User talk:Jimbo Wales

Lock

Could an administrator please add the Fully Protected lock topicon to the User:Jimmy Wales and User Talk:Jimmy Wales pages? Thanks Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Goveganplease:Is it an joke on April Fools' Day?--CopperSulfate (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding me. I don't want his actual userpage protected. Both the redirects User:Jimmy Wales and User talk:Jimmy Wales are fully protected so only admins can edit them. I want the lock added to those redirects please. Thanks :) :) Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me quote: "On redirect pages, use the Redirect category shell template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will only serve to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed. Lectonar (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response user:Lectonar but why is it that I am able to see the gold-colored lock up in the top corner of fully-protected pages and redirects that I am not able to edit? Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Goveganplease, This is a hard redirect, the padlock would serve no purpose because nobody would be around to see it unless they explicitly went back to view the actual text of the redirect. Kb03 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Kb03:I know, but many fully protected redirects do have the padlock added to them. I just felt it would be a nice touch is all. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I have added {{redirect category shell}} to both these pages — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

We wouldn't have to worry about deep fakes if Wikipedia 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)

Lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation?

According to [1] and [2] a lawsuit has been filed against the WMF, but the actual court documents listed on those pages are behind a paywall.

This page[3] allows you to download some of the documents as PDFs[4][5][6] but others are listed as "Buy on Pacer". Does anyone know where we can access those paywalled court documents?

Here is the Wikipedia username listed in the lawsuit: Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Related:

• ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive163#Abd blocked
• ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive188#Abd
• ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive211#Abd - Community sanction proposal
• ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217#Reinstatement of topic ban
• ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Abd
• Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2
• Arbcom: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2

I am going to assume that, being part of the WMF, Jimbo cannot comment on any ongoing legal actions. I am under no such restriction, so I will be posting a copy of this at User talk:Guy Macon#Lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation? if anyone wishes to discuss this case with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have any good secondary sources, put it on Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. Was Abd the cold fusion editor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

He was one of the cold fusion editors.[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Cold fusion editing continued at en-wv after the actions at en-wp. The topic, broadly construted, is now subject to sanctions covered by a topic ban. --mikeu ^talk 17:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Rationalwiki owned by the WMF? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

no, it's an entirely unrelated nonprofit of its own - David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have a PACER account. What documents do you want copies of? Kb03 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Just look them over and confirm that the ones I can't see are the usual boring secondary documents. I would like to know if the WMF has been served, though. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No, Rationalwiki is independent, that's just weird. They know about this though as I told User:David Gerard. This is a lolsuit (I stole that from the discussion at Wikipediocracy). A sock of the racist Mikemikev told me about it (claiming that I and User:Maunus were responsible for the demise of Rightedia, which sadly neither of us were a party to, and saying he's back at Metapedia (en.metapedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lamprecht) where he will write an article about me. I told the WMF - I don't think they've actually been served but that's just a guess. Abd is trying to find out if the ban was the result of private communications from people who he claims were harassing him. This doesn't seem to have been his first lawsuit. Abd_Ul-Rahman Lomax has an Encyclopedia Dramatica article but you'll have to search for it as the link is blacklisted. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Try this (encyclopediadramatica.rs/Abd_Ul-Rahman_Lomax} - the software seems to allow that. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I should have added a caveat. Don't trust Encyclopedia Dramatic to be accurate, it's named Dramtica for a reason. Trolling seems welcome there. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I passed it to the RW board, though we have no idea what, in any coherent sense, to make of it. All involved parties are banned as anything from RW and are still sockpuppeting furiously and getting banned instantly - David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If Jimbo doesn't protest I think it can be discussed here in a general context because I think there is likely to be lots and lots of lawsuits going forward as American courts, imo, in general, are becoming less and less competent, thus, less predictable in terms of what suits they will or will not entertain, therefore (not talking about this specific case) creating a lottery mentality among potential plaintiffs.

So, for example, I definitely think WMF should have a "no settlements" policy and that type of thing might be discussable here, maybe. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Lomax complains that his published SanFranBan was negative publicity that hurt his writing career, but it really depends on who his audience was and what he was trying to accomplish. If he was looking for street cred as a wiki-dissident, the ban may have actually helped him, by showing the WMF establishment was against him. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I am a member of the Wikipediocracy forum and I have been following this case and I know about the details of how all this started, I encountered Abd's trolling about ten years ago, the guy has not changed. Abd has opened himself up to countersuit and discovery. As one of our other members put it "The WMF can conclusively show that he's a net.kook with no reputation to harm. And the WMF can bury him in lawyers." As for the real reasons Abd was globally banned, it was for harassment and this can be seen publicly from his edits on Wikiversity. Abd was doxxing Wikipedia users (real names, photographs, addresses, work details, families) etc on his personal cold fusion blog to attack users that he blamed for getting his cold fusion project deleted on Wikiversity. You are dealing with a very vicious internet harasser. If Abd falls out with someone on the internet, he takes it personally and will stalk and libel that person, writing thousands if not millions of words about them on his blog. There are many victims of his. I would say his RationalWiki article is actually accurate in that description.

Abd also sent Wikipedia users he blamed for his Wikiversity project being deleted "harassing emails". This user, complained about it here. That same user was also doxed on a public internet forum by Abd and on Abd's blog ( I will not link to that) but it can be found. If you check the rules "Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy." [8]. Abd's global ban was therefore justified. He was putting users real life safety at risk.

You can also check Abd's block log on Wikiversity. He was blocked many times for his online vendettas against other users. The blocking admin wrote to Abd [9] "Your long term activity at Wikiversity shows a persistent pattern of long term disruption that has been going on for the past SEVEN YEARS! This activity has also drawn a great deal of unwelcome contentious activity to our site that distracts the community from developing learning resources." Since being banned from Wikipedia, Abd has been doxxing RationalWiki users on his blog and impersonating them. He has an obsessive habit of impersonating users he does not like and blaming his impersonations onto others. I have counted 102 banned sock-puppets that Abd has created on RationalWiki in the last 8 months. As for his next move, he wrote recently he is hiring a lawyer from money he will obtain from CrowdFundMe campaign he is starting. His only supporter on the internet is Mikemikev a neo-nazi he has defended. Apparently if someone gets banned from Wikipedia Abd will become friendly with (even if they are a nazi). I personally do not see his lawsuit going anywhere. This is an lolsuit. The man needs to get off the internet for a few days and get a reality check. No doubt he is following this discussion and will write 10, million words about it all and how he is being "harassed". Anon63622 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I notice that absent from your narrative are any mention of list of names redacted etc. who figure prominently in Abd's version of events.

Anyway, people were saying James Damore's litigation against Google was an lolsuit too, and you saw how that went. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I redacted the list of names above. Please do not enable his problematic behavior by repeating it on-wiki. This results in a great deal of cross-wiki disruption. A checkuser discovered that the account that left a notification of the lawsuit on my talk page had numerous sleeper sockpuppet accounts.[10] We caught this before they could act. Not only do these actions have real world consquences but they also are a drain on the energy of the community. The more people who amplify his actions, and those of his friends, the more work for our staff to followup. I'd rather spend my time creating content instead of cleaning up a mess. Disclosure: my name was in that list but my identity is hardly a secret. I don't much care if anyone reverts my edit but I am very sympathetic to the harassed contributors who have reached out to me requesting help. The volunteers who improve our projects are our most vital asset and deserve to be treated with respect. signed John Doe #N --mikeu ^talk 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible that one of Abd's enemies tried to manipulate you into having this very reaction by placing that notification, as a joe job move? That was what Abd claimed in his 18 March blog post was likely going on. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

174.204.18.89, you should not be mentioning real life names taken from Abd's blog. This is one of the reasons Abd has been banned all over the internet. He tries to connect peoples real life identities with anonymous online accounts, he then claims he knows "100%" who the accounts belong to and digs up where these people work, but offers nothing more than his opinion. It is very dangerous business because he has no proof, only his speculations. In many cases he has turned out to be wrong (he claims RationalWiki users John66, Bongolian and David Gerard are all the same person - entirely wrong and he was forced to later admit that) but his leaking of real life names can effect people and their businesses. As for JzG, he is an admin here. Abd has impersonated him on several blogs, as he has impersonated Roxy the dog. I do not trust Abd at all, he has recently been attacking @Alexbrn: on his blog. When you spend your life online attacking people like Abd it discredits his version of events which appear to be fictional. His entire lawsuit is basically about a grudge he holds because a group of "skeptical" editors submitted his cold fusion material for deletion. Perhaps @Roxy the dog: or @ජපස: or @Mu301: can weigh in on this because they have been attacked by Abd. 2607:F710:60:0:0:BA:0:2 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Cos I was asked, I believe abd's attacks on me are as effective in making a difference as a sparrow's fart. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me if Abd made some false sockpuppetry allegations based on a dubious interpretation of evidence. I doubt he did it maliciously, though. He's not the only Wikipedian to make that mistake; it happens all the time that SPIs are closed as "unrelated" because someone's suspicions turned out to be unfounded. That's just kind of a routine occurrence.

I think it is debatable how much good can come from banning people for outing users off-wiki. It obviously hasn't stopped Abd from continuing to do it, because his SanFranBan doesn't affect what he does on non-Wikimedia platforms. And if Abd had anonymously outed people, maybe it would not have even been possible to hold him accountable. Because of this type of situation, users who want to keep their IRL identities secret should practice due diligence in not making it easy for people to out them, since the admins and Wikimedia have limited power to control the spread of information that a user has put out there about himself.

I don't think impersonation is part of Abd's playbook; he is not known for being a manipulative guy. Some of his adversaries do have that reputation, though, and therefore it wouldn't surprise me if an impersonator framed Abd for impersonation. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I am one of the anonymous John Doe's listed in Abd's filing. Thankfully he does not have my real name and I only ever used an IP to edit Wikipedia. Abd wrote some negative things about my IP on his blog and some deliberately false claims about me claiming I was someone else and posting someones business details. I sent a complaint to the Wikimedia Health and Safety about his revealing of private information. You say above "and if Abd had anonymously outed people, maybe it would not have even been possible to hold him accountable," this is wrong, he is entirely accountable. He has no reason for doing it, other than harassment. It is not acceptable to be posting where anonymous online users live or work or trying to make those connections. Max Redhill (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What I was getting at was, the people who have been banned for off-wiki harassment, outing, etc. have been those who linked those activities to their own Wikipedia account. Another example would be michaeldsuarez, who made it known that he edited Dramatica as JuniusThaddeus. But not every harasser or outer does that, so not all are held accountable. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who this guy is - his dramas seem to have happened over the many years time I wasn't actively editing Wikipedia. But seeing this name, I notice a twitter user named @abdlomax has been favourite-ing tweets where I've been under attack over Wikipedia (for background see here). Also during all the low-carbohydrate diet drama centred on Skeptic from Britain I (and presumably a number of other WP editors) were being impersonated on one of the blogs covering the drama, in what looked like shit-stirring (for background see here). What can it all mean? Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Might want to ask the man himself at abdlomax@yahoo.com, which is the email address he has been at for years, and which is listed in the complaint. In anything Abd-related, I would caution against making assumptions about authorship, given the amount of impersonation that has been alleged. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Abd has recently attacked Alexbrn on his website [11], in relation to the Sarah Wilson drama. Recently Abd was also socking to remove Quackwatch as a source on an IP [12]. Abd usually refers to himself in third-person. As for the impersonations, a friend of Abd Mikemikev is likely doing those. Mikemikev is an admin on the white supremacist Metapedia and has targeted Doug Weller [13], looks like he has also been trolling on a bunch of accounts to promote Abd's lawsuit, example [14], [15]. Abd Lomax is a fake name, so this lawsuit will probably be thrown out. There has been no damage to his reputation. [elided comments] Regards. Max Redhill (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Re "Abd Lomax is a fake name, so this lawsuit will probably be thrown out", he didn't file under that name, he filed under "Dennis G. Lomax". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Oliver D. Smith aka. Anglo Pyramidologist is known to impersonate people then blame this on Mikemikev. Samantha Priss (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of the lawsuit. I personally consider it frivolous and an attempt to harass and intimidate. My block of Abd was justified and long overdue.[16] Ping me if you have a specific question regarding his activity at en-wv and/or the actions that I/we have taken to prevent disruption of our project. I can neither confirm nor deny that I am a "John Doe" in this case as I have not received any official notification off-wiki. I am not at liberty to comment further on ongoing litigation nor can I comment on some of the specifics of this block due to WMF confidentiality requirements. (My block was primarily based on on-wiki activity, however the duration of the block was significantly adjusted to take into account privately expressed concerns which would be inappropriate to share publicly.) --mikeu ^talk 16:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• So I know there are a bunch of links here, and the gist I got is that this is a person who has banned for OUTing users, but who exactly is Abd and what is he trying to get out of this lawsuit? By who, I mean as a Wikipedia user and other known off-wiki accounts of his.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As suggested by others, I can't really comment on ongoing legal matters. I should also add that in general, for routine legal matters, they are handled by our very competent legal staff and don't necessarily rise to the level requiring board attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo, even if Abd's Rationalwiki article is perfectly accurate, I am certain you don't want unsourced, unsubstantiated, derogatory comments about the health of any living person. If this was anyone other than your page, I would get on IRC and ask for oversight, but I ask that you ask or ask others to instead. EllenCT (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

This goat hopes the previous section gets archived sooner than it would othaaaaaaarwise.

EllenCT (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)