|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
- 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 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/188.8.131.52 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
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)
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
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: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=456851638 (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yahya_Al-Shiddazi. 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. - 184.108.40.206 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. 220.127.116.11 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
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. - 18.104.22.168 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
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:
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 and and 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
Don't Bight The Ips
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) 22.214.171.124 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
What DO you think?
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)
Completely unhelpful attacking against other users, needs a PERMANENT pause.
Repeated insults against ARBCOM: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=521380464#Statement_by_Fut.Perf.
«Speech Freedom Day named after John Lennon» (British Council)
Hello, Jimmy Wales !
Do you wish give formal patronage: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/discussionspace?func=view&catid=7&id=315 (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!
A few days ago you requested more information about the mentor. Here it is:
pretending to be a child himself
- "My parents have a Mac too. Parental Control is set on it to stop them breaking things by accident. (After all, the Parental Control feature is provided to allow you to control parents in this manner, right?) This confuses them greatly when I change the desktop background to be a surprising picture and they can't change it back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC) "
- "I keep my own parents well informed about my activities on the internet, and they often have useful advice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)"
teaching kids how to disable the parental control
- "Securing any wireless access points with a password, and making use of Parental controls to prevent your parents from accessing any websites that you do not deem appropriate for them, would be possible ways of dealing with this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)"
teaching a young boy how he could continue email correspondence with his "mentor", against the boy's parent’s wishes
corporal punishment and caning
- "The mentor" demonstrates an unusual interest in caning and corporal punishment: "The mentor" has edited almost every article connected to corporal punishment, caning, spanking and so on. In particular "the mentor" has edited the following articles: en:Birching;en:Cane;en:Caning;en:Caning in Malaysia;en: Child discipline;en: Corporal punishment;en: Corporal punishment in the home;en: List of methods of torture;en:Murga punishment;en:Paddle (spanking);en:School corporal punishment;en:School discipline; en:School punishment ;en:Slippering;en:Spanking;en:Switch (corporal punishment)
- More disturbingly, one of the adopted boys , then 14, placed a message on "the mentor's" user page saying this user enjoys caning naughty boys. At the time the message was posted there was nothing on wiki to suggest that "the mentor" enjoyed caning boys, which indicates that the boy got this information from the off-wiki contacts with his "mentor".
- A few months after the message was posted "the mentor" adds a peculiar user box to his user page: "This user observed, received, and administered corporal punishment while he was a schoolboy. The user box was made by "the mentor" personal request.
126.96.36.199 16:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
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 ?
Murderers being declared victims by Wikipedia
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!
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?
Do You think that the contributors will freely and openly express their opinion when faced with media lynch and denigration?
Being tagged as "fascist" 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  ("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...").
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 hr.wiki 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 hr.wiki"), 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 ). 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 hr.wiki, 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 : 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. ). This stood for months. Same way as Ivan Štambuk (banned by the decision of the whole hr.wiki community) started that RfC as "Fascism on Croatian Wikipedia"  (Russavia renamed that attacking name ). 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  that posted the same message on the Croatian village pump. I posted before that message  and later I removed that message.. 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 hr.wiki are marginal, hr.wiki 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 (http://www.hkv.hr/, http://dnevno.hr) 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)
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.
- 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)