Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales

message: WP:SNOW.I call for the close of this RfC, and continue the discussion at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse, but I think you need to start an outside view on the main page for endorsement there.   I hate duplication of process.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  An RfC is appropriate at this time.  I'm planning on posting a comment myself, but I'm actually (gasp!) giving it some thought before I post.  Please leave the RfC open. --Elonka 23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Closing is one thing, deleting is another.  This RFC was certified and there was no obvious reason to delete, so it's reasonable that it was restored.  Friday (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certified?  Within hours after the discussion started at AN/I, how can the claim be made that there had been efforts to resolve the dispute that had failed?  I am as disgusted at seeing the abuse at RfC/U as I am of the abuse that was occurring at CSN.  If there is an ongoing discussion at AN/I, where the issue is being dealt with, how can it be certified that other options had failed?  Something needs to be done about the abuse of these processes throughout Wikipedia, because it allows users to be railroaded.  This RfC is redundant to the AN/I thread.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Certified by who? Endorse closure and archiving. - Crockspot 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The certification may or may not be legit.  There's generally 48 hours to figure that out.  Friday (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who is going to certify? Zscout? He has resolved his dispute with Jimbo. If this RfC wasn't such a serious abuse of process, it would be a joke. RfC's are not for "class action" suits. Who is even the "initiator" of this request? That isn't apparent on the project page. - Crockspot 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Certification requirements are rarely checked, rarely upheld, and the process is a joke, which lends itself to railroading and "voting" before discussing.  I hope people will see that now.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Wouldn't that comment belong on the AN/I ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Close? 

message: One of the endorsers was subsequently indef blocked for something else, ie User:A.Z.. Is his endorsement legitimate or should it be removed?  SqueakBox 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's handled like it's handled other places; you just put a note under it indicating indef block (best not to remove or strike others' comments).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and done, SqueakBox 03:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An endorser indef blocked

message: As someone who supports some of the goals of this RfC, I think this line -
:Actions performed as "dictator" will be explicitly stated as such in the future
- is quite extreme and IMO weakens the merits of the RfC. Is it okay if I remove it? (I couldn't really find any helpful guidance in the RfC guidelines... seems like a case-by-case, often gray-area issue.) — xDanielx T/C 05:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dictator" 

message: Its been deleted as an invalid afd, an act I support as apparently none of the endorsers were involved in the dispute and so shouldn't have endorsed, SqueakBox 05:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One doesn't have to be involved to endorse a summary or view. — xDanielx T/C 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate space for those supporting but not directly involved as is standard on all rfcs. Having said that, I didn't delete and only know what Will said in his action summary, SqueakBox 05:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, but I think it would help if the editor who wrote the RfC had at least put their name in as certifier. In most RfCs we expect folks to have had direct discussions with the subject as part of the resolution process.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There currently isn't anyone signed under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" which means that this RfC can't be certified at the 48-hour mark, right? Cla68 06:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone just signed as a certifier which means it needs one more certifier if I understand right. Cla68 06:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is kind of a special case since a heap of users sort of tried & failed to resolve the dispute, but it's hard to point to individuals since Jimbo didn't engage in substantial dialog in response to individual comments. Somewhat unorthodox RFC, but IMO the most appropriate place to have this discussion. — xDanielx T/C 06:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)Sounds correct, the one user who has endorsed missed the deadline. And was she involved? SqueakBox 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; we shouldn't ignore a certification because the guy was sleeping at the wrong time. — xDanielx T/C 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you put the line then? Without bureaucracy there is anarchy and I would greatly prefer the former, SqueakBox 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think common sense will do in this particular case. — xDanielx T/C 06:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I am very much hoping common sense will prevail, and the endorsements of Ryan, Deskana, Jossi and Crockspot indicates that this is likely, SqueakBox 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure there's plenty of opposition to closing/deleting this, it just appears less vocal since there's no obvious place to express opposition to the "this is worthless" views. Let the flowers blossom, no one is forcing anyone to participate. — xDanielx T/C 09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting this page will create more heat/drama than leaving it to run its course. Please, nobody delete it again. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Blanking a page people are using is hardly a "courtesy".  Let's not ruleslawyer here; it may be a bit irregular but people are using it in a good faith effort to resolve/understand/comment on the dispute.  Some may think this page is pointless- that's perfectly alright; nobody is required to read it or edit it.  Friday (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's protected and no longer in use, so I would suggest a courtesy blank would be a good option at some point in the near future.  violet/riga (t) 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo Wales made what might become an important statement of policy on this page, and he has not requested that the page or any part of it be blanked, so I submit that the page should be retained, notwithstanding any policy of deleting uncertified or problematically certified RfC's that might otherwise be argued to apply. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  The discussions seem over now and it doesn't matter that much.  violet/riga (t) 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I went ahead and added my name as a certifier.  Though the original incident involving the block of one user and the de-sysopping of an administrator has been addressed, we still have a larger issue involving out-of-process actions taken by the head of the project which resulted in a great deal of disruption, and seem to have resulted in a violation of WP:POINT. I have attempted to address these issues both on- and off-wiki, but do not feel that the issue has been resolved.  Therefore, I am certifying that this RfC is appropriate and should continue.  It is my genuine hope that this RfC can be used not to chastise Mr. Wales, but instead to try and focus the community attention on the larger problem, and hopefully even identify successful ways of moving forward so that this problem does not recur.  By "problem", I am saying not just that the conduct of the user (Jimbo) should be addressed or critiqued, but I would like to see if we can identify the problems with the current policies and enforcement thereof, that made Jimbo feel that the only possible way for him to deal with the situation was to personally step in and block someone that he regarded as a problem user.  I think that many of the thoughtful members of the Wikipedia community agree that there is indeed a current problem on Wikipedia with trolls, griefers and other "conflict-junkies" taking up too much of the time of the other editors, and that dealing with these problem cases is getting in the way of actually building an encyclopedia. I think that Jimbo's actions were a reflection of that frustration.  But when we have a situation where the head of the project feels that the only possible reaction is for him to personally block users, that's a problem.  We need to figure out a better way to empower the community to deal with its own problems, rather than requiring personal action on the part of Jimbo. Whether this is creating new policies, modifying existing policies, making a community decision on how policies are to be enforced, or some other method, I don't know.  But hopefully this RfC will help figure this out. --Elonka 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide some diffs to show you were directly involved in the dispute, otherwise you should be with the larger group of those endorsing the presentation of events, SqueakBox 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's quite easy to game the system when the subject of the RfC refuses to engage in meaningful debate with the community. If everyone was allowed to do this no user RfC's would ever be certified. EconomicsGuy 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My certification is appropriate.  Also, I have to admit some disappointment with those rules-lawyers who are trying to delete an RfC based on some kind of technicality.  May I please point out that I wrote most of the User Conduct RfC instructions, and I've spent some time analyzing what RfCs are supposed to be used for.  Yes, sometimes they're mis-used, but they can also be tools for good.  At its worst, a User Conduct RfC is a lynch mob.  At its best, it's a useful tool which allows a focused place for community discussion towards the worthy goal of solving a complex problem.  It's my intent that this RfC be used for good purposes. We clearly have a problem here, we clearly have community members who wish to comment. I have my own comments which I wish to post, which I'm spending quite a bit of time thinking about before I post, but I have to admit I'm feeling some frustration here, as though several admins have their fingers poised over the "delete" button and they're desperate to find some technicality which allows them to get rid of this page. Can someone please explain why this RfC is seen as such a threat, as opposed to seeing it as a useful tool which may help improve things? --Elonka 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You still have not provided any evidence of direct involvement while Mr.grantevans2 wasn't involved in the dispute either. I agree with Crockspot that both should be challenged. Elonka, its not about lawyering but about ensuring a fair process on one of the people who most needs a fair process on Rfc, SqueakBox 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, Elonka.  I disagree with the issue being on two fora at once, but I fully support your good faith attempt to sort out how we resolve disputes.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Certification

message: Moved from main page per RfC/U instructions:   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fault for daring to undo another admin's actions? Hmm Majorly (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fault for undoing Jimbo's actions. Stop pretending that it was "any other admin", that's just ridiculous. --Deskana (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No admin should undo any other admin's actions without discussing it with them.  There was no emergency.  Corvus cornix 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement with Ryan P., per my endorsement above.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, Majorly. Fault for unblocking against consensus, and without discussing the unblock first with the blocking admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Bleh, if a admin gets punished for everytime he blocks someone without another admin concent, half the admins will be desyropped, including some of you guys yourself. Bad yes, but not desyroppable. Jbeach sup 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Per the instructions on RfC/Us, threaded discussion are not entered on the main page.  Outside views can be endorsed by other users.  I will notify this editor that I have moved the comment:
*  Comment: Not seemly, I should think...to have a court (RFC) that does not allow the accused any form of defense? (i.e., gag the witness so he or she cannot speak?) It appears, to me, Mr. Wales blocked while a legitimate warning was in place. Is it not right, that administrators yield to each other in a dispute? If Jimmy cast the first stone, in error, clearly he could step up and admit same?   Once and Forever 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who you're responding to here, GTB (my sig is here only because I moved that comment from the RfC to the talk page), but rushing to vote on RfC when there is ongoing discussion on AN/I can also be considered "a pretty darn bureaucratic position to take".  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... I wasn't talking to you. I was "replying to Crockspot's view". I don't consider an RfC to be something that is "voted" on. Calling it a vote seems bureaucratic to me. What I see on that page is human beings, talking about what they think - nothing more. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better, thanks.  Hard to tell here with a comment by one user to another user's post on another page over my sig.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Um... this is going to do unnecessary harm to... Jimbo? Seriously? This is Jimbo's house; we can't harm him by having a slightly irregular RfC. The page is what it is; what concrete harm will come from it? Please note that I'm not saying anything about you in this comment. You seemed to feel it necessary to say something about me. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, you say that I can take it to one of the several discussions running off of AN/I. Um... I'm participating actively in those, and I haven't participated in the RfC at all. Have you? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was well underway when I found it, and I participated so far as objecting to its existence, and to endorse other objections. Sorry if it sounded as though I was criticizing you personally, or telling you what to do. It was directed more generally. - Crockspot 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Jimbo is not the only editor who has ever had a user conduct RfC called upon him. Are you suggesting that we treat Jimbo like any other editor, EXCEPT when we are smacking him around? - Crockspot 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, that's not what I'm saying. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also request that you answer my direct question above. Did you miss it, or think it rhetorical? It wasn't. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which question? I see several question marks. The one I want to address does not have a question mark, which is that I did not intend to single you out specifically, but you as a typical admin to have the view that a user conduct RFC for anyone should not have to be properly certified disturbs me, because I believe you are a typical admin, and it is clear that you are not the only admin who would hold that view. The harm is to the community, for a waste of time on a process that is already playing out (with some resolution) in other venues. Harm to Jimbo, because it's yet another "official" page about how much he sucks. - Crockspot 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No end of grief is caused here by people thinking of pages as "official". I find myself much happier not thinking of anything that way.  I also don't see this as being a page about how much Jimbo sucks, at all. It looks to me like a page where he clarifies his role, and although some people seem disgruntled, he seems to maintain a strong level of community support. Nobody's time is wasted by the page except people (such as yourself) who choose to give it time.  I'm really not certain that I'm a "typical admin". I s'pose I'd be the last to know...  I'd say that a cause of your misunderstanding me here is that you're trying to abstract some general principle from what I say about this one situation, but I'm not speaking in general terms. Thus, I may be saying that this RfC is fine to let run for a while without proper forms filled out in triplicate, but that doesn't mean that I'm applying that judgment to any other situation, whether or not it might involve Jimbo. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also really weird to hope to sweep or keep stuff under the carpet on an open and free internet site. I think that the open fighting and disagreements are one of the best things about Wikipedia. The Jimbo's authorities vs. Community authorities conundrum is also something that forces us to think outside the box about what is really going on here and how to progress the work at hand. I recently saw a really old Ponderosa episode where the old patriarch father had allowed Little Joe to do some management with the ranch. Then little Joe did something the old guy didn't like so the old guy took over the situation. Little Joe was furious and he yelled at his dad "But you gave me the power". The old guy then looked really disappointed and pissed off and squared off against Little Joe and said "Nobody gives you power; if you want power you have to take it!" Maybe that's what Jimbo is hoping and waiting for whether he knows it or not? After all, I read where he was setting up a commercial project I think. So, let's stop blaming him for anything at all. He definitely does not suck and he obviously helped create something pretty amazing. The question is whether the crew is ready to and wants to take over control of the ship from the ship builder and I'd say the answer is no. Mr.grantevans2 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from Crockspot outside view

message: You know, saying that the RfC is "invalid" on some procedural ground is a pretty darn bureaucratic position to take. This isn't moot court; we're not following Robert's Rules of Order here. Calling the RfC invalid is just kind of an empty assertion - why not say what you think about the content instead? What profit is there in deciding that it isn't "valid"? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who you're responding to here, GTB (my sig is here only because I moved that comment from the RfC to the talk page), but rushing to vote on RfC when there is ongoing discussion on AN/I can also be considered "a pretty darn bureaucratic position to take".  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... I wasn't talking to you. I was "replying to Crockspot's view". I don't consider an RfC to be something that is "voted" on. Calling it a vote seems bureaucratic to me. What I see on that page is human beings, talking about what they think - nothing more. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better, thanks.  Hard to tell here with a comment by one user to another user's post on another page over my sig.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Um... this is going to do unnecessary harm to... Jimbo? Seriously? This is Jimbo's house; we can't harm him by having a slightly irregular RfC. The page is what it is; what concrete harm will come from it? Please note that I'm not saying anything about you in this comment. You seemed to feel it necessary to say something about me. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, you say that I can take it to one of the several discussions running off of AN/I. Um... I'm participating actively in those, and I haven't participated in the RfC at all. Have you? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was well underway when I found it, and I participated so far as objecting to its existence, and to endorse other objections. Sorry if it sounded as though I was criticizing you personally, or telling you what to do. It was directed more generally. - Crockspot 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Jimbo is not the only editor who has ever had a user conduct RfC called upon him. Are you suggesting that we treat Jimbo like any other editor, EXCEPT when we are smacking him around? - Crockspot 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, that's not what I'm saying. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also request that you answer my direct question above. Did you miss it, or think it rhetorical? It wasn't. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which question? I see several question marks. The one I want to address does not have a question mark, which is that I did not intend to single you out specifically, but you as a typical admin to have the view that a user conduct RFC for anyone should not have to be properly certified disturbs me, because I believe you are a typical admin, and it is clear that you are not the only admin who would hold that view. The harm is to the community, for a waste of time on a process that is already playing out (with some resolution) in other venues. Harm to Jimbo, because it's yet another "official" page about how much he sucks. - Crockspot 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No end of grief is caused here by people thinking of pages as "official". I find myself much happier not thinking of anything that way.  I also don't see this as being a page about how much Jimbo sucks, at all. It looks to me like a page where he clarifies his role, and although some people seem disgruntled, he seems to maintain a strong level of community support. Nobody's time is wasted by the page except people (such as yourself) who choose to give it time.  I'm really not certain that I'm a "typical admin". I s'pose I'd be the last to know...  I'd say that a cause of your misunderstanding me here is that you're trying to abstract some general principle from what I say about this one situation, but I'm not speaking in general terms. Thus, I may be saying that this RfC is fine to let run for a while without proper forms filled out in triplicate, but that doesn't mean that I'm applying that judgment to any other situation, whether or not it might involve Jimbo. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also really weird to hope to sweep or keep stuff under the carpet on an open and free internet site. I think that the open fighting and disagreements are one of the best things about Wikipedia. The Jimbo's authorities vs. Community authorities conundrum is also something that forces us to think outside the box about what is really going on here and how to progress the work at hand. I recently saw a really old Ponderosa episode where the old patriarch father had allowed Little Joe to do some management with the ranch. Then little Joe did something the old guy didn't like so the old guy took over the situation. Little Joe was furious and he yelled at his dad "But you gave me the power". The old guy then looked really disappointed and pissed off and squared off against Little Joe and said "Nobody gives you power; if you want power you have to take it!" Maybe that's what Jimbo is hoping and waiting for whether he knows it or not? After all, I read where he was setting up a commercial project I think. So, let's stop blaming him for anything at all. He definitely does not suck and he obviously helped create something pretty amazing. The question is whether the crew is ready to and wants to take over control of the ship from the ship builder and I'd say the answer is no. Mr.grantevans2 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Crockspot's view

message: 2007 appears to be the year where Wikipedia is starting to falling apart. It appears that this year has been the subject of more controversy, drama, dispute and problems than any other in its history. People won't want to come and edit wikipedia if this is what they hear about all over the internet. Basically this case though appears that wikipedians don't understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Basically if Jimbo says jump, we jump. We don't to tell him what's right or wrong. Delete again per WP:SNOW by the looks of things this page is going to get us nowhere but into deeper and more violent arguments, and WP:ANI has already covered this. The sunder king 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2007 appears to be the year where Wikipedia is starting to falling apart? Wikipedia has been online just a few years with tremendous success and unparalleled growth and momentum. This type of project has never been attempted before in history, so it is expected that these issues will manifest. There will be more, no less in the next few years. Hold on to your hats! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 2007 does appear that way. As did 2006 and 2005. I'd like to think that this year will turn out no worse than those did. —Random832 19:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we expect to improve as an encyclopedia and a community if we don't face controversy and dispute? Although this RFC is closed, I think it provides some food for thought both about the workings of IAR and Jimmy's so-called "God King" status. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the Wikipedia forks are doing quite well, and are providing tens of thousands of credible scholarly expert-approved articles using the original Wikipedia material as a starting point.  Perhaps that's Wikipedia's ultimate destiny.  To be a giant vat from which the raw materials for more useful things can be dredged.  Enrico Dirac 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems 

message: In the same fashion that you would ask a checkuser before undoing a checkuser IP block, or asking the Arbitration Committee before undoing a ban, you need to talk to Jimbo before undoing his administrative action.
:The premise is false. Admins aren't required to ask a checkuser before undoing any block by someone who happens to be a checkuser, or to assume that any block by an arbcom member is a ban. While Jimbo is free to SAY that he is banning someone, or (either say, or imply by saying it's sockpuppetry) that he is blocking based on checkuser data, etc, it is not and should not be implied by the fact that it is Jimbo who is blocking. Just as a block from User:Charles Matthews should not be taken (unless he says it is) to mean that Arbcom has banned someone, or a block from User:Voice of All should not, without at the very least a claim of sockpuppetry, be taken as a block by a checkuser qua checkuser, neither should a block from Jimbo be automatically taken to mean either. —Random832 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the term "checkuser block" is used in block summaries to mean a block based specifically on checkuser information, which should not be undone without consultation by other admins who don't have access to the information. You are right that it doesn't refer to any block by an admin who happens to also be a checkuser. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sean's view, though, is that any block by an admin who happens to be Jimbo should be considered a "Jimbo block", though. That was my point - the analogy falls flat. If Jimbo wants to ever act as a normal admin, he shouldn't be exempt from the comment box. —Random832 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Sean William 

message: Jimbo makes his call and the rfc is closed an hour and a half later. Live in the UK, or Europe, or Japan, or Africa, or Australia, or Asia? Well, obviously nobody needs you to endorse... and yar-boo if you live outside the US timezone.
For the record;
Response by Jimbo Wales - users who endorse this summary;
*Excellent, making the distinction is vital. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, that was quick... 

message: Oh, good - well, clearly we will need to keep this page as a record of these pearls of wisdom emanating from our great leader, although I wonder where this leaves "assume good faith".  
No doubt we shall find out in due course who is on the hit list to be liquidated, but I can think of a number of prominent "silly sausages" who would benefit from some forceful encouragement to be more civil.  Even greater use of block buttons by admins is bound to achieve that end. 
Now, where was that encyclopedia were were writing? -- !! ?? 11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This conclusion is mistaken.  Jimbo was indeed in contact with me prior to his block and I made no objection.  Zscout could have contacted me, but didn't.  Neither did the editor who advances this speculation. DurovaCharge! 05:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and I know your main account also.  Tread lightly. DurovaCharge! 00:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pearls of wisdom