User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Note: If you've come here to complain about the sysops, or to tell me that I'm a tyrant, you'll likely find your purposes better served by a note to the wikien-l mailing list.

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.  :-)

About Japanese Wikipedia

Hello, I'm a Japanese Wikipedian K.M. In Japanese Wikipedia, many articles about Christianity are biased to major Christian Groups. When I tried to edit these, Japanese administrators protected these, and these keep major Christian groups' view. Particularly, ja:キリスト教の新宗教(mean: New religions of Christianity) and ja:新宗教(mean: New religions) insult minor Christian Groups. But I'm not a administrator, I can't edit. So, please erase these at all. K.M. 15:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not really qualified to comment on the content of Japanese articles, but of course I hope that the articles are not biased for or against anything. Can you translate for me just the bits that you find insulting in some fashion? And can you ask Japanese Wikipedians who can speak English to write to me here with opinions pro and con? There are several Japanese Wikipedians who I trust. Jimbo Wales 03:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi K.M. and Jimbo. I think both of you are content on my information. Tomos has already researched this issue in details, and some Wikipedians treat this matter and they are waiting K.M.'s reply in each points. I assume s/he is now only upset because of personally focusing on him/herself and expect things will go well, after s/he realize there is no threat in Japanese Wikipedia as if s/he is afraid. KIZU 04:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this research is biased, because Tomos and KIZU are Catholic users. So, please reseach again by another users. K.M. 05:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

K.M., can you give me an example? Jimbo Wales 12:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Besides his testemony, and I don't know Tomos personally, but I claim here strongly I confess the Nicene Creed without filioque clause and I haven't been yet baptized, I am therefore never a Roman Cathoric faithful neither de facto nor de juri. KIZU 17:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I permit his/her untrue statement on my confession willingly even more seventy seven times, I however add I've written the above already twice in notepages of ja.wiki. (*sigh*) KIZU 17:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kizu, I don't think that your own personal faith is an issue here. What I'm asking for is an example (translated to English) of what Kizu is complaining about. That is to say, is it really true that articles are being written in a biased manner? Each person's own personal faith need have nothing to do with that question. Jimbo Wales 20:47, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Me too. I just pointed out K.M. has ignored the facts different from his own view. In his/her world all weird guys are cathoric, I assume. Whether my articles are biased or not, I hope they are in NPOV. but I dare not say it is. Things are now solved on a BBS for administrative issues. I trust contributors and administrators of Japanese version, and believe we will be able to solve this issues. I think it were better for all of us that K.M. wrote to the BBS and explained why he violated Japanese Copyright Law and reverted both others' contribution and comment on notepages. But I have learned from experience K.M. won't be pursuaded nor cooled down. So I will say nothing on this issues further. Hoping at the next time we treat much more fertile issues, like a project WikiReader in German version. KIZU 22:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

KIZU, you also violated Japanese Copyright Law and reverted my contribution. Don't only say about mine. K.M. 12:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the beginning, ja:キリスト教系の新宗教(mean: New religions of Christianity-system) says this:

Christianity which started as reform in Judaism has constantly renewed their own prescription by conflict between orthodoxy and heretic. In Christianity as traditional religion, religion groups confessed Nicene Creed are called Christianity, and the groups which identify Christianity but depart from orthodoxy are called heritic, the groups out of Christianity are called pagan. Compared to this, in the science of religion, some scholars commonly admitted that Christianity in a broad sence, or the religions considered that Bible is the scripture and accepted Christ the only saviour, are Christianity. Some people sometimes say that religious communities which has the scriptures on upper position than Bible are called "Christianity-system" and "Christianity-derivation".

Particularly, this explanation is biased to major Christian Groups: In Christianity as traditional religion, religion groups confessed Nicene Creed are called Christianity, and the groups which identify Christianity but depart from orthodoxy are called heritic I think that Nicene Creed was created by Catholic Church at their discretion, and this is not based on Biblical Christianity. So, what do you think about this? K.M. 15:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Jimbo. I've nominated User:Danny for the mediation committee - please let us know if you object: Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 11:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo

Jimbo, I talked to Michael, he told me he would stop vandalizing wiki if he were given some sort of chance, now i'm not to sure personally weather he could be change, but than again I used to be a vandal to but than again I genuinely reformed. I'll keep you posted on my negotiations, thank you Comrade Nick

Michael, and you, are welcome to email me to discuss these and related matters. Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for intervention

User:Eloquence threatened to come to my house and "straighten me out". I am afraid for my safety and would like your intervention. He also called me "everyone's favorite crybaby" and banned me from the IRC channel. Thank you in advance, Perl 00:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The line on IRC in question was "We should have wikicops in every major world region which we can send to people's houses to straighten them out", and obviously a joke. (Alexander AKA Perl has been trolling on Meta and other places recently.)-Eloquence* 00:44, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I would imagine that Perl is going to get himself banned soon. Jimbo Wales 01:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would be hard to take this comment for something other than a clear, if implied threat of bodily harm. It should be taken as seriously as any other threats that have been posted on Wikipedia, and should cause immediate banning of the user under all variations. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 09:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have created a page for this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eloquence. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 17:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's very hard to take someone seriously with a name like JRR Trollkien. Additionally, on the face of it, it is abundantly clear that Erik's throwaway line was just a joke. Please don't waste people's time with frivolous complaints like this, it's just embarassing to watch. Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what the actual law is like but AFAIK a threat is considered to be a threat if a reasonable person feels that they are in danger. Perl clearly felt that way. Eloquence also has blanked two attempts at discussion from his own User talk page -- JRR Trollkien (see warning) 16:11, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia's State Of Affairs

Jimmy, your website is a veritable madhouse! There are civil wars between cliques and mavericks. There are cloning sites that take the info un-updated. Google extends great coverage of all the craziness. Lord Kenneð 17:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's delightful, isn't it.  :-) Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, people are gossipping at other sites! While that's really sad, it is still funny to see people get so overworked about it. Perhaps most people care about Pedia for their own sakes, regardless if they declare faith in the project's other contributors and visitors or not. A great reminder is to take things with a grain of salt! Although the site's programming is high tech compared to some other app.s, perhaps a disclaimer should be placed that implies: 'Everything here is not fully objective truth, but subject to interpretation. Wikipedia is not the only source of ideas, therefore, please feel free to contribute!' or something along those lines... Lord Kenneð 11:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Revert discussion

Once again you haven't replied in five days. That's not a problem per se, but you can't expect me to maintain the reversion ceasefire if you draw out the discussion indefinitely like that. Therefore, from now on, whenever you suspend the discussion for more than 24 hours, I will likewise suspend the ceasefire. --Wik 21:02, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Relax, I was on vacation. Additionally, notice that the website hasn't gone to rack and ruin just because you layed off on reverts. This is probably something that ought to influence your decision as to when reverting is appropriate, eh? Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course the entire website wasn't going to rack and ruin, but the POV'd articles were piling up. --Wik 16:31, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place? Is it private or public? I'd like to read it, if it's available for the public to read. anthony (see warning) 22:31, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Message from Gem

Sorry to annoy, but could you please look at what is going on on fr: ? Or have some french reading people, not usually working on fr:, do that ?

I think a lot of them are are doing real mad things, despite some efforts of a few reasonnable admins and others. Now, they want to exclude someone simply because he disagrees with too much people (not a vandal so far, but that may change : actually they already succeeded in turning someone into a vandal by harrassment). They have vast majority, and that is not enough for them : they impose retroactivity, change rule just before the vote, and contest the right to vote to newbies (even though that change nothing at all for the result). I and a few others tried to convince them to stop that, to no avail : they do not even care to answers to important argument. I think and wrote that they should not, and in the middle of this important vote one of them who has this power blocked me without warning, discussion nor anything because "to accuse people to have a stalinian behaviour in not tolerable"(translated from french); which prove my point, IMHO : at the first mention, they do not protest or answer, they simply ban the very possibility to express that by blocking access.

We really need some reason and help. Here are a few references (all in french, of course) of the trouble It already has gone to far and turns to pure madness, so I reacted quite abruptly but politely, telling facts as I saw them, which is by it self already vandalism worth exclusion according to those people. According to med, to contest the right of vote is intimidation and in the middle of the action I got excluded, so I saw no other solution but to call on you.

Gem fr 13:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) (simply gem on fr:)

P.S. you won't be surprised to learn that my contributions to this special subject, are being largely edited, suppressed, and even inverted (with the affect of changing the meaning of what I wrote to the very opposite). Of course the page of protestation has just has being proposed for deletion (so you should act quickly if you want to understand anything) ; I would be happy to have it deleted, but because the trouble is solved, not because the trouble must not be seen. Gem fr 14:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

anthere: I am not neutral really (since I am listed in the stalinists), but I would like to make a couple of comments which I hope will be seen as neutral.

I think a lot of them are are doing real mad things, despite some efforts of a few reasonnable admins and others. Now, they want to exclude someone simply because he disagrees with too much people (not a vandal so far, but that may change : actually they already succeeded in turning someone into a vandal by harrassment).

the reference for the one who turned vandal by harassement is a reference to w:fr:Utilisateur:papotages, banned last fall.

the one we are "trying to exclude" is w:fr:Utilisateur:Stuart Little. There is a vote going on Jimbo, you know this. Should be over in a couple of days; Currently, it appears the decision most likely to be retained is one asking Stuart to voluntarily limit his edition, for one month

• no edition of any meta pages
• in the user space, edition of his page and his talk page only
• in the article space, edition on article on discussion page is allowed, but no creation and edition of discussion sub pages and no creation of secondary version of an article.

Currently 18 votes approved this choice while 3 opposed.

all true ; Anthere did not tell all the truth, but here certainly was as neutral (s)he could gem

They have vast majority, and that is not enough for them : they impose retroactivity, change rule just before the vote, and contest the right to vote to newbies (even though that change nothing at all for the result).

We oppose validity of vote by two users, who registered after the vote began, and who really look like sock puppets.

they do not look like sock puppets ; they only are newbies as registred users, which is quite different (a real sock puppet can be quite old), and vote against the majority on some points (this seems the only real cause of distrust by anthere and others), but once again without changing anything (so what would be the purpose of sock puppetting ?). I already pointed out that according to med "to contest the right to vote is intimidation". Gem fr 10:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I and a few others tried to convince them to stop that, to no avail : they do not even care to answers to important argument. I think and wrote that they should not, and in the middle of this important vote one of them who has this power blocked me without warning, discussion nor anything because "to accuse people to have a stalinian behaviour in not tolerable"(translated from french); which prove my point, IMHO at the first mention, they do not protest or answer, they simply ban the very possibility to express that by blocking access.

Med blocked Gem for one hour, for having insulted 18 people, in claiming they were having a stalinist behavior and doing a stalinist putsch (or a coup), and for setting up a sanction page against these people. These 18 people are those supporting the sanction most likely to be decided upon, against Stuart.

SweetLittleFluffyThing 23:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry if it is insult for them ; it was not devised as such, I appology. I only wanted to protest against a bad behaviour and ask for appropriate measure that I wouldn't call sanctions (such as blocking, exclusion, restriction to writing etc.): I only promote that they'll be asked to refrain from voting when it comes to decide about people (both sanctions and responsability), a thing that IMHO should be done by everyone on fr:, where disagrement about things (articles) too easily turn into personal fight. My list of people is not exactly the list of supporters to sanction against Stuart Little, and moreover I couldn't make it more accurate because of Med blocking. Gem fr 10:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some sysops strongly disagreed the fact to block someone for a short time for an insult beyond the Godwin point. If you want to remove my sysop status, you can do. I am also blocked for 24 hours on the french wiki. Med

Relax Med. The problem is not so much what you did yesterday (because Gem was bordering vandalism anyway, so no one will criticize the blocking, except Stuart perhaps), but the fact you decided alone that from now on you would block any user using faschist, stalinist or nazi insults, first offense and no warning. That is not good, because not everyone (far from that) agree with this, and that could lead to degradation of sysop image (unilateral use of power, censorship, interpretation of what insult is...). Now, I understand that you are really upset by the current situation, so do I, but please, think it over, and let's find a solution together, okay ? I suggest we do not hurry...:-)

Incidently, who blocked you ? Is it self punishment ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:02, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is self-blocking. I'll see if i come to IRC this evening. All this really makes me sick. Med

Growing pains, it will be a difficult time for you all. All I can really advise is caution, care, wisdom, and most of all love. Sometimes people do have to be asked to depart the community, and from what I have seen, this is the best option in the Stuart Little case. I support the idea of a vote on the matter, and I also support the establishment of formal procedures within the French community to make such decisions more easily in the future. Jimbo Wales 12:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think a vote about Stuart Little is mostly useless now. I have read a message a few hours ago in which he meant more or less clearly that he leaves. About the vote procedure, from now it is far from being perfect. The main problem is that some contributors (mostly the one who agreed with Stuart Little) want to have all rules written. In my humble opinion it not a good direction to explore. If everyone had some good will, it wouldn't be a problem. But i fear some people will « exploit the law » to turn everything to their advantage, because the law wouldn't be complete/precise enough. I hope i am completely wrong. I don't know how they deal with such problems on other wikis. But the last few months were clearly the worst. Even with Papotages, it was much easier :-) Med

I didn't want to involve you on a single person question (if Stuart Little must or not be "asked" to refrain or even to leave). I (and others) pulled the alarm on fr: (according to the rules we have) because it is simply impossible to speak of a valid vote when the rule for voting are changed during the vote, that pressure is exerced upon voters (by explicitly threathning "bad" voters of exclusion), etc., and I called upon you because I was blocked, meaning it was impossible to disagree without being ipso facto accused of vandalism and threatened of exclusion (I expected a backlashed, but not so strong, and I feel sorry for these people). We is difficult time on fr: already, not only for the future. I simply hope that your intervention has been heard, and now I'll discuss things with anthere, med, et alii on fr: since I'm no longer blocked. gem_fr