| Revision as of 02:15, 16 April 2019 view sourceWnt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users36,218 edits →Defining moment of non-reaction← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:16, 16 April 2019 view source Bitter Oil (talk | contribs)330 edits →Defining moment of non-reaction: Actually, a very low bar for suspending citizenship.Next edit → | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
| :::::::::] ] (]) 15:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) | :::::::::] ] (]) 15:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::Note the references in that article to U.S. District Court, even the Supreme Court, or agreements made, or deportations never performed. Revoking citizenship in the U.S. (not 'suspending' it, whatever that means!) is a ''big deal'', and even the Trump administration is stopped in many cases by "a very high bar" which may not be met even by outright lies during the application itself. Now any defender of Assange should say that Ecuador does not have to slavishly copy U.S. law in every niggling detail ... that is, after all, a major ''point'' of objecting to his prosecution ... but the right to citizenship in international law would not appear to condone random revocations without any legal process at all. ] (]) 02:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC) | ::::::::::Note the references in that article to U.S. District Court, even the Supreme Court, or agreements made, or deportations never performed. Revoking citizenship in the U.S. (not 'suspending' it, whatever that means!) is a ''big deal'', and even the Trump administration is stopped in many cases by "a very high bar" which may not be met even by outright lies during the application itself. Now any defender of Assange should say that Ecuador does not have to slavishly copy U.S. law in every niggling detail ... that is, after all, a major ''point'' of objecting to his prosecution ... but the right to citizenship in international law would not appear to condone random revocations without any legal process at all. ] (]) 02:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::] ] (]) 03:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === (Topic) bans and Jimbo's talk page === | === (Topic) bans and Jimbo's talk page === | ||
Revision as of 03:16, 16 April 2019
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 | Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt. |
| Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Centralized discussion
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
Deep Fakes
As one of the largest sources of free images, should we be concerned by this?
The Newest AI-Enabled Weapon: ‘Deep-Faking’ Photos of the Earth
It would be interesting to see if our developers could come up with a countermeasure. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been looking into DeepFakes recently as part of my ongoing concern about the quality of information we are being given. As an example of a case where I had initial concern (but I think confirmation has been gotten via traditional means) there was a viral video circulating this morning in the UK of soldiers doing target practice... the camera pans around to show that they are shooting at a photo of the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn. People were quite rightly upset about it but when I watched the video it looked to me like something quite easy to fake without even using the super advanced deepfake techniques.
- Here's what I have learned. The most advanced researchers are still able to quite easily identify fakes. There's a bit of an arms race between deep fakers and researchers detecting them. I don't know of any principled reason to think that the researchers will always be one step ahead. It may be possible to create deep fakes that are virtually impossible to detect.
- I doubt very much that our developers can help with that - it's a super advanced / specialized and rapidly moving field.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's an ongoing war between critical thinking and trickery. "Consider the source" is getting even more important at the same time as truly, consistently reliable sources appear to be shrinking in number. But there is an increase in political energy over the past decade which may contribute to more cerebral discourse among friends, family and colleagues which might exercise our minds enough for them to be more discerning and aware of the tidal wave of trickery washing over us of the type Jimbo mentions, or worse. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think its a good idea and soon. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's an ongoing war between critical thinking and trickery. "Consider the source" is getting even more important at the same time as truly, consistently reliable sources appear to be shrinking in number. But there is an increase in political energy over the past decade which may contribute to more cerebral discourse among friends, family and colleagues which might exercise our minds enough for them to be more discerning and aware of the tidal wave of trickery washing over us of the type Jimbo mentions, or worse. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- We wouldn't have to worry about deep fakes if Misplaced Pages acquired good quality satellite imagery now or sooner from a trusted source with a digitally signed secure link to their satellites, then uploaded a few checksums for all the free satellite images here to the blockchain. (I mean, a checksum of checksums would be just a few bytes) That wouldn't help against video fakery in the larger sense (shooting at Corbin, though that doesn't sound faked) but it would certainly help to hinder the jackals of the post-truth generation from unwriting the Map of the World. Wnt (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- By the time you are down to a few bytes Collision attacks become viable and in any case there are no benefits to getting a block-chain involved. If you want to publish a hash of the worldwind stuff no one is going to stop you.©Geni (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- People making deep fakes don't care about copyright so will just use google images. In any case the only things or people we have enough photos of to make a deep fake viable are either things or people with large numbers of photos elsewhere (eiffel tower, US presidents) or people with longstanding involvement with the project who the people making deep fakes are unlikely to be interested in. If you mean people making deep fakes targeting us then good old fashioned Photoshop does the job just fine.©Geni (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- This thread was specifically about fakes of satellite photos of Earth. This is a very narrow topic and we can help put a solid historical record on file right now that will severely limit any future legerdemain. Obviously militaries can and have disrupted commercial databases for tactical purposes, and they certainly can pull a "nope, no new torture camp here, same woods as always" after our map is published and signed (for which they would need no new AI programs!) but we can make it impractical for them to mess with the map itself. Wnt (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think its a good idea and that it should be done soon. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- This thread was specifically about fakes of satellite photos of Earth. This is a very narrow topic and we can help put a solid historical record on file right now that will severely limit any future legerdemain. Obviously militaries can and have disrupted commercial databases for tactical purposes, and they certainly can pull a "nope, no new torture camp here, same woods as always" after our map is published and signed (for which they would need no new AI programs!) but we can make it impractical for them to mess with the map itself. Wnt (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe its a good thing because people in general might become more skeptical of all information and less likely to accept government propaganda, other fake news, and commercial marketing claims as being true. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
An accretion disk glare for you!
|
Thank you from the flat accretion disk society |
| Dear Mr. Wales, from time immemorial, we have been chastised, bullied, scorned, shunned, excised, enjoined, discombobulated, sanctioned, alleged, and misconducted because of our beliefs about the duo-dimensionality of ordinary accretion disks into which three dimensional gravitational vortices fall. We understand that you have been having difficulty with "flat Earthers" and ask that you please send them our way. EllenCT (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
Could you help me help Assange?
Jimbo, could you please try to get this info to Assange's lawyer?
In the CNN interview linked to here, at the 1 minute 8 second mark, Senator Hatch says;
"you can make anything a crime under the current laws, if you want to, you can blow it out of proportion, you can do a lot of things."
A Canadian lawyer told me that Magna Carta rights and British law should prevent Britain, in keeping with her commitment to the principles of fundamental justice, from extraditing anyone to any country where "you can make anything a crime". It would be no different from extraditing someone to North Korea.
I tried unsuccessfully to reach Jennifer Robinson, his lawyer, so I'm hoping you have some contacts who could get this video in her hands. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Magna Carta rights" - good grief. Anyway, the relevant law here is of course the European Convention on Human Rights. However, what Orrin Hatch thinks is irrelevant, because as long as the basic tenets of the American judicial system meet the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, then lawfully there's no issue with Assange being extradited. And the UK has extradited people to the US before. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's very interesting about Article 6 because it says there must be a presumption of innocence, which there surely is not. As far as others being extradited, perhaps they had a chance at a presumption of innocence, but not so with Assange, if we're honest we all know that, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Orinn Hatch is neither sitting on any jury, nor is he the presiding judge, over any case involving Mr. Assange. What he says means diddly squat. Politicians stay stupid stuff all the time. It means nothing in this regard. Pay it no mind. --Jayron32 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- ok, but the "presumption of innocence" that Article 6, above, mandates (in order to be extradited), is certainly not present in the USA regarding Assange. You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think he's presumed innocent there. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Orinn Hatch is neither sitting on any jury, nor is he the presiding judge, over any case involving Mr. Assange. What he says means diddly squat. Politicians stay stupid stuff all the time. It means nothing in this regard. Pay it no mind. --Jayron32 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's very interesting about Article 6 because it says there must be a presumption of innocence, which there surely is not. As far as others being extradited, perhaps they had a chance at a presumption of innocence, but not so with Assange, if we're honest we all know that, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, Jimbo is not a fan of Assange. In any case I doubt if he has any contacts with Assange's lawyer. Have you tried the Yellow Pages under "L"? :-) Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think that it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages, the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo acting in his official capacity to get involved with political issues that do not threaten the existence or functioning of Misplaced Pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- He's a criminal whose organization colluded with the Russian government to influence the U.S. election. Let him make his defense in court instead of finding a closet to hide in. It's not Wikimedia's role to get involved with international espionage. Liz 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Liz: How is he a criminal? He hasn't been convicted of any crimes so your assertion is clearly false, and worse, attacking a living person with false statements, see WP:BLP. I'm sure you wouldn't wasnt to be called a criminal without having been convicted of anything. Show some respect for living people. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just read the indictment and he is only accused of trying to figure out a password which he never did figure out. Wow, what a huge crime...trying to figure out someone's password. Its shameful how our main stream media is misleading most of us into thinking he's accused of actually having "hacked" into secret computers....its the difference between wanting to commit a crime and actually doing it, but like Senator Hatch said; ""you can make anything a crime under the current(USA) laws, if you want to, you can blow it out of proportion".
- Actually this indictment is a perfect example of the habitual fraud perpetuated by the USA justice(lol) system that Hatch exposes.
- You'd think after the "Iraq has WMDs" scam they would not get such almost universal acceptance of their lying accusations and conspiracy theories; but then, as I learned in business school (paraphrasing) "Its all about the branding, baby"....or as P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute", and one thing American big business/federal government is good at, its branding aka bullshit. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- He's a criminal whose organization colluded with the Russian government to influence the U.S. election. Let him make his defense in court instead of finding a closet to hide in. It's not Wikimedia's role to get involved with international espionage. Liz 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think that it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages, the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo acting in his official capacity to get involved with political issues that do not threaten the existence or functioning of Misplaced Pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- WikiMedia should speak out against the serious human rights violations against Assange for his role in disclosing the truth the US and other governments wanted to hide. Statement by Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, Agnes Callamard: "in “expelling Assange from the Embassy” and allowing his arrest, it had taken Mr. Assange “one step closer to extradition”. She added that the UK had now arbitrarily-detained the controversial anti-secrecy journalist and campaigner, “possibly endangering his life”." We can also read there: "In a statement last Friday, Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, said he was alarmed by reports that an arrest was imminent, and that if extradited, Mr. Assange could be exposed to “a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial, and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- Late last year UN experts urged the UK to honour rights obligations and let Mr. Julian Assange leave Ecuador embassy in London freely "“The United Kingdom has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has a responsibility to honour its commitment, by respecting its provisions in all cases,” the experts said.
- “As the High Commissioner for human rights said several years ago, human rights treaty law is binding law, it is not discretionary law. It is not some passing fancy that a state can apply sometimes and not in the other,” the experts recalled.
- “In addition, the recommendations of the WGAD Opinions are expected to be implemented by all States, including those which have not been a party in the case concerning Mr. Assange,” said the experts." Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- No. It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to speak out against human rights violations. Pick an organization that is working towards your political goals and support that organization. Misplaced Pages is not a political advocacy group. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Assange is being targeted because of WikiLeaks disclosures, this is something that should make WikiMedia concerned. If a WikiMedia site were to publish information that the US doesn't want to be disclosed, WikiMedia may also be targeted. Nebulous charges like "conspiracy to engage in computer hacking", or if that doesn't work it may be "conspiracy to engage in a conspiracy to engage in computer hacking" will be issued. Count Iblis (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Slippery slope arguments aren't always invalid. but the are not sufficient reason to change Misplaced Pages into a political advocacy group. The reason they are not sufficient is that pretty much any political POV pusher can put together a slippery slope argument. Be careful what you wish for; in your imagination if you were to actually succeed at turning Misplaced Pages into a political advocacy group the WMF would only advocate for the same things you advocate for. In reality if we make Misplaced Pages into a political advocacy group it may very well end up advocating things you despise. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Count Iblis' point is profound, imo. Here we see that publishing the Pentagon Papers or any of the Snowden info is already a crime. Our U.S. Justice masters just haven't felt like charging us yet. "18 U.S. Code § 798.Disclosure of classified information: (a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—..(3)concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Heads in the sand never helps. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think Assange's lawyers would find a quote from a Senator particularly relevant or meaningful in this context. I further think that what Senator Hatch was saying is in one sense not accurate at all but in another sense true of pretty much every country. There are enough complex and ambiguous laws everywhere to mean that a sufficiently motivated bad faith prosecutor can cause a lot of headache for someone. But I agree with Black Kite - it is unlikely that me contacting someone with this quote would be helpful. I am sure his lawyers will be making a variety of arguments as to why the UK shouldn't extradite him.
- I also don't have any real contact with anyone in Assange's organization. I know some people who know him or knew him - he has a consistent pattern of falling out with people - but I can't think at the moment of any direct way of getting in touch.
- I am a big supporter of freedom of expression, and that support doesn't hinge on whether or not I like the person, so I'm not sure why that's even being raised as a question here. I think that the core of what Assange has done (publishing documents) is fully protected by the First Amendment and there is basically zero chance that any direct attack on that would get anywhere with the US Federal court system. What he is being accused of is a different matter, and I have no opinion whatsoever about whether his is innocent or guilty of those charges. But I am quite sure that the relevant court will stick straight to that - remember that whatever faults the US has (and of course there are many), it does have a very independent Federal judiciary (despite Trump's occasional ranting).
- Just for completeness, I don't completely agree with Guy Macon's view on what the WMF or I should speak about, although my view is not far from his. I think it a mistake to define the parameters so narrowly as "the existence or functioning of Misplaced Pages" - such a remit would, for example, require the WMF to act far too timidly and "corporate" in the sense of looking after it's own narrow interests even when at the expense of the broader movement and the ecosystem that we are trying to achieve. Article 13 of the new European Copyright Directive has an explicit exemption for Misplaced Pages, so Guy's view as stated here is that we should stay silent (giving therefore our implicit consent) to something that is bad for a free and open Internet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your support of freedom of expression is precious, and I have confidence that you will find ways to make some difference against the injustices some desire to commit against Assange and independent journalism. What is happening here is that the original sin of the internet has come home to roost. Prohibiting "hacking" was always a violation of freedom of expression, and many of us knew it. At first, the prohibition only meant that teenage hackers were hit with threats of jail instead of good paying jobs securing computers. Then we lost Aaron Swartz. North Korea and China (oh, and Russia also) became Internet superpowers, using their right to do to our computers what our kids and activists did not dare to. Now we see an Australian working in Europe who dared publish something supposedly he had a right to, being prosecuted for it based on United States "law", using the argument that saying you tried to understand a math problem constitutes conspiracy. Predicate logic tells us that "false proves anything", but it was hard to believe we'd see it done in practice. Everything built on the rotten foundations of copyright and legal privilege for at least the past half century may collapse into nothing.
- We should begin to contemplate how to make Misplaced Pages relevant to a post-computing era where delvers of forbidden knowledge need to work in conditions of absolute secrecy. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Federal judiciary are not independent and they are stupid as well.Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Defining moment of non-reaction
Here, with Misplaced Pages's (and others') help, Assange and Chelsea Manning showed the free world how reporters were gunned down while their killers laughed: "Collateral Murder, showed that the crew encountered a firefight and laughed at some of the casualties, some of which were civilians and reporters." The world would not even know about this horrific exposure of evil were it not for Assange's activities.
I heard several commentators on main stream media yesterday, including the CBC, take the position that Assange did some good deeds in the past and then they pivoted to an assumption of guilt of a "shame"ful crime re: the current indictment..it was if they were all reading the same script, e.g. one American commentator on CBC said exactly "Shame on him for doing this (attempt to figure out a password)".
We Wikipedians all know that "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing" So, I still think...no, I know...Jimbo, you can do something to help Assange. Heck, you are even in the neighbourhood where he's jailed. Maybe some of us think its ok if we do not have access to knowing about war crimes perpetuated by the USA as shown in "Collateral Murder"...its certainly easier to just become "yes" men for the obvious bullies of this world, or at least not get in their way; they always provide some kind of twisted justification for the masses of people to go along with their twisted rationales. Jimbo, if you are feeling impotent about this because, as you say, "he has a consistent pattern of falling out with people", I'd suggest just standing out side his jail with a sign giving the URL to July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike and thanking Assange for releasing that shocking bit of truth for the whole world to see and read about on Misplaced Pages....and I'm not suggesting you do anything more risky or time consuming than things I've done myself to fight the tendency to look on and do nothing. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing", Are you saying that the WMF should speak out on the topics of prison rape, the war on drugs, asset forfeiture, the US government budget, the UK government budget, nuclear proliferation, climate change, gay marriage, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the India-Pakistan conflict, free trade, farm subsidies, drug prices, labor conditions at Apple, gun control, abortion, student loans, smoking, inflation in Venezuela, and the baggage retrieval system at heathrow? There are already hundreds of political advocacy websites, but only one viable online encyclopedia. Aren't those hundreds of political advocacy websites enough? Do you have to try to make Misplaced Pages into one as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Guy, what I am saying is Assange caused important information to become part of the encyclopedia and available to the world's people and that its a threat to freedom of the press the way he has been demonized by the USA government. Ron Paul spoke into the Congressional Record some 8 years ago about the stupidity of Assange being "an enemy of the state". Paul backed up his opinion by explaining the extreme importance of a Wikileaks leak of a diplomatic cable showing that the Gulf War was caused by a trap that GHW Bush set for Saddam, and that trick led to, according to Paul, 9/11 and everything since then....and most relevantly, Paul says;
- "Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves. But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government's lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society." Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages can't right every wrong, but we surely could do more to defend "WP:BLP" in regard to the article on Jeremy Corbyn, who has expressed some opposition to the notion of an extraordinary rendition to the United States and represents a hope for a political solution to stop Assange's persecution. I don't know a lot of British politics, but the article has long showcased, for example, allegations by the impeccable Daily Mail that focus on the fact that Corbyn attended a conference event that was held at a pavilion in a cemetery that happened to be close to some terrorists' graves. In section after section the article keelhauls him for make-believe offenses like being reluctant to censor a mural or to deport someone for pro-Palestinian activism. Surely there is some way Misplaced Pages could do better there. Wnt (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it accurate to characterize Corbyn's position as mere "opposition to the notion of an extraordinary rendition". He opposes any extradition to the United States. There has been no suggestion and there is no genuine possibility of Assange being transferred to the US without a legal process, so it would be odd for Corbyn to be opposed to that. Please stay clearly factual, as hysteria doesn't help fight injustice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I apologize for my lack of clarity and perhaps hyperbole. What I meant was that Corbyn does not oppose proper extradition of Assange to Sweden, the country which originally made the request for extradition. However, according to the letter signed by over 70 Labour MPs () the U.S. Department of Justice had been tipped off that asylum would be revoked, and was ready with a case, while Sweden has had to scramble to get ready, and now it is by no means clear that Britain will send Assange to Sweden at all, let alone with any precondition against his extradition to the U.S. Simply put, the ordinary process of extradition appears at risk of being defeated, while the extraordinary process of extraditing Assange to face a political charge, in contradiction to the extradition treaty, appears to take priority. In my mind, I did not think that 'extraordinary rendition' was inappropriate to use for such a back-room maneuver, even if Assange is not actually bundled onto a plane in secret. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the use of the phrase "'extraordinary rendition" to mean something other than extraordinary rendition, it hinders communication when you redefine words or phrases like that. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- To me it seems the criteria have at least technically been met. Assange, an Ecuadorian citizen, was dragged from the country's territory in a way that was not supposed to happen, no matter what connivance was procured from a dishonest official, for purposes of an illegitimate extradition for political ends, and to our great shame we cannot even say that torture is an unlikely outcome at this point. Wnt (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please use the same meanings for words and phrases that other people use. "The Ecuadorean government suspended the citizenship it had granted Mr. Assange and evicted him on Thursday, clearing the way for his arrest." " police said they arrested Assange, 47, after being invited into the embassy following Ecuador’s withdrawal of asylum." Nothing illegal happened, and thus it was not an extraordinary rendition. Blorgkity-blorgk. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Have you ever heard of citizenship being "suspended" before??? What does it mean to have citizenship "suspended"? A right to citizenship is one of the more fundamental bureaucratic principles of international law, and this 'suspension' came in the form, as far as I can tell, of an announcement by the Foreign Minister. There was no due process involved there.
- Let's take a parallel example and see what you say about it. Suppose Erdogan visits Washington and his security guards start another fracas with demonstrators, like last time. This time, instead of merely pardoning all the attackers, suppose the U.S. government decides to send a message and tells Erdogan's thugs "OK boys, go ahead and grab half a dozen of those troublemakers and take them on the plane back to Istanbul to talk about FETO conspiracies." And they go on and explain themselves "look, they abused their welcome here, they were on visas, some of them were skateboarding on our sidewalks!" The demonstrators protest that at least they ought to get deported back to Canada or Iran or wherever they came from instead, but instead they get 'deported' to Turkey. Would you call that extraordinary rendition? Wnt (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- List of denaturalized former citizens of the United States Bitter Oil (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note the references in that article to U.S. District Court, even the Supreme Court, or agreements made, or deportations never performed. Revoking citizenship in the U.S. (not 'suspending' it, whatever that means!) is a big deal, and even the Trump administration is stopped in many cases by "a very high bar" which may not be met even by outright lies during the application itself. Now any defender of Assange should say that Ecuador does not have to slavishly copy U.S. law in every niggling detail ... that is, after all, a major point of objecting to his prosecution ... but the right to citizenship in international law would not appear to condone random revocations without any legal process at all. Wnt (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- List of denaturalized former citizens of the United States Bitter Oil (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please use the same meanings for words and phrases that other people use. "The Ecuadorean government suspended the citizenship it had granted Mr. Assange and evicted him on Thursday, clearing the way for his arrest." " police said they arrested Assange, 47, after being invited into the embassy following Ecuador’s withdrawal of asylum." Nothing illegal happened, and thus it was not an extraordinary rendition. Blorgkity-blorgk. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- To me it seems the criteria have at least technically been met. Assange, an Ecuadorian citizen, was dragged from the country's territory in a way that was not supposed to happen, no matter what connivance was procured from a dishonest official, for purposes of an illegitimate extradition for political ends, and to our great shame we cannot even say that torture is an unlikely outcome at this point. Wnt (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the use of the phrase "'extraordinary rendition" to mean something other than extraordinary rendition, it hinders communication when you redefine words or phrases like that. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I apologize for my lack of clarity and perhaps hyperbole. What I meant was that Corbyn does not oppose proper extradition of Assange to Sweden, the country which originally made the request for extradition. However, according to the letter signed by over 70 Labour MPs () the U.S. Department of Justice had been tipped off that asylum would be revoked, and was ready with a case, while Sweden has had to scramble to get ready, and now it is by no means clear that Britain will send Assange to Sweden at all, let alone with any precondition against his extradition to the U.S. Simply put, the ordinary process of extradition appears at risk of being defeated, while the extraordinary process of extraditing Assange to face a political charge, in contradiction to the extradition treaty, appears to take priority. In my mind, I did not think that 'extraordinary rendition' was inappropriate to use for such a back-room maneuver, even if Assange is not actually bundled onto a plane in secret. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it accurate to characterize Corbyn's position as mere "opposition to the notion of an extraordinary rendition". He opposes any extradition to the United States. There has been no suggestion and there is no genuine possibility of Assange being transferred to the US without a legal process, so it would be odd for Corbyn to be opposed to that. Please stay clearly factual, as hysteria doesn't help fight injustice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages can't right every wrong, but we surely could do more to defend "WP:BLP" in regard to the article on Jeremy Corbyn, who has expressed some opposition to the notion of an extraordinary rendition to the United States and represents a hope for a political solution to stop Assange's persecution. I don't know a lot of British politics, but the article has long showcased, for example, allegations by the impeccable Daily Mail that focus on the fact that Corbyn attended a conference event that was held at a pavilion in a cemetery that happened to be close to some terrorists' graves. In section after section the article keelhauls him for make-believe offenses like being reluctant to censor a mural or to deport someone for pro-Palestinian activism. Surely there is some way Misplaced Pages could do better there. Wnt (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
(Topic) bans and Jimbo's talk page
- I'm new here, so perhaps it isn't my place to say anything, but it looks like User:Nocturnalnow is banned from discussing American politics (since 1932) "on all pages of Misplaced Pages". Of course, the ramblings here hardly amount to a discussion, but the subject does seem to relate to American politics. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I also have topic bans, including for economics, because my opinions about productivity and growth were considered unacceptable by the community. I occasionally disregard that ban here on Jimbo's talk page as a limited act of civil disobedience, under the implied permission of Jimbo's statement that he wants open communications from banned editors, presumably so that his nominal right to grant appeals from ArbCom decisions (which he apparently never uses) is not foreclosed. Note that Jimbo occasionally rescinds such permission on a case-by-case basis, and in any case I would not presume to speak for him. I would, however, like to provide another data point in Nocturnalnow's defense. I was also topic banned three years ago from discussing the activities of organizations associated with insecticides, and abided my that restriction absolutely, without any civil disobedience here or elsewhere, until very recently, when I had so completely forgotten about that topic ban I made some comments I was forced to strike after I earnestly brought them directly to the attention of ArbCom in a clarification request. I honestly had completely forgotten I was under that restriction. Anyway, I know that reasonable people have reasonable differences of opinion about whether Jimbo has discretion to allow the banned to speak here, but I'm glad he does. I intend to appeal both of my topic bans and I think Nocturnalnow should appeal his, too.
- As for my opinion of Assange, it is very similar to that of The Intercept, both very strongly in his favor and very strongly opposed. And while former Wikimedia Foundation spokesman User:David Gerard has closer ties to Assange than Jimbo ever had or ever will, and the chance that Jimbo wants to get involved is minuscule, I would more prefer these discussions occurring than not. I am sure that reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree.
- @Bitter Oil: you say you are "new here" and your contribution history stretches back a whole week. I would like to know more about the circumstances under which you learned about Nocturnalnow's topic ban, although if you want to keep that to yourself, that is fine with me, too. EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think your opinion of Assange is relevant to a discussion of someone's (topic) ban, but thanks for letting us know. If Jimbo considers this page to be a special case, then I suppose Nocturnalnow's comments here aren't a violation. But how about this edit to QAnon. It specifically mentions politicians in regard to a crackpot theory about pedophiles. Or this edit to Illegal immigration to the United States where Nocturnalnow adds a link to a CNN townhall featuring Nancy Pelosi? Bitter Oil (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you're quite welcome, and let's get back on topic. For what reason are you asking that Nocturnalnow's topic ban be observed? EllenCT (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you tell some ill-informed conspiracy nut with poor reasoning skills and no understanding of legal systems to stay away from politics because they've spent months injecting nonsense into articles about living people, I would think you'd want to "observe" that topic ban. Just as a hypothetical example. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- One of the great things about getting old is mosquitoes don't bother me anymore...its nice to still be of some use. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you tell some ill-informed conspiracy nut with poor reasoning skills and no understanding of legal systems to stay away from politics because they've spent months injecting nonsense into articles about living people, I would think you'd want to "observe" that topic ban. Just as a hypothetical example. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you're quite welcome, and let's get back on topic. For what reason are you asking that Nocturnalnow's topic ban be observed? EllenCT (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- What? "If Jimbo considers this page to be a special case, then I suppose Nocturnalnow's comments here aren't a violation"? Wrong. Nobody, and this includes Jimbo, is allowed to say that their talk page is a place where one can freely violate Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. There is a good argument that this isn't post-1932 US politics, but if it is, the topic ban applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Basically it is Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Appeal_to_Jimbo_Wales. Specifically
A topic banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but is allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales.
PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Basically it is Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Appeal_to_Jimbo_Wales. Specifically
- I don't think your opinion of Assange is relevant to a discussion of someone's (topic) ban, but thanks for letting us know. If Jimbo considers this page to be a special case, then I suppose Nocturnalnow's comments here aren't a violation. But how about this edit to QAnon. It specifically mentions politicians in regard to a crackpot theory about pedophiles. Or this edit to Illegal immigration to the United States where Nocturnalnow adds a link to a CNN townhall featuring Nancy Pelosi? Bitter Oil (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Julian Assange is an Australian, in Britain, fighting extradition to Sweden. Meanwhile, neither American party (including the chief beneficiaries of the information he helped to report to the public) is speaking up on his behalf. If this is American politics, it is the kind that has no political issue conceivably coming up for vote in the U.S. and which is being applied entirely outside its borders ... at least for now. If a topic ban on "American politics" affects that, what doesn't it affect? I should add that I just recently got a boilerplate notice on my talk page about "American politics" over a browser plug-in that lets people post to a would-be social media competitor. My feeling is that this "post-1932" decision has become an interstate commerce clause allowing AE authority over anything and everything on Misplaced Pages. I imagine if you post about a species of frog, it might be evaluated by the EPA or its import regulated by Customs, so it's post-1932 American politics! Wnt (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- 😂 how true!! Talk 📧 00:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nocturnalnow is talking about extradition to the US and specifically references both the "USA (sic) justice system" and US laws. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages ----> Real World
- Nocturnalnow ----> Assange
- Topic ban violations ------> WikiLeaks' activities that the US objects to
- ArbCom ------> Court
- Count Iblis (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Compromised account missing information
Hello. on the Misplaced Pages:Compromised accounts page, there is a sentence saying "In late 2016 this became a particular concern, with many accounts being compromised by a hacker group." However, I haven't found any information anywhere elaborating on this incident. Where is more info on this, and can this be explained or linked to on that page? Thank you. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- The best place to ask questions like the above is WP:HELPDESK. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't know exactly what is being referred to there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- 2016, oh that was when 'you' blocked me, Jimbo. The relevant article is at OurMine, though I see no reason to link to it in the information page. I believe there were also other perps in 2016. -- zzuuzz 09:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, yes!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- zzuuzz - your block log is scary!! 😂 Talk 📧 00:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, yes!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- 2016, oh that was when 'you' blocked me, Jimbo. The relevant article is at OurMine, though I see no reason to link to it in the information page. I believe there were also other perps in 2016. -- zzuuzz 09:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't know exactly what is being referred to there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A simple favor
Good morning, Mr. Jimbo Wales. I would like to know something: users of Misplaced Pages in Spanish are deleting my edits in the Misplaced Pages portal: El Noticiero, equivalent to Misplaced Pages: The Signpost, what happens is that El Noticiero is inactive and I want to reactivate it, but only two users support me, and there are about 7 users who are against. I want you to go to Misplaced Pages: Café and tell them that you support the reactivation of El Noticiero. Please.
Attentively....
--Villalaso (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Jimbo Wales, ¿would you like to talk to me on my discussion page about the Misplaced Pages: El Noticiero portal, in a section where you talk about Misplaced Pages and the latest Misplaced Pages news?, please answer me.
Attentively....
--Villalaso (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- El Noticiero is here and says "El Noticiero necesita más colaboradores para funcionar, por el momento, la publicación está pausada" (El Noticiero needs more collaborators in order to work, at the moment, the publication is paused"). The rest of the page is a Lorem ipsum text. Jimbo has been asked before to comment on issues related to the non-English Misplaced Pages versions, and it is difficult because of the language barrier and lack of knowledge of the dispute.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)