User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Click here to leave a new message.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I (and a few others) need your help and advice. Is there any way to contact you via E-Mail? Please write your answer here. Thank you. 82.83.152.225 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To email him, you have to set up an account with an email address. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not possible. My IP has been accused many times of being the IP of a sockuser or the banned user. So I do not want to make the impression that I am a sockpuppet user. I am writing to you because of User:Tajik who was banned because of wrong accusations (as has been now confirmed in a new checkuser file). Since then, he has retreated from (the English) Wikipedia and usually does not react to emails. His ban was endorsed by an ArbCom whithout giving him the chance to defend himself. He was prevented from participating in the ArbCom because of the wrong accusation (i.e. that he uses sockpuppets). In that process, he was banned from Wikipedia. Now, many months after the ArbCom, a new checkuser file has confirmed that the accusations against him were wrong. Many users have protested back then, but the responsible admins (some of them notorious for their unorthodox methods) still refuse to admit their mistakes and to unblock him, or to start a new ArbCom. Since then, countless other users have been banned, alledgedly all of them sockpuppets of User:Tajik. These include User:German-Orientalist, an Iranologist from Dortmund, Germany, and User:DerDoc, an Austrian physical doctor from Vienna. Countless others have been accused by User:Atabek (a very controversial Wikipedian), including User:Ariana310, User:Beh-nam, and User:Mardavich - but checkuser proved that these users are unrelated. A neutral admin needs to investigate the case, because I and a few others have the impression that some people just wanted to muzzle Tajik. In case of the very first accusation which got Tajik banned, the admin who banned him did not have any checkuser proofs. He simply banned him because of the similarity of their names (!!!). The alledged sockpuppet was User:Tajik-Professor, a well known sockpuppet of a another user, namely User:NisarKand (a banned user who propagated pro-Taliban POV), and a declared enemy of Tajik (in fact, he had vandalized Tajik's user page, calling him a "rat"). An admin (I do not know his name) had told Tajik to contact Jimbo Wales. As far as I know, Tajik wrote an email to him. But he did not receive any reply. So, now I am writing him, asking for help. The Turkey-, Iran-, Caucasus-, and Afghanistan-related articles are a mess and subject to constant conflicts and edit wars. Tajik was one of the very few who took care of these article, contributed to at least 3 FA articles, and 4 or 5 "good articles". He earned the respect of academics, such as User:Ali_doostzadeh and Oxford academic User:Sikandarji (with whom he completed the article Babur, now a GA). I worked with him on Afghanistan-related articles, including Afghanistan and Gardez. Since he got banned, all Afghanistan-related articles have become messy again, filled with POV. It's interesting that all sockpuppet accusations began after Tajik was banned. Not even the responsible admins claim that he had any sockpuppets before. Even if the accusations were true: the abuse of sockpuppets certainly started after Tajik was banned because of a wrong accusation. Your and Jimbo's help is needed. See also Tajik's last message on his talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.152.225 (talk • contribs)

I've always wondered what the odds were of two different people, each innocent of sockpuppetry accusations, would meet. Abusive sock accusations, especially the kind where ArbCom becomes involved, are so infrequent when measured against the size of the project and the number of editors, that the probability must be fantastic. That such an event has occurred above is truly indicative of what a small world we live in. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ... this is User:Tajik. A fried told me to write here ... A while ago, I was banned by User:Thatcher131. Now CheckUser has confirmed that the accusations against me were wrong. ... I need your help, Jimbo. Admin User:Alex Bakharev told me to ask you for help. -80.171.47.194 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally!!! Why didn't you asnwer my emails?!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.154.218 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the case of User:Tajik and I will not comment. However, I am aware of a case where a person personally know to me Anwari Begum was banned permanently probably because her name was similar to another user, Anwar saadat, and her first edit was to Ajith Kumar, a page with which Mr. Anwar saadat was also involved. From that day of November, 2006, I became a little skeptical of the process of banning users on guesstimate without proper and complete investigation. In fact, myself and Anwar saadat Anwari Begum (her screen name), were logging on to Wikipedia from the same Internet Public Outlet in Chennai at that time as my home internet connection was down for weeks for technical reasons. --Bhadani (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. What do you suggest in this case? Obviously, the admins are not interested in investigating this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.128.221 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also very concerned about this case. I had probably the worst interactions on Wikipedia with user Tajik, of anybody who did not provoke him. I don't think he's an accurate editor, and I don't think he understands how to use academic sources, and he certainly has no comprehension of how to discuss them to reach a usable conclusion with other editors. I can make no excuses for his behaviour, which I think may eventually have led to a community ban.

I accused him of stalking me and chasing me away from articles on Afghanistan, and I stand by these accusations against him. I believe his edits show a strong and historically inaccurate bias that makes Wikipedia's Afghanistan articles look like greater Iranica. I mentioned this on the mailing list. The one person who bothered to check the accuracy of what I said about the serious problems with Wikipedia's Afghanistan articles, readily confirmed that our Afghanistan articles are inappropriately and inaccurately written from a Persian perspective. I stand by this. And Tajik and a couple of Iranian editors are responsible for this.

Tajik will accuse me of having a Pashtun bias for all things Afghan, and a bias for Pasthun editors. I was raised by Pasthuns and cannot deny this. But I know and love plenty of Tajiks, also.

None of this changes for me the utter improbability of Tajik being the sock puppets he was accused of being. He didn't sock puppet. He didn't make the sock puppet edits he's accused of and was banned for.

If Wikipedia falsely bans users they create the type of bad blood that cannot be overcome. I don't know if the administrators involved in this case simply made a mistake and truly believed that Tajik was sock puppeting, or if something else was going on. However, Tajik has not used the sock puppets he is accused of being, and for which he was banned.

People don't readily get over being falsely accused, tried, and convicted of things they did not do. And rightly so. If Tajik was banned solely for sock puppetry, as is the case, it is not correct, because he was not and is not guilty of the crime.

I won't be Tajik's friend if you allow him to return. I don't know if Tajik can edit responsibly. I do know, however, that people should not be banned from Wikipedia for that which they did not do.

KP Botany 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am second to KP Botany's request. Tajik used to be a very stubborn user, often to the point of disruption, but he is a very knowledgeable and devoted Wikipedian, so I believe the total balance is positive. There was a lot of valid criticism of his actions on the arbcom, but the last straw, the assertion that he is the master of User:Tajik-Professor is almost certainly an error. The edit pattern is quite different and besides Tajik is not that stupid to choose such an obvious pseudonym. Quite possible that one of his enemies intentionally framed him. In short if I were the God-King of Wikipedia I would have given Tajik a second chance. Alex Bakharev 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alex, since you would give a second chance in this case, what do you think about a similar case of User:AdilBaguirov, whose ban was reset due to your recent block of User:Londium as supposedly a sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov - [1], a claim which was nevertheless disproven by RfCU - [2]. Atabek 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is really strange, that by now, User:Tajik-Professor has been unblocked, but User:Tajik is stilll banned! Although Tajik-Professor was by far more disruptive than any other of the editors mentioned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.158.37 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support unbanning Tajik and Tajik Professor. Tajik is a very knowledgable person. He has created and contributed to many Wikipedia featured articles. Also like Alexander Bakharev has said, he is more than smart enough not to use the name Tajik-Professor. I will be glad to do act as a mentor/coach and enhance the positive contributions of Tajik. He is capable of many positive contributions in Wikipedia as demonstrated by many of his academic style editing. --alidoostzadeh 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder why a user banned by the Arbitration Committee [3] can continue freely editing Wikipedia? Isn't this a fundamental violation, which can lead to a chaos? What force will ArbCom decisions have, if the banned user is freely editing any page he/she likes under IP address or sock account, and even brings charges against administrators or other users? I would like to emphasize here again that despite User:Tajik's brunt of accusations, assumptions of bad faith, and attacks against myself:

• a) I never participated in his blocking case or ArbCom decision,
• b) I did not and do not oppose or support the technical rationale behind his blocking/unblocking

I only oppose a banned user from editing one and the same Safavid dynasty article over and over (most recent just 2 days ago again [4]), being warned and banned with sock IP addresses, some of which continue editing this page. If it's the same IP range, reverting the same page or attempting to add the same content for months now, and being banned every time, does it really matter if the username is German-Orientalist, Tajik, Tajik-Professor, etc.? This is a blatant violation, regardless of the content of edits. In the rest, it's up to Wikipedia community and administrators as to how to enforce the rules that I believe are made to streamline and not disrupt the editing process. I do agree with Ali Doostzadeh that Tajik is capable of positive contributions, I told this before. Although I would support Ali Doostzadeh in coaching Tajik, when and if ArbCom decision is reverted, Ali's prior attempts to do so have failed at Safavid dynasty. Thanks. Atabek 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Safavid article has failed because of many users. Even now that Tajik is not around, the article still has a dispute tag and two other tags. But I do not think anyone has offerd to do mentorship/coaching on Tajik. I never offered to do coaching in that article as I do not think the process applies to a single article. The article had its dispute tags, locks and problems before I joined Wikipedia. It still has its problem after Tajik has been banned from editing it. Also Tajik was not involved in the Armenia/Azerbaijan arbcomm which is a much more serious issue. --alidoostzadeh 16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ali, the archives of Talk:Safavid dynasty clearly show that the consensus achieved on the page in spring of this year was spoiled due to disagreement by User:Tajik, after which the tags went back in, despite my and your efforts to keep it balanced. After his ban, User:Tajik continued in his attempts to edit the article. Actually, although I was the one who proposed at Talk:Safavid dynasty to keep the tags in the article until it's balanced, the one reinserting [5] the tags was anonymous IP [6], yet again from the same IP range as User:Tajik. Again as I said, I don't have an opinion on blocking or unblocking of User:Tajik, I only opposed a banned user editing Wikipedia using IP or user socks. This is an excessive disruption. Thanks. Atabek 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Atabek, the problem was that the consensus was made during the absence of Tajik. He was away for a two month wiki-break. It was not a good decision on my part and the part of others users not to involve him on the final consensus. Thus Tajik did not really have much of an input on the consensus and neither did another users. For now I think the problem of Safavid article is persisting (despite the absence of Tajik) and it is better to discuss the conext of those edits there. I can gaurantee that many users (not only Tajik) abused the talkpage on the Safavid article and the Archives are there. I do not think Tajik spoiled a consensus since he should have been involved in drafting the consensus. I made a mistake in not consulting him during his wiki-break which exacberated the problem. Thanks.--alidoostzadeh 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ali, certainly Tajik was welcome to discuss his edits, and despite his editing via identified IP socks, I offered him (or his other username User:German-Orientalist) to share his comments on the talk page - [7]. back in June 2007. But instead he chose to edit the article directly again. It's clear by now that all IPs appearing in this thread above as well as those from the same IP range, editing Safavid dynasty are one and the same user. For doubts you may want to check [8] and [9]. Again, this has nothing to do with the quality of contributions by Tajik, which I actually found sometimes a bit more constructive comparing to few other users' on Safavid dynasty. This has strictly to do with violating Wikipedia editing policies by a banned user, and, although I am positive of the idea, I have doubts you will be able to coach or control him in this matter based on prior experience. Thanks. Atabek 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Atabek: not User:Tajik edited the Safavid page, but I did. You can see Tajik's IP on top of this page (80.171.47.194). And in fact, it is you who is constantly assuming bad faith against others. This is not only my observation, but also that of other users. You are in constant edit wars and ideological and ethnic conflicts with Iranian, Afghan, and Armenian users. And you accuse everyone of being or using sockpuppets. Almost all of the sock puppet accusations against Tajik can be traced back to you. You even managed to get User:DerDoc banned, although it is evidenced that he uses an IP from Vienna in Austria. And you claim, that you have not participated in Tajik's ban process is not correct either. Your very recent comment on this page is the best proof for this. You are one of those who are seen as Tajik's enemies, and it is no secret that other enemies of Tajik - most notably the vandal User:Rabeenaz who is a sock puppet of User:NisarKand - ask you for advice on how to chase and bully Tajik. In fact, Rabeenaz has accused many other Wikipedians of being sock puppets of Tajik (just as you did), and he tagged different user pages without any permission after asking you for help on your talk-page. You have no proofs for the claims that Tajik used any sock puppets, and your favorite accusation against him has been proven wrong (in the process, the alleged sock puppet Tajik-Professor has been unbanned). Tajik's alleged sock puppetry was the main accusation against him which got him banned, and that ban prevented him from defending himself in the arbcom. In other words: he was muzzled. That also means that the whole arbcom was meaningless. An arbcom that bans a user without any justification and muzzles him has no credibility. Neither do all the others who use that fake arbcom as an excuse to legitimize their own unfair behavior against Tajik. You, Atabek, have been the subject to 2 different arbcom, and you really deserve a medal, because both times you managed to escape a ban. And as one can see in your discussion log (and in the discussions of your enemies), it is clear that an other arbcom is also coming. This time, your disruptive general "bad faith" attitude and your bully-attacks against Tajik should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.158.37 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tajik, this is the link [10] to ArbCom case, by decision of which you were banned. I don't see my name appearing anywhere in that page. And also why would anonymous IP from the same range as User:Tajik continuously edit the same article in line with User:Tajik, attack me like above, accuse me baselessly of hating Afghans or User:Tajik, and ardently support User:Tajik unless that anonymous IP is the identity of User:Tajik? I haven't had anything against any Afghan user, unlike you accuse me above. Regarding your other accusations of myself, ArbCom decides as to how to restrict users based on their violations of specific policies, it does not matter if they went through 1 or 101 ArbComs. I have no idea who User:Rabeenaz is, not even interested in his/her edits.

By now, I believe WP:AGF is the fundamental editing etiquette in Wikipedia. Based on those, your attempts to have your ban lifted should not involve assumptions of bad faith, attacks against other users, or multiple sockpuppetry violations. It could be as simple as showing that you would be a constructive Wikipedia contributor in good faith. I don't see how that's demonstrated by your posting above.

Besides User:Tajik, as I indicated above there is also User:AdilBaguirov, against whom 6 requests were filed [[11]] and only one turned out to be likely. And we don't see any user or even an administrator supporting his ban to be lifted. But the rules should apply to everyone equivalently sharply.

I believe those were my two cents for now. I will address further notes on this topic as necessary. Thanks. Atabek 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, thanks for proving my point that you always assume bad faith. I was already active in Wikipedia before Tajik came here, and I know him through many other Internet sites. Actually, anyone who is involved in Afghanistan's politics knows Tajik, be it in afghan-web.com or PalTalk - everyone knows him. And honestly, I do not care if you think that I am Tajik. I cannot prove otherwise. And it is irrelevant anyway. What matters is that Tajik was banned because of a fals accusation, and that his enemies do whatever they can to keep him banned. You are one of them, and you constant bad faith attitude towards everyone who seems to have the same position as Tajik proves this. By now, you have accused at least 10 other Wikipedians of being sock puppets of Tajik, including User:Mardavich, User:Beh-nam, User:Ariana310, User:Pejman47, and many others. And you were proved wrong, in all cases. This is surely assumption of bad faith. Not against one particular user, but against many. You were lucky that you were not banned, Atabek. Instead, you are on a revert parole. That's because you had the chance to defend yourself. Tajik, on the other hand, was muzzled. That means that admins actively prevented him from taking part in the arbcom, and they banned him without giving him the chance to say a word. And that you support this trial shows your general bad faith attitude against Tajik. The fact that you writing in this page (I have no idea how you got to this page) and that you are writing against Tajik shows your bad faith assumption, and proves that ouy have a grudge against Tajik. User:AdilBaguirov was party to an arbcom, he did have the chance to defend himself, and he was banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year. So no matter what happens, he will be back after 1 year. This is not the case with Tajik. He was muzzled, tried, and banned - and some people, such as yourself, are still into that witch-hunting, still bullying him, and still assuming bad faith. This whole case proves that the Middle Eastern articles are a mess, and that there is a serious political and ideological problem. And as you have said above, rules should apply to everyone equivalently sharply: you, Atabek, are known as a suck puppet user, you are known as a disruptive user, many Wikipedians are convinced that you are propagating Pan-Turkist and Turkish-nationalist bias, many are convinced that you have a grudge against Iranians, Afghans, and (especially) Armenians (to the degree that you openly deny and reject the Armenian Genocide; that means that you are officially a criminal according to the national law of France); you are known as a disruptive Wikipedian who plots against other and who always assumes bad faith (you have accused dozens of Iranian, Afghan, and Armenian Wikipedians of being sock puppets, and in all cases you were proven wrong); you take sides with anti-Armenian and anti-Iranian users; you have threatened and insulted other Wikipedians (see the detailed list by User:Hajji Piruz). So, all in one, you are probably more disruptive than Tajik or even AdilBaguirov. Why should these two be banned, while you are still here?! Rules should apply to everyone equivalently sharply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.157.34 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tajik, this place is not for discussion of content of articles or assuming my stance on particular subject. And I don't see how a French law targetting an individual for his opinion on historical events is supposed to be applicable or relevant in Wikipedia. Please, refrain from further attacks and WP:SOAP. This discussion is about a contributor (a.k.a. User:Tajik - yourself) publicly appealing to be unblocked through anonymous sock accounts. This is not about content of the articles or individual user positions on various content subjects. And I think you should stop blatantly violating Wikipedia rules by continuing to post and incite others using sock accounts [12]. Atabek 16:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this thread is getting out of hand and personal and I do not think some comments are helpful. I simply think instead of this back and forth, we should concentrate on the matter which is user Tajik. Other users case should be in a different section. Overall I believe user Tajik has contributed positively to many Wikipedia articles and thus he should at least be given a chance to defend himself in the Arbcomm. Some of the issues in Wikipedia are emotional and political, but I believe the current Armenia-Azerbaijan II Arbcomm requirements should apply to user Tajik (1 r.v. per week and requirement for high civility). The Armenia-Azerbaijan II Arbcomm outcome was excellent and it imposes civility on various articles where civility was lacking and emotional outburst present. Other than that, I can also do what is in my disposal to make sure he complies with all Wiki-guidelines. --alidoostzadeh 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ali, reading the banned user's response above, I don't see how the lifting of ban will address serious issues with WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. Users in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom are restricted and banned for violating these policies in first place, and the banned user above already violates all of them while being banned and appealing for unblock. As I said, if the ban lifting decision is taken, it should apply to all users with equal and lesser violation records. And I mean all users regardless of their ethnic background or stance. Thanks. Atabek 16:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, you still continue to assume bad faith, violating the most recent policy of Azerbaijan-Armenia II. Even if Tajik has violated WP:SOCK, it was certainly after he was banned because of a wrong accusation. I fully understand that muzzling Tajik is in your interest. I fully understand that you support the decision of the admins to foist a wrong accusation on Tajik, then ban him, and then keep him silent. But this is not about what you like. This is about justice. You can continue accusing me. You are known for your bad faith assumption. In fact, you just jumped into this discussion in oder to further propagate bad faith assumtions and to bully a user who is not able to defend himself. But here are respected Wikipedians who are asking for an unblock of Tajik. Your opinion, Atabek, has no value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.146 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to leave you a note to let you know that the article you created, Mzoli's, was speedily deleted because it didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. WODUP 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been WP:PRODed following the undeletion. Carcharoth 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod template removed. AfD can't be far away... Carcharoth 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I added some categories. Can you find some reliable economic sources about the funding? Carcharoth 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mzoli's Meats, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Mzoli's Meats satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Mzoli's Meats during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! You templated Jimbo! :-) Carcharoth 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:No no no, this can not be done! :) Navou ^banter 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[13][reply]

I wouldn't be suprised to see this on your userpage... (: Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<joke>The Jimbo deserves better. WP:NOTABLE?</joke>--PrestonH 02:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I realise you're frustrated by the AfD of Mzoli's Meats, as I am too, but will you please reconsider the last sentence of this? You seem to have offended quite a lot of people, and despite the fact that I agree with what you said (up to the last bit), that last sentence seems more problematic than anything, even though I'm sure it wasn't your intention. Please do consider what I've said. :-) --Deskana (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jimbo's comments there, as I've expressed on that page. If users are so quick to assume bad faith (especially when it comes to an established, trusted editor who obviously knows policy and procedure), they should reconsider their comments or leave the project entirely. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's a problem how good, established users are treated, when it comes to speedy deletions. Actually, I wonder what circumstances it would be appropriate to speedy delete something created by an established user (except for author-requested deletions). Once people have been around a while and demonstrate they know policy, they should be given a lot more good faith and time to develop articles. --Aude (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I don't know the details of this trip to South Africa, but know you have been going there on a number of occasions. Want to say thanks for your outreach efforts, in spending time in South Africa. I'm sure what you do is very helpful to them. --Aude (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article hhas now been deleted [14] in an out of process way with an extraordinary edit summary. i was jsut about to add a source and don't appreciate this kind of disruption to good faith editors. Good on you for creating it, it sets a good example and hope it will bve restored soon, SqueakBox 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been restored, no harm done, SqueakBox 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: Why did you even make these comments?

You can dispute the article on the merits of the notability (though not successfully, I think), but the assumptions of bad faith in this argument are just shocking. Some people should excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby.

Because Jaranda left.

May I ask why you made those comments? Because he was pretty offended by them, I and I was offended too. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well arguments like "Once again, people are trying to give Jimbo some god-like status and put him above the rules" from demon are pretty offensive too and the kind of thing that is offensive to Jimbo (I imagine) and others, let alone the anon comment "There appears to be no lower limit to groveling before the throne of the God-King. Wales is the owner of a for-profit wiki business so I think he knows exactly how to advertise in wiki format. What next? Burger bars, hotdog stands? The article is advertising pure and simple." Jimbo as an editor should be left out of the arguments and one can understand him feeling narked. We should stick to notability arguments, and BTW I dont understand why Jaranda took the arguments as personal, soem of his comments were IMO wrong but he doesnt seemt o have been the target of Jimbo's ire based on what I can see of what he and others said, SqueakBox 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discounting what are obvious breaches of AGF and civility on the part of some in that AFD, but the way to deal with civility is to be more civil, not less. Now, me saying such a thing is (to be perfectly honest) the pot calling the kettle black, but two wrongs don't make a right. VanTucky ^Talk 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is a case of pot kettle black. Jimbo was saying he felt the behaviour on the page, specifically the failure to AGF was shocking. He didn't comment on a lack of civility. And I fail to see how you can claim Jimbo wasn't AGF. While the leave the project comment was probably unnecessary, I think it was a fair way for Jimbo to illustrate how poorly he felt the behaviour was without being rude. Telling someone that given their behaviour is so bad that they need to consider whether they are best suited for participation in the project is harsh but not necessarily incivil or biting Nil Einne 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pot/kettle analogy was in reference to my own lack of perfection when it comes to general civility. I did not say or imply that Jimbo was not assuming good faith. I meant that his "his leave the project" comment was reacting to an assumption of bad faith and incivility with equal (if not worse) incivility. Anytime a user spitefully suggests that someone is generally unfit to participate, it is a breach of WP:NPA. There is an enormous difference between saying that certain actions are not acceptable and that a particular individual and their character is categorically unsuitable. The suggestion is doubly hurtful coming from such a highly respected person such as Jimbo. Someone with that amount of influence needs to be more considerate of the weight his comments carry. VanTucky ^Talk 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is uncivil to suggest that some people really should not be editing an encyclopedia. We depend on social goodwill, congeniality, and mutual trust. I have no problem with the speedy delete, the AfD discussion, etc. I did have a problem with the absurd accusation that I was somehow "advertising" something. (What, do people suppose I own restaurants in Guguletu, for goodness sake?) I do have a problem with me simply trying in my own small way to improve wikipedia by writing about something in good faith and then having admins accuse other people of Jimbo-worship at the drop of a hat. And I really really have a problem with an admin who would take so much offense at a remark not even remotely aimed at him that he would WP:POINT delete the article in the hopes of being desysopped. People that immature really actually should not be sysops in Wikipedia, period, full stop. It's ridiculous. There was no need for any of this drama. The AGF thing to do when an experienced editor makes a stub that you don't like is not to speedy it or nominate it for deletion, but to talk to the person about it, or (horrors) even try to pitch in and make the article better. And if it doesn't improve after a few days, then there is plenty of time for deletion then.--Jimbo Wales 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bottom line is: your assessment of the situation is true, but being right doesn't negate the cruelty of your statement. Users have done some foolhardy things, but I still empathize with their pain at being ejected from the project. Anyway, enough useless rehashing. I think I might try actually contributing some content ;) VanTucky ^Talk 19:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being ejected from the project would be very painful but Jimbo didnt indefinitely block anybopdy he merely made a suggestion, SqueakBox 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I forgot Jimbo's pronouncements have so little influence. I know Jaranda was not blocked, but Jimbo's comment was the impetus for their disappearance. VanTucky ^Talk 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a big burden to put on Jimbo that he has to be more super-perfect than the rest of us, I know leadership is a lonely place but all the same. What baffles me, though, is why Jaranda could possibly have thought the comments were directed at him as that isn't how it looked, he was criticising one admin (not Jaranda) and a couple of anons from what I could see and for obviously incendiary statements. Jaranda was making reasonable arguments and Jimbo's criticism wasnt aimed at reasonable comments, SqueakBox 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of like how you didn't allow the article about Arch Coal to improve, before you deleted it in a fit, anyway? --The Iraq 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales, for an example, what if I told you "you should not be an admin of an encyclopedia." That's how Jaranda must have felt. I, and I'm sure Jaranda LOVE wikipedia, and to be told he should not be editing it must have been a real kick in the head for him. I realize it was a misunderstanding, but it cost an admin (whom I liked.) Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I send Jaranda a message. (S)he will be sorely missed my me and the other Wikipedians here.--PrestonH 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the king of hugs and kisses? Trying to hold a project together... you will rescind if you know what's good. MessedRocker (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to relate the comments to any particular editor or group of editors, but in the AfD, I too was troubled by the tone of that particular comment and expressed the hope that upon consideration Jimbo would withdraw it. This in spite of the fact that my view was that the AfD should have a Keep result and, had I not been moved to comment in the discussion, had been considering closing it as Keep myself. Newyorkbrad 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exactly my feelings. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo drove User:Zoe away with inappropriate comments, and now he seems to have driven Jaranda away. Jimbo, you really need to think about your comments before you make them, and then, if you see that people take them in a manner which questions their committment to the project, you should retract them and apologize. Corvus cornix 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people choose to leave because of Jimbo's comments then that is not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. I can't comment on the Zoe issue but it seems to me in this specific case Jimbo was saying he felt the behaviour was shocking (I agree) and he felt that given the behaviour the people should consider whether they had the temperament to participate in the project. He didn't in any way question anyone's commitment in this specific case. Note too it was quite clear he was referring to multiple editors not just Jaranda and he did not address Jaranda or any editor directly. He only referred to behaviour which he felt was unacceptable and clearly Jaranda felt s/he was one of the people guilty of that behaviour. And if someone is unable or unwilling to accept specific criticism of their behaviour and chooses to leave because of the criticism then this may ultimately be good for the project. The ironic thing here is that Jaranda was failing to AGF by accusing people of idolising JW but then left precisely because s/he were (indirectly) criticised by JW Nil Einne 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People said that Jimbo, due to his stature as founder of the project, surely knew the inclusion policies. Jaranda complained that they did that. There's no assumption of bad faith there, it's just taking WHAT THEY SAID. -Amarkov moo! 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um did you actually read the AFD? While one or two people's comments indicated they were because Jimbo created it, others had their own rationale's. Some seemed to suggest that it was because Jimbo created at first but later clarified they would have voiced the same opinion if any experience editor created it (which may be bad reasoning but it isn't uncommon in AFDs and accusing these people of lying is clearly not assuming AGF). However Jaranda at least and I believe other editors appear to accuse all keep votes of being because Jimbo created it. Additional comment. I got halfway through the AFD and I only counted 2 comments which appeared to be saying keep because Jimbo created it. All the rest had their on rationales. (For example some of them said keep because an active editor i.e. Jimbo is watching and will hopefully improve the article) Some of them were poorly explained perhaps and other's were perhaps just poor rationales. There's nothing wrong with saying you feel the rationale is poorly explained or just a poor rationale. But accusing such a person of having an ulterior motive simply because their rationale is poor or poorly explained is by definition failing to AGF. Accusing all editors of having an ulterior motive, well that speaks for itself IMHO. Nil Einne 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not there was an assumption of bad faith doesn't really matter to me - if someone assumes bad faith, should that really be a reason to tell someone to leave the project? Suddenly, {{uw-test}} looks much more tame in comparison. x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Jaranda appears to have a history of coming back and then leaving again. If anything, it appears multiple factors drove Jaranda away and the JW comment may have been at most the straw that broke the camel's back. Nil Einne 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was un-civil because it's like saying "if you don't do this, you should get the hell out of here." I understand what Mr. Wales was trying to say, but that was a harsh way to put it. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't like the article, go and do something else" is what was basically said, which is rather disappointing :( * Aillema 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was "If you don't understand how Wikipedia did work and should work, go and do something else", but I digress. My main point here is that people should never leave because of something Jimbo says or does (well, unless he bans you, as he can do). In the long run it is easier to respect people who stay or leave on principle, not according to what Jimbo thinks of them. And I fully support what Jimbo said. Not because he is Jimbo, but because what he said makes a lot of sense. Carcharoth 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. By prodding or posting a "Delete" on that AfD, there were only a couple of assumptions that could be made: That Jimbo didn't know the WP:N policies, that he knew but misunderstood them, that you disagree with his interpretation of them, or that he knew but blatantly ignored them. The first (he didn't know the policies) and second (he knew but misunderstood them) are preposterous; of course Jimbo knows and understands the rules, having written or participated in the writing of many of them. The third (you don't agree with his interpretation of them) should be addressed on the talk page, accompanied with a {{notability}} template, and using an AfD as the last resort. The fourth (he knew but blatantly ignored them) assumes that Jimbo was trying to harm the project in some way. It is an assumption of bad faith and a borderline attack. And as a personal attack can be a blockable offense, those who subscribe to this idea are basically saying that they don't agree with one of this project's core, guiding principles - civility - and have no reason to be here. That page does, after all, say "Use Wikipedia in a civil manner or not at all." I simply think that some people should realize that our established editors are not trying to screw us. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E kala mai, but the second one you list (that Jimbo knows the policies, but misunderstood) is not "preposterous". The article he originally wrote read, "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa." That's it. He did leave a note saying "just a stub for now, will be adding pictures and more in coming days... I need help finding reliable sources though", however. So would an article like this meet our inclusion guidelines? Not necessarily. He gave no context, and asserted no notability. So it is not "preposterous" to think perhaps he misunderstood. Errors happen. (But the whole thing did spin out of control, and that is sad.) Let's all just move on. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if Mzoli's was started in User space... but too late for that now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that Jaranda has been neither de-sysoped nor blocked shows how greatly tolerant Jimbo and others are. That Jimbo gets full on criticism for doing a good article creation but Jaranda gets nothing but praise on his talk page in spite of his appalling and highly immature behaviour deelting the article mid afd indicates something very wrong with the project, IMO. Just because Jimbo is a in a position of authority and is successful is not a reason for young rebels with attitudde to shoot him down. What is going on here is far worse than any comment Jimbo made on the afd and he is the one who should be pissed off for the way his good faith and appropriate stub creation has been treated, indeed how he himself has been treated. An appalled SqueakBox 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I fully concur with "People that immature really actually should not be sysops in Wikipedia, period, full stop. It's ridiculous." It's not remotely unreasonable to expect competence and maturity from our admins. Friday (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything wrong with Jimmy's comment. Look at the diff for goodness sake... you've got someone accusing Jimmy of posting advertisements and Jimmy complains that there is a problem with assuming bad faith. I agree with him. It's unfortunate that Jaranda took it personally, but only Jaranda controls Jaranda's feelings. --Gmaxwell 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. This situation exploded out of nothing. A respected editor created a stub article and even said in the edit summary that more sources were coming. If I created a stub and said that, I would hope I would be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed a couple days to expand the article before it was AFDed. Or, I would have created the article in my userspace before moving to articlespace. But honestly, Jaranda's reaction is extremely childish. Jaranda felt insulted and stormed off like an adolescent, misbehaving on the way out. Ridiculous.↔NMajdan•talk 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack me, other admins did worst when they left, like Doc glasgow deletion of WP:DRV. Editors like you guys is the reason I'm not coming back 131.94.55.77 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but 2 wrongs dont make a right, Jaranda. Admins who use their admin tools to disrupt the project are not useful tot he project and leave non admins feeling abused, but perhaps other editor's feelings (especially mere humble non-admiosn who cant fix yoyur damage) don' matter to you, SqueakBox 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only did it to prove a point that I was upset over Jimbo inapproviate comment, if I really wanted to disrupt, don't you think I would have deleted the Main Page instead. 131.94.55.77 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I made another suggestion to you on WR, did you see that? The problem was that you disrupted the editing of someone like myself who was trying to edit the article and therefore I have the right to certainly be nmore psiised off than you, and exclusively with you to boot. Deleting the main page would ahve disruptive to many of our readers, and based on comments of Jimbo that were not even aimed at you but at some bad faith editors that would have ben even more unacceptable. When somebody pisses you off and then you hurt innocent bystanders in your outrage, well you have to learn to deal with your rage (as we all do online, and even Jimbo is just a normal human being who gets angry too), SqueakBox 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a joke. Or at least I thought better of it and canceled my plane ticket to South Africa. I guess it really is hard to tell if someone is being absurd or serious here. Forgive me for trying to up the drama revolving around the formation of the Mzoli's Meats article.-BillDeanCarter 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Ok, I forgive you. I was just going to recommend the sausage, that's all. :) --Jimbo Wales 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... although the way you phrased that could have been a little better. Now we're gonna have to put up with soooome people going on about how "Jimbo likes the sausage." D'oh. :-) --Ali'i 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is all part of Jimbo's clever Open-Source Sausage (TM) for-profit venture capital funding scheme. We are accepting flesh donations. Sorry, Jimbo, I had to let the cat out of the bag (and into the sausage) as we are now in the proof of concept stage and are looking for contributions. Anyone care to, ah, umm, "lend" a hand? (Don't contribute if you object to your contribution being ground up with other contributions.) WAS 4.250 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more point here. Obviously any idea that Jimbo was advertising the place is silly, but it is possibly to advertise a place without owning it. The Arch Coal case was interesting. Sometimes good faith article edits and creations end up giving some places more coverage than their notability warrants. I don't think that is the case here, as I've been involved in improving the Mzoli's article. Carcharoth 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, advertising without owning is common. Example (for comparison purposes): Attacking Anxiety and Depression. --Mattisse 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Arch Coal case involved COI (paid) editing, and so although ownership wasn't involved, there was still an ethical issue. Here, I just quite innocently found the topic interesting and worthy of an article.--Jimbo Wales 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, you're wrong, once again. Gregory Kohs stated on Wikipedia's own mailing list that "nobody paid for [the Arch Coal article] at any time, since it was just an experiment". You assumed it had been paid content, you deleted it, then you defaced the user's User page -- all in response to an experiment whose purpose was exactly that, to see how vindictive you might be about something you actually didn't know anything about. It's amazing that so few people see how terribly wrong you were in your handling of paid-to-edit content on Wikipedia when it arose in the summer of 2006, especially when an organization tried to do so in the disinfecting sunlight of full disclosure. --The Iraq 17:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly hope it won't put you off doing more of the same on your travels in the future. You have such a brilliant opportunity to travel to interesting places in a way that most of the rest of us don't and to use this for the benefit of wikipedia seems very positive to me, SqueakBox 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the world of AfD, Jimbo, and all the reasons why it's so broken. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa too (disruptive admin actions), SqueakBox 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfD or RfA are broken in themselves (though perhaps it's just the idealistic non-cabalist in me), but I do think that AGF and attack violations should be better defined. Guess I'll just join Jimbo on another "damn-fool idealistic crusade..." =David^(talk)_(contribs) 12:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted on the user page. I've moved it here. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Dear Mr. Jimbo,

Your site is very confusing. It seems that anyone can edit and delete anything except domain name. I suspect whether this page is created by you or created by anti-wikipedian, anti-social elements. I am unable to figure out who is cop, who is good civilian and who is bad civilian.

If this page is created by you (and if you are owner of this site),please answer my questions.

1. If anyone can edit anything, how can new user like me believe which page is indeed official and not created by anti-social person or group of persons?

I guess you're confused, thanks to the Essjay controversy. But don't worry, all articles are required to have an official source to back it up. Information on this site are merely fact; all opinion-based content (read WP:NPOV) and promotion/soliciting are strictly prohibited. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. How can new user confirm who is moderator/administrator of this site? Any poster can say that he is moderator and show me false page created by that poster himself as proof.

I really hate to say it, but being paranoid can even make Planet Earth seem like it was created by a conspiracy. Moderators (called administrators) are elected by debates between Wikipedians (See WP:RFA for more information). Sure, anyone can nominate themselves for adminship, but you'll need backup from fellow users, and an overwhelming support by the community. Let me show you a particular rejected nomination: Example --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point that was being made. OP wants to know how s/he can identify admins as s/he believes since anyone can edit anything anyone can edit any page to make it appear they are an admin. However in fact a user can't make themselves an admin if they are not. Specifically Special:Listusers/sysop will only show real admins and you can also use Special:Listusers to see what status, if any, a use has. Nil Einne 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Why don't you create site index page (WHICH CAN NOT BE EDITED BY ANY POSTER) mentioning your official policies, names of moderator(s), contact details? That way new user will trust that it is indeed official policy of your site.

What's the point of WP:IAR? You'll be notified (in your talk page) anyway, if you do something wrong. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People keep deleting my posts. Maybe this post will also be deleted. Will you please tell these people to become polite human being?

Well, if your 'posts' are appropriate, then there should be no reason for other users to delete your posts. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

viran 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering, since you placed the POV tag on Che Guevara all the regular, experienced editors have left, if you would be willing to address the issues created by the tag. The page has been locked down since you placed the tag on the article. There does not appear anyone with the stomach to try to clarify the problems you saw and try to address them. Perhaps you would be willing to do so, since your feelings toward the page were strong enough to disrupt further editing of the Feature Article. Without follow up on your part, everyone who was working on the article has deserted the project or is too afraid to contribute.

I am of two minds on this matter, as there are definite benefits in having the page locked down. Consensus was so difficult to arrive at previously, and probably will not be arrived at again without a great deal of pain if the page were unlocked. Further, the locked down status prevents further damage to the article. Maybe having the article locked down for the next many more months or years is the way to go. Regards, --Mattisse 02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the article being locked down. I didn't lock it or order that it be locked. I had a complaint about the article, my complaints were partly but not completely addressed, and there is nothing special about me as an editor which would require any special course of action. :) Feel free to improve the article using your best judgment.--Jimbo Wales 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors tried, but the disruption was too great after the tag was placed. The proposed modifications for the article's lead used quotes without sourcing, so no agreement was reached. There are no editors working on the article via suggestions on the talk page anymore—just talk page messages by vandals and entries by an editor arguing that the use of content notes is inappropriate in Wikipedia articles. Before it was locked down, there were close to 100 edits, all of them reversions or additions of unsourced material. Personally, although I was not an editor of the article, I prefer the lock down as I would hate to see the beauty of the article's craftsmanship destroyed by the arbitrary removal of the content notes or infinite revert warring over the addition of unsourced material. --Mattisse 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We cant lock down this article "form months or years", that is a really bad idea that damages the project overall. As its been 2 months I have requested unprotection. Sometimes removing referenced material is fully justified whereas term locking down is never justified, SqueakBox 17:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the problem was not the removal of referenced material but rather the continued addition of unreferenced material, leading to edit warring. --Mattisse 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt aware of the edit warring but strongly believe that unsourced m,asterial should be removed, ie if in doubt remove the material and put the burden on those who want the material there to prove it is sourced AND relevant, SqueakBox 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the request at WP:RFPP and have unprotected the page. Two months is really too long to keep such a high-profile (featured) article completely locked up. We'll turn into Encyclopedia Britannica! If edit-warring again becomes a problem it can always be re-protected, but hopefully enough time has passed that things can be resolved amicably. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Matisse, I think Che is far too important a figuire in modern Latin American history to even consider permanently locking the article, SqueakBox 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's an IP editor who's been frequenting that page for a very long time who's a habitual violator of WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Look for talk page posts on shifting IPs that use a hand-signed moniker "El Jigue". Durova^Charge! 07:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, early last year, user Elonka (talk · contribs) made a lot of articles on her family, most of them which are unsourced OR and non-notable, for example Antoni Dunin. If you look at the references, they are basically trivial (e.g. one name in a list of names). Inspite of this, they all exist to this day. They can be found here: User:Elonka/Genealogy. I tried to clean up these articles, but I was threatened to be blocked, told by admins to give it up, was complained about on IRC and was wrongfully blocked once by Kylu (t c) so you're the last resort. Here are the most important points:

1. These articles were created by Elonka herself in violation of WP:COI which clearly says: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest."
2. Articles are mostly non-notable and unsourced OR
3. You yourself have removed unsourced/poorly sourced content from one of her family articles stating correctly that every statement needs a reliable source.
4. She dared to tell me: "please stop working on articles related to me". Shouldnt she be the one who should have been warned for creating them in the first place?
5. According to some admins who I'll not name, Elonka "has made a lot of powerful friends". I got the full taste of that when I was stopped/threatened in some way or the other by some admins and told to stop working on her articles (WJBscribe (t c), Shell Kinney (t c) and Durova (t c) among others).
6. Her friends might mention that I've had conflicts with her before on some issues but thats not relevant.

I can say a lot more but I'll stop and keep it brief. Basically, this unsourced non-notable family spam is still there (Antoni Dunin is just one example). I doubt anyone even reads these articles besides her or her family members. I'm not here to go into lengthy debate with her or her friends. I'm here only to notify you of this. Thats all I could do after being harrassed/threatened and blocked by her friends. Its up to everyone else now to clean up these articles or they'll be left here as they are, which is more likely to happen unless people follow policies, step in and do the right thing instead of trying to protect the feelings of their friends. I think I can safely say that the articles will continue to exist. I can bet anyone $20 that not one of her family articles (except Raphael Kalinowski which looks like a valid article) can be stripped down to reliable sources. I tried to do it and faced unimaginable opposition and resistance. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, that specific article was discussed extensively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoni Dunin (2nd nomination), a month ago. I didn't express a keep/delete opinion there, but this looks a bit like a combination of forum shopping (if not beating a dead horse). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Matt57, but to me this reads as "Nobody else agrees with me so I'm appealing as high as I can". --Deskana (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It appears from what I see that most people agree they are at least notable. I have seen articles on less notable people that is for sure! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree. --Aminz 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm named in this thread I'll respond. Elonka did start those articles when she was a new editor and, as she became versed in site standards and the conflict of interest guideline, ceased to edit them. Now that The New York Times is making pre-Internet back issues more accessible some of the referencing issues should be easier to resolve. Matt57's interest in this topic aroused the concern of a number of seasoned editors and administrators, myself included, because it appears to have its origins in a disagreement between himself and Elonka over policy interpretations on a wholly unrelated topic. Durova^Charge! 04:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #6. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of a non-notable person: Jan Czarnowski. Why does this article exist? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, a variety of uninvolved people have made the same criticism. I do not do so out of any affinity for Elonka but based upon the merits of the situation, and I find it quite troublesome how swiftly and consistently you brush aside these criticisms. This is rapidly undermining the reputation you have built as an editor. Please reconsider. Durova^Charge! 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you focus on the article at hand instead of on me or Elonka or other unrelated disputes? Jan Czarnowski. Is this article notable or not? You're afraid of giving an opinion because Elonka is your friend, that is it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo see? This is what has been going on. Like Durova's comment above, people focus on anything but the article themselves. Anyway, it looks like the family spam will continue to exist here. Not many people care about this issue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this website in the future is going to be a great example for virtual governance. I am sure this website is attracting ideas from all over the globe. In future the real world policies and real time law practices could really shape up from the policies those are getting constructed here. You really have a great head and with the support of million more heads involved here I am sure this website has a great future. Just try your best to keep things as authentic as possible. I can read from your snap that you are a good man (I am not a face reader, but I get some feelings looking at a persons face if he/she is a good person). Try your best to keep everything as good as possible. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am ja:user:Penpen. In 21 Jul 2007 I was blocked by Sys.OP Lonicera of ja.wikipedia (There is no ban system in ja.wikipedia.) And in 29 Jul 2007 I appealed. But Sys.OP Lonicera have done no responce. So please make informal mediation between Sys.OP Lonicera and me, or recommend somebody who can make informal mediation. In ja.wikipedia there is no Mediation Committee. So I request for mediation to Ms.user:Anthere. She answered me that it won't be a job of Wikimedia Foundation board and she adviced me that you may be able to help me. So I make this request. Thnak you.Penpen0216 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Jimmy will have the time, unfortunately. However, if both of you can speak English (my Japanese is extremely limited), then I'd be happy to informally mediate a dispute between yourself and Lonicera. Cheers, Daniel 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a new user and I haven't edited much since my employer didn't allow me to use my work computer for non-work related purposes and I didn't want my IP traced to his work. However, I was a frequent reader and follower of Wikipedia, and spent many hours at work reading different articles and policy pages in order to familiarize myself with the site. In any case, I was notified today that this would be my last week at this job because my fascist employer said I spent too much time on Wikipedia. I am very upset and was wondering if this was very common, and what I could and should do about it. Thanks. Haute Fuzze 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well calling your employer fascist is something you perhaps shouldn't do as it has nasty connotations. I guess the answer is get a more amenable employer or dont read wikipedia when you have been told not to and are being paid to do something else. Wikipedia cannot support any claim that your employer was wrong to fire you if you were reading wikipedia on his/her time. As an employer I would do the same, its okay for me to edit here but not for my employees, as they are being paid to do something else, SqueakBox 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is meant to be a hobby and nothing more. Don't let it interfere with other life commitments, because it can be very destructive, whether it be family, work, school or friends. We're all glad to see you're willing to become a great Wikipedian, but I can understand how your employer feels about this. I hope he changes his mind, and if he does, stay off Wikipedia at work and, when you get home and you have time, enjoy yourself with it! It'll be something to look forward to. :-) Lradrama 10:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fact that I'm reading this from work a potentially negative sign? Into The Fray ^T/C 13:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I am, also. I'm scheduled for layoff next month, though...so what are they going to do, fire me? ;-) =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Just cleaning up the page so there is no confusion... Uncyclopedia was temporarily down due to a technical glitch. I love Uncyc and it isn't going to go away of course.)--Jimbo Wales 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a proposal for a competition which could encourage encyclopedia building, and also perhaps bring excitement, coordination and fun into the community. My Idea is called the Wikipedia Cup and is a yearly comptetion in which 32 of the best users picked by the wikipedia community contest each other in editing skills until there is only one winner. Who gains the cup template on their userpage. At each round only half of the starting amount gets through. For example. 32-16, 16-8, 8-4, 4-2, 2-1. A special set of established wikipedians announcing who goes through. This could be a great idea for wikipedia. The sunder king 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More of the topic is being dicussed, Here. The sunder king 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page. In my opinion, it is not a forum for general discussion. I feel that, if you want to bring the attention of the community to some issue, the village pump is more appropriate. A.Z. 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user evidently changed the wording of the post later, then an admin removed it, but you should be aware of this:[15] This user was formerly known as User:COFS as in church of scientology. It has been reported to WP:AN/I. --Fahrenheit451 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farenheit451, that's more of an insult of you if it's an insult of anyone. The arbitration case remains open where you could submit this as evidence. Durova^Charge! 03:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that case closed today.--Fahrenheit451 03:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you should be aware of this - Yes Jimbo, you should be aware of every time someone "uses your name in vain". I propose the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Jimbo's name used in vain" where we can properly address these violations of common decency and tranquility. That way administrators can handle these important matters and you will not have to concern yourself. --Justanother 12:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, please don't involve yourself in F457's problems. We'll deal with him. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe deine Benutzerseite gelesen, und den Hinweis gefunden dass du gerne einfache Nachrichten in deutscher Sprache auf deiner Diskussionsseite liest :). Darum schreibe ich mal was :-P. Ich muss sagen, dass ich es gut finde, dass du Deutsch lernst. Ist mal was Anderes, denn häufig wählen die Menschen Französisch oder Spanisch als Zweitsprache :). Hab ja vor einiger Zeit deine Benutzerseite gesehn und dein Babelstein war noch de-1 - und heute sehe ich nach und es ist de-2. Weiter so :). Grüße aus Leipzig . Anbei eine Anleitung zum Reallife ;) de:Image:RealLife_Anleitung.JPG (hab ich mit meiner Sockenpuppe hochgeladen ;))--Ar-ras 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heißen Sie willkommen zu Wikipedia, und glückliches Redigieren! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimmy, I believe that some editors are abusing "Notability" having articles removed, claiming they are "non-notable" to them. You had said that Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, and that verifiability was the criteria for inclusion,[16] (including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT).
• I seem to spend 80% of my time arguing about "notability", an impossibility if editors do not agree. Wikipedia has many articles that I do no consider "notable", but I accept that others do.
• Examples AfDs include: a magazine Pensée IVR, an engineer Ralph Juergens and Electric universe (based on the book) and articles, all of which include citations.
• Please can you make a statement declaring whether "non-notability" can be a reason to delete an article, and consequently whether a number of editors can determine the notability of a subject on behalf of everyone else. --Deeper Black 11:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they using arguments listed in WP:AADD? That page might prove useful... =David^(talk)_(contribs) 12:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mzoli's, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice; a good thing. What a great lesson, indeed. Musicgarden 15:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find out what your name was in other languages? did you go to some website? If so can you tell me which? Thanks!

EEmperor