If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute, please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead. Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum.

Template:TrollWarning

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 1-21, 2006

Congrats on TIME 100

Congratulations Jimbo on being named one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People. joturner 16:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Jimbo, you deserve this. 64.12.116.69 22:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Jimbo! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! this looks like it calls for a big slice of arslikhan all round! ElectricRay 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, and the first person in that section, to boot! The Soul Reaver 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have had a slice

1. Ymmmmm Tawker 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't like chocolate, but I'll have one anyway. joturner 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fast, fast, only 12 slices! effeietsanders 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. yummy ! gratz for the eff pioneer award too. --FoeNyx 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'll have one! Looks delicious.... I'm hungry now. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. I take one instead of dinner. Congratulation Jimbo! KimvdLinde 22:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm on RC-patrol and don't have much time to spare, but I'll have a wiki-piece!! Johntex\^talk 23:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Gimme Gimme Gimme --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. That is an incredibly good-looking cake. Yum! Powers 23:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. I just took a stab at cleaning up Acharya S. Still needs work, and I need cake. Congrats! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. hmmm I think I'll past till its inspected. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. I just tagged 800 untagged images, I sure could use a slice of cake... Congrats on Time 100! --Rory096
13. Just stopping in for a snack while on RC-patrol. I guess I'll settle for a nibble of ems' slice... --Alan Au 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Foiled by an edit conflict! ...and here I was sure ems had passed on his piece. I'll have to go find some spam to nibble on instead... --Alan Au 06:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14. Congratulations Jimbo! Great cake! FellowWikipedian 21:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more left

lol, that's just mean. --Cyde Weys 06:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be out of cake.

I'll have a slice of celebratory meatloaf! congrats, Jimmy!--preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shameless plug

everyone who liked the cake should know that the recipe is available on Wikibooks at 1-2-3-4 Cake, and the icing at Chocolate Sour-Cream Icing. Gentgeen 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or have you done so already? Pellaken 14:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for you. JIMBO 2008! --Nintendorulez talk 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol--Andeee 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for you too. JIMBO 2008! I not shure if Jimbo would run for office? But you never know. FellowWikipedian 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote - but I'm British :( Computerjoe's talk 15:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be the VP? That is the question. Hillary Clinton? DyslexicEditor 09:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'd never run for president. It's clear from Wikipedia's first principles that Jim is a bit of an anarchist. If he was president he'd probably open the prisons and declare war on the decadent capitalist West. I like to think so anyway - Fat Alan, 19:07, 12 May (GMT)

Dear Jimbo:

There is currently an arbitration case[1] involving geo-politics that may very well be the poster case for some of the few shortcomings, certainly problems in Wikipedia. One of the arbitrators involved, User:Jayjg`s neutrality in regards to this specific case has come into question, yet he has gone ahead emanating some tilted proposals (objected to by other arbitrators as “over kill ”) against the same editors whom in the past he had obstreperously disagreed with in POV[2]. Despite the diffs showing otherwise, naturally our dear Jayjg does not agree that he should recuse/distance himself from the case (in legal lingo; contributing to “non-statuary aggravated factors ”), and sees his past relations with those editors as irrelevant, but at this point the blocking of a group of well-intentioned editors unjustly, may be irreparable. Jayjg, unfortunately, has had some complaints against him before accused by others as perhaps passionate in his POV[3] edits to the point that his admin status many times presents a conflict of interest in various cases. The positive productivity of Wiki recently been undermined by some bad press. I think their concern was that they saw a trend developing here: Please look into this, since this seems serious enough to warrant your intervention. ThanksZmmz 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo:

I just wanted to drop a note and thank you for your quick response via email. If you feel it is appropriate, then I would say that`s pretty much good enough for us. ThanksZmmz 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether or not this is the real you, or an impersonator. --Nintendorulez talk 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a crazy fool, but I can't imagine why Jimbo would register at Uncyclopedia and create a page like that. Parody? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a notice on Unencyclopedia to help clear up any confusion people may have. GChriss 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to see how long that notice stays there. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 09:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. GChriss 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's too serious and not silly. Not very uncyclopedic. --Nintendorulez talk 16:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chuck 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales, first off you're a genius. Second, I was wondering if we could start a Cut Spelling Wikipedia. Can we please?Cameron Nedland 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are wondering: cut spelling. If this gets approved, of course (good luck), it would probably just be a simple algorithmic conversion of Wikipedia—there's no reason to have a separate Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wimbo, I ask you because of, we are making a vote about the french name of wikinews. You know that the others information web-site of wikimedia association having their name in proper language (Wikinoticias, wikinews,...) so some persons in french wikinews have propose to vote for an over name of the project, a name in french language. My question is if in your opinion, we are in our right? One user (Divol) say that "wikinews" is a copyrighted mark and we can't change it. The web-adress is posession of wikimedia foundation so we can not also change it. Even if the vote is oppose to change, what can you say us about it? And if the people vote for change, what can we do? thank you--Jonathaneo 08:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different projects often have localized names (although the domain name will always remain in English: fr.wikinews.org, never wikinouvelles.org or whatever). See, for instance, Wikilivres, or Wikiźródła. Thus, I assume there's no problem with it, although Divol's thought about trademarks is reasonable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you said: "The problem we are seeing, again and again, is this attitude that some poor victim of a biased rant in Wikipedia ought to not get pissed and take us up on our offer of 'anyone can edit' but should rather immerse themselves in our arcane internal culture until they understand the right way to get things done. I do not know what is going to change, but something BIG has got to happen and SOON about this issue, because the amount of time it is consuming for some of our best editors is getting way out of control." This is part of the larger problem of too much freedom of anyone to edit at any time has caused adminship to be a time-waster that encourages edit-warrier attitutes and knee jerk banning and reverts. I highly recommend changing the at any time part. Why does that have to be 24-7 for everyone? Liberal use of protection would also help. Why on Earth waste admin's time with babysitting sensitive articles when they can be protected from anyone who hasn't had a username for less than a week? Your time is too valuable to waste like that. My time is too valuable to waste like that. Respect for the time of the volunteers is important too. Who wouldn't get a little edgy battling vandalism hour after hour? The cost in causing warrier attitudes is all by itself enough reason for more liberal use of page protection. While someone waits a week to be able to edit a biography, they can edit something else less sensitive. Yes, anyone can edit. But why sensitive articles 24-7? WAS 4.250 17:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. We take the "anyone can edit" mantra way-too-far. Johntex\^talk 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you're saying the exact opposite of what Jimbo said. He was reinforcing the idea of "anyone can edit" by saying that newbies should be able to edit without having to first figure out what the ground rules are supposed to be. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let 'em talk on the talk pages. WAS 4.250 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like he was talking about people editing their own articles, not merely bad editing. I think in the future advanced AIs can fix things like this--already there is the Tawkerbot. For people editing their own articles, this is one person. Daniel Brant (however it's spelled) didn't like his own article and disputed it a lot and was eventually banned. The real problem is it a topic of interest to a group, and people of that group are 99% of the ones who edit the article. So the people who edit such articles put all sorts of misinformation and spin in to make the group look better than it actually is. If the group is considered wierd, they make it look normal. If the group is considered racist or illegal, they make it sound harmless--I've read talk pages of articles about many racist groups and pro-pedophilia groups and there's all this complaining that racists/pedos edit the article to their agenda. And articles about things that belong to say a geek fandom that is non-controversial, likely are filled with spin because nobody challenges them. DyslexicEditor 05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm someone who was incorrectly labeled a sock puppet, so I see things from a different point of view. I can empathize with the amount of time that administrators put into reverting vandalism, but it seems that you bring most of it on yourself. After being banned, unbanned and banned again (judged only by one mistaken person) after doing nothing but undeniably making articles better, and after going through all of the "proper channels" and having no action taken, I'm so frustrated that an "improper channel" is starting to look quite attractive. Why do I feel like I'm being forced outside the clique when I have so much to offer that could benefit this encyclopedia? David (Pole star) 16:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do, Pole star, is sign up for a new account and start making decent contributions in a way that doesn't make admins think you're out to cause trouble. That shouldn't be so hard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do, Pole star, is sign up for a new account and start making contributions that coincide with SlimVirgin's agenda, and you won't get indefinitely banned as yet another editor who meets with SlimVirgin's disapproval, and is ipso facto a sockpuppet of someone bad, and therefore deserving of swift justice from SlimVirgin. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.252.16 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's exactly what Jimbo was talking about in the quote at the beginning of this section. I was here for only one week when I was banned. I was banned by judgement of one person because I didn't know about Zephram Stark. I didn't know that we aren't supposed to make an article better when Zephram Stark (or someone suspected of being Zephram Stark) first made the change. Even if I had read your mountain of policies, that bit of information isn't in there. Now SlimVirgin suggests that I create an alternate account to circumvent my ban. Is this an admission that there is no way for a productive editor such as myself to work within existing policy? All I want to do is try to make articles better. I don't care about Zephram Stark or what SlimVirgin thinks he did. If an article is better, it should remain that way and the person who made it better should not be banned or called a sock puppet for doing it. All of this should be legal and I shouldn't be expected to break a policy by secretly creating a second account under false pretenses. David (Pole star) 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, I gather that you are coming to Bergen, Norway in a few weeks. Is your lecture at the university something you think I ought to listen to? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Statement placed here by Jimbo Wales at 18:01 UTC, 20 February. Do not remove or modify wording without good reason It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time."

Do you have something against people expressing their beiefs? Dudtz 5/5/06 4:57 PM EST

Yes, of course. I am deeply opposed to free speech. Now, given that this is obviously silly, why did you even ask me the question? The userbox problem is not about expression of belief, but about factionalism and general stupidity.--Jimbo Wales 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I don't understand. Since when was expressing oneself as an atheist, or Christian, as pro-life or as s kung-fu expert factionalism? Wikipedia is a community, yes, but members of a community must express thier individuality. That in itself is not factionalism, but simply free expression- the same free expression Wikiepdia is supposed to be based on.

The userbox problem doesn't exist, therefore, because there is no problem. Look, I'm sorry if I look like I'm ranting or if this seems like a personal attack (it's not). But I feel that creating templates for users is fine, so long is there is a balance: if a pro-life userbox exists, than a pro-choice one should as well. As long as these are only used on User pages, what's the big deal? The User page doesn't have to be NPOV, according to Mackensen, so keeping these templates as a basis for userpages only makes sense- Wikiepdia has a page on the abortion debate, for example, why can't it have the userpages for the sides of that debate? And why is Wikiepdia supressing the free expression it's supposed to be based on? ^The True _Sora 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,so you are opposed to factions,you probably have your reasons,but how is it stupidity. Some of the belief userboxes probably are silly,but you should not remove the whole lot. Dudtz 5/5/06 5:17 PM EST

Bureaucrats Users with "bureaucrat" status can turn other users into sysops (but not remove sysop status), change usernames, and flag and unflag bots accounts. Bureaucrats are created by other bureaucrats on projects where these exist, or by stewards on those who don't yet have one. Sysoppings are recorded in Special:Log/rights or Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log for activity prior to December 24, 2004. Sysoppings by stewards are recorded at Meta:Special:Log/rights but the few stewards who actively sysop users on the English Wikipedia do so using their local bureaucrat status, making this distinction rather academic.

Why is there a position called "bureaucrat"? Dudtz 5/5/06 5:31 PM EST

Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, but if some users want to call themselves bureaucrats anyway, what's the harm? Jimpartame 01:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that the second-highest level of privileges is called "steward". Those that Wikipedia gives more power to are supposed to have no more authority, and they are therefore generally not given names that would imply superiority. (Admins are, of course, the glaring exception.) A "bureaucrat" is someone who enforces laws and policies, not someone who makes them, so it's more appropriate than most alternatives. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with you here - the term "admin" refers to an administrator, which in a office or university is considered to be the lowest rank of work as they spend all their time with paperwork. THe term has acquired a different meaning on the Internet, but in essence it is still the same. Having SysOp over SysAdmin is an excellent idea. --Xyrael ^T 10:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just on the Internet, but with respect to technology in general. An administrator of a computer generally has full access to the computer, among the highest permission ranks if not actually the highest. An administrator of a website (which Wikipedia is) is typically someone with the ability to directly edit site files to some degree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bureaucrat is a person of bureaucracy.Dudtz 5/7/06 9:49 PM EST

• Mostly, the term bureaucrat devolved to find a term which would imply serving and following the will of the community. Bureaucrat is a rather odious name, but it implies exactly that. The reason for bureaucrats' existence is that different projects can, and do, hold different criteria for granting permission levels; stewards cannot possibly know every single procedure in every single Wikimedia wiki out there. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy now? Or is it just a non-bureaucracy with some members who like to act like bureaucrats? (Not that there's anything wrong with that :-) Jimpartame 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a state of anarchy with a bunch of self-appointed burueaucrats running around trying to clean up the whole sorry mess. However, it is also probably the best website in the world and, personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. And neither would Jim. - Fat Alan 19:15, 12 May 2006 (GMT)

Wikipedia has a member of the arbitration committee who is falsifying CheckUser reports. Jayjg is very passionate about his work, but this isn't the first time that his passions have needed to be reigned in for the good of the project. I feel strongly that Wikipedia must let him continue contributing only as an editor. Here is proof that he has lied about CheckUser results.

Jayjg claims that I am Zephram Stark based on CheckUser results and other unspecified factors [4]. As you can see here [5], my IP number is 4.231.20.95 or similar. My home service is through Level 3 Communications Inc. and I live in San Antonio (something you can verify through ip-to-location.com).

Jayjg also claims to have CheckUser verified that Pole star is Zephram Stark [6]. As you can see here [7], Pole star's IP number is 67.150.222.251. According to ip-to-location.com, that IP number is registered to PAC-West out of Seattle, Washington.

Jayjg also claims that SR Bryant is the infamous "banned user" Zephram Stark [8]. As you can see here [9], SR Bryant's IP number is 4.249.57.71, placing him in the vicinity of Reston, Virginia.

I don't know what criteria Jayjg is using for his accusations, but it isn't a CheckUser. He is lying about that. --Kaspersky Trust 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This planet will know peace when all of its children have a homeland. Jayjg should not be expected to apologize for seeking this peace. --Dotan 15:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaspersky Trust is banned User:Zephram Stark, whose use of IP addresses from all over the world is well known. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dotan is him too. Zeph, what you have to understand is that long before anyone had check-user access, we had to work out who the sockpuppets were based on posts alone. That experience has produced exceptionally well-honed linguistic analytic skills. I'd give it up if I were you. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, can you teach me your advanced linguistic analytic skills so I can be super smart just like you? Jorgegorom 21:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Truthiness that counts. - Xed 04:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(note: the above comment got me blocked by SlimVirgin) - Xed 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your kind invitation to edit your page, I moved the poems to a sub-page [10][11][12] because I felt that many of them were not exactly showcase material (if anyone who wrote them is reading this, I trust they won't take it personally). Someone has partially reverted me [13], leaving an situation where they now exist both on the main page and on the sub-page. Given the difference of opinion, I think it's best to refer it back to you and ask you to either complete the revert or undo it as you prefer. Thanks. Arbitrary username 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a couple of the poems dedicated to Jimbo Wales. Which ones do you think are "not exactly showcase material"? Don't worry, I don't take it personally, I just want to know what you dislike about the poems. Jimpartame 21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think it's helpful for me to discuss them individually. Rather, I just wanted to flag that there is difference of opinion about them collectively, and so it's best for Jimbo to decide. Arbitrary username 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying there's difference of opinion, it's important to find out what your opinion is. I wrote "Cyberspace sometimes is scary," "Jimbo Wales is really couth," and "All over the world, people cheer." I really don't mind if you don't like something about those poems, because getting feedback is useful for me. I'd like to know why you don't like my poems so that I can do better in the future. Jimpartame 03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're teasing out of me a little more than I intended to say, so please nobody be offended. Okay, here goes. The difference of opinion is not particularly regarding the truth or falsehood of the actual statements made in the poems (such as those you've quoted), but whether or not they are a good addition to this page. I personally think that they are of poor literary merit (but that's basically an esthetic thing so there's no point asking me to analyze it further). Maybe more importantly, I think that they are sycophantic in tone, which makes it look like Wikipedia is a kind of Jimbo-personality-cult, which I don't think is helpful. I could speculate whether Jimbo feels the same way about them as he did about moving the barnstars to a sub-page, but I thought it better just to ask him. Arbitrary username 15:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones seem sycophantic? They look pretty NPOV to me, but feel free to write your own if you want to represent more sides of the issue. Jimpartame 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and sorry for my English. I'm a member of the Catalan Wikipedia and I wanted to improve our article of our own wikipedia but, looking for information, I realized that it was the second wikipedia to be created. There's a contradiction because our administrators say that the French Wikipedia was created before, but some users of English Wikipedia told me that the Catalan Wikipedia was created on 1. March 2001 and the French Wikipedia on 15. March 2001. Moreover, I'd like to know why did you choose the catalan wikipedia to be the second (or third) wikipedia to be created because I think that it reveals the politics (all the knowledge in every language) of he wikipedia, but I'm not sure, because I've also heard that the creation of the catalan wiki has something to do with the avaiable space in the servers. These suspicious contradictions make me ask to the founders, that's to say, you, when was created the catalan wikipedia, why did you choose this language to be the second wikipedia and what did you want demonstrate with its creation. I know that my petition isn't easy to understand, so if you have any question, ask me. Gangleri2001 (Talk to me)

Jimbo,

Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, yourself included, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's job is to create an environment of transparency and communication. He has done his job very well. According to the teachings of Ayn Rand, this should enable the rest of us to cause conflict with society and persevere to achieve our goals. Those who persevere without physically imposing their ideas on others will eventually find consensus. To the extent that the environment maximizes the effectiveness of objectivism while minimizing the effectiveness of physical force, it promotes useful growth. Jimbo has succeeded in creating a Randian environment that far surpasses anything this world has ever known, and we have the useful growth of Wikipedia to show for it. The Wiki engine has taken us as far as it is going to. Further growth at Wikipedia is up to us. It depends entirely on whether or not we buy into the hierarchical system that so many administrators are trying to push. By coming here and petitioning Jimbo to fix your problems, you are giving him and the rest of the hierarchical system the power to do so as they see fit. Such hierarchical power cannot create a consensual resource. The goals you seek of integrity and impartiality can be won only through individual pursuit of rational self-interest.

If you believe that a dictate from above can create impartiality, it won't matter how great of an environment Jimbo creates for us. --Team Shocker 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Individual pursuit of rational self-interest" has created this article: [14]. This article is controlled by a group of gay advocates who claimed in the article that "damage from natural disasters correlates with Protestantism". This is a group of editors who compared ingesting semen to taking vitamins... in the introduction!

Claims are added to the article, not for the benefit of the reader, but for the purpose of "convincing the people in the center to change their opinion" and "changing voters' minds". (Those quotes come directly from the talk page where strategy is devised to craft the article "from the gay rights advocacy point of view" - another direct quote).

This environment has not "maximized the effectiveness of objectivism". It has allowed a group of a dozen gay advocates to use a supposedly neutral encyclopedia to promote their agenda.

I am not saying that Jimbo has not "done his job very well". I am saying that the system is badly broken and needs to be fixed. And yes, that will require "a dictate from above".

There is currently no mechanism to prevent a group of extremists from controlling an article and using it to push propaganda. Until there is such a mechanism, we don't have a neutral and high-quality encyclopedia; We have this: [15]

Lou franklin 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take offence of being labelled an extremist. KimvdLinde 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who proudly declared "I am a left wing lesbian" [16]

Does that make me an extremist? KimvdLinde 14:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all try to stay cool. Jimpartame 04:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O yes, no problem. KimvdLinde 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Franklin, you're impassioned plea for top-down control is eloquent, but it won't do you any good in a Randian environment. Here, you must be your own hero. Here, each person's happiness is their only moral purpose, and productive achievement is their most noble activity. If Mr. Wales were to use physical force to, as you put it, "correct the problem," Wikipedia would stop being a Randian environment. If Wikipedia were to stop being a Randian environment, it is very likely that you would not be here. Even if you were here, content approval would filter down from the top, making you nothing but a slave: a worker with no control or compensation. Perhaps you feel that way now, but the solution lies in the path opposite from the one you espouse. Requesting mandates of force from above will make articles more out of your control, not less.

When you say "that the system is badly broken and needs to be fixed," the keepers of the system can only look at that from a general Randian perspective. No software will be written, nor will any dictatorial measures be levied, to address your specific concern of homosexual "propaganda." The only positive action that can be taken in a fundamentally Randian environment is to make the system more conducive to objectivist philosophy, thereby better enabling the heroism of all individuals. To that end, we welcome any specific ideas for how to improve the Wiki engine. --Team Shocker 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a true Randian system, people would trade shares of sysop time on an open market, and the invisible hand would ensure that those people best able would have the authority when it was needed. This system has a beauracracy (the sysops and ARBCOM) who are, in effect, like the looters who ruined Taggert Transcontinental. WP:NOT your Randian dreamtopia. Yesterdog 23:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling the ArbCommers looters? Jimpartame 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they control the means of production rather then allowing it to be a free market.Yesterdog 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SysOps and ArbCom are not meant to be part of a Randian dreamtopia. They are necessary constructs to make up for real limitations in the system. The Wiki engine is a monumental first step toward a stable objectivist society. It is proof of concept beyond anyone's expectations, but it is a relatively simple database design that has its limits. The engine doesn't input everyone's POV and output consensus, but it comes closer to that aim than anything else in human history. We have this amazing resource of Wikipedia as a result. The next step is to make a better engine. As server space becomes less expensive and processing speeds improve, a more robust database design will bring us closer to a true Randian environment. --Team Shocker 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we take Rand seriously, as you seem to want to do, creating a good Wikipedia would clearly be supporting the looters instead of realizing oneself as a rational individual. Trolls, obviously are like Francisco D'Anconia, helping to defeat the looters from within. True Randians would start their own internet. And a separate wikipedia with a password like, "A is A, and I will never do work at my own expense to benefit others, I work only to promote my own ends as a rational being". Right? Yesterdog 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone needs me, I'll be hiding in the mountains until all Wikipedians are fairly compensated for their work and the unjust centralized control of Wikipedia is ended.-Polotet 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's were the rational egoism of objectivist philosophy differs from the selfishness of corporate capitalism. A corporation would never contribute to Wikipedia unless it could see some way of making a profit in it, but over a million articles have been created, edited and re-edited by people for purely altruistic reasons. The only explanation is that people enjoy being altruistic. It is part of human nature to seek a larger purpose, to benefit society and to have our opinion count for something. When Rand says that man is a heroic being with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, she does not discount the happiness that man gets from being a vital part of humanity. --Team Shocker 23:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia's objective to be an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality" [17] or is Wikipedia's objective to be "Randian"?

When the reader goes to an encyclopedia for objective information and instead gets propaganda, does he care that the encyclopedia was Randian? (Speaking of propaganda, did you know that "in most developed countries, same-sex relationships are accepted as normal and natural" [18]?)

What good is being "Randian" if your encyclopedia is biased and wrong?

Wikipedia as it exists today has policies, committees, and a structure. But it doesn't have policies that work to prevent groups that push their agenda here. So why not fix those policies?

I'm glad that you "welcome any specific ideas". There are many ways to fix this. Here are a couple:

The article I have been involved with should have been removed months ago. A group of radical homosexuals organized and would revert my corrections. Since there were more of them than me, I was not able to correct the article. They would game the system to get me booted for 3rr when I tried to make changes. They would take turns removing my corrections so they wouldn't get blocked for 3rr (since no one editor reverted my changes more than 3 times). But since I did make the changes more than 3 times I would get the boot.

Since I could not correct the article, I nominated it for deletion. But guess what? The same group of organized gays (and their friends) was allowed to vote on the RfD! Obviously they weren't going to vote to remove their own propaganda, so the RfD never had a chance.

It is a very bad idea to have the same group of people who created a biased article decide whether it should be deleted or not. One way to solve this problem is to task ArbCom with the removal of biased articles. Under the current model, ArbCom will not get involved in the deletion of articles because they don't feel that it is their function. That should be changed.

Another way to solve this problem is to form a "POV Removal committee". This new committee could be formed to identify articles that have a long history of being abused by groups of zealots. These articles could be removed, at least temporarily. Wikipedia users could petition this committee to make a determination about what they believe to be biased articles. Members could be appointed to the committee based on how moderate they are. Extremists of all types would be excluded from the committee, or would at least be balanced (one lefty for every righty).

This problem is real. When readers see articles that are crap they are less likely to return. We should at least endeavor to fix the problem.

Lou franklin 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou, you're discounting the power of individual action. Don't ask people to form a committee. Become the committee. Wikipedia as a society should never force editors to achieve its goals. Instead, you should act to carry out your goals yourself. I think that if you started a POV Removal Committee, you'd be able to convince others to join. The goal of productive editing of articles is highly valued here. Jimpartame 02:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd join. Maintaining NPOV is easy. Most all of it is just citing your sources within the article. X says this and Y says that. The narrative voice of the article doesn't assert anything controversial. The reader can choose to believe X, Y or neither. The article doesn't make that choice.

Lou, whether or not you agree with objectivist philosophy, it is the core concept of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Placing another layer of control over the failed last one won't solve your problems. That can only serve to give minority opinion more weight. Your search for the perfectly balanced committee will never be realized because balance is a matter of perspective. Everyone will try to pull the balance to where they think the middle lies, until someone succeeds. At that point, the committee will stop working for anyone else and the system will need yet another layer. I don't envy your quest for a stable hierarchical system because nobody in the history of the world has ever found one. With today's technology, we finally have an alternative and proof of concept, right here at Wikipedia, that objectivist philosophy works. Now that we've outgrown the simple engine that got us started, we can try to go back to the old ways or we can move ahead. I'm going to move ahead, and I hope you'll join me. --Team Shocker 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how Wikipedia is fundamentally objectivist. I'd say it's much more communist, or at least communalist, and that it really stands in opposition to some core tenets of objectivism. I guess you could argue NPOV policy has an objectivist nature, but beyond that I don't see the underpinnings of Wikipedia as in any way consistant with objectivist philosophy.-Polotet 03:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see "anyone can edit" as communalist or Communist? Both of those societies rely on the standardized altruism of their participants. Anyone who deviates from that standard must be excluded in order for the system to work. As long as Wikipedia is a resource that "anyone can edit," it promotes the concept of man as a heroic being. Individual vandals don't get very far here because they are trying to punish others, and Wikipedia is not conducive to punishment. Those who relentlessly pursue their perception of productive achievement, however, are unstoppable in this environment, even by Jimbo Wales: [19]. --Team Shocker 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people make quality edits except out of an altruistic desire to increase the quality of a free encyclopedia? I don't know about you, but I'm not getting paid for my edits, and no matter how famous and well known Wikipedia to become I know I'll never attain fame for it. I don't know about everyone else, but my editing is driven by altruism, and I can't see any other good reason to edit. People who deviate from an altruistic standard are punished--that's what vandals do. And I'm not sure what your point is about Zephram Stark--he's just an individual vandal who is persistent enough to keep on coming back.-Polotet 20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point of view, especially considering that Stark has never committed any vandalism. --Team Shocker 23:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People make edits out of altruism or as punishment depending on which they think will be more effective. Altruism is useful and effective in an enabling environment. Punishment, on the other hand, is an attempt to limit creative reasoning. Even if it were effective, the results would not be useful. The Wiki engine succeeds in making this great resource to the extent that it enables altruism, but it fails where it enables systems of punishment, exclusion and limits to creative reasoning. On my talk page, I have started an outline for a new engine designed to address the larger concerns of users like Lou by promoting altruism without the systems of punishment that are holding his article hostage. --Team Shocker 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, can you get your head out of the clouds for a second? This article [20] uses the word "cocksucker" and has a picture of a dick. The article is run by an organized group of homos who don't give a damn that you are "moving ahead". They don't care what Wikipedia's policy about obscenity is, and they don't care that unsuspecting children are reading the word "cocksucker". They have consensus and they'll do what they damn well please.

Their objective is to make the article unbalanced and pro-gay. "Anyone can edit" doesn't apply here. They take turns reverting any changes that aren't pro-gay, assuring that their propaganda cannot be removed and anybody who dares to express an opposing thought is booted for 3rr.

The model isn't working. Lou franklin 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What picture are you talking about?Yesterdog 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[21] Lou franklin 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like a picture of a penis to me. I'm adding images here to explain. Jimpartame 04:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Male anatomy.png

Read the caption: [22]

Here's Wikipedia's policy that says "images that you are aware might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. [23]

Here's where they say that "between two images of equal value, one showing nudity and the other not, the picture showing nudity should be favored" [24]

It's all spelled out in the policy, but they have established "consensus" so they play by the rules that their "consensus" agrees to. There is no way to stop them. That isn't how "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is supposed to work. Lou franklin 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou, my point is that I don't see a penis in that picture. You're complaining about something that just isn't there. Have you seen the Penis article? When you complain that Societal attitudes towards homosexuality "has a picture of a dick," it makes it sound like they're adding one of those pictures, not some Greek art which is not a picture of a dick. Jimpartame 03:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou, when you say that the model isn't working, you have to remember that the model brought us this far. Our current engine is Randian with dictatorial stopgaps to overcome its simplicity. Given that we have outgrown it, do we pursue a more robust engine or do we give up and become a dictatorship? There are arguments for both. Encyclopedia Britannica is closer to the dictatorial model. It is a wonderful resource, but I think we have something much better, especially given that we have surpassed Britannica in many ways in only a few short years. Asking people on top to micromanage your concerns by petitioning Jimbo to take direct action or form a committee puts us in the dictatorial category, where the most we can aspire is to be like Britannica. Taking the responsibility for our own productive achievement, however, will enable this project to be so much more.

I understand that you want direct action for your specific problem and not a general fix for the underlying issue, but fixing the underlying issue is all that anyone cares about on this discussion page. Have you tried an RfC?--Team Shocker 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a prayer. That is for "where participants cannot reach consensus". But they have consensus.

I have tried every other mechanism known to Wikipedia: mediation, arbitration, request for deletion, etc. Wikipedia currently does not have a remedy that fixes this. It needs one badly. Lou franklin 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a new engine here that should take care of the problem for you, but it won't be ready for months. In the mean time, I think you might be pleasantly surprised by an RfC. It will bring more people into the discussion which will have an effect on consensus. --Team Shocker 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks for an attempt to create a new and very bad policy by the means of edit waring and voting. WAS 4.250 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you want people to create policy? There's either discussion and building consensus on the talk page, or bold editing of the page until a version everyone agrees on is arrived at. -- SCZenz 17:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:How to create policy WAS 4.250 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as though you already had an answer in mind when you asked the question. If you're just looking for someone to validate your predetermined conclusion, we'd better take a close look at its assumptions. WP:POL refers to WP:HCP on the matter of creating policy by consensus. WP:HCP is a guideline, not a policy. A guideline illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy.

A question follows, "Why create a guideline if we can't enforce it?" A guideline is information that experienced editors give to help others become most effective at Wikipedia. It is a gift of knowledge, not a rod for obedience. Many of our current policies would better fit into the "gift" category as well. For instance, Wikipedia:No personal attacks says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This is some very good advice for new users and seasoned editors alike. --Team Shocker 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning things requires doubt. A rational person cannot doubt. Therefore, the objectivist response is to ignore policy. Using personal attacks is merely another form of currency; brought about by Virtues of man. Yesterdog 05:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is some currency after all. However, I don't think objectivist response is as simple as ignoring policy because I believe that a rational person can choose not to doubt all things. People follow policy to which they consent. That consent can be based on agreement with the policy or simply a belief that a less than optimal policy is better than no policy. Within a government system, rational consent might be given for the entire system of policies even if one of the rules is considered incorrect or even damaging.

In the case of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, consent is hard to give and the policy rarely followed because the threshold is so poorly defined. If we are never to talk about anything but content, wouldn't the basis of this discussion be considered a personal attack? Wouldn't my asking the previous question be considered another personal attack? In fact, wouldn't anyone pointing out that someone else had engaged in a personal attack itself be a personal attack? --Team Shocker 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mister Wales,

Very recently two users used very sexually explicit remarks towards me concerning my transsexual past. Also two users are explicitly mobbing me and want me to leave the project completely. Only the first accusation was answered with a two-hour block, the following three were not followed by a block at all - not even by a warning.

I wonder where this stops: death threats, rape threats?

Sunday 21st of May there'll be a Dutch Wikipedia meeting, and I promised to be there. I wonder if I'll be safe there, or just if I'll be treated with respect and honour.

Could you please take any action in these matters, as Dutch moderators seem to lack the initiative to do so? Verrekijker 20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo doesn't know Dutch, you realize. How is he supposed to read all the discussion that doubtless occurred, especially since you didn't give links? Furthermore, he's exceptionally busy. Stewards who can understand Dutch include m:User:Oscar and m:User:Walter; while I'm pretty sure they can't unilaterally interfere with the local operations of a Wikipedia, they would at least be able to bring the matter up with Jimbo as known reliable sources if they felt there was a real problem. (They are, as it happens, also bureaucrats and admins on the Dutch Wikipedia.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Grammy's law: If a user posts on User talk:Jimbo Wales about a dispute, that is a strong indication that the user in question is a) inexperienced or b) wrong.'[25] 65.74.249.90 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you collect material of all significant press articles that mention Wiki, or other kind of press material, but the Swedish Public Service television wrote an article published on the net and on teletext tv, that used Wikipedia as a source. The article talks about one of the last surviver from the Titanic. The article ends with the paragraph:

Enligt nätencyklopedin Wikipedia finns två kända överlevande från Titanic kvar i livet. De är 94 och 95 år gamla och bor i England.

Translated: According to internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, there are two known survivors from Titanic still alive. They are 94 and 95 years old and live in England.

I think this is cool, because a Public Service TV used Wiki as a source; that same tv usually use credible newspapers and Reuters as a source for their news. Thought I would let you know... --Candide, or Optimism 04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we actually do have a page for this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2006. I've just added your SVT link. :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jimmy Wales,

I am writing from the Pearl of The Orient Seas, speaking in behalf of our fledgling community here which is facing difficulties and is having a hard time making world-class ,wiki-class and excellent articles and giving up to the minute and accurate information due to our resource limitations. These are the difficulties we are facing and we are asking for advice and assistance regarding the following:

1. We have a very small community which in its own numbers, is very insufficient in covering the Philippines. Our community is very small, in fact that we are hardly making progress in Philipine-related topics. Add to it the fact that most of us are still studying and working and a very significant portion of our community are minors.

2. People do not have enough information about Wikipedia, or are suspicious since many sites in the Net offer false promises. They either never heard of us, do come here and do not know that anybody can edit it or they do not belive that Wikipedia does not charge fees.

3. Encyclopedias in Philippine languages are not heard of. If ever we tell them (as per my own experience) they are either skeptical or suspicious, since it is very revolutionary that there is an encylopedia in Philippine languages, since we are used to the fact that most encyclopedias are English.

4. An encyclopedia on the internet is very very revolutionary and new to the people that they don't know that it exists.

5. We are so low-profile that even the government is suspicious if we are non profit or for profit. As per the experience of my friend and comrade in fingers, Akira, he is having some delays in his project to improve the coverage about the Manila Light Rail Transit System. He has written letters to the Transport Authority and they told him to wait for one week, it has already been 2 weeks since he sent the letter.

6. Our community are living in very different places and it is hard to travel and meet up, partly due to the fact that many of us are busy or are minors.

Therefore at your permission, I give you the difficulties and limitations of our community. I leave the propositions and the solution to the rest of the Filipino Wikipedian Community. I am but one of them, and I personally feel that they must have their opinion heard.

Hoping for a kind and generous reply

Justox dizaola 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please reply either on my talk page or the Tambayan.

Your recent description of what is acceptable on wikibooks has been "a textbook for a course taught in some accredited institution" [26]. This appears to cut out most of the books in b:Wikibooks:Miscellaneous_department, including but not limited to b:Overcoming Procrastination, b:How To Build A Pykrete Bong, b:How to solve the Rubik's Cube, b:MythTV, b:Reading spark plugs for racing, b:Render a SolidWorks Model in Maya, b:The Unicyclopedia, b:Outdoor Survival, b:Lucid Dreaming, b:Colonising Mars, b:Meeting Basics, b:Preparing for an Employment Interview, b:Chinese Tractor Maintenance, and b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. Is this what you intended? If not, please (please, please) provide some very clear guidelines so that WB admins can appropriately and consistently remove things. Kellen ^T 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, none of those seem even remotely close to the mission of wikibooks at first glance. Perhaps one or two of them might be ok, maybe. Are there courses taught in high schools, job skills courses, which would include a text about preparing for employment interviews? Probably, but this could be checked. Pykrete Bong? That one is tantamount to vandalism if you ask me and should have been promptly deleted on sight.--Jimbo Wales 17:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jimbo. In the coming few weeks, I think I may spend most of my time weeding out the junk and taking a stand for WB. Thanks for your guidance. I know how busy you are, and appreciate your caring for all of the Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia(s). Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should these be considered instead as possible WikiReaders?

A "Preparing for an employment interview" text would have been quite useful in the "Technical and Professional Communication" course I took in college. --Carnildo 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever told you that you kind of resemble Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

I was going to remove the two uncited "Quotations" but assumed good faith and figured I'd ask for someone to add them here instead. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo:

I know you'e taken a particular interest in flagrant copyright violators, so let me point you to a particular discussion on the admin board. Note particularly his rationale when busted, ...why are you doing this? You know that Wikipedia isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this! --Calton | Talk 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has been very busy and is about to start accepting nominations for Wikipedia:Version 0.5, a test of a CD/DVD/paper release. We would like to release this test version in autumn 2006. We will also soon be accepting Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations in preparation for release of a full Wikipedia 1.0 release, soon after 0.5 if the test is successful. The nomination/approval process will mirror WP:GAN for V0.5, and WP:FAC for V1.0. We elected to start with a core of important, good-quality articles and build from there, rather than following the German model. This will allow us to scrutinise each article and check for copyright infringements, bad language, etc. The following activities are providing support for the project:

• A list of around 170 core topics and closer to 1000 "vital articles" (based on lists like this list at meta).
• Several thousand articles compiled from contact with WikiProjects, much of which comes from worklists.
• The listing of 1000 articles at good articles.
• We have had successful tests of a bot which automagically prepares tables of articles by quality such as this chemistry list and the corresponding log of changes, both updated daily. We will be contacting all WikiProjects during the spring with the aim of encouraging groups to use this system. We hope the projects will at least provide us with lists of key articles in their subject area. The projects can then easily feed into V0.5 and V1.0 via the nomination process.

We are also considering putting together a children's version of the release, by expanding an off-site release by a children's charity.

Please could you give your views on this strategy on the main WP:1.0 discussion page? Would you be willing to support these projects as official CD/DVD/paper releases of Wikipedia, assuming certain criteria (no copyright problems, etc) are met? Thanks, Walkerma 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please insure that Daniel Brandt is included in Wikipedia 1.0 with the version of the article that the person Daniel Brandt most dislikes. DyslexicEditor 09:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a bit immature. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. DyslexicEditor 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, it's no big deal. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think lists even on a web site violates copyright laws, because Rhobite thinks lists on web sites violates copyright laws. This is just a question. Drop feedback on my talk site. Thank You.--Stco23 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To save time, could you provide examples and links? --Team Shocker 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question to Jimmy Wales not to you, but thanks for your comment.--Stco23 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that your question is for Mr. Wales. My point is that it's much more likely for be answered if he can link directly to examples. Just in case Mr. Wales doesn't answer you right away, I'd like to share what I know about the subject.

It is considered illegal in many countries to copy something from another site unless the owner licenses you to copy it [27]. This includes lists. It doesn't matter if you improved the list after you copied it. You can, however, create a similar list from scratch. You can also report on what you have found on another site, giving full credit and without changing it. If you create a list from scratch, don't tell people that you "copied" it, because copying something can be against copyright laws. Instead, say that you created the list from the sources that you specify. --Team Shocker 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time Jimbo made a substantive edit to this page was six days ago. You will notice that he responds to very few of the comments left here. He certainly doesn't involve himself in day-to-day copyright disputes.

The talk page in question contains a discussion of the issue that involves Rhobite citing case law, then you saying the opposite without citing any kind of support, suggesting that copyright issues on Wikipedia should be dealt with by contacting the copyright holder (see Wikipedia:Copyrights), and saying that you will report Rhobite "to Wikipedia" and have him blocked when, in fact, he's an admin (i.e., one of the people who decides whether someone gets blocked).

The list may or may not be copyrighted. Mentioning some of the winners (say, the top three or five) is certainly fine, reproducing the whole list quite possibly is, but either way, your methods of trying to win the dispute are not. Please be civil and respect Wikipedia procedures rather than edit warring and ignoring Foundation-mandated policies such as Wikipedia:Copyrights. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not disrupting Wikipedia is more important than whether a list of toys does or does not get added this year. It can be added next year or the year after that, if it is indeed all that important. On the other hand, Rhobite says: "I am planning to remove the copyrighted content from the AFI lists as well" as part of that discussion(05:34, 29 March) which could itself cause unnecessary disruption if done with a lack of proper coordination with other admins. Further it may be that it should not be done at all. Fair use is an area in law that that is unsettled and ever changing and there is no bright line in many cases. WAS 4.250 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to put the toys on the I Love Toys list from A-Z once the article is unblocked, and I think you should do the same with other list so they don't violate copyright laws. Thank You.--Stco23 19:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the court aims to protect the economic value of the intellectual property as well as maximize freedom of information, this seems to be an excellent choice. WAS 4.250 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that I need to coordinate with other admins if I'm planning on removing copyrighted information from articles. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what lists are copyrighted. Generally if the list is a result of editorial opinion -- like the VH1 list -- it is copyrighted. Even if VH1 removes it from their website, it's still copyrighted. Even if we rearrange the list A-Z, it's still copyrighted. It's fine if people don't understand this - we can't expect every contributor to understand copyrights. However, once they're informed of the infringement they should stop adding infringing content. Rhobite 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for "Even if we rearrange the list A-Z, it's still copyrighted."? WAS 4.250 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When evaluating a fair use claim you need to consider the transformative nature of the new work. Does the new work merely "supersede[s] the objects of the original creation" or does it "add[s] something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message"? (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc). Rearranging a copyrighted list and republishing it in its entirety does not transform the work at all. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Business Data, Inc. found that translating, slightly altering, and republishing text is not fair use due to the nontransformative nature. As for the three other fair use factors, the nature of VH1's list is commercial, the amount which Stco23 believes he is entitled to copy is 100% of the list, and the effect of our use could negatively affect VH1's viewership or website hits. All of these factors weigh against fair use. Rhobite 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of copying the list, Stco23 could compile his own statistics about the list and give a few examples. --Team Shocker 23:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, no, you are not quoting an authority; you are being your own authority. Are you an intellectual property lawyer? WAS 4.250 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure I'm correct here. If you require an exact case which declares that rearranging a list of 100 items from VH1's web site is not fair use, you probably won't find one. I have quoted one of the most well-known and precedential fair use cases, Campbell, to illustrate that a fair use defense hinges on the transformative nature of a work. I also cited Nihon, a case of a company appropriating and slightly altering text on a website, which was found not to be fair use, and bears a resemblance to Stco23's request. I resent that you asked me to cite cases, but when I did that you resorted to an ad hominem attack. You don't need a law degree to explain an obvious copyright violation. I've already indulged you too much. Since Jimbo Wales' talk page isn't an appropriate place to have this discussion, please take any replies to Talk:I Love Toys if you want. Rhobite 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure I'm correct here. The commercial value and the intellectual property content of an ordered list of entertainment items that is presented to the public in the form of an ordered list and not as a class or set lies in the ordering of the list and deordering the list removes its commercial value and the copyrightable portion of its intellectual property content. If you require an exact case which declares that rearranging a list of 100 items from VH1's web site is fair use, you probably won't find one. You have pointlessly quoted one of the most well-known and precedential fair use cases, Campbell, to illustrate that a fair use defense hinges on the transformative nature of a work. You also pointlessly cited Nihon, a case of a company appropriating and slightly altering text on a website. I find your resentment uncalled for. I have not resorted to an ad hominem attack. You don't need a law degree to explain an obvious case of fair use. I've already indulged you too much. Since Jimbo Wales' talk page isn't an appropriate place to have this discussion, please take any replies to Talk:I Love Toys if you want. WAS 4.250 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw this edit. Care to elaborate what you might have been testing? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seemed to be testing whether "wideness" would work instead of "width".—G.He 00:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a live template used by all the US state articles? My assumption is that since there are plenty of ways to figure this out that would be far less intrusive the point must be something else. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't clicking "Show preview" let you see if it works without actually messing anything up? Isn't that a suitable action? Do things need to be saved to see the actual change? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there might be some things that require saving the page. And since it's a template, there may be special attributes that require the saved copy to initiate?—G.He 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's why I'm μΠ13£7 ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and please never forget that I am an idiot sometimes. :) --Jimbo Wales 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go...just for those who care. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Viewing contribution data for user Jimbo Wales (sysop) (over the 2097 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 1840 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 12, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 27, March, 2001
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 25.56% Minor edits: 63.08%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 34.16% Minor article edits: 67.1%
Average edits per day (current): 1.14
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 4.1%
Unique pages edited: 746 | Average edits per page: 2.81 | Edits on top: 2.62%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 20.7%
Minor edits (non reverts): 14.97%
Marked reverts: 1.43%
Unmarked edits: 62.9%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 20.79% | Article talk: 12.45%
User: 6.39% | User talk: 42.35%
Wikipedia: 10.68% | Wikipedia talk: 3.67%
Image: 0.86%
Template: 0.29%
Category: 0.19%
Portal: 0%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0.62%
Other talk pages: 1.38%

Time to desysop for inadequate edit summary use :) Joe 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that if Jimbo were to have to reapply for adminship (which would be wierd, since he has supreme power anyway, really), it could actually fail! Hehehe... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo alert!

Jimbo Wales, I am a friend of thewolfstar. She has asked me to ask you to please help her and Merecat. She along with Merecat and many others have been blocked unfairly with no procedure followed. Thewolfstar's page is protected now, too. She and Merecat are now blocked indefinitely. Thewolfstar's unblock code has been removed by her blockers. Bishonen is involved and Swatjester, both known low-lives. Please help thewolfstar and please help Merecat. I know you hate junior highers like Bishonen and Schvatjester. SlimVirgin, Bunchofgrapes, Killerchihuahua and many others are involved for sure. Thanks Jimbo. Many are being blocked and extermminated all over the place. It's clear that any dissenting view on Wikipedia is not allowed. There is no doubt about it. The conspiracy is world wide and it runs deepLamb of god 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, please see this. Here is one of the band of overgrown 14 year olds that have taken over Wikipedia in your long absense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Bishonen

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bishonen From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship Jump to: navigation, search [edit] Bishonen on IRC Comments bishonen made in response to my comments on her RFA which further incriminate her -- she seeks validation with the IRC herd (emphasis mine):

[14:30:28] <bishfreak> sj, did you see Nathan commenting today? [14:30:37] <_sj_> hmm, where? [14:30:39] <bishfreak> confirming his vote? [14:30:43] <_sj_> ctz: thar's plans afoot, son [14:30:46] <bishfreak> my RFA [14:30:50] <_sj_> yikes [14:31:09] * _sj_ finishes a slightly baffled email [14:31:19] <bishfreak> sj, i don't have to answer every really dumb comment, do I? I'm not sure what the etiquette is [14:31:32] <cimon> captchas could be used for page move, but not gardeb variety editing [14:31:41] * Lubaf is trying to figure out what new pieces could be included in Chip's Challenge. [14:31:47] <CryptoDerk> etiquette on RFA is not to go crazy when replying to people [14:31:50] <bishfreak> sj, he does such a good job of making himself look bad, i don't have to chip in, I thought [14:32:04] <Lubaf> A fleer? [14:32:09] <bishfreak> CryptoDerk: yeah, but is it ok to not reply at all? [14:32:37] <CryptoDerk> I'd give it a day and if nobody else takes up the cause, feel free, but only if your RFA is in danger of failing or something [14:32:59] <CryptoDerk> people who sit on their RFA waiting for people to reply make me a bit wary, but I can't speak for other editors [14:33:10] <CryptoDerk> same with updating the edit count [14:33:12] <CryptoDerk> er [14:33:16] <CryptoDerk> not edit count.. vote tally [14:34:14] <bishfreak> but d'you reckon i'm free to NOT reply? [14:34:23] <_sj_> yes. [14:34:24] * CryptoDerk is trying to look [14:34:25] <bishfreak> IMO nobody need take up the cause And just 2 hours after that she seeks validation with other wikipedians regarding my edit yet again. This time she decides to go offline in a private medium with kim to spew vitriol so that she doesn't further incriminate herself:

[16:34:33] <kim_bruning> hey bishonen! [16:34:42] <bishonen> kim, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bishonen&diff=13184258&oldid=13178744 [16:34:48] <bishonen> hey hey! [...] [16:38:28] <kim_bruning> bishonen, and do you have an IM client? (like MSN or Yahoo, or AIM, or whatever?) [16:38:40] <phils> we really don't have many poor here... [16:38:41] * Joins: iMeowbot_ (~imeowbot@pool-70-22-140-248.bos.east.verizon.net) [16:38:42] <bishonen> mindspillage: if he comes back for more, it might be worth posting a bit more of the IRC log, if you know what I mean. not otherwise. [This is followed by insults against me by the #wikipedia herd, but I haven't included them for brevity. She intentionally posted the link a 'second time because she didn't get the insult based validation that she got the first time. In fact, I'm writing this as she speaks, she even pasted the url a third time to make sure more people saw it.] [16:45:55] <bishonen> nathan, you count very well! It's not exactly appropriate for her to go seek validation online and encourage the herd to not respond to me just so she can avoid be xpoed for what she is. And as you notice, bishonen is sitting there hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute watching for changes on her RFA as she wantes to be assured that she will get in. This is further evidence of her actively engaging in over-eagerly behavior to ensure admin status--something which is not indicative of objective behavior. Objective administrators don't seek constantly seek validation and work to absolutely ensure that everyone is on their side, nor do they go into private conversations to talk about a dissenter behind their back. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Really? I often asked for validation of how I was dealing with things and user behaviour on IRC. I did this to get a second opinion about my actions to see how other, mature and experienced admins thought of things. And I did it privately to try to reduce the amount of offense I caused and to reduce controversy (this said, I always made up my own mind on issues and was very direct with those I had to take admin action against). - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC) You probably missed my comment earlier on channel - posting logs from #wikipedia is against the channel policy - please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels -- sannse (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC) No, that is a completely dishonest and inaccurate statement. The link you've pasted specifically outlines that there are exceptions. I have already gotten permission from kim to publish his IRC logs and I have no doubt bishonen will have trouble giving permission to publish these oh-so-non-incriminating logs. This is an RFA, permission should not be needed anyway. These are statements directly relevent to her ability to be an administrator and should not be censored simply because you are biased in her favor. Sannse, I suggest you take your POV, and dishonest pro-censorship behavior elsewhere. The one and only reason to issue a warning like this is to censor strong evidence that she would not make a suitable mod. Before contuing further, I suggest you read the Wikiquette, Wikilove and NPOV articles so you can better understand the wikipedia policies that you are violating. Lastly, I'd like to mention that you issued a warning to Bishonen herself for not being civil on IRC. So it seems even you recognize that she's behaving like a child. However, you didn't issue this warning until AFTER I stepped in to defend myself AFTER many people had insulted me while I was not watching the channel. Even then, you issued a warning to both of us. You didn't issue a warning for her pushing a personal vendetta against me before that nor did you issue a warning to the people blatnatly insulting me. Your bias as clear and if you continue this ridiculous childish retaliatory behavior on both IRC and Wikipedia, I'll get a comitte to come in and review you to have your admin status revoked. -Nathan J. Yoder 22:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Nathan, you are entitled to vote as you will and, IMHO at least, you are entitled to bring this evidence here if you feel it is important. However, you may want to reconsider making what are, at the very least, hollow threats. It does no good to accuse others of lacking Wikilove if you go on to demonstrate something of a want in that department yourself. I suppose that you may discount my comments if you consider me to be part of the Wikiherd, but please also consider the likely impact on any possible support, or even sympathy, for your own position that is likely to come out of the casual tossing around of such labels. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC) Due to me abiding by an ethic of honesty, I don't pretend in any way that I'm all flowers and daisies and that I'm always nice to people. Unfortunately, the admins on Wikipedia don't abide by this ethic, so they will engage in massive amounts of backpedaling to try to save face when they violate the guideliens they hypocritically violate. It helps that people are actually honeset. And my accusations are not casual, the majority of wikipedians and admins I've seen don't adhere to that label. It's just that admins *usually* are better at being passive aggressive and then playing dumb when they're called on it. That way they can say, with technical accuracy, that "oh but I never explicitly insulted you," even when it's obvious they were being sarcastic. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Nathan, you will notice that I'm not a person who is found on IRC. I don't go there. Don't care to. However, it is RfA policy that IRC material cannot be used to support or oppose candidates. The reason is that IRC is not Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this issue has come up repeatedly. If it seems to you that everyone there knows each other, it's because they do. However, in most cases they know each other from Wikipedia before they meet each other on IRC. It's no coincidence that the people who are candidates for admin-ship are well known on IRC, as, if they are good candidates, they have a high profile on the project long before they go up for administrator. Bishonen, for example, has long ago taken on administrative tasks, such as housecleaning and reform of the Peer Review page. Also, Bishonen has created multiple Featured Articles and been an active voter/editor at the Featured Article Candidates. For other candidates, it might be that they've been active at Collaboration of the Week or In the News or (in my case, at the time) Votes for Deletion. So, when someone "famous" from work on the project goes to IRC, no one should be surprised that that person has instant friends: these are people who have interacted for months before. However, IRC is not Wikipedia. Long time editors, administrators, and new users alike will go to IRC to vent steam, to complain, the engage in hyperbole and, often, banter. Folks there are emphatically not speaking "ex cathedra." They're on vacation from the project while speaking with others from the project. IRC is chatty, gossipy, and sometimes all play, and it serves a valuable function as a pressure valve that way; in order to allow it to keep it that way, the ruling has come down from the very top: what happens on IRC is not Wikipedia, so both insults (and, frankly, helpful, happy comments, folks) cannot be considered for either RfA or RfC. Geogre 10:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC) That 'reason' is not a valid one. So what if IRC is not Wikipedia? You are quite literally suggesting that meaningful evidence can't be gathered from IRC, without exception. Following your logic, I could find her on IRC saying "bwahahah, I'm going to abuse my admin status as much as possible," and you shouldn't be able to paste it. They are most certainly not necessarily there on a vacation, on many occassions I've seen poeple go on IRC to talk to an admin to get them to assist with something on wikipedia or to otherwise get others to come support them in an edit war. You are suggesting, and quite wrongly, that what happens on IRC does not affect or in any way indicate what is going to happen or what is happening on Wikipedia. That is absurd. To suggest that what people say in one medium has absolutely no effect on what they say in another makes absolutely no sense and is fallacious reasoning. P.S. I'm going to murder you in your home. Because I'm saying this on Wikipedia and not in your home, you are not allowed to use it as evidence against me in court. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Oh and you are "emphatically wrong" about them not speaking ex cathedra. I've seen admins speak in an official manner on IRC before, quite a few times. Either you're just plain ignorant about how #wikipedia works or you're just lying through your teeth here. I'm guessing it's more of the latter--everyone on #wikipedia KNOWS, matter of fact, that #wikipedia is used for discussing Wikpedia business, it's not just "shooting the breeze." Dont' believe me? Go take a survey of #wikipedia users and see how many of them agree with your disingenuous view that it's 100% non-serious. And that's including, but not limited to, the people who come on to the IRC channel specifically to get admin help. #wikipedia is often used as a recruiting point ot gain support. Of course, you're living in some fantasy land where people talking on IRC is magically 100% entirely different and seperate from people talking on IRC. People are totally 100% objective and by all means never let things said in #wikipedia influence what they do on wikipedia, ignoring all the times the admins explicitly said they would do something one wikipedia because of some conversation on wikipedia. I'm sorry, but you have ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION IN REALITY. -Nathan J. Yoder Njyoder: histrionics and theatricality aside, the policy remains firmly in place: actions on IRC are not to be used as evidence for either pro or con votes on RfA. Please look to your own tone. Geogre 18:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC) "I'm right because the policy says I'm right. The policy is right because I say the policy is right." Please go take a look at circular reasoning. You haven't provided a single rational justification for that policy even existing nor have you addressed the fact that the policy explicitly allows exceptions. It seems this illogical policy was created by bad admins solely to protect themselves and other bad admins from really bad things they've said on IRC. Addition: I'd like to see evidence that this policy actually exists. The only link pasted lists policies of the channels themselves, not wikipedia policies. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Hum, well, at the event, those IRC logs reveals nothing to me but storm in a teacup. I am the last persons to defend Kim Bruning (for important reasons which go beyond the scope of this), but I fail to see how, according to these logs, he has behaved inappropriately. As for Bishonen, I found her responses mildly amusing and not particularly harsh. Although she did say fuck, luckily she didn't say the much more disturbing flying fuck! (and those who understand what I mean by that reference shall be rewarded with cake!). El_C 11:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That only makes up a small portion of the logs and is not what I based my initial statement on. See User:Njyoder/bishonen for more of them. -Nathan J. Yoder That is, in fact, what I refered to when I said "IRC logs, and that (User:Njyoder/bishonen) is where I read these; beginning with your conversation with Kim regarding the GFDL and the events which followed that. I stand by my prior comments. El_C 07:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Perhaps Nathan J. Yoder is displeased because his vote has been censored? He should have been the one to change it, should he have wished to. The original vote can be found in page history for the project page, perhaps he'd like to change it back the way it was! Kim Bruning 09:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Snuh? El_C 10:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Frankly the kind of "joke" that should be deleted on sight. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC) If you can't take it, you're too thin skinned. Why should a thin skinned person be an admin? -Nathan J. Yoder 20:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC) I cannot comment on the thickness of Filiocht's skin but I think that it is appropriate for an admin to believe that a joke about rape is inappropriate in a public forum. I deduce from Nathan's edits in the main space and his discussions on article talk pages that he is both intelligent and analytical so I am surprised that his experiences at amazon.com have not taught him that rape is a sensitive issue offering scope for great offense. --Theo (Talk) 18:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC) To Nathan, - As one of Bishonen's more frequent correspondents and a friend (though we have never met, exchanged addresses of photographs), can I say categorically: There is no clique or cabal. Just a shared interest in editing and sharing (often obscure) information; and Yes sometimes a silly joke creeps in. Hundreds of editors (many of whom have voted for Bishonen, me included) have never been on IRC or anything similar. Bishonen is not Mrs. Machiavelli, and she frequently tells most people where they are going wrong. In view of that fact, that almost 100 people are supporting her is amazing, and should tell you something. She certainly does not try to curry favour. Your original comment (which I suspect you regret) was just plain tasteless, so for your own sake and reputation pleased desist from these wild, groundless and libelous accusations. Nothing can stop Bishonen becoming an admin now, so it would be better if you stopped, and everyone else just ignored any further comments you have to make on the subject. Giano | talk 12:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Uh, if you don't think there's a clique, then you're seriously delusional. I'm not even sure you understand what a clique is if you'd put it anywhere near a mention of a cabal. Her IRC logs clearly show her trying to "curry favour" by continually ranting about me on IRC. Please read NPOV before making further contributions. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ".....and everyone else just ignored any further comments you have to make on the subject. Giano | talk 12:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)" PLease read Wikilove Giano, you are violating the rules of Wikipedia by bombarding this page with your personal attacks. -Nathan J. Yoder 02:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC) "All seems infected that the infected spy As all seems yellow to the jaundiced eye." ".....and everyone else just ignored any further comments you have to make on the subject. Giano | talk 12:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)" [edit] RFA and IRC The beef between Bishonen and Njyoder notwithstanding, multiple people have expressed concerns over adminship nominations being unduly influenced by popularity and/or IRC campaigning.

Obviously these concerns aren't specific to this nomination (in fact, I feel obliged to point out that Bishonen herself was the least happy with the vigorous promotion undertaken by others, and that was long before anyone suggested a negative effect). If there is interest, we should set up a separate page to discuss this, or we could use the main talk page of RFA.

Personally, I think the issue is not likely to crop up soon again, but I do not think it unreasonable to simply forbid (or rather "discourage by peer pressure") mentioning RFAs on IRC—RFAs shouldn't be voting drives. While I know for a fact that in this case, the IRC effect had far less influence than some people are assuming (but I don't expect to convince others, because it's based on personal observation), the mere hint of it was unsavory.

If adminship is "no big deal", we shouldn't turn it into one; if it is a big deal, we shouldn't encourage people to not think for themselves. JRM · Talk 21:34, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Though I fully support most, if not all, policies, they are not meant to force people to apply wikithinking to all of their communication with other wikipedians by other forms of communication. This sounds like a kind of mental instruction creep that I could never approve of. Unless we're talking about obvious slander and shameless campaigning (not just normal socializing) I think we should deal with it when obviously bad cases arise. WikiPolicies belong within the realms of Wikipedia. Peter Isotalo 21:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC) JRM, you make a good point, I totally agree that RFAs ought not to be mentioned on #wikipedia while they're ongoing, and since Wikipedia and #wikipedia are formally supposed to be distinct, peer pressure is the way to achieve it. Peter, I appreciate your point, too, but there surely is a grey zone between the channel and the site, and surely there is mutual influence. I hope somebody takes upTacoDeposit's suggestion on the project page about checking out the statistical relationship between a user's presence on IRC and amount of support in the vote (I've written a few words on the page to say I think so). Perhaps adminship candidates ought to stay away from the channel during the vital week? Though that would indeed be raising adminship into a huge deal, and like you, JRM, I'm hoping it soon won't be. Btw, I have to say I think your phrase "the beef between Bishonen and Njyoder" is misleading. It suggests some reciprocity or mutuality of "beefing", where there is none. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Please consider my comment NPOVed into "the incident involving Bishonen and Njyoder", or any other NPOVing of your choosing. I'm not trying to imply anything here. JRM · Talk 22:29, 2005 May 7 (UTC) Does pasting your RFA url numerous times in an IRC channel like Bishonen and others did count as 'shameless campaigning'? If other individuals who are direct friends with her repeatedly paste the URL, while the candidate voices no objection to it in the slightest, count as shameless campaigning? The only reason I can see you being opposed to such a rule is if you relied on candidates you liked/disliked getting voted in/rejected by use of these disingenuous methods. Also, I resent Bishonen implying that I have a beef with her. She's so obviously trying to portray herself as a saint here and the groupthink is just feeding into that. Frankly, her behavior is very dishonest, if it's not a flat out lie. She keeps claiming "oh I don't really want to be an admin," while actively making an effort to paste her RFA url as many times as possible and responding to as many statements as possible on the RFA. "I hate group think, that's why I 'll paste this url 10 million times over while saying 'OMG THIZ GUY IZ AN ASS'." If she really weren't interested in being an admin, she would have just rejected the nomination from the beginning and there would have been no votes at all. Instead she actively encouraged it while being certain to periodically inject faux-modest statements implying she doesn't want to be one. Frankly, you have to be really naive or seriously delusional to believe someone doesn't want something simply because they say so IN SPITE OF the fact they encourage the thing they don't want. -Nathan J. Yoder 16:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC) We have already, as I alluded to above, a policy saying that things that happen and things that are said on IRC cannot be used as evidence for deliberations on Wikipedia. We also have come close to an explicit policy against "spamming" for support of an RfA. (Look through the archives, and you'll see candidacies that were shot down or withdrawn simply for the candidate putting multiple "support me" notices on talk pages, and for even seeming to do so.) It makes sense, then, that by extension any campaigning by a candidate for support on IRC would be disallowed. However, there really can't be a policy against other people speaking on the subject's behalf. That said, people should not vote (and cannot support) for anything said on IRC. For what it's worth, when I went up for RfA, my two Oppose votes came from people who had no experience with me on the project and only came from what they thought they heard me say about deletion on IRC. These two persons, similarly to Everyking, would not explain why they opposed, as there was no actual evidence that I had done the things they believed that I might someday do. Needless to say, I haven't since then, either, as that mutated, mangled, and inconsequential forum of IRC hadn't allowed them to actually read my views. So, yes, I would be in favor of any guideline to IRC use or, even better, channel moderating that discouraged campaigns (not one-on-one talk of support, but campaigns). I wouldn't even mind "Hey, everybody go vote for Geogre!" being grounds for sanction against the advertiser. Geogre 13:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

PS, since I think up policies a lot (and do nothing about it), the policy change I would make is that if there is evidence of campaigning (addressing the entire channel at once, not one-on-one) for an RfA, the RfA for that candidate should be suspended without prejudice for a period of one week, at which point it would be reinstated, with extant Support and Oppose votes. I.e. there is simply a break, indicating neither a failure nor success of the candidacy, for a week, and then it resumes, as that week would allow the tempest to dissipate inside the teapot. Anyway, that's my small candle lit against the darkness (and now back to cursing). Geogre 13:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

What qualifies as evidence of campaigning? Before I was banned from the channel, I've seen bishonen herself paste the url to the RFA multiple times in #wikipedia under the guise of getting validation for whether or not she should reply to me. From the brief look at the scrollback logs I saw, she had done this 3 or so times within a few hours, continuing despite people telling her that she didn't have to reply to anything I said. -Nathan J. Yoder 16:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC) I've been thinking about votes for admin quite a bit. Sometimes it seems people who deserve to be admins don't make it, and others come flying through. Is the diference in abilities/worthiness, or is it a case of "who you know"? The reasons for objecting seem to apply to some, and not to others. Perhaps we need a checklist at the top of the voting page? I'm still a newbie, and I will admit that my voting decisions have been influenced by what the other voters say. I'm sure this applies to a lot of voters who have not come accross the person before. This is why it is important to give reasons for your vote. Wikipedia does not have confidential voting, and this is why votes will always be infulenced, either by the person up for admin, or by other voters. I've even come accross a case where one admin asked another admin to change what they wrote on a person's RfA because it went against their view of that person. Mentioning your RfA on #wikipedia should definitely be banned, both for votes for and against, as anyone who doesn't know about #wikipedia loses that advantage, or can be ganged up on. --Silversmith 18:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC) Did anyone notice I nominated 3 people? Right,thanks! Note that they all got a similar (LARGE!) number of votes, and that they were all kind of exceptional. Kim Bruning 19:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retroactive support Just adding my retroactive support. I tried to convince her to take the job long ago, and there really should be no controversy about it. Bishonen is extremely level-headed and knows Wikipedia in great depth. I definitely would have added my vote to the long, long list, had I been around at the time.

I don't have a real problem with campaigning, although I think it is unnecessary for RfA. I understand completely why she was searching confirmation from the IRC room, and I think that every current admin monitored the progress of his/her RfA very closely at the time, even though some might not want to admit it. It is human to be self-conscious and to seek the approval of others — and in the end, that kind of social behavior is likely positive for Wikipedia. You will notice that most trolls don't go through great lengths to get approval for their actions (some, Alex in particular, are the exception to the rule).

I think that RfA is getting an unwarranted amount of attention. Sure, it is an important function, but 100+ votes takes a lot of work that could have been spent on other parts of Wikipedia. On an ideal Wikipedia, admins would be promoted on 5 support votes, none oppose. I try to abstain from voting if my vote is very unlikely to change anything. Hypocritical as I am, I would have made an exception in this case. — David Remahl 18:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Bishonen" ViewsProject page Discussion Edit this page + History Move Watch Personal toolsLamb of god My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out Navigation Main Page Community Portal Featured articles Current events Recent changes Random article Help Contact Wikipedia Donations Search

   Toolbox

What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link