User talk:Jimbo Wales

Transcribed without comment from your meta talk page

Requesting comment again given past pledges

Now I am even more curious to get a comment from you on my ArbCom ban appeal. During another discussion about an unrelated case on the English Wikipedia someone linked to this old RfC. I know it was eight years ago, but your statement there in closing that RfC discussion was pretty absolute:

I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)

That is a lot of emphatic insistence that not only are secret trials where the accused has no chance to present a defense verboten but that ArbCom would never do such a thing in the first place, and that you would overturn any ArbCom decision of that nature. It is pretty clear my case has been exactly that kind of trial. Only after my ban came down was I even aware that I was being considered for a ban and I have not yet been told what it is that supposedly led to my ban, making it essentially impossible for me to present a defense as I can only guess at the reasons.

Why then have you allowed this ArbCom decision to stand despite your previous pledge to overturn what you thought was never a possibility in the first place? Are you not getting my messages? Did you not see any of this discussion on the ArbCom mailing list when it was brought up? If you have adjusted your stance regarding this despite what ArbCom's own arbitration policy states then I think this warrants an explanation. This especially warrants a response as a community discussion related to my case has reaffirmed overwhelming opposition to this kind of proceeding.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Requesting_comment_again_given_past_pledges

Rhoark (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Not having much idea what this was about, I looked it up. [1]

In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after this motion passes, and every six months thereafter. 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Devil's Advocate banned (now archived, and TL;DR)

I still don't know much about this "GamerGate" thing, other than it seems to be the Wikipedia equivalent of the Middle East. Never ending, unresolved suicide-bombing conflict. What they're actually fighting over, I don't know. Surely not just "games"??

Would I be correct in assuming:

1. The allegation is that this editor harassed one or more people online, but off-site
2. A private trial was held, so as not to "out" the victim(s)
3. Not even the accused was allowed to attend (trial in absentia)?
4. Making this roughly equivalent to a Guantanamo trial of an alleged terrorist
5. But even terrorists get to attend their military trials?

I don't know what the answer is, but the optics of this don't look good. wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Suffice to say for the moment, this summary is one-sided and misses the essence of the situation. I'm looking into it and discussing it with ArbCom and will try to say something useful soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How can it be "one sided and misses the essence of the situation" when the facts are, well facts... First a trial took place where the accused was not allowed to attend, see the evidence, defend himself, or even able to learn what he was accused of, beyond the blanket claim that it was offsite harassment. That's a fact. Then he was banned, but still haven't been told what he was accused of, and since he does not know what he did, he has no way to appeal it. That's also a fact. This is a trial where the every fundamental right of the accused were ignored. It's not even original, it's basically the plot for Kafka's "The Trial." There are some issues where the lines are blurred, this is not one of them. (I am reading the archived the AC/N thread retroactively and I'm shocked how can this stick. There should be a community outrage but I guess it's who you know and who you... know.) This is simply unacceptable.Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If all of those things were facts then you'd have a stronger point. Can you send me a link to the archived AC/N thread you refer to?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's this Arkon (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually saw it on your talk page above in this section. I believe the facts are not in dispute, you can see that if you care to read the thread Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This and this may also be useful. Evangeliman (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Risk of outing participants requires a secret trial

In cases where off-wiki harassment involves on-wiki victims, as attacks on a group of editors, the investigation cannot risk publicly confirming the identities of the people involved on various websites. Instead the investigation must conduct a secret trial to confirm the intended attacks were attempted even if the victim usernames were not exactly the actual Wikipedia editors, based on secret witnesses, as similar to a classified government case where witnesses cannot be identified to the aggressor for risk of outing some undercover agents by cross-checking their statements of where they were during certain events by which the accused person could deduce usernames or personal information. Such off-wiki cases of hounding editors can be exceptions beyond the "face-the-accuser" rights of the accused, because the risks of outing people who might be editing contrary to their public lives or professions demands a secret trial, as an unfortunate result of attacking fellow editors who are also co-members of off-wiki sites. Perhaps editors should be warned if they attack a fellow editor, then they could be subjected to secret trials for off-wiki attacks attempted against other WP editor(s), with no chance to defend their treatment of users or identify related usernames at other websites or job sites. Beware how hateful attacks are not productive and could risk secret investigations. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

EVEN IF one accepts that such a situation existed and that a secret hearing was appropriate — neither you nor I nor anyone knows whether or not this is the case — it is still fundamentally unfair to have a hearing without notification to the person at the center of it, with no opportunity granted to learn the charges and to present exculpatory evidence. Carrite (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• If the issue is so severe ArbCom can not address the matter with the accused then the issue is beyond their remit and should be addressed by the WMF. Nothing else should be acceptable to the community. If Jimbo does not address this then it is time to bring ArbCom under full community control via RfC as the "Jimbo check" on their power has become symbolic only and therefore functionally useless. Jbh^Talk 11:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The above rationale assumes that it matters if the "outing" information is true. But there's no reason why we need to specially protect an editor's right to "out" another editor falsely, saying he's someone he isn't. So while there are other issues at play, I don't see any need to confirm that an outing is correct in order to make an administrative decision. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the people involved know the charges, so just have them e-mail the ctte with their defense - not bureaucracy. In the future, when there is a delicate issue, just have ctte treat it as an injunction, until the person addresses it to the ctte , or the ctte can just tell the person they are looking into it under whatever policy. Although some of the concern is perfectly understandable, perspective should be kept in mind, we are talking about editing or not editing a website. Also, what does 'full community control' mean?Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It means that, at a minimum, ArbCom should be bound by decisions the community makes via RfC with respect to its powers/processes and remit. If an RfC says "no secret trials" then no secret trials. Jbh^Talk 14:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Here, the trial was in the open, the post-trial motion was in camera, and community policy allows for those to be held off wiki in delicate circumstances (indeed, that's an express reason the committee exists at all). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase... If the community says the "accused" must be able to address the "charges" and evidence then they must be allowed to do so - evidence may be secret from the community but not from the person who it is being presented against. This is a deeply held community value and the community should be able to compel ArbCom to not violate that value by binding RfC. Jbh^Talk 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And so is apparent naming and shaming[2] where it can be found to be WP:harassment - so, there is always a balance to be struck with what revelation is appropriate. As I suggested, if potential injury is found to be serious enough have the hearing after a preliminary injunction (and at all times be circumspect). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In other words, even if such a hearing would definitely identify the victim and leave them open to further harassment, such identification should be made? I just want to be clear about what is being requested. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If the issue is so sensitive that the "accused" is not allowed to know the evidence demonstrating their "guilt" then the matter is beyond what ArbCom should be addressing and it needs to go to the WMF as a ToU violation or to WMF-legal. That is what SanFranBans are for. Jbh^Talk 15:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Doug, I would not recommend that you confirm anything in the harassing statements, themselves (true or not, they look like harassment - and even in the off-wiki hearing you should generally avoid mention of individuals - eg., focus on statements -even sometimes use redaction of names), but don't you have to accept the sad fact that regardless of what hearing you hold (again, I am assuming it is off-wiki, as you have to do in some situations), the abuse may well continue, and even get worse, and the same could happen with no hearing and no action by the ctte? In the end, you are merely upholding the site social contract -'if you participate, no wpharassment', and 'if you wpharass, don't participate.' Hope they stop doing that, perhaps your action will cause them to reconsider but you will never be able to count on that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot that could be said here, but for now what I'd like to say is that there's a lot of missing information in some of the more dramatic characterizations of this situation. Alanscottwalker is right to point out that the trial was in the open. That trial explicitly resulted in a statement that he could be banned by a further motion, which is what happened, as a direct result of a email that the banned user himself sent to the ArbCom. There was no secret trial here, and the issues involved in a longtime problematic editor being finally banned are, as far as I can tell, very technical in nature and not a matter which raises concerns about the fundamental values (such as our policies against harassment of other editors). I think notification could have been handled better, but this isn't a case involving a "secret trial" and a user being bewilderingly banned for reasons he can't understand. More to come in due course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Am I reading correctly that the cause of the banning was not harassment, or else the alleged harassment took the form of an e-mail to ArbCom? Rhoark (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No, neither of those. The harassment was confessed to in extensive detail by the now-banned user, in an email to ArbCom. The idea that ArbCom didn't let him speak his side of the matter is simply not true - he spoke it in volumes. Printed out, it is 7 pages of wall-to-wall text detailing a campaign of harassment over an extended period of time (over a year), including detailed investigations into another users personal life, repeated threats to that user to out him, "opposition research", etc. It's really ugly and exhibits the worst kind of battleground mentality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

TDA has said he sent an e-mail about a suspected conflict of interest. Was he not doing the right thing in forwarding what he had learned to ArbCom rather than, say, Wikipediocracy? ArbCom is supposed to be the body equipped to deal with suspicions too delicate for COI/N, so doesn't this indicate a de facto policy of "see no evil, hear no evil?" The fact that ArbCom responded using a kill-switch they put on TDA as a sanction in an unrelated content dispute rather than out of the blue does little for the optics. Rhoark (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The act of sending the email was not what was problematic. Did I in any way suggest that the sending of the email was the problem? No, I didn't. It was the behaviors outlined in the email.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay that is confusing. First of, trial may not be in secret but it was private and accused was not allowed to attend, hear the evidence against him and defend himself.(these are unequivocal facts) The arbcom stated that the reason they did not reveal the evidence to the accused was because "that would make the accused harass the victim even more." Now you state that he had sent an e-mail that directly resulted the "problem editor" to be banned. It is more than unlikely that the accused would not be aware of the e-mail he had sent was the reason for his ban. And the stated reason not to disclose evidence to the accused does not stand. Aside from that, an evidence so damning that the arbcom could not disclose it to the public to protect the victim, yet so unforgettable that the accused could not remember. Or does the committee imply that the accused is a serial harasser and could not keep track of his victims! The whole thing does not stand up to scrutiny. And also the facts stand that a person was tried and convicted without knowing the crime or being able to defend himself. This is an unjust procedure pure and simple. Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The accused not only was allowed to appear - he testified extensively in a 7 page email detailing his own misconduct. You are very much right that it is "more than unlikely that the accused would not be aware of the e-mail he has sent was the reason for his ban". The main question is why he has pretended otherwise. I agree, by the way, that the notification was less than ideal. I would like to have seen an email saying something like "Thank you for detailing to us your longterm misconduct. Per the restriction you are already under, you're banned."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Darwinian Ape, rather than accepting the version of what happened that Wales is telling you, you seem to be taking it on faith that the editor had NO idea why they were banned. You are not even questioning his version of the story and making a lot of assumptions about how ArbCom operates. A discussion on email list is not a "trial". Can you even accept that your understanding of the facts might be biased or based on a partial knowledge of what occurred? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, to an outsider looking in, it's not hard to reach the wrong conclusions when you only have one side of the story. But this is why it is important to assume good faith, to remember the stature of the editors elected to ArbCom by the community, and to hold off on drama in situations like this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Liz I did not take what the accused editor said "on faith," I looked at the discussion and drew my own conclusions based on the evidence provided by both editors and arbs who attended to that discussion, neither did I refused to accept the version of what happened that Mr Wales told me, since he just told his version here and now, and I am not a psychic. There are, though still some pieces of this drama that I can't quite place. Mr Wales, you implied that the editor was deceptive and pretended to not know the reason he got banned, if that's the case why didn't the committee explained that he did in fact knew the reason for his block? This whole thing could have been avoided by a simple statement that would not be in any way harmful to the victim. Why would the committee facilitate the deception of the accused editor? If you read the AC/N thread it is clear that multiple arbcom members stated that they did not disclose the evidence(to him) which they found him guilty of. The gist of that AC/N thread was this: One editor asks "So we are now banning people without even telling them why..." Another editor replies: "...That's the point. It's intentionally designed that way, because if they told TDA what he did, he would tell others,..." You can't read that thread and not conclude the accused was not allowed to see the evidence and thus defend himself. So I again ask why did the arbs made a ridiculous statement that they could not disclose evidence to the accused when the evidence was in fact brought by the accused himself? Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think their stature is precisely why these conclusions have been made. For example, Gamaliel deleted a comment on this page a month ago ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=710240860&diff=prev ), and then blocked the user globally, for trying to get you to look at this topic back then. Nothing to hide - but all the actions say otherwise. 67.42.181.170 (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear Jimbo is looking into this and I'll be watching for an update. This case has bothered me for some time since I've observed Devil's Advocate to be precisely the kind of editor wikipedia needs - just not the one some of the power-craving and abusing Arbs want. Arbcom shouldn't have this sort of power and this current Arbcom (filled with "social justice" fanatics who put feelings over logic and evidence) especially shouldn't have this power. 67.42.181.170 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that a Gamergate advocate who uses terms like "social justice fanatics" thinks we should allow this kind of behavior to go unchecked. Think again.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Gamergate. If you think the term "social justice fanatics" has anything to do with Gamergate then you'll find that the term has been in use prior to Gamergate ( https://www.google.com/#q=%22social+justice+fanatics%22&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1999%2Ccd_max%3A8%2F1%2F2014&tbm= ). It is certainly clear who is informing your mindset though, which is troubling since I know for a fact that some of the sitting Arbs are untrustworthy - as the recent Arbcom case demonstrates. 67.42.181.170 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here, no one, ever, "appears" at any "trial" having anything to do with Wikipedia. You write things to one another, that's it, that's all, public or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

As with the Gamergate comment from Jimbo, I never said anything about a "trial." A trial is open with a focus on providing justice while Arbcom is secret and focused on social justice (i.e. not justice). 67.42.181.170 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Arbcom is focused on behaviors outlined in site-policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. :) 67.42.181.170 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, confusing. The issue isn't the previous "GamerGate" trial that was held in the open, as I understand it. As I said, I don't know much of the details of that, except that it's a war zone that innocent bystanders risk life-and-limb if they wander near it. The issue is the in camera (a euphemism for "in private", as I see it) "motion" that was held in lieu of a proper trial. It's like someone was charged with drunk driving, the judge lets them off with a warning that "the next time you drive drunk, there will be consequences", and when the next time allegedly happens, the guy is sent directly to jail for five years without a trial because he had previously been warned by the court. I'm also struggling to understand how this action will deter further harassment, rather than lead to escalated harassment in retaliation. The more effective response would seem to be going after the site operator that is hosting whatever this is, or where the emails originated from. I'm also confused about why we're in this grey zone where the issue is bad enough to merit an ArbCom ban but not a SanFran ban. wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy is apt. It's more like probation (in the US system, I'm not sure how other places handle it). Someone's been convicted of drunk driving and is placed under probation with the understanding that if it happens again, the probation officer can send them to jail. And then the person drives drunk into the side of the police station. You don't get a brand new trial in a case like that. The restriction said that he could be banned by a motion from the ArbCom - that's what happened. And, by the way, quite rightly. We have to take harassment seriously and not let spurious ideas based on incomplete facts override doing the right thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

FindLaw says "Probation officers have broad discretion to issue a warning, or require you to appear in court for a probation violation hearing. Generally, you have the right to: (1) receive written notice of the claimed violations against you, (2) be heard by a neutral judge in court, (3) attorney representation, and (4) to present evidence and witnesses to support your case, or refute evidence against you." I realize that ArbCom doesn't entirely operate like a court, and there may be some valid reasons not to, though I'm not sure what they would be. wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, what you said before was very good: "no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary." But now, when this has actually started happening, you're equivocating. I'm sorry, but there just isn't any room for argument: It was a secret trial without notification or opportunity for a defense; the ArbCom itself said so, and no one has even tried to suggest otherwise until now. Have the courage to stand behind your past statements. Everyking (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

He's getting lied to and conned behind the scenes by the very people who did this. And since it isn't out in the open we can't prove they are lying except by proxy. 67.42.181.170 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If the user in fact testified, provided the evidence and knows the charges, why did Arbcom basically defend themselves by saying "sure, we admit we didn't tell him the evidence or charges, and we're proud of doing that"? Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't remember us saying that, basically or otherwise. Speaking for myself, this was a difficult case--not the decision per se, but the rest of it, and we knew there would be significant or at least vocal resistance. But the trial analogy is pushed too far here: TDA had already been tried, if you will, and I think that anyone who had seen the evidence would have agreed there was only one solution. It's just that this was not the kind of evidence we wanted to show anyone; that's the nature of some of the evidence we deal with. We cannot award the harasser by publicizing or recognizing their harassment. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• I said this back on ACN so I may as well say it again, how is it "publicizing" to inform a harasser what they've been banned for. If they are actually harassing someone, surely they'd be aware of the fact that they are doing so? What privacy could possibly be protected, by not informing someone why they'd been banned? Furthermore User:Jimbo Wales with his "7 page email" comment above, seems to have given the game away and told everyone watching the most watched page on Wikipedia what TDA was banned for. So what was the point of not telling him privately through email why he was banned? Cos now you've gone and told absolutely everyone anyway. Brustopher (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Unintended consequences

If Wikipedia follows a policy of making it harder to sanction abuse when doing so will expose innocent third parties to real-world abuse, then abusers will start routinely including whatever information shields them from sanctions. Countermeasures against abuse do not occur in a vacuum. They result in counter-countermeasures by the abusers. Thus a simplistic "you must always publicly reveal all the details or do nothing" rule would result in gaming the system. On the other hand, a simplistic "always let the person who is investigating the wrongdoing decide what to reveal" opens up the possibility that in some cases the evidence is not revealed because it isn't very good. On way of dealing with this is to allow a trusted independent third party to examine the evidence and post an opinion as to whether secrecy was justified in this particular case. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It was.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Real-world abuse is a matter for law enforcement to deal with and making credible threats to do something that amounts to abuse is also illegal in pretty much all jurisdictions. We need to protect our editors against abuse, but the means we have available to do that ourselves are severely limited, in principle there can be offsite harassment by someone who isn't even an editor here. So, I think we should not focus primarily on dealing with any alleged perpetrators ourselves, instead we should assist any victims by letting ArbCom or the WMF look into the matter to see if we can actually take effective measures ourselves or if it's best to consider this as a legal issue and then assist the victim with any help he or she needs to pursue such a case. Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In this case, I doubt very much it is a legal issue. But the standard for being a Wikipedian in good standing is higher than just "didn't do anything to justify calling the police". I know you agree, so I'm just saying this to clarify.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In light of the response from the accused editor

TDA responded to your comments in the meta site, and his statements are at odds with your understanding of the events. Either him or the arbcom are not telling the whole truth, I don't know which. I assume you did not read the entirety of TDA's e-mails and got a refined version of it from one side, if not I apologize and withdraw the following.

The fact that the arbcom was unwilling to state that the reason behind his ban was the e-mail he had sent them is very suspicious and at the very least warrants an investigation as to the merits of the accusation of harassment. I understand if you think this does not worth your time, I imagine it would be time consuming to examine all that evidence and you may be trusting the people in the arbcom enough to take their words for it. I am not a friend of TDA, nor am I hostile to any of the arbcom members, my only aim is to clarify the situation and remedy any injustice there may have been. (why do I care? I detest injustice in any form, also I've read the entire discussion at the ac/n, and now I feel invested.)Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction really in the facts presented, although obviously the evaluation is far different. I believe, as I have said, that the notification was not handled well. I believe that eventual reinstatement is likely under the usual norms if behavior is good in the meantime.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a laugh. Once you're on the outs with the administrative sector you're always on the outs with the administrative sector. Because it's a lowest common denominator affair where any one of them that's watchlisted your talkpage will be ready to sabotage any move you make to be reinstated. From what I read above, TDA emailed information about what he says was COI editing. Because making this case involves knowing the identity of the editor (an admin) he's sending the email instead of posting openly. This is what he's supposed to do, according to policy. But because the editor is an administrator and in the good old boy network, Arbcom bans TDA. It's discouraging that it's Arbcom 2016 doing this. Nothing ever changes.

Let's face it Jimbo, your past statements saying you will overturn obviously unjust and non-policy banning are farcical. You don't live up to your word. You promised to help me get unbanned if I advised you my prior account, and you broke your word there as well. I was perma-blocked in 2012 on an allegation of sockpuppetry, which was a lie then, is a lie now, and hopefully will remain a lie into the future. I content edited Wikipedia without incident for five or six years, made an heck of a lot of solid content. Wikipedia would probably have a dozen or more decent articles by now if I hadn't been falsely banned. But Jimbo you're no good for any of this, you don't serve as a check on Arbcom and administrative abuse, you only back them up on ever occasion. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.221.178 (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, I've never been banned or blocked, I don't know any of the participants, and I've been here for 14 years (admittedly not very active). I hope you'll listen to me. Just looking at what has been shown publicly, I find this very disturbing. Read the Arbcom's decision and their own justifications in their own words. They're not describing your scenario. They're admitting that they banned TDA without being notified of the charges or evidence, and they argue that banning him without charges or evidence is justified. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Diff please to someone making the argument that " they banned TDA without being notified of the charges or evidence, and they argue that banning him without charges or evidence is justified"?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be here. Where I (and others) explicitly made that argument, and *multiple* members of Arbcom (and ex-arbcom) stated they felt justified in banning TDA without notifying him of a)why, b)the evidence, c)allowing him a right of reply. Selected quotes below that illustrate Arbcom's opinion:

• DQ - "Was TDA notified of the proceeding? no. Was it reasonable to notify him in this case? No."
• Doug Weller - "Telling TDA anything would almost certainly have been the same as identifying the victim."
• Gamaliel (as justification for not following ARBPOL requirements) - "The harasser knows who they harassed already, but telling them which victims complained opens those victims up to retaliatory harassment and may cause the harasser to escalate their harassment in some way."
• Keilana (as justification for not following ARBPOL requirements) - "I also speak in my personal capacity but I agree with my colleagues that we have acted in order to protect those being harassed."
• Drmies (again as justification for not following ARBPOL) - "We have discussed this at length, and we understand there are serious concerns particularly about transparency--but the concerns of the victim outweigh the others. We are not going to give the abuser or the peanut gallery more fodder."
• DQ again (admission not following ARBPOL) "My problem is putting the text in front of TDA. TDA would be able to connect the dots as to where he could (not saying he would) harass the person who filed the claim of harassment. That's my issue with following ArbPol on this."
• Doug Weller (admission of not following ARBPOL) - "I know no one is asking us to name the victim publicly, and I'm sorry that the way I worded it encouraged that belief. We believed that we had very good reasons not to tell TDA."
• Then we have comments by the likes of Roger Davies - "Yet, extraordinarily, you suggest that, prior to any action being taken, editors should always be confronted with the evidence of their wrongdoing and be given an opportunity to confront their accusers." Yeah, we do actually require that people who are accused publically of a crime (harrassment *is* a crime in most modern countries you know) be able to at least see and hear the evidence against them. Even in the most awful of abuse cases where the accused is unable to directly question the victim, they are still presented with the evidence and given the opportunity to defend themselves.
• (Roger again) "ArbPol doesn't require the committee to use only certain procedures nor are those procedures set in concrete. In fact, this section authorises the opposite: "The Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope". It's a kind of WP:IAR clause, I suppose. But, as this is longstanding practice, it's now de facto policy." my reply to which I will repeat here "ARBPOL requires certain actions to take place. Any modification of ARBPOL is subject to ratification by the community. If Arbcom want to take actions that are prohibited by ARBPOL, they need to get it changed. I would dearly *love* to see you make the argument that an amendment to ARBPOL that would allow unilateral banning of any editor arbcom chooses without some due process is 'consistent with its scope'. Seriously, feel free to go propose that amendment. 'De facto policy' does not supersede written and ratified policy." Well someone actually did that and it was soundly rejected. Snow_rise's close there sums up pretty well not only how the community feels about amending ARBPOL to give Arbcom the powers (it claims) it already has, but also the general mood about recent actions (the banning of TDA and Cla68 being the most prominent). "However, as with any community discussion, the most important result is found not in the numbers but in the perspectives provided, and the Arbitration Committee will hopefully take note of the deep concerns expressed here with regard to lack of transparency and proper process. Those concerns have been raised especially high with regard to the wording of this proposal but respondents have also expressed a more general unease with regard to the Committee's recent actions in the area of 'private hearings', with numerous users expressing the opinion that the exercise (as utilized of late) already strays from the principles of open community review of important decisions and bottom-up oversight that are generally-accepted cornerstones of Wikipedia's process." Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The situation is that everyone who has seen the evidence (Arbcom members and I infer Jimbo) has concluded that the outcome is reasonable, while the commentators here and elsewhere who have not seen the evidence think Arbcom has arbitrarily picked a victim to knock off, presumbably for sport. Is that really likely? Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually the the general commentators opinion was that ARBPOL process was not followed and banning someone without a right-of-reply goes against both the core policy under which Arbcom derives its authority, and the universal concept of justice and fairness. We dont disappear someone. It actually makes no difference regarding the evidence (not presented), the outcome is unreasonable due to the manner in which it was dealt with. "Trust us, he is guilty" was the only defense offered. The opinion (which is borne out by Arbcom's replies both individually and as a group) is that Arbcom didnt think it needed to follow Arbpol. So it didnt. When an amendment to Arbpol was tabled that would make Arbpol read exactly as Arbcom have stated they feel they are able to act, it was rejected. Multiple people actually explicitly stated they did not want to see the evidence, but that Arbcom are required to notify TDA in advance that he was being considered for a ban and provide him with the evidence, and an opportunity to defend himself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Two separate issues: Method and COI

It' clear the method TDA used was undesirable. It's not clear to me whether the 7 page email was solicited or unsolicited by arbcom. But leaving aside the ban, it appears serious allegations were made regarding COI. Were those addressed in any way? We don't have have a "fruit from the poison tree" policy and we shouldn't. Independent of the methods, was the COI investigated? Considering the COI noticeboard operates on "the duck test," no outing has to occur for a consensus decision at the COIN noticeboard and ArbCom could handle COI in the same manner as the ban but there has been no announcement on the validity of the charge. It is relevant for the project to determine whether they are baseless or have merit regardless of how that information ran across ArbCom's desk.. --DHeyward (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think that everyone on Arbcom is nuts? That no one there can think? Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Micropedia on the Moon

Just thinking about the chance to preserve Wikipedia at off-World sites, where a Micropedia might perhaps fit within a spacecraft's budget. At the very least, launch with Simple English Wikipedia and perhaps the top 10,000 pages in the other top-10 languages. It is an agonizing "Wikipedian's Choice" as in, "If only a million articles could be launched, then what would you take on the spaceflight?". I spent months working to expand Wikipedia's basic core articles, only to realize the amazing racehorse Secretariat (horse), who won Belmont by 31 lengths, would likely never make the list, where other cultures had limited interest, to also exclude numerous excellent films, songs, or paintings (etc.) which would fall outside the core limits. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-April/083839.html

http://imgur.com/EZZiWhP

67.6.190.217 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here, but maybe there's just a joke that I'm not getting. :-) I don't think the entire text and images of Wikipedia are really likely to physically weigh materially more than a subset. There is now such a thing as a 16 terabyte 2.5 inch hard drive (see this article for some details) and although I'm not certain that all of Wikipedia including images would fit in that space (I don't know the most convenient place to find a current estimate of total compressed size in bytes), it'd be far far far more than just 10,000 pages in top-10 languages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Some technologies are not resistant to radiation. Someone at the talk page pointed me at this article - a glass disc that resists 1000 F and is supposedly stable for millions of years should be much more likely to stand up to some time on the Moon, I think. I wrote my comment on the project's discussion page that I think it's a waste of time to try to pick and choose data - we should try to enlist the makers of that for what would be a high-profile ad from their point of view, or if they don't go for that, take up a special collection to buy a Wikipedia disc from them. Wnt (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The best physical storage medium has already been worked out. See rosettaproject.org. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thats not a link to Vinyl. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: That is only 13,000 "pages". I don't know how much a page is but I would doubt this is even gigabytes, much less terabytes. And the disc is supposed to last 2,000 years, which is very impressive, but not as impressive as the 13.8 billion years claimed for the glass disc. Simply put, it is a nice try but no cigar. I say we get the real thing, put all of Wikipedia on it, and that way it's around for however long it takes the archeologists to get around to trying to figure out what happened to Earth. (If Venus is any guide, they may not have much unstirred surface on the planet to work with) Wnt (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

• News and notes: Lunar project; steering group formed to search for next executive director

• Op-ed: Knowledge Engine and the Wales–Heilman emails

• Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot

• Traffic report: Two for the price of one

• Featured content: The double-sized edition

• Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you have some explaining to do. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• So the WMF *is* building an external search engine? By this, I mean 'search engine' as is understood by 99% of the world, an engine that takes answers from the web/net - rather than specifically only wikimedia sources (an internal search engine) - and displays them in some form of browsable list? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A Fan For You!

		Fan!
		Spidersmilk has given you a Fan! Fans are good for two reasons: They blow air and allow hot wikipedians to cool off, and also cheer them on when they need it, Just like a fan of a football or basketball team. Cool off, and enjoy the cheering and the breeze. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread "WikiLove" and "wikicheers" by giving someone else some a fan, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or someone who just needs a some fan to cheer them on and/or a good, refreshing breeze. To spread the goodness of fans, you can add {{subst:fan}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or enjoy the breeze or cheering on the giver's talk page with {{subst:Breeze}}!

New study says WP is like a "corporate bureaucracy"

According to Gizmodo, the study shows that Wikipedia has changed from, according to the study's co-author Simon DeDeo, "a tiny Thomas Jefferson libertarian fantasy" to something more like "a university system, or like General Electric, or AT&T." What seems especially interesting to me, though is the concern expressed in the article about "editing inequality" where a small % of editors exert a much larger % of control over how WP works--this seems like an important issue to me, like income inequality must seem to Bernie Sanders. Was wondering what other editors (esp. Jimbo himself) thought. Everymorning (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

lol. Wikipedia is so bureaucratically complicated, it makes "corporate bureaucracy" look like a children's playground. Imagine a new hire at a company hears about the "open door policy" and decides to ask HR a question about an editor harassing them with reverts and the HR person whips out the 10,000 page employee manual, yells "boomerang!" and every manager at the company dogpiles them with the end result being an old arbitration enforcement warning involving people that left the company years before he started. Not trusting HR or even undertanding what "boomerang" means or any of the TLA jargon, they ask another editor about the AE warning and they are slapped with a topic ban because the wording was forbidden on page 5,326 and they were properly warned with a pretty notice with traffic and bio-hazard symbols. After following the myriad of renamed and transcribed pages related to "ArbCom", they find The Attic where people report to answer (the question is not provided because everyone already knows it because it's "in the log"). At ARCA, the new user inquires about what the ruling means and suddenly finds a new template that such questions are a violation of his ArbCom topic banhe must answer charges at Arbitration Enforcement which is a lot like the dogpile at ANI except instead of a Rugby scrum, the admins form cheers and complicated formations like human pyramids. Exasperated, they go to twitter to ask what did they do wrong. A kindly veteran editor, identifiable only by his dead eyes and hollow, soulless expression says" "You made an edit to comedian born in London and spelt 'humour' without the extra 'u'. The Brits consider it a µ aggression. It's clearly written in the manual of style and all three ArbCom cases." --DHeyward (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)