User talk:Jimbo Wales

JimmyWales.Org and JimmyWales.Net

I edit conflicted with User:Coren who was removing a note which let you know that silliness is occurring at the domains above as trolling - I thought you might like to know, so have popped this bit back - the full post is in the history, but basically someone is squatting on your domain. (ew....) Privatemusings (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not his domains if he doesn't own them, and the whois shows someone in Austrailia owning them both. Nothing to see here, move along. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales owns JimmyWales.Com but not those two extensions. They are now directing to Jimmy's Uncyclopedia page. How mortifying! Coren ^(talk) 03:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should simply ban those domains. But lets ask Jimbo first. He might be in negotiations with this silly site squatter as we speak. Wikiwarriorwayne (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

wiki warrior wayne, eh? - silly site squatter indeed! Privatemusings (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)so yeah, I reckon wiki warrior might well be the mischievous soul behind these merry japes ;-)

How come the HTML link doesn't change when you go to another page?

It's quite interesting that Jimmy doesn't own these extensions. He should. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

flagged revisions trial?

Hi Jimbo - having been dead busy away from wikipedia for the last few weeks, I thought I'd come straight to the horse's mouth and ask what the current status of the flagged revisions trial is? If anyone could point me in the direction of current discussion, or try and sum up the status quo in a few words, it'd be appreciated. My reading of the various places I've dug around is that nothing happened, and no specific action is yet scheduled? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe there's a summary posted here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense, Carbuncle, but I can't make sense of why you linked to that page. It's about someone being alleged to have reverted a template more than three times. Nothing about flagging. Is there a page where it's being discussed? Here's my view on it:

1. "Flagged revisions" seems a non-desctiptive term. What is being flagged up about the revision? Perhaps they should be called "postponed edits" or similar.
2. This feature should only be activated for specific articles that have been subject to repeated, persistent vandalism or that are subject to large numbers of edits or views, e.g. the top 0.01%
3. It should be possible for any user of a few weeks to authenticate changes, and to request to receive notifications, e.g. by email, that edit attempts have been made, optionally with the diff.

Mr. Jones (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The relevant pages seem to be

1. Wikipedia:Flagged revisions

(fixing threads which may have been a bit split up?) - thanks Mr. Jones - just fwiw, I think Delicious was pointing out a recently departed user's views that nothing really seems to be happening on this (it's the 'BLP' bit mentioned in the banner at the top, not the specific warnings or anything, I think). IIRC, Jimbo asked the dev.s to turn the feature on - have they done so, or maybe it's time to ask nicely again, Jimbo? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

g'day again :-) - I think I read on the foundation mailing list (in a comment from David Gerard) that you're working on a further proposal which you hope will gain stronger support? - any pointers as to where this might be happening, or any updates as to how it's going? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's dormant. Jimbo hasn't said any thing about it for a while. The discussion of proposed trials has had just a few edits the past month. Same with other relevant pages. Wikipedia Review is complaining about it, but they're putting more actual effort into deleting some British quiz show contestant. If want to do something about it, I suggest going through the proposed trials and make something out of it that could get wide acceptance. Shameless plug: Trial 18: Shadow flagging --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm shopping a very premature proposal around to a few people, looking for broad consensus. News to come soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask you to include me into "a few people"? I actually was one of the authors of the proposal that was the subject of a large poll sometime ago. I am still very interested in Flagged Revisions and their implementation here, and I think my advice will be usefull. Thanks in advance, Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Likely he is just asking a few trusted users about a very loose outline of a proposal, and the rest of us will hear about it very soon. I'm anxiously awaiting a proposal, along with many others I'm sure, all we can do is wait.--Res2216firestar 19:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo. I've been working on assessing consensus w.r.t. flagged revisions for some time now, and I finally drafted Wikipedia:Flag protection and patrolled revisions. I think there's a need and support for a system to monitor and better control blps, but in the same time, a strict Flaggedrevs for all of them has no consensus. So, I think we could have consensus for a passive flag, patrolled revisions. And we also need to be able to fully 'activate' flagged revs on some pages, as a protection measure, that's what I proposed as a variant of flagged protection. Comments are welcome. Cenarium (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

< - seems like quite a few people are pulling in kinda the same direction, kinda like a cat sleigh perhaps.... Is the 'soon' of your timeframe roughly 'this week', or maybe 'March sometime', Jimbo? Privatemusings (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

this thread has pretty much be usurped by a new one lower down - just FYI :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Live near SF and have an hour to help Wikipedia?"

There sometimes appears at the top of the page "Live near SF and have an hour to help Wikipedia?" but the only link it gives is a javascript link, which is a dead link. I asked on one of the forums and nobody knew what it was, only confirming he javascript link "ethnio.show" was dead for them, too. Perhaps you know? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be a geonotice. I have no idea how to check though. Graham87 07:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It worked for me, but only when opening it in the same tab rather than a new one. It's seeking participants for a usability study for Wikipedia. the wub "?!" 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen it before, myself, and I don't know about it. But probably the Foundation does. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wub, what URL did it end up at? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume it's this? §hep^Talk 21:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw it once. I clicked it and read it, but it hasn't shown up since. It was asking for people to come to downtown San Francisco on a weekend in March to spend an hour being interviewed about Wikipedia usage and such. I think it said they'd pay you like $15 or something. You had to sign up and they'd call you to let you know if you were picked to be interviewed. Killiondude (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, costs me more than $15 in gas to drive there and back. I thought it was some kind of social event people were doing. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have a screenshot? §hep^Talk 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never, here's the e-mail where I heard about it on the foundation-l mailing list: [1] the wub "?!" 11:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama issues & flagged revisions

You might (or might not) be interested in this and this. Just a thought: Right now we have 2 options, either keep reverting the edits or place full protection on the article — either one will attract even more notice from the media (Now Wikipedia reverts all edits or Now Wikipedia has prohibited all editing). Either way, it's lose-lose. Now, if flagged revisions were in place.... Just thinking out loud. --64.85.217.74 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we could fix the article so that mention of notable controversies and criticisms are included. That seems to me to be the appropriate way to improve the encyclopedia based on our policies and guidelines, not to mention common sense. The articles dealing with these issues should also be linked to from that article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Are you going to post this in every AN/ANI thread and talk page that you can to garner sympathy? You were adding in uncited original research, indicated here, here (bottom), here (bottom), and here (bottom). The addition of this equates to edit warring. I was nice enough to notify you of the article probation instead of outright blocking for 3RR; you should take that as advice, that perhaps you should add citations in regards to one of the highest profile BLP's at Wikipedia, instead of trying to disregard every administrator or editor that comes along the way to comment. seicer | talk | contribs 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe next time you'll consider adding a citation needed tag to the wild assertion that Republicans criticized Obama's opposition to the surge and that Obama's associations with Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers are controversial. You're not "nice", you're an administrator who uses his tools and position in content disputes against wikipedia guidelines. Clean up your act. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Klein

Wondering what we should do about Aaron Klein. Editing (it appears) as Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he first creates his own vanity article[2] and, despite getting caught sockpuppeting (see his talk page), squats on the article for two years to prevent anyone from cleaning it up. Then he engineers a fake scandal to bring disrepute on Wikipedia. On February 24, after never editing (from that account) any other article he suddenly makes three rapid-fire edits to the Obama article - two on the crackpot theory that Obama was born in Kenya[3][4] and one to promote the election year smear involving Bill Ayers[5] that was by consensus too trivial for Obama's main bio page. He publishes an expose about Wikipedia in his right wing site,World Net Daily[6] without admitting that he is actually reporting on the breaching experiment he perpetrated to get himself blocked. The story gets mainstream coverage for a while[7][8] until the hoax is discovered[9][10] but by that time the story has hit the conservative blogosphere and editors are rushing from all over to as ChildofMidnight puts it above "fix the article" (i.e. edit war and badmouth the supposed "libtards" and censors who rule Wikipedia). That results in full indefinite protection for the article[11] and a state of siege on its talk page.

Whatever Klein is doing here, it is clearly not to build an encyclopedia. He has sabotaged the project to create a fake scandal so he can cover it to further a political agenda. Now his article is nominated for deletion (see [[12]]). I'm thinking we should root out his accounts and not let him edit here unless he shows he wants to use accounts to write articles. Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The inability of new and experienced editors to balance the Barack Obama article with mention of notable criticism and controversy is troubling and embarassing for Wikipedia. I would have thought that we'd work to address the problem. To find that instead we've locked the page down and now the same editors guarding that page have launched a retaliatory nomination of this journalist's article seems ill-considered at best. Even if a case can be made that he isn't notable and doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, the timing stinks. The factual story that the Obama article is being aggresively censored and doesn't meet our own guidelines and standards for balance, and that the article is in stark contrast to the articles on other politicians who hold similar offices, certainly seems legitimate to me. I'm not surprised that other more mainstream media have picked up on it. It's certainly true that efforts to add content according to guidelines for notability are immediately reverted and the editors in question harassed. If only the same attention was paid to reigning in POV warriors and bias that was paid to Science Apologist's spelling corrections, Wikipedia would be a lot better off. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating fake accounts to sabotage a website, then write about it as if it happened to someone else, is not considered "legitimate" or a "factual story" in most journalistic circles. The Obama article, a FA, is just fine, and represents long-term consensus by many dozens of hardworking editors. ChildofMidnight, it should be pointed out, seems to have drunk the kool-aid about liberal censors controlling Wikipedia, and as the diffs show is one of those who jumped in and began edit warring the Obama article just before it got protected. Perhaps it is not "POV warriors" who are "guarding that page" but hardworking volunteers who have created and maintained a featured article. Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest and account creation is an administrative issue. Reporting on how Wikipedia operates hardly amounts to sabotage. I'm interested in your explanation of why a biography on Wikipedia since March of 2006 with numerous edits by various editors is now suddenly up for deletion by the editors "defending" the Barack Obama article? And if you're embarassed by the bias and censoring that goes on, by all means let's help fix it. Or perhaps you'd care to explain why notable criticisms and controversies are omitted from the article? Alternatively we can block the editor who demonstrated these problems and will no doubt expose our failure to respond appropriately. This will only serve to add to the abundant evidence of bias and censorship. But it won't be him sabotaging Wikipedia, it will be the poor decision making of those handling the situation and controlling the Obama article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to comment on the deletion attempt, which I hadn't heard of before now, but the issue here is quite simple: the POV warriors are the ones who are trying to insert blatant misrepresentations into one of our most viewed articles, not those who are trying to maintain neutrality. Klein, likely editing as Jerusalem21 or at least acquainted with that editor, didn't get his way, so went off and (against what most would consider to be journalistic ethics) wrote an article about it, ignoring the fact that the stuff he wanted inserted is covered in its own rather lengthy and well sourced article, and without mentioning the conflict of interest involved. Okay, that's kind of how WND operates, but the fact remains that it's now gone wild as an opportunity for the right to jump up and down on Wikipedia as proxy for being unable to win the election - because one person was unhappy abuot being reverted. The Obama articles are edited by a wide range of editors, they've been meticulously developed, and the main article is a featured article as determined by independent editors. Are there issues? Sure. I agree that Wright, at least, should have a mention in the main article, and there should be links to the child articles on the controversies. Is this a case of the vast left-wing conspiracy controlling the articles and not allowing the virtuous right to ensure that The Truth is told? Hardly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec - response to ChildofMidnight) The Obama article is fine, as I said. The reasons for its present state start at WP:5P and work their way down through all the policies and guidelines to the WP:FA process, as expressed by long-term consensus among many dozens of serious editors. If you think we should disparage the President to your liking, perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place to that. It's sad and pathetic for an anti-Obama partisan to sabotage the article to create a fake scandal so he can write about how censorious Wikipedia is. The editor has conducted long-term abuse over a period of years without making any effort to contribute constructively, and is here on false pretenses, so yes, the appropriate response is to ban him. Incidentally, I did weigh in not to delete the biography but what I think and do is not the issue here. Incidentally, could we please not carry on a debate on Jimbo's talk page? I brought to his attention a very serious breach that I believe strikes at the core of Wikipedia in a major, public way. I'm not here for chatter.Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The breach involved here is the rejection of our NPOV and balance guidelines. You mention the FA status, but fail to mention the numerous established, veteran editors who having had other efforts rebuffed also tried to have an unbalanced tag or disputed tag added or to have the FA status revoked. But every effort in this regard gets slapped down. I understand that you think all criticism and controversy should be excluded from Obama's article. But that's the problem, and that's why Klein's story sticks. These news outlets simply link to the article and their readers can see for themselves that our account of Obama reads like a press release. Their readers can even attempt to add notable content about controversy and criticisms or try to discuss the issues on the article's talk page (now that it's locked down), but they are quickly met with wholesale reversions, personal attacks, slapped with warnings, sanctions, and banning. The Obama article is seriously out of line with other articles on similar subjects and doesn't comply with our standards. Journalists frequently do investigative reporting to expose corruption. The Obama article and our response to the news coverage is a good example of why this type of reporting is so effective at exposing flaws and impropriety. In this case our processes have become corrupted, as the AfD of this reporter demonstrates. Why don't you ask the nominator to withdraw this ill-considered action and start working with the veteran editors to include balance in the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not insult other editors with what you "understand" they think, and please do not use Jimbo's talk page here to stand on a soapbox. If an article is not as negative about a BLP subject as you wish, you may have to accept that your version of content did not gain consensus. We have policies and guidelines for dealing with disagreement. Edit warring, POV tagging featured articles, and Wiki hoaxes are not among them. Klein has not yet tried to explain his way out sockpuppeting, COI editing, and edit warring as a piece of undercover "investigative journalism" but even if he did we have consistently rejected the notion that journalists, professors, or anyone else can mess up articles so they can publish offwiki about how Wikipedia responds to their mess. Again, please, this is not the place to debate. Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update - Klein has apparently admitted to it, but tried to call the subterfuge a legitimate undercover investigation of Wikipedia.[13] This may well be a routine AN/I matter that does not need Jimbo's attention, and I will take it there, but I do think the journalist's crusade against Wikipedia from the inside could have some significant implications that Jimbo and team may be interested to consider. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.[14] That probably works actually, better a routine admin action than to make a fuss of it.Wikidemon (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A few observations on the deeper problems here

1. Set up a Wikipedia system that relies on consensus, with few rules, and people who like to play political (in the sense of inter-personal) games will often take over. That might not be so bad if these games players didn't sometimes slow down the process of encyclopedia building with their fights or if they put an ethic of fairly presenting information over pushing their own agenda. Hardly anything in Wikipedia's governing structures effectively leads editors away from emotional wikipolitics and toward calm consideration of differences of opinion.
2. Perhaps the most effective moves to solve these problems have been at ArbCom, and it seems to have happened because it's one of the few areas of Wikipedia where authority is top-down rather than bottom-up.
3. "Consensus" is simultaneously what's supposed to determine almost all decisionmaking and yet what level of support constitutes consensus is undefined. This makes it difficult to get any decision made on Wikipedia and nearly impossible if the decision is controversial.
4. Politics (in the "political science" sense) is inherently controversial, at least at times, and in many cases it's extremely controversial. Articles on certain political subjects, such as Barack Obama, are going to be very prominent aspects of Wikipedia. This is the nature of politics, and while certain subjects and articles will be more or less important over time, there will always be prominent articles on political topics. That's also the nature of Wikipedia, and that won't ever change. Wikipedia will always be open to being embarassed by shenanigans on prominent political articles, and Wikipedia doesn't have very effective ways to handle embarassing circumstances, especially if the culprits are good wikipoliticians. The results are that good editors, often the most dedicated ones, get burnt-out and leave and other good editors spend a lot of unnecessary time cleaning up the mess, often at Arbcom.
5. Content disputes at controversial articles often depend on brute numbers (having more people on your side of the issue show up to be counted), they're often accompanied by rudeness and accusations of incivility or other violations of behavioral rules. Those accusations, often true and often false, then go to various behavior-related authorities. If one side can convince the authorities to remove enough of the editors from the other side, that often results in a consensus brought about not by a meeting of the minds but a meeting of the prejudices or of the politickers or of the ideologues, or of the conspirators. What results is that the fighting gets kicked down the road a bit, only to come up again.
6. Enforcement of nearly any Wikipedia policy tends to be ad hoc, done by volunteers with more or less experience, with enforcement unpredictable and dependent on chance. If the dispute is longstanding enough, and if the admins who can block editors and set up restrictions are not attentive enough (or are themselves wikipoliticians and schemers), then schemers can often get an edge in disputes, and often a lot more than an edge. This is an inevitable result of the governing structure we've set up for dispute resolution -- it sometimes encourages bad behavior and makes good behavior more difficult.
7. Does anyone doubt that the difficulty of coming to a conclusion on contentious pages discourages many reasonable editors from paricipating there, leaving those pages to the most pugnacious editors? Does anyone doubt that?

I think hardly anyone would disagree with the important parts of all these observations, and most people who think at all about them agree that they're important problems. They're such big problems that few of us know just what to do about them and, given the difficulty of getting a consensus to implement any big Wikipedia policy change, few people bother to try.

Broad, possible solutions:

1. We shouldn't require people who edit important articles to have skin so thick it's like armor, or to have the patience of a stone. We need methods of decisionmaking that are more structured so that discussions can focus on differences of opinion rather than insults, where the process is seen as fair rather than open to so much manipulation (for instance, objecting to a large majority's preference by saying that consensus requires even more support -- easy to do when consensus isn't pre-defined).
2. For larger disputes, especially with many editors involved, resolution would be easier if we had RfCs with rules on what constitutes consensus and assigned moderators to resolve disputes within the RfC process. Some process of helping editors devise RfCs also would help. Essentially, we have editors involved in disputes also regulating those disputes, either on article talk pages or in RfCs. That's a recipe for failure, especially on big, contentious issues.
3. Leaving ongoing content disputes on the talk pages of particular articles while ArbCom and A/N refuse to deal with content questions is inadequate. Maybe the solution would involve setting up some kind of forum where major content disputes could be worked out, involving respected members of the community with authority to either make a final decision or at least to closely monitor and regulate the discussion, then declare when consensus is reached. WP:CANVASS even discourages bringing in editors who are more disinterested and less angry, a kind of recruitment that would actually help resolve content questions in more reasonable ways. We should encourage broader participation in a structured environment for the most contentious disputes.
4. Some kind of elected body might take over certain content questions. That might work, but I think it's probably impossible to implement any time soon because it's too radical a change to get consensus.

I don't really know what specific reforms would be best, but I think workable reforms would move in the direction of hierarchy and rules for discussions that keep them on track, with predictable ways of making decisions. Nothing will stop people from acting badly or making bad decisions, but these types of reforms would help. I'm posting this here because I want more people, including you, Jimbo, thinking about this, and because the Obama article provides so many good examples of the problems here. I spent months at the Obama article talk page trying to come to rational conclusions and avoid abuse, only to lose my own temper finally, after Wikidemon wouldn't accept a 2:1 majority as a consensus on whether or not any of dozens of reliable sources could be used to call a terrorist a "terrorist" (difs available on request). After arguing for months whether or not Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Tony Rezko either could be mentioned in the Obama article, or how, I washed my hands of it. And the same disputes are back again, even at AN/I. I never want to touch another article with a big political controversy again. The discussions have too little to do with what's best for Wikipedia and too much to do with what's best for particular editors' personal preferences. And they're full of sleazy games playing, insults, immature accusations, skulduggery and sophistry. But it's just ludicrous to think that if we only identify the bad guys and block or ban them everything will be all right. Yet it's about the only solution that ever comes up at AN/I, because it's just about all a body like that can do.

I think it might help if you acknowledged that there are some systemic problems here, particularly with contentious articles and the way we make decisions on them. Your voice might get more people thinking about these problems (and maybe you've done this; if so, my apologies for lengthy blather). That's your bailiwick, God King, more so than whether some guy should get blocked or banned, which AN/I can deal with. -- Noroton (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blinky Jimmy

Um, Jimbo is blinking at me. Does anyone else find this to be, oh I don't know... weird? I figured I was just tired when I first thought I saw his picture blink, but then I definitely saw Jimbo blink at me! I then realized his picture is a .gif image. Maybe a still frame would be more, uh, not off-putting? Am I alone in my opinion? -Sesu Prime (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of don't like it myself. It was sweet of someone to make it, and when I first heard about it, I looked at it, and I thought, hmmm, that's cute but creepy. But it was so nice for someone to spend the time to make it that I just let it go. But maybe it's tired now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I didn't even notice until I read this. On looking at it it didn't creep me out. Seems to make the page a little bit more dynamic. Gives the impression of presence. In fact, I think it'd be really cool if someone decided to go all Harry Potter on it and made it do many different actions.Khono (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of replacing it with File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG? More up-to-date and non-blinky. §hep^Talk 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely in the "Uncanny valley". William Avery (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the picture Stepshep suggested.

By the way, sorry Jimmy, uh, I mean Mr. Wales, for talking about you like you weren't here. I just wasn't expecting the Wikipedia founder himself to respond to little ol' me. ;-) -Sesu Prime (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wales is my father. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he respond to you? After all, he blinked at you!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia

Hello,Jimbo. I'm worry that I have to report that Japanese Wikipdians are POV about Christianity articles. They say trinity is the main doctrine of Christianity and the religion that doesn't support that is non-Christianity or heresy without no explainations. But I think 'heresy' is word to avoid, and I deleted this words. Then Japanese administrators decided it trolls without no explainations, and they blocked my ID. What do you think of this? 118.111.5.64 (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to read Japanese, despite a year of study, and so I'm unable to help directly. I think that, in my experience, admins in Japanese wikipedia do not really care about such ideological matters - the block was likely for behavioral reasons. I have no opinion about the content dispute, but recommend the use of reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a grievance such as this, then wherever you bring it up (and this probably isn't the best place), it would be a help if you could provide "diffs". Look in 歴史 for the edits, click 選択した版同士を比較, and save the URL of what you see. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked for making legal threats on your talk page, not for the edit war at the article on Christianity. Please see ja:Wikipedia:法的な脅迫をしない and Wikipedia:No legal threats. Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But it came from what a administrator made block threat at first, I had no way except legal threat, because I didn't have administrator power. 118.111.5.64 (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here I am again

Since I can't get an admin to listen to me (I've posted several unblock requests over the past few months and have failed to be unblocked or even listened to,) I thought I'd come to the main man, you. At this point I do not see that there is one chance of me being able to appeal anytime soon and I think that the only reason I was "indef" blocked is because someone using a proxy server posted some uncreative insults on the page of the guy I insulted the night before while I was in school. I plead that you take a look at this and PLEASE get to the bottom of this once and for all. If they weren't planning on unblocking me they should've made it a Perm block instead of an indef block. Thank you. HPJoker

Action needed

I know you are trying hard to craft a flagged revs proposal that will make everyone happy, but I think some stop-gap measure is needed. Six admins, including 2 checkusers have resigned in March, many citing what can be summed up on User:Kevin. Until the management (you) actively changes the status quo (make BLP1E a CSD, put flagged revs on all BLPs, semi-protect all BLPs), people will believe your words are just words without action. And we will continue to lose more admins and more active editors. It is no surprise that in the last year, despite promoting 201 people to adminship, the number of active admins has declined by about 80 as more and more people tire of the endless debate on life changing issues like proper BLP enforcement and decide their time is better spent on more responsible hobbies (or at least less destructive ones). Regards. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The sky isn't falling, but I agree that fast-tracking is in order here, before the NEXT incident happens.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I want to discourage Jimbo from Doing The Right Thing, but only one of those six admins listed in that diff cited BLP problems as a reason for the resignation. 1 of 6 isn't exactly "many". --Conti|✉ 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

just for the interest of anyone lurking / following this - A dev (tim starling) offered to turn flagged revisions on on March 2 - Eric (the WMF Deputy Director) replied in what seems to be an official capacity almost immediately saying that this won't happen immediately ("I will note that even when we have a clear request, we might not immediately implement the feature...") - and that Jimbo has committed to formalising a revised process which may gain greater support here on en. Eric also says "A WMF intervention is possible, but it does not currently appear to be necessary." - maybe the above speaks to the argument that WMF leadership would be a good thing :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Alison, SirFozzie, and Kevin all cited the BLP problem as their reason for resignation. MBisanz ^talk 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are other reasons why admins resign. I'll leave it to you to decide what reasons they are, but most people should get what I'm saying. Majorly talk 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MBisanz and Tznkai, fast tracking is needed. Regardless of who resigned or didn't or why. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MBisanz. It is an important issue that should be addressed soon. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt can also confirm that I have considered resignation over this very issue - nice to see that I'm not alone. Action is what is needed - but you may have to do it without matching the extraordinary levels of consensus that you seem so desperate for. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Some discussions have happened here and there. I intend to propose Wikipedia:Flag protection and patrolled revisions to the community very soon as I believe we can have consensus for that. Preliminary discussion is welcome. Cenarium (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

While Jimbo is working on a proposal, but I don't think he wants us to sit by idly and wait. I made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get. Some of you will see it as watered down, but the alternative is to continue like now. I like Cenarium's proposal too, but I want something as simple as possible that can be understood in five minutes. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, the community will discuss this to pieces, over and over again. Maybe it is time that everybody who thinks that flagged revisions should be implemented NOW go on strike, and let those that who doesn't want them ydo the dirty work. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But who is supposed to actually work out the details of flagged revisions? Jimbo alone? I don't think the community is unable to agree on FR. I think all the proposals so far have been bad. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look at it, and my impression is that there are to many ideas, from flagged revisions for all to no flagged revision at all. if the vandalism goes through the roof, and the BLP issues pile out to the press, I am sure it won't take more than a day to implement it. Implement it, make a rough start (all those with roll-back can do it), and start rolling and iron it out when it is going. NOBODY knows what is ideal, and everybody has an opinion, so nothing is going to happen. I am sure once it has been implemented wiki-wide that a workable policy page is developed within one week. Really, once it is implementd, it won't take much time. And yes, there might be a backlog for a while, but there is a much longer backlog of unfound vandalism in many many pages. Really, when ideas are killed because they are not 100% good, we forget that a 90% good system is always better than a 50% good system. Let take the 40% improvement NOW, and work out the 10% later! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)