User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Better to not leave messages for me here, because I don't always look at meta. Put them on en:User talk:Jimbo Wales
all subpages T · m:special:CentralAuth


(On the other hand, for the month of January 2011, it's ok to leave messages for me here relating to my efforts at a reform of the Don't be a dick essay.--Jimbo Wales 18:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For purposes of this specific topic, I think an essay on "Brick Wall" may yet be needed. You might also look at Wikipedia:WP:Activist at some point, I fear. The larger issue is - can Wikipedia surmount apparent sophomoric anti-reform editing styles? In a way, you may have greater strength of voice without a title than with one :). Collect 11:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Every single attempt at improving the essay gets reverted. A very simple way for ownership of the eesay to be maintained, indeed. Collect 01:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Mine are the same - banned and reverted. See at I am legitimate Ziggo user and I am severely abused. Please intervene. Administrators simply break repetitively Don't be a dick essay message.

Meta RfC dealing with a desysop you once made[edit]

A Meta RfC can be found here dealing with a user you desysopped, resysopped, then had him quit then gain back his administrator rights only to use them to ignore community consensus has been started. Your input on dealing with his administrator abuse would be appreciated. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible venture[edit]

Mr. Wales, I represent a University and am trying to reach your office regarding a possible partnership. Unfortunately, no number is listed for the Wikimedia Foundation in California, so I'm finding it difficult to contact you. I've sent an email to the address you list here, is there another way I could get in touch with you?

This page shows the telephone number to be +1-415-839-6885. Regards, fr33kman 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrators In Wikipedia Abusing Powers[edit]

I tried getting through to you on wikipedia with a vandalism report I had, but some WikiAdmins mistook me as a troll and block all my access. I really want you to read my report: (Bottom of the page). I redacted the legal threat because I realized that it wasn't Wikipedia's fault as an organization—it was probably a lobby of editors who felt the same way about one person. Here you can find my redacting statement: On the same page, they were accusing me of vandalizing, but in my report I clarify everything. I've been really trying to reach you, so it would mean a lot to me if you can personally respond. Thank you so much. By the way, I am a really big fan of all your projects. - 19:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I am yet awaiting your reply. What the belligerents mentioned above commited is an act of injustice and can contribute to misuse of trust...Please at least indicate you've read through all the compilation I've gather for you. Thank you. 12:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I second you. 2A01:7B8:2011:CBD3:0:0:7A9:ADAB 20:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A dysfunctional Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I would normally avoid bothering you with things such as this one, lest it be of utmost necessity. Please refer to this post of mine.

An entire Wikipedia seems to be in a whole mess of problems, being basically dysfunctional. This has been going on for quite some time (months, years maybe) and the time for this farce to end must finally come.

I hope you will be able to come forward to my request and rescue a problematic Wikipedia. Best greetings, --SavoRastko 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, SavoRastko. To everyone's surprise, this is not only going on in the Croatian Wikipedia, but even the English Wikipedia, as I discussed in my own report (previous section has the link to my report). I hope you are successful in defeating the censorship. The situation you quoted someone saying, "...the Project has been kidnapped by a tyrannical few in power, who lawlessly spread their dictatorship on that particular Wikipedia for quite some time by now; the sole policy and/or guideline being the absolute and final word of the several dominating Administrators" is exactly what happened in the English Wikipedia. I was also blocked, and my complaint was deleted. That's why I came here in hopes of contacting Mr. Wales while getting around some racism. There's still some hope. Let's work together to help protect Wikipedia from lobbyist and bias. You can contact me on my talk psge. - 22:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC).
Not really a surprise, you might want to check The Wikipedia Review once in a while. Regards, Guido den Broeder 10:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe worth trying[edit]

Hi Jimbo. Yesterday I came up with another design for the banner for the donation. I believe it worth trying because it is something different and hopefully more users would donate. The idea is to use images of cute animals, something like this:

Please read

Puffer Fish DSC01257.JPG A personal appeal from a puffer fish.

I was photographed in Hawaii by a volunteer photographer. My image was uploaded to Wikipedia by a volunteer contributor. Another volunteers wrote article about me. My image is absolutely free. You may use it for your school projects, to print it, and to hang in your office and so on. But images and articles require lot's of space on servers, and servers cost some money. So, if you'd like to see more images of me, and more images like these ones Kissing Prairie dog edit 31.jpg and Ursus maritimus us fish.jpg and Green turtle in Kona 2008.jpg please donate to Wikipedia today. Thank you.

More images of cute animals could be added. Maybe the more the better. So what do you think? I believe it worth trying. I am sure more people would act on something different. Cheers.--Mbz1 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Proud to report[edit]

LW logo gold.png

German Wikipedia now has exceeded 100 000 000 Edits. Article (german). --Itu (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't Bight The Ips[edit]

What are you going to do about users being mean to Ips,treating them like their not welcome,cause it is almost like racism? May I suggest a WP:DON'TBITETHEIPS (Wikipedia:Don't Bight The Ips) 00:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I know this was posted a couple of months ago so you'll probably never see my message, but the page you speak of does exist: en:Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Cheers! Jmajeremy (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Funds Dissemination Interview[edit]

Hi Jimmy, our team at Bridgespan wishes to thank you for providing insights on the Funds Dissemination process and committee. Notes from our discussion can be found here. Divya (talk)

What DO you think?[edit]

Hi Jimbo?

Do you really think we need small wikis? if answer is No Great, just close all smaller wikis. if answer is YES please make some arrangements to make it happen. please read this. This is some action taken by a steward on si.wikipedia. which was an Desysop. This may be a correct action. but we have started a discussion & we are waiting for an update for months. THIS IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM we(small wiki) have. BIG Guys come & do something to to say that I'm active or I'm THE ONE. Then nothing happens. I've been de-sysop. That is not the problem Jimbo. I have tried to get finalized that matter. it will not. this shows to the world how wiki server for smaller wikis. you can put my words on any conference or anywhere. That doesn't be a problem if you are ready to fix these BIG BROTHER issues.

I think I'll get an answer from Jimbo not from others.

BR, /Bingu 09:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Please unblock me. This admin mafia mistakes pro with con attitudes. Vandalism - Scandalism - Dadaism!!! 2A01:7B8:2011:CBD3:0:0:7A9:ADAB 20:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

«Speech Freedom Day named after John Lennon» (British Council)[edit]

Hello, Jimmy Wales !

Do you wish give formal patronage: (for this intercultural dialogue via 110 of countries and for light memory of John Lennon) ?

I ask this question on behalf of the famous Russian musician). On behalf of hundreds millions of fans (they very wish get the such gift, even when they do not know about the global event soon). And without any doubts: the leader of The Beatles has the right get the highest tribute of respecting - millions of people think the same. John Lennon was killed like Christ (payment for the good of all Humanity). Your formal patronage can be without any policy and bureaucracy. The tribute of respecting with your participation will become more important in several times (because you are Jimmy Wales - great man, by opinion of millions of different people).

The only one action need to do (reply on my question: word "Yes" at this page). You can delete your consent in any second, if the consent not will be displayed on the official website of Evgeny Havtan and on the page of the international project (during 24 hours after your consent: webmaster will be on his working place). All explanations here can be deleted (they are not intended for wide public - because).

All of us very hope. Thank you!

How can we understand that the President of WM CH created the function of "Chief Science Officer" and got the job just after his mandate ?[edit]

LittleSwissApple (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Murderers being declared victims by Wikipedia[edit]

Isn't it shameful and embarassing that a person who deliberately shot someone else to death is declared innocent by the site you have envisioned to be righteous?

Just in case you do not know or care, the law-abiding, violent-prone villain who shot an unarmed, young man intending nothing wrong, is permanently acquited by any guilt, BY THE INTERNET-SITE YOU HAVE ENVISIONED, to be honest!

Vladimir Putin[edit]

As I recall, I have also made you aware that one of the most genuine criminals of modern man's history, namely Mr. Vladimir Putin, is tried to be whitewashed to the extreme via the site you have envisioned. Neither have you responsed, nor has ANYTHING changed about the depiction of a mass-mudererer on your site?

Threats by outing and denigration; Privacy policy[edit]

Hi, Jimbo.
Do You think that the contributors will freely and openly express their opinion when faced with media lynch and denigration?
Being tagged as "fascist"[1] is not innocent thing. This tag stood for months. This is open influencing and imposing of the attitude to the participants on the discussion.
What do You think, how many users will openly confront some hategroup (with opposite attitudes on votes, or writing the articles) when they've been threatened with denigration and outing [2] ("Da li to znači da ja smijem svima otkriti vaše ime (a znadem ga), dapače znadem i vašu adresu, doduše ne znadem da li ste je promijenili u proteklih nekoliko godina koliko je moja informacija stara. Također, molim vas recite mi da li smijem otkriti ime i adresu i određenih drugih suradnika Wikipedije. = Does that mean that I can disguise to everyone Your name (I know it), I even know Your address.... Also please tell me may I disguise the name and address of certain other users of Wikipedia...").
Does Wikimedia Foundation really cares about the Privacy policy?
These kind of threats were earlier posted on the hategroup on the Facebook by the malcontents that contribute on Wikimedia's projects (either by same name, or by some other). These militant malcontents were mostly the ones that objected on Meta: either directly, or by their couriers.
Some of these militant malcontents also openly announced vandalizing on the Facebook, then they vandalized the pages of in a matter of minutes (which were quickly removed, but these short-living vandalisms were still shown in media as the "true condition, chaos on"), and later on Facebook hategroups they celebrated successful vandalizing.
Or WMF decided to give in to bullys when WMF's major contributors are faced with online bullying ? Kubura (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We also have problems with users that show two faces and evade the Wikimedia's rules.
On the Wikimedia's projects they play "poor innocent child" ("WMF, do something"), but on the hategroups on the Facebook they dehumanize attacked users, calling them "in a real life, they are zeros of a person", "biggots" etc. ("nule od ljudi u stvarnom životu", "zatucani" etc.).
When there are messages like "beat him on the street, hit him with the shovel on the head, kick him, slap him, punch him " on that same Facebook hategroup, You can see how inflammatory and dangerous are the posts that dehumanize.
Off-wiki bullying. We can post You the examples. Kubura (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Kubura, perhaps you should reflect on your past actions and consider the possibility that the opposition has a point as well as the possibility that you were something of a bully yourself:
I don't understand the Croatian language, so I won't comment any further. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not give in to cyberbullying, vandals and trolls. Aggressive users are now retaliating. They saw the media lynch as an opportunity. I stood on the way of the aggressive and destructive users. Being a kind of wikipoliceman carries the hatred of the destructive users. Now they saw a chance for their vendetta.
Old discussions on Meta are closed (some have falsified archives, with hidden messages, so You are not able to see whole story, see the "lost" table [3][4]). If You don't understand the language of the community being discussed, than please don't mess into something You never profoundly studied.
Recent RfC was supposed to be ran on, since this is local thing. But, someone persistently avoided the discussion there, although all the users were informed. Locals are not fluent in English and the malcontents are misusing that. Kubura (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I already decided to give up on Meta discussion, but Kubura's claims are so wrong (and I'm sick of people slandering Miranche), I just have to give a short reflection:
1) About Miranche's [5]: He mentioned fascist bias (content), not that someone (among users) is actually a fascist. Pro-ustashe bias is well documented and some articles are already corrected. This all criticism was never about entire community, but about a few users. The criticized users are mostly admins who made bias possible. Kubura and his pals tried very hard to make it look like the attack on the whole community. They succeeded with some users and that influenced de-sysoping vote.
2) Anonymous commenting on Kubura's talk page could be anyone, including himself. It happened just a few days ago, and nothing happened afterwards. Identity is still unknown. So, this is completely irrelevant.
3) Any Facebook group or media hype is completely irrelevant here, since WMF can't influence it. Also, cca 40 users (including 8 admins!) who voted to de-sysop 3 admins shaped their opinions based on personal experience on Wikipedia, not on media hype or some Facebook group. The Facebook group is just a result of the frustration of many newcomers, who tried to fix bias on Croatian Wikipedia but were stopped by admins. It was just a trigger for already dissatisfied users, not the force that led "rebellion" that resulted in de-sysoping vote. BTW, I follow that facebook group and I must say I saw a lot of ridiculing hyper-POV articles and even users that wrote it. But threats? No. The only threat I know is death threat to Facebook group owner that happened after Roberta F. asked Croatian war veterans to help close the Facebook group.
4) Regarding off-wiki bullying, if WMF really want to investigate that, they should start with investigation of off-wiki maltreatment of members of ArbCom in 2009 and 2010 that made its members leave ArbCom, one by one, because of stress. Also, in that case, you should give opportunity to all hr wiki users to report their experience with off-wiki (mostly IRC and email) block threats and pressuring from some admins.
Finally, I propose to move this discussion to RFC page. --Argo Navis (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
1) This is not the matter of Miranche, the point is that an user that moderated (or behaved like that) that RfC has the words "fascist bias" explicitly written, tagging the Croatian Wikipedia as "fascist" (" fascist bias on Croatian Wikipedia. )[6]. This stood for months. Same way as Ivan Štambuk (banned by the decision of the whole community) started that RfC as "Fascism on Croatian Wikipedia" [7] (Russavia renamed that attacking name [8]). Therefore, whole project is denigrated.
1b) There's no pro-Ustashi bias. Typical YugoCommunist rhetorics: if You can't beat someone with the arguments, disqualify him with the etiquetting ("ustashi, fascist..."). The true is: noone is abolished. No crimes are abolished. Texts are sourced. The badintentional Yugohistoriography's myths and stereotypes are disguised. Some people don't like that.
2) The anonimous edit is by the same user [9] that posted the same message on the Croatian village pump. I posted before that message [10] and later I removed that message.[11]. That's not me. IP is easily checkable.
3) That Facebook hategroup is a way how malcontents are evading the rules of Wikimedia. One cannot wash himself from the things he wrote there. Argo Navis, who wrote there "in a real life, they are zeros of a person", "biggots" etc. ("nule od ljudi u stvarnom životu", "zatucani" etc.)? That hategroup on Facebook is militant. Wikimedia must react.
3b) These "40 users" are mostly (but not all!) users that were inactive for years and users whose contributions on are marginal, is not their homewiki. Including the sleeper account that appeared after three years of inactivity and required the desysopping of admins he never talked to.
4) Regarding off-wiki bullying, stick with the topic. Don't include the things it not possible to testify. On the other hand, You can tell us what You did on wikimeeting in Split in Cukarin. There was a lot of whitnesses there.
This is my talk with Jimbo Wales. You, Argo Navis appeared here. Let me talk with Jimbo. Kubura (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
1) Croatian Wikipedia has problems with pro-ustashe (= fascism) bias. A little bit less then before because You don't dare to push your POV as stubbornly as before the scandal. That is a fact. Mirance said exactly that. EOD on 1).
1b) Thank You for admiting that You don't see that bias. That explains a lot. Yes, texts are sourced, but the source validity policy is one of the greatest problems on hr wiki since far-right sources (, are treated as valid.
2) OK, it's not You. But it could be anyone. Even Jimbo ;). We will never know. So, just ignore it.
3) If You wan't someone to react about facebook gruop, contact Facebook, not WMF.
3b) By "mostly", you actualy mean "less then half", which is kind of deceitful. Truth is there were some very experience users (2 ex ArbCom members among them!) that come back from 3-year long wiki-break only to vote to de-sysop those 3 admins. Some of them wrote very serious accusations. So, one might wonder: since majority of them didn't have any conflicts with 3 of You, what makes those users so motivated? Maybe they didn't like how You treated other users?
4) I'm not sure why You mentioned wiki-meatup in "Cukarin" (coffe-bar in Split) in 2010, since you weren't there, so You can't possible know what happened. In short, SG was, in our discussions prior to the meetup, slendering Dalibor Bosits accusing him of wiki-harassig specific user. I went through all discussion Dalibor had with this guy and found nothing wrong. I printed it all and brought it on meetup. Then, I asked SG to confirm his previous claims and when he did, I kindly asked him to pinpoint it on my listing. He just refused it without explanation and smiled, refusing to even take the papers into his hands. Several times. So I lost my nerve. I'm only human, I don't like being manipulated. I'm curious - what version of this story were You told? --Argo Navis (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Kubura is now publishing conspiracy theories:

SG had opponents like Pes and As baštoni that frantically categorized articles, which was Your [Argo Navis'] editpattern. You were the checkuser, You know how to work with software, You know how to trick the tools.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not his first conspiracy theory! Regarding AB and Pes, both users were active in last 90 days. Pes had his first edit in 2007! But, feel free to check them. Anyway, Croq had 10 sockpuppets with the same edit pattern, and Kubura didn't find any of them! Moreover, he even insisted that edit patterns in Croq's sockpuppet case is someone's conspiracy to make Croq (who didn't even react on his 2-years block) look bad. But, when someone changes a category, it can only be Argo Navis! Talking about double standards... --Argo Navis (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Excessive blocking[edit]

You may have never heard of it, but there are actually addictive administrators whose favourite hobby is - YES - block, block, block out the people, all day long (and night, certainly):

Probably just an unimportant side-note, the afforementioned (German) Administrator has blocked exactly 58 users since being reported on this site for "excessive blocking".

Krim Crisis[edit]

Another piece of evidence proving that it is not about the most truthful and objective editors but that the ones who are winning the "Wikipedia-Contest" are the ones who are the most fanatic:

Although in German, it will be perfectly clear to anyone that the editors who have seized control over this article are Russians living in Germany (and as it may seem obvious, the possibility to rather meet an Russian Immigrant than a Ukranian one is like 99/1).

As it stands, the German Wikipedia's version of the Krim Crisis (Crim Krisis;-) is that it wasn't democracy or human rights activists, but "right-wing totalitarianism" inside the new Ukranian Government that is mainly responsible for the current chaos and injustice.

Also, it wasn't Janukowitsch's constant neglect and ignorance of the people's will, but he actually was the dicator who was "the most willing to compromise" in european (or even human history)...

Big up, Wikipedia, for your truthful depiction, once again.-- 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And at the same time, the person who is responsible for this false depiction, namely Jim Wales, is posting a memorial picture of a young man who was slain just for demonstrating for Janokowitsch to be ousted...-- 00:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hallo ich hab ne Frage an dich

Request on the Fairness at English Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Jimbo! Users on English Wikipedia do not wish the useful information on your personal page: (you gave the permission to publish a useful information). Info from the Forbes was rollbacked. Please stop them. Thank you. - 08:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

Hello IP! Please stop adding unwanted things to Jimbo's page. [12] --NeilN (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Your opinion and not more (Jimbo does not think so). This topic is intended for discuss. 20:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • From Jimbo: "In any event, you were right to remove the anonymous ip's edit as it is essentially vandalism. I have never made any public remark saying that I respect (or don't respect) Medvedev." I hope you understand that. --NeilN (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • See here. pablo 20:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I saw. But all this shame (lie and so on) - will be showed for a large number of people of diffrent nations. Not only by this issue. On the Facebook will be created page (and people will click Like). 5000 of friends I have. And my friends too. In addition, the new page will contain this: (and other great shame). But not Meta (Wikipedia). All almost the same. 18:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yiddish Wikipedia[edit]

Sad, but fact,that we only have 3 really active users, 1 is an administrator. We(the 2 others) feel that he is kind of a control freak. he is not a native Yiddish speaker (as it says on his user page[[13]] but still claims he knows bettter yiddish. We would like him to have a little more sympathy with others. There is no stuart on yiddish wikipedia so this is my only place to express, thanks and all the best.--Alefbeis (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. he is like a dictator and does not value other people's work or what They think. he is already there for a long time but I see users have had always complaints on his actions as he does whatever he wants without really talking or asking anyone. he clearly abuses his power and this has cost us a lot of users in the past as nobody can work properly with him. he acts like its his own encyclopedia. I would really appreciate if you can do something about it. thank you very much. (im sorry about my poor English) נייגעריגער (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to disagree with both of these gentlemen. If it weren't for the individual in question, the Yiddish Wikipedia would be in shambles and completely run amuck with improper grammar and spelling. Never have I seen such dedication from a user on any other language's version of Wikipedia. I am constantly in shock at the selflessness and dedication shown by the user these two men are berating. There are certainly more than three contributors to the Yiddish wikipedia, though not everyone is always active, but no one contributes more than the administrator. I will admit that the oversight can seem excessive, but over time it became obvious that the user's relentless dedication to proper Yiddish has been a great chesed to the language and has personally opened my eyes to its proper form. Instead of lashon hora and slander, our faithful administrator at the Yiddish Wikipedia should be receiving a reward of the highest calibre. --ברסלבער (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Requests for comment/Yiddish Wikipedia issues. --Dereckson (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

WMF board resolution on user rights process[edit]

Please urgently get this topic/resolution scheduled for a meeting, discussed and voted; and express your opinions on the noticeboard. Thanks for your work, Nemo 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Request unblocking my ip address[edit]

Request unblocking my ip address 16:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting better?[edit]

There is a discussion underway at en:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Getting better? about evaluating the progress which has been made over the last five or ten years. I would like to participate but unfortunately cannot as the page has been semi - protected at the behest of one JoeSperrazza who seems to be something of a pain in the neck [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30].

As it's a meta discussion I'm posting my comment below:

The gorilla in the room[edit]

Jimbo says the sample should be weighted to popularity. I agree. Why don't we make it simpler still and start with the article with most page views and work down? Each version should be assessed using the methods that reviewer assistants to the editorial boards of journals use to assess suitability. Then compare assessments.

The gorilla is not the weak content highlighted by Smallbones, it's the reason for it. People register for Facebook because it's personal to them. Similarly, they register for Twitter for the ability to message their friends. Wikipedia is not personal - it's altruistic. That's why the registration model doesn't work. Larry Sanger is a big supporter of registration to write an article and it's the cornerstone of Citizendum. Check "recent changes" in Citizendum and they are few and far between, and mostly by the same person.

The hook for Wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". But when people visit the site and try to write about something that interests them and they are knowledgeable about they find they can't. Or rather, they can but then have to wait about six months while the journal decides whether to publish. Get serious, folks. This is not the way to do it. Of course there need to be safeguards. Every worthwhile enterprise gets vandalised. But we have pending changes to get over that. So let people start articles within pending changes which will switch off as soon as the text is edited by an autoconfirmed editor (i.e. vetted). See discussion and explanation at en:User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 193#New paid editing scandal - How many more will there be until we take serious action?. This kills two birds with one stone - marking Articles for Creation historical also ends the ability of sockpuppets to dangle the prospect of immediate publication in front of people in return for money. (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary under which the above post was removed is not good enough. In Guy's own words:

I stand convicted of not always filling in edit summaries. I plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court.

An editor comments:

I personally feel that he is a sneaky, unknowledgeable (on wikiprocess) and a ticking time bomb waiting for someone to do the bad thing, that way he can snap at him.

More to the point, he blocked despite his claim

I am unlikely to use admin powers in a dispute in which I am personally involved.

The above - mentioned editor continued:

Do you not feel that ... represents a lack of ability on your behalf? You have (or it has) even (been) suggested that you lack the ability of wiki process. You even seemed to agree to this.

We don't know what Guy had in mind as he hasn't said, but it can't be sockpuppetry as that is irrelevant to posts on this page. Also, he has stated

I'm very reluctant to fling accusations of sockpuppetry.


I can't say I've ever called sockpuppet, though. It's a serious allegation and needs solid evidence.

So that rules that out, then.

The same editor comments:

You seem to be looking for arguments (you've even been cited on external sources such as a news blog). Seemingly you get easily frustrated, use foul language and are considered an internet antagonist.

Guy uses rhetoric to conceal the fact that his argument has no substance:

How many times are we going to let this troll post the same nonsense? I just need to know how big a pack of popcorn to buy.

- Guy 16:22, 17 August 2015.

Another technique is to simply wipe away the opposing argument:

Illustrating what the OP says above, JzG removed his/her post and Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked.

- 17:21, 17 August 2015.

MDann 52, please quote what you think is the relevant passage of the policy you link to. This policy has no relevance to posts on this page. (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


If someone with an enwiki account could post my comment into the discussion it would be appreciated. 17:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you ever attend Wikimania with your money? Talk to us![edit]

TL;DR: Fill a short Wikimania survey, it takes 5 min.

Hi, I'm writing you because you are listed in Wikimania/Frequent attendees. As you probably know by now, Wikimania 2016 Esino Lario wants to achieve a Wikimania format which allows people to "get things done" and leave the conference fully satisfied with the result of their investment of time and other resources (see pillars 2 and 4: ). For this purpose, we consider all audiences (see ).

Participants other than scholarship recipients and reimbursed representatives are one group we heard very little from, but we think they are important because: 1) they have financial resources and help make the Wikimania budget sustainable; 2) they have motivation to share and ideas on what makes Wikimania valuable.

We set up a form mainly to collect names of some such people and talk with them later: if you provide your contact, we may write you on this topic. We may release aggregate data from the resposes; data will be handled by us and the Wikimania 2016 fiscal sponsor "Ecomuseo delle Grigne" (under EU law). Please fill the whole form, it's short!

Feel free to forward this invite to anyone.

Federico Leva and Martin Rulsch
Wikimania 2016 team, scholarships subteam
08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of English Wikipedia ban[edit]

I sent you an e-mail regarding my ban from the English Wikipedia and am just leaving a message here to confirm if you have received the message and are examining my appeal. Since I know you are more active on there than here should any of your talk page watchers post it over there then I am fine with a response on the English Wikipedia. This situation has caused me a good deal of stress and so I would like some sort of word on whether this ban is being investigated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)