try to write articles instead of dramatic ANI posts.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If that means I don't have to write the Climate change arbitration decision, count me in. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, perhaps you have some thoughts on the governance processes you would like to see demonstrated for the partnership with the British Museum currently active at WP:GLAM/BM?

It's an exciting active project with some newspaper interest and has already stimulated the improvement of many articles. The question has been raised if the five £100 prizes offered by the British Museum for getting articles up to FA quality might encourage conflict of interest or if the close involvement of an institution such as the British Museum has COI problems in its own right. A friendly notice has been raised at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BM#COI / paid editing to ask for advice. As this fringes on how Wikipedia markets itself and collaborates on a non-profit basis with other organizations, perhaps you have a viewpoint or suggestions that would help ensure the project is seen to be run on a fully transparent and ethical basis?

Thanks, a GLAM/BM contributor. Fæ (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please convince me that this is just a wannabe lookalike; but if it isn't, to blatantly show yourself with your (albeit more sophisticated) sockpuppet seems to be provocative in the extreme. Any answers, Mr Wales? Rodhullandemu 01:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, scrub that; you have more hair than he does. But it is uncanny.

  

  . Rodhullandemu 01:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

</humor>

LOL That guy does look uncannily like Jimmy in that picture! But seriously, Rod, I think you're a bit confused - Jimmy is clearly the sockpuppet and Chuck Wood, that evil looking fellow at the front, is the actual puppetmaster. Just look at those deranged and manipulative eyes and eyebrows - completely untrustworthy! I'm sure he's responsible for, well, all the dramas and problems we have - we're all mere puppets in his little theatre. :p Sarah 02:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Had not Stephen Hawking discredited String theory? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

One BBC page is here [29]

It does say that the original was not recorded

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC) added some more details on article talk page

Your actions are being discussed at ANI. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore, per WP:DENY. Weakopedia, let me warn you in no uncertain terms that any further enablement or encouragement of socking and trolling by you might lead to a block, so please drop it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me reply that I in no way accept your warning. I responded to an AN/I discussion with the comment that I felt it warranted discussion. I then informed the two parties being discussed. That was the extent of my involvement in this matter. You have referenced the essay WP:DENY, however you have missed the more fundamental point that accusations are dealt with on their own merits, and that sometimes accusations from blocked users are investigated. If that is what this is - I am not a check user, so I have no way of checking the single edit of an IP to see if it is made by one of the subjects of the complaint. I simply looked at the nature of the complaint, and commented that it should be investigated.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that responding to an AN/I thread is enabling or encouraging socking or trolling? That responding with 'this should be looked into' is enabling trolling? Are you suggesting that anyone who responds at AN/I runs the risk of a block if they do not check the contribution record of the person making the charge? In some months of observing AN/I I must say that I do not believe your warning has any basis in policy. Thanks though. Weakopedia (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a more on-point warning would have recognized that you have, as you say, no interest in this case in encouraging socking and trolling. Indeed, I think you have no particular interest in the particular case at hand, but that you were just going around looking for things to pester me about this morning. I would appreciate that you stop doing that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that would have been a bad faith interpretation of things. The AN/I thread popped up on my watchlist without any help from me you know, and since it had already received a reply it was past the stage when the subject of the discussion should have been involved - which I did, above. If you would care to read my [30] contribution to that thread, you will see that I simply said that the matter could have been dealt with without outing the editor in question. And as to the other matter you are referring to, if you have anything to say on it then be my guest, I invited your comment specifically, but vague accusations of pestering are not going to cut it. Wikipedia, as a group of volunteers, is interested in all aspects of Wikipedia. Are the people who voluntarily help out at AN/I doing something wrong because they are not personally involved in each case? I would say no, that the principal of uninvolved editor comment is one of the things that makes Wikipedia what it is. Thanks for your warning though. Weakopedia (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read this, Jimbo, as we probably should have the article this way - (quote) "Two years later, in 1981, Ms Jagger travelled to Central America, as part of a US Congressional fact-finding mission to visit Colomoncagua, a UN refugee camp in Honduran territory. During her visit an armed death squad marched across the border from El Salvador, entered the camp and rounded up about 40 refugees. They tied their thumbs behind their backs and proceeded to take them across the border to El Salvador, with the Honduran army's blessing. Ms. Jagger, the Delegation. as well as the relief workers and captives' families decided to chase after them. They ran along a dry river bed for about half an hour, armed only with cameras, they took photographs during the chase. They all feared that the death squads were going to kill the refugees once they arrived in Salvadorian territory. Finally, they came within earshot; the death squad turned around, pointing their M-16's at them. They began to shout "you will have to kill us all" and "we will denounce your crime to the world". There was a long silence. Then. the death squads talked among themselves and without explanation, they turned around leaving the refugees behind. The refugees were released, unharmed.

Unfortunately, the part about the thumbs does not appear in any of the URLs.----moreno oso (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This suspended moment in time was a turning point in Ms. Jagger's life. She realised the importance of being a witness when innocent people's lives are at stake and how a small act of courage can save them and make a difference." (unquote).

Nothing about transformation involved at all here. Please respond back, if you would, so we can straighten all this out. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the talk page of the article, instead of here?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It already is, that's where this quote is from (shown high up there in the page)! Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

Having Wikipedia content on Facebook is great, but their interface is given fits by URLs with spaces in them. I noticed that Wikipedia's Facebook page has such a broken link on the info tab - the one to the list of Wikipedias (side note: I really wish that Wikipedia was the plural form and Wikipedium the singular, not because it makes historic linguistic sense but because it's funny that way). There's no way to tell who the admins of a Facebook page are, but I figured you probably could track someone down and ask them to add underscores to the links. Regards, --~TPW 14:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you send an email to info@wikipedia.org about this? They'll be able to direct this to the right person much faster than I can - I'm not sure who at the Foundation is in contact with Facebook on technical issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks!--~TPW 23:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a few (non-comprehensive) categories for these folk but no wikiproject other than the one you know about. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission all sorted out via email exchanges and OTRS (5058458), pic extracted from the PDF, added in infobox on The Lazarus Effect (film), and nominated here as a 'Featured picture'. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But I wanted your view on correspondence being posted here. It's minor but there are some rules about publishing private email correspondence. The personal attacks are another matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of allowing blocked users to edit their own talk page is to allow them the opportunity to appeal their block, not to allow them to continue their campaigns, whatever they may be. The emails he posted are not from the current outbreak of his harassment campaign; I'm not sure when they are from exactly - sometime since Mike Godwin came to work at the Foundation.

I recommend removing the private correspondence from his talk page and blocking him from contributing there any further. He has asked to speak to Mike Godwin, and I have invited him to do so. He has, therefore, an appropriate venue for his appeals, particularly since in email he has now charged firmly into legal threats.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason Wikipedia Commons is hosting the image File:GreenAlvin1418.jpg which has already been used once to vandalize an article? Freakshownerd (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's a reason. Commons is often understaffed - they don't have enough admins to keep up with problems that arise there. They may not have even noticed this image yet, to be honest. I'd go ask them about it. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

They hadn't. Deleted now. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

I'd like to invite you to the The 3rd Great Wikipedia Dramaout. It was originally centered around keeping the drama down but I feel the more important aspect of joining is the sense of accomplishment for the combined efforts of the few determined editors. It is great to watch the log file grow as we create content during the drive. :)

Here is the log for the 1st DramaOut and the 2nd if you would like to see what happens. Hopefully, this will give you the chance to forget everything thing else and just enjoy editing.

I hope you can join us!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo. I'm a relatively new user and I wrote this about my initial experience here as I attempted to transition from a reader to an editor. I think it might be interesting to you and I hope you may find some wisdom and even a suggestions about how to make the web's best site even better.

From my User Page: "Be bold. Add a new article. Edit up a storm. But beware. Wikipedia is a fun place to visit, but it has its pitfalls, particularly for the new editor!

You would think a place like Wikipedia would be conducted in a professional and non judgmental way, but that just isn't the case. For example, if you want to add an article, bone up on your etiquette. You will have to butter up some editors, tell them they look good, whatever, because if anyone gets his/her underwear in a bunch over what you are doing, they can sidetrack the whole debate by pushing a plate of red herring (idiom) in your face, a very common practice on this site. One of the more common examples of attempting to scuttle an editor's work is to tag every single thing in the article, including pictures, so you have to spend most of your time cleaning up all the tags. Consequently you have very little time to actually improve the article, as these kindly editors will slash and burn beyond your ability to keep it together. Keep it together anyway. One of the primary motivations for this behavior seems to be the desire on the part of some editors to get you to lose your cool. Then they report you for "disruptive edits" or any of a number of nonsensical approaches designed to unleash their collective passive aggressiveness. For example, the first piece I added after creating my account was relentlessly attacked at every level while I was developing it, which had the effect of sidetracking me from continuing to write the piece while I was forced to deal with a storm of technical details and by no less than six editors! To their credit, I should not have started the article on the Main Page. I did not know this at the time. And here's the difficulty: not one person out of the six ever bothered to indicate what I could do to fix the problem, instead taking swipes at it with their swords from off in the distance. My biggest suggestion for "fixin" Wikipedia would be to vet all editors and block the seemingly 90% of people who are here to harrass under guise of site protection while in reality they've done nothing but cause a lot of confusion.

But take heart, there are a host of great people here, too. If you get lucky, you might find an editor down in Australia who will actually help you and advise you on what to do rather than resorting to trying to get everything deleted before your article is complete.

Also, understand that Wikipedia does not care about the truth particularly, it cares about verifability. This is not a bad thing, it is just the way the site is run. The truth here comes down to "can you verify it with independent, reliable sources?" If you wish to add an article and do not have published, reliable sources that support your contentions, you will attract a school of the formerly mentioned editors. They love that stuff it seems, so protect yourself against the onslaught.

I've been reading Wikipedia for years and love it. I spend very little time on the internet and mostly just read Wikipedia articles. Recently, however, I was cleaning out my garage to make room for an old car and I found a complete run of Valley Entertainment Monthly issues (One of my friends at the time wrote a column for them), a small entertainment publication from the 1990's that had interviews with no less than Marvel Comic's Stan Lee, Quiet Riot, Beat Farmers, Mart Nodell, creator of the Green Lantern, Rick Wakeman of Yes and many other nationally known celebrities in exclusive interviews that often contained breaking news of their activities. Though there is supposed to an assumption of good faith, one editor, Minor4th, acted entirely on bad faith, made an incorrect assumption and then nominated the article for deletion. Crikey, its not like we want to waste .0000001 KB of space on Wikipedia for this piece of filth! Other editors also made mistaken assumptions and one even stated something about "there's nothing in there that wouldn't have been covered in the Modesto Bee." In fact, both interviews with Stan Lee contained information that had not been released. In addition, Mart Nodell, creator of the Green Lantern, granted the paper something like a one hour exclusive interview about his new contract with Dark Horse Comics that had not been announced. The assumptions of bad faith abound. I cannot recall one time that someone made a statement along the lines of "Hey, this looks a little funny. It needs to be changed if we are to keep it, for example, you could change this part..." Not once. I can't recall anyone ever giving me the assumption of good faith, with one exception, an editor down in Australia who is a real princess and all around decent person. To put it into perspective, that's dozens of Wiki editors and only one that was willing to go beyond crude criticisms and actually be constructive. It was a shocking lesson and one I want to share with you as you begin your Wikipedia adventure.

Of course, if you need help as a noob, let me know. I will always try to be helpful in remembrance of the difficulties these "editors" heaped on me. Many new editors leave because of this behavior, but remember, except for a supervising editor, no one has any more power than another here. That, at least, gives some level to the playing field."

That's it. I didn't have much time to spend on it and will probably continue to add information and clean it up, but I think you get the idea. I have seen other editors reacting the same way when all the sharks come out. Is there any way we can make editing on Wikipedia less of a hostile experience? Honestly, I have the stamina of a mountain goat, but most people would probably burn out really fast. That means we lose good editors to petty ones.

Thanks, Jimbo, for taking the time to read this, if you do. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Oh! The article is here, for now, if you care to see it for yourself:

Valley Entertainment Monthly

Hi, I waited a couple of days before responding because I wanted to reflect on this.

First, let me say that I do think we should make every effort to be welcoming to newcomers. I think that our tendency to jargon is problematic - but also that it is a difficult problem to deal with because the jargon is actually useful and important to our work. I think we will always struggle with this point, as virtually all communities and organizations do.

Second, your case presents an interesting sort of problem because the article you have been trying to put into Wikipedia almost certainly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. As I am sure you can appreciate, telling someone that their article doesn't belong in Wikipedia - particularly when there is a personal connection to the subject matter, as there appears to be here - is always going to be hard to do well. It hurts the author's feelings, and they tend to get agitated and hostile, and to imagine conspiracies and hostilities where none exist.

In your case, you launched into an unfair diatribe on the deletion discussion right off the bat. "How about we tell the truth once in a while and stop trying to rig the game?" and soon after we see "the publication described above would only be considered non-notable by an idiot."

So you ask me, is there any way that we can make editing Wikipedia a less hostile experience? I think there is one way that is immediately available to all of us, including me, including you, including everyone. And that's for all of us to be a bit more forgiving and a bit less inclined to anger. Don't insinuate that people are being dishonest. Don't call them idiots. And if they are hostile towards you, brush it off, go do something fun, remember that we're all on the same team here, that editing Wikipedia is not a competition but a collaboration.

I am sorry that you had a bad experience, and I hope that over time more of us can learn from this kind of situation. What do we do when a good-faith contributor is writing something that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia and (naturally) gets testy and upset when challenged? It isn't easy, but I hope we can do as good a job as possible in dealing with this kind of situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Woo hoo!!! Thanks Jimbo. I'm honored you would look at this situation and take the time to respond. Wikipedia, woo hoo!!!

More specifically, I hear what you are saying loud and clear. I've decided on a Wikibreak and haven't signed on the past few days. Additionally, I am using the time to reflect on my reactions to others and how I might contribute here without contention. I've asked Salvio to mentor me and I hope I can become a helpful, contributing copy editor/vandal reversion technician. I believe I have a much better appreciation of the expectations in regards to civility here than I realized even a week ago.

And if the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I will not be upset if it gets deleted honestly. I just wanted it to be reveiwed fairly and it clearly has not been given the neutral review that all articles, regardless of quality, should have if they are considered for deletion. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I too have a great deal of respect for Jim's sympathy and openness here, this project "launched by" he and Larry Sanger, and the software itself. Wikipedia has convinced me that wikis should be the basis for many forms of published research, education, and even developing laws. I expect that wikis will and are being used to these ends more and more every day. You Sir, are a god! Lumenos (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Jimbo respond I would like to point out Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. I don't how well this program works, having never particpated myself, but it is the sort of thing designed for avoiding these kinds of new user issues. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If it gets the axe I think Wikinfo[article disappeared? link to Wikinfo ] would take it. There are a million other MediaWiki wikis at WikiIndex. Sometimes obscure content will actually get more views in a small specialized wiki because there are more people interested in that subject. I got myself a free wiki and some search terms (for example "solder grubs") make the top ten Google hits. I'm just saying, you have other/additional options. Lumenos (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Lumenos. I appreciate the helpful comments. It isn't really that big a thing to me and after all the hullabaloo about the article's initial introduction on Wiki, I'm pretty burned out by the whole thing. I may, however, look into it at a later time and see if it could be listed at that site. Great idea and thanks again! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Hi there Jimbo! Today was the first time I’ve run into you on an article [31] I have on my watchlist. I’m touched and impressed that you are still active on the front lines alongside the likes of gnomes such as me ^_^

You might be interested to know that I created my account with Wikipedia in 2006 in order to study it – I was curious to see whether such an unconventional process could really generate a useful and trustworthy source of information. Well, amazingly and impressively, it did. Congratulations!

As for my significant other (we are both retired academics), they have gone from total scepticism to heading straight for WP as the first resort when seeking information. I assure you that that’s a noteworthy conversion!

I hope you’re still having as much fun with it as I am. Cheers,Awien (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's really great! Your comments inspire me.  :-) Yes, lately I've been doing more routine editing, and enjoying it quite a bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just be careful - it's addictive, you know! Awien (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

More added at talk page for June 18 leads to a need for American investigation ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo (and others)! Wouldn't it be better if the small pictures on the main page (in the DYK, In the news and on this day section) have a (small) caption? Currently you have to read the whole section to find out what or who is on the picture. Just a thought. Hive001 contact 08:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, if there is room, but I'm not the right person to ask. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that you like this idea. I opened a discussion on the village pump about that. Hive001 contact 21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I changed your guestbook icon to work with the topicon template? Just so that it will work with most other icons. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 02:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sir, I always wonder in these cases what could have been done differently, I see a few things in this one but fundamentally I believe we were polite and we tried several times to help them to help us. Some people just don't want to spoil a good a gripe, I guess. I wrote to the editor but in fairly bland terms. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you invented this product and are quite vocal in promoting it. Yet you say you are "not unobjective". I think you are the very definition of unobjective. Sorry. LadyofShalott 02:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does he have to be objective because he invented the site? Besides, from what I've seen, Jimbo is fair minded. That aside, if he wanted to act as an everyday editor with personal opinions like everyone else around here, why should he be excluded from the adventure? There are a lot of "bristly" people here. If you are going to be hard on Jimbo, you should be hard on a lot of other people, too. Jimbo is the major domo. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I think you were directing your comments at me? If so, they are misplaced. I was not commenting on Jimbo at all. I was commenting on the thread originator's comments - comments by someone who has been trying to spam WP with information on his company and producxt. LadyofShalott 01:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is a long-standing promotional campaign. The requester has been in contact with OTRS on and off since March last year and has also made several attempts to get his product included via the normal method of editing and adding links. VRTS ticket # 2009032210022271, VRTS ticket # 2010051410002587, VRTS ticket # 2010060410029291, alleging "fraud" and "harassment" by the OTRS team who (for obvious reasons) decline his demands for representation of his product on Wikipedia. To quote the parting shot of one of a succession of exasperated email volunteers: "I'm not going to do what you want" is not harassment. Goodbye. Can't really phrase it any more succinctly than that, I reckon. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/theubie.com; theubie.com and americansmokeless.com have been blacklist due to abuse, with no real doubt that it's the same person responsible. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• The unblock-en-l mailing list received similar requests, invariably ending in the same accusations that all the admins were corrupt and promoting other products. Past attempts include multiple sockpuppets (IP's and two accounts), attempted changes in an already closed AFD in order to feign keep consensus, and the same accusation rants over and over. Personally i deem this an RBI case, as the rules have already been explained a dozen of times to no avail. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Wales, I had and idea a while ago about the username policy. Instead of blocking the user with a bad username, administrators could give them a link to the name changing page. And if the user doesn't change their name in about a wek then they could get blocked... Thanks, -- 水の男の子^chat 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, why not suggest it at least? I might support that as well. Alternatively, we could always go with a "stop editing with this account and if you edit again, you'll be blocked notice" instead of a time period. All our polices are subject to change anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't a finding like this embarrass you? -- 24.228.96.153 (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That website doesn't seem to load for me. Why don't you ask me directly here, instead of sending me there?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It just seems to be how wiki articles are fluid and constantly improving. Regarding this article Raymond_Rasch and the changes since 2006. Nothing to look at really. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, for several months, the article was pretty bad. This is the sort of thing that I hope Pending Changes will help. This article is fairly obscure, and so therefore not a top priority. But as we reduce the workload (I hope) on the top priority articles, there will be more time to deal with obscurities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So Jimbo should be personally checking every single article on Wikipedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He may not need personally to be checking every single article on Wikipedia, but perhaps he would tone down his public statements that Wikipedia is getting better all the time. In fact, academic study showed that Wikipedia is getting worse over time (see Figure 7). - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting that study. Even if you aren't, it's 3 years old. That's ancient by Wikipedia standards - an enormous amount has changed in the last 3 years. --Tango (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango, could you be more specific about how I have misrepresented the study? Also, it may be some benefit to read here about how the study underestimated "damaged views" -- for example, the Minnesota team eliminated 9 million IP editors' revisions from the corpus. How silly is that? Most of the problem arises from unregistered IP address users! - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It simply doesn't say anywhere in the study that "Wikipedia is getting worse over time". There are some metrics which show decline, but you can't generalise from that that that whole site is "getting worse". Metrics like number of articles, length of articles, number of readers, etc., all show significant improvement over time. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. Monitoring articles for poor edits is an almost impossible task to assume. Doing so relies upon committed editors watchlisting articles, and being both an editor adding content, and a watchdog depends very strongly upon individual commitment. This means that occasionally poor edits and vandalism will slip under the net. Such edits will perhaps eventually be corrected, but my experience is that our critics focus upon the short-lived vandalistic edits rather than the full history of our efforts to keep Wikipedia on-track. Comments by Lenny Henry and other comedians don't help in achieving public understanding that such edits are short-lived. Having said that, there is no coverage of all articles, apart from "Recent Changes" that guarantees that all vandalism will be detected and reverted, and even "Recent Changes" depends on committed volunteers. Rodhullandemu 03:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister Wales says that the article was "pretty bad" for "several months", and Rodhullandemu says that it is an example of "short-lived vandalistic edits". The edits were not vandalistic. They were pure and simple attack point-of-view (against Charlie Chaplin) from the very beginning. They endured on Wikipedia since July 2006, almost 47 months. Forty-seven months in time is not "short-lived"; it is not described as "several"! The article perpetrated this attack point-of-view through about 2,500 page viewings, with nobody correcting the problem until "our critics" pointed it out. I believe we have more of a problem than what should be depended on by "committed volunteers". I suggest first that the ostriches remove their heads from their holes in the sand. - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tomasz, thank you for calling that academic study to my attention. I glanced at the chart but I will refrain from commenting until I've read the paper. (I have it downloaded now on my computer and will read it later this afternoon when I am offline.)

I agree with you that a bad article like this - persisting for 46 months - is an embarrassing disappointment. I apologize for calling it "several months" - I only looked back a few months - it was much longer than a few months that this article was in a bad state.

What I wonder is: what constructive suggestions do you have for how we might better deal with things like this. What tools do we need, in order to be better able to handle something like this?

I would say that German Wikipedia's implementation of Flagged Revisions would make something like this much less likely, whereas upon further reflection, our Pending Changes doesn't necessarily help with something like this (except, as I mentioned above, to the extent that PC helps with more pressing problems, it frees up energy to be used on more obscure problems like this one).

Unfortunately, the critics are not as helpful in coming up with solutions as they are with pointing out problems. (And that is not a criticism of them: it is often the case in human endeavors that it is easier to identify a problem, than to identify a solution.) Other than shutting down the project or wishing for my assassination (two solutions that I have seen proposed at WR in the past), what ought we to be doing differently?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am relieved that you ask this. The first thing you might do is divorce yourself from this notion that Pending Changes (PC) frees up energy of good-faith editors. It does the exact opposite thing. Where you once had a couple of thousand articles that were tightly protected and didn't receive much editorial activity, now with PC there may be more proposed editorial activity that now takes thoughtful deliberation by multiple parties to create and to review & approve. Can we agree on this? - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No. This is certainly the case while PC is in trial and underutilized. But as it becomes more thoroughly tested, it will end up being used beyond just the cases where we were able to use semi-protection in the past. And I believe that it is pretty clear that the incentives for vandalizing high profile articles decline, as that vandalism is not visible to the general public - a classic result.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not pre-empt the results of the trial. This isn't just a technical test for bugs, it's a trial of whether the feature is actually desirable. At the moment, it seems to be going very well (we're showing a median time to review of 1m 46s, which is great - I think it taking too long to review edits is the most likely serious problem), but we can't be sure that will continue to be the case as the number of articles in the trial increases and the novelty wears off. Should the trial show that we can have thousands of articles under PC while still keeping the review times down to a few minutes, then I agree that we should be able to make wider use of PC and save a lot of time, but we shouldn't just assume that the trial will have that result. --Tango (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mister Wales that a more widespread utilization of Pending Changes onto articles that have never been protected would, in fact, have a net "energy freeing" effect. So, we were merely having a miscommunication about the net effect of the trial portion of the extension.

Now, to move on to other recommendations. Wales notes, "the critics are not as helpful in coming up with solutions as they are with pointing out problems". That may be. However, perhaps part of their failure is that when "pointing out problems" they are rebuffed with denials, blocks, and bans. How about acknowledging problems as a first step toward progress. This very article about Raymond Rasch is a prime example. Someone who has been banned by Wikipedia was forced to bring to our attention on another website that a serious problem existed -- a 46-month-old attack piece, authored by a son of the article's subject, viewed thousands of times over the years. The first reaction from Mister Wales, Off2riorob, and Rodhullandemu? To brush it aside.

"That website doesn't seem to load for me." It seemed to load for everyone else.

"Nothing to look at really." Strange thing to say about deliberate POV falsehoods about one of the most beloved and globally recognized entertainers of all time.

"for several months, the article was pretty bad. ...This article is fairly obscure, and so therefore not a top priority" If we give low priority to every fairly obscure article, perhaps one solution would be to delete all such low priority articles.

"my experience is that our critics focus upon the short-lived vandalistic edits" Could you deflect back on "our critics" a little more obviously while characterizing 46 months as "short-lived"?

So, I will say again (before I expend another ounce of effort in giving you solutions to problems), will you pledge to begin acknowledging problems, rather than dismissively sweeping them under the rug? If so, then perhaps a more meaningful dialog may develop here. I suspect that Wales and his followers are not at all ready to acknowledge the problems Wikipedia carries. And you cannot address problems that you deny rise to the level of "top priority", or worse, deny even exist. - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Minnesota study of damaged views is further examined here, if you wish to read up on how the study may have been flawed to underreport Wikipedia's error rate. - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tomasz, the idea that you expressed above that we sweep problems under the rug is just patently false. And the idea that editors are banned for bringing forward problems is absolutely ludicrous, and you should apologize for it. It is pretty hard to get banned from Wikipedia, and it happens with very good cause. That some people who are banned also become critics, and also bring forward legitimate examples, in no way contradicts this.

To characterize my response as "sweeping things under the rug" is just wrong. Please be constructive and helpful, not antagonistic. "I suspect that Wales and his followers are not at all ready..." I, sir, suspect that you are not at all ready to acknowledge that we have an open, constructive culture, which welcomes dissent and debate, and which is eagerly fixated on identifying and solving problems. It's very rude of you to pretend otherwise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and so the cycle perpetuates itself. Mention that one of the Wikipedia community's problems is a refusal to acknowledge problems, and you will be called "rude", "antagonistic", and be asked for an apology. What if I provide the following words of apology?

Mister Wales' response doesn't seem to load for me. Nothing to look at really. It's fairly obscure, and so therefore not a top priority.

Does that sound rude and antagonistic to you, Mister Wales? If so, it is just a mirror of your comments and those of your followers about the problem raised here by 24.228.96.153. I recently ended my role on the Polish Wikipedia and moved to the United States. If this is the attitude that underlies the English Wikipedia, I imagine soon I shall quit here, too. What you have done here -- to refuse to acknowledge problems -- is shameful. - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote "I agree with you that a bad article like this - persisting for 46 months - is an embarrassing disappointment." And you characterize that by saying that it is a case showing that I refuse to acknowledge problems. Forgive me for not finding that argument persuasive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You may be quitting sooner than you think. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Because people who point out problems are shown the door, Off2riorob? That would underscore my point and invalidate Mister Wales' point, wouldn't it? - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject, many people have difficulty in controlling their tone when writing. It is especially hard when one gets emotional, as that emotion is usually evident to the reader, whether intended or not. I've also come across people who don't speak English as a first language and don't know about some of the subtleties of the language, often times being taken as rude or antagonistic without intending to come off that way. I don't know if these may be the case here, Thomasz, but your tone does seem a little harsh.

I've been watching this page for a while, and must disagree with you. I have found Mr. Wales to be very open to discussing problems rationally and considerately, and most certainly acknowledging them. I have to admire him for not taking the "dictator" approach, but instead, asking for advice and having faith in the community to come up with solutions to the problems. I believe you have a legitimate concern here, but feel that your approach may not help matters any. I'd like to hear some seriously considered solutions. Aside from the few pages that I watch, (in my fifteen or so minutes a day on Wikipedia), I'm not sure what I can do about it. Zaereth (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Zaereth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that for Tomasz, banning came very easily - [32]. I guess that ends the previously welcomed dissent and debate. Kevin (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tomasz isn't "banned", he's "blocked indefinitely". ArbCom could come swooping in at any moment to liberate Tomasz from his imprisonment. Oh, by the way, the Raymond Rasch article is still very wrong, despite all of this welcoming of dissent and debate we've exhibited. Unless, that is, you consider adding ten {{fact}} tags has "fixed" the problem. Oh, wait... Wikipedia has no problems... only antagonistic critics. - 65.44.178.26 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried anyway. It might be worth mentioning that WP:Areas for Reform is a rather neglected page that would serve as a great place to bring up stuff like this and toss around some ideas. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister Wales says that problems are not swept under the rug. What do you make of this edit, considering that the problem mentioned was true, and that the man who erased the problem had served on the committee that oversaw the problem in the first place? If this is not an example of sweeping a problem under the rug, how should we characterize this edit? - Tomasz Anton Z (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand you. A minor problem with the ballot which was quickly corrected, being discussed in the wrong place and the discussion removed from there- why is that important? The problem was well-discussed and corrected, and the edit which was removed was a bad-faith edit. It's hard to argue that the problem was swept under the rug, when you yourself point to a long public discussion of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Accidentally striking out several valid ballots of long-time contributors, even admins, on the final day of Board of Trustees elections being open, is a "minor problem"? Thank you for your insight into the "sweeping under the rug" problem of problem management, Jimmy. -- An isolated cell (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a minor glitch, quickly corrected, openly discussed, which didn't affect the outcome in any way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind sir, if you Google "I can read Wikipedia" (without the quotes), you will your great achievement. 64.255.164.111 (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a verb. Also, links are nice. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Was the IP user trying to be funny? I don't get it. -- œ^™ 06:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Another example of Google's search algorithm being Wikipedia's fault. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It isnt Wikipedia's fault (obviously) but there definitely is a problem if something innoculous as "I can read Wikipedia" ends up having that article come up as the first hit... and so we are not pounding just Google I'd like to point out that Ask.com has the same problem. And I do find it a problem, not that anyone is realistically going to a search engine with the phrase "I can read Wikipedia" (and who found this out in the first place?!) but I would assume that other phrases including the word Wikipedia would have that article be the first ranking even when not searching for anything relevant. Perhaps contacting Google would not be a bad idea, I'm sure they dont want the bad publicity of returning such an article for a search that has nothing to do with it.Camelbinky (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It can but barely be made to construe; I concur that some omission is likely... 68.238.26.51 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to go to when one is wondering how search engines work, but perhaps the cached version of the article when "I can read Wikipedia" is searched in quotes reveals why. It says that the exact term "i can read wikipedia" appears not in the article, but as a link from elsewhere. I'm assuming that some odd fellow linked "i can read wikipedia" to the Wikipedia article, resulting in it being the first displayed result, since that article and Wikipedia as a whole is high-trafficked. But again, I'm not the most savvy about how Google and other search engines figure out what sites to display. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, although generally it involves multiple websites making that link. :) I assume that it's another instance of Google bombing. - Bilby (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the search result has the N word article as the first result. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 22:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what's supposed to be what the anon. user described as the "great achievement". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I put in a request to ungoogle this. Unlikely search terms, but still... and I agree it seems like a Google Bomb. ^Avicenna_sis @ 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That is for removing the short blurb below google results, it will not change the page's ranking for particular search terms, which so far as I know can not be requested. Prodego ^talk 23:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The same process is used for a number of requests, including removing cached copies or search results entirely. I have used it in the past. And there have been a few occasions where Google has "fixed" their results from google bombing before, though I am not sure if those were via request or not. ^Avicenna_sis @ 01:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if someone is going to go to all that effort, why that search time and that article? I have to say, we should probably just WP:DENY them the recognition they're seeking since I doubt very many people are actually going to enter the exact phrase "I can read wikipedia" into Google. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this embarrassing prank has made it on to several "news" blogs already. It isnt a matter of someone just happening to enter "i can read wikipedia" it is now a matter of someone reading the articles that are continuing to pop up around the internet mentioning this and more and more people seeing it through "word of mouth". If we get Google to eliminate it as quickly as possible and less people will spread it. The earliest mention of this particular prank I can find is the 23rd, the same day this thread started. Just as regular vandalism on Wikipedia will always be there and yet we fight it quite vigorously, we too must fight Google bombs and other such attacks on Wikipedia credibility. This isnt a matter of "ignore it and it goes away".Camelbinky (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo can you look into this [[33]] and make a comment on this process, or your opinions to it anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement Jimbo. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Studieren Sie Deutsch? Hier ist ein Vorschlag. Es ist eine gute Idee, die Bücher der deutschen Kinder zu lesen. Es wird Ihnen helfen, den Satzbau schneller zu lernen. Anyway, that helped me learn German.Malke2010 23:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was supposed to be for 2 months. An administrator has decided that it has failed and has shut it down, at least for the Barack Obama article. Is this legal? I thought your decision was to let it go for 2 months? Or should you do a "General McChrystal" on that too independent adminstrator who did that? RIPGC (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions/Pending changes hasn't been shut down - it was found not to work on that article, so it was removed from there. It is, however, active on other articles. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Failure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions should have been used in combination with s-protection, not instead of it. That was the problem. Really, the problem is that the foundation isn't just implementing it globally on every article and saying here it is, this part of the service we're providing. --B (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The pending changes is system isn't the ideal solution for all articles. In this case, the Barack Obama article was removed from PC because the amount of vandalism was too great to justify reviewing the revisions to the article, and semiprotection was restored. Another article which similarly had semiprotection reenabled was 4chan. The PC trial has not failed - it is still enabled on several hundred articles. Part of this trial is to figure out what sorts of article Pending Changes is right for, and as we figure that out, it will be used on certain articles where it will be apparent it isn't the best solution, and a different form of protection will be used instead. Prodego ^talk 06:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think what Prodego said is accurate. It's a bit like semi-protecting an article that autoconfirmed users are edit warring on and then saying that semi-protection is a failure. It's not a logical conclusion from the evidence. --Deskana (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm the admin who protected Obama, but there have been other examples- Bible, Adolf Hitler, Eminem, Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez inter alia. It failed for those articles in that the level of vandalism was totally disproportionate to the one or two good edits that were accepted so editors were spending all their time reverting vandalism instead of accepting revisions. Likewise, it made it extremely difficult for established editors to make good edits. However, there are many articles on which it appears to be working or at least the benefits are, so far, outweighing the costs. "Stick to pending changes protection at all costs" is the wrong approach, but evaluating each on its merits as we're currently doing, seems the right approach to me. Clinging onto PC on articles where it's clearly not working is just daft, but it has the potential to bring great benefits by opening articles up while keeping vandalism out of the live version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've picked up your comment at an AfD about whether we have enough info on someone to write a reasonable bio, I've had similar thoughts myself. See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Do we have enough information to write a biography?. Fences&Windows 19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been brought up on ANI here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I take your non-response as a "go ahead"? Or did you just miss my question? Here it is again, in case you missed it: Would you mind if I changed your guestbook icon to work with the topicon template? If I'm being annoying by asking this again, I apologize. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked it. I'm afraid I don't really understand the question. :) It sounds fine to me, but what does it mean? :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it fit with this template, becuause it makes it easier to have it line up and whatnot. It would pretty much look the same as mine, just with the link and text changed. The way it is, it looks like it is in a different position on all computers, but with topicon, you can use "icon_nr=x", which makes it go in the spot you choose, and it makes it so that a row of icons looks pretty much the same on any computer. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 03:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really sounding stuffy, aren't I? I seem to always talk like that to people I've never talked to before... I must do something to stop this! Erm... FORTY-TWO! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So is that a yes? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds great. If you had just done it, I probably wouldn't have even noticed. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright; just wanted to make sure. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done. Now I have to go through and fix all of the icons on user pages. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And now I'm done with that. Hopefully, I didn't mess up too many userpages... :) I'l stop bothering you now. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 18:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Super. Taking a look at it now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't mean a hill of beans as far as the viability of Wikipedia, nor do I imagine that anyone will much care. You have a problem with your admin system when an admin can make inappropriate comments, mistate facts, violate several policies, refuse to talk to editors trying to resolve the issue, and basically bully editors. In this case, at least 4 separate editors pointed out what she was doing was wrong - and she continued. Not a single admin that participated in the discussions stepped forward. Not one.

I'm a good editor with over 6,000 edits, 2 GAs, another getting close to GA, and a 4th that might have gone to FA. I do most of my article work in Native American case law and statutes, an area that few are working on or in. I've been on Wikipedia since 2006, but lurked for a good while before I started to edit. I've engaged in numerous debates, won some and lost some, and loved the consensus process. Until now - I have never been treated so rudely by an admin. I won't be editing any more, nor will I be fighting at the university I work at about the reliability of Wikipedia.

I'm leaving because I'm not going to participate in a system where an admin can make innuendos, assume bad faith, be rude and misstate facts (i.e. lie), and refuse to talk to editors that attempt to resolve the issue. In fact, she tells them to go away, in rude terms, and refuses to discuss the reasoning for her actions, as required by WP:NOTPERFECT.

As long as you allow this type of behavior to be tolerated, you will lose good editors who won't put up with that type of treatment. Most of us have other things we can do, and we don't need the BS. Again, I'm sure I won't be missed, but you might want to ask yourself how many leave without saying a word? All it would have taken is for one admin to step forward and point out her (and I'm sure my) faults. Just one. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• If you leave, you let the bad guys win. Why not stay and kick some ass? Wikipedia has no monopoly on BS. "Admins" are like hall monitors in elementary school, they are just like everyone else, so don't elevate them to the point where they "become" wikipedia in your eyes. You are wikipedia too.--Milowent (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ugh that argument is so cult-ish sounding it kind of turns my stomach.  :( JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Incidentally, as I stated on the RfC in question -- Greg has been my mentor and was the person who got me excited about wiki in the first place. I don't have a high edit count or long time participation, just a couple of months, but if Greg is discouraged and disillusioned enough to leave, then so am I. I was a part of the same incidents that he is speaking of and I echo his concerns and disappointment. Minor4th • talk 05:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Milowent, primarily because no one will stand up to her. If Wiki can't come up with some way to effectively control the bully admin-type (since other admins don't seem to have the cajones to do so), why should I stick around? I have no desire to be an admin, but apparently was thought highly enough of to be given reviewer and rollback without asking for them. All I wanted to do was to make Wiki a better place, to write good articles in an area that had few, and to build an on-line encyclopedia. If this was a paid job, there isn't enough money to make me want to work in an environment where that type of admin can do that to people without being called on it. Wiki has a policy that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed" yet she won't respond and not one admin will call her on it. Why should I put up with it? GregJackP Boomer! 05:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• If you're not enjoying yourself, by all means leave. Mean people are everywhere in real life too, but leaving the Earth is not as easy. If you care about Wikipedia and its goals, you should stay. Being an admin is a thankless job anyway from all I've seen; editing is much more fun. (And even I have reviewer rights, so its resume puff at best, let's not go crazy about such "credentials".) You can cite policies about civility all day long, but the fact is, just like in real life, some people are mean. There's no true bosses here, so you have to fend for yourself to a great extent. If not a single person will call someone on their behavior, you either aren't articulating your point of view well enough, or you need to just move on to something else, so you can enjoy things.

What could be lost if you don't stay? No one knows. Following the recent AfD (nom. withdrawn) of Christine Terhune Herrick, I had a conversation here that went a little like this: "I find articles like that fascinating sometimes. Here is this woman who was known to millions of homemakers in the late 19th century -- she was literally a household name to many. She wrote about raising her son in 1913 in "The Boy and I," which would probably be an interesting read to parents today, indeed, one source suggests it has timeless observations. But today she can suffer a good faith AfD because we have no immediate reference points for pop culture of the 19th century available to us anymore. Radio dramas of the 1920s are old, but not yet so old, so some living persons can recall their notability, and probably have passed on their memories to children and grandchildren who might edit wikipedia in 2010. But Christine Terhune Herrick first made a splash way back in 1885, and though she remained well known for some time, those who would remember her rise to popularity are all long dead, and the memories passed on about her outside books are consequently weaker. I wonder, who was the Christine Terhune Herrick of 1650? Or 300 B.C.? These people existed and were notable at the time, but are long forgotten, and may be permanently lost if no historical record of them exists. But if there are sources, we can make that information available. People can find that knowledge and draw new parallels from the past to the present and to the future, insights we cannot foresee. That is the potential of wikipedia.</off naive soapbox>"

So, if you leave, what will you be depriving us of? Perhaps just some drama, but perhaps something more.--Milowent (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply that reviewer/rollback were important - just to say I didn't care one way or another and one day they just appeared. Thank you for your kind words, most here have been that way, and a pleasure to work with. Good luck. GregJackP Boomer! 06:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, your last comment was when you were supposed to a shed a tear in response to my inspirational speech and declare your undying love and renewed commitment for wikipedia. oh well.--Milowent (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, so this is very interesting to me, as I certainly don't like to see anyone with 6,000 edits have such a bad experience. But without diffs or something approaching an NPOV explanation of what happened here, it's hard for me to even get started looking into it. I try to look into situations like this, not so much for the purpose of direct intervention - that's not usually what I do, although I can help try to mediate a conflict now and then - but from the perspective of policy. That is, I like to ask: what went wrong here and how can situations like this be avoided in the future? But first I need to know what happened. Diffs are always welcome. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, it happens more than Wikipedia can probably stand. This topic on your talkpage is resonating on other talkpages. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, please do not judge the admin being referred to here without taking about two weeks to go through all the posts to deconstruct it. It is a very confusing discussion to try to understand. This admin not only came into a very contentious room, but chastised all of us for creating such a hostile article environment. The same admin also refused to lift my 24 hour ban that the same complaintants here created by mischaracterizing the dispute (how's that for civility?). Anyway, this one is a good egg and was fair to everyone. The real problem is that the admin did not agree with their arguments on the article we were AfDing, and the article was evetually scrapped. If you have the time, I would suggest you look through this scenario's entirety and you will discover the truth. I'd also say a quick look at the admin's User page should put your mind at ease if you are indeed putting any sort of substance behind these unfounded accusations. I'm afraid the admin will leave Wiki, and honestly even though the admin did not always agree with any one of us, the admin was fair minded and there were other admins involved as well. Responsibility for the ugliness of this thing does not in any way fall on this person, and in fact, the admin did whatever the admin could to try and guide the discussion and answer policy questions. When this group didn't like it, they would argue against the admin even to the point of making this ridiculous notification on your Talk page. I believe they also tried to report the admin in an official capacity for discplinary purposes, as they did me, but it was laughed away by the preciding admin. It seems they want to involve you since the standard approach didn't work. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I will try to summarize the dispute as I understood it:

• At an AFD discussion, a user supporting keeping the article used socks
• User:GregJackP who also supported keeping the article filed an investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus/Archive against that user
• Users who supported keeping the article accused User:Nineteen Nightmares who supported deleting the article of incivility and opened a discussion at ANI. A 30 days 3 month block was proposed.
• Admin User:Sarah, who supported the deletion, acknowledged that NN has a civility problem but she opposed the proposed block because she said that most of the supporters of the proposal were involved in a dispute with NN
• GregJackP was offended by comments made by Sarah which he interpreted as accusation of socking, and he complained to her about it, see [34]
• GregJackP opened a RFC on Sarah [35], and was disappointed that admins who participated on that discussion did not fault Sarah. Sole Soul (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify a minor point in the above: the request was for a three month block, and Sarah argued that other sanctions should be tried first, as well as arguing that the support votes were coming from involved users. Otherwise the RFC/U seems to have the best summary of GregJackP's concerns. It should, I guess, also be noted that GregJackP's issue with lack of support from admins stemmed from the discussion on his talk. - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is a more fundamental issue than any of that (which is a bit POV-y). Sarah (an admin) made a number of accusations and criticisms against Greg, not the least of which was an insinuation that a Greg (and I) were additional sockpuppets for Dmartinaus after an SPI with CU had already confirmed various socks. When asked for an explanation, she refused to provide one and told us to go away and stay off her talk page. [36], [37]. The accusation remains unresolved and Sarah will not explain why she made the accusation or what evidence supports it, despite polite requests for an explanation. When trying to resolve the issue, Greg has continually been told by other admins to drop it or that he is using the wrong process, and there remains a refusal to address the underlying issue of the accusations by Sarah. She has not responded to the RfC. Please see the discussion here: [38]. There have been ongoing instances of incivility by Sarah, including edit summaries: [39]. Minor4th • talk 14:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Minor4th, I accidentally stumbled on this thing. Being a bit curious about this "insinuation that Greg (and you) were sockpuppets...", I had a look at your 50 earliest contributions. I must say that I am really astonished when I see your highly advanced editing skills, which you seem to have acquired in less than one week. This is truly amazing. Surely you must have been around in read-only mode for a very long time? If not, congratulations! - DVdm (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the overall controversy, but this argument keeps turning up in discussions and it's always wrong. Lots of people start out editing Wikipedia as "anonymous IPs" (to be oxymoronic) before they get an account! And no matter how much certain people want to puff up the definition of "sock puppetry", I refuse to accept that there's anything wrong with that. Nor do I think it's fair to call it sock-puppetry when people without globalized logins get logged out in half an hour while they're editing and end up submitting under an IP. Nor do I think that it is right to impose any great punishment nor the stigma of "sock puppetry" on irate blocked editors who edit as IPs only to protest the injustice of a block without deception, though I can understand shutting up the IP address with a block if they get annoying enough. The concept of "sock puppetry" should be limited to actual deceptive manipulation. And as long as Wikipedia is open to "anonymous" edits, we must always allow for the possibility that pseudonymous editors have made them. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, you say that this argument is always wrong and that "lots of people start out editing Wikipedia as "anonymous IPs" (to be oxymoronic) before they get an account!" => In his first edit, he says "I am new to editing wikipedia, so I will take some time looking around and familiarizing myself." From where I am standing, it looks like he took 1 day to become a professional in a mere two hours. I find this extraordinary. DVdm (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain further? All I see is that it looks like he downloaded Twinkle and started playing with it to leave a bunch of those ugly little "authoritative-sounding" speedy delete messages. I don't blame him, I blame the tool... (also to me "new here" doesn't necessarily mean "my very first edit") Wnt (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, thank you for noticing my edits. Perhaps your observation is the reason Sarah thought I was a sock (although inexplicable why she would think I was a sock for Don Martin). If she had simply stated her observations and given me an opportunity to address them, much of this ensuing discussion would have been avoided. Since you raise the issue (somewhat passive-aggressively), I will oblige you with an explanation. When I stated that I was a new editor, that was indeed true. What's also true is that a week or so prior to my first edit as Minor4th, I had created another account -- and someone off wiki was able to identify the real person behind the handful of edits, presumably from information on the user page and the subject I was interested in editing. I have a particular need for anonymity that I will not go into. I abandoned that account and created this one. I have not used the other account since I created this one and don't intend to. My first edits with this account were on the Indian Child Welfare Act, a subject I'm interested in as a practitioner in the field. At the time GregJackP was in the middle of an overhaul of the article, and I offered to collaborate. As it turns out, we have similar interests. I don't know if GregJackP is also a lawyer, but he clearly has a strong interest in legal articles. I found him to be helpful and patient, and I have always found him to be thoughtful in his edits and articulate in his expression of his views. I have essentially followed him around wikipedia, and because of our similar interests we have sometimes edited in the same areas and on the same articles. Our participation on Don Martin and the related drama, however, was coincidental. I responded to an RfC posted on the legal/government/politics noticeboard about the Don Martin lawsuit, with no intention to hang around the article further. Regrettably, however, I was drawn into the drama by responding to various attacks by NineteenNightmares. And here we are today. As far as your comment on the quality of my edits and my proficiency on Wikipedia....all I can say is thank you very much. Peace. Minor4th • talk 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Still overwhelmingly astonished about the switfness of your learning how to effectively use everything meta-Wikipedia has to offer, and assuming that indeed you merely "have essentially followed him around wikipedia", I advise you to actively stay away from your alleged puppet master as far as you possibly can. Surely you do not want to risk getting blocked/banned for the wrong reasons. Take care. DVdm (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So either file an SPI or be quiet. Make sure and ask for a checkuser, and you can check the IP's with the dates and times of near simultaneous edits and determine that a) we don't use the same computer, b) we're not in the same location, c) our style of writing is different, and d) we also edit in different subject areas, despite having similar interests in (some) legal article issues. If you have evidence, submit a case. Otherwise, you're just assuming bad faith on our part and getting close to making personal attacks (i.e., "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."). GregJackP Boomer! 20:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Of course I'm sure that an SPI based on IP, location and style would turn out negative. Nevertheless, looking at WP:MEAT and WP:DUCK, I think that, unless you actively stay away from each other, someone could make some case here. Not me. I have no interest in getting you blocked/banned whatsoever. Just giving some advice. Take it or ignore it. Take care too. (Added some emphasis in my previous remark) DVdm (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, I thought the "meatpuppet" policy at least was limited to human recruiting from off Wikipedia (like Wikipedia Review's censorship crusade...). If you're prohibiting people from making friends here or agreeing with the people they agree with, that's a whole new level of nuttiness. Personally I think that this whole Sesame street circus sockpuppet meatpuppet duck and all is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and would miss any operation that even cursorily invoked the black art of "planning" — I think we should openly allow all editors to have multiple accounts and adjust ourselves to that reality. Wnt (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, sad to the bullying continue here. Why not shoot Daffy now and be done with it? ----moreno oso (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The passive-aggressive behavior is mind-boggling. Maybe I should just commit seppuku now and be done with it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have avoided commenting on this. Looks like a wasps' nest. Sigh. DVdm (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't care at this point if I am blocked or banned or whatever else. GregJackP said he was retiring, so following him around won't be an issue in any event, but thanks anyway for your advice. If he stays, then I will likely continue to edit in the same areas. You take care as well and thanks for your reply. Minor4th • talk 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Admins will often do what Minor has cited. Drop it is not good policy. Bullying isn't either. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What also hurt in that AfD and also its article is that the socks were not clearly discerned until the AfD was just about complete and could be viewed as a Keep. Unsupported claims should never be made in an AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• That summary is what everyone is butthurt over? Jeebus christmas. Who really cares if someone questions whether someone else is a sock? If you're not a sock, say so, and move on. Unless one is proven to be a sock, this kind of idle speculation happens all the time. It should not dissuade editors who like to actually write articles from writing articles. Don Martin is barely notable at best, let's all move on.--Milowent (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope! ----moreno oso (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Milowent - I shouldn't have to remind you how Rachel Uchitel and its AfD went. Talk about beat up? You were taking some major league shots as an editor trying to save an article. I've seen punching dummies take less hits. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Did I? I didn't even pay attention if I did, because its not about me. The article was kept, because notable content always wins out in the long run, no matter who claims its not notable in a given AfD. (Uchitel was originally deleted and then subject to a super drama AfD six months ago. Then it came back, went to AfD again, and was kept. The sourcing kept improving as editors actually did constructive work on it.). If you are going to descend into battles over the the small number of AfDs that deal with potentially marginal BLPs, you need a thick skin. But even most marginal BLPs AFDs are not contentious.--Milowent (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Then why did you keep interceding in the AfD? And who was the editor who really save it? It was not editors plural. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been accused of socking in the past but I don't get offended by it, I just tell them to take it to SPI as I've got nothing to hide but the fact is they never list it. I'm sure Sarah never meant any harm and is infact over the drama but I think everyone needs to move along as going over same ground isn't going to get you anywhere. Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You weren't there for the show. Even I was scared and I hadn't participated in the AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said I wasn't watching? AfD's can be a mine field and infact some can turn out quite nasty, part of everyones different opinions and ideas. Bidgee (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, and come up with a totally different issue. I am not bringing this up so as to deal it here. I am having the same similar experience, what Greg is pointing out. I usually edit Indian Christian articles. One admin (American), who is a little biased with one particular denomination, bullies all other editors and adamantly clings to his preferred sources. His way of talking is monopolistic and dictator like. This leads to sockpuppety (and further being blocked) and ultimately there are no editors and critics to left to voice their concerns, against the admin. Many novice editors are being turned back. And articles without consensus are left to hold. Can we have a solution of creating a dedicated group of editors who can swiftly come for mediation, in cases of disputes? Southstock1 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM, WP:EA , and possibly a few others. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

• Jimbo, my concern is no longer the issue with Sarah (talk), but with the process. I have a little different outlook than some of the above posters, not that I think they they are wrong, but everyone perceives things differently (which is just the nature of being human). To get at the process, I do believe that the underlying matter needs to be looked at however, not for action, but to understand the dynamics. I'll try to summarize it concisely below:

• There has been an on-going issue with a BLP article and subsequent AfD (Donald G. Martin), where the subject of the article (Dmarinaus) became involved and used several socks. An SPI without CU (here) was initiated by me and the clerk determined that a CU was needed. As a result, Dmarinaus was blocked for 2 weeks and the socks blocked indef. The AfD was initially closed as keep in a process tainted by socks.
• During this period, a user that supported deletion, Nineteen Nightmares (see Mission Statement section User talk:Jimbo Wales#Mission Statement) had WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY issues and received a 24-hour block.
• The closing admin of the AfD, Balloonman reviewed the AfD and reclosed as delete. Several editors asked him to reconsider and he self-initiated a DRV to check on consensus Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 18. The result of the DRV was to endorse his decision.
• During the DRV, I made a statement that I believed one of Sarah comments to be "disingenuous" - a word I probably shouldn't have used but was meant in the form of the definition to mean "not frank or open." Sarah took offense at this (which can be understandable) and stated that it was "really insulting of my integrity as an editor and an administrator."[40] My next comment after I realized she was upset was to try and clear it up and make sure that she knew that I was not trying to insult her nor impugn her integrity ([41],[42]). I received no response.
• Also during the DRV, Nineteen Nightmares began to throw out baseless accusations, was warned by Giftiger wunsch and I initiated a WQA [43]. This was later moved to AN/I [44] by Giftiger wunsch at the suggestion of Modernist [45].
• At this point Sarah came to the AN/I and immediately stated that:

• Those supporting a block had "a vested interest in silencing an opponent" [46], which could be failure to WP:AGF
• Stated that she believed the users mentioned by Nineteen Nightmares could very well be puppets [47], that no diffs were provided (not true, 19 diffs were posted), stated that I only notified users that would support my position [48] (not true, everyone that was mentioned in the diffs was notified, including her and others who were likely to disagree with my position), unilaterally stated that there was no threat to contact the media about the BLP subject [49], [50] [51] (the subject of the article felt it was a threat [52], as well as 4 other editors [53], [54], [55], [56] and since one of these editors is an attorney, I feel confident that he is able to recognize a "threat").
• Several editors pointed out that they believed Sarah was being unnecessarily confrontational and unfair [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], or asking why she was doing/saying something [62], her response was comments like "Martin Gang" [63], [64] and the like, deleting without responding.

• I requested admin help on my talk page [65] and was told to drop it, without being asked about the matter in detail, just from a cursory quick check [66], one admin said no help was needed [67], one non-admin suggested a note or uw-agf template [68]. On templating her for not AGF, an admin immediately came to my talk page and wanting to know if I was trying to provoke someone and that I needed to back off [69].
• Without any other resources, and without any guidance on how to proceed, I initiated an RfC, believing from the information on the RfC and AN/I pages that the RfC was the less confrontational, as I did not want any sanctions (which the RfC page said it was a "non-binding, informal process"). On doing that, every comment has been that it was the inappropriate place to take it, without looking at the underlying conduct or our concerns. It is also curious that of those commenting on the RfC, half of those saying to leave it alone and go away are from Australia (which seems like a high percentage to me, based on the number of total users/admins by country) - not that there could be any off-line canvasing. In a conversation with another admin, I was told that it "it is best to not pursue even the most justified grievances" [against an admin] [70] and to "back off very quickly when I challenge certain people" [71].

It is apparent that one is not to question, in any way an admin, and that other admins are going to stonewall any question or concern about a bullying admin - and there is no way to get past it. Even Arbcom consists of admins. There is no avenue for addressing behavior or concerns without running the risk of putting a target on your own back - a number of editors told me that I was right, but crazy to pursue this. There is no help for editors in the WP:DR process, no one that will guide them or advise them. As a consequence, you're losing editors that you should be encouraging to stay. In my case, it's not worth the time or effort to deal with that type of individual. I'm also sure that I am partially at fault here, but without an open discussion (instead of the "Move on, nothing to see here" from the admins), I have know way of knowing how to correct them. So I'll "move on." Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also curious that of those commenting on the RfC, half of those saying to leave it alone and go away are from Australia (which seems like a high percentage to me, based on the number of total users/admins by country) - not that there could be any off-line canvasing.

Why worry about where someone lives? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand (I'm not having a go at you GregJackP but the comment you made really doesn't help). Also there is no canvassing going on. I have been watching this dispute and noted the reverts made on Sarah's page. Bidgee (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, it was an assumption of bad faith on my part (intentionally) along the same lines as the one Sarah made. I was just curious if I would get questioned about it, while no one questions an admin on similar comments. Why is that? It is also why I said "off-line" - I know that she hasn't done anything on-line. Anyway, thanks for making my point for me. GregJackP Boomer! 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you accuse an Admin not assuming good faith but then you intentionally assume bad faith (The idea is that even if someone ABF (intentional or not), you AGF). Sarah is not an Admin who would intentionally assume bad faith nor intentionally do off-line canvassing and the fact is she is currently busy on other matters (as she has stated on her talk page). Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, this editor has made absolutely ludicrous accusations towards me regardless of fact for weeks, provided NO diffs, provided no evidence and generally will make very general statements that on the surface, make the accused look very bad, when in fact he himself has been the one attacking editors and supes because his article got deleted. I've been chastised to be civil here and I will. However, the "attacks" staged upon me by this editor (and others in his assocation) are baseless pipedreams designed to make him look like a victim and everyone who doesn't agree with him to be unreasonable cads. He and his group reported me for attacks when they could not silence my opposition to the piece in other ways, reported the admin who came in to "break it up," and has gone around with a general bent on harrassing anyone who doesn't agree with him. I questioned whether he was a sock (did not accuse) because his edits were nearly identical to all the later-discovered sock accounts that were created by the BLP subject himself. Talk about disengeneous! Also, I've refrained from answering all the charges leveled against me because it is a huge waste of time and I have better things to do. If we were involved in a dispute resolution, it would be easy, easy, easy to break down every one of his accusations. Aside from getting a bit angry at this editor's obviously outrageous behavior, I've done nothing wrong here and came to edit with intent to clean up Wiki because I saw the banner advertising the program this year while I was here as a reader. There has been nothing but assumptions of bad faith on this person's part, and yet he will trot that out like a billy club everytime he has a disagreement with someone. Please check this person's posts, they have been going around the site tagging and harrassing a good number of people and I've wondered actually when the supes were going to get around to doing something about it. Cheers! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

In case you didn't notice the list of current RFCs is shown at the top of AN so you are bound to get traffic from there. I'm also curious why you are here? Isn't an RFC enough for you or are you planning to take this to every board and page on wikipedia until you find enough people to support you. Its time for some perspective guys. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz, can you not read? I'm leaving. I don't care what happens, I just thought that Jimbo should know that good editors are being treated poorly and deciding it is not worth it. That is what my initial post here was about. From the above comments, I would say that it is a problem that admins don't want to admit. ("Move along, nothing to see here") I don't care if anyone supports it or not, Jimbo asked for more info, and I gave it to him. He has the right to know what is going on. Other than that, I am just here long enough to see if he needed anything else. But thanks for emphasizing my point for me. GregJackP Boomer! 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment As way of explanation of my role, my first encounter with this entire episode came when User:Nineteen Nightmares left this [72] at User:JNW's talk page. As JNW is one of the best visual arts editors in wikipedia with more than 40,000 edits, I was shocked by the personal attack and issued this warning: [73], I went on to warn him that his images had no - copyright tags of any kind and were in danger of being deleted. That particular editor continued to create what I would describe as chaos as evidenced above. I suggested AN/I as a question posed to JNW [74] and I was somewhat surprised in the resulting thread added there, however I also supported a block in hopes of finally cooling 19Nightmares down. This affair is unfortunate...Modernist (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think all the discussion here is missing the main point. While there is no question that WP:NOTPERFECT requires an admin to respond to queries on why the did something on Wiki, and there is a clear decision by Arbcom stating the same thing, this is no longer about what User:Sarah did or did not do. The problem is that the system and process is flawed.

When an editor complains about an admins actions, there is nowhere for them to get help. The other admins all circle the wagons, and stonewall. The suggestions of "drop it" is not appropriate nor helpful. This entire matter could have been resolved so easily if just one admin had offered to help resolve this, by acting as a go between or just talking to both parties. Instead, it became apparent that editors are on their own, and the admins will focus on where it should be filed, any mistakes on the part of the editors, etc. What resources exist to help the editor? There is no one to go to for help.

At this point it is no longer productive to discuss this. I don't care - I'm leaving. Jimbo, I answered your question on what happened, but if I stick around, the focus will be on the specific complaint instead of the process and policy problems. So I'm leaving, but will be happy to answer any other questions that you have if you'll just leave a message on my talkpage. I'll check it from time to time. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I must admit the beginning of this long drawn out discussion was highly interesting at first I quickly got disenchanted with the bickering and only skimmed the last 1/3 of the thread's posts. These are my observations on admin abuse and how it affects a Wikipedian's experience for what it is worth- there is a well-recognized problem in Wikipedia of Admins being rude, or at best curt, with their responses and many do not see a need to explain their decisions; when confronted with a "wrong" by another user other admins often come to their protection with "this is a non-issue, drop it" and inflict harsh incivility (one AN/I complaint against an admin even rose to the point of harrassment by other admins against the accuser to the point that some had to come back and apologize for their collective behavior and admit that behavior at AN/I by most of them was over the line even though they still agreed the original complaint was unfounded against the original admin), this is natural and happens in many facets of real life, those of a common position often have to protect each other in order to get others to protect them in the future (a quid pro quo if you will, its why a congressman from Albany, NY may vote for a pork project in a district in Sante Fe, NM, he can then reasonably expect a vote for his pork in return with no real discussions ever taking place, this is poli sci 101 stuff).

• My idea of what should be done- If admins want to continue to make decisions and have additional tools that can be abused to the detriment of other editor's enjoyment then they need to be held accountable outside of their peers. An unfortunate number of Wikipedians see our policies as laws and Admins as police/judges, if this is how they wish to be seen then a "civilian review board" needs to be established of ONLY non-admins to review impartially any and ALL claims put forth to them. If we are more empowered and feel things will at least get looked at fairly the average user will be happier.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you have hit the nail squarely on the head as far as what the real issue is. I like your proposal, but see here: [75]. Incidentally, on the RfC regarding Greg's complaints [76](which I certified as well), I requested that one of the other participants please request that the Sarah (the admin in question) engage in a civil and calm discussion with Greg and me so that we could put the issue to bed and get back to editing. Greg supported my request, but interestingly, the requests have sat there all day unanswered. This RfC is posted at the top of the admin noticeboard. Minor4th • talk 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps other participants are reluctant to volunteer to request Sarah to engage in discussion, because Sarah kindly asked you to leave her alone a few times: [77], [78], [79], [80], and without comment: [81], [82], [83]. DVdm (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the most important diff and the reason for my participation in this discussion: [84]. She accused me of socking for Don Martin, insinuated in one of your diffs that she had evidence, and when asked to explain she chased us off her talk page and has refused to address the accusation. Meanwhile, you and several other admins and editors have piled on with the "drop it" chorus. Perhaps you should participate in the open RfC discussion. Minor4th • talk 09:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The first diff I provided included the reason. When asked to explain, Sarah explained. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Sarah did this, someone else did that, to be frank nothing is going to be accomplished by continuing to talk about it because there is no method for dealing with it anyways. Can we get to the heart of the underlying problem that affects all of Wikipedia? There are many of us that feel there are simply too many bad apples among the admin corp and the occasional good apple that is simply pushed over the edge, that their attitude and actions drive away good editors. It is not the incivility of other editors, it is the incivility of admins and their abuse of power that is the main problem when it comes to civility. Can we please talk about what can/may be done to alleviate this problem? Unfortunately I know it wont go anywhere, we cant even get a consistent and impartial procedure to desysop, why would expect any action on something simple like telling admins to "be nice" or get sanctioned? Regular editors are consistently sanctioned and blocked for not being courteous, we are all completely equal, there is no lesser standard for admins.Camelbinky (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no doubt a very different standard for admin behavior compared to editor behavior, different sanctions, different process for dealing with it. In fact, as you said there is not a process for dealing with poor admin behavior -- editors are just told to drop it and are chastised for insulted as wrong-minded for bothering admins. This abuse of power and we/them mentality will continue to disenfranchise content editors. (see Greg's initial post on this thread) and keep potential new editors away. Have you thought about the citizen review board in any more detail? Minor4th • talk 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have and have mentioned it before in discussions at the Village Pump (both policy and proposal) unfortunately while some will agree with it, the lack of support from the admin community kills any serious discussion of it. I am afraid it will take someone with a bigger pulpit or soapbox than me to get the attention needed for a serious discussion and implementation, like an ArbCom member or Jimbo or even just a really well-known and respected admin. If any of those are out there and think a review board of just non-admins is a good idea, please step forth, there are alot of us who need you.Camelbinky (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I was hoping Jimbo would comment on this, as he seemed interested in Greg's initial post. The thread got carried away and derailed, however, and turned into a mess. Since this issue has come up, I have read around about various other places on Wiki where this identical issue is being discussed with the same futility. There is an impasse it seems. The people with the power to do anything about it are the same people who have an interest in preserving the status quo. The RfC that was the impetus for this complaint has stalled out amid a multitude of instructions that Greg and I "just drop it" and subtle hostilities expressed toward us for attempting to resolve an issue with an admin who had chosen not to resolve it or even address it at all. Minor4th • talk 01:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Minor4th just got blocked for 48 hrs for putting sourced information into an article on admin behavior at Wiki - I guess the admins don't like their action being brought to light. GregJackP Boomer! 13:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • GregJackP, I think that's hardly a neutral summary of what happened.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You're probably right, and I apologize. On a different issue, do you have any thoughts on establishing some sort system to help editors in disputes with admins? I think that Camelbinky (talk · contribs) suggestion above about a Citizen (Editor) Review Board has merit, in some form. I would like to propose something, but don't know the backstory all that well and would appreciate your thoughts, if you are willing to provide them. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• That may have not been an entirely neutral summary of events, but it was concise. :) I am very interested in whatever suggestions can be made about editor/admin disputes. While I concede that my behavior has been a bit contentious this past week, I can also assure that it has been the result of extreme frustration at what I perceive as not being heard and having no avenue to address issues that range from behavior problems to confusion over process and even content issues. I would like to remain a member of the community and contribute in a constructive way, and these issues do get in the way of that. Minor4th • talk 03:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)