| Revision as of 19:56, 4 November 2009 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →A project you might be interested in← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:39, 4 November 2009 view source Brews ohare (talk | contribs)47,831 edits →Trouble on WP: an open letter: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| :::The "issues toed to Esparanza" was that it existed.--] 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | :::The "issues toed to Esparanza" was that it existed.--] 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I don't agree. Esperanza had a lot of problems. The idea of supporting volunteers is a great one - if done in ways that are consistent with, you know, actually supporting volunteers. :-) --] (]) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ::::I don't agree. Esperanza had a lot of problems. The idea of supporting volunteers is a great one - if done in ways that are consistent with, you know, actually supporting volunteers. :-) --] (]) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Trouble on WP: an open letter == | |||
| Dear Mr. Wales: | |||
| This letter is an alert, and a request for action in relation to disruption on Misplaced Pages that discourages good faith editors. | |||
| I am a well-credentialed contributor to WP under the user name ], a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Laboratories, a former Editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, a professor of EE at the University of Arizona, and the author of technical books and articles. I don't think WP wishes to loose such editors. I have however grown such a distaste for interaction with the WP environment that I have decided to withdraw for the time being. | |||
| There are two major problems: one is lack of control of incivility, and the other is Administrators run amok. | |||
| As for the first, talk-page guidelines such as ] ] ] ] and others are flaunted. These violations are ignored by administrators, who even make violations themselves. The use of bans, and threats to ban, are applied unequally by administrators to sway the balance of talk-page discussion, making them bullying participants rather than administrators. The disruptions by uncivil editors and the interference by administrators make open discussion on talk-pages difficult or impossible , and these unwarranted activities encourage intolerance of even sourced mainstream opinion. | |||
| As for the second, administrators have lost sight of their roles. Administrators must be reminded that they don't run WP, they moderate it. Their role is to catalyze open discussion of sourced material, the backbone of WP, not to intrude their own preferences. Whether administrators are simply inept or subject to ''la folie des grandeurs'', it is inexcusable for administrators to be unreflective, belligerent, and cavalier about WP welfare. A mutual admiration society is not healthy. I have proposed some ] for administrators . | |||
| This matter has reached a point where careful review of administrators' actions is mandatory to avoid destruction of WP. It is insufficient to simply repeat to administrators their responsibilities. Some direct action is needed, and some administrators must be removed from their positions to underline the seriousness of these duties. Perhaps a committee can initiate review, which will take some time. A simpler, and possibly effective action, would add an additional approach for administrator recall to those ], an approach allowing easier removal of administrators who fail to execute their duties impartially, and do not observe and enforce guidelines . | |||
| These matters are serious, and a letter cannot explain them adequately. Upon request, I'd be delighted to augment my description of the intolerance to open discussion outlined above with details from the recent ]. Although this particular case was completely mishandled, I wish to emphasize that I have little interest in overturning the remedies imposed there. I am highlighting this case, with which I am very familiar, simply as a blatant example of biased and uncomprehending lack of judgment on the part of administrators, where their laxity in enforcing guidelines led to a complete circus on ], and indeed, in the conduct of the case itself. | |||
| I hope action will be taken that restores a cooperative editing atmosphere on WP. I wish for WP's ultimate success in achieving a healthy editing environment, but prompt action is needed. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| John R Brews | |||
| ] (]) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:39, 4 November 2009
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
| (Manual archive list) |
!
Check out this listing posted at my local section of Craigslist. What!?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Craigslist staff are probably willing to take it down if asked - maybe leave a note for Mike Godwin or his counterpart at Craigslist. Paying someone to violate a website's use policy is probably some form of business tort, and may even break some anti-hacking laws. I'd be tempted to go undercover and respond to see what they're up to, though the posting itself could be a trap. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, I think you should go undercover and report your findings.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- If not you, someone really should!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Jimbo, could you please appoint me administrator? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- In regards of your edit summary and your comment here: You don't need a badge, You make it up. You don't need a gun, you make one with words. You don't need to be an admin, you make it up (as plenty of editors already thought you are one anyways).
- So GO GET THEM! ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- NO! The first question will ask for your user name, then the prospective employer will see if that user is an admin. That the job is specifically offered to an admin only is especially stinky. I hope a real admin steps forward to respond to the ad, to find out who wants an admin in the pocket. —Finell (Talk) 04:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's extremely alarming. I can't imagine that you'd actually require admin status to dig further though. Let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
-K10wnsta (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh just ignore it. This is hardly the first time paid editing has come up. Prodego 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Jimbo's talk page has truly turned into a ...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^, how so?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Would you dare deny this talk page is not a crazy den of pigs? :D--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hang on, wasn't this thread called something else a few minutes ago??? (I TOLD YOU CRAAAZZYY DEN OF PIGS!)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. I just now put two and two together, realizing that your handle is the traditional call to pigs. BTW, Sooo Kawii, why is that the traditional call, anyway? I'll have to look up its etymology. Still, I don't necessarily believe that Mr Wales's talkpage has become a piggery. (Hmm -- and, so, now I'm wishing I had access to the finally published The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary (whose Wikiarticle is here), to find a cooler synonym for piggery, for my use here.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hang on, wasn't this thread called something else a few minutes ago??? (I TOLD YOU CRAAAZZYY DEN OF PIGS!)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Would you dare deny this talk page is not a crazy den of pigs? :D--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^, how so?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Kawaii is the Japanese word for cute! Silly person! see this educational video- --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. (So is this webpage Japanese or Korean?)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Flagged revisions
This edit remained in your BLP for almost 14 hours even though over 800 accounts have the article watchlisted (I'm not one of them). Note that this happened in spite of the article being semi-protected. Perhaps you might have a personal stake in trying to expedite the implementation of a strict version of flagged revisions? Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- This nonsense is of no consequence to Jimbo's reputation. I am sure Jimbo is more concerned about implementing flagged revisions to protect Misplaced Pages from embarrassment. —Finell (Talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- You think? I'm not normally the tinfoil hat wearing type, but lately my cynical side is thinking that foundation level support is more fiction than reality. Kevin (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? There would be no Misplaced Pages were it not for the server farm, IT staff, administration, and software development that Wikimedia Foundation provides. So you don't think the Foundation gives enough? This whole project, and its sister projects, live solely on the Foundation's charity. If the Foundation ever gets fed up with all the nonsense and drama, they flip a switch, and you can kiss your hobby goodbye. —Finell (Talk) 09:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think he means foundation-level support of FR, given the long implementation timetable. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? There would be no Misplaced Pages were it not for the server farm, IT staff, administration, and software development that Wikimedia Foundation provides. So you don't think the Foundation gives enough? This whole project, and its sister projects, live solely on the Foundation's charity. If the Foundation ever gets fed up with all the nonsense and drama, they flip a switch, and you can kiss your hobby goodbye. —Finell (Talk) 09:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I already strongly support the introduction of Flagged Revs to the English Misplaced Pages as soon as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can't say that it's the way it's going to be, but for those who haven't looked at it yet - there is a test version of sorts available at: flaggedrevs.labs.wikipedia.org. It might be worthwhile to have a look and provide any feedback to "the powers that be". Cheers to all. — Ched : ? 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerned about getting fair review of a complaint against an editor who is an administrator.
Hello. I'm writing to inform you of a complaint against an administrator for wikihounding, disruptive editing, and improper tagging of good faith edits as vandalism. I'm concerned about getting fair review and fair resolution of this matter, given that the editor in question, Arthur Rubin, is also an administrator and has a long history, according to his current and archived talk pages, of engaging in reversion practices that have upset a very long list of people and yet there has been no action taken in the past. The case is ongoing here. The problem began after I made a simple addition of a book to a reading list on a controversial page that I had never edited in the past. Within the next 9 minutes, Arthur Rubin not only reverted this edit and labelled it as vandalism, but hounded me by visiting multiple other pages I had contributed to where he had no previous editing experience and did batch reversions of my contributions calling them also vandalism or "not helpful", even if it included the fixing of spelling errors. Even after making it clear my edits weren't vandalism, he continued to revert all of my edits to all pages, and he'll make successive excuses as to the reasons why. I'm seeing initial evidence that some people reviewing this may be trying to reduce this matter to being a case of him labelling things as vandalism rather than taking the time to write out a genuine reason for reverting. That's not the issue here, in my opinion. I feel bullied and hounded, and it's intimidating coming from an administrator. Thank-you. MeSoStupid (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Jimbo doesn't do dispute resolution, please see WP:Dispute resolution for the standard procedures. MBisanz 06:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Links for different languages
Dear Jimbo Wales, First of all deep thanks for this incredible chain-link library you created, there are few men who believed in sharing information,sharing power. Without being too long I would like to suggest you to create a link in between Misplaced Pages pages in different language. I will try to explain myself better with an example: If I'm looking for "Income Approach" the english page will turn up. NOW if I want to know what is its corresponding result in Italian for instance?Or German? Since I'm sure there are their corresponding pages in different languages it will take only few second to create even an ultimate tool for translation. It sounds to me a great idea, and it will only take a few to reserve a small buttons section for languages. That will make the difference to something that already seems perfect. Hope to hear from you soon
Roberto S. <Email redacted; it is not necessary to provide personal contact information> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.186.137 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many articles already have such links available, but their creation depends on volunteers taking the time to make them and do not have perfect coverage. The best thing to do, when you find one that is missing, is to drop a note on the talk page requesting the help of someone who is used to making them (or, better yet, learn how to do so and place them as you find them!) — Coren 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI handling
Do you have an opinion on this ANI?
Admins don't like wikipedia policies. When will this end? --91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
A project you might be interested in
Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support and rejuvenate the enwiki community. I'm looking to get a handful of people to get it off the ground, so what are your thoughts on this? Regards, –Juliancolton | 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds far too much like Misplaced Pages:Esperanza. We killed that once, we don't need a re-run.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Quote from project page: It should be noted that this project is only similar to Misplaced Pages:Esperanza in that its general premise is to support volunteers; it does not intend to repeat the issues tied to Esperanza. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 19:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The "issues toed to Esparanza" was that it existed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Esperanza had a lot of problems. The idea of supporting volunteers is a great one - if done in ways that are consistent with, you know, actually supporting volunteers. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The "issues toed to Esparanza" was that it existed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Quote from project page: It should be noted that this project is only similar to Misplaced Pages:Esperanza in that its general premise is to support volunteers; it does not intend to repeat the issues tied to Esperanza. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 19:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Trouble on WP: an open letter
Dear Mr. Wales:
This letter is an alert, and a request for action in relation to disruption on Misplaced Pages that discourages good faith editors.
I am a well-credentialed contributor to WP under the user name Brews ohare, a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Laboratories, a former Editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, a professor of EE at the University of Arizona, and the author of technical books and articles. I don't think WP wishes to loose such editors. I have however grown such a distaste for interaction with the WP environment that I have decided to withdraw for the time being.
There are two major problems: one is lack of control of incivility, and the other is Administrators run amok.
As for the first, talk-page guidelines such as WP:Civil WP:NPA WP:Talk WP:Poll and others are flaunted. These violations are ignored by administrators, who even make violations themselves. The use of bans, and threats to ban, are applied unequally by administrators to sway the balance of talk-page discussion, making them bullying participants rather than administrators. The disruptions by uncivil editors and the interference by administrators make open discussion on talk-pages difficult or impossible , and these unwarranted activities encourage intolerance of even sourced mainstream opinion.
As for the second, administrators have lost sight of their roles. Administrators must be reminded that they don't run WP, they moderate it. Their role is to catalyze open discussion of sourced material, the backbone of WP, not to intrude their own preferences. Whether administrators are simply inept or subject to la folie des grandeurs, it is inexcusable for administrators to be unreflective, belligerent, and cavalier about WP welfare. A mutual admiration society is not healthy. I have proposed some sensible guidelines for administrators .
This matter has reached a point where careful review of administrators' actions is mandatory to avoid destruction of WP. It is insufficient to simply repeat to administrators their responsibilities. Some direct action is needed, and some administrators must be removed from their positions to underline the seriousness of these duties. Perhaps a committee can initiate review, which will take some time. A simpler, and possibly effective action, would add an additional approach for administrator recall to those presently under review, an approach allowing easier removal of administrators who fail to execute their duties impartially, and do not observe and enforce guidelines .
These matters are serious, and a letter cannot explain them adequately. Upon request, I'd be delighted to augment my description of the intolerance to open discussion outlined above with details from the recent Case/Speed of light. Although this particular case was completely mishandled, I wish to emphasize that I have little interest in overturning the remedies imposed there. I am highlighting this case, with which I am very familiar, simply as a blatant example of biased and uncomprehending lack of judgment on the part of administrators, where their laxity in enforcing guidelines led to a complete circus on Talk: Speed of light, and indeed, in the conduct of the case itself.
I hope action will be taken that restores a cooperative editing atmosphere on WP. I wish for WP's ultimate success in achieving a healthy editing environment, but prompt action is needed.
Regards,
John R Brews