User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Wikipedia Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Wikipedia Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

Matthew Parish

The attempt by Matthew Parish bring a libel claim against the Wikimedia Foundation in England and Wales was dismissed by Judge Karen Steyn.[1] This seems to have been a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response by Parish, who did not like his Wikipedia article mentioning his three year prison sentence for fraud in Switzerland.[2] ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey. Makes us lowly editors feel like Wiki vigilantes. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC) (p.s. can he get me mate off a driving ban? He says his missus was driving)[reply]

Quote from An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing: "Wikipedia seeks neutrality. An article about you written by anyone must be editorially neutral. It will not take sides and will report both the good and the bad about you from verifiable and reliable sources. It will not promote you. It will not right great wrongs. It will not always favour the truth. It will just contain factual information about you from independent, reliable sources." The article and talk page history of Matthew Parish suggest that somebody did not understand this. It is also worth looking at Judge Karen Steyn's comments when dismissing the libel claim, saying that Parish had made "‘egregious breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure’ including that he had lived and worked abroad for the past two decades and his ‘extensive connections’ with Switzerland which ‘resulted in the court being misled’."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who mentioned dodgy anon IPs?? We all need a little cosy hideaway sometimes! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a laugh, read this by Parish about me. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. "Either they will correct themselves, or they must be exposed to its consequences"!! I hear Cheltenham is lovely at this time of the year. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can work for 24 hours, so my time punch card is pretty all used, even if all my edits are from the same town. I have to add that I sleep for 12 hours afterwards, so I'm not lacking sleep. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the 15 minutes I've just spent waying WTF?!? over and over. And this is purportedly an intelligent person. I can't decide if it's the entitlement or the blatantly wrong information (I mean, "seems to work virtually 24/7" when it's trivial to show otherwise?!?) that is more offensive. As you said, good for the laughs! Almost as bad as some of the Jeffrey Cutler nonsense ([3] - edit, replaced with more current list of demands, over 100 now). Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the Wikipedia system administrators have the capacity permanently to delete material about themselves on their own pages; and this is what has happened to the written exchange complaining to "Cordless Larry" about his insertion of defamatory information.
Except for the fact that it's avaliable to anyone at User talk:Cordless Larry/Archive 19#Recent amendments to Matthew Parish - reversed.
The rest is really more of the same. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested on past policy implications(hypothetical appeal process for users potentially previously banned by Jimbo)

Hello Jimbo (and everybody else watching). So, in April 2022, Jimbo voluntarily waived his reserve authority to unilaterally place site bans on editors. In the Village Pump discussion where this decision was made, it was noted that the latest ban he was known to place occurred in late 2011 toward TimidGuy, which was overturned early in 2012 by ArbCom. Previously, on the guide to appealing blocks, the section describing procedure on banned users had a bullet point stating “Users banned by Jimbo Wales must appeal either to him or the Arbitration Committee.” In light of his waiving of banning authority, I amended it over a year later to state “Users banned by Jimbo Wales prior to April 2022 must appeal to the Arbitration Committee,” as he therefore no longer had the power to personally place bans, and by extension, solely consider placed bans without requiring consultation from ArbCom.

This leads me to a question for the community. Considering that Jimbo’s latest issued ban was overturned on appeal, what is the latest known ban placed by Jimbo that remains in effect? Because theoretically, it would follow that there are bans that have been issued by Jimbo that can no longer be appealed directly to him solely as the issuer due to subsequent change in policy, only to ArbCom, whether that route has not yet been exhausted even once or has/can theoretically lodge another appeal years later following an unsuccessful one, barring global ban (even after all these years). While such a return to appeal would be highly unlikely and/or only applicable to few, the remote possibility would therefore justify retaining that guideline due to such examples still existing. Regardless, what would the latest example be? Figured this was worth asking if the guideline is still in place, if such users are still impacted by the terms of their bans and require access to updated appeal procedures in case of the remote possibility. Some food for thought so there’s no ambiguity. Figured it was a good idea to have that particular point formally discussed on that end. DrewieStewie (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I doubt if a comprehensive list is even possible, as there is likely to be a fair amount of ambiguity. Making the usual distinction between a block and a ban, I'm sure that back in the day I did a fair number of blocks of a fairly routine nature as a part of ordinary work as an admin, and those wouldn't be considered in any way special. I very much doubt there were any 'bans' since 2011. I think a perfectly fine way forward would be to simply remove the line completely as I don't think it really applies to anyone, and it seems unlikely to cause any problems one way or the other. I don't see much of a reason to have guidelines to cover hypothetical but very unlikely situations!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may well remember theold list of banned users that was deleted with your blessing. I looked in to its deleted history and found that the bans made by you were shunted off in to a subpage, Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by Jimbo Wales, whose deleted history has the answer to the question posed in the original post: Barstaw in April 2008, over 16 years ago. Graham87 (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Thank you for finding an answer from deleted lists that previously were standard procedure! Looks like they were ultimately useful after all, even if only admins could investigate the question I posed.

Lol, anyways, looking at Barstaw, it is clear that they (and other prior examples not easily accessible to me as a non-admin) indeed still historically have this template that explicitly mentions that they’ve been banned by Jimbo. The chances of them appealing are unlikely, given the time that’s passed, though citing my own Wikipedia past where a ban/block evasion was forgiven by the community, I note that such chances are not impossible. (In my case, per my Wikipedia bio, though this was not carried out by Jimbo, I was blocked at 9 years old in 2010 for incompetence in page creation, youthful editing, and comprehension. My appeals were not competent, eventually my talk page access was revoked and my case was referred to the since-disbanded ban appeals sub-committee (thereby becoming a ban), I created this account as a teen to prove that I could edit competently, decided to come clean without prior suspicion in 2018, was blocked for evasion, apologized in a formal unblock request, and was forgiven/unblocked by community consensus.)

While these chances are not impossible, as demonstrated by my past, and though there are banned users such a line would apply to, Jimbo does make a reasonable assessment that this is unlikely to happen or be problematic. I personally would keep the guideline as an obscure formality, but I also am not opposed to bans placed by Jimbo from 2008 and earlier becoming within the jurisdiction of standard administrators, justifying removal of that line. That might be a good way to go around this, if Jimbo feels this is a good idea. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like pointless furniture rearrangement. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet archive security

The recent ddos attack has taken the whole website down does the wikimedia foundation have a policy to help a third party? who we depend on majorly. And holds pretty much all of the internet content in its archives help with its combatment with the ddos attacks which are seemingly neverending and is exacerbating internet archives recent legal struggles •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]