Tim, As you know, on nearly all issues, I am content simply to state my opinion and then let the cards fall where they may. Things usually work out reasonably well that way. But, in fact, I do have more authority on this project than do others. So does Jimbo, of course. On issue of more importance, when a controversial or important decision must be made, my role in this project is to make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to defend it (or to justify it in advance). As you also know, in such situations I usually do my best to get an idea of what the community consensus is, and my decision is almost always, if not always, to express that consensus. Tim, I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community." I honestly think most people don't care about the situation. I think they understand that I was engaged in an "edit war" with The Cunctator and Simon, who mistakenly think it is *important* (that it will actually achieve something of importance, other than a bit of "heat and noise") to test and to call into question the limits of my authority. That's what they've been doing lately. I think most Wikipedians are of the opinion that I should be given at least as much authority as I have taken upon myself, and that stunts by people who are doing their best to question that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly interesting. This situation is of course made all the more absurd because I have *always* shown myself to be sensitive to the opinions of others-- particularly when they are expressed politely. And nearly everybody knows this. I know full well, by the way, that this is what makes it so much fun to press my buttons: I have been responding in earnest. I don't want to change in that respect, but if I have to, I will have to moderate the sensitivity of my responses in order to stop wasting my time. I do reserve the right to permanently delete things--particularly when they have little merit and when they are posted by people whose main motive is evidently to undermine my authority and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, damage the project. Now suppose that, in my experience, if I make an attempt to justify this or other sorts of decisions, the people in question will simply co-opt huge amounts of my time and will never simply say, "Larry, you win; we realize that this decision is up to you, and we'll have to respect it." Then, in order to preserve my time and sanity, I have to act like an autocrat. In a way, I am being trained to act like an autocrat. It's rather clever in a way--if you think college-level stunts are clever. Frankly, it's hurting the project, guys--so stop it, already. Just write articles--please! I confidently predict that in the indefinite future, there will be other somewhat similar situations, in which people's pages are deleted and the injured parties will demand justice in a public forum. Then I will, of course, be accused of acting like an autocrat. In many cases, these accusations will be raised by teenagers and college students with too much time on their hands, and by intelligent people with mental problems whether moderate or serious. These people could indeed co-opt my time and that of everyone else, if we let them. The situation will only get worse with time, if we let it. But we shouldn't let this happen. In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will trust that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and indeed not abusing my authority. (Recently some people have written in to give me such support. I do not regard this as a blank check. I regard it as a serious responsibility.) Larry P.S. Those of you who are still paying attention must be tired of me making these sorts of speeches. I'm very sorry, it's tiresome to me, too, but it *is* necessary. Hopefully, all such unpleasantness will be behind us very soon.

I'll reply again tomorrow. Larry

Now that feature addition is the kind I like! I still think documentation is crucial, but I hope you can understand why I don't feel welcome to contribute to anything regarding Wikipedia any more, at least publicly. If possible, you might want to set up a bugzilla. yours, The Cunctator cunctator(a)kband.com

Tim Chambers wrote: Absolutely! I'm investigating the page deletion "allegations" (are they allegations, or just the usual argumentative give and take?). Some of the issues here are complicated and will not admit of any really easy answers. If someone starts using the main wikipedia namespace for stuff that doesn't really belong there, we need to move it out. By "we" I mean all of us. But the problem is that we won't always all agree. "rough consensus and running code"... -- ************************************************* * http://www.wikipedia.com/ * * You can edit this page right now! * *************************************************

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Jimmy Wales wrote: I agree with this analysis of the situation. I'll compose a (publicly-editable, of course) page about what basic policies we will follow in deleting pages permanently. Frankly, the last two weeks have been unusually unpleasant for me, and this situation must stop. My continuing to add, indeed, detailed replies does nothing but continue the unpleasantness, so I'm going to issue the following blanket apology: I'm *truly* sorry for any unjustified contribution I have made to the flame-ridden atmosphere of Wikipedia in recent weeks, and I fully acknowledge that there are a number of issues that I could have handled more diplomatically, tactfully, and with greater friendliness and good will. In the future I will try to do better in all respects; being a fallible human, however, I can guarantee that I will make mistakes. Larry Sanger