User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Template:Trollwarning

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically inclined

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 May24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 -

A set of articles from India and also some related to Islam and Hinduism are being used as a propaganda vehicle of Hindutva leaning editors.An editor from the west may not be able to understand the complexity of the issue while many admins themselves carry that view.A recent issue was on Indian Caste System and the same set of editors has been able to distort the entire array of articles by persistent editing.Are you aware that we are in the process of providing a neutral media to carry their views.You may like to see a set of articles that detail the means used by the Hindutva brigade.Some editors here carry tags supporting RSS - an organisation known to be fascist in its agenda and nature and recently included in the list of terrorist organisations in the US.82.10.60.156 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Whales! My name is Brightstar Shiner and I would like to say hello on behalf of all of us at the Homestar Runner Wiki...for no particular reason at all, as it turns out. No I'm not a sysop or a beauracrat or anything, but I'm a nice plain user from over here. You should visit us sometime and talk to more important people like JoeyDay, the proprieter of our wiki. -216.255.63.167, a.k.a. Brightstar Shiner

I only recently stumbled across "Wikitruth". Could it be that this anti-Wikipedia site has been created by multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:NightCrawler and his many other sockpuppets? DW was under a hard ban since 2003 (see [1]) and "has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales", etc. in 2005. See [2], [3]. One of the criticisms against Wikipedia centers on you and the Wikipedia:Office Actions page which deals with certain legal issues. Ted Wilkes claimed to have much legal knowledge and used this knowledge in his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. Wilkes, who plumed himself on being one of the best and most active contributors to Wikipedia, was blocked by arbcom ruling on 19 March 2006 for one year. See [4]. Is it just mere coincidence that Wikitruth was started shortly after that date, on 20 March 2006? His alias NightCrawler had much trouble with administrator Angela, ironically wishing Angie "WikiLove," etc. See [5], [6]. Significantly, Angela Beesley is attacked on the Wikitruth pages. Furthermore, administrator FCYTravis is one of Wikitruth's whipping boys, perhaps because Ted Wilkes had some trouble with this administrator on the Talk:Nick Adams page. See, for instance, [7]. Wikitruth also frequently claims that too many vandals and trolls "game the system" on Wikipedia. Is it just by chance that Wilkes and his supporter User:Wyss frequently accused user Onefortyone of gaming the system, being a troll, the "most dangerous vandal", etc., falsely claiming that this user's edits were fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. See [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Wyss even accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [13]. For a summary of the facts, see also [14], [15]. Significantly, Wikitruth is recommended on Wyss's user page. See also [16]. So much for my suspicion concerning the origin of Wikitruth.

Dear Sir, I am extremely frustrated by the working of wikipedia.The article Belgaum_border_dispute and other articles related to Maharashtra, a Indian state are in bad condition and biased.Editors from our neighbouring states push their POV and a user User:Dineshkannambadi (Dinesh kannamdbadi) is manipulating history articles by citing a fanatic source.He's busy associating his state and language Kannada with every great thing or people. Is wikipedia anti-maharashtrian??? for god's sake take some measures to combat biases and implement NPOV. Mahawiki 06:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unqualified to really analyze this, but there are many good editors at Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics, and you should raise your concerns there.--Jimbo Wales 14:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ur reply!Let me thank you for giving us wikipedia.I request u to take necessary measures for-

1. Ensuring NPOV
2. Improve 'dispute resolution process' drastically as 'truth doesnt seem to triumph always in wikipedia'.
3. Improve accuracy by reconsidering the policy of 'free for all to edit'.

I am aware that above things might be discussed over and over again but I am just voicing my opinion.All the best! Mahawiki 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

y the fucc did u fuccin delete the brian peppers article?, N y did u delete tha encyclopedia dramatica 1?

ur a bitch--EZ 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this is why it was bad to delete and salt the Brian Peppers talk page. Before all this stuff went there and now it piles up on Jimbo's talk page. Also Jimbo did not delete the ED article, just the Brian Peppers one. The ED article was deleted by his administrators. Anomo 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the instant karma thing was not very funny. This IP is funny. The sheer mispelling of it all makes me laugh out loud. I wish he had an account so I could upload a screenshot of his post with red marking (like a teacher) correcting his mistakes, starting with the title. Hmm what's the properly spelled to improperly spelled ratio, 64%? Anomo 23:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to nominate this guy for admin! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 10:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do hav an account--EZ 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better if the article Brian Peppers contained a short explanation of why the page is protected (e.g stating that it was a biased biography of a non-notable living person, or whatever) rather than just saying the page has been deleted and should not be recreated? I think it would reduce confusion and complaints such as the one above. Jibjibjib 07:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Reposted here as I suspect you won't see my talk page)

Actually, I wonder why you think that. I think it very much is relevant to the process, unless you believe that our actions have absolutely no moral import whatsoever.--Jimbo Wales 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false dichotomy. While I believe the content of the article has to take moral considerations into account, that's a separate item from whether or not the article exists. There are many articles in existence that may be morally objectionable to any number of parties, but they continue to be. If personal impact statements are relevant to the process, perhaps that should be detailed somewhere in the deletion process. *Sparkhead 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is in reference to the Lori Klausutis article. It all depends. Personal impact statements are information. A piece of information. They can be helpful to determining if the existance of an article violates WP:NOT EVIL or not. I don't know why you would want to say Well here is a piece of information I could do without, I will expunge it from my brain. Of course other factors come into play, such as whether the article subject is marginally notable anyway or not. Certainly Klausutis is very, very marginally notable at best. Herostratus 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be so kind as to chime in here? My thanks in advance. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues in a forum with which you're already familiar—and, with every respect and a complete lack of anything humorous to say (absent that... maybe... [grin]), this may be one of those issues that require you to say, "this is how it must be done." :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jimbo, I would like to say thank you for creating Wikipedia, but, sadly, my Wikipediholism score is 3200 over. No wikibreak can take my Wikipediholism. Can you help me manage this problem? •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you can request deletion of your account - I'm not sure where this is done, perhaps at WP:AN. Or, you could always go up against the Cabal (if it existed, which it doesn't) and get yourself banned. Herostratus 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JIMBO WALES IS THE BEST

Mr. Wales I would just like to thank you for creating the best site in the world!!! Harold Kewell 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Jim. I would just like to say I love this site and recently became a member. I always use wikipedia for reference and never knew that I could do edititng. Can you please respond? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tennislover (talk • contribs) 20 October, 2006.

thank you for initiating wikipedia! HardDisk 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr Wales. I want to congratulate you on Wikipedia which I consider the best website on the internet. I am Meno25 but I sent this message from a public computer so I am not logged in.I have some suggestions for developping wikipedia:

• Starting a new project under the name Wikiuations concerned with all types of equations:mathematical, physical, and chemical. The database available at www.exampleproblems.com could be used as a start. It is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

• Starting a Wikipedia in Egyptian hieroglyphs.

• Stating the size and numbers of edits of each page when clicking the edit button in Wikipedia.

• Deleting all the old versions of all the pages of all the projects in all languages. This will save enormous load which will enable the servers to provide Wikipedia in a downloable version. Many people don't have access to the internet. Wikipedia users can download the database and burn it into CDs and distribute it.

• Deleting the projects:

1. 1. Wikinews: It wasts the efforts of the wikipedia community. If you want news, you go to CNN or Reuters.
   2. WikiBooks: There is no benefit in writing books now. This should be done in the future after some years. It wastst the time of the users.
   3. Wikiversity: There is no need for this project. It is similar to Wikibooks. It wasts the efforts of the users.

--196.202.92.192 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you took at closer look at any of the projects you suggested deleted, you would see the vast potential and existing benefits. Wikinews allows for other viewpoints (as long as all sides and perspectives have somebody willing to contribute). Wikinews has also done lots of original reporting and made news available that has flown under the radar major news corporations. I'm not sure about this, but I seem to recall Wikinews having a important role with reporting on the 2004 Asian Tsunami, allowing for discoveries now covered by other news outlets. Besides, we don't want the major news corporations to be the only ones who decides the focus of the worlds attention, do we? :) And of course, there is the advantage of the free licensing.

Wikibooks has so great potential, I can't understand your lack of understanding for this project. Providing both free learning material and potentially everything else you can get from books. You might as well argue that libraries just a waste of space as well. I encourage you to take a deeper look amoung the Wiki-bookshelves!

And as for the other projects you suggested, they can come to existence as long as you get others enthusiastic about it!

Delta Tango | Talk 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Delta Tango. I am Meno25. Thank you for your response on my question. I, on contrary to what you think, does not underestimate Wikinews and Wikibooks. I only said that these projects wastes the efforts of the Wikipedia community. I think that a few excellent projects like: Wikipedia and Wikitionary is better than many good projects. I only wanted the Wikimedia Foundation to provide Wikipedia for download. Providing the Wikipedia database for download is a must.

--84.36.143.135 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia is available for download. See m:Data dumps and http://download.wikimedia.org/. Chick Bowen 03:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am inkybutton, a student from NZ. (you know, the little country....) After reading many interesting responses to many, errr, interesting questions, I stumble accross this post about suicide pill and how to suicide in a "gentle" way, so to speak. It may be just a cruel joke from some young uni students, but please 1)say something nice/cheesy to post author, and 2) delete or move the post, because some people are being... stupid and decided to say heroin+alcolhol is the best combination for suicide. Thanks. --inky 09:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Image:JimboPimp.gif you? If so, please tell us who the photographer is. I put it up for deletion as a copyvio. It seems to be orphaned in the main namespace. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wonduring if it's possible to retrieve a page after it has been deleted? Culverin? ^Talk 07:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see Wikipedia:Undeletion. Gentgeen 07:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wales,

I hace recently written a artical on Adelaide entertainment (on the Adelaide page) and before it was even posted it was deleted I have asked on my talk on Adelaide's talk who did it and why, but no one has responded could you please do something about this, if not put the artical back but at least figure out who did it and why. Please I beg of you.

Kind regardsJohn Harrison Highns 02:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search for Adelaide Entertainment and it returned article (stubs) on both Adelaide Entertainment CentER and Adelaide Entertainment CentRE, so it looks as if we already have two articles on the topic. Have a great day! 64.12.116.69 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on Reward board? Are you alright with it? --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 08:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could login and try a more private method but I haven't logged in for some months and don't wish to change that now. Many people (admins and users) use Wikipedia as if they are bullies in kindergarden. I don't know if shutting down the irc channels would help - it seems to me that certain admins seem to escalate their anger there and then block who-ever they want to bully with. I "came back" here to find a lot of people I knew (and some of them were your "wikifriends" too) either banned or left wikipedia on their own will. Perhaps it's about time some people in "high" wikipedia places to see what can be done to save wikipedia and stop (or at least calm down) those trigger happy admins who destroy the project. -- 22 October 2006, Noman the ex-Wikipedian

Jimbo, I've never bitched here before, but this time it is too outrageous to avoid. Nobody disagrees that linking to insulting pages about specific admins is a bad idea, but the blanket prohibition ArbCom made against linking to any page on Encyclopedia Dramatica from anywhere on Wikipedia is just wrong. It needs to be scaled back to just linking to "attack" pages (What a simple, common sense rule.)

Think about it as an outside observer: What would a reporter think of Wikipedia governance when they see users being banned for linking to any site on a domain that hosts Wikipedia criticism as a tiny part of it's hosted content? They won't care about the personalities involved, they will see it's just another heavy-handed, corral-the-wagons, response to criticism. SchmuckyTheCat 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... I have strong distaste for the concept of banning all links (regardless of context) to particular sites for personal, social, political, or ideological reasons. I consider the insertion of such sites in the software's block list to be an abuse of that capability, which is intended purely for stopping spam (e.g., links to "herbal Viagra" sites that spammers try to insert irrelevantly). There are some web forums out there which program their software to censor out any mention of people, companies, organizations, and websites which for some reason rub the site owner the wrong way, like for being critics, competitors, politically-incorrect, etc. I dislike this sort of censorship there or here. *Dan T.* 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<snark>Yes, Jimbo - please unilaterally undo ArbCom's careful decision and help to save these crucial, necessary links to the clearly innocent and misunderstood ED site - which really didn't mean to engage in a conscious pattern of attacks on WP editors, to collect identifying information, or to intentionally disrupt WP in the first place. It's clear that Wikipedia, with all its focus on neutrality and objectivity, is being malicious and short-sighted in defense of users and admins like MONGO, while the mature, well-regulated and verifiable ED is a precious resource that must be protected from evil encyclopedias like ours. Of course the difference between 'attack articles' and 'non-attack articles' on ED is WP's responsibility to assess at each occurrence, despite the massive disruption to WP that would result. And the attack article on MONGO being made the 'Main Page' was a purely random occurence that has no bearing on the intent of ED's admins.</snark>

Give me a break. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go into the time that WP admins protected an article that linked to geocities pages with personal and work phone numbers and email addresses, and email addresses of work superiors of ED participants. The incivility goes both ways.

And yes, it is up to Jimbo to occasionally re-consider decisions made by admins and arbcoms. That's his role. I wouldn't exactly call the ban "carefully considered" given how it all works out.

And it's common sense - a specific ban against linking to attacks makes more sense than a blanket ban. It is the blanket ban causing the disruption. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case. Even links to ED's home page (a site with little control or verifiability) will require constant monitoring to avoid linking to attack pages (to say nothing of the interpretation of what constitutes an attack). And whatever took place on WP, WP will address. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for ED. The disruption is not caused by 'blanket bans', it's caused by trolls and disruptors who continue to attack, harass and troll users here. Common sense is reflected in the current policy, since ED is non-notable and the editors from ED here continue to be disruptive (like your 3RR in one day to revert the ED link on your user page). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hoenestly don't see why anyone on Wikipedia would want to link to that website. A blanket ban seems perfectly logical to me. It's non-notable, and it (aperently) has pages specifically made to attack Wikipedia users/admins.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you've been patrolling WikiTruth links lately? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see little reason to feed your argument (which is a clear logical fallacy). My position does not require me to patrol anything. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What logical fallacy, exactly? No need to "feed" my argument, simply debunking yours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of policy regarding one site does not necessitate the existence of policy regarding all sites. Action regarding one site does not require action regarding all sites. Your flimsy strawman argument is hardly 'debunking'... it's just bunk. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry you either don't get it or refuse to get it, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, but I require an argument to have logical consistency if I am to 'buy' it. Your argument has none. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many users are we going to lose over the dispute? [17]]

Just the ones that refuse to follow the rules to the point of disruption, I'd imagine. On WP, each of us is responsible for our own conduct. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for "logical consistency"? How is it logically consistent that this site evaluates on a case-by-case basis, with no blanket ban, links to things ranging from Neo-Nazi propaganda to hard-core pornography, but imposes a knee-jerk ban on links to ED? Now, I happen to think the ED site is tasteless and juvenile myself, and have no desire to insert links to it whether or not there's a rule against it, but it seems to me the Wikipedia admin reaction to that site has more emotion than rationality behind it. *Dan T.* 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 'case-by case' basis is appropriate for matters of sexual content and matters dealing with Nazi-related issues. There's plenty of encyclopedic value in sexual and Nazi topics. For example I would support the existence of an article on the 'American Nazi Party', as I've said before, because it has a clear encyclopedic value. However, unlike those examples ED is not notable, non-encyclopedic and not merely 'tasteless and juvenile' - it's engaged in a specific, ongoing effort to attack users of WP by identifying them in the real world. Surely that represents a more direct threat than a discussion over whether an image is encyclopedic or merely pornographic, don't you agree? In short, I don't see anywhere near an equivalency between your examples and the ArbCom ruling regarding ED. If the 'American Nazi' home page contained identifying information about WP admins, I'd support a ban on links. And please don't remind me that there's a list of WP editors on Stormfront, because I know it well - I'm one of the editors listed there as being part of the 'Inner Zionist cabal'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ED is marginally notable (perhaps notable only among the wiki subculture), but it did survive the AfD process the first time, succumbing only later after managing to piss off too many influential Wikipedians. And other sites such as Nazi sites, homophobic sites, anti-abortion sites, etc., sometimes do publish personal information in an attempt to provoke retribution against their enemies. If Wikipedia takes special action against sites that do this to WP admins, but not those who do the same tactic against other groups, then it's giving its own admins more consideration than others, not a NPOV stance. *Dan T.* 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Dan T.*, Wikipedia administrators often delete edits that link to personal information about Wikipedia users. Sometimes (on request and if appropriate) the edits will be removed through Oversight so even administrators can not see the edit. If you need help with this matter, please contact me by email with a detailed request, and leave a discrete post about it on my talk page. FloNight 23:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD has an inherent flaw in that while it allows admins to exercise their judgement, it doesn't force them to. "No consensus" may indicate a split argument, or it may be a cop out. Consequently an article may be renominated until a genuine conclusion is reached, and WP:CCC explictly allows for this. ED succumbed not because it "pissed off influential Wikipedians" (with the possible exception of those who have been targeted for harrassment, no-one cares, simple as that), but because once a proper assessment was made of its case for encyclopaedic notability, the result was inevitably its deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any less encyclopedically notable than Uncyclopedia, which still has an entry? The fact that Uncyclopedia is actually funny, rather than just tasteless, isn't actually relevant to the respective notability of the sites, is it? *Dan T.* 02:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedia has received significant external coverage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too am not affiliated with ED, have never posted there, and only recently learned of the whole mess when an ED link on one of my essays was purged alonng with every other ED link on wikipedia. This is very troubling. If we start wholesale banning of links to websites, based NOT on the content of the linked-to-page, but based only on the identities of the domain name, it causes a horrible rift in the community-- good people, with non-offensive links, get yelled at for linking to an attack site. And where will it end? I've already encountered people who want to ban all links to white supremacists site. Non-attack/Non-harassing ED links on user and talk pages should be re-instated. --Alecmconroy 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. White supremacy is a notable movement. ED is not a notable movement, it is a website whose community managed to obtain substantial overlap with ours and consequently adversely influenced AfDs until someone finally called time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam- I personally am not debating whether there should be an article on ED or not-- I haven't even read through the AFD, I can't speak intelligently on it. I'm just saying that right now, we have a very dangerous policy of "No linking to ANY document on ED servers, for ANY reason, regardless of the content of that document or the reason for linking to it". I would just say that in some narrow cases-- talk pages, user pages, etc, there could be valid reasons to link to ED. We shouldn't delete links ONLY because of the servers they reside on. If the linked-to content is in any way harassment, then of course it's fine to delete them. But if the linked-to material is acceptable, why should we delete the link?

I think it's just a very dangerous policy for us to have a wikipedia-wide policy of automatically purging ALL links to a site. It makes us look like we're implementing a censorship wall that silences Wikipedia's critics, not unlike the kind of filtration the Chinese government uses to censor its critics. And if we admit ED as the first domain name which "you are never allowed to link to", I 100% guarantee, people won't want it to end there. There are a lot of sites out there which people wish didn't exist: Wikitruth, Neo-Nazis, The KKK, NAMBLA, etc. I'm not trying to be alarmist and claim that this is a slippery slope, where this one policy will result in a chain reaction that will unravel all of Wikipedia. The slope may not be slippery, but a site-wide blacklist of ED links is one step down that slope all the same.

If someone finds a silly, non-offensive, non-harassing humor article on ED and wants to link to it from their user page, let's let them, the same way we'd let someone link to a blog site, quiz site, or other non-notable site.

--Alecmconroy 04:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single possible link to ED that would benefit the encyclopaedia. User pages are not free web hosting, so that doesn't count - it's not as if we're stopping people from linking to whatever they like on their actual personal webpages. Given that, it is in our interests to have a rule that prevents wikilawyering.

How can we possibly be said to be 'silencing our critics'? We have no influence over ED whatsoever - they can say whatever they like, they just can't use up our time and bandwidth in doing it. I don't particularly care if a drunk across the street calls me a wanker, but if he comes into my house and continues calling me a wanker, then I think I have the right to throw him out.

Still, if you can get a Chinese political prisoner to agree with you that not being able to add a link to some website is morally equivalent to getting a cattle prod to the balls for voting for the wrong guy, I might change my mind. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Wikipedia is explictly not an experiment in free speech, so any arguments against the ruling that hinge on free speech are null. The only relevant issue is whether a link to ED might benefit the encyclopaedia, which it clearly never will. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-- you make some excellent and thought-provoking points. First, I must confess, I do realize I'm being a tad histrionic when I liken the ED-link ban to Chinese communism-- I really shouldn't do that. I do it at least semi-ironically, but it probably is a little disrepectful to the people who have been tortured and killed in that situation. Analogies like these just sort of go with the territory in these sorts of discussions. <grin>. I'm just happy nobody's compared anyone to Hitler.

Additionally, I should say upfront-- I don't really expect Jimbo to overturn Arbcom on this. I would never even have thought to ask him, and I'm almost positive I wouldn't overturn Arbcom if I was in his shoes-- even if I disagreed with the ruling itself. Overturn a unanimous ruling by the community's elected representatives-- a ruling which has clear support from a lot of the community? Nah. So-- I'm aware that I'm sort of tilting at windmills here, but I find the dialogue itself to be useful to my understanding of the project, and if somebody wants to read and reply, I'd certainly enjoy hearing what you and others think of my concerns.

Let's concede that "The only relevant issue is whether a link to ED might benefit the encyclopaedia". I feel, quite strongly, that some ED links could be VERY beneficial to the encyclopedia. I actually can think of a lot of cases where a link to ED might be useful:

1. A link to ED is useful to report on ED itself. Right now, the consensus seems to be we don't need to cover ED because it's non-notable. But at some point in the future, ED may become notable enough to merit an article. If that happens, shouldn't Wikipedia be able to link to the site being discussed? Links to an organizations website are very useful, and those links make Wikipedia a better resource.
2. In some cases, an ED page can be useful because of the information it contains. I know this from personal experience, because an ED page helped me once to understand why a Wikipedia policy was important. I read the policy page, and didn't fully 'get it'. I clicked on a link which took me to an ED page, and that page, though satirical and irreverent, instantly conveyed to me the importance of the Wikipedia policy. Perhaps my experience was unique, but since someone took the time to create the link and since that someone is an admin, we know that at least one other person sincerely found the link useful. And since the link stayed up on a major WP policy page for about six months, I bet others thought the ED page was useful too. ED is so offensive and unreliable, it's easy to conclude nothing it could possibly say could ever have value-- but I think that conclusions wrong: some of its pages might actually be useful. The usefulness of a link should be decided on a case-by-case basis, not on a site-by-site basis.
3. ED links are very useful in inter-editor communication. Normally in the above discussion about the page I found useful, I would SHOW you the page I found helpful by linking to it, and I would ask you if you, too, felt it could be useful to Wikipedia. Maybe you'd look at the page and agree it might be helpful. Or maybe you'd look at the page and be able to point out to me why it wouldn't be helpful. But right now, we can't have that discussion because of the policy of not linking to ED. So, even though it's just you and I having a conversation on a user_talk page, the "no linking to ED" policy is interfering with our ablity communicate. I would find it useful, and I think it would help Wikipedia, if I could show you the link right now, so we could talk about it. See what I mean? And it's not just this discussion where links to ED would be useful-- there are lots of instances. At some point, someone is going to try to revist the issue of whether ED is notable-- are we going to let editors in that discussion link to ED to as evidence for ED's complete lack of reliability and notability to prove the site still doesn't merit an article? What about ArbCom cases or user-conduct RFCs, where someone who is being harassed on ED wants to provide evidence of the off-wiki attacks? I think most editors would agree that links in those cases would be useful to Wikipedia, but right now, if the current "never link to ED" policy stands, an editor in that situation could actually be blocked just for presenting evidence showing they themselves are being attacked! (Naturally, I presume that if that situation ever arose, all admins would recognize that the flaws in the "Never, ever link to ED" policy, the editor wouldn't actually be blocked.)
4. Most importantly, links to ED are useful to Wikipedia, because they show our journalistic integrity. This isn't something to take lightly. Wikipedia is working hard to be taken seriously, and it is critical for us to show that we can abide by the same standards of ethics and objectivity that would apply to a reputable newspaper or a respected news network. In journalism-- you don't report on a person differently just because that person has criticized you. CNN still covers polticians who harshly criticize the network. When the New York Times published The Pentagon Papers, it still reported both sides of a story, even if it meant publishing comments from people who accused the paper of committing espionage and treason. Right now, Wikipedia has deleted every single ED link, purging the links even from talk page archives and RFC archives. It's an unprecedented step. And we're doing it for only one reason-- whoever runs ED was very, very mean to us. They've criticized our editors, they've made libellous statements, and they've harassed us-- and because of that, we've changed our linking policy with regard to that site. That change in policy makes us look very bad. Therefore, a few links to ED pages are VERY useful to Wikipedia, because they allow us to avoid the appearance of impropriety-- they allow us to show that we, as an community, are mature enough to treat our detractors the same way we treat our supporters-- rather than having separate rules for those who criticize us.

I'm sure some people reading this argument think I'm fighting for ED. I'm not. I don't care about them. I care about us. ED doesn't need us to link to them in order to have their brand of "fun". ED doesn't need the links, and I wouldn't care if they did. It's not about that. WE need those links. We are the ones who need to be able to link to ED. We need those links in order to carry on discussions amongst ourselves. We need them in case some day we want to create an ED article. And most importantly, we need those links so we can show that we're bigger than they are, and we can handle this like a real encyclopedia would-- by treating ED the same way we treat everybody else.

And the way we handle harassment and insults in every other case is that if a link is being used for the purposes of libel and harassment, it's gone. If someone keeps inserting such links for the purposes of libel and harassment, then they're gone. But if a link isn't harassing, libeling, or insulting, and if that link is, in fact, useful to the discussion at hand-- we don't delete it, just because it came from a site that's critical of us. That policy works for every other link on wikipedia-- I think it can work links to ED too.

To anyone who waded through all this, my very honest thanks.  :) Let me reiterate that I have absolutely no intention of violating the policy, and that i'm not trying to attack anyone who supports the policy in what i've said above-- issues like these are always tricky, and by criticizing the policy, i'm not in any way trying to criticze the people who create and implement it.

--Alecmconroy 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points (frankly, far more interesting and credible than I would have ever expected in this thread). Could you email me the link you were referring to that clarified Wikipedia policy? Personally, I would think it probable that we should make the policy more clear rather than rely on an attack site, but I would like to see the exact details first. As for the rest, I'm afraid your CNN analogy still falls down on the same problem that ED is not notable and does not merit coverage, unlike your critical politician. CNN may cover notable politicians' criticism, but it wouldn't cover some random guy in the street telling everyone he hated CNN.

Besides, we have articles not only on Uncyclopaedia but also on Wikitruth and coverage of Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia Watch, plus the entire Criticism of Wikipedia article, so it is perfectly clear that we have no problem with covering criticism of ourselves - we just don't allow handwringing over whether we're censoring dissent to interfere with our nature as an encyclopaedia.

As for the assertion that ED might be notable at some point in the future, so we should leave the door open, I sincerely doubt that will ever happen. Much like myg0t, it is so difficult to imagine an event that would catapult them into historical record that the possibility isn't worth factoring into our decisions now. If that earth-shattering event does occur, we can simply ask Arbcom to reconsider. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Wikitruth, and Daniel Brandt's sites, actually more notable than ED too? The amount of zeal and draconianness being put into suppressing all links to ED, regardless of context, troubles me. Among the places where it's recently been de-linked is archives of talk and project pages where there were discussions and debates over whether particular things in that site were suitable for links in articles or not. The outcome, as far as I could see, was to decide not to link it in the articles in question (even before the ArbCom ruling), but killing the link even on the talk archive is suppressing relevant history. It also troubles me that Arbcom can make rulings that are binding even on people who were not parties to the case involved, and that amount to making general Wikipedia policy; shouldn't such policy be made by community consensus? *Dan T.* 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While ED as a site is troubling, I'm going to criticize Arbcom about something arbcom related. Arbcom choses who gets to be CheckUser. Guess who they always choose? Themselves. That said, if I were an admin here, I would fear wikipedia watch somewhat more than ED because wikipedia watch puts the admin's personal information and ED if they do it, it's a lot less. Anomo 07:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...And guess who chooses ArbCom—that would be us. Jimbo gets a veto over ArbCom candidates, but the last eleven individuals added to the Committee were supported by at least two thirds of the community. (Nine were approved by more than three quarters of voters.) Note that not all of the Arbitrators have CheckUser privileges, and also there are at least two individuals with CheckUser (Essjay and Redux) are are not present or past members of ArbCom. (Both are Bureaucrats, however—another position that requires a very high level of community support and trust to attain.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, is it safe for me to presume that you frown on Wikipedia articles that are plagiarized from other sources, almost all of which are under copyright? Well, there's a page on the web that lists dozens of these, with links to the original source, and a copy of the Wikipedia article with careful highlighting of the portions that are plagiarized. No, I cannot tell you where to find this page, because if I try to link to it, my edit gets trashed. This page is on the spam blacklist, you see, put there by Raul654. Wait until some reporters find it -- this will make a great story. 68.93.140.47 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly post the title of the article/page you are concerned about without linking to it, the spam filter won't stop you from doing that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I bother? I've already been banned for making legal threats, and this would be interpreted as a legal threat also, no doubt. 68.93.140.47 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no it wouldn't be. Also, please keep in mind that you can always use WP:OTRS to resolve copyright concerns. JoshuaZ 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not interested in pursuing your evidence here, then why did you bother to post here? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pointing out copyright issues is not something normally blocked for under WP:LEGAL. If you tell me your username, I'll review the block. JoshuaZ 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no procedure on Wikipedia to report plagiarism, which is distinct from copyright violation. A lot of plagiarism is also a copyright violation. But some plagiarism may be of a public domain source, where the original source is either unattributed, or attributed in a manner that does not make it clear that verbatim copying is involved. Anyway, most of the plagiarism I've found is also a copyright violation, so go ahead and start blanking the articles. They're listed at wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html Currently 70 articles are listed, which is about half of the ones I've found so far. The other half will be listed within a few days. 68.93.140.47 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-watch is hardly a reliable source for anything, in particular Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, if they were really interested in improving Wikipedia, instead of just attacking it, they would have reported the so-called copyvios and gotten them fixed, instead of just using it for further Wikipedia bashing. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the article name, and you see the article, you see the link where the plagiarism came from, and you see the plagiarism highlighted in the article. Compare the source next to the Wikipedia article. Do you really want to be quoted as saying that Wikipedia-Watch is unreliable, and imply that Wikipedia should ignore this evidence? 68.93.140.47 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr Brandt's tool has proven quite useful, in fact. It's found quite a few copyright violations for us, and we've been busily cleaning them up. Thank you very much, Mr Brandt. Keep up the good work! DS 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wiktionary, in order to access the logs, you have to type "Special:Log" into the searchbar and click go, but in all of the other Wikimedia sites that I've been to before, you can either type that or "Special:log" (non capital L in "log"). You may want to have this corrected on Wiktionary to avoid confusion.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has decided that capitalization matters in article titles (a reasonable position for a dictionary to take), and that happened to spill over into other things like the link to the logs. I don't see it as anything worth worrying about. --Carnildo 08:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Big J. The main difference between {{db-copyvio}} and {{copyvio}} used to the 48 hour requirement. Now you've done away with it, shall we scrap the whole copyvio report-and-wait systems? Shall I go and speedy delete all the articles here? Thanks for clarifying. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo. I and a number of other editors (who I'm happy to name privately) have arrived at the conclusion that Wik may have returned. Based on a long history of abusive behaviour, harrassment and a general analysis of behavioural characteristics (eg using long, abusive edit summaries, failing to respond to talk page requests, conducting edit wars via edit summary, deleting comments from his talk page without response etc etc). We suspect that DreamGuy (who was found the likely originator of the sock account Victrix via checkuser request) = Wik. I decided not to take the matter further when he disappeared some time ago - however he has now returned after a period of absence, and is continuing as before. If you want any further details, feel free to contact me. --Gene_poole 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update you, DreamGuy has today progressed to creating multiple sock accounts based on his and my handle, in order to harrass me and vandalise micronation. The socks include Genetauri, Geamdry and Gene_Centauri. This identical pattern of behaviour was used previously by Gzornenplatz to disrupt Wikipedia - and is clearly being used by him again, under a new account name. --Gene_poole 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new category of users can be invented with partial Admin capabilities, they will have the possibility to revert much easier, but not to block editors. Blocking the editors will be done as today. What do you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#New_kind_of_semi-Admins:_the_Revert_Users_.28RU-Users.29 --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, I have noticed that the full size images uploaded to wikipedia are designated as "high-resolution" images even though they may be, in fact, low-resolution. I suggest that this be reworded to "Download Full-size image". I don't know where to address this issue other than to you. --User:Fahrenheit451 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]