User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

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: 24 hours

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 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 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

All smart people -- whether good or evil -- have kittens!

Robbie0630 (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo, in September, in this thread on your talk page, you said that you would welcome this case. The thread in question was opened by Carolmooredc (now site banned and topic banned) to tell you she had started an ANI complaint about the alleged disruption of GGTF by 3 users. Neotarf (now site banned and topic banned) added to the thread by telling you that they had requested at ANI that the three users be page banned from the GGTF. Lightbreather (now blocked for socking in the case talk pages, though not a party) added in the same thread that "It is disgraceful that millions of people get their information from a male dominated (85% or more) editing community that regularly dismisses women's complaints about and attempts to address incivility toward individuals and toward projects like the Gender gap task force." Whilst 2 of the users that Carolemooredc and Neotarf were complaining about have been topic banned, the most severe sanctions have been reserved for Carolemooredc and Neotarf themselves. You appeared at that time to (putting it crudely) take the side of those who were complaining about the three users. I have two questions: firstly, what's your view of the arbcom decision? secondly, if you think arbcom decided it correctly, do you now think this wasn't as much of a "one side at fault" situation as your previous comments gave the impression you believed. Given that you appeared to encourage the case I hope you don't say you haven't looked into it sufficiently to give an opinion. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battle ground and I will tell you that several GGTF participants thanked me when I blocked Neotarf for outing. I think that a quiet majority at GGTF supports the removal of troublemakers, regardless of what opinions those users hold. The users banned were sanctioned in part for things outside the scope of GGTF. I don't think it's right to divide users into two "sides" and count how many got banned on each "side" as a means of keeping score. Jehochman ^Talk 11:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. My question implies it is always an oversimplification to divide something like this into "sides", and then declare which "side" is in the right. DeCausa (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully stand by my earlier remarks. You appear to be viewing my remarks through a lens that isn't true - a lens of "sides" which I reject. I think a lot of people should be sitebanned for misbehavior and that the community will begin to grow and flourish again when we get rid of people who bring more drama than they are worth. As to specific editors in this specific case, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint you by declining to offer detailed opinions of the ArbCom decision. My role with respect to ArbCom doesn't consist of judging whether I agree with specific detailed decisions, but rather to give some oversight as to whether they are following appropriate and fair processes and procedures.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. In fact, this was what I was really wondering: X points out Y's behaviour to you and says Y should be banned. You look at Y's behaviour and say "yes Y should be banned". X then trumpets this as a diff - your opinion carries weight and influence. But actually X's behaviour is as bad or worse. If you haven't examined it, is it wise for you to enter the fray (especially in a contentious area) and give your opinion? DeCausa (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I said, I'm not making any statements about the ultimate outcome of the ArbCom case, so I'm very much not saying that "X's behaviour is as bad or worse". You seem to be pushing me to retry the ArbCom case or state how I would have decided this differently. I'm not going there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't trying to do that with my last post, that's why I went for X and Y. I was asking about your perception of the risks associated with giving forthright opinions on circumstances that are presented to you, but which are often more complex and nuanced than might appear from a few diffs. But I see you said "yes" (surprisingly) - so I think I have my answer. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the situation was more complex and nuanced that my initial remarks indicated. Things are always very very complex and very very nuanced, and I think I do a good job of acknowledging that. I don't see what's surprising about me being so careful to make things like that as clear as I can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no benefit in debating the first sentence in your above reply. Now that the case evidence has provided a full context, everyone can and will take their own view on that. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so the answer then to "is it wise for you to enter the fray (especially in a contentious area) and give your opinion?" is always going to be "Yes".  pablo 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Only when I am confident that I am right (as I was in this case) and can contribute usefully to the discussion about how to improve the tone and atmosphere in the community. It is wise for me to refuse to comment on matters that I don't know enough about - and so I often do refuse to comment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this example of obvious censorship by Wikipedia then? Everyone can understand what that case is about, so can you (yet you refuse to make it right): the article on Bosnia and Herzegovina states its regime as a republic though its own constitution in Article I.1 says it's not a republic any more! How bizarre, seeing Wikipedia advance political agenda of certain foreign interests and censoring all those who try to have Wikipedia report truth instead. Pretty scary indeed, while famous Mr. Jimbo Wales and his cronies pretend to be impartial and all about knowledge and what have you not... 62.24.91.34 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you won't comment on the case, but how about a hypothetical? Let's say there is a male editor who, after the conclusion of an arbitration case, begins following a female editor from the same case all over the site for months. When that editor is reported for this behavior and there is a proposal to bar the male editor from interacting with the female editor, another male editor comes to his defense and suggests if the male editor is barred from interacting with the female editor that maybe he will start "following her around" instead. After the proposal is passed the other male editor announces he is going to be doing work on Wikipedia regarding a link, which just happens to be the personal website of the female editor. The female editor objects and questions his intentions. This male editor then begins taunting her with personal details researched online and plainly expresses his intentions to write a bio about her here. Despite several other objections and the female editor's own protests, this male editor creates a draft that he explains is fully intended to be made into a live article all about the female editor. It is apparent that certain details have been cherry-picked from primary sources and articles about the female editor and presented in a way that is clearly aimed at being unflattering towards her. Despite numerous editors suggesting his actions are woefully inappropriate he insists that he is a perfectly good editor who is being neutral towards this person he detests. Would you consider it acceptable for the Arbitration Committee to ban the female editor for commenting about this male editor's behavior, while giving the male editor essentially nothing more than a warning after praising his efforts on this site?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the WP:Help Desk, it is not uncommon for an editor to post a "hypothetical" question and ask what the Wikipedia policy is. The Help Desk volunteers usually decline to answer the "hypothetical" question, which is very seldom hypothetical, but is really being stated hypothetically in order to get an opinion permitting them to wikilawyer on either a conduct dispute or a content dispute. Sometimes the Help Desk editors look at contribution history to determine what the actual issue is and give advice on the actual issue, such as to take the content issue to a dispute resolution process. That appears to be what TDA is doing, posing a supposedly hypothetical case. As is usually the situation, case is not hypothetical, only a biased summary of one aspect of the actual case, failing to take into account additional details that were noted by the ArbCom. I have confidence that User:Jimbo Wales is smart enough to avoid taking the bait, which would then be used to argue that ArbCom blew the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TDA. That you have managed to reduce this to "male editor" and "female editor" pretty well illustrates what has been wrong with GGTF from day one — identity politics. Not all male editors are sexist harassers. Not all female editors are community-first saints... The biography subject was reeeeeaaaaaaallllly borderline with respect to GNG and should not have been attempted by their on-wiki opponent — as was addressed at AfD and by ArbCom. If you think that has any relationship whatsoever to why the biography subject was banned in the case, you need to reread the case and discussion pages from the start and visit the ArbCom archives dealing with their previous case. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carrite and I disagree more often then we agree (which illustrates that male editors do not always think alike). When we agree, it may illustrate that User:The Devil's Advocate is stretching things. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TDA wasn't "posing a supposedly hypothetical case", it was genuinely hypothetical. Apart from anything else, nothing in the GGTF case concerned "ban[ning] the female editor for commenting about this male editor's behavior". DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my hypothetical was not really a hypothetical since it is something that has actually happened. The finding of fact regarding Carol is so weak and so centered on Sitush that it makes me seriously question the judgment of all Arbs involved. Had they proposed a harsher sanction for Sitush and cited serious evidence of misconduct by Carol unrelated to Sitush this result could be acceptable. This is not what they did. Instead they basically did what I just laid out above. I am not big into identity politics, but I do think it demonstrates a serious lack of self-awareness for Arbs to have taken this particular approach regarding the Gender Gap Task Force case given how it looks in context.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeCausa: TDA acknowledges that it wasn't really a hypothetical case, just a partly correct and partly incorrect statement of part of the actual case. Just because TDA's description of the situation is incomplete and misleading does not make it fictional or hypothetical. Therefore posing the "hypothetical" case was meant as a trick question. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you do realise that you stated the blindingly obvious - with the exception of your penultimate sentence. The divergence from reality makes it hypothetical. He just didn't intend it to be read in that way. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where you can discuss this case where the relevant people will see your feedback. It would be rude to bore our host by re-hashing the entire case here.

• Discuss this case

Please leave comments there. Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Register has published another article criticizing the Wikimedia Foundation for not using the $60 million in assets it has, which according to the article is "far more than the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) needs to run a website." (I say "another" because of articles like this). Do you, Mr. Wales, have anything to say about this? I.e. what is the purpose of the $60 million that the foundation is said to be "sitting on"? Everymorning talk to me 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is by Andrew Orlowski, someone's whose journalistic skills I can't comment on here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can. Past experience shows he's got a very long history of attacking Wikipedia, often with one-sided and inaccurate or downright untrue claims. He's also got form as an egregious climate change denialist. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Prioryman (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orlowski used to be amusing. About ten years ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More diplomatic than I would have put it. :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the link, NeilN. I must have forgotten to do so myself for some reason. Everymorning talk to me 20:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one is easy. I'm extremely proud of our financial track record and consider our level of reserves to be prudent and sensible - neither too large nor too small. Here is some typical advice about nonprofit reserves: "A commonly used reserve goal is 3-6 months' expenses. At the high end, reserves should not exceed the amount of two years' budget." How much should my nonprofit have in its operating reserve? For further information from the Wikimedia Foundation, see this question and answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimbo, that's really useful. It's strange that Orlowski, who is apparently a professional journalist, didn't do the basic fact-finding that would have given him those answers before he started frantically hammering his keyboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expound on what Jimbo Wales said, the document he linked shows the 2014-2015 budget to be "$58.5 million in spending, including $8.2 million in spending allocated for grants". The article linked describes $60 million in reserve which is in line with a 12 month reserve, which is common. Rmosler | ● 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever said Orlowski was a professional journalist? He appears to come up with his story before he writes it, then cherry-picks or misrepresents facts to support his preferred spin. This is just more of the same. Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant professional in what I consider the original sense, that is, someone who makes their living by means of full time employment in a particular activity. I did not intend to imply anything about the quality of the work carried out during that employment, nor about any ethical principles underlying the execution of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You allege Wikipedia runs no adds, but how about 14,000+ advertisement articles you have? How many more are there]? For example User:CorporateM is an openly payed editor who writes good advertisement articles, yet still advertisements, and get paid for writing them.121.40.91.74 (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example, please? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When is the last time our !rules have been drastically changed, a !rule scrapped, or it's scope fundamentally enhanced or diminished? Despite having IAR and essays deploring instruction creep, we seem down the road towards more bureaucratic mud and a solidifying and codifying of our policies, guidelines, and important essays into "this is how it's always been done, and so it shall always be!" instead of what I always thought our !rules were intended to be- a statement of "this is how we solved this problem last time, adjust this !rule as new consensus finds new problems need different solutions, and adjust this policy/guideline accordingly to assist in the next time being more efficient". Are we stuck in a mode to which Thomas Jefferson was afraid the USA would find itself in- "some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched". Perhaps we need to do what Jefferson had hoped the USA would do, have a new constitution every so often (more along the lines of modern French history I suppose, minus the whole Nazi collaboration part); in Wikipedia perhaps the equivalent would be to open up the main policies in a sandbox to be rewritten from scratch where there wont be those who say "but that's what it has said since 2009!" as an excuse for why some thing can not be changed. But this is just my opinion. I'm sure there will be a lot more. In opposition.Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What changes in particular are you proposing? I do see a general issue that significant change is extremely difficult because the English Wikipedia is governed by consensus rather than by majority, and that consensus is difficult to achieve with as varied as the English Wikipedia. Are you proposing anything in particular, or just being abstract?

Is this perhaps a proposal for something along the lines of a Constitutional convention (political meeting)? Honestly, I could and do see some merit to having something like that take place on a fairly regular, if rather lengthy, interval. A little rebellion now and again is a good thing because it tends to make it easier to enact reasonable changes which would be glossed over because of "tradition" or lethargy or whatever you want to call it. Some sort of specific proposal of such a convention might get enough support to make some sort of periodic basic review possible. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last such gathering, if not advertised as such, was in London this last summer. A couple of thousand people participated, that's all. A very large number of RfCs added together, could perhaps count a similar number of participants. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]