Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saflieni (talk | contribs) at 07:56, 2 February 2021 (No problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Attest

    In a previous section you wrote "I'm sure there will be sources to attest to that if true."[1] See How the U.S. Could Double Vaccination Pace With Existing Supply, New York Times, Jan 22, "President Biden’s promise to administer 100 million vaccines by his 100th day in office is no longer a lofty goal; it is attainable at the current pace at which shots are going into arms."

    Although the above article says one thing, some other reliable sources give a different impression. Regardless of what the news media says, I think the bottom line when it comes to administering doses is the data, and that can be found in the source that I mentioned in that previous talk section [2]. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have seen today a headline that the goal may be raised to 1.5 million per day. [3].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of doses administered per day can be viewed at [4]. Above the plot there are several choices. Under "count", deselect "per 100 people". Under "interval", select "new per day". The numbers for a data point can be seen by hovering the cursor over it. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal request

    Dear Mr. Wales, would you please advise on the following situation:

    WP:UNBAN states three times that in case of “… serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure”, a community imposed ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Unfortunately, the reply to my appeal request made clear that Arbcom is/was unaware of this provision. The reply suggested that I familiarize myself with the various possiblities of appealing a block, even though I’m not blocked but topic banned. This left me with the impression that my request was not read carefully. [5] As a consequence the Committee referred me back to the community.

    However, the principle behind the provision to request a neutral review of the procedure, if I understand it correctly, is to establish whether some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, and the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad.[6] The details listed below show that no fair discussion took place and that the sanction is excessive.

    Details of the topic ban :

    1. Admin Rosguill, who decided to ban me [7], tells me that they deliberately ignored my rebuttals to the allegations filed against me at ANI.[8]
    2. The ban decision was based mainly on a reading error by Rosguill. I supposedly deflected a request to supply sources, but I did actually answer that request in detail.[9] To stress the extent of the miscommunication: I had already explained this in my rebuttals, the ones Rosguill ignored, see:[10].
    3. When their mistake came to light, Rosguill did not revert their ban decision but quickly came up with another reason to uphold it.[11] However, this new reason is not valid either. Rosguill argues about the right interpretation of a source. Aside from the fact that they're not an expert on the subject, a difference of opinions about subject matter content is not evidence of serious disruptive behavior.
    4. Additional reasons which Rosguill provided to justify the ban turned out to be an old issue and two innocent remarks. See the discussion: [12].

    While I've been trying to adapt after my block in December, it might be helpful if editors and admins who scrutinize my behavior ask me questions and consider my explanations. As the reading error and content dispute demonstrates, the subject matter and the Talk page discussions are more complex than people realize. My aim, still, is to improve the content of Wikipedia articles in the areas I'm knowledgeable about. NB: I have sent this information also in an email. Saflieni (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand Jimbos stance he does not interfere with Admin decisions, he does not act as a final right of appeal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Slatersteven. The policy pages on Banning policy ("Any arbitration decision may be appealed to Jimbo Wales.") and: Appeal of decisions suggest differently. On a sidenote: This Saturday I watched Mr. Wales speaking to the BBC about the difference between Wikipedia and other internet sources where the accuracy of information is concerned. I thought he might want to check if that assumption still holds true, taking the subject behind this case as an example.Saflieni (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok then. May I suggest that Wikipedia removes all apparently redundant information from the policy pages? It creates a false sense of protection against the hostile actions of others. I've even been warned recently to stop complaining about behaviors which are listed as forms of Wiki-bullying but are selectively condoned by admins during Talk page-, ANI-, and Arbcom discussions. I'm not sure what happened to the principles of respect for thoughtful intellectual discourse that Wikipedia represents. I can't say that I'm seeing much evidence of those principles.Saflieni (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that ultimately the Foundation, or Jimbo personally, can and will intervene should it need to. For example, imagine a scenario where a cadre of admins decided to progress the deliberate introduction of bias in violation of either the Use or founding principles and took to blocking editors who tried to fix their desired bias. Theoretically, you can imagine they would act in response to an "appeal" from one of those blocked editors. However, this is just a theoretical example - in practice I can't see it happening. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, if only you had been warned that your behavior was problematic, so that you could adjust course -- too bad that never happened! --JBL (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Starting a post with a condescending "Gosh" and adding random diffs from a lengthy discussion showing arguments not used for my ban is not only tendentious and off-topic, it also illustrates my point very well: People jumping to conclusions before getting all the facts, then doggedly sticking to their initial impressions when they're confronted with counterevidence. User JBL said during the ANI discussion: I sometimes browse ANI for amusement, and sometimes comment if I feel there is a simple, clear point to be made. Likewise, user Rosguill said: I was looking for ANI cases that needed additional input from an uninvolved admin. They're passers-by who don't fully comprehend what is being discussed or in which context remarks should be understood, but they are quick to judge anyway. There were three or four others with similar attitudes in this case, showing their confusion by posting outlandish responses to simple factual explanations, who hound me all over Wikipedia. They're so convinced of their own infallibility that none of them realizes the detrimental effect of their activities to the quality of Wikipedia articles.Saflieni (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now do yourself! --JBL (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Saflieni, FWIW I have the impression that you are making a good case. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me unfair to have Rosguill misrepresented here. Saflieni, not Rosguill, misread the talk-page discussion concerning "What RS say is the topic of [a nonfiction book]." Although Saflieni protests here that he is improperly banned over just a few edits, Rosguill clearly explained, I also reviewed the discussion at that talk page in its entirety, and affirm the assessment of other editors that Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors. (emphasis mine.) Saflieni's topic ban for disruptive editing was the result of a long ANI discussion, where a wide range of problem edits and edit summaries were cited. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Another deceptive red herring accompanied by the usual bad faith accusations. Such accusations require accurate information otherwise they're just personal attacks. Case in point: the Talk page discussion linked by HouseOfChange includes my post which was overlooked by Rosguill. It also includes HouseOfChange's reply to that post which shows that they know it's there and that they're fully aware of the fact that Rosguill overlooked it. HoC's other point is equally misleading. The diff they produce shows that Rosguill changed their mind - from wanting to close the ANI without sanctions to an indefinite topic ban - because of their mistake. Rosguill's other assumptions are testimony to their lack of understanding but unfortunately I can't address that in more detail because the topic ban prohibits it. Saflieni (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Roseguill tried to courteously respond in good faith, point by point to your many points until it became too time consuming. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly. To get an idea of how these discussions work, just take a look at the time stamp of the banning decision. Rosguill decided on the ban at 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC). I posted the counterevidence at 23:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC). Then at 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC), Rosguill quickly came up with the new reason for "pulling the trigger" - that in their opinion I had deliberately misrepresented a source (remember that Rosguill is not familiar with the subject matter). By posting that new reason they acknowledged that their initial justification for the ban was an error. In their "courteous" Talk page responses, Rosguill stuck to the new story, which was actually a new mistake, and presented it as an example of my alleged "failing to cooperate appropriately". So, with all due respect, I don't believe that falsely accusing someone of misconduct to cover up their own mistakes is a great example of responding in good faith. Saflieni (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a recantation by Rosguill in the statement being misrepresented above: Saflieni, Your insistence that the diff you shared in your response to me[13] was an adequate example of evidence in response HoC's question[14] is the reason that I decided to pull the trigger on this. The article cited in the diff does not say that IPOB is a book about double genocide (the claim HoC was asking you to support), but rather alleges that the book has repopularized claims that a double genocide occurred in Rwanda. On its own, this could be taken as a forgivable mistake. Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC, it crosses the line. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[15] (two links to diffs cited by me, but I can't figure out how to link to the Rosguill diff itself in the archived ANI.) HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Saflieni, If your topic ban was lifted, how would you and HouseOfChange be able to work together on the article In Praise of Blood? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't give a detailed answer to that question without violating the topic ban. However, in general I can say that it would take a neutral referee who's able to judge the quality of our argumentation and sources rather than simply counting votes.Saflieni (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you do if the referee ruled against you? Bob K31416 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. As long as the spirit of Wikipedia policies is respected and the result is factually accurate, it's not that difficult to convince me.Saflieni (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed

    Hello Jimbo,

    I want to kindly ask, if you want, to read this too, if you don't mind.

    Thank you for your time. Lukan27 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand Jimbos stance he does not interfere with Admin decisions, he does not act as a final right of appeal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 31 January 2021

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Board of Trustees terms

    Dear Jimbo,

    I am returning this request from the archives because you did not acknowledge it:

    Please fight the disrepute into which the current questionably legitimately constituted Board of Trustees is plunging the Foundation by your continued failure to elect an entirely democratic, fully community-elected Board of Trustees. If the elected Board feels that they must appoint unelected members, certainly you can appoint such to committees or subcommittees. Are you afraid that your own seat would not be safe if subject to the scrutiny of the traditional community election process? Poppycock! 107.242.121.52 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=1004369639"