User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 3

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Better to not leave messages for me here, because I don't always look at meta. Put them on en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

Thanks

Thanks for reversing yourself, that was good of you. I'm sorry if my comments were a little harsh; I was just very surprised to see you do that. This removal is of course nothing personal. Meta tends to keep admins who are active by way of edits and actions. While of course you need admin rights for various things, you have these as part of your steward rights, and as you aren't especially active as a local admin, it makes sense, per Meta policy, to simply have the rights as steward instead. I hope that makes sense to you. You haven't actually lost anything here, it's merely removing redundancy. Best wishes, Majorly talk 03:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense whatsoever. It is an extremely unpleasant, unfriendly, and unwiki policy which should be reversed.--Jimbo Wales 04:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to know what sense there is in keeping flags for user rights you have already, and are merely redundant. It makes no sense whatsoever that you want to keep redundant flags. Majorly talk 04:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How about we all drop this. Since nothing changed there is nothing to discuss. Prodego talk 05:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Jimbo Wales, On Meta, as we come from different wiki-backgrounds, we prefer clear-cut procedures to minimise disputes. Notice that it is a policy for many wikis to turn off the flags of inactive sysops. It is just a practical measure, and in no way unwiki and unfriendly - they can always ask for it back when they become active again. If you wish to change the policy on meta, please go to the appropriate forum (Meta talk:Administrators) and explain your thoughts. If you want to have the local sysop flag, there is plenty of work on this site for you to do. Your positive contributions to Meta are very welcome. Have a good day! And :-) Hillgentleman 05:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech, hope I can find it here, so I can address many issues

I have many many fine contributions to wikipedia and I want you to recognize those, not only under this account. I strived to improve articles Jimbo, yet you chose to ignore me, create problems for yourself, family and other contributors, that is not the way to do it...(I also contributed on meta). You never deleted anything, you allowed you know whom to do what he pleases, lol even blocking accounts which were never mine. It came to my attention (only recently) that somebody from Eastern Europe posted a reply on your talk page, I dont have the link but you can check January 16 and unfortunately it's not with your archives. I do know however that you could have resolved fully all the problems in December 2006 when Mr. I.C. called you, again he was a decoy to get you away from me, I was very close to calling you in July 2007 however for security reasons I avoided possibility of you playing detective and tracking people who have no idea what's goin on, lol. The bottom line is, you need to unblock the innocent lambs, the bottom line is you must allow american freedom of speech, bill of rights dont count here, especially on your big wiki talk page, everything gets erased and the next day you know who[1] blocked many accounts, did he ever say thanx for good edits or simply looked for good faith mistakes to point to 'vandalism'? That dude should go! You said you are impartial, I hope so, I have not seen that, you said I.C. should take psycho drugs to feel better, how about you? If you did not cause problems, problems would not escalate, DUH! Here are some examples of my problems and administrators you never properly trained... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Indwisdom&diff=256155027&oldid=243035979

You might as well give the 'deleted' pages to every sysop and continue what you are doing and getting nowhere, because I am here to stay until Kingdom Come, until I get my rights back! Now, block me if you want to or have one of your slaves (antandrus total lowlife, cold hypocrite,master of provocations & arguments) block me or change your approach and we can work things out, FIRST move is yours! I should also get your sincere apology! Here's example of some of my fine contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BoxingWear2&diff=253613842&oldid=252913173, article is very old but nobody put polarization info there, that's not right for big 'encyclopedia'! I made many good contributions on your other wikis, i have an account with over 3500 edits, in good standings, going all the way back to 2005, i m not editing from there anymore, i always used different ip to avoid ip check, at least that account is not closed and did not give wikipedos satisfaction of closing, I have much more to say, but if you delete this or do not listen you immediately prove the point that you surrender, that you do not want to engage in healthy conversations, thus giving me full victory and my edits are ABSOLUTELY just!

I am not editing from the 3500+ edits account, at least that is one account you will never find, never suspend, but i have barnstars, kudos, even recommendations to become sysop, a lot of good things :) if you cant admit to good things, you will never admit to anything except being cynic, you promised 5 edits, you broke that promise, you only did one edit on Yasser Arafat, you were afraid of jewish community criticism, guess what, I speak almost fluent hebrew, I could have easily defended you in front of any hypocrite, there is nothing wrong with providing footnote for Arafat's birthplace, as long as it's properly explained. Ah well, whatever!
Did you know Beethoven's mother wanted to abort him? Imagine how much beautiful music would would have lost, same with wikipedia's pathetic policies of blocking innocent, i have deep esoteric knowledge in many fields, i am afraid to edit and have things reverted out of the blue, but this way Wikipedia lost FULLY, not me!
More information on the meaning of truth you can check your talk page july 2006, i explained in detail! Will not again, the guy who called you speaks fluend Yiddish, language that is not used by many people, also writes, reads, you also lost fine translation contributions, good!
Old saying is proven, what goes around, comes around!00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)BoxingWear, the innocent lamb, a user who refused to go away!
Ignorance is playground of fools, my other meta account has over 100 contributions!
wow, i cant believe u did not delete truth!
Did you know some of the ideas I suggested on wikipedia you used not knowing it was me, lol!

Letter to Jimbo Wales, Chairman Emeticus

Dear Woolworths Foundation Board of Trustees,

As you requested, here are the faculty recommendations regarding the qualifications of the Umbridge Twins (Mike and SB_Dolores) to assume the duties of Headmaster here at Woolworths School of Political Dramaturgy.

We were especially impressed by the recent production in which the impressionable young students of Woolworths School of Political Dramaturgy were inducted into the long-forgotten practice of employing Parliamentary Bill of Attainder. The symbolic allusions to the Trial Scene from Alice in Wonderland was an especially brilliant maneuver.

We are confident that, with the Umbridge Twins in charge, our students will quickly learn all the well-known hoary practices from the rubbish heap of political history dating back to the Forgotten Realms of Hammurabi.

And, at the end of the term, all the students are cordially invited to Go Jump In the Lake.

(signed)

Humble Members of Your Obedient Faculty Senate
Ottava Rima, Chairman of the Committee on Crime and Punishment
Darklama, Recoding Secretary
Sxeptomaniac, Sargeant at Harms
KillerChihuahua, Redactor of Records

Congratulations!

Great job getting named character approved for the USA Network! You deserve it! Razorflame 03:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ban appeal

Hello Jimbo,

As I am unable to post at en:Wikipedia, and email results in an error message, I am posting this here.

I have been banned from en:Wikipedia by the local arbcom without explanation or evidence of wrongdoing. I wish to appeal this ban, to see my rights restored in full, my block log cleared per WP:BLP as it contains erroneous accusations of legal threats, and aggressive hounders dealt with.

Let me know if you want to hear my case. I am an editor in good standing on various other wiki projects, and have always contributed to Wikipedia in good faith.

Kind regards, Guido den Broeder 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope to put Guido's appeal in proper context.
In fact, he was banned on December 19 by the en.wp community.[2] The straw that broke the camel's back was a userpage that Guido created suggesting that his participation on Wikipedia was part of an social project experiment. The community, which did not consent to be experimental subjects, decided to ban him. This ban was reviewed by the community in March and was strongly endorsed.[3]
On May 21, Guido was unbanned with conditions by the Arbitration Committee.[4] It was thought that he might edit productively if he was given some limitations. By email, he told the Committee that he would not attempt to evade any restrictions we imposed. He also assured us that he would not interact with users who had previously caused him trouble because he would edit in different areas. I personally urged Guido to edit in less controversial topics.
Instead, he began editing the article on global warming, which is a controversial topic frequently edited by William M. Connolley. Off-site, Guido has blamed WMC for his community ban.[5] He also argued with Arbitrators about the scope of his topic ban.[6][7] He denies that he had ever edited problematically on any topic. After a particularly lame edit war over the term "last century" in global warming,[8] Guido was blocked for apparently violating his 1RR condition. It was proposed that he be re-banned, and within hours a majority of the Committee agreed to this resolution (I recused).[9]
Finally note that Guido is blocked from the Dutch Wikipedia for making legal threats (after a very long block log acquired in less than one year).[10] Guido objected to the block in a meta RFC, but the discussion was closed as unhelpful.[11] Guido once withdrew from English Wikipedia in order to pursue legal action against an editor. He denies that this was a legal threat. Cool Hand Luke 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My participation on Wikipedia is not a social experiment, and I have never suggested that it is. Like Jimbo, I have said that Wikipedia itself is a social experiment.
  • I did not know that en:Global warming is owned by mr. Connolley, and that other people are not allowed to improve the text. I was reading this and related articles in preparation for an upcoming conference, and found the text very confusing because of the ambiguity of the time periods. I asked on IRC what meaning I should attach to terms like 'last century', as English is not my native language. Unanimously, the attending users agreed that such terms should be replaced. I checked the sources and changed the time references accordingly. This was supported by two other users. I made zero reverts. Mr. Connolley, on the other hand, reverted all of us. (As a side note, I found this article rather biased. Important information is consistently left out.)
  • I have not made legal threats, or any other threats, in my entire life. Others threatened me. The editor you're mentioning hacked my website. The nl: block has not been reviewed. See [12] for some more info related to nl:.
  • I will not comment in public on email exchanges that have taken place, as I consider those private. As for the editors I wanted to avoid: they come looking for me, no matter where I was, and without pause. Guido den Broeder 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quoting anything you haven't already released. You claim to have forwarded the whole conversation to Durova (although it appears you did so selectively). Moreover, I'm just citing the words that you posted publicly. ("I will not try to break or circumvent any restriction that is imposed as a condition to my unbanning. My goal is to collaborate constructively with other good-faith users. I do not expect to have many dealings with the users that banned me, since they contribute to entirely different sections of Wikipedia, but if I do meet them, I will do my best to get along.") As it turned out, your promises were not kept. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Durova received the complete mail exchange: in private.
I did not promise that these users wouldn't harass me. That was your job. Guido den Broeder 21:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo may refer to the deleted contents of User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment, where Guido announces the status of six accounts created "on three different chapters each, with specific instructions. After less than two years, my account at the English chapter is the last one standing." Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
He doesn't need to. The essay can be found here at meta, see the link on my user page. By the way, if you want to change your talk after it has been responded to [13], please use strikethrough. Guido den Broeder 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
To the reader: since mr. Luke keeps changing the text that I responded to, my replies may no longer match.
With regard to the length of my nl block log: the block reversals sort of double that. Guido den Broeder 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing nefarious here, Guido. I just misunderstood the significance of the meta RFA (a steward has informed me that stewards play no special role in them). Jimbo is certainly capable of reading your block logs; you've been banned by both projects' Arbitration Committees. Cool Hand Luke 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that an arbcom member doesn't know what a steward does, but you are missing the point, as usual.
And no, I am not banned on nl:Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You are indefinitely blocked and no one is willing to overturn your block. On English Wikipedia, that's a ban. Perhaps it's called something else in Dutch. Cool Hand Luke 20:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have not asked to overturn the current nl block, nor do I plan to. Guido den Broeder 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you can understand why I might make such a mistake. (unblock request) Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. As always, you made assumptions.
The page you are linking to is not the current block. Guido den Broeder 21:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. Please clarify then. The page is your request from August 2008. Your last block was in July 2008, and you remain blocked from the nl project due to that block. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have already clarified this on my en:Wikipedia user talk page. The fact that you don't know, shows that you have never investigated the merits of my community ban on en:Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this request still stands. Guido den Broeder 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am declining your appeal.--Jimbo Wales 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Care to explain? Have my contributions not always been constructive and in good faith? Is the admin that banned me after I asked him not to editwar with another user over spelling, and who was instrumental in my reban in a similar manner, not currently under investigation for abusing his administrative powers time and time again?[14] Guido den Broeder 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The administrator that banned me has now been desysopped for abusing his tools.[15] If you do not respond and hear me even now, I will have to assume that you have ulterior motives to disallow me access to Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder 00:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Another ban appeal

I can sympathise with Guido. There's still this [16] matter that needs to be cleared up. "Better to not leave messages for me here, because I don't always look at meta. Put them on en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales" Yeah, not while everybody there wants to sweep this under the rug. Biophase 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me more about the history of this? --Jimbo Wales 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have started with an edit war that the first blocking user Phil Sandifer was involved in. Someone has set it out nicely here that this is a regular occurence with users that he disagrees with or simply doesn't like. I seem to have been blocked only 32 minutes later. Actually I made my last edits a bit earlier and only after returning later found out that I was blocked. Ironically the message said ask arbcom, well I didn't do that and thought that someone else could tell me why. As it turned out later after doing that I only got a response from one person and he didn't know much about it so I don't see what difference it would have made in any case.

Mackensen alleges to have done a checkuser but his lack of judgement since have shown me, and many others agree, that he is not capable of handling such responsibility. What is more bothersome is that no good reason was ever shown why such a check was done, if it ever was. The reason given by Mackensen is phony as the edits are all still available. He himself admits there was nothing wrong with my editing but proclaims he made the right decision. These two ideas don't substantiate each other. I still assert that it was a simple edit war with blocking admin involvement no less that then sought an excuse to "legitimise" the block. Biophase 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything on this? If you don't want to handle it you can just give the administrators permission to. For the moment they won't do anything as they are under the impression that this is an arbitration matter while arbcom won't do anything as they didn't seem to know anything. It's not right that one user can make such a decision and circumvent the system, as I said there was nothing wrong with my editing and if wikipedia doesn't want sex articles it should be an open policy instead of secretly picking users to ban. Biophase 18:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)