Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:55, 12 January 2008 view sourceHPJoker (talk | contribs)2,421 edits →Status Bot: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:03, 11 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,359 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 252) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{usercomment}}
{{noindex}}
</div>
{{Stb}}
{{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Press
| subject = talkpage
| author = Matthew Gault
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
| org = ]
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
| date = 8 December 2021
| quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(10d)
|maxarchivesize = 250K
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 32
| counter = 252
|algo = old(2d)
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=2|target=./Archive 31|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}}
__TOC__
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=nein|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
{{-}}
{{archives|small=yes}}

== Suggested talkspace enhancement ==

It would be nice to be able to somehow mark or create a subpage for a user which is readable by that user and certain other authorized people but not everyone in the world, to avoid having to go to e-mail in those circumstances. This would also keep more communication on-wiki and transparent to the ArbCom and others with similar privilege. &mdash;] (''']''') 08:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:I have read comments from people who tried to modify the copy-left ] software that Misplaced Pages uses, in order to allow that and they have concluded that the openness that was built into it from the start can not be easily removed, making Wikimedia an inappropriate software package for controlled writing/reading projects. The functionality you mention is available in some other internet user interface packages (forums and such). Wikis are inherently open. Different things are good for different purposes. ] (]) 10:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the information, WAS. I could certainly make a strong argument that having a wiki platform with privileges on certain spaces is not self-contradictory. Certainly there are parts of Misplaced Pages that only admins and members of other classes can read or write, but it may not be fine-grained enough to enable per-user permissions to be easily implemented. &mdash;] (''']''') 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::By the way I can certainly see serious policy implications of this feature if it were created so it is by no means a given that it is a good idea at all. I just thought I'd suggest it in case it was something people had not given much thought to. &mdash;] (''']''') 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::MediaWiki can't do this but there are other wiki software packages ( at least) that claim to. Drupal can also do wiki-like stuff, and can do access control. --] <small>]</small> 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== On the topic of east Europeans and draconian sanctions ==

Hi Jimbo,

recall your email exchange you had in February, 2004, where you asked whether the internal squabbling was getting worse, whether the mediation/arbitration system was working and what could be done to build a sense of love and harmony. One wise contributor Caroline responded: ''"We still have a geographical bias, partly but not soley due to the different levels of internet access amongst different communities and countries. As this divide narrows we will get more contributors who disagree with the current consensus on various articles. Most articles on countries and political movements have not been edited by people from the relevant country. If we sometimes have trouble getting Wikilove between the US and UK then it will probably get worse as net access improves in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, for example."''

So how has Misplaced Pages coped in the intervening years with the arrival of contributors from eastern Europe editing articles about their own countries? Not very well I am sad to say. It is rather unfortunate that a certain sector of established editors and admins have reacted adversely to this influx of new editors who have challenged their established notions. Their response has been to characterise these newcomers as "nationalist POV-pushers", for example , regardless of the fact that these multi-lingual east Europeans may actually know more about their own country's history than many of these mostly US based editors could imagine. In fact one admin even characterises this influx of contributors as a "plague" (]) that must be eradicated in the most draconian manner.

This intolerant attitude by an established sector against these newcomers is driving these newcomers away. These people, who have much potential to contribute in east European topics due to their intimate local knowledge and language skills, are essentially being vilified for the fact of their east European origin and their sincere intellectual effort is dismissed as "axe-grinding" without any further thought . Their departure is a far greater loss to Misplaced Pages than any alleged disruption these established editors and admins believe they are fighting against.

Case in point. We had a number of new editors from the former Soviet Union country of ] who joined the project mid year and who greatly expanded Wikiproject Estonia and contributed to a variety of articles concerning Estonia. They also challenged the established concensus through articles like ]. Add into the mix around the same time in May of 2007, the ] incident occurred where a monument to the Red Army was moved from downtown ] to a military cemetary. As you may be aware, rioting among young Russians broke out in Tallinn and Estonia was also subjected to severe cyber attacks apparently orchestrated within the Russophone blogosphere. This conflict appeared to have also spread into Misplaced Pages with a number of established editors conflicting with these new Estonian editors. The result was significant disruption to almost exclusively Estonian articles which these Estonians either created or greatly expanded, ranging from ] to country specific articles such as ] (which btw was initially speedy deleted by an admin who believed it was WP:POINT creation as a part of this conflict), ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. Given that many admins seem to believe in the "nationalist plague" view, these Estonian editors on balance seemed to have come off worst in terms of blocks. In one extreme case an Estonian editor was blocked for one week for the nominal reason of reverting the article ] one single time, while extensive page move disruption of ] by an established editor earned a mere 30 minute block.

Anyway, all this culminated in a case being brought to ArbCom ], where the complainant wanted ArbCom to initially investigate ''all'' Estonian editors. The outcome of this case was ] and ] banned for a year. The justification for this remedy was this particular finding of fact ''"In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly ''draconian measures'' as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia."'' ]. However there ''were'' no reasonable attempts made in the case of ]. Mediation or a RFC/U, which is is customarily required before taking a case to ArbCom, was never under taken first.

While ArbCom may have became increasingly frustrated at the numerous cases before them concerning Eastern Europe, including:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
it must be noted these cases were primarily between Russian and Polish editors (hence the east European tag). This conflict came to a head in ], the outcome being a general amnesty for those participants. Given that these Estonian newcomers who arrived around May 2007 were not a party to these earlier cases and hence had no knowledge or participation in this past disruption, it was assumed that this amnesty would also be extended to them too . However these Estonians appear to have carried the brunt of ArbCom's frustration and resultant draconian measures, in other words they were collaterally damaged by an earlier conflict not of their making. In essence, ] was banned for a year for defending articles about his own country, which he either created or significantly expanded.

Let's not throw the baby (these new editors) out with the bath water (disruptive practices). With a country of only 1.4 million, the demographic of university educated Estonians is already small, the demographic of university educated fluent english speaking Estonians ''willing'' to contribute to Misplaced Pages is tiny. Due to this hostile environment against any east European who may challenge the comfortable concensus acheived by established editors mostly based outside Europe (i.e. USA), we have seen the exit of:
# ] ,
# ] ,
# ] ,
# ] , the departure of
# ] , who was instrumental in getting ] off the ground as Project_Estonia coordinator, and finally
# ] , who was the driving force behind the establishment of ].
In addition several others like ] have reduced their involvement considerably. Without this core group of enthusiasts putting energy and vitality into WikiProject_Estonia, it is essentially dead, with now only a minimal amount of house keeping edits now being done by people without the background, language skills or interest needed to create and further expand Estonia related articles.
I don't know how to fix this apparent systematic bias, dare I say xenophobia, against east European editors that seems to held by a section of established editors and admins within Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you could reflect on Caroline's words form 2004 and think about how best Misplaced Pages could end throwing the babies out with the bath water. If you believe that Misplaced Pages is enriched by the inclusion contributors from other communities and countries, perhaps you could encourage ArbCom to look favorably at the proposals here: ], maybe some of this damage can be undone and these editors may be encouraged to return. ] (]) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm gone now too for all practical uses. I will not let our history get distorted again beyond belief as it was when I joined and I fully expect harsh times even with this little involvement. But I will not put more into this project. Giving and only receiving abuse is not worth more. Ive tried to make proposals to break the cycle of power, they have gone unheeded because those that have it will not give any of it up. I wrote it on my userpage the day my final disillusionment came and now I repeat it here.

:Misplaced Pages is said to be a libertarian anarchy. It no longer is because the liberties are going away one by one. Now its just an anarchy with ever-changing '''rules on what you are not allowed to do''' interpreted at seen fit by admins. Where are the liberties? Policies that state '''what are my rights?''' They do not exist because on Misplaced Pages you have NONE. You are at the mercy of the admins interpretation of the rules. If expressing an opinion countering the ruling clique or an admin in your own user space earns you a block and a gag, then things are much worse than I suspected.

:{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel_Case}}

:All in all the whole experience has been depressing. Just like you don't want to know exactly what goes into your sausages, you don't wish to know how Misplaced Pages is made and how much of what goes into it is actually meat over the odd bits of beast not presentable enough to go anywhere else. You just cant ever look at a sausage the same way once you do...
:--] (]) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:I have one last proposal to add to this. Make adminship available to anyone who gives up their real life identity. Who state clearly who they are and can be validated to tell the truth like Sander, who now has left due to anonymous trolls. Admins would thus be responsible for their actions as people and wont be able to hide in their decisions behind the safety of anonymity... Give these users more credit and right than the anonymous ones and there may be hope still. Tarnishing ones name is a strong motive to keep honest.--] (]) 18:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Hear, hear, on your last suggestion. Anonymous people always do nastier things, which is why so many IP vandals exist. Even making people pick an '''anon''' user name makes them more responsible! Also nastier, are people who have little fear of being held responsible for petty viciousness, which the average admin does not (not really-- have you ever seen anybody get desysoped for an indefinite block which wasn't justified?). As to your suggestion about a Bill of Rights, it's an old one in other contexts. The first thing the English wanted after their revolution in the 17th century was a Bill of Rights for the common citizen (in wikispeak that would be the common nameuser). When the Americans had their own revolution a century later, they wanted a Bill of Rights because the English had one. A bill of rights protects the lowest of the low against those in authority. In medicine, we have a Patient Bill of Rights. Nothing of the sort exists on Misplaced Pages. About all you get is the "right" (if you can figure out how to do it) to petition the Lord High Appeals Court for clemency, if you get zapped by the cops. That's no way to run any organization. ]]]] 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:I dont feel there is very much love and harmony going on, if any. This says alot right here ] ]<sub>]</sub> 05:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::"(if you can figure out how to do it)" as mentioned by Sbharris sums up your rights within Misplaced Pages. I come from the UK rather than Eastern Europe, but I found that all it took was to be labelled a "vandal only account" by one arrogant admin, and I was doomed. There was no way I could figure out where or how I was meant to appeal, and it eventually lead to a life ban. Personally I believe the whole Wiki project is a great idea, and morally I don't feel the ban was in any way justified, so I carry on contributing via an IP address. But you've got to realise you've created a "community" somewhat akin to any fascist state - most of the dirty work is conducted by a group of narrow minded admins, with little or no accountability for their actions, with an appeals system which is entirely inaccessible except to those whose want to use it as a stick to beat you with. There would be far less need to go round awarding each other smilies and barnstars (surely the most childish way to spread WikiLove - why not just encourage a polite (and adult) "thank you" where necessary?) if the entire project wasn't built upon a foundation of suspicion, officiousness and WikiHate. --] (]) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a great technical achievement, but more thought must be given to the human/organisational aspects of running an encyclopedia. Requiring admins to give up their anonymity would be a step in the right direction. ] (]) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


It seems you have all misunderstood my statement above. I don't think admins should be forced to give up anonymity, I don't think anybody should. I said that anybody who does should be eligible for admin rights(you know, with the rights everybody used to have...) without vote.

Also, the talk about preserving ones anonymity... Its tall tales and sugar dreams, If you are in a content dispute you can bet on it that you wont be allowed to keep it. I would have been blocked not long into my membership as a sock and so would have been Sander Säde, if we had not chosen to reveal much more about us than we ever intended, by a simple check user process. Accusation of being someones sock is fast and dirty way of either getting a content opponent blocked or banned.

There must be tons of new users gone this way and let me tell you, its rather insulting to be declared a non-individual. There must be rights granted to common name users and given a path to file a complaint against and admin that cannot be gagged and will be acted up on by a neutral party. Nobody should be promptly permanently banned based on solely sock accusations to a known troll. And the list goes on. A change is needed to mend things.

Sigh... None of it would not even be an issue without 3RR. 3RR is where it all starts to run wrong. Consensus or content polices no longer matter, the one with the biggest gang wins. Admin elections suffer from this phenomena too. I doubt any admin can say that they have the support of even 10th of community. Its too large for this. So there are two ways of making an improvement. Make removal of admin privileges very much simpler(complaint threshold+jury duty by common users) or devaluate adminship by giving it to anybody who asks it under their real name and has some Wiki experience to show. The name may be only known to the Foundation, but it must be verified.--] (]) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more idea for you:
An admin is somebody that has an "admin contract" that sets some rather clear and rights granting boundaries to admin action. This contract is signed by the admin and protected. This contract has an extra where all complaints against an admin can be filed. The complaint list has an edit limit before a higher party must review the complaints, remove patently false ones and if enough is left take the matter for community to decide on notifying all that have filed complaints. The result of this is a decision if a breach of contract has occurred. If it has then the rights are removed without a chance of getting them back.--] (]) 22:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:This sounds like a recipe for limiting the power of admins to act as they see fit without getting paranoid while increasing the power of disgruntled non-admins. so it sounds like a bad idea to me. Thanks, ] 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Wikia in Catalan interview ==

A Catalan radio channel - http://catradio.cat/ el internauta - is interviewing me this evening about WikiaSearch. I would therefore ask you this question: What do you think will WikiaSearch mean for minorised languages as ours (])?. http://pacoriviere.cat/ /ca-WP admin). --] <font size="+2">]</font> 13:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it best if I answer this question over at my .--] (]) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Please stop screwing things up by intervening ==

Since when does the community require the approval of, first, the Arbitration Committee, and second, the Foundation, in order to make new policy? Obviously the Foundation has the final say in any project matter, but the idea that it needs to explicitly approve new policies is ludicrous. As for the Arbitration Committee... until now they have explicitly ''not'' made policy, but based their decisions on existing policy. And now you're effectively giving them the power to veto any policy the community comes up with? Have you really thought this through? – ] 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Gurch, I believe you have entirely misread what I have done here. Far from taking power from the community, I have given the power to the community to make the sort of decision that traditionally would have rested with me, the developers, or the Foundation. I have put the community (of which the ArbCom is a part of course!) firmly in charge of this. --] (]) 02:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think it is a matter of arbcom making policy. The community does that. But the community cannot agree, at this point, whether there is a consensus for this new policy or not. Arbcom's role is to be a representative voice in matters where the community cannot agree. Arbcom should NOT decide whether rollback is bad or good. They should, however, be called to arbitrate the community dispute as to whether there exists a settled consensus. Better that an elected body does that, than Jimbo by fiat, a single dev with no mandate, or simply allowing the strongest loudest voices to prevail.--]<sup>g</sup> 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Doc, precisely my point here. The idea here is to systematize an orderly procedure whereby the English Misplaced Pages community (including the ArbCom as a trusted smaller body able to come to a single answer) can control this sort of thing, rather than having me do it, the developers do it, or the Foundation staff do it. I am a bit confused that anyone could interpret this as me taking policy-making power away from the community!
:::But things like rollback never did need the ''approval'' of you, the developers, or the Foundation staff (though obviously, any of those groups could block such a thing if there was a problem). What happened was consensus was sort-of-but-not-quite reached to implement rollback and then the Bugzilla request was made and handled a bit too early. Developers were only involved as far as it is unavoidably necessary for them to be involved in order for software changes to be made; neither yourself nor the Board were involved, and ArbCom was neither here nor there. So we have gone from needing community consensus plus no "veto" from yourself, the Board and the developers to needing community consensus plus no veto from those three groups ''plus'' approval of ArbCom, which was very much not present in policy-making before – ] 09:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Allowing the loudest voices to prevail? That's ironic don't you think Doc given there's about 10 uses who are kicking up a stink about this where everyone else is trying to get a long and work out the best ways to make this work. ] 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I take absolutely no position myself on whether or not the feature is a good idea. But I think all sides can agree in principle to an orderly process of making a determination of what to do.--] (]) 02:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
::::You have, however, taken an unusual position on the process, by saying it should be done through a poll that is then ratified by ArbCom. Polling is not our usual method of policy making, or at least it wasn't during the 3+ years that I was here. It also doesn't work very well, see the non-implemented ]. ] (]) 09:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::We do at least have instances where decisions have been made by polls in the past. It's the "ratification by ArbCom" bit that is completely new, completely unexpected and completely baffling – ] 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Not completely new, and not IMO unexpected; but you have to do some thinking to realise how: ArbCom was meant to replace Jimbo in day-to-day decision making; Jimbo has traditionally claimed the ability to "assent to" results of polls, thus making them official policy; this is merely a transfer of that ability to ArbCom. That said... Jimbo, your poll sucks. At the very least, it needs to be clear whether or not people can specify what their "second choice" is. (and, due to the documented variety of opinions on which two are acceptable, I would go further and say that people must, in fact, be able to specify this) —] 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Incidentally, I don't think "ratify" was quite the verb you intended, and that has confused people here. As far as I can tell from reading in between the lines, the role you proposed for arbcom to play was to evaluate the results of the poll and make sure it was counted correctly; not to have their own little vote on whether it should be implemented. The right word for that would be to "certify" the results of the vote. —] 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo with all due respect this poll is a complete disaster. Next time you have an idea like this please be more specific because this is all over the place now with people more or less not caring about the outcome anymore. This is why we don't do these things. If you're gonna intervene then please follow up on what you proposed. This is far worse than yesterday now - the only thing we agree on is an image of a cute white cat. ] (]) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, maybe you should just write the poll and post it, and declare it binding after the AC counts votes. Anything other than a pure up and down vote penned by you is probably not going to work at this point, as there are already about 5 talk pages involved, 10 alternate polls, protected pages, a pending RFAR, and any attempt by anyone to try to goad progress forward is being instantly met with 5 good suggestions, 5 complaints, 5 images of a lolcat, and 5 people screaming THIS IS SPARTA. I'm not kidding. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

]

Everyone can hate me after it closes, instead of you and each other. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: Ok, I hate you. ;-) --] (]) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) <small>''That and we need more and clearer guidance on when and where use of polls, discussions and votes is actually appropriate. Random application like this is extremely disruptive''</small>

== Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident ==

Since this talk page does not appear to be an appropriate forum to discuss what the Foundation's actions in this incident, per the archived discussion ], I have started a discussion at the Village Pump policy page at ]. Your comments are welcome. Thanks. ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== 3rr or vandalism of your user page ==

{{resolved}}
A user has just made a bad faith report of me for 3rr for removing vandalism from your user page . This looks like an established user trolling to support an anon vandal inserting that you are the co-founder on your user page. Thanks, ] 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please ]. I filed 3rr reports on both yourself and the IP, so that it would be reviewed. I don't care about the content issue. I saw two users both crossing 3rr, so I reported it to be evaluated. It was, and it's done. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:I am assuming good faith in that you must have confused User:Jimbo Wales with Jimmy Wales as I assume you were not supporting a vandal vandalising somebody's user page on this project, if I thought you were further action in order to revoke your editing priviliges would be 100% necessary as the idea of trying to frighten people from reverting user page vandalism is completely unacceptable. Thanks, ] 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:yes, Lawrence says he was mistaken so this one is totally sorted. Thanks, ] 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Squeak, there's no evidence that the report itself (or the user making it) was in bad faith. Mistaken, yes; Bad faith, no. --]'']'' 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Yes I agree, Cohen was not acting in bad faith any more than I was but he was mistaken and has fully realised it. If it had been a series of reverts at Jimmy Wales or wikipedia it would have been a content dispute and subject to 3RR, but unwanted material should always be removed form somebody's user page. User Larry Sanger says on his user page that he co-founded and if somebody apart from him were to remove the word co I would treat it in exactly the same way as I did with Jimbo's user page, ie revert as vandalism. Thanks, ] 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== all sides can agree in principle to an orderly process of making a determination of what to do ==

Jimbo, you said "all sides can agree in principle to an orderly process of making a determination of what to do" above.

May I recommend a tried and tested system? Representative democracy for making new policy within the limits set by the law and the Foundation. I suggest you take the lead and move the English language wikipedia community in that direction. Let's start with suggesting that everyone name some wikipedia user as his '''policy representative''' using a template that can be used to automatically tally results. Anyone can change their policy representative at any time. The details of the use of this template and choice of policy representative will not be defined in advance as there are far too many unsettled issues (socks, circular linking, qualifications to be counted either as a Wikipedian or as a representative, etc). The idea is to try it out as an experiment and see what the results look like. I'm betting the results will be good enough to eventually lead to a House of Policy Representatives to balance Arbcom (which is our Supreme Court that ''interprets'' policy and hands down specific rulings in specific cases). Prior efforts show that a site notice of a policy vote merely leads to uninformed thoughtless vote casting that solves nothing. We need a ''deliberative'' body for creation or alteration of existing policy. We are now too big for the former ways to successfully work on English language Misplaced Pages site-wide policy anymore. ] (]) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting idea, but it would (it seems to me) have a number of potential unintended consequences. I am just thinking out loud here, but I wonder if such a concept could be tried as a "shadow policy body" first to test it. I don't know of anything that would prevent it being tried out, but I recommend that the proposal to try it be widely circulated first to get people's feedback on whether it sounds worth trying. To me, it seems like it would be worth trying at least.--] (]) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Intriguing ideas (as ever) come from WAS 4.250! It would need to be balanced by the caveat that only users with a committed identity revealed to Arb||Com be enfranchised, though. Then we could get rid of all the sockpuppet witchhunts and daft canvassing rules (currently we must rely on either telepathy or huge watchlists) which waste a lot of sound and fury and productive editing... ]] 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Well, I don't know of any reasonable way for the ArbCom to confirm personal identities...--] (]) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Identity confirmation is already in place in the financial system (as is identify theft, but not for complex transactions, so wait a bit). Level one identity confirmation is simply have the person make a $1 credit card or Paypal donation to Wikifoundation. Level two is a wire transfer of $1, which requires somebody to present themselves in person to a bank and get their identity checked. There are also notaries in the US and in other places. Geez, this is the digital age. If identities could not be confirmed remotely for ordinary transactions of this sort, the whole banking world wouldn't work at all. If my brokerage house (who I've never met) knows who I am when I log in and buy or sell something (and the IRS gets to know it, too), how come Misplaced Pages can't? You yourself are more than saavy about financial matters, according to your bio. So think in terms of online brokerage services and ebay, and so on. Umm, and I might add that "phishing" for Misplaced Pages identification information doesn't seem very likely, so wiki-identity theft, once a user is verified, is never going to be a problem of the same magnitude that it is when it involves money. ]]]] 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Ooooh, a combination of ] and personal accountability for use of power! How... subversive! ]]]] 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== German Misplaced Pages ==

Hello. I ''thought'' I was a German Misplaced Pages virgin, aside from a few copy-edits on ] displays and such. But I just created a user account over there and when I click on ''Benutzerbeiträge'' I find a large number of edits attributed to me. It looks as if they're articles copied from English Misplaced Pages with the edit histories intact and later translated into German. I had no idea such things happened. Are your own edits on German Misplaced Pages the same sort of thing? I saw you had a few and assumed at first that meant you were not a complete German Misplaced Pages virgin.
:
Anyway, I've just (finally!) lost my German Misplaced Pages virginity, albeit anonymously, with and the two right after it. ] (]) 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
: ...and now ''three'' right after it. ] (]) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Have you gotten bitten by an admin yet? :-) --] (]) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmm, I have edited very rarely on German Misplaced Pages, aber mein deutsch ist sehr schlecht ("but my German is very bad"), so I have contributed nothing of substance to article space for sure.--] (]) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Jimbo, your earliest edit in German Misplaced Pages appears to have been this one: (!)
::::What happened?
::::* The edit was actually an edit in English Misplaced Pages:
::::* The article was imported *with edit history* in German Misplaced Pages (nice technique GFDL-wise), and translated:
::::The only thing I don't know how they handle it at German Misplaced Pages, is what happens if two different people choose the same user name in two different Misplaced Pages's? --] (]) 11:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Giving an example of the problems that might occur:
:::::] has quite some edits on German wikipedia , but the username appears not to have been taken yet in de:Misplaced Pages: ] apparently doesn't exist. All the German Misplaced Pages edits from this user/Benutzer are "imported" from English Misplaced Pages.
:::::Suppose a German guy accidently chooses D-Day as his user name in German Misplaced Pages, not knowing the prior history (how would he?). From Michael Hardy's story above I learn Michael was only ''accidently'' the same person creating the same username in German Misplaced Pages. So this ''German'' D-Day could get a prior edit history of the ''English'' user D-Day, listing edits from a completely different person. Might take some time before the new German Wikipedian finds out about this, so by that time his own part of the edit history is mixed with the "imported" edits, and there is no easy way to separate the one from the other. Not even talking about other possible consequences of being associated with someone else's editing behaviour, nor about possible bad-faith usurping of someone elses work. Don't know whether at German Misplaced Pages there is a mechanism preventing this? --] (]) 12:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Oops, made an error: a year ago someone registered the username D-Day at German Misplaced Pages
:::::::That doesn't mean that what I said was wrong, someone experimented sucessfully with another username at de:Misplaced Pages (Translation: "OMG!!! I couldn't believe this and just tried it, with a made-up password. Currently I write with an usurped account, with edits from an imported article transferred to it! Could someone please, please repair this vulnerability ASAP "). --] (]) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Continued, ] --] (]) 14:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe deutsch vergessen und jetz will ich die Sprache wieder lernen. I've been looking at German talk shows on youtube and sometimes I understand a sentence without thinking about it and sometimes it's just like a foreign language. ] (]) 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Deutsche Talkshows sind dafür allerdings eher die schlechteste Variante... German talk shows aren't the best way to re-lern it... --] (]) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Email sent to you ==

I have sent you a private email. Thanks, --<font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:-) --] (]) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Sandbox ==

What you said about the sandbox that was what i thought was right but apparently he is about to kick me off. ] (]) 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)mygerardromance

== thanks for the pic ==

Thanks for the pic. I love it. ] (]) 05:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Most vandalized ever? ==

Hey Jimbo. I was surprised (well I shouldn't be, but anyway) that your user page undergoes about 20 reverts a day now. It got me thinking and I wonder if there is a page that lists the Most Vandalized Articles and User Pages on Misplaced Pages (ever). Might be interesting to see what patterns emerge. Of course if this page already exists, I would appreciate if I was redirected towards it.

Always a fan of the place and Wikia as well. Rock On! -- ] (]) 06:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:There is ], but it doesn't give any numbers. I seem to remember there used to be a "most vandalised admin award" but I can't find it now. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::It's at ]. It's a relatively old page, but not as old as I thought. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::And there's a slightly more up-to-date version at ]. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== RED ALERT ==

<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:{{{1|}}}|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::{{{1}}}
----
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top-->


A message from vandal PWee Hurman as left on ]'s talk page:

''Hello Everybody, a little message to Goodshoped35110 and who else might read it. . .
''First off, I would like to say I love your comment(s) about the "automated rifle" when talking about taking me off wikipedia(Herman). And I would like to say that, well, your right, and that you will need that kind of fire power, especially when I finally assemble the project that I am currently working on. I currently have assembled, through an online blog to have "Herman" launch non-stop wiki attacks from multiple places in the United States. I also currently have a member who is undercover, trying to obtain the administrator position to unleash unheard of havoc. The damage that would be dealt would make even the megaliths of war look subordinate in comparison.

''The next thing worth mentioning is that you don't have all of our sock puppets listed, but rather are missing many, including the ones in Spanish, Germane, Russian, and like this one, pig Latin. You will never defeat Herman, in fact, the guerrilla war thats being arranged will be the Virgina Poly Tech Massacre all over again. This will be ready and executable approximately in mid February. I need the finishing touches. Get ready for this.

''Can You Handle it?

--<font face="Copperplate Gothic">] <sup><font color="#800000">]</font></sup></font> 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

''Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Goodshoped35110s"''

I notified Mike Godwin.--] (]) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Rather than allow the antics of Herman to poison the atmosphere within the editing community by casting suspicion around about who is a sock puppet, which is obviously his intent, these simple steps would end all this nonsense:
#Don't allow anonymous IPs to edit any articles, when they hit the "edit" button redirect them to a registration page
#Require regular editors to verify their identity via a nominal credit card payment, this would prevent multiple sock accounts
#Require Admins to publish their real identities, given their position of power, this is the least they could do to engender trust
:] (]) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::These are extremely controversioal proposals. So what? Nobody under 18 or without a credit card (a western credit card?) could edit. This would completely destroy the ethos of wikipedia as the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And admin H's experiences tend to indicate the 3rd proposal is also a bad idea. Thanks, ] 19:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::(edit conflict x2) 1 and 3 have been repeatedly rejected by the community. 2 would be as well. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the community needs to be asked again. Jimbo doesn't have to hide behind anonymity, why should an admin, and if all editors are registered, admins would less likely be harrassed. Presumably this ethos is based upon Jimbo's quote: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.", access to read remains free. Is Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia or an experiment on the viability of an ethos? ] (]) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:] has had to leave the project because of real-world harassment, in this case against their family. Many admins have received death threats. The last thing we need is to hand people the opportunity to carry these threats out. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Presumably this admin was threatened by a disgruntled anonymous editor. But if all editors were registered with verified identities, they would be less likely to harrass, since any harrassment would have been preceded by some on-wiki conflict and thus tracked back to them. ] (]) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::But how can you verify the identity of all editors? (Your credit card verification is a bad idea because it would likely exclude all those editors who are poor, underage or not living in the first world, and doesn't exclude credit card fraud). The fall out for wikipedia would be far worse than any alleged benefits. Thanks, ] 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

::::Oh no, could we please assemble a thread on ]!. ] (]) 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't think that is the place for it. That is the page for incidents requiring admin attention and given Jimbo's response to the initial problem surely we should leave that be. Thanks, ] 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::"The average ] on English Misplaced Pages is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) ], (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a nominally ] ], (8) from an industrialized nation, (9) from the ], and (10) likely employed as an intellectual rather than as a labourer (cf. ] and ])." Would there really be any fall out? ] (]) 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::''Average'' does not equal ''every'' Wikipedian. You'd be losing a ton of users based on the credit card issue. You'd be losing a ton more based on having to reveal their personal identities. ] (]) 20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Well put but was meant as a criticism, we don't to encourage this stereotypical systemic bias, and anyway how many 15 year olds have credit cards? It would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, ie the negative would well outweigh the positive Thanks, ] 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::*It is not ''necessary'' to have a credit card. That is merely one alternative which I mentioned. You can also make a nominal wire transfer from a bank account, and anybody (even children) with a valid social security number (which children must have to be tax deductable, for a generation now on the US) can open a bank account in the U.S., even with NO credit. For lack of an account, a faxed signed statement from a notary public (a public official), who will verify some type of ID, would also work. These things are addressed when you fly, when you cross and international border, when you drive, etc. In some cases if you're really young, your legal guardian's identity serves. Which it can on Misplaced Pages as well, and should. Children of any age also fly and cross borders, you know. But not anonymously if anybody can help it. Coming to the US soon (2014-16) is a secure ID much like a passport. You're arguing for a world that existed 50 years ago, but is no more. Trying to make wikipedia editing privileges accessable to people who cannot even cross a border or fly or open a bank account, is ridiculous. These people have better things to do than ''edit''. They need to '''read''' wikipedia and also fix up their lives so they can join the modern world. If they have no verifiable identities, wikipedia editing is the '''least''' of their problems. <p> And by the way, consider the irony of our fixation with verifiable facts, while all the time we don't worry about verifiable people messing with them. Feh. ]]]] 21:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:You say "Trying to make wikipedia editing privileges accesable to people who cannot even cross a border or fly or open a bank account, is ridiculous". I disagree very strongly with this. Misplaced Pages isn't just for the privileged aqnd to make it so would be solving a tiny problem by creating an enormous problem. I believe many do not share your elitist view and this would fly in the face of countering systemic bias. You claim people need to "fix up their lives so they can join the modern world". Which modern world is this? Those 80% of us who live in poorer countries also live in the modern world, and its not that together but wikipedia is not going to discriminate against us because we allegedly can't get our lives together, nor against young people who haven't yet had the opportunity to get their lives together. Your comments shock me. Thanks, ] 21:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Also it would exclude people located in China, Myanmar, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran and many other countries from editing. To say they must get their act together to live in the modern world is astonishingly naive. To say because they cannot cross a border they can't edit wikipedia is offensive. Let Citizendium deal with these problems. Thanks, ] 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::People with IP address from those countries could be waived this requirement. It's the bulk of the editors from Western industrialized countries that should be registered in this fashion. ] (]) 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:That really would make for a too complicated system. Who would check everyone's IPs and how would we deal with the privacy issues that brought up. Check user is sued sparsely to avoid sockpupetry and I think any change in that would of itself bring up enormous privacy issues. And the majority of people in the world neither live int he industrialised west or in so-called politically unfree countries. Who would decide which countries need to be verified and which don't. Thanks, ] 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Perhaps there could be a childrens' edition of Misplaced Pages to cater for them. ] (]) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What 2 wikipedias. One unregistered and one registered. Thanks, ] 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Why not? One a free for all sandbox, the other a trusted and respected resource. ] (]) 21:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


==]==
You know, how do we know this person is actually telling the truth?, it could just be a windup and wideside trolling to cause disruption, and if that's the case, his plan is working... ] (]) 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
]
:Um, really? You think so? You running with it to ANI just shows how bad we're over reacting. ] (]) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
]
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.


Could you or your page watchers help me with ]? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
:I would say that there is no point in pursuing option #2 of this proposal, since that would directly conflict with our project's nature, wich is being a ''free'' encyclopedia. - ] 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::It is free, since anyone can access it to read it. ] (]) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah, but Misplaced Pages is the 💕 that ''anyone can edit'' not just anyone can '''read'''. ] (]) 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::An awful lot of good eggs are being broken in maintaining this ethos, because it engenders rampant suspicion, as evidenced by ] wanting to take this to ANI. ] (]) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::An awful lot of good eggs? Blueanode's the only one scattering over to ANI with this. If you look at the ANI thread, the unanimous consensus is "who cares?" and "block, revert, move on". ] (]) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* you are accusing me of this? I am only trying to help, I don't even know who this vandal is. ] (]) 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
::::We can't ask for a credit card and say that anyone that doesn't pocess one has to go on and edit a "Children's Misplaced Pages", there are countries were people can't get a credit card until they are 21+, and there are several college students (wich believe me make a huge contribution to the project) that simply don't have enough credit points to get one, among several other problems this would carry, including increasing the chances of stolen identity (especially if users are required to provide identity) then we come to the ammount of people that visit Misplaced Pages, wich would make us need the help of something like ] to manage the information securely, and that would only bring unnessesary debts, effectively reducing what we can do with the donations of all those persons that want to have a database of free information that they can edit and update. In summary, its just impractical. - ] 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
]
::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Just wanted to say ==
You should not even be giving your identity on the internet. I thought a rule of thumb is to never give your identity on the internet. --] <sup> ] </sup> 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you. <br>It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the <s>cabal of editors</s> <b>thriving community</b> that is Misplaced Pages.
:I think generally it should be a matter of personal choice, many people do, hence the popularity of facebook etc. Thanks, ] 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) &#124; (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ==
Maybe the slogan, ''The 💕 that anyone can edit'', on the ] article should be changed if this is what is going to happen. --] <sup> ] </sup> 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oh please, this isn't a serious incident at all. We just revert, block, and ignore. It's posts like this that gives such wannabe vandals the recognition that keeps them going. Any objection to just archiving this before anyone tries to cause any more unneeded worry? In the event of a disruptive administrator they can be emergency desysopped in a matter of minutes and the database quickly restored. So, enough of this already. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


:Summary: {{tq|This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies.}} –] <small>(])</small> 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I agree; Your not the only one. --] <sup> ] </sup> 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


== Happy new year ==
::Why archive this, when we are having a wider and interesting discussion beyond the initial incident. ] (]) 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? ] 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:We certainly shouldn't archive this early, it is an interesting discussion that goes way beyond one vandal. Thanks, ] 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


== ==
:::Banned users threatening to destroy Misplaced Pages are a rather common event, there are huge chances that there will never be a "incident", and even if it ever happened a single rougue admin will not be able to do much damage, we should just revert, block and ignore. - ] 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It may be an interesting discussion, but it is doing little except feeding the troll that started it. Let us archive it and forget it. --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}?
== Status Bot ==
:... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was.
:Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
Have you ever thought about using one? --]''' <sup>]</sup>''' 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.}} Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. ] (]) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:03, 11 January 2025

    Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
    Start a new talk topic.
    Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
    He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
    The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
    The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.
    This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
    you can leave a message here
    This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
    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, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
    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.
    Media mentionThis talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

    Albert Percy Godber

    Albert Percy Godber at his brass finishing lathe in the Petone railway workshops. A sign before him reads: `This is my busy day'
    "Looking down over a settlement with houses set amongst trees. The arm of a lake or harbour lies beyond, with a mountainous range on the far side. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber. Probably taken at Queenstown, Godber having visited Lake Wakatipu and Queenstown in 1926"

    Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.

    Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.

    "Phyllis Mary Godber wearing a Maori cloak, holding a taiaha, standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber

    I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Godber family outside their house 'Railway Whare' at 23 Bay Street, Petone, circa 1906. From left to right: Albert Percy Godber, Mary Ann Godber, Laura Godber, Phyllis and William. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber"
    And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Just wanted to say

    You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you.
    It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the cabal of editors thriving community that is Misplaced Pages. I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Summary: This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Happy new year

    Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? -Lemonaka 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors

    That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?

    ... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.
    Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
    As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face. Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category: