User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Usually I ask "Please don't remove other people's messages from here, even if they are just being mean to me or complaining about something stupid. Yes, you're probably right that I don't need to see all that, but my concern is just that I might overlook something that ends up being important later.  :-)"

But for the next few days at least, that request is suspended. I will watch the history of the page to make sure I don't miss anything, but I also really don't want certain people posting certain libel and implied threats of my family here. So, feel free to remove that. :-) Jimbo Wales 13:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no opinion about this. --Jimbo Wales 18:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your lecture at 21C3, Berlin, 27 Dec 2004

Hi Jimbo, the announcement of your lecture looks promising. Are there any plans yet for publication of notes/video/webcast/whatever for those of us who can't attend? Kosebamse 17:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

arbitration

I've refactored this section substantially, because I thought it was getting too long and confusing.

To keep on topic, what Gzornenplatz has done doesn't change whether the arbitrators' behavior is appropriate. If they are treating us unfairly, they are treating us unfairly, even if one thinks we "deserve" it. VeryVerily 19:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think that you've been treated unfairly. I think that the evidence speaks for itself. I think that rather than lashing out at the ArbCom, you need to reconsider your own behavior and decide whether or not you want to be part of a community that values peaceful co-operation, or whether you'd be happier working with people who more highly value combativeness. If you like it here, take this as an opportunity to re-evaluate your own behaviors in a positive way. No one will hold it against you, and I'm sure many people would be quite impressed if you simply made a change of behavior and apologized for acting this way for so long.

Jimbo Wales has a sad history of forcing out users who disagree with him (secretlondon for instance). And as my recent block shows, admins are now routinely using mindless groupthink instead of reason. - Xed 12:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only person who says that I "forced out" SecretLondon is you. The full history has been posted and explained, but of course you refuse to acknowledge it. Fine. But please stop repeating it without also including the full context, huh? It's misleading and unfair to me. --Jimbo Wales 18:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mindless groupthink is right. These three good contributors have been banned for two months for nothing worse than getting into some disputes, which is good for Wikipedia and NPOV considering the nature of the articles that they edit. Lately, fewer and fewer admins are willing to disagree with prevailing opinions. Everyking is one; I'm another. But we are a dying breed... I'm not sure if Jimbo is even aware of the cabal-like conditions being engendered by the rise of this heavy-handed administrative hierarchy led by the Arbcom. If he knew what was going on, I bet he'd have some reservations. (I've read about the principles upon which he founded Wikipedia along with Larry Sanger, such as the goal of seeing what can be produced in structural anarchy and total openness, and they do not seem to coincide with the way things are run these days.) 172 19:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you tell me which three contributors you think were banned for "nothing worse than getting into some disputes"? I think that's a pretty amazing thing to claim, given the incredible detailed analysis that the ArbCom makes about these matters. The issue has always turned on behavioral problems and these have only been acted upon by the ArbCom after multiple attempts to find a better way have failed. But I'm happy to review and discuss with you (especially with you, because your opinions are valuable to me) any particular case. Jimbo Wales 18:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I may interject here, I've seen this case and I think it's quite worrying for Wikipedia. I don't want people to have to be perpetually in fear of ridiculously harsh punishments just because they might get into a dispute with someone at some point. That's hardly the positive spirit that we ought to have as a community, nor is it a spirit of respect for others and their work. It is far worse for the project and for the atmosphere of the community to have rulings like this than it is to contend with occasionally hostile disputes—hostile disputes are inevitable given the nature of the project and what's at stake; there needs to be a better way to resolve these things than to punish honest people who are only here to build an encyclopedia. Everyking 12:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that punishments ought not to be too harsh, and I further agree that people should not live in fear. But I hardly think this can be characterized as "to punish honest people who are only here to build an encyclopedia". The users in question have a very long history of very bad behavior, and there have been many many people who have tried to counsel and advise them towards a better path, to no avail. Some people really are not just honest people trying to build an encyclopedia -- they are people who prefer to fight and argue and cause trouble for those who are. --Jimbo Wales 18:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what they've done other than reverting a lot. I don't really see anything fundamentally wrong with that. It comes with having articles on controversial subjects that people are going to disagree strongly, and by reverting often you work your way towards a compromise eventually. There really isn't a way to avoid the problem of having hostile disputes like that, you just have to let people hammer things out. I don't see any reason to think they aren't genuinely interested in the good of the project, just because they get worked up about some things. Don't we all? If we didn't forgive anybody, we wouldn't have anybody left. Everyking 18:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course we should forgive people when we can. And yes, we should take into account that people get frustrated at times and can have a bad day now and then. I think it's a straw man argument to say "If we didn't forgive anybody, we wouldn't have anybody left" because no one is saying that we should never forgive anyone. (Notice the other thread on this page about how willing we are to put up with almost anything.)

This, however, is not a case of a good pair of users getting into a quarrel one day and the arbcom jumping down their throats about it. Nor is it a case of groupthink. Nor is it a case of natural tension around a controversial topic. If you review the evidence page as carefully as I have, and as carefully as the ArbCom members have, what you'll find is pretty difficult to stomach. This is users who are abusing our trust, abusing our patience, engaging in a very long term systematic pattern of very poor editing practices, and choosing to escalate a feud rather than try to deal with it.

We can of course quibble in a fair way about how long or short various punishments should be. But we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that they merely reverted a lot, or that they merely had trouble coming to a good faith resolution on a difficult topic. --Jimbo Wales 19:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These people have also done a great deal of good work; I don't see how anybody can deny that. Whatever disputes they've gotten into, I'm sure they've each done more constructively than they have to destroy. We cannot demand or expect everything out of people who are volunteers, devoting their own free time to deal with the often stressful nature of Wikipedia. That's a lot for a person to give of him or herself, and I think we ought to almost endlessly forgiving in such cases. What you call "boundless good will" is in practice not even half the tolerance we ought to have. In cases where people do more harm than good, yes, some harshness is called for. But in cases where people do good work but also get passionate in arguments from time to time, no, I don't believe they should be punished for that. Everyking 02:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i think WP needs people who talk and are willing to accept other oppinions; i can only talk about GZ; i dont think he is accepting something different then his own oppinion; and some days ago he continued again edit wars on de ... same topic ...Sicherlich 20:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I hold out little hope for reform by Gzornenplatz. His behavior has persisted for too long, and I'm surprised he's allowed to edit in de.wikipedia again. --Jimbo Wales 18:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop breaking Wikipedia policy

Stop breaking the guidelines and using the wikipedia mailing list, PAID FOR by donators, to abuse me jimmy. WikiUser 20:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)Adding link to jimmy's abusive post so other users can see what he does with the $50,000 recently donated. WikiUser 20:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, it's so rare these days to find someone who buys their own rope (and for the subtle-impaired, I DON'T mean Jimmy). Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LOL →Raul654 21:29, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The abuse and goading against the rules by you two is noted and your contempt for the wikipedia project when I've raised a legitimate concern. Do you abuse your own families too? WikiUser 21:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)mark's just voted in as an arbcom and already he's going around breaking the rules and abusing people. Disgusting. WikiUser 21:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the Wikipedia has a staunch policy against personal attacks -- your passive aggressive description of a hypothetical Wiki user's actions as "bizarre" does violate that rule... as did your insinuation that Wikiuser is a troll. Both Mackensen and Raul should also be ashamed of their comments above. Please follow the wikipedia rules, or leave. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The issue isn't whether Wikiuser is being a troll. The issue is whether he's behaving like an ass (he is), and I'm glad that VeryVerily has taken up that point on WikiUser's talk page. Frankly I'm surprised that Jimbo has been as tolerant of WikiUser as he has, given WikiUser's lack of useful contributions to Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=WikiUser ) - he's done little but campaign against people for the past two months and most of his contributions to articles have been discarded as worthless, POV or just plain wrong. WikiUser is a timewaster, period. -- ChrisO 00:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A 24-hour ban would be appropriate for Chris0, who just violated the personal attacks rule when he called WikiUser an "ass". Lirath Q. Pynnor

He said he was "behaving like an ass" not he is an ass.There is a difference. The first is a personal attack for sure, but the second? Anyway where in the blocking policy does it say someone can be blocked for 24 hours for saying something like this? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 01:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Personal attacks do not include reasonable and moderated language used to describe a user's actions in the context of dispute resolution or requesting assistance from others." (WP:NPA) I could have been a lot harsher, but I'm mindful of the policy. :) -- ChrisO 08:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why are you behaving like an idjit Theresa? Of course, there is a huuuuuge difference between saying "behaving like an ass" and "is an ass" -- one is a personal attack and the other is, well, "like" a personal attack? Anyways, where in the blocking policy does it say that we shouldn't start banning people who make personal attacks? You are in the arbitration committee, hurry up and encourage your cohorts to arbitrate ChrisO's ban. Oh wait, now I remember -- the cabal is full of a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites who have double-standards ... if WikiUser said you were "acting like an ass", man that'd be listed in his arbcom evidence basket quicker than you can say 'wtf'. Lirath Q. Pynnor

People have said far worse to me than that. Lighten up. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lir, while you're speaking of double standards, what's the greater insult: "ass" or "cabal [...] full of a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites who have double-standards"? How about returning to civilised manners and talking things over politely? Kosebamse 16:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll return to civilized manners when u either ban 172 or demand he discuss New Imperialism. Im not going to be "civilized' so long as the cabal feels itself free to make personal attacks. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You always say things like that lir. You are responsible for your behaviour, not 172, not Jimbo, not some elusive cabal. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 02:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this exchange pretty much speaks for itself. My point in my mailing list post was and is perfectly valid. WikiUser makes bizarre accusations, contributes virtually nothing of value, does nothing but troll for controversy. And yet he still isn't banned. Much the same can be said for Lir, of course, although it should of course be added that he has contributed valuably at times.

For the record, though, saying that a block by an Admin violates Federal law as misuse of donor money is in fact a bizarre accusation, and furthermore there is no element of personal attack involved in my saying so. It's just a very simple, boring fact of reality.

I find it really funny that Lir and WikiUser seem to not recognize our boundless good will, when they are two prime examples of our willingness to tolerate just about anything. --Jimbo Wales 18:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. If Wikipedia really was such a terrible dictatorial cabal, surely Lir and WikiUser would be among the first to find out about it? I don't think you've fully worked out the dictatorship thing yet, Jimbo. :-p -- ChrisO 18:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Crocodile Dundee voice) You call that an abusive post? No, this is an abusive post.... DJ Clayworth 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Report user for abuse?

Jimbo: What do you think of an additional link in the toolbox for reporting users for abuse? Adraeus 08:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a problem with people not knowing how to report other users for abuse? While of course people should report abuse when it is necessary, I see no reason for us to encourage it. I'd say that well over half of the abuse complaints against admins that I see are completely frivolous.--Jimbo Wales 18:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Election results

There was a slightly larger turnout than I had expected. I'm happy with the results. It was especially gracious of Fennec not to demand a recount given the closeness of the vote for seventh place. — DV 22:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my shameless plug

Hope you don't mind my shameless plug, but Peer review doesn't tend to get too many responses, and the article on corporation tax really isn't ready to become a FAC yet. I would really appreciate guidance on which direction the article should take - but am struggling to get a second and third opinion. OK, it's a shameless plug - but at least it's in the spirit of improving an article on Wikipedia to featured status. So if you, or anyone else, can offer good suggestions for corporation tax, they would be more than welcome. Take care, jguk 23:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hi, everybody!
Hi, Dr. Wales!