<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia seeks to raise $7.5M in 'Wikipedia Forever' campaign[/b]
VentureBeat
The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that manages Wikipedia, is passing the hat around in its annual fundraising campaign. ...
View the article
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Tue 10th November 2009, 10:33pm) 
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia seeks to raise $7.5M in 'Wikipedia Forever' campaign[/b]
VentureBeat
The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that manages Wikipedia, is passing the hat around in its annual fundraising campaign. ...
<a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=us&ncl=d_Bv2AHIkXYMlPM" target="_blank"></a>
View the article
Rand Montoya seems to donate $1.00 a lot. What's up with that?
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 10th November 2009, 5:47pm)
Rand Montoya seems to donate $1.00 a lot[/url]. What's up with that?
He's in charge of fundraising, and also in charge of delegating responsibility of the Fundraising Survey to volunteers who (prior to my aid) didn't know how to field a proper survey, so I suspect he's just field testing his various rotating fundraising notices on various Wikimedia projects.
(He'll probably submit those donation receipts to petty cash for reimbursement.)
Also, Sue Gardner's breakin' out the big bucks... donating at least one-third of one percent of her annual income (not including travel benefits!) back to the Foundation:
QUOTE
Ms. Susan Gardner
Wikipedia is a treasure! I am happy to support the work of the people who built this amazing repository of information, the biggest the world has ever known. 20:38, 10 November 2009
USD 500.00
Wikipedia is a treasure! I am happy to support the work of the people who built this amazing repository of information, the biggest the world has ever known. 20:38, 10 November 2009
USD 500.00
"Treasure" or "treasure chest"? Also, it would seem that she's never heard of Google or the Library of Congress (at 20 terabytes, not including manuscripts, photographs, maps, and sound recordings; compare to Wikipedia at 10 to 15 terabytes).
Whoopsie daisy!
(Mods, seriously... don't you think maybe this thread should be moved to the general forum, under the subject of "Wikipedia Forever"?)
(Mods, seriously... don't you think maybe this thread should be moved to the general forum, under the subject of "Wikipedia Forever"?)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th November 2009, 2:59pm)
Whoopsie daisy!
(Mods, seriously... don't you think maybe this thread should be moved to the general forum, under the subject of "Wikipedia Forever"?)
Yes, the campaign seems to be going over a treat. Kudos all around!
It seems that some admin named RockMFR removed the banner, and he's gotten a barnstar for it.
This is CLASSIC Wikimedia Foundation!
This is CLASSIC Wikimedia Foundation!
Eric seems to be underwhelmed at the thought of donating his hard earned $10.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Specia...57910707#268605
I'm intrigued at the phrasing of:
Perhaps that was: we couldn't find a PC with IE7 on in the office, so after 2 hours of trampolining, we'd blown the budget and so we didn't bother to look any more.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Specia...57910707#268605
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th November 2009, 2:59pm)
I'm intrigued at the phrasing of:
QUOTE
but in spite of efforts to test them
Perhaps that was: we couldn't find a PC with IE7 on in the office, so after 2 hours of trampolining, we'd blown the budget and so we didn't bother to look any more.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th November 2009, 8:59am)
(Mods, seriously... don't you think maybe this thread should be moved to the general forum, under the subject of "Wikipedia Forever"?)
Yes... Done!
I'd have to say use of the word "forever" is another scare tactic, like Erik Moeller's use of the phrase "300 million." I'll have to admit, though, that I was wrong two years ago when I predicted there would be commercial advertising on WP by now. I still think it'll eventually happen, but they've gotten to be fairly effective at bringing in Big Fish donors lately. They're rotten fish, but still rather large.
Perhaps it is just me, but it seems as if the fundraising banner is always unprofessional, garish and badly designed. I'm surprised anyone bothers donating if it looks like a bunch of schoolkids designed the begging banner.
QUOTE(Nerd @ Wed 11th November 2009, 1:14pm)
Perhaps it is just me, but it seems as if the fundraising banner is always unprofessional, garish and badly designed. I'm surprised anyone bothers donating if it looks like a bunch of schoolkids designed the begging banner.
Hell, if there was a Wikipedia Car Wash with Lara and Alison offering to scrub the automobiles, I'd be in line with my checkbook.
They need a much more eye-catching banner, more like this:
I can see why they don't want to use a graphic, though - everybody uses AdBlock these days, so that would make things too easy for people.
I can see why they don't want to use a graphic, though - everybody uses AdBlock these days, so that would make things too easy for people.
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 11th November 2009, 7:38pm)
They need a much more eye-catching banner, more like this:
I can see why they don't want to use a graphic, though - everybody uses AdBlock these days, so that would make things too easy for people.
I finally hit a site today that told me to go away as I wasn't going to read their lovely adverts.
I think Moulton needs to write the "Wikipedia Forever" lyrics.
And pick an appropriately inappropriate song to base the tune on, of course ;-)
And pick an appropriately inappropriate song to base the tune on, of course ;-)
This comment is a classic!
....at least he gave a hundred bucks....
QUOTE
John Hevelin
Wikipedia is indispensable for my historical and autobiographical projects. I use this site daily. 02:08, 11 November 2009 USD 100.00
Wikipedia is indispensable for my historical and autobiographical projects. I use this site daily. 02:08, 11 November 2009 USD 100.00
....at least he gave a hundred bucks....
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 11th November 2009, 3:46pm)
This comment is a classic!
QUOTE
John Hevelin
Wikipedia is indispensable for my historical and autobiographical projects. I use this site daily. 02:08, 11 November 2009 USD 100.00
Wikipedia is indispensable for my historical and autobiographical projects. I use this site daily. 02:08, 11 November 2009 USD 100.00
....at least he gave a hundred bucks....
He doesn't have a BLP. I wonder what his autobiographical projects consist of? And how many might there be?
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:05pm)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 11th November 2009, 3:46pm)
This comment is a classic!
QUOTE
John Hevelin
Wikipedia is indispensable for my historical and autobiographical projects. I use this site daily. 02:08, 11 November 2009 USD 100.00
… at least he gave a hundred bucks …
He doesn't have a BLP. I wonder what his autobiographical projects consist of? And how many might there be?
Reminds me of that old IQ test question … maybe it was MMPI —
- What would you do if you were walking along the street and found a stamped, self-addressed envelope lying on the sidewalk?
Ja 
Ja
Can someone explain:
-where this money is going to go according to the people of the foundation (the somewhat more false side)
-where this money is going to go according to thekohser and the other critics (the somewhat more true side)
?
-where this money is going to go according to the people of the foundation (the somewhat more false side)
-where this money is going to go according to thekohser and the other critics (the somewhat more true side)
?
Rarely do I see a fundraising effort that attracts so few critical comments.
People either say nothing, or tap out moist and limp little declarations of
their love for the Wales-monster and the end of universities.
So I gave them $1.13.
People either say nothing, or tap out moist and limp little declarations of
their love for the Wales-monster and the end of universities.
So I gave them $1.13.
QUOTE(Text @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:42pm)
Can someone explain:
- where this money is going to go according to the people of the foundation (the somewhat more false side)
- where this money is going to go according to thekohser and the other critics (the somewhat more true side)
It's going to "servers" …
at some of the finest restaurants in San Francisco …
Jon
Someone dislikes thekohser enough to spend US$6.66. 
This one is simply strange : Somebody trying to get unbanned from WR using the WMF fundraiser....
I wonder who this might be???
I wonder who this might be???
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 12th November 2009, 2:03pm)
This one is simply strange : Somebody trying to get unbanned from WR using the WMF fundraiser....
I wonder who this might be???
The same person who posted:
QUOTE
Anonymous
Gregory Kohs is a loser who is banned from Wikipedia 18:36, 11 November 2009 USD 6.66
Gregory Kohs is a loser who is banned from Wikipedia 18:36, 11 November 2009 USD 6.66
???
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:52pm)
I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward).
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 4:02pm)
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:52pm)
I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward).
Quite: don't they know the difference between banned and indefinitely blocked by Teh Community?
The Fool
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 11:02am)
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:52pm)
I am hurt by this defamatory affront to my good name, and I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation that they may either remove the hurtful comment, or they may release to me the personally identifying info related to the donor (typical anonymous coward).
I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:39pm)
I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.)
The comment has been removed.
As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects.
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 13th November 2009, 10:31am)
As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects.
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.
Now that would be a damn fine idea. I come across this problem repeatedly. I can access articles of many (but by no means most) medical journals quite easily but other stuff is frustratingly hard.
Cas
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 12th November 2009, 4:31pm)
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount?
I think that sort of undermines the point of a site license. I'd take a very dim view of that if I were one of those "aggregators."
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 12th November 2009, 5:36pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 12th November 2009, 1:39pm)
I received a reply from Anya, that the comment will be taken down from their site within an hour. (If it's anything like the flagged revisions estimated time to process, the comment will be down in March or April.)
The comment has been removed.
Ahhh Ha HA HA HAAAAAAH ! ! !Somebody just wasted $6.66 out of their allowance!
I have a feeling the Wikipedia Forever marketing plan is going to be comedy gold in good time. Probably about the time either the servers go poink next or Cade Metz finds something else to blog about.
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 12th November 2009, 11:31pm)
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount?
That was extensively discussed on wikien-l last December. Of course nothing came of it, because "the community" has virtually no say on how the Foundation uses the donations they receive.
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 13th November 2009, 1:30am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 12th November 2009, 11:31pm)
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount?
That was extensively discussed on wikien-l last December. Of course nothing came of it, because "the community" has virtually no say on how the Foundation uses the donations they receive.
Well, I once worked for an organization which had a Lexis/Nexis site license. From what I understand, the license was fairly expensive. I don't know how much the ProQuest site license is, but it may be cheaper because NewsStand, I believe, has less capability than Lexis/Nexis. NewsStand covers about 350 newspapers while Lexis/Nexis covers a number of newspapers and magazines, if I understand correctly.
I would think that an organization trying to use volunteers to build a credible encyclopedia would try to help them out with it in some way, but again, the Foundation seems to keep trying to prove that Greg's criticisms of them are right.
I don't want to read too much into Brion's responses here, but I do detect a faint hint of "fuck you, Erik"?
QUOTE
Also, can I ask explicitly: what exactly is the 2009 funding drive doing to secure the long-term ("forever") future of Wikipedia? It sounds a bizarre promise to make, like a toothbrush giving you eternal life. But if there is a long-term plan being funded, shouldn't the landing page at least try to explain it? Right now it's "Wikipedia forever" / Click / "Huh? What happened to forever?" Why did you use a "forever" hook and then not even try to justify it? Rd232 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know there's nothing particularly different about the actual fundraising or spending targets from previous years; as before the targets are for covering next year's budget and maybe a little extra. --brion 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)So "forever" is just marketing? There's no special long-term planning substance? That doesn't really matter as long as you've got something to point to try and justify the hook. But if you don't even try it makes the claim really weird (quite separate from the linguistic criticisms made, that "Wikipedia forever" sounds tweeny). Rd232 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)I've asked Rand to provide some details on this; all I can do myself is point at the FAQ which indicates we're targeting about 3/4 of this fiscal year's budgeted expenses for the public donation campaign. --brion 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
hilariously awful ads.
I laughed at reading the discussion. Several users thought the banner was vandalism/a hack.
Idiotic decision. The community's input was requested, they clearly opposed it, and it was put up anyway.
Someone should start an article about some of the memorably terrible Wikipedia ad campaigns. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources to draw from.
Blocked
I laughed at reading the discussion. Several users thought the banner was vandalism/a hack.
Idiotic decision. The community's input was requested, they clearly opposed it, and it was put up anyway.
Someone should start an article about some of the memorably terrible Wikipedia ad campaigns. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources to draw from.
Blocked
CODE
upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice
and it's gone, thankfully.
They seem to list corporate donations here.
Donate/Benefactors
Is the Foundation choosy from who they take money from?
Maybe Hustler Magazine or some Japanese whale meat company could donate,
Donate/Benefactors
Is the Foundation choosy from who they take money from?
Maybe Hustler Magazine or some Japanese whale meat company could donate,
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 13th November 2009, 12:31am)
As I was working on the Eurasian Land Bridge article, I found that there are a lot more articles on the subject that are not currently available on the free web. I assume that this is the case for many other subjects.
Would it be feasible for the Foundation, as a fundraiser, to buy a site license for LexisNexis, ProQuest NewsStand, or some other article aggregator and then sell access to Wiki-project participants at a discount? The Foundation would be able to keep the proceeds that exceed the cost of buying the site license. Wiki-project participants would be motivated by being able to obtain the access at a discount, and could use the access for their own personal activities like school projects, as well as for building articles in Wikipedia. I would think that article quality would greatly improve because editors would have ready access to more sources of information.
It would be great to see the foundation adopt proposals like that. I know I could do quite a bit more work if I had access to a site like Lexis-Nexis.
Proof that Wikipedia is a cult: Domas Mituzas' pledge.
QUOTE
Domas Mituzas
consider taking my soul too.
consider taking my soul too.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th November 2009, 4:49pm)
Proof that Wikipedia is a cult: Domas Mituzas' pledge.
QUOTE
Domas Mituzas
consider taking my soul too.
consider taking my soul too.
It appears this donation has been removed.
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 14th November 2009, 12:47pm)
It appears this donation has been removed.
I wonder how long this one will stay?
QUOTE
WARREN JEFFORDS
Save Energy, cut Emissions, purify Water, increase Farm, Orchard, and Dairy Production, improve Health and Wellness. Claims, products proven in Mexico. See"Library" in www.EcoRadiantMarketing.Com
If I were him, I'd ask for my $75 back if they remove it...
Save Energy, cut Emissions, purify Water, increase Farm, Orchard, and Dairy Production, improve Health and Wellness. Claims, products proven in Mexico. See"Library" in www.EcoRadiantMarketing.Com
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 14th November 2009, 9:03am)
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 14th November 2009, 12:47pm)
It appears this donation has been removed.
I wonder how long this one will stay?
QUOTE
WARREN JEFFORDS
Save Energy, cut Emissions, purify Water, increase Farm, Orchard, and Dairy Production, improve Health and Wellness. Claims, products proven in Mexico. See"Library" in www.EcoRadiantMarketing.Com
If I were him, I'd ask for my $75 back if they remove it...Save Energy, cut Emissions, purify Water, increase Farm, Orchard, and Dairy Production, improve Health and Wellness. Claims, products proven in Mexico. See"Library" in www.EcoRadiantMarketing.Com
Ad revenues are taxable, even for otherwise tax-exempt corporations.
QUOTE(Brutus @ Fri 13th November 2009, 7:52am)
They seem to list corporate donations here.
Donate/Benefactors
Is the Foundation choosy from who they take money from?
Maybe Hustler Magazine or some Japanese whale meat company could donate,
I wonder if these people would appreciate
Best Buy Children's Foundation Tag Team Awards
the works of
who are active on the mighty wiki.
The Childrens Foundation would appreciate
the articles and photos which would be available
to all young school children like this one
A how to picture
Got to love the frenchies
(NOT)
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 15th November 2009, 1:18pm)
I wonder if these people would appreciate
Best Buy Children's Foundation Tag Team Awards
the works of SKANKBONE and the other Namblers, and Peds
who are active on the mighty wiki.
The Childrens Foundation would appreciate
the articles and photos which would be available
to all young school children like this one
A how to picture
Got to love the frenchies
(NOT)
As much as I hate to defend Slim Shanky (and I do hate it), it isn't playing fair to lump him in with pedos and purveyors of child porn just because of his sexual orientation. While the available evidence strongly supports the idea that Shanky is a thoroughgoing narcissist, relentless self-promoter and, well, an asshole, there is simply no evidence to suggest that he is a pedo or an apologist for pedos. His interest in porn is definitely in the category of adult and gay.
That being said, I do agree with your apparent argument that WP is choc full of images that are not suitable for viewing by children. I started a thread on the potential legal implications of this nearly a year ago.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 15th November 2009, 9:10pm)
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 15th November 2009, 1:18pm)
I wonder if these people would appreciate
Best Buy Children's Foundation Tag Team Awards
the works of SKANKBONE and the other Namblers, and Peds
who are active on the mighty wiki.
The Childrens Foundation would appreciate
the articles and photos which would be available
to all young school children like this one
A how to picture
Got to love the frenchies
(NOT)
As much as I hate to defend Slim Shanky (and I do hate it), it isn't playing fair to lump him in with pedos and purveyors of child porn just because of his sexual orientation. While the available evidence strongly supports the idea that Shanky is a thoroughgoing narcissist, relentless self-promoter and, well, an asshole, there is simply no evidence to suggest that he is a pedo or an apologist for pedos. His interest in porn is definitely in the category of adult and gay.
That being said, I do agree with your apparent argument that WP is choc full of images that are not suitable for viewing by children. I started a thread on the potential legal implications of this nearly a year ago.
But they stand, as a block, defending this dribble? So the net effect is "yes" they are.
Besides, Gay porn is not what the"The Childrens Foundation" has bought in to anyway, iirespective of the type of porn Wikpeidia is allowing.
Another idiot business owner who will need to buy my e-book.
QUOTE
Ben Nicolas
Is it possible to create a Wikipedia entry for my small business? I'm a Real Estate Broker in Los Angeles, CA www.ietrealestate.com
Is it possible to create a Wikipedia entry for my small business? I'm a Real Estate Broker in Los Angeles, CA www.ietrealestate.com
some lulz should ensue in the following:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_community_ban_of_User:Eloquence (aka Erik Moller)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_community_ban_of_User:Eloquence (aka Erik Moller)
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 16th November 2009, 1:00pm)
some lulz should ensue in the following:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_community_ban_of_User:Eloquence (aka Erik Moller)
Is there a lulz barnstar someone can give this guy?
You would have thought that one of the most basic things they could have included alongside the campaign banner was a like/dislike button, in a similar style to Facebook and something that almost every ad supplier except Google seems to be picking up. Voila, instant feedback from your readers about why they do or don't like the banner concept. Collect the data, phase out unpopular ads and replicate concepts used in the popular ones.
Is this stuff really that hard?
Is this stuff really that hard?
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 16th November 2009, 11:00am)
some lulz should ensue in the following:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_community_ban_of_User:Eloquence (aka Erik Moller)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_community_ban_of_User:Eloquence (aka Erik Moller)
Um, if there was a proposal to ban Eloquence there, it's now gone.
"Archived" my ass---it's gone.
This was the last diff I could find. Crotalus appears to have started it.
QUOTE
Community consensus is nearly unanimous that this year's fundraising banners are atrocious. In accordance with this consensus, the messages were disabled in the site-wide Common.css file. Unfortunately, that change was rolled back by User:Eloquence, under the claim that "fundraiser sitenotices aren't subject to community consensus". Other statements by this user, who apparently was appointed to some kind of position by Jimbo, exhibit further contempt for the Wikipedia community. Examples: [89] ("community members hating a banner tells us very little about how well it works or how the general public perceives it ... removal of the site-wide fundraising messages by community members isn't OK"), [90] ("fundraising banners have always been Foundation decisions"), [91] ("the parts of a message or banner that make you hate it are also the ones that make it work"), [92] (insisting that banners need to be as obtrusive as possible).
We must emphasize that this site belongs to the Wikipedia community, not Jimbo's cronies. At this point in time, it appears that the only way to effectively communicate the depth of our feelings in this matter is to community-ban Erik Moller, aka Eloquence, from the English Wikipedia. Time to reassert ourselves and take back this site. It's a drastic step, but it is the only thing we can do, unless Wikipedia is to degenerate into just another closed, top-down website. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
* Erik Möller is the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation. –xenotalk 18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
* This is the wrong venue for these concerns. WMF has the right to execute official actions on WMF sites. This site is literally owned by WMF. Administrators here do not have the power to overrule official actions. Please take your concerns to WMF. I am closing this discussion as it is not an incident that can be handled here. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
We must emphasize that this site belongs to the Wikipedia community, not Jimbo's cronies. At this point in time, it appears that the only way to effectively communicate the depth of our feelings in this matter is to community-ban Erik Moller, aka Eloquence, from the English Wikipedia. Time to reassert ourselves and take back this site. It's a drastic step, but it is the only thing we can do, unless Wikipedia is to degenerate into just another closed, top-down website. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
* Erik Möller is the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation. –xenotalk 18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
* This is the wrong venue for these concerns. WMF has the right to execute official actions on WMF sites. This site is literally owned by WMF. Administrators here do not have the power to overrule official actions. Please take your concerns to WMF. I am closing this discussion as it is not an incident that can be handled here. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
And poof, as soon as I finished entering the above, it reappeared......
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.