User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Revert Abuse and Intimidation by Admns.

Jimbo: I have used the subject article Talk page, the Individuals' Talk pages, the Admn. Noticeboard, but with no real attention paid to the issue.

There are a group of editors, including Administrators that are reverting good-faith reliably sourced information, without discussion, in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. This is an allied attempt at gaming the system, and a disgraceful display of conduct.

1st revert [1] 20 Novmeber
2nd revert: [2] 20 November
3rd Revert: [3] 20 November
4th Revert: [4] 20 November
5th Revert: [5] 21 November
6th Revert: [6] 22 November
7th Revert: [7] 22 November

The article is basically on lock-down due to an allied group that is violating the spirit of WP:OWN. Please look at all my work that was deleted, as all the reverts involved new information for the article. Disgraceful.

What is your recommendation? This POV oriented group of allies is not interested in collaborating in good-faith and the mass reverts without any discussion illustrate this clearly. I believe they are trying to get me to quit Wikipedia out of frustration, that is my honest opinion of this. Can a group of allied editors take over an article, and block all information they dislike? Please review the full content of these reverts tha include whole new paragraphs and sourced info, it's disgraceful conduct. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe have a peek at this related ArbCom case. The recommendations there (see for instance "Remedies" section), which FYI are not Jimbo's but the ArbCom's, include using procedures and techniques as explained at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Francis Schonken 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay something is strange. HOTR and Bhouston have blank user and talk pages, no edits, and show they are not even users. What happened? Anomo 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about Bhouston. The situation with HOTR got rather nasty (to put it mildly), the last thing I heard about it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive62#HOTR as "xxxx" and User:Roncey Valley. Not an example of Wikipedia:WikiLove (neither way that is).

HOTR and Bhouston both changed their usernames and left Wikipedia. They also both asked for the pages of their original usernames to be deleted. Therefore links to their original user pages failed to redirect to the user pages of their new names. The admin who deleted Bhouston's user page has since restored it, and I've recreated HOTR's user page myself. Links to user:Bhouston and user:HOTR now redirect to pages from which you can access their contributions. Thanks for pointing this out! Kla'quot 20:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC) For privacy reasons, HOTR did not want his user page to redirect to his new user name, so the page has been deleted again. His contributions log still exists.Kla'quot 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC) For privacy reasons, Bhouston has also asked for his page to be deleted. His contributions log still exists. Kla'quot 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that also KimvdLinde, involved in that ArbCom, more or less left soon after, but I recall her saying this ArbCom case wasn't the real (or "exclusive") cause.[8] Oops. Stumbled in to this one, while looking for that previous diff: User:KimvdLinde/SV-RfAR. --Francis Schonken 15:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LOL, I know who the main reverter is. She's always complained about on wikipediareview.com; why they single her out I don't know when she's mild compared to a lot of the article ownings. Another one of the reverters is running for ArbCom so be sure to vote since at least one article owners (not the ones you are complaining about) have been on ArbCom in the past and through it gotten CheckUser. Anomo 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo: What can a person do if the abuse by administrators is in a Wikipedia that has not implemented yet mechanisms of resolution for conflicts nor has implemented mechanisms to dismiss the administrators that misbehave? I was just blocked in Wikipedia (es) by an administrator that has a history of aggressiveness, that voted in favor of deleting my work (then, he became an interested party), that expressed publicly his despise for my work (“it is not possible that “this” have the longest article in Wikipedia in Spanish”). Now, being a Judge, a part and an executioner at the same time, has blocked my account during the voting, defense and corrections steps (for one day), because I complained about the system (without appeal instances as in English Wiki, among other thinks) and because I complained of personal attacks against my person and family by one of the users (they came to know my real name). The work is related to the genealogy of my family since the year 844 and the evolution of the last name in France, England, Italy, Spain and America. Many histories and personalities were described, with a number of references (from books, etc.), including the story of "Nessie and Saint Columba", "Bonafusus de Sancta Columba", the first person granted a Patent, and the musician Sainte Colombe of France, among many others. The work is in Spanish (Santa Coloma (apellido)). I would appreciate any help. Kind regards, --Tasc1 00:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the same bunch, acting in the same way. Jimbo, that article is not being vetted to appropriate standards and this is why. What next?

Administrators admonished

2) All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

   Passed 6 to 0 at 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo: We all seem to have similar problems with administrator abuses, not matter the language (English, Spanish, ..) of Wikipedia. It is amazing. I have exactly the same problems described above in w:es, with administrators that appear all together in a few minutes (or few hours) to impose their will. Probably they should not be allowed to vote. An admin cannot be Judge and party at the same time (in my modest opinion). Sometimes, after voting, (so, becoming an interested party), they still use their privileges as administrators to block a page, impose pressure on editors, etc. I suggest that appeal procedures for misconduct of administrators be implemented in all Wikipedia languages, as a part of the main principles of wikipedia, to avoid and define non-ethical behavior. I normally contribute to the Spanish wikipedia as (Tasc), but I am here to get some advice from Wikipedia. Regards colleagues, and have a peaceful day. --Tasc1 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Same Conduct again

ChrisO above mentions that SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Humus sapiens are a team. I recently ran into this team (on July 4th) and got banned for 24hrs for adding sourced information. Tag-teamed by SlimVirgin and Jayjg (I still do not know how Jayjg so conviently arrived on the scene to help SlimVirgin out once she ran out of reverts), reported by SlimVirgin and banned by Humus Sapiens.Kiyosaki 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Same Conduct/Abuse Again

Statement by HOTR

This particular article aside, I think some investigation is warranted in the "tag-team" activities of SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus Sapiens not only in this article but in a swath of articles which touch upon Israel. They behave in a highly factional manner that seems to be co-ordinated and the fact that they are all admins and one is an ArbComm member only adds to the problem. There also seems to be some coordination and vote-stacking occuring, possibly via email or IRC - it's curious for instance that within 90 minutes 6 editors turn up in a row to support a proposal by Jayjg [27] and in the matter of a poll on the name of the Israeli apartheid article, following SV, Humus and Jay being criticised for acting (again in a coordinated manner) to change the name of an article when there is no consensus in the vote to do so, a dozen people suddenly show up in a row to vote to change the article, a number of whom have never edited the article before.Kiyosaki 12:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Yep

The point is that objective criticism of Israel and its practices face difficulty in being expressed on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) That is clearly why articles are not vetted correctly.Kiyosaki 12:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kiyosaki,

Again I want to express clearly I have no ambition to reply in Jimbo's place, these are exclusively my own observations:

I think the best initiative you took in this issue, de facto applying the ArbCom remedy you quoted above, is this one: [9]
Now, and that is the reason I leave you a note here, there seems to be a problem with the bot processing the new Mediation Cabal requests: [10] [11]; so *patience* is a key word now (until the request is processed). Sorry about that. I'm missing "WikiCourage" to go rattle some trees.

@Jimbo,

No idea how reliable Kiyosaki is as a Wikipedian, and as far as I'm concerned that is not even the issue here. W.r.t. the problem he mentions I think the principle at stake is: "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." [12] --Francis Schonken 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was recently discussed in n ArbCom case. Rather than throw accusations right and left, editors need to follow the dispute resolution process and expand the number of editors looking at that article. The dispute has nothing to do with "admin abuse", btw. As many articles about which there are strong POVs, it is not always easy to reach NPOV status, and this article is no exception. Those editors that want to use WP as a platform for advocating a POV, be that pro or con, should be reminded to engage editors in constructive discussions that can bring the article to a state that opposing sides can live with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To Kiyosaki, I would say this: have patience, and learn the way the Wikipedia works. Making allegations of admin abuse is not useful: you will atract more bees with honey, than with vinegar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have worked on articles with both Jayjg and Slim Virgin. does this make me a member of some cabal? I call it "collaboration" which is what Wikipedia is all about. Personally, I find that they edit on topics about which they are knowledgable, and have a firm commitment to complying with our policies. I have even, at times, had disagreements with them - this is inevitable. I never found them to do anything unreasonable or to treat me unreasonably. I have interacted with Humus Sapiens too but to a much lesser degree, all I can say is s/he has never done anything unseemly as far as I can tell. I think if an editor has a problem with another editor, they should go through our established process rather than cast aspersions on their character here. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely second that. I seldom find myself editing the same articles as SlimVirgin and Jayjg, but when I do, I usually have the opposing POV. Nevertheless, I have found them both very ready to discuss things civilly on the talk pages. I have little or no experience with Humus Sapiens, but since he's accused by the same person — one who loses credibility by making statements like "SlimVirgin and Jayg [sic] are Jewish editors that are liars" — I don't feel inclined to believe immediately that Humus Sapiens is an abusive admin. AnnH ♫ 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Brandt's website, he says, "she's a brilliant editor and writer when she is truly neutral" but later complains when she's not neutral combined with admin abilities. Thing is neutrality is sort of hard--it's not something one person can do on their own, it takes many people. I also don't think SlimVirgin really does anything that bad. If you want to see bad, well there's a certain really higher-up in the power structure who makes sure that Transsexualism, Transwoman, Shemale never have any pictures or diagrams in them. Anomo 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Jayg are Jewish editors that are liars. They are POV editors that keep Wikipedia articles from being vetted honestly. How is this not obvious to Jimbo?

PS I do not believe people have reviewed the edits themselves. None, nobody. I believe if you review the edits and the RS, and attempts to NPOV the article, one might see. But nobody ever does, they discuss everything but. Kindly review the edits and the info, if you are interested in seeing that the artcile gets vetted correctly. The "team" revert abuse is something I will never, ever forget.Kiyosaki 08:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of people with similar strong feelings on a subject who have the same articles on their watchlists and have similar reactions to edits thereto does not a "team" make. I find myself editing many of the same article sand have some of the same reactions, I'm hoping this doesn't make me a member of the "farm team" or some such. Gzuckier 14:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

something is terribly lerking in de wiki cupboards.

Dear Mr. Wales after I have been told that this page is not for problems only for positive vibrations I would kindly like to ask if you could tell us something about the last German donation from Wikimedia e.V. There has not been any donation after the last one which was about 200 000 € if you believe some administrators. This donation was mentioned to buy new more powerfull servers. Nobody of the donators got any evidence what has been done with the money. But after the donation they implemented a CEO at Wikimedia ( How are they financing themselves if this is open content and wageless voluntered working ??? ) Many speculations even from administrators say, that the donation money has probably been misused for that matter. If I see the way how wikimedia Germany behaves after some people have already asked that question it might be true. It is a matter of fact that these questioners were chased and chucked out. Why ??? I am terribly upset about this because this is destroying the credibility of a brilliant and perfect idea.

Perhaps you can deal with that matter and solve this ansavory question.

Yours sincerely --Ekkenekepen 09:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Money from donations can NOT be missused by Wikimedia e.V., trust me the "Finanzamt" keeps a close look at all "e. V."s, if they would missuse any money they would loose their "Gemeinnützigkeit"status. FreddyE 10:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So what happened with the money then ???--Ekkenekepen 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo comment (Jayjg, SlimVirgin Abuse)

You wrote:

"I have reviewed the history of the article in question, and I see you engaged in highly biased editing in a spirit that can hardly be called co-operative search for the truth."

Can you show the specific edits you refer to? Please show. I cannot believe this. Kindly show what you are referring to. For chrissakes, SlimVirgin and Jayjg operate a team that is highly abusive. ARE YOU NOT AWARE of this?

I have studied and have seen the discussions via Wikipedia and the internet, and the dishonesty is disgraceful. Unbelievable. Thanks.Kiyosaki 10:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You write such racist remarks as "Hebrew POV" whatever that means, and call the edits of others in the article "vandalism" when they are clearly not. You come here and accuse people of "dishonesty". At the same time, you keep inserting the same material over and over again while not addressing the concerns people have on the talk page. Again, I recommend that you lay off the article for a couple of weeks and come back to it with a fresh and calm eye.--Jimbo Wales 16:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A check user request, and some very distinctive writing, shows that User:Kiyosaki is a reincarnation of the so-called Disruptive Apartheid Editor, a banned and very troublesome user, who used to vandalize user pages with things like "jayjg is a filthy jew, unclean." [13] I've blocked the account indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put in the "separation" for the discourse above, the "-----", so I could better study what WP policy is in practice. I have no idea about this WP "fight" except what I read above. Good luck to you all, and may the best WP knight win! --Ludvikus 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Very, very interesting!!! I've wondered what, or how Wikipedia handles crackpot, hate-mongers, antisemites, paranoids, etc. By following the above discource, I now have an idea. And it seems like hard work. You all deserve a Medal for it. As soon as I learn how to give you one (a Barnstar?), I think I will.

But more important, it is an outlet, and a net to discovery for such--do you see what I mean?

It's another Fringe benefit of WP.

PS: How come there is no article on/titled Hate-mongering - or is there?

Yours truly, Ludvikus 19:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, 21st Century Guttenberg & "Nobel Peace Prize for [[Jimbo Wales]!"

You should get the Nobel Peace Prize for your development of Wikipedia!!!

I'm a proud WP author! Now a couple of suggestions.

A Spellchecker directly on the Edit Page of an article might be extremely useful.
- A How To book (Hardcopy) for Wikipedians by an expert profession writer would definitely be read by me. Now I've learned my stuff by the old Trial & Error method. May I recommend that, with your well-deserved great reputation that you recommend Wikipedianism for DUMMIES!
  - Best Wishes, Ludvikus 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Am I the FIRST? to recommend it — the {{Nobel Peace Prize]] for Jimmy Wales? If so I'd like to be on record for it.

By the way, I am much more interested in the fringe benefits of WP- the benefits other than the 50,000 item Encyclopedia for each major Natural language of the [[World, etc. I'm interested in what it does to the WEB as a source of Information — and the fact that it often is AT THE TOP OF THE LIST of a GOOGLE SEARCH!!!

And a fringe benefit of that--among many others — is that everytime I, as a Wikipedian, write an artice (reputable of course), my world-wide Reputation as a Scholar rises!!!

I'm also going to try — using the Influence of WP, to Coin a Word — Conceptology. Perhaps one might get at an idea of what I mean by it, by contracting it with Narratology.

Also, I LOVE how Democratic it is - at least potentially - you need a Computer, an Internet access provider, etc.

There are so many permutations of its power - my final example it this: although Jimmy Wales does not know me, if my ideas a sound and/or significant, or important enough, I have an excellent chance of establishing communicating with him.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

creator of Wikipedia

As creator of Wikipedia, do you know exactly when Wikipedia was created?. (like January 15th _ _:00 AM/PM)--PrestonH 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. If you mean when was it created conceptually, Jimbo would have to answer that, but somehow I doubt he could pin it down to a time. . . Chick Bowen 06:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The actual website was launched in the morning of January 15th, as I recall. I don't regard this as a particularly significant fact.--Jimbo Wales 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you regard this as significant? If you think of Wikipedia as a country (I know this seems kinda lame), we would either celebrate the day Wikipedia was first settled or the day of a treaty creating the country. Now while Wikipedia isn't a country, shouldn't we take this day seriously?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Request help for clarification on Fair Use policies

Jimbo, I know you got a bunch of stuff to do so I rarely post here, but I wanted a quick clarification about fair use images if you could briefly comment on the matter. There's a dispute on Ann Coulter about which image to use:

Image:Coulter-Silver-dress.jpegA fair-use image that's better looking (no offense).
A free image (taken by you) that's a bit less quality.
Your image photoshopped by moi.

Relevant passage from Wikipedia:Fair use criteria:

Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.

Which trumps in this case, the quality of the image (which is pretty much unanimous that the fair-use is better quality) or the copyright status? --kizzle 09:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. What's fair about using someone else's photo without permission or compensation when obviously it was possible to get a substitute? This isn't like Marilyn Monroe with her skirt blown up where that one image is essential and nothing else will replace it; there's nothing special about the top photo that necessitates using that particular image. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification requested

See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Unclear sentence. Tx. --Francis Schonken 10:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Houston McCoy / Charles Whitman

I see that you made some edits to the McCoy article. Could you take a gander at Whitman as well? John Moore hit Whitman (and continues to do so every few weeks) as hard as he hit McCoy. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How do Netizens felicitate you

Hi I am simply overawed with your work and wanna know how we should felicitate you?--Darrendeng 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection tag

Hi Jimbo. I just wanted to drop by to address you about a comment you made on mail.wikimedia.org which addressed Semi-protection tags. I saw were you said that the {{sprotected}} tag was "misleading and scary and distracting to readers".

I just wanted to point your attention to a new template that I created called {{sprotected2}}. Instead of the big template at the top, it adds a picture of a lock in the corner and links to WP:SEMI. It also categorizes it in the semi-protection category like the original template. Sprotection2 is currently being used on the George W. Bush article too.

Just thought I would let you know just in case you wanted to check it out :) semper fi — Moe 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the vote of confidence & kind words on my RFC. I very much appreciate it. —Chowbok ☠ 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More on fair use screenshots

I have responded to your statements about fair use in the Chowbok RfC with a number of examples of very similar fair use to the image of a newscaster I posted. In fact, every where I looked I found the same use of copyrighted images. I don't see the difference of a local personality versus a national, except as far as a person may even be considered significant enough for an article - if the article if appropriate, the picture is as appropriate as any other fair use of a celebrity. For every national celebrity, there is a wikipedia ~~editor~~ contributor who lives near them, and national celebrities make more, better announced public appearances than local ones.

For your reference:

Tom_Brokaw screenshot

David_Brinkley book cover not used to describe book

Gary_Coleman screenshot

Howie_Mandel screenshot

Katie_Couric screenshot down below in article

Regis_Philbin publicity photo

I think Wikipedia:Fair_use needs an update and all the fair use screenshots to be gone over (including the articles they are used in, as some are not articles about the direct subject of the screenshot), because it is not clear from Wikipedia:Fair_use or the precedents of existing articles that screenshots of people to depict them in biographical articles are not appropriate. Fourdee 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Brinkley's dead, so fair use is appropriate in that case. But the rest of the images should indeed be removed. Barring a change in policy soon, one of us will get to those hopefully not too long from now. —Chowbok ☠ 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about pornographic pictures on Main Page

Jimbo, I am taking the unusual step of writing to you directly to raise my concern about placing the Featured Article History of erotic depictions on the Main Page (I have also posted my concerns on the Main Page discussion area). I don't believe it helps Wikipedia in the least to showcase such an article. While I am not calling for censorship, I do believe that we need to be respectful on the Main Page, and not display, as is now the case, a drawing of a sex act. Since you continue to set the tone for Wikipedia, I thought that I would at least bring this to your attention. Thank you, Madman 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it shows the diversity of Wikipedia and the maturity level expected by our editors and users. — Deckill e r 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How is calling for us not to promote our best content for the sake of the sensibilities of a minority not calling for censorship? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Showing restraint and special handling of the Main Page is not overturning the "no censorship" rule. The Main Page is already treated differently, e.g. it can only ever be edited be a select few. This exception was applied knowing the special status of the Main Page. I am suggesting that we continue to be particularly sensitive to what is on the Main Page. Madman 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy doesn't control the Featured Articles. Well... He does, technically, but he didn't have a say in the nomination. Complain to someone else. oTHErONE_(Contribs) 11:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To nitpick, Jimbo controls everything, if he wants to, and if all other avenues are exhausted then he can be appealed to as a last resort. But it's true that he's unlikely to intervene here, as what those against having sex on the front page need to do is try to gain consensus to change Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (censored for the protection of minors) if they want the choice of today's featured article to reflect their sensibilities. As it's one of our oldest and most fundamental policies, I doubt Jimbo will order its alteration himself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, from the usual understanding of 'last resort' you'd have to have exhausted everything else (RFC, RFM, Arbcom etc.) before Jimbo would do anything about it, and that hasn't occured here. Besides which, WP:NOT censored for minors. WP:NOT applies to every page, including the main page. Cynical 12:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, I have posted on the Main Page discussion board, but have been very disappointed at the level of discourse there, which almost exclusively runs to sarcasm, snide remarks, misrepresentation, and setting up strawmen. I thought that Jimbo may be more sensitive to the public perception of Wikipedia than the folks who hang out there and, if nothing else, be aware of the public face of Wikipedia this day. Madman 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of FU images - exception from 3RR and from "don't block in content dispute" rules?

Jimbo, I would appreciate your clarification on two slightly unclear areas when users or admins are trying to cleanup the overuse of non-free images. One area is the three-revert rule; the other is the rule against blocking someone you're in a dispute with.

Regarding the three-revert rule, the policy page lists certain exceptions — self reverts, reverting vandalism, etc. It does not list the removal of non-free images.

I'm not as familiar with the fair use policy as I should be. If I see a non-free image in user space, I do remove it (or ask the user to); but I generally stay out of disputes concerning non-free images in an article, because it's possible to differ over how necessary such an image is. I do, however, support those who take on this thankless work.

If User:X removes a fair use image from User:Y's user page, and User:Y reverts him, then User:Y is supported by User:Z, so User:X ends up violating 3RR, I am certainly not going to block User:X for his 3RR violation, and I might, in fact, block the other two users for continuing to put back non-free images after being told it's against policy. That seems very clear, and I feel it should perhaps be listed as an exception in the 3RR page.

However, when it concerns articles, it's less clear. I'm known to be an admirer of Pope Benedict XVI. If I start edit warring over an image on his page (which I haven't done, by the way), it could be ostensibly because I'm concerned about overuse of FU images, but in reality, it could be because the image I'm removing makes him look nasty. Nobody could know for sure what my motives were. Even in a case where I don't have a strong POV concerning a character, if I'm working on a particular article, I certainly have wishes and opinions concerning the appearance of the article, so my motives could never be seen by everyone as completely neutral.

However, there are users who do a lot of work in this area. If you look at their contributions, you'll see that they go from one page to another, removing FU images, explaining why in the edit summary, and moving to another article that has too many questionable FU images. Such users are obviously going to the FU images and getting to the articles from there, rather than having an interest in the article and then removing the image because it's flattering to somone they hate or unflattering to someone they admire. Nevertheless, such editors are sometimes blocked or threatened with 3RR blocks. See for example this section (and the subheadings) from AN/I Archive 125.

That brings me to my second point, concerning blocks. In the incident referred to above, Kelly Martin suggested that Ed should not have been blocked in the first place, because he should have blocked the user who restored the images, in which case he would never have had to make a fourth revert. Others disagreed, saying that that would have been using the blocking facility to gain advantage in a content dispute. I did not feel it could validly be seen as a content dispute, because Ed had not (as far as I know) shown any prior interest in the article itself. He seemed to have arrived at it just as part of his work cleaning up on overuse of unfree images. Others thought that since it's possible to disagree on whether or not a fair use image can justifiably be used in a particular article, that a user would have no right to break 3RR, and an admin who had been reverted when removing an image would have no right to block.

Could you please clarify, as this issue is still arising. For example, could the admin who was removing images in this dispute have blocked the user in question? My feeling is that he could, at the time (the dispute is over now as someone found a free image), but it would be nice if there could be something official on it. When is something a content dispute (for 3RR and blocking purposes) and when is it not a content dispute?

Many thanks. AnnH ♫ 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Joint venture

A pig and a chicken are having a party.

After a couple of beers the chicken has got a marvellous cheeky idea.

Well pig lets start a joint venture lets make ham and eggs.

The pig, terribly drunk says: " OK that'll serve me fine lets do it".

After a terrible hangover next morning the pig remembered the joint venture deal.

"Hey chicken I overthought this ham and eggs deal and this ain't no fair deal for me because I frigging have to die if we do it".

The chicken answered: Well thats normal for a Joint venture one partner alltimes kicks the bucket ( pegs out )

Kind regards

--Ekkenekepen 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

Really? Goofigure.com is a reliable source? The website's logo has the subtitle: "Life's logical loonies." --Strothra 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources which indicate the core point. Sorry I picked a bad one.--Jimbo Wales 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

First, compliments for the idea of Wikipedia. I'm from Italy, spending much of my life here since last year... I've recently read you hinted to the possibility of something "big" you could "buy", thourgh Wikimedia funds, to improve content here. I posted there the need to buy copyrights for good technical images. While text in the articles is, in a way or another, nearing an acceptable lever, we are really lacking technical drawings here, apart some noteworthy exceptions (to make an example, a cut off of a plane, the complete drawing of a distillery, the technical details of a CPU, plans of major cities etc.). Apart for the possibility you could choose to use the funds to this specific field, have you ever thought about this problem? Do you see any other immediate or medium-time solution for it? Bye and good works. --Attilios 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

MfD for Department of Fun project

Hi Jimbo and it is my pleasure to talk to you,

I'd like to say that a page called User:AtionSong/World's_Longest_Poem has been nominated for deletion here. This poem is a project of the Department of Fun. As you are a member of this Department, I would appreciate your comments on whether the poem should be kept or not, either here, on my talk page, or on the actual MFD.

Thanks in advance, Jimbo!

Best wishes,

Yuser31415^@? 01:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

New York Times report about the "self-censorship" on Chinese Wikipedia

The Chinese Wikipedia needs your concern.

I am a Wikipedian mainly active on the Chinese Wikipedia. The New York Times has published an article "Who Did What in China’s Past? Look It Up, or Maybe Not" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/asia/01wikipedia.htm), which reports that the Chinese Wikipedia is practicing self-censorship. This is a very serious accusation and I believe it has gravely defamed the Chinese Wikipedia. This has worsened as this reported is passed on to other media such as the IHT and CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/11/30/publiceye/entry2218394.shtml).

There is no such thing happening on Wikipedia. As you have met us last time in the Chinese Wikimedia Conference, we try to uphold the NPOV policy (along with the "No original research" and "verifiability") as strictly as they are on the English Wikipedia. We are also constantly struggling to keep Fenqing (aggressive people who have strong political views) from regularly vandalizing our articles. The Chinese Wikipedia is editted by wikipedians from the whole world. Even wikipedians from mainland China are being influenced by their communist education, how on earth will Wikipedians from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Singapore allow censoring to happen? No way!

The Chinese Wikipedia community is very concerned and worried. One of us, roc, has written an email to the Wikipedia mailing list (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011806.html) to clarify the truth.

I sincerely hope that you can step in and inform those media in question. If this is not dealt with properly, the development of Chinese Wikipedia is going to be hindered under this bad name. --Computor 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Create

How did you create Wikipedia? Was is nupedia? This has been a quote by The Moneycruncher. If you would like to respond, go to this talk page. --The Moneycruncher 00:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm... Chicago Stock Exchange. Bomis. Larry Sangler. Wikipedia. --in that order. Anomo 01:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I just wanted to say hi and thanks for creating Wikipedia and doing such a great job! R430nb2 06:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't Wikimedia Foundation donation page have 2006 budget

The donation page lists the 2005 budget as the latest one. Why don't you have the one for 2006 (and 2007)? I think it would help fundraising. MikeWren 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please help with the fair use debate; we're in a stalemate

Jimbo, I understand the free nature of Wikipedia and everything, but right now we've got a huge conflict on our hands here regarding fair use images. It's clear that the policy isn't supported by a large number of Wikipedians, but rather than finding compromise, we currently have a minority of editors who have been going out of their way to slash and burn fair use images of biographical subjects en masse.

This causes a number of problems, most significantly that it affects the quality of the encyclopedia. Free images are great, but in the short term, idealism is winning out over the project's most important goals, which is to create a comprehensive user-edited encyclopedia. Do we want to be Debian and close off the gates here, or do we want to be Ubuntu and make those a large part of our goals, but leave the gates open?

Many of the images in question are promotional photos which we do have the right to use (and are made specifically for uses like Wikipedia) but have copyrights on them. In most cases, promotional photos are clearly better than the free alternative, in which cell phone photos which clearly aren't equal replacements to the original images are getting suggested.

In one case, a Washington state senator's photo was marked as replaceable fair use, and the person who uploaded the image actually went to the trouble of calling their office to get the photo cleared. But since they held the copyright (but ok'd the photo for our usage), this image will likely get deleted.

There has been talk of the need to fork Wikipedia over the last couple of days, which may or may not be completely serious, but is coming up because there's a major ideological stalemate going on. Nobody's compromising here, so if you could help us compromise, that would be huge.

Also, you've got a big head and googly eyes. :) - Stick Fig 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbritration elections

When are the next Arbritration elections? Also, what are some good tips that will make someone vote for you? Like an attracting summary of your work, something about yourself, your opinions to Wikpedia, or something like that. Thanks. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Have had a few "eggs"cidents in the past? What's "crackin'"? That's all, "yolks"! Lol

Origin of "Bomis" name

How was the name Bomis established? -- Zanimum 22:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Whois Nekked? My only clue is that domain registered to Bomis. Anomo 18:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaking Home Ties

I hope I was able to expand this your newly-created stub to your standards Jimbo :) semper fi — Moe 09:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Hello Jimbo Wales. I want to bring to your attention a possible racism case among Wikipedia administors. In my opinion, User:Khoikhoi is a racist, because s/he uses Khoikhoi as her/his user name to promote racism on the internet. Only a racist can choose to use such user name. Such person should be banned from Wikipedia. How can S/he be an administrator? I left a message before on your talk page, but it was erased by User: Persian Poet Gal with the excuse of personal attack? I just want you to know that this is not a personal attack. Even if S/he is a Khoikhoi, his/her user name is still inappropriate. It will be great if you could check if User: Khoikhoi is really a Khoikhoi. If s/he is really a Khoikhoi, I think s/he should change user name. Otherwise, User: Khoikhoi is definitely a racist and should be banned from Wikipedia. Please respond to my message. Thanks.NKH 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To note, NKH has not addressed User:Khoikhoi directly, which is generally recommended when one has concerns about an inappropriate username. Also, NKH's contributions have been mainly based on this matter alone. To consider User:Khoikhoi's intentions as racist seems to undermine Wikipedia's policy of assume good faith. I myself mention ethnicity within my name. Whose to say if I am really of Persian decent? Should my account then come under the same scrutiny as User:Khoikhoi? The remarks seem unfounded since they are based on little evidence and the prosposal to attempt to find out of one's true ethnicity is not what I would consider plausible or ethical. Lastly, the username policy clearly bans use of cultural religious figures or racial slurs not ethnicity. I have left this edit alone so as not to cause edit wars. But, based on all said above, I believe the accusations are false and that User:Khoikhoi need not be seen as violating any policy at this current time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is User:Khoikhoi's explanation left on my talk page on the reason why s/he as a Californian wants to use Khoikhoi, the most racially discriminated ethnic group in the world as his/her username. According to s/he, this is already an improvement from an even more racist name User:Hottentot. Khoikhoi were treated like animals. Only a racist will use this as a username. According to the talk page of the article, it seems that Khoikhoi are extinct [14]. I am really disgusted by User:Khoikhoi and the explanation. I wonder if there are any respectable people in Wikipedia. NKH 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is the comment User:Khoikhoi left on User:NKH's talk page:

"NKH, I chose the username "Khoikhoi" becuase my previous username was Hottentot, which means "stutterer" in Dutch—the name that the colonists of South Africa called them. "Hottentot" is obviously offensive, which is why I chose the more PC word. "Khoi Khoi" just means "people people" or "men of men", the name that the Khoikhoi themselves prefered. Since that's what they used, I'm not sure what racial concerns you're talking about. At least my username isn't Capoid or Negroid. ;-) Anyways, coming from a liberal part of California, I'm definately not racist. BTW, are you from South Africa? Later, Khoi khoi 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)"

NKH, it still does not justify making the accusation that User:Khoikhoi is not assuming good faith in choosing that account name. Calling one disgusting for answering you politely and choosing a name which itself refers to a ethnicity and not the plight of the ethnicity is more along the lines of personally attacking User:Khoikhoi. If this user had a history in which was considered questionable in intent then the name might be held for scrutiny. But as mentioned above, User:Khoikhoi often has assumed good faith as an administrator of Wikipedia, the name Khoikhoi is still in reference to an ethnicity not a racial slur/plight of the ethnicity, and your only contributions have been regarding this matter rather than taking the time to read through some of Wikipedia's policy first. I appreciate your concern to keep Wikipedia free from racism and other negative elements but your accusations regarding User:Khoikhoi still have little evidence what-so-ever.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what good faith User:Khoikhoi is assuming? Could you let some respectable people to deal with this problem? It is not just me accusing User:Khoikhoi. There are also other editors complain on its talk page. NKH 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi has attempted to remove picutre from Khoikhoi[[15]] and added a picture on his/her user page. [[16]] I think administrators should accept talks from any users. But User:Khoikhoi even has his/her talk page protected. NKH 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins are justified like any other user to have their pages (including talk pages) protected in times of extreme vandalism. Also the picture removal is still a good faith edit. You still have not provided valid evidence of malicious intent from User:Khoikhoi.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely a picture that shows the exact contents of the article. It is just vandalism to have it removed. NKH 18:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of evidence, Persian Poet Gal is asking. The evidence is User:Khoikhoi's user name. It is obvious that a wikipedia administrator is making fun of an African people. NKH 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry but I just do not understand this complaint. How is Khoikhoi making fun of African people? Can you point to any particular edits which are problematic in this regard?--Jimbo Wales 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am complaining about User:Khoikhoi's user name not edits. Khoikhoi people were terribly treated as animals in history. It is totally inappropriate for someone to use Khoikhoi as a username. The explanation given by User:Khoikhoi seems to indicate that s/he is not a Khoikhoi. NKH 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Would be innapporiate for me to have the user name Caucasian or African American or Englishman? Plus, this discussion does not really matter because in no way can it give the results you want because of the username policy (do not go and change it... discuss that on the talk page if you want to). Cbrown1023 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is innappropriate because you are a nobody and there are too many of these people. At least, there is no one that stupid to use these usernames so far. In consideration of the history of Khoikhoi, such username can be offensive to some people. It is not just inappropriate. NKH 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, calling someone a nobody is another personal attack. Cbrown1023 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How ridiculous is that? Personal attachk? This is so funny. NKH 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone a nobody (or anything else to insult someone) is a personal attack. There is nothing funny about it. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see a problem with his username... you find it offensive, but no one else does... The username policy also does not say that it is a no-no, so it stays. Plus, Jimbo has seen this dispute and if he believed it was inappaproiate, then he would have bocked or told him to change her name already. (It is also upsetting that you went straight here before talking to him, which is the common courtesy.) Cbrown1023 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, I'm a guy. :-) Khoi khoi 23:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, sorry... :) Cbrown1023 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think sometimes people are quick to assume racism when there's not like with Kramer, Johnny Cochrane, Habbo Hotel, etc. Anomo 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The original poster wants outside opinions from respectable Wikipedians. I hope I qualify: in all of my interactions and observations, User:Khoikhoi has been a model Wikipedian. I trust that he made his choice of username in good faith. There are many instances of actual racism in the world and I hope the particular diligence that began this thread will redirect itself toward eliminating more of them. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Fake "no-linking" copyright law breaks Wikipedia" on BoingBoing

Cory Doctorow recently blogged about Wikipedia policy on BoingBoing.net. [17]

As I understand, current Wikipedia policy forbids external linking to known copyright violations. There has recently been much controversy among Wikipedia editors about linking to Youtube videos with questionable copyright status.

I exchanged several emails with Cory, and he thinks this policy is 'stupid' and 'harmful to Wikipedia'. I would like to know your stance on this issue. Dforest 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Super-long articles

Hi Jimbo, could you take a look and comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee. Many articles are growing out of proportion to what the average reader can digest in one surf-sitting. Wikipedia is now a top-12 website in the world. Growth is good, but over-length articles are bad. There does not seem to be a mechanism, functioning rule, or cut-off point to facilitate the sub-sectioning of super-long (90kb+) articles. Overly-long, especially controversial, articles are tension spots for editors and contributors and turn-offs for readers. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiCast

Dear Mr Wales,

I am writing to you in connection with a project called WikiCast http://wiki.epstone.net/wikicast/Main_Page

The aim being to use wiki (and other 'free') generated content for a net radio channel.

A 'pilot' project earlier this year was succuesful but proved that an awful lot of reliable content generation needed to take place.

Perhaps you would be in a positon to look over the project and assist it's development?

ShakespeareFan00 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the stub

Jimbo, thanks for the Breaking Home Ties stub, it gave me an opportunity to write the narrative of the story Rockwell tells with his image, and I enjoyed it very much. I'm a big Rockwell fan, but I had never seen this picture before. It was a treat to work on a brand-new article about a 'new' Rockwell pic. Thanks again! User:Pedant 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Here's $15 and a voucher for free hug. I love Wikipedia and I love you! You may delete now :) --Dagibit 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Clueless in Indianapolis!

Hi Jimbo,

So, here I wandered around and saw many references to Jimbo Wales to the extent that it seemed like a magical incantation or a Hitchcockian MacGuffin, but I was cluless in Indianapolis...

Sometimes the name was used like the waving of a wand and sometimes like a swinging mace. I've seen the name brandished and held above a User: like the Shield of Heracles for protection. Sometimes threateningly and sometimes fearfully, 'Jimbo Wales' was a tool or a weapon. Sometimes it was a whispering voice in the night...

All that said, I finally figured out that you ARE WikiPedia! Now, having read a lot about you and your vision, I must tell you that I am pleased and proud to be the smallest cog in this great machine!

Today, I finally was able to read your vision and guiding principles and am amazed at your gentleness and foresight. My personal WikiPath now has direction...

I just wanted to thank you for all of this--it is a friend and a resource and a therapist to me!

Take care!

Larry

(I am a 60-year-old quality engineer by profession with Extreme Technical Writing as part of my toolkit. I've been a computer programmer since the Atari 800 days and have spent more hours with UNIX shellscripts than most gamesters have with Pokemon! )
Lmcelhiney 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert Abuse and Intimidation by Admns.

Jimbo: I have used the subject article Talk page, the Individuals' Talk pages, the Admn. Noticeboard, but with no real attention paid to the issue.

There are a group of editors, including Administrators that are reverting good-faith reliably sourced information, without discussion, in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. This is an allied attempt at gaming the system, and a disgraceful display of conduct.

1st revert [18] 20 Novmeber
2nd revert: [19] 20 November
3rd Revert: [20] 20 November
4th Revert: [21] 20 November
5th Revert: [22] 21 November
6th Revert: [23] 22 November
7th Revert: [24] 22 November

The article is basically on lock-down due to an allied group that is violating the spirit of WP:OWN. Please look at all my work that was deleted, as all the reverts involved new information for the article. Disgraceful.

What is your recommendation? This POV oriented group of allies is not interested in collaborating in good-faith and the mass reverts without any discussion illustrate this clearly. I believe they are trying to get me to quit Wikipedia out of frustration, that is my honest opinion of this. Can a group of allied editors take over an article, and block all information they dislike? Please review the full content of these reverts tha include whole new paragraphs and sourced info, it's disgraceful conduct. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe have a peek at this related ArbCom case. The recommendations there (see for instance "Remedies" section), which FYI are not Jimbo's but the ArbCom's, include using procedures and techniques as explained at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Francis Schonken 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay something is strange. HOTR and Bhouston have blank user and talk pages, no edits, and show they are not even users. What happened? Anomo 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about Bhouston. The situation with Homeontherage got rather nasty (to put it mildly), the last thing I heard about it: . Not an example of Wikipedia:WikiLove (neither way that is).

HOTR and Bhouston both changed their usernames and left Wikipedia. They also both asked for the pages of their original usernames to be deleted. Therefore links to their original user pages failed to redirect to the user pages of their new names. The admin who deleted Bhouston's user page has since restored it, and I've recreated HOTR's user page myself. Links to user:Bhouston and user:HOTR now redirect to pages from which you can access their contributions. Thanks for pointing this out! Kla'quot 20:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC) For privacy reasons, HOTR did not want his user page to redirect to his new user name, so the page has been deleted again. His contributions log still exists.Kla'quot 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC) For privacy reasons, Bhouston has also asked for his page to be deleted. His contributions log still exists. Kla'quot 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that also KimvdLinde, involved in that ArbCom, more or less left soon after, but I recall her saying this ArbCom case wasn't the real (or "exclusive") cause.[25] Oops. Stumbled in to this one, while looking for that previous diff: User:KimvdLinde/SV-RfAR. --Francis Schonken 15:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LOL, I know who the main reverter is. She's always complained about on wikipediareview.com; why they single her out I don't know when she's mild compared to a lot of the article ownings. Another one of the reverters is running for ArbCom so be sure to vote since at least one article owners (not the ones you are complaining about) have been on ArbCom in the past and through it gotten CheckUser. Anomo 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo: What can a person do if the abuse by administrators is in a Wikipedia that has not implemented yet mechanisms of resolution for conflicts nor has implemented mechanisms to dismiss the administrators that misbehave? I was just blocked in Wikipedia (es) by an administrator that has a history of aggressiveness, that voted in favor of deleting my work (then, he became an interested party), that expressed publicly his despise for my work (“it is not possible that “this” have the longest article in Wikipedia in Spanish”). Now, being a Judge, a part and an executioner at the same time, has blocked my account during the voting, defense and corrections steps (for one day), because I complained about the system (without appeal instances as in English Wiki, among other thinks) and because I complained of personal attacks against my person and family by one of the users (they came to know my real name). The work is related to the genealogy of my family since the year 844 and the evolution of the last name in France, England, Italy, Spain and America. Many histories and personalities were described, with a number of references (from books, etc.), including the story of "Nessie and Saint Columba", "Bonafusus de Sancta Columba", the first person granted a Patent, and the musician Sainte Colombe of France, among many others. The work is in Spanish (Santa Coloma (apellido)). I would appreciate any help. Kind regards, --Tasc1 00:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the same bunch, acting in the same way. Jimbo, that article is not being vetted to appropriate standards and this is why. What next?

Administrators admonished

2) All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

   Passed 6 to 0 at 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo: We all seem to have similar problems with administrator abuses, not matter the language (English, Spanish, ..) of Wikipedia. It is amazing. I have exactly the same problems described above in w:es, with administrators that appear all together in a few minutes (or few hours) to impose their will. Probably they should not be allowed to vote. An admin cannot be Judge and party at the same time (in my modest opinion). Sometimes, after voting, (so, becoming an interested party), they still use their privileges as administrators to block a page, impose pressure on editors, etc. I suggest that appeal procedures for misconduct of administrators be implemented in all Wikipedia languages, as a part of the main principles of wikipedia, to avoid and define non-ethical behavior. I normally contribute to the Spanish wikipedia as (Tasc), but I am here to get some advice from Wikipedia. Regards colleagues, and have a peaceful day. --Tasc1 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Same Conduct again

ChrisO above mentions that SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Humus sapiens are a team. I recently ran into this team (on July 4th) and got banned for 24hrs for adding sourced information. Tag-teamed by SlimVirgin and Jayjg (I still do not know how Jayjg so conviently arrived on the scene to help SlimVirgin out once she ran out of reverts), reported by SlimVirgin and banned by Humus Sapiens.Kiyosaki 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Same Conduct/Abuse Again

Statement by HOTR

This particular article aside, I think some investigation is warranted in the "tag-team" activities of SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus Sapiens not only in this article but in a swath of articles which touch upon Israel. They behave in a highly factional manner that seems to be co-ordinated and the fact that they are all admins and one is an ArbComm member only adds to the problem. There also seems to be some coordination and vote-stacking occuring, possibly via email or IRC - it's curious for instance that within 90 minutes 6 editors turn up in a row to support a proposal by Jayjg [27] and in the matter of a poll on the name of the Israeli apartheid article, following SV, Humus and Jay being criticised for acting (again in a coordinated manner) to change the name of an article when there is no consensus in the vote to do so, a dozen people suddenly show up in a row to vote to change the article, a number of whom have never edited the article before.Kiyosaki 12:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Yep

The point is that objective criticism of Israel and its practices face difficulty in being expressed on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) That is clearly why articles are not vetted correctly.Kiyosaki 12:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kiyosaki,

Again I want to express clearly I have no ambition to reply in Jimbo's place, these are exclusively my own observations:

I think the best initiative you took in this issue, de facto applying the ArbCom remedy you quoted above, is this one: [26]
Now, and that is the reason I leave you a note here, there seems to be a problem with the bot processing the new Mediation Cabal requests: [27] [28]; so *patience* is a key word now (until the request is processed). Sorry about that. I'm missing "WikiCourage" to go rattle some trees.

@Jimbo,

No idea how reliable Kiyosaki is as a Wikipedian, and as far as I'm concerned that is not even the issue here. W.r.t. the problem he mentions I think the principle at stake is: "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." [29] --Francis Schonken 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)