Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silver seren (talk | contribs) at 08:55, 28 April 2010 (→Block Larry Sanger?: Impressive condensation, Scott.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Need to speak to you

i would like to speak to you about something administrators are not taking seriously.

when you get this, could you please email me on info@wikimissing.org

Thank you.

Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Obvious question: why should Jimbo email you without any particular reason being given? He has two email addresses listed here, and it might be more constructive if you emailed him and set out your concerns, and leave it up to him how and whether he replies. He's a thoughtful, but very busy guy and might be unwilling to reply to such vague requests. Rodhullandemu 00:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I need to speak to you about something too. Please friend me on facebook and add the "Farmville" app if you don't have it already.--Milowent (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, that's funny!--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm uncertain whether this is innocent or trolling, but Jimbo travels a lot, is very busy and (I'd guess) doesn't have much spare time to sign up to Facebook pages. Please see my advice to Sghfdhdfghdfgfd above. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it was neither a naive inquiry nor trolling, but parody. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Fine, I missed that. Meanwhile, Jimbo, can we discuss doubling my salary sometime, on account of all the work I put in here? I've been advised that no commercial organisation could afford me, but I am confident that Misplaced Pages can. Rodhullandemu 00:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has scarce resources, but that's OK - we'll just double your sponsorship. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Double zero is still zero. Woogee (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

-) Fun. Well, so I wonder what "wikimissing.org" is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be someones wiki media experiment, looks harmless enough. Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks entirely "harmless" in the way that Wikipedians think lots of things are harmless. Seriously, is Misplaced Pages populated mostly or entirely by child porn freaks? -- Manny Modern (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The meticulous organisation of that page suggests a collector. Sick. Claritas (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, since you're working on requests, could I get an autograph?--Morenooso (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, you should put it in the public domain for inclusion on Jimbo Wales. But as Rodhullandemu, if you want put on a check for one dollar, that would be the price of peanuts. --Morenooso (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Site Wikimissing.org seems to be a half-developed website of unknown purpose (claims "missing persons"), with some porn code-word index. Google only matches one or 2 pages containing the word "the" there, and Google might need another 3 weeks to index whatever new pages they're really planning. See Google for "site:wikimissing.org  the" -Wikid77 17:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea was explained online before, but the author deleted it for some reason. I saw it before that - it was nothing sinister-sounding - just a plan to get a wiki started to help find missing persons. It's not much different from editing some of the disputed biographies above, but for a good cause. Wnt (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess (sniff, sniff) Jimbo did not take my request for an autograph seriously (sniff, sniff). All levity aside, could you imagine being the owner of a Jimbo Wales autographed one dollar check? I can!!! --Morenooso (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ColScott

Mr. Wales, there is a new situation involving Don Murphy, who goes by the pseudonym ColScott. He is banned from Misplaced Pages, but he has continued advocating off-wiki harassment of people who edit his article. This time he contacted someone who has nothing to do with the situation, and he is very disturbed by what happened. You can see the thread at WP:ANI. I recall that you had a phone conversation with him sometime ago. Perhaps another one is in order? It is time to do something. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#Legal_threat_.28above.29_now_real_harassment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please also refer to here for more information. Silverseren 01:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

I know I must seem like an annoying pain by now, but any news on your planned poll, or other developments? NW (Talk) 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Try Beta, I'd suggest (above on the first line); Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Flagged_protection:_update_for_April_22 is another choice. Why should we need another poll? Quote (Flagged revisions): "It was announced in August 2009, after a poll found that 80% of the users were in favor of it." --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe NW is supporting the notion, which I have floated, that we should not wait for the Foundation to finish with the programming on the version we approved, but look for a configuration/social rule set that we can get consensus on to use while continuing to wait, with the version we approved to be turned on the moment it is available. The challenge in doing that is finding a lightweight but still useful version that will get widespread support. In part, all of this depends on how much longer it will take for the Foundation developers to finish the version we want.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you might take a look at a suggestion for a lightweight version I developed earlier: Misplaced Pages:Targeted flagging?--Scott Mac 15:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Jimmy is correct in his belief about my belief. The sooner we get something deployed (Scott's proposal looks the most optimal for now), the better. Could we please get the default version of FR turned on until William Pietri and his team are done with our customized version? NW (Talk) 19:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your help and advice

Sir, I know that the "discussions" that took place over several different forums regarding the now-deleted Eric Ely article were mostly very civil and conducted fairly, I do have this one request for you, though I am unsure if there is anything you can do other than speak up for what I see as unfair bashing of editors I consider to be friends. Here on your talk page this comment was posted-

• Jimbo, I agree with your assessment of the article. I do not understand why this article has been allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages, since it is an obvious political attack piece. Further, I do not understand why the main editors Bearian and UpstateNYer have not been asked to resign their admin bits. If admins cannot be trusted to uphold the principles of Misplaced Pages, should they remain admins? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That comment alone, while not very nice and definitely not within the spirit of AGF, would have not been so bad by itself, this has since been followed up with comments that have continued along similar lines at the Schenectady City School District talk page towards User:UpstateNYer regarding that article regarding what I assume is Eric Ely information being added. Included in the comments by Delicious and User:RicoCorinth that seem to be at the very least not giving UpstateNYer full AGF is a comment in which Rico said-- You were one of the two admins that created a smear file on Eric Ely -- that Jimbo called "a hatchet job" -- by collecting all the dirt on him in one place. to Upstater. Upstater is in fact a co-founder with me of the New York Capital District Wikiproject, an admin, and a creator of many very fine articles including GA's (and possibly an FA?), has not ever been in any "trouble" on Misplaced Pages, and has often pulled me back from the brink several times, I have had less work with User:Bearian and cant speak for his reasons for creating the Eric Ely article but I can say Upstater had honest reasons of trying to support a fellow wikiproject member and make an article that he thought deserved to be saved better, admins User:JulianColton and User:Daniel Case are two unblemished editors who I believe can vouch for Upstater being an upstanding and well-intentioned hardworker. I know this isnt AN/I or the wikiquette board, but if you are being misrepresented by Rico in how you feel about this editor I beg and plead with you to speak up at the Schenectady City School District talk page with maybe just a word about AGF towards fellow wikipedians I know I would feel better. I know I am very distraught by how he is being represented as anything but a very high caliber contributor to many articles over many years and I've never seen him comment so obviously distressed and act unlike himself at that talk page. Thank you for your time and I apologize for the long-winded post.Camelbinky (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My very first impression of the article was that it must have been written by someone trying to defend Ely against the already published allegations, by showing that there were numerous good things that had been accomplished on Ely's watch. The biggest problem seemed to me to be what I would call Misplaced Pages's papparazzi-proctoscope-problem. When Nixon left office he complained, "since I was president, the press had every right to look me over with a microscope, but not a with a proctoscope!" It seems to me that sometimes on Misplaced Pages the smallest mistake of a person can be magnifyed by the "proctoscopes" of the press until it is way out of proportion from the actual mistake itself. Scott P. (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Image Dumps

Hello Jimmy wales, Please provide Image dumps. We can use it for our personal purposes. Please restart the image dumping. They do not need to be under CC-BY-SA and We don't need it in that license. We will check license for public uses and We will not use them if we are not permitted according to the license. Please provide us image dumps Please!...... Many get uses by it. Rishikeshan (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Rishikeshan

Hi, I'm not the right person to ask about this, as I have no information about it, nor any direct control of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Complaint against "user Direktor" again

Jimbo declines to intervene; please find a more appropriate venue for this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved – Jimbo declines to get involved; please take to a more appropriate venue The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Sorry if I complain again against user:DIREKTOR and his group of meatpuppets (like user:AlasdairGreen27). The problem is based on the fact that they already behave like "owners" of en.wiki, and scare whoever (admin or user) wants to post something they don't like on articles related to communist Yugoslavia and Tito. Please read how quicky their "freindly" administrators moved to help them here: . Sincerely--TrisR41 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC) As one of the freindly admins, I would note that TrisR41 is a self proclaimed (see User page) block evading sock of BisR41, whose only edits were to this page calling for the banning of User:DIREKTOR. Although DIREKTOR has had been sanctioned in the past for their own nationalistic pov policy violations, the campaign to have him removed (mostly because he is a Communist, or is at least represented as such) is somewhat counter productive; I have sanctioned DIREKTOR in the past, but now find myself mostly in the position of trying to limit the damage and disruption created by a group of editors who disdain his contributions to the encyclopedia LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC) That is not true: admin LessHeard vanU (with others like admin Excirial, Johnsson, etc...) has ALWAYS helped the six-times-banned user DIREKTOR every time he requested help to attack those who disagree with his communist & ethnic-nationalist POVs. See what just has happened with user:FkpCascais, blocked for complaining about verbal offenses from meatpuppets of DIREKTOR. He is offended and who is blocked? FkpCascais. Unbelievable! Misplaced Pages needs to grow in a "peaceful" relationship between users; and this DIREKTOR is always fighting with someone (just look at his talkpage and contributions). See User_talk:BisR41. A good faith new account who has a grudge with DIREKTOR on his first post? Not a chance. The new version is a self-proclaimed sockpuppet of that sockpuppet account. I'm not sure how many of them are blocked by now, but the amount is substantial. Oh and Jimbo, you might want to hand out a few blocks yourself in this case. Half the admin population apparently consists out of meat puppets ^^. Excirial 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Well, this post of admin Excirial shows how deep is the problem here. I guess only a few admin are helping the group of DIREKTOR and his meatpuppets (may be half a dozen, certainly not half the total!)....and all seems with communist and/or yugoslavian "roots". I remember that months ago DIREKTOR wanted that one of his group could be nominated administrator...and now here we have Excirial....the problem is getting worse! For example: who dares to post something against their dear Tito? He will end attacked with edit wars like many users (the list of these wikipedians is very long.....but some admins don't care about: they only "like" to block whoever disagrees with DIREKTOR's group). Or... DIREKTOR gets blocked or othewise sanctioned when he violates policy (or ArbCom rulings, etc) whereas there is a concerted campaign by some editors to have DIREKTOR removed from the project only because of his pov and alleged alliances (witness the oblivious noting of D's supposed ethnic and political orientation as justification for their complaint). As long as D's pov is incorporated per WP:DUE and WP:RS, then he can edit the articles as he sees fit. It is, after all, how WP is supposed to work.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Have you ever considered that some people just dislike sockpuppets who's only intend seems to be attacking other editors? For the record: I am not a communist, and i have no Yugoslavian roots, i have had no previous dealings with DIREKTOR as far as i can remember, and frankly i only vaguely associate the name "Tito" with Yugoslavia as being the ruler of that country before it dissolved for whatever reason there was - for further details i would have to read the article as i only received summary coverage of it in college. In other words i really don't care the conflict is about, and i don't care what people decide to be consensus. What i DO care about the way it is fought. Sockpuppets, Harassment and edit wars are big no-go's in my eyes. In other words, those actions won't result in me having good faith in your intentions. Excirial 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Since my name has been involved in this discussion, I feel free to say a word or two. Despite not knowing the exact reasons behind this user, Tris41, complains (I have an idea but it is not the occasion to enter in details here), I simply want to say that many of his complains make perfect sence. He may not allways choose the best words or arguments but he is right about a number of issues he has been posting here. I have been experiencing this increadible behavior on part of this people and the way they are protected is really unbeleavable. I wouldn´t mind if that was just about "protection", we all have our preferencies, it´s human, but it isn´t just about that, and their actions already made a number of innocent victims. I even receved threats not to complain any more... Someone should really take a look to this situation because I see nothing but harm to WP. I am avaliable for any further clarifications. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Where DIREKTOR violates policy, he gets sanctioned - see his block log. Bis/TrisR41's concerns are that DIREKTOR is permitted to edit to his own preferences, which a number of editors do not care for. Providing DIREKTOR edits within policy there are no grounds to have him blocked or banned, regardless of his personal views. I realise that this makes those admins who apply policy in this matter unpopular to these unhappy editors, but that is the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Well, I am not a "unhappy" editor, and the problem is not only direktor or just his edits... FkpCascais (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) @User:Excirial, can you please respect the comments order and don´t add comments in between? It may not be the case, but such edit can change the sence of further comments... You can answer anyway (using @ or there are also other ways), despite having comments in between, or you can begin a new section, if appropriate. It would be appreciated if you corrected that. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC) @User:TrisR41 please don´t forget to sign your comments. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC) The usage of indention shows if something is a direct response to a certain comment, which allows for a more structured discussion. Adding comments "In between" is extremely common (Just have a look at ANI and you can see plenty of examples) while using @ on the other hand isn't. The "Why" behind that is easy; Using @ only allows for a single discussion threat to run at a time. If i wanted to reply to a user half a page up posting it at the bottom might very well interrupt another discussion in progress as people might have moved to a different topic. If several editors did this the discussion would become unreadable Example:(@ User1 up 4 comments, " What do you think of" (Next comment) @ User10 up 5 comments "That is a great joke!" (Next comment) @ user17 up 20 comments "I don't agree with you"). Have a look at WP:INDENT as well. Excirial 22:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC) lol, that was a great explanation Exciral, :) , thanx! But, are you sure your exemple is good for this case? I´m saying this because the exemple you gave (user 1, 10, 17...), that conversation is completely not impossible... It even makes some logic... FkpCascais (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Well, none of this seems to have anything to do with me at this point. :) So I'll leave you all to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC) {The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misplaced Pages is racist

Look at the homepage where it has a Today's featured picture showing President Idi Amin. It makes him look dumb on purpose. This is racist. The Queen of England would never have this done to her by Misplaced Pages. Do this to the King of Thailand and you will be jailed. Please change this featured picture. This drawing is also in the Idi Amin article.

If you do not respond, this will mean that it is ok to put cartoon drawings for any and all national leaders. This is not a threat but a way for you, if you are too busy, not to waste your precious time yet still give a defacto answer. I understand that you are a busy world famous technical guru and leader of the biggest website in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assorg (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an unflattering caricature. The King of Thailand's role in supporting a military coup that has resulted in ongoing unrest is also worthy of derision. Electroshoxcure (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages is not censored which states, Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.. --Morenooso (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

it is ok to put cartoon drawings for any and all national leaders : Yes it is. Welcome to freedom of speech. --Cyclopia 08:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with all the responses so far. First, "worthy of derision" is not a concept with any validity whatsoever in the Misplaced Pages context. Second WP:NOTCENSORED is only a valid response to the notion that Misplaced Pages should be censored, which was not suggested in this context. Third, I think it fairly obvious that we would not, and should not, typically use a caricature as the primary photo of anyone. There could be exceptions, but as a general rule, a caricature as the primary illustration for a "straight" article (i.e. not one about the caricature itself, etc.) is simply not right - there is too great a risk of bias.

The key to neutrality is that it is neither desirable nor necessary for Misplaced Pages to mock or "deride" an unpopular figure, no matter how much we think that unpopularity is morally correct. All that is necessary and proper for Misplaced Pages is to neutrally present the facts. In the case of Idi Amin, the facts themselves are sufficient to convict him in any rational person's mind as not heroic.

Finally, to answer the specific allegation raised by the original poster, I think this would not be a case of racism... that Mr. Amin was African is not likely to be the cause of this problem. However, I do agree that it is a problem, and call on those who had an initial "knee jerk" defense of it to think a little more about it. The question is not "are we allowed to do this?" The question is not "should Misplaced Pages be censored?" The question is: "what is the best and most neutral and high quality thing for us to do?"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Important amendment: I see that I overlooked one important detail. This is a "Featured Picture" not "Featured Article". Therefore, assuming the caricature itself is of suitable historic importance for some reason, it is perfectly fine to feature it. I still think that WP:NOTCENSORED is not the best response to the concern raised. And I absolutely still think that "worthy of derision" is correct. However, I no longer disagree with Cyclopedia, because in the context of featured picture, of course it would be OK to feature a caricature of any world leader, assuming the picture is actually worthy of being featured of course!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's far too much hagiography and censorship on Misplaced Pages. What's needed are more accurate descriptions of historical figures, their accomplishments good and bad, and their significance. Idi Amin was a brutal African dictator. If his article doesn't get that across then it needs to be fixed. Neutral Point of View requires the inclusion of negative as well as positive achievements. Electroshoxcure (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that there's any hagiography or censorship. Go and look at the Idi Amin article right now. Neutrality is sufficient, we don't need to bash people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the Idi Amin article seems okay and gets across his historical role, although the text could certainly be improved and organized better, but that you don't see problems with promotional advocacy or censorship here is frightening. Electroshoxcure (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This conversation has caught my interest, Mr. Wales. Not so much thesubstance of it, but in your usage of the word fact. I'm curious, can you explain how you'd define this word in the context of Misplaced Pages? There seems to be quite a bit of confusion over it, and I'd like to understand it from your point of view. Zaereth (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not Jimbo, but as I understand it, when he says, "all that is necessary and proper for Misplaced Pages is to neutrally present the facts," he uses "facts" as shorthand for "material published by verifiable reliable sources." Crum375 (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As do I. Zaereth (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very big and deep question, which I'd best decline to answer in the general case unless I put in plenty of effort. However, in the context of this particular conversation only, I can say that I was not thinking specifically of "material published by verifiable sources" (though I'm of course in favor of us doing that!) but rather of the distinction between "factual" writing and "polemical" writing.

If I were to write an opinion editorial about Idi Amin, I would likely say something like "Idi Amin was an evil man and a brutal dictator. The world is better off without him, and those like him, with their hands on the levers of power. I hope that broader access to education and knowledge will play some small role at least in toppling tyrants everywhere." If I were to write an encyclopedic biography about Idi Amin, I would likely say something like "Amin's rule was characterised by human rights abuses, political repression, ethnic persecution, extrajudicial killings, nepotism, corruption and gross economic mismanagement. The number of people killed as a result of his regime is estimated by international observers and human rights groups to range from 100,000 to 500,000." I would want to back up each and every one of those assertions with the highest quality source that I could find.

My own personal view of human knowledge is that reality does in fact exist, and that it is - with effort - knowable. There are facts of reality, and we can know those facts of reality. This says little, though, about how we might best productively work together best - and much of Misplaced Pages policy is designed to both strive for an accurate representation of the facts of reality... and the peaceful generation of consensus statements by people who may not always agree on all those facts.

In my speeches I often give an example of two people who may disagree about abortion. They may never agree on some aspects of the issue. But they can agree on things like "The Catholic Church position on abortion is X" and "Opponents have criticised this position on the grounds of Y" and so on. Those things have two great merits: they are facts, and they are facts that nearly everyone can agree upon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What people on opposite sides of the fence would agree on is "X has written A", and "Y has written B." It then requires give-and-take and consensus to decide how to best summarize A and B, and how to put them in perspective relative to each other. The problem with the word "fact" is that it connotes the existence of some ultimate "truth", or that one published view is "better" than another, while our content policies only recognize verifiable reliable sources, and the relative prevalence of their views. Crum375 (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Mr. Wales. That also goes along with my knowledge of encyclopedic writing. Thanks for your response Crum, for I understand your concerns. I'm sure if you look at the sources I've left you all on literary journalism that they'll indicate there is no "ultimate truth" in encyclopedic writing. I'll leave this quote again, in case you missed it before:

We journalists often take ourselves too seriously and, when we do, we talk about our mission to communicate truth and our duty to report with objectivity. Truth, however, is elusive. Because truth deals with conclusions and values, each of us have a different idea of what truth is and what it isn't.

It is journalism's job to provide facts, concepts, ideas and emotions --as we sense them-- but not conclusions. Conclusions are what the reader, listener or viewer comes to.

Objectivity, which is supposed to be the soul of journalism, simply does not exist. The moment a reporter uses his or her sense of newsworthiness to decide what to keep in his story and what to leave out, objectivity has vanished. What passes for objectivity becomes the reporter taking the job of a tape recorder, methodically taking down what was said and making no effort to check its veracity. Nor does such a "reporter" make any effort to get another point of view.

Better that we, as journalists, pursue attainable goals; accuracy, balance and fairness without bias. That we can do. Not only can we; we must. --Robert M. Knight

Once again, thanks for your response Mr. Wales, and sorry to bother you. Zaereth (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Faux News accuses Misplaced Pages of being a child-porn distributor

Any comment? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, you'll see that it is Larry Sanger, not Fox News, that is making the accusation. In any case, it is weeks-old news. You can read more about it here: Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-04-12/Sanger_allegations.

I'm attributing it to Fox because I don't want to violate WP:BLP. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm also "one little admin here", but Sanger probably wrote or contributed to some of our major policies, so he's hardly unaware of them. It follows that he will either subscribe to them, or suffer the consequences. I have no fear of what he might do to me, since my health issues tend to prescribe my abilities. But if my last action here before I conk out is to block any editor for major breach of non-negotiable policies, then I'm perfectly happy to let that be my epitaph. At least people will say "he did what was right". Rodhullandemu 00:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Block Larry Sanger?

• I was just on the verge of blocking Mr. Sanger, for what seems to me like a violation of no legal threats, but frankly I'm just one little admin here and I don't want to be at the center of a firestorm. However I thought I might bring this to your attention to see if you had any comment on Mr. Sanger retaining his editing privileges here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't do that. Prodego 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? He's clearly not a productive editor here, the opposite in fact, and that he has access to some publicity should not prevent us from doing the right thing. I'm going to get some sleep now, but if in the next 24 hours nobody gives me a good reason for retaining his account, I'll block it indefinitely. Rodhullandemu 00:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a sticky question to be sure. On the one hand it could be viewed as petty, but on the other hand wouldn't we block anyone else who was actively involved in trying to get WP busted by the FBI without a second thought? That's why I'm trying to kick this decision up the food chain a bit, it's probably not something that should be done by a single rank and file admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's only sticky because of who Sanger is and the power he thinks he has. His animus to us since he left, however that happened, is patent and he comes across like a kid who didn't get the candy he thought he deserved. If he wants to whinge elsewhere, he can do that, but his presence here is disruptive and anathema, and I don't see any reason why we here should give him the platform or the time of day. And it's exactly the sort of thing that should be done by a single admin, because this project is about its people and its principles. It's not about "kicking it upstairs", because doing so is an abdication of the judgement accorded to admins, although the drarmahh here is such that it wouldn't end there. My feeling is that it should. Rodhullandemu 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

James Marsh's comments are spot on:

“As Misplaced Pages becomes an authoritative source in law, politics and news, it makes a great target and medium for people with all kinds of questionable agendas.”

“Misplaced Pages is like the Wizard of Oz. You never know exactly who is standing behind that green curtain. And that’s the real risk here.”

Advocacy, propagandizing, and other efforts at perverting content by individuals and groups is a very serious problem and its something that Jimbo and other Misplaced Pages higher ups do not appear to take seriously. On the contrary, admin and editor cliques regularly collaborate to advance their personal agendas. The inappropriate content and BLP problems are just the tip of the iceberg. Electroshoxcure (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

don't block He is not an idiot. Blocking him will probably play into his hand. Drawing more publicity to a non-issue. Personally since he is not your average troll blocking him is proably best for ARBCOM to decide. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is my concern as well. Blocking Sanger likely would generate additional media attention and come across to many as an attempt to silence a prominent critic. Allowing him to retain his editing privileges probably harms the project substantially less than removing them would. —David Levy 00:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking is commonly used on wikipedia to silence critics, so nothing new to see here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't made any legal threats per WP:NLT. He has made a report to the FBI. You can't block someone for informing a law enforcement agency about something which they consider may be an offense. It is up to the agency to deal with as they see fit. Ty 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't do it. It would help him through the argument of "See, I even got blocked from the site" as well as per Malleus. It's a stupid idea IMHO. Not much good could come out of it.--White Shadows 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that a block here would be appropiate. Larry Sanger believes he's more important than he actually is so his yelling and screaming about being blocked from a website he's reported to the FBI will be nothing more than headlines on TMZ. If a block does blow up into a some "media whirlwind", eventually it will come out that Misplaced Pages has a policy against legal threats against the site meaning the editors (not the foundation itself) simply followed that policy. Malleus makes a good point as well, Sanger is no longer a member of the foundation and is simply another editor thus he should be treated like another editor.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he should be treated just like any other editor, but we don't block people simply for being dicks, otherwise this place would be come a ghost town. If a policy line is crossed, it can be dealt with appropriately. Absent that, a block right now simply smacks of pettiness and cowardice. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he hasn't actually "done" anything yet. You might call WP:NLT on him, but he technically hasn't made a threat. He took an action. Those are, sort of, different things. Silverseren 01:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My 0.02... I am a county-level law enforcement officer. This situation would be similar to a former chief of police getting pulled over for, say, aggressive driving. Law enforcement officers (admins) have "police discretion" on pretty much all matters of whether to arrest/not arrest, write moving violation/not write moving violation, etc., etc. In our hypothetical traffic stop of former police chief Sanger, the admin has him pulled over for multiple moving violations, some of which are arrestable (blockable) offenses. Now (I haven't seen the diff for what's going on, but...), if former police chief Sanger is being a d***) and throwing his weight around (i.e., "Don't you know who I am..."), the police officer is in a predicament because of the political repercussions. Although the officer (admin) is within his rights to take whatever action is prudent, the former police chief still has political pull within the county, so the best course of action would be to call the 10-car (the duty sergeant...or perhaps the nearest 'crat in our case). Because we aren't privy to all the intricacies of the domestic dispute between Sanger and WP, we don't know what the legal repercussions would be (if any...or it could be the end of the world as we know it. So, in cases like this, it is always better to pass the buck, so to speak, which is exactly what the admin involved is doing. --It's me...Sallicio! 02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well put. I think it's pretty clear that Larry Sanger is doing this for the press, I have not seen any indication he tried to resolve this with the foundation or Commons before writing a letter to the FBI and making sure that the TV news people knew he had done so. That makes it part of the seemingly never-ending grudge/feud/whatever between himself and both Jimbo and the project as a whole. While I do firmly believe that he has violated NLT, I am also cognizant of the way this could reflect on WP, and it may even give Larry another chance to play the victim for the press. Therefore it seemed best to bring it here. As to the substance of the claim, that he violated NLT, we normally block people just for saying they are going to take any kind of action involving the law toward WP. NLT is quite clear: "it is required that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." Mr. Sanger reported Misplaced Pages to the FBI for what most people would consider a damn serious charge. Distribution of child pornography is something law enforcement officials take a very dim view of, with good reason. As I've said, I think Mr. Sanger is more interested in publicity for Citizendiom, which he was careful to plug in his letter despite it's utter lack of relevance to the matter supposedly being reported. That in no way diminishes the seriousness of the accusation. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Get over yourselves. This is real life, not part of your wikigame. @Sallico, your analogy is ridiculous and contrived. You forgot to mention that the ex police chief wasn't pulled over for speeding - he was pulled over for expressing a concern to the proper authorities that his ex colleagues were involved in the distribution of child pornography, and his ex colleagues are the ones who have just stopped him. They are the ones getting the nightsticks out as they exit the vehicle. @Beeblebrox, stop fitting policies to your prejudices. Sanger didn't make legal threats, and he isn't taking legal action. It isn't his case, it's the FBI vs wiki, if they choose to pursue it at all. Given wikis response, that a community, even a community of wikipedians, has some say in what can be considered child pornography, I think he made the right decision. Misplaced Pages has not shown it is capable to taking a responsible attitude, especially where children are concerned. Weakopedia (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

While there are no vandals associated with this discussion, I suggest that WP:DENY is still applicable and the issue should be dropped. Blocking Sanger (even for a few minutes) would be massively unhelpful to Misplaced Pages and massively helpful to Sanger. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how my response is "contrived," but whatever. The analogy is sound. Police = Admin. Breaking law = breaking policy. Action or inaction. It seems pretty simple and easy to follow. My point was: do nothing about the "Sanger Situation" except notify the powers that be, because the issue lies many, many pay grades above an admin. Seems simple enough to me, but what do I know --It's me...Sallicio! 06:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

First, did he make any legal threats on Misplaced Pages via his account here? And reading it, I think the "WP:no legal threats" policy speaks of litigation (civil suits filed personally) - I highly doubt it's a "don't call the police" policy. Wnt (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking under WP:NLT is commonly misunderstood. It is taken to mean "you did something bad by making a legal threat - we block you as punishment because legal threats are not allowed". That is not the right attitude. If you are genuinely libelled, a legal threat is an entirely legitimate response. The reason we block you is because legal disputes cannot be resolved on wiki. Thus as long as litigation is a possibility, it is not appropriate for the complainant to continue to interact on wiki. Sanger has made no legal threat. He has not stated any intention to sue Misplaced Pages or any Wikipedian. He has not indicated any person legal dispute with Misplaced Pages. He has only stated he is of the opinion that certain things may be illegal. Now, either he is wrong or he is right - but that's a decision for the FBI and the WMF to make - it is not a legal dispute between Sanger and anyone.--Scott Mac 08:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Perfect condensation of the points, Scott. Silverseren 08:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)