User talk:Jimbo Wales

[ATJ] Misbehaving sysop "Pablo Escobar", piracy, and permanent ban at the EO Wiktionary

Hello

My name is Taylor and I have been active at various wikies (EN,EO,ID,SV) for 2 years. Unfortunately I have run into severe trouble on EO Wiktionary. I am currently permanently (formally 3 months) banned there for the 3rd time.

The state if the EO Wiktionary is fairly bad (example of a Wiktionary in a good state: SV). The worse thing is the excessive piracy there. The administrator Pablo is obsessed by "improving the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by mass-copying everything from everywhere (other Wiktionaries (preferably DE), Wikipedia, over 100 years old low quality dictionaries, other (non-GFDL) sources, ...). Maybe copying from DE Wiktionary is not a "real" crime, it is just desperately useless. Pablo has already copied 10'000's of pages and templates from there. For example the section about the SV word "mus" (EN: mouse) as left behind by Pablo "improving the quality" was full of explanations in DE and translations to DE. I have fixed that page. I have fixed 100's of other pages with similar problems. Another fine page recently "contributed" by Pablo (efter having banned me) Kaiser - note the red template and category links, the "nekonata" whining and the script errors, as well as the dominance of DE and lack of EO. I have also fixed 100's of pages copied from some old SV<->EO dictionary, by correcting the provided translation, adding further translations, or labeling the word as "archaic". There used to be 7 templates for same thing: plural form of EN noun. One of them is copied from EN Wiktionary, others are copied from DE Wiktionary and renamed several times by Pablo. Many of them worked badly due to Pablo's lack of skills and "puristic" changes (replacing traditional grammar terminology like "pluralo" by "genuine" EO words constructed by literally translating ridiculously long compound words from DE) resulting in broken templates showing things like {{{2}}}. I created a new well-working template even suitable for "though" words like "virus" of "die". My work switching to the new template and deprecating the broken ones was violently interrupted by the ban. I have also created several (not insanely many) EO pages with definitions and examples. EO Wiktionary is far away from having satisfactory pages about even the most elementary EO words. Pablo doesn't care at all about definitions (the hardest part). Many pages about EO words "contributed" by em consist of nothing but the translation block, brainlessly copied from DE Wiktionary without changes, frequently even containing EO as destination language (the translation of the EO word "kato" into EO is "kato"). But the "best contributor" Pablo copies (frequently particularly lousily) from other (non-GFDL) sources as well. The problem got pointed some time ago by one former user (who had left EO Wiktionary). Pablo deleted the 3 pointed pages (I re-created 2 of them without piracy soon after) and ey promised to delete all other pirated pages that ey would find. Ey gave a f**k about even searching. Later I pointed 2 further pirated pages. Pablo ignored the message. There are 1000's of more of less directly pirated pages there.

There are currently 3 active "contributors" at the EO Wiktionary. Me, permanently banned and unable to edit anything except my discussion page full of unproductive bickering with Pablo and appeals than nobody reads. Then Noelekim contributing valuable edits to an EN->EO list-type dictionary. Pablo has even created a few EN pages, (lousily) copying from this dictionary. This contributor doesn't edit any other pages and doesn't participate in discussions and bickering (maybe ey just fears a ban). The last and actually pretty exclusive "contributor" is Pablo "working" hard in order to turn the former EO Wiktionary into another (piracy-powered) DE Wiktionary.

Pablo doesn't appreciate my contributions at all. I have been accused many times for "notoriously destroying other people's work". According to Pablo brainless mass-copying is valuable "work", while fixing such mess by me is "destroying other people's work". I was also working to create a few smarter templates allowing to replace hundreds of primitive mass-created or mass copied-in templates. This was not appreciated either, the work is not finished and I can't continue. There are frequently absurdly many (3 or even 5 or even more) templates for very same thing, just abbreviated and spelled differently ("ark", "Ark", "ark.", "Arkit", "ARK", ...). There are redundant templates copied from other Wiktionaries, spelled in DE, ES, IT and more. Pablo is continuing to "really improve the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by adding further redundant templates. I got also accused for "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". I had admittedly edited many templates, but none of my edits had the effect according to the accusations. More likely Pablo is angry about the fact that I have skills for editing templates and modules while ey does not have such skills, and solved eir problem with undesirable competition by banning me. But it comes even worse. Some time ago (year 2014) Pablo emself performed a (primitive) edit on a template (EO verb declension table) with effect according to accusations: "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". Ey even boasted with this edit in the news (year 2017, pretty late news) on the title page (that nobody else can edit). Apparently Pablo has the right to "spread evil neologisms to all pages via templates" while I don't have such a right, because Pablo is the emperor while I am just nothing. Note that I actually have NOT spread any neologisms to all pages via templates. The previous ban was "justified" by among Other Nonsense Complaints About Me Refusing To Use Uppercase Letters. This seems to be a "rule" imported by the DE nationalist Pablo from the DE Wiktionary. I refuse to follow DE rules (Obligation To Begin Every Word With An Uppercase Letter) at the EO Wiktionary.

I have got banned 3 times. The "justifications" given by Pablo are very long but incomprehensible even for people proficient in EO, and accusing me for including but not limited to "acting like a dictator" (Pablo emself either doesn't act like a dictator, or maybe ey does have the right to act like a dictator while I don't), "using lowercase letters" (see above), "notoriously destroying other people's work" (see above), "repeatedly submitting nonsense" (apparently Pablo's own nonsense (this is DE again, not EO) either doesn't count as nonsense, or maybe Pablo has an absolute right to submit unlimited amount of (pirated) nonsense, while I don't have a comparable right), or "spreading evil neologisms to all pages" (see above).

After having banned me the last time, Pablo published a news item about me containing not only false accusations about "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates", but also evil sexist insults using male words despite I am not male. I cannot answer to the post denying the shameful nonsense because I am banned.

Pablo got crowned to permanent administrator in year 2010 by just 3 YES votes from totally 3 votes. Those 3 people left the project long ago, Pablo remained and became the permanent absolute emperor at the EO Wiktionary. The last successful election to an administrator was held 2017-Jan, Castelobranco got 4 YES votes from totally 4 votes. The steward restricted Castelobranco's adminship to 1 year pointing to the low amount of votes of 4, while Pablo with 3 votes previously got permanent adminship. Castelobranco left the project 4 months later, eir adminship expired silently 2018-Jan, and Pablo alone is now the absolute emperor for all eternity.

Pablo gives notoriously a f**k about community consensus. About 1/2 year ago I initiated 2 ballots:

• "Should DE play a privileged role here at the EO Wiktionary?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes
• "Should non-EO words have a translation block?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes

Great! But Pablo gives a f**k about it and continues copying complete pages from DE Wiktionary, together with all "needed" templates with DE names. This method apparently "saves work" for Pablo. The SV Wiktionary does not have a single DE template, and non-SV words don't have any translation block (and not images either). Pablo's aggressive DE nationalism is taking over the EO Wiktionary and nobody (except me) dares to protest.

I have repeatedly suggested for Pablo to go back to the DE Wiktionary where ey apparently came from. No result.

There are further problems with Pablo's conduct. In the recycle bin there are almost 1'000 candidates for deletion accumulated during many years. Pablo gives a f**k about deleting them. Ey doesn't archive the discussion page (90% of content is globally distributed spam in EN) either.

On the title page of the EO Wiktionary (that nobody except Pablo can edit) we can read that the EO Wiktionary is supposed to become "the greatest and most complete" dictionary ever. Just now this "greatest and most complete" project ever has the most incapable and arrogant administrator ever, filling the dictionary by (lousily) pirating from over 100 years old low quality dictionaries and other dubious sources (DE Wiktionary), and banning everybody attempting to contribute in a different manner. Pablo has repeatedly boasted with things like "I have been tolerating your" ... (followed by absurd accusations) ... "but now my patience is exhausted". Pablo behaves like the exclusive owner of the EO Wiktionary and a dictator.

There is no reason at all why Pablo should be an administrator. Neither the election 8 years ago (electors went away long ago, and on many wikies all admins have to be reconfirmed evey year), nor merits (the amount of edits is tremendous, but it's >= 99% piracy, Pablo is a manually operating pirating bot), nor the skills (Pablo can barely code templates, and not att all code modules), and last but not least nor the conduct.

On the EO Wiktionary there is a page Administrantoj with section Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj (abuse of the admin rights) saying:

Al administranto povas esti liaj rajto deprenita, se tiu la rajtoj misuzas. Nuntempe povas la admnistrant-statuso esti deprenita aŭ per decido de Jimbo Wales, aŭ pere de decido de Arbitracia komisiono. Laŭ ilia decido oni povas doni malpli altajn punojn, ekz. limigo de uzado de iuj funkcioj. Teĥnike povas la administrantajn rajtoj depreni stevardoj.

An administrator can be deprived of eir rights if ey abuses those rights. Currently the admin-status can be canceled by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee. According to their decisions lower punishments can be ruled, for example restricting the usage of some functions. Technically the stewards are responsible for removing administrator rights.

The "Arbitration Committee" is a red link. There doesn't seem to exist any Arbitration Committee on the EO Wiktionary, and the promised "Global Arbitration Committee" doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I tried to appeal via my user page but the template {{unblock}} doesn't work there, Pablo gives a f**k about my appeals and no other admin exists. Then I appealed to the Arbitration Committee on the EN Wikipedia. The result was a rejection by only 8 NO-votes from 8 total votes sending me to "Requests for comment". Nobody seems to read that page, the only one comment posted there sends me to you. During a pause between 2 bans I seized the occasion and posted a proposal to desysop Pablo. Not a single comment or vote came it.

It is extremely easy to create a new account and continue editing from it, or just edit as an IP-address. Unfortunately I would prefer to leave Pablo alone with bad behaviour and avoid coming near to sockpuppetry. Nor I am willing to wait until 2019-Feb-13 when the ban is expected to expire, allowing me to perform a few edits before I get banned again, maybe for 2 years, maybe genuinely permanently.

The EO Wiktionary has been hijacked by a severely misbehaving administrator. There is no local community able to deal with this. There is no exclusive private right for Pablo to own a public wiki. 2 "instances" have sent me to you with the issue. Please desysop Pablo. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to 10 separate examples of copyrighted material that is reproduced on the Esperanto Wiktionary? I would like to see links to the Wiktionary page and links to the copyrighted pages the material came from. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Jimbo Wales: YES we can. Do you need 10 pages? Here you have 4 (this is NOT all):

• junto (created 2014-Jul-12 by "Pablo Escobar", nominated for deletion 2018-Oct-18 by "Tayor 49", not yet deleted) pirated from vortaro.net/#junto
• loka%C5%ADti pirated from vortaro.net/#loka%C5%ADto
• kazo pirated from vortaro.net/#kazo
• komparacio pirated from vortaro.net/#komparacio

BTW: some IP-dumbhead succeeded to create a "well working" template "unblock" in the meantime. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) fixed Taylor 49 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The first three led me to a box that supposed I should fill out -- but I don't understand the language. The last one claims that https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/komparacio was pirated from https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/komparacio.

Let's try again. Give me a single example where I can read both pages and verify that the text is the same or nearly the same, and where the source does not have a Creative Commons or public domain license that allows re-use. I plan on using Google Translate to figure out what the pages say, and may ask for a translation of the Goggle translate software doesn't give me the same general meaning for both pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I fixed my stupid C&P-error above. Is it the left links or right links that do not work for you? The right links "vortaro.net" do work for me and there is no box that one is supposed to fill in. If they don't work for you then we have a phenomenon called Geo-blocking. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Page eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/junto was pirated from vortaro.net/#junto (screenshot of "vortaro.net": s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/3227363piracy.png). Hopefully you are not geoblocked from seeing the screenshot too. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, after a minor intervention by AFBorchert, some pseudo-progress occurred in the matter. Pablo answered to my appeal (result: still permanently banned) and deleted the two pages junto and loka%C5%ADti with empty comment. Note that something like "Deleting page previously pirated by me, Pablo Escobar, from PIV ie vortaro.net, and sorry for the piracy." would have been more suitable than silence. There are more piracies available: ricevi pirated from vortaro.net/#ricevi. Is it now my task or Pablo's task to find and delete all the piracies from there? I still don't see any reason why Pablo should be sysop there or anywhere on any public Wiki. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A steward deleted 3 files from EO Wiktionary. Probably not a symptom of a well-funtioning local sysop. Can someone look into the core problem (someone who "accidentally" became sysop 8 years ago owns a public wiki)? Taylor 49 (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: These deletions were done on request on Meta. It is common practice to ask stewards to delete your own Javascript/CSS configurations on various projects to enable your global settings (see meta:Synchbot). This is in no way related to the adminship of Pablo Escobar. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert and Jimbo Wales: Maybe. There is still a problem with Pablo exclusively "owning" the EO Wiktionary, the unjustified ban that cannot be appealed against, and the piracy. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Prescient comments

I was going through dusty old files and found this. Thought it might give you a chuckle. Or a shudder of recognition. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Just to let you know....

...that whenever I see a racist comment on any page, I plan to remove it, and I will likely block the contributor. Please let me know if you have any problems with this. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds completely appropriate to me. Be sure to carefully follow policy and of course don't over-interpret remarks. But yes, racist commentary has no place in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [32] just wrecked my head. I hate this kind of garbage, deeply. I thought about this post a bit while at work today, and I should add a disclaimer that I wouldn't remove material that is "contextual," within an article. For example, a (very stupid) politician who has made some kind of racist remark that was noteworthy, or you know, historical comments, that are part of the knowledge base in WP. But if it's just random bigotry that I happen to find here and there, well....none of us should suffer such fools gladly. Or at all. Thanks for the "nod." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. Sometimes articles need to cover racism and racist attitudes. Of course we'll need to have examples in at least some such cases. I understood your meaning the first time around. But yeah, that comments - the one you linked to, above - is clearly out of line and not ok for Wikipedia at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)"

I hope we are still standing strong against this - and a lot more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a big deal to a lot of people. I'll use this space to wish you the best in the coming year... WP is still one of the best presents I've ever gotten. Can you guess how many times I've cracked a Britannica in the past 15 years!? Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Some racial issues are difficult to explain: There seems to be confusion about racial issues, with some users being suspicious about hidden racial terms. For example, in the U.S., many people think the term "slave" automatically means "African black slave" because more than 10 million negro slaves were shipped from Africa into the Caribbean or South America during colonial times, while over 90% of U.S. antebellum slaves were born in the U.S. plus thousands were Native American slaves (not black) as in the New Mexico Territory, slaves termed "Genízaros" (see: [1]). Hence, talking about slaves can seem a suspicious reference to black/white racial issues, and people will hunt for hidden meanings behind every phrase. Meanwhile, WP has been overrun by users trying to equate the Confederacy with slavery, rather than check the sources which note how Southerners were freeing slaves up through the War and some States wanted the Confederacy to become a slave-only nation; however, the moderate legislators from Alabama and others decided not to banish free states as expelling states from the Confederacy if they emancipated slaves within a state ([2] p.105). After checking the facts, the Confederacy emerges as a moderate nation which limited the powers of their central government, limited federal spending on lighthouses or maritime navigation, forbid protectionist tariffs of import bounties (see: Morrill Tariff), and tried to deter federal pork barrel projects while allowing states to free slaves.

  Unfortunately, when trying to update WP pages about the phase-out of antebellum slavery, there is the risk of people seeing all issues as black/white tensions and screaming "racism". Such screaming has stunted WP's coverage of the American Civil War and the immense accomplishments of black people in building towns and bridges or elaborate mansions (Arlington House, Nottoway Plantation, etc.). Just mention blacks working with whites to build massive buildings or towns operating with numerous slaves running the daily activities ([3]), and beware the bickering.... For example, the first black soldiers in the Civil War were armed Confederate troops (thousands re Battle of First Manassas, see: [4]), while the Union had almost no black soldiers until March 1863, two years later, with the late introduction of the U.S. Colored Troops (USCT). There are many fascinating sources about teaching black craftsmen, better conditions after the French Code Noir (1685), and 1840-1865 attempts to repatriate slaves to Africa as in the American Colonization Society, etc. WP needs to stop all the racial witchhunts, add the facts about what black people actually have accomplished (even in the Cotton States), and try to discuss racial fears in a civil manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2018, +sources & link "Genízaros". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Also as segregated North vs elitist South: Without calling any officials "racist" then perhaps WP can note how the U.S. Congress banned black employees in 1810 from U.S. Postal Service (see: [5]), or how Confederate President Jefferson Davis advised army re black Confederate soldiers but also fostered black child "Jim Limber" over a year in his home before end of Civil War. I have found a source stating how Southern slaves were treated as children (who never grew up), but it seems they could be semi-family members who "kept in their place". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to hear every side. Racial harassment is a real problem, as is any form of harassment, but editors who merely have racist beliefs should be debated fairly. Classic racist "evidence" like The Bell Curve badly needs to be put into context not merely of broader socioeconomic factors but in terms of child development, epigenetics and other ways in which a people may have to fight off lingering impacts of inequality for more than one generation. In recent news, one of the more amusing things coming out is that traditional racism, based on human genetics, may have neglected to notice that we are not humans, but ecosystems. Gut microbiota, affecting secretion of oxytocin in the brain, can determine whether an animal is autistic or not, [6] and these microbiota vary fairly consistently between the self-identified racial groups that have so little human genetic meaning. [7] Do the things we eat, the particular plants which have domesticated bacteria and mammals to serve their self-propagation, affect our character in subtler ways than autism? Perhaps people will be banned from the talk pages for inordinate hatred or pride regarding Lactobacillus reuteri heritage. Wnt (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting points about diseases which affect racial views. Also, I had suspected racial bias in one source, but kept reading to learn about Confederate President Jefferson Davis fostering a black child in 1864-65 (mulatto boy Jim Limber as his ward). People who self-righteously condemn others for "racism" are likely to be using reverse racism as thinking they are members of a master race of people who are not "racist" when judging other people as if lower than themselves. The irony can seem quite comical, but it is also sad to see such people with racial hangups and wonder why they harbor such hatred about racial issues that they want to silence everyone else without really listening. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Russians against for Net Neutrality

As if the issue wasn't complicated enough, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai conceded that 500,000 fake comments urging the death of the popular system came from Russian emails. and this Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The above is one reason why we should ban Huffington Post the same way we banned The Daily Mail.

Huffington post: "Millions Of Fake Messages Opposing Net Neutrality".[8]

Engadget: "Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has admitted that around 500,000 comments submitted during the net neutrality public comment period were linked to Russian email addresses. Pai noted in a court filing that most of the comments were in favor of net neutrality, which the FCC repealed last December".[9]

Actual words of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai: "...Instead, one finds the now-standard overheated rhetoric about “net neutrality” (omitting, as usual, the fact that the half-million comments submitted from Russian e-mail addresses and the nearly eight million comments filed by e-mail addresses from e-mail domains associated with FakeMailGenerator.com supported her position on the issue!)."[10] (He is referring to Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a supporter of net Neutrality).

Brian Hart, an FCC spokesman: "The most suspicious activity has been by those supporting internet regulation"[11]

(Emphasis added). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd want a reliable source for this, obviously, i.e. one not associated in any way with Ajit Pai. Guy (Help!) 06:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The Huffington Post should be deprecated as a source, but outright bans are unhelpful as they look spiteful and inconsistent, "Why did you ban A but not B?"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. Thanks for correcting so quickly! Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I may be overreacting but right now, because of this reported intrusion and statistical effect of bots, I am wondering whether we can trust any type of polling or ratings or 1-5 star ratings which come through the internet??? You guys would know better than me, but have biased bots already taken control over, or at least are influencing, most such statistical representations of population preferences which originate or accumulate via computer programs? Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Polling doesn't work until there is secure authentication of identity. At the moment, this prerequisite service does not exist for the general population. Jehochman ^Talk 17:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Valid statistical analysis requires tests of sampling: Many polls or surveys depend on random samples of the population, just as a computer simulation with a stochastic model would require concurrent runs with tests for randomness of the initial input data. Likewise, some longitudinal studies might try to mimic randomness by specifically selecting test subjects within representative age groups to be re-tested at the designated time points along the duration of the long-term studies. Hopefully, WP can explain such issues, adequately, under "Design and analysis of experiments". (And yes, I did insert as many related wikilinks as I could remember.). -Wikid77 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)