User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Wikimedia collaboration with NASA: yes/no? If no response....I guess that'll be a false or no by default
Line 190: Line 190:
Would you support a collaboration between NASA and Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and the Commons?[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you support a collaboration between NASA and Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and the Commons?[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
:Would you rather abstain from commenting?[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
:Would you rather abstain from commenting?[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

::I was actually asleep then. :-) Yes, I strongly support collaboration.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


== Request for your comments at [[Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC]] ==
== Request for your comments at [[Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC]] ==

Revision as of 05:07, 24 February 2010

(Manual archive list)

When Wiki is the one being plagiarized...

Greetings and Respect, etc etc. I was researching a topic on the web, and noticed two pages with numerous identical passages - one in Wiki ( Horses in the Middle Ages ) and one on a (competing?) "public encyclopedia" site ( http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Medieval-horses ). The latter looks largely like a simple copy/paste of the wiki article with a line removed here and there, word for word right down to the reference notations, and if so I, for one, am rather offended. (Altho' I suppose the reverse could be true, in which case this is in the wrong place, nm. But, then - how does one know?) I don't know if there is anything that can practically be done, either to determine who is plagiarizing whom or if so, then what - but I thought I'd toss it out.

(And if there is a more appropriate location for this post, I couldn't find it, but I relinquish full control to move this post to wiki Admin, no worries!)--Cuchulainshound (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. – ukexpat (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The footer says "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL. Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright." Not fully GFDL compliant, but better than it used to be. There are far worse content reusers out there. Reach Out to the Truth 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof: topic ban without specific evidence or real justification

"Fair is foul and foul is fair...".~~WS

I'd like to bring to your attention major problems with the integrity of an arbitrator led amendment motion for a topic ban. Some of these difficulties have already been noted [1] in a previous post to all the arbitrators who judged the case. This post will demonstrate that there was virtually no merit to the reasoning "evidence" provided during the motion. Other important issues not previously discussed will also be examined.

Facts- mentorship collapse and disturbing accusations

  • 57 days after the mentor was to be appointed, one is found.
  • The mentor's stated purpose was,"guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines".
  • The mentor quits nine days after accepting their mentorship with the comment, "Can't deal with this". [2].
  • A fourth topic ban motion was initiated on this development.
  • An arbitrator commented,"...reviewing User:Scuro/Mentorship and User talk:Scuro/Mentorship...all too often things would get bogged down again with personalised comments about the other editors, rather than focusing on article content. That, ultimately, and the failure to either work together or disengage, is why a topic ban is the option I am supporting here for both editors...".[3]

REBUTTAL TO COMMENT - "Reviewing User:Scuro/Mentorship..." A close examination of the mentorship page overwhelmingly demonstrates my deep concern with 6 months of ongoing and unchecked harassment. [4]

Please explain why pointing out long term harassment is "personalizing" things.

REBUTTAL TO COMMENT - "Reviewing...User talk:Scuro/Mentorship" A close examination of the talk page [5] clearly demonstrates that several of the other principle editors personalized issues with the mentor which apparently forced him to quit the mentorship. [6]

Please explain how the actions of others reflects on my behaviour.

Disturbing accusations

  • The mentor's alleged e-mail correspondence was used as evidence within the arbitration motion.
  • The other party quoted the mentor from e-mails that were supposedly exchanged immediately after the mentor's resignation.
  • The following statements were posted as evidence with the Arbitration motion:
a)"The mentorship failed because the mentor simply could not tolerate scuro for 3 days",
b)"I also have private emails from the mentor which state that he used our protests as an excuse to get out of the mentorship and felt that scuro should never have been appointed a mentor",
c)"The mentor also stated that he was well aware that scuro was abusing his mentorship..." [7]
  • The other party also stated that it was the mentor who initiated personal contact through e-mail. "I know you haven't read the emails I got from mentor... He contacted me (not I contact him) for the first time after he stepped down from mentorship..." [8]
  • The allegations were specifically about an administrator's behaviour while carrying out an arbitration remedy.
  • These highly troubling accusations speak to one of either two possibilities: i)either the mentorship was destined to fail, or ii)we have a contributor who attempted to subvert an Arbcom motion specifically about personalization, with faked first hand quotes from an administrator to smear someone's reputation.
Please explain why Arbcom did not act or comment with regards to these serious allegations.

Facts-folding of two contributor ban requests

  • Over three weeks before the two contributor requests fold, the amendment request is taken off of the open task list.[9]
  • On the heels of the mentor resignation, two previous contributor topic ban motions that contained roughly 20 accusations were closed with the comment, "No action was deemed necessary". [10]
  • Over four weeks before the requests are closed, an arbitrator granted permission[11] for a further amendment within these requests. The amendment was never allowed to be filled.
  • The amendment would have specifically dealt with behaviours occurring within the contributor topic ban requests. The purpose was clearly stated: "repeated assumption of bad faith, the repeated personalization of issues, making false accusations". [12] These issues were also brought up during arbitration. [13]
Please explain why Arbcom allowed arbitration, then the filing of two separate arbitration amendment requests, and then also allowed a fourth arbitration motion. Yet, never allow the thoroughness of an arbitration ruling with regards to very troubling behaviour within all four of these motions.

Facts-opening of Arbitrator ban motion

  • A newly arbitrator [14] filed topic ban motion opens. [15]
  • Even though none of the findings of arbitration, or the requests of the previous two amendment requests really focused on "personalizing" issues between the two principle editors, the arbitrator makes this the basis of the fourth ban proposal.
  • There was no vetted history of this behaviour offered to support the motion.
  • Both parties are required to defend themselves in under 500 words.
  • The case is presented briefly by two arbitrators who pass judgement without evidence. One of the two arbitrators was the arbitrator who filed the motion. [16],
i)"Sadly, it seems this is necessary to give other editors breathing room. I also expect both editors to take this as a final warning about personalizing disputes and related conduct issues".
ii)"...The length of the ban I could see changing, but a definite break is needed here for both of the principal editors".

REBUTTAL TO COMMENT i) - "other editors needed breathing room" An uninvolved administrator had previously provided evidence that I had made less then 1% of all edits on the article. [17] My last edit on any of the articles was August 12th., the last edit on any of the talk pages was Sept 17th. The topic ban was implemented Nov 9th., 2009. After arbitration, which closed July 14th., serious issues only occurred off of the article and talk pages.

Please demonstrate why editors on the articles need "breathing room".

REBUTTAL TO COMMENT ii) - to why a, "break" was needed Why is a "break" needed for someone who has endured a 1/2 year of constant harassment? Many administrators and arbitrators should have acted previously on long standing unchecked abuse which I pointed out numerous times. Arbcom was also made aware of these issues during a previous clarification request [18]. and also during arbitration even though an arbitrator incorrectly stated this wasn't so. [19]

REBUTTAL TO COMMENT - i)"...a final warning about...related conduct issues." The only conduct issues noted in Arbitration, beyond edit warring, were four mild personalized comments from Jan. 2008 and Sept 2008. None of the comments were directed at the party to whom I was supposedly mutually personalizing issues. [20] Conversely, the only administrator who followed the long standing dispute commented positively on my behaviour post arbitration, and he praised my efforts at the time. [21]

Please explain exactly what "conduct" issues there were.

Facts-three final arbitrator comments

  • After observations [22] are made which illuminated shortcomings in the process, both arbitrators make the final three statements.
iii)"...I would urge scuro and literaturegeek and other parties to the case to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour. This was made clear in the case, and should be made clear each time further requests are filed. If large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed." [23]
iv)"You both have personalized the dispute and continue to dig your claws into each other. I noted very clearly from my intial comment that I was looking towards topic bans, and why. I was allowing both the mentorship and the temporary impovement to prove me wrong, and indeed, I was quite pleased to be proven wrong. I am equally displeased that my good faith was misplaced and things just started going back to the same old patterns..."[24]
v)"The equal weight of the sanctions is based on the observation that they have both personalized this dispute". [25]

REBUTTAL TO COMMENT- iii)"I would urge scuro...to work together" There were 15 threads created after arbitration which required action. [26] [27] [28] Eight threads are tagged with "not done", "deadlocked", or "unresolved". Using the above post-arb evidence of the attempt to work together, please demonstrate how I did not focus on content. Meanwhile sanction and amendment requests had been filed against me, much of it bogus.

Please explain to me how one is to focus on content when one is wrapped up in formal accusations.
Please also explain to me how one is to edit the article when Arbcom had twice stated that it was best not to edit the article. [29]

FUTHER REBUTTAL TO COMMENT - iii)"urge scuro...to work together" Both parties were urged to seek common ground under the threat of a topic ban. Good progress was made but it ended without final resolution. [30] MANY other attempts were previously made to seek common ground. [31] [32] These attempts were virtually always one sided, and always ended with the other parties abandoning the process.

Please demonstrate to me where I have ever rebuffed attempts of seeking common ground and resolution.

REBUTTAL TO COMMENT i) - "both personalized this dispute" Arbitrators had characterized the offenses several times as a mutual personalization and that both parties were equally responsible for this.[33] [34] These notions were previously challenged. [35] During the motion the only examples given of personalization were of the other party, "the warning signs for XXXXXXXXXX were in the previous requests for clarification/amendment and in the case itself." [36] No such specific examples were given on my behalf. No vetted evidence has ever been shown to clearly demonstrate my supposed mutual personalization.

Please provide evidence and explain where you saw mutual personalization.
Please explain why Arbcom didn't see to it that the highest standards of evidence and protocol were followed during this forth motion for a ban within five months.

REBUTTAL TO COMMENT iii) - "large number of frivolous requests filled"

  • I had filled one enforcement request for a topic block after the arbitrators statement above. Pre-arbitration, I had been edit warred off of the article for 1/2 a year. [37]
  • This contributor continued to edit war me off the article, even after Arbitration editing restrictions were in place. See topic block link ([38])
  • My only possible " frivolous request" would have been for the same contributor to receive a second topic block.
  • This request noted that the contributor had broken both conditions of his arbitration editing restrictions. [39]
Please explain to me how this block request or any of my requests were frivolous.

Facts-the involved "uninvolved party"-tainted process?

  • An "uninvolved" contributor may have influenced the closing of the second topic block request mentioned above. [40]
  • Pleas to close the request were made in both the edit summary of their final comment, "can an admin close this accordingly please", and also the comment on the topic block page, "I urge an administrator to close this accordingly". [41]
  • Issues had not been fully discussed, both conditions of the arbitration editing restriction had been broken and there was still much to go over.
  • The contributor was previously involved in many sanction processes and had interaction with all the principle editors.
  • This contributor discussed the topic block at length off the page, [42] with the party who was to be topic banned, and did not share what was said. These notions could have been easily refuted had they been shared.
  • Diffs of involvement;
a)Wikiquette alert [43],
b)Lengthy "heated" exchange between the contributor and an involved administrator who filed the Wikiquette alert.[44]
c)Post "heated" debate discussions. [45][46]
d)Taking an active interest in initial topic ban proposal.[47][48][49]
e)Taking an active interest at initial arbitration topic ban request.[50][51][52][53]
f)Taking an active interest post-arbitration[54]
g)Having significant discussions off the topic block page with the party to be topic banned, and not sharing this information or letting others know.[55]

Facts-bogus statements by administrator

  • An administrator added further judgments to the topic ban motion and gave the only differentials within that motion. -"Comment by DXXXXX"
  • It was incorrectly implied that I did not seek mentorship.[56]
  • The evidence offered and conclusions drawn against me were all shown to be bogus.

Facts-bargaining for sanctions while evidence is under discussion

  • Before this evidence had been fully vetted, the arbitrator who initiated the motion was advocating for acceptance of a lesser sanction by all parties,"...If you both are willing to accept the probation in place of a topic ban...".[57][58]
  • Several arbitrators may have discussed and agreed upon guilt before the evidence had been fully vetted. From an e-mail of Oct 22nd, entitled: Re: Wikipedia e-mail (current motions) -"...myself and the other arbitrators feel that stiffer sanctions are warranted, and honestly we are unlikely to be dissuaded from this view...".
  • The request for accepting the arbitrator offer of lesser sanctions is accepted by the other party. I reject the offer. [59]

Facts-final plea for any evidence, topic ban, and concluding actions

  • A second direct request is made of an arbitrator for any evidence.[60]
  • The motion is closed shortly after.
  • The arbitrator who:a)filled the motion, b)made the case, and c)attempted to bargain for lesser sanctions...votes.
  • Both arbitrators who argued the case vote.
  • The motion passed on 8 November 2009 by a margin of 6 to 1, with 1 absention.
  • "Scuro (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months".
  • No statement is made to either party. No further advisement, admonishment, or reminder is made. No other action is taken except that the requirement for mentorship is removed.
  • After the topic ban comes into force many barnstars are given to the other principle editors. Defender of the Wiki

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar of Integrity Three Barnstars are awarded Barnstar of Integrity The Anti-Flame Barnstar

Doing the right thing?

"Don't shoot the messenger".~~WS

In all probability arbitrators may not have been familiar with much of information and context given within this post. Still, there has been a huge wrong done here built on the back of many small wrongs, some of which go well beyond the limited scope of what was examined in this post. The case against the topic ban motion is very solid. The further one looks the greater evidence. There probably will never be a better real life instance of wikipedia "shooting the messenger" as this case where the issues are so cut and dry. Perhaps the only true justification for the topic ban was it's use as a "blunt tool" to end disagreement. Laudable, unless one can demonstrate that those in charge have virtually ignored long standing harassment for 6 months. In that context Wikipedia would look no different then any other large and aging bureaucracy. It would be this continued inability of wikipedia to come clean on obvious major wrong that would prove the point and ultimately do harm to the project. For what is an encyclopedia without integrity and what is an institution that doesn't protect those who contribute to it?

A little background. I'm a small time contributor who edits a few articles that interest me. I've always held neutrality in the highest regard and have always acted in good faith in the best interests of the project. That doesn't mean that mistakes haven't been made but one could easily demonstrate that over time there has been a significant positive transformation in who I am as a contributor. I would appreciate it if you looked into this.

Thank you, --scuro (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really expect Jimbo to trawl through all this? – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line, there has been a major wrong done here that hasn't been corrected. What Jimbo wishes to do with this information is his prerogative.--scuro (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions

When are they going to be implemented? Constructive criticism (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When they're ready, the wheels aren't dropping off are they. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to staff (specifically Erik Moeller) when I was in SF for the board meeting, and I got a very promising update at that time. Rather than risk saying something inaccurate, I'll show Erik this post and ask him to make an update here. In the meantime, the labs server is likely the best place to go for the absolute latest information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Erik asked me, the project manager for this, to pop in here. There is a long update on the tech blog that answers a lot of questions. The main update since then is that a bunch of further development has been done (which you can see in the tracker), but it turned out we had to move the labs site to new hardware, which is slowing us down a bit. Rob Halsell has provisioned the new hardware and we're getting it set up right now.
As to when we'll have something up on the English Wikipedia, that depends a lot on the community. As soon as we have new software up on labs, we'll announce it and get feedback. We'll keep revising the software until both our testers (which I'd encourage all interested parties to be) and the team think it's ready. As much as it pains us to not have this live yet, it would pain us even more to go live with something that made things worse. William Pietri (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the link to the tracker. I've been trying to keep track of the commits to the SVN repository, but that doesn't help much. The tracker definitely gives a much better impression of how things are coming along. Reach Out to the Truth 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia collaboration with NASA

There is a collaboration proposal at OpenNASA that suggests that NASA collaborate with Wikimedia project including Wikipedia.

There is also a NASA collaboration task force at the strategy wiki as well as a NASApedia proposal.

Would you support a collaboration between NASA and Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and the Commons?Smallman12q (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather abstain from commenting?Smallman12q (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually asleep then. :-) Yes, I strongly support collaboration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your comments at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC

Hi, Jimmy. Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC went live today. While designed by original proposer Uncle G as a 'Reverse Rfa' (see Wikipedia:'Community de-adminship' - The original Uncle G proposal for reference), the current proposal has undergone revision and is no longer termed as such.

I, and I believe much of the community at large, would welcome your thoughts. Thanks, Jusdafax 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. For two reasons: 1) Jimbo has plenty of power over ArbCom's desysopings. 2) Jimbo has himself, personally, both desysoped, and threatened to desysop, a number of admins. (User:Zscout370 comes to mind.) Those are two levels on which Jimbo has power over the de-adminship process: by influencing ArbCom, and by pressing the button himself. Surely he should not be invited to "comment on"— by implication, exert power over—the third level as well? Isn't one reason we have instituted community deadminship precisely that we want a "parliamentary" level of deadminship, with which the "royalty" of Wikipedia has nothing to do? Bishonen | talk 02:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, following Jimbo's desysop of User:Bedford, he did voluntarily relinquish his own power to desysop summarily, and has not done so since. Whereas Jimbo might have input into ArbCom, I can't find a single public example where he has done so, and I believe he is honourable enough to (a) leave it to ArbCom and (b) if offering an opinion, doing so publicly. Jimbo's role as a "constitutional monarch", if it were ever so, I believe he has mostly given back to the community and its processes. Rodhullandemu 02:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. I remain free to comment on processes, and I stand firmly behind desysopping Bedford. I have steadily retreated from doing such things, not because they are wrong, but because community institutions have appropriately grown to take care of such things without me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thus the use of the my modifier "much", Bishonen. And for clarification, nothing has been "instituted" yet, this is merely at the 'Request for Comment' stage. And I find myself in agreement with Rodhullandemu re: the reality of the situation. Jusdafax 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]