User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:04, 18 February 2023 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,056 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 249) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:15, 18 February 2023 view source GFreihalter (talk \| contribs)62 edits Irregular and unjustified decisions should not be used to justify further irregular and unjustified decisions!Tag: RevertedNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{noindex}}
	{{Stb}}
	{{Usercomment}}
	{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|autoconfirmed\|}}
	{{Notice\|1={{Center\|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
	'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
	{{Notice\|1={{Center\|1='''Sometimes this page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, <br> ] '''}}}}
	{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
	{{annual readership}}
	{{Press
	\| subject = talkpage
	\| author = Matthew Gault
	\| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales’ NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
	\| org = ]
	\| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
	\| date = 8 December 2021
	\| quote = 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.
	}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\| algo = old(2d)
	\| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
	\| counter = 249
	\| maxarchivesize = 350K
	\| archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\| minthreadsleft = 3
	}}
	{{Centralized discussion}}
	__TOC__
	{{-}}

	==]==
	This subject seems to be something worth including on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

	:This was turned down per ], which I agree was the right decision. Needs a lot of work to be more neutral and encyclopedic in tone.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 12:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
	::Seems a reputable and important topic for its topic collection set. It does good work, and hopefully much more acreage will be added to all national parks. Thanks {{u\|FloridaArmy}}, I'd never heard of this conservancy group before. Have edited the draft page for some encyclopedic language and repetition (much of the brochure-like bits probably due to the repetition). ] (]) 13:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
	:::If it reads like a brochure, that's probably because 99% of the content was copied word-for-word from the official website. The "Vision" section is copied from , "Youth and Family Programs" from , "Events and awards" from pages, and so on. I have no opinion on whether or not the ''subject'' is worth including on Misplaced Pages, but the draft is a blatant copyright violation and was rightly declined. ] (]) 13:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
	::::Good finds {{u\|Sojourner in the earth}}, and much should be deleted. That should actually help the page, as a good short summary should be accepted as a stub. ] (]) 14:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

	(EC) If it's wp:Notable and doesn't violate wp:not it should have an article. Even if just a stub with any problematic content removed. I'm assuming that this is about an AFC review which is inherently a higher standard than Misplaced Pages's standard because an AFC reviewer is not going to bless an article that has problems with it even if the topic is suitable to have an article.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

	:If the page is 99% plagiarism it should be deleted, this is not an AFC issue. (We have a CSD for it at ].) A new article can be created, but if you run with the current article that's creating additional work for an admin who will have to revdel the copyrighted text. ] (]) 01:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

	== May Wikipedian kill? ==

	I am the administrator of the Russian Misplaced Pages, we ], I wrote to You in the spring of 2022 ], I am against war and any violence. I have a question that is important to me. Can a Misplaced Pages user brag on the forum about the number of Russian soldiers he personally killed? I understand that now everything is aggravated, and sympathy is on the side of the defending country, but shouldn't Misplaced Pages condemn the war in principle? Why are we better than ] then? Regards, ] (]) 14:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

	(UPD: context: . ] (]) 04:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC))

	:(non-Jimbo comment) Regardless of moral (un)rightfulness of killing anyone, bragging about it in any place on Misplaced Pages is violation of ], as off-topic discussion unrelated to the task of writing encyclopedia. ]rado🦈 (]✙]) 05:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
	::I would absolutely agree with this. Misplaced Pages is not the place for such things, at all.--] (]) 11:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
	::] is a mild way to put it, to say the least. But yeah, it ain't something to brag about on Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 11:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

	== ==		== ==
	Dear Jimbo Wales,		Dear Jimbo Wales,
Line 93:		Line 38:
	::I don't really understand what you mean. Serially blocked users wasting the time of volunteer admins has always been a thing, and always will be. The UCoC should help minimize it by reducing the among of pointless lawyering about the rules themselves. Of course people will always lawyer about whether they are the victims of an unjust campaign - no matter the organizational structure of the rules. But perhaps you can explain the specific problem that you have in mind?--] (]) 11:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)		::I don't really understand what you mean. Serially blocked users wasting the time of volunteer admins has always been a thing, and always will be. The UCoC should help minimize it by reducing the among of pointless lawyering about the rules themselves. Of course people will always lawyer about whether they are the victims of an unjust campaign - no matter the organizational structure of the rules. But perhaps you can explain the specific problem that you have in mind?--] (]) 11:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
	:::I mean that the ] may be used as a weapon of retaliation by anyone whose contributions have been removed. I'm not opposed to there being a UCoC but, speaking with regard to enwiki, anyone engaging in harassment or vandalism will quickly be removed with no need for the WMF. Abuse of power would be more slowly handled but the only such cases that I've seen have eventually been correctly processed by Arbcom. The difficulty is that the supply of unhelpful contributors is never ending and the hope that there is an infinite supply of good editors to replace those who might be driven away by retaliatory UCoC complaints is not correct. Many unhelpful people will feel insulted when their work is criticized or will feel threatened by mentions of noticeboard reports or blocks. It is very easy to claim that someone checking contributions and reverting problems is harassing a particular contributor. An insightful comment regarding what is actually needed from the WMF was made by {{u\|zzuuzz}} in this ]. ] (]) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)		:::I mean that the ] may be used as a weapon of retaliation by anyone whose contributions have been removed. I'm not opposed to there being a UCoC but, speaking with regard to enwiki, anyone engaging in harassment or vandalism will quickly be removed with no need for the WMF. Abuse of power would be more slowly handled but the only such cases that I've seen have eventually been correctly processed by Arbcom. The difficulty is that the supply of unhelpful contributors is never ending and the hope that there is an infinite supply of good editors to replace those who might be driven away by retaliatory UCoC complaints is not correct. Many unhelpful people will feel insulted when their work is criticized or will feel threatened by mentions of noticeboard reports or blocks. It is very easy to claim that someone checking contributions and reverting problems is harassing a particular contributor. An insightful comment regarding what is actually needed from the WMF was made by {{u\|zzuuzz}} in this ]. ] (]) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

			Dear Jimbo Wales,

			at first, thank you for reading and answering - unfortunately, administrators in German Misplaced Pages don't do (in order to be not bothered anymore, they prefer to block and ban and make mute).

			(to Johnuniq): This shows that some administrators (Benutzer:He3nry and Benutzerin:Itti) are very often involved, the same (Benutzer:He3nry and Benutzerin:Itti) are also very often involved in VM/Wikipedia requests for investigation against me. Perhaps you should examinate the ''reasons'' of these blocks, for example:

			:1) Misplaced Pages:''No personal attacks'' as here : Is it a ''personal attack'', if a user defamates you and you prove with links and citations of other users that he is wrong?

			:2) Misplaced Pages:''Edit warring'' as here (16. Okt. 2021): Is it ''editwar'' to add in an article two citations of literature/weblinks which are referenced in this article - these citations made evident the : ''unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources''.
			::Otherwise this block is as (the administrator Benutzer:He3nry was involved (mainly concerned) in this .

			:3) Is this ''conflict escalation'' per and ''Edit warring'': The Kurier/Signpost is a place for ''freedom of speech'' of the users and not concerned by ''Edit warring''.

			:4) and 5) This ("sixth block by Benutzer:He3nry") is not a ("undoubtable false statement") nor a ("renewed false statement"). These are '''six (6) blocks''' by Benutzer:He3nry
			::, , , , , – and later und others...
			:and not a „Falschaussage“ ("false statement") by me.

			:6) This is in not ("renewed list of senseless and false statements/six blocks by Benutzer:He3nry and renewed Ad-personam") - see above (to 4 and 5).

			:7) Misplaced Pages:''No personal attacks'' as here and here (censured version): Is it a ''personal attack'' by me to refer to „Cyber-Mobbing“ here , a citation of another user : „Ich frage mich, ob das nicht schon an ] grenzt, wenn eine Person in die Artikel einer andere Person so extensiv QS-Bausteine setzt...“ (Benutzer:Sin 10:56, 3. Mär. 2021), a statement of this user in reference to the editing/hounding by Benutzerin:Nadi2018 concerning articles created by me.

			:8) : ''Missbrauch des URV-Bausteins'' (alleged "misuse" of ) here (Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism of my text and violation of )
			::see also )
			::The procedure was not correct ( ''Admin only'').

			:9) This is completely imaginative - there were no personal attacks ("KPA"), no violation of "WQ" (Misplaced Pages:Etiquette) and no violations of any restrictions of the arbitration committee; see my appeal (23 January 2023) to Benutzer:Luke (SG-A)081515 (he did not answer).
			:and so on...

			Hounding is not "correctly processed by Arbcom" in German Misplaced Pages as you can find here: and here . The list is much longer and this is an appointment for hounding.

			Irregular and unjustified decisions should not be used to justify further irregular and unjustified decisions.
			The verification of the facts (editwar? personal attacks? false statements or defamation) would have been very easy if any adminstrator or member of the arbitration committee would have made any effort to do it. Unfortunately, there is an obstination to confirm by goodwill or tacit consent all decisions of their colleagues.

			The decisions of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages are based on false allegations; see also my . The proceeding of the Arbitration Committee in this is not impartial and is not corresponding to the Misplaced Pages rules and the of the Wikimedia Foundation. Kind regards--] (]) 16:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:15, 18 February 2023

Open Letter to the Board of Trustees concerning the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I would like to inform you about my Open Letter to the Board of Trustees concerning the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages.

Why we have a Universal Code of Conduct?

In German Misplaced Pages the Universal Code of Conduct is not respected. In German Misplaced Pages the WIKIMEDIA Terms of use are not respected.

Inside the German Misplaced Pages there is no control of the

Abuse of power: Abuse of office by functionaries as administrators or the members of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages
Misuse of administrative tools as Involved admins

This is not respected:

Mutual respect: Engage in constructive edits
Civility: Recognize and credit the work done by contributors

Administrators and the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages are tolerating Unacceptable behaviour as

Harassment and Hounding
Engaging in False Statements: Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation

The Misplaced Pages:Five pillars nor the Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines are respected as

Administrators and users who want ot eliminate authors - who are contributing for years with articles to German Misplaced Pages and photographs to commons - by defamating and houndig their work are harmful to the project.

Therefore I request these Office Actions by the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION:

Interaction ban against users who are hounding and defamating constructive/productive authors
Removal of advanced rights of administrators who decided irregular and unjustified blocks
Removal of advanced rights of all members of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages because they are not willing or not able to fulfill their duty in an adequate way.

And I also demand the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION to cancel and overrule the irregular and unjustified decisions of these administrators and members of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages. Sincerely--GFreihalter (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The above is an expected outcome of a WMF code of conduct. The code will be used to waste the time of volunteer admins who engage with troublemakers. See the block log. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean. Serially blocked users wasting the time of volunteer admins has always been a thing, and always will be. The UCoC should help minimize it by reducing the among of pointless lawyering about the rules themselves. Of course people will always lawyer about whether they are the victims of an unjust campaign - no matter the organizational structure of the rules. But perhaps you can explain the specific problem that you have in mind?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean that the meta:Universal Code of Conduct may be used as a weapon of retaliation by anyone whose contributions have been removed. I'm not opposed to there being a UCoC but, speaking with regard to enwiki, anyone engaging in harassment or vandalism will quickly be removed with no need for the WMF. Abuse of power would be more slowly handled but the only such cases that I've seen have eventually been correctly processed by Arbcom. The difficulty is that the supply of unhelpful contributors is never ending and the hope that there is an infinite supply of good editors to replace those who might be driven away by retaliatory UCoC complaints is not correct. Many unhelpful people will feel insulted when their work is criticized or will feel threatened by mentions of noticeboard reports or blocks. It is very easy to claim that someone checking contributions and reverting problems is harassing a particular contributor. An insightful comment regarding what is actually needed from the WMF was made by zzuuzz in this 2021 consultation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales,

at first, thank you for reading and answering - unfortunately, administrators in German Misplaced Pages don't do (in order to be not bothered anymore, they prefer to block and ban and make mute).

(to Johnuniq): This block log shows that some administrators (Benutzer:He3nry and Benutzerin:Itti) are very often involved, the same (Benutzer:He3nry and Benutzerin:Itti) are also very often involved in VM/Wikipedia requests for investigation against me. Perhaps you should examinate the reasons of these blocks, for example:

1) Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as here : Is it a personal attack, if a user defamates you and you prove with links and citations of other users that he is wrong?

2) Misplaced Pages:Edit warring as here (16. Okt. 2021): Is it editwar to add in an article two citations of literature/weblinks which are referenced in this article - these citations made evident the Content vandalism: unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources.

Otherwise this block is Misuse of administrative tools as Involved admins (the administrator Benutzer:He3nry was involved (mainly concerned) in this Request.

3) Is this conflict escalation per Kurier: Das Schiedsgericht und die Grundrechte and Edit warring: The Kurier/Signpost is a place for freedom of speech of the users and not concerned by Edit warring.

4) and 5) This Sechste Sperre durch Benutzer:He3nry ("sixth block by Benutzer:He3nry") is not a unzweifelhafte Falschaussage ("undoubtable false statement") nor a erneute wiederholte Falschaussage ("renewed false statement"). These are six (6) blocks by Benutzer:He3nry

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 – and later 7 und others...

and not a „Falschaussage“ ("false statement") by me.

6) This is in not erneutes Auflisten aller sinnlosen und sachlich falschen Behauptungen mit erneuter Ad-personam-Nennung aller "Kontrahenten" ("renewed list of senseless and false statements/six blocks by Benutzer:He3nry and renewed Ad-personam") - see above (to 4 and 5).

7) Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as here and here (censured version): Is it a personal attack by me to refer to „Cyber-Mobbing“ here , a citation of another user : „Ich frage mich, ob das nicht schon an Cyber-Mobbing grenzt, wenn eine Person in die Artikel einer andere Person so extensiv QS-Bausteine setzt...“ (Benutzer:Sin 10:56, 3. Mär. 2021), a statement of this user in reference to the editing/hounding by Benutzerin:Nadi2018 concerning articles created by me.

8) : Missbrauch des URV-Bausteins (alleged "misuse" of Template:Copyvio) here (Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism of my text and violation of Misplaced Pages:Korrektoren)

The procedure was not correct (Misuse of administrative tools Admin only).

9) This is completely imaginative - there were no personal attacks ("KPA"), no violation of "WQ" (Misplaced Pages:Etiquette) and no violations of any restrictions of the arbitration committee; see my appeal (23 January 2023) to Benutzer:Luke (SG-A)081515 (he did not answer).

and so on...

Hounding is not "correctly processed by Arbcom" in German Misplaced Pages as you can find here: A few examples of hounding and here . The list is much longer and this is an appointment for hounding.

Irregular and unjustified decisions should not be used to justify further irregular and unjustified decisions. The verification of the facts (editwar? personal attacks? false statements or defamation) would have been very easy if any adminstrator or member of the arbitration committee would have made any effort to do it. Unfortunately, there is an obstination to confirm by goodwill or tacit consent all decisions of their colleagues.

The decisions of the Arbitration Committee of German Misplaced Pages are based on false allegations; see also my My Objection to the decision of the arbitration committee. The proceeding of the Arbitration Committee in this Request is not impartial and is not corresponding to the Misplaced Pages rules and the Terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation. Kind regards--GFreihalter (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)