User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by ClueBot III (talk) to last version by Nyth83
Undid revision 649045243 by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) Bloody hell, how did that happen?
Line 30: Line 30:
|}
|}
__TOC__
__TOC__

==Transfer of a Conversation with Admin Weldneck (very professional and rational), It concerns the abusive atmosphere many IP's Receive Regularly if They Know to Much==
=== ANI I started to have my actions and Admin Chillum's actions scrutinized ===

I started the ANI so others could look at the block I received for starting a SPI. Chillum blocked the IP I submitted the SPI with. I have a cellular IP and it changes frequently, that is how cell towers serve many customers. Chillum specifically said I logged out from an account and was a therefore a sock. What account did I log out from, what evidence was there? Did he start a SPI on me? No he just used a convenient excuse to block me. It was malicious at best. I believe he has a low level of respect for IP's and was not AGF. He has made up lies after that to defend his block. He says I edit warred. That is a lie. Show where I did that? The only thing I have done is turn off my device for 5 Minutes to get a new IP to respond to the ANI I started. Why did I start it? So his actions and my actions would be scrutinized. I could of walked away but I am tired of the abusive atmosphere here towards IP's. I will stand my ground on this one. I started the ANI and I will participate in it and see it out. The hell with the catch 22 when you have been maliciously abused by an admin. [[Special:Contributions/172.56.38.47|172.56.38.47]] ([[User talk:172.56.38.47|talk]]) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

:Hey WeldNeck, I left a post at Jobrots page and I am no longer seeking a SPI. It has plenty of merit but if it is a sock or meat puppet I like Jobrots attitude better than the sock master. It could be a friend or even a sophisticated sock but it is no longer my intention to pursue it. My main concern is the abuse from Chillum and all the lies he has been telling to cover his tracks. He makes up stuff or misrepresents it by twisting the facts. His reason he posted on the account he blocked is that I was editing logged out and a therefore a sock. I have nothing to log into as I will not register due people like Chillum. Besides that it would be ok to log out to start a SPI if they thought they would face retaliation and considering [[User:RGloucester]] is involved that would be likely. It is your call about the SPI but it does not matter to me anymore. There are so many editors with sock accounts and friends battling for them what is a couple of more. [[Special:Contributions/172.56.8.17|172.56.8.17]] ([[User talk:172.56.8.17|talk]]) 19:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:: If you feel the evidence is strong enough to warrant the SPI then go for it, I certainly think there's something to it. Just because everyone does it doesn't mean we should let people get away with it. [[User:WeldNeck|WeldNeck]] ([[User talk:WeldNeck#top|talk]]) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

* I think the abusive atmosphere here by some admins towards IP's does much more damage to the project and I have to pick my battles. I originally started the SPI which was deleted and then Chillum who was deeply involved in the article came along 5 hours after I started it and blocked my account here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A172.56.15.36] Chillum wrote: ''Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism. If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)''

'''What account did I log out from? Having knowledge makes me guilty? Having cellular service that randomly changes IP's is now a crime? Discussing on a talk page about a bias and push in an article is now forbidden? Reinstating my deleted comments 1 time is an edit war? Making false allegations about someone who is an IP is accepted practice?'''

What is troubling is [[User:Chillum]]s amount of lying to cover up after I self reported myself at ANI to get the matter scrutinized. The evidence speaks for itself but so do the reactions. It seems there is little accountability for admins abusing other editors especially the IP editor. There is probably a process to take this higher/further but very few know about it and are willing to go there. The catch 22 of being abused and then being blocked so you cannot make a report without being accused of evading a block is severely flawed as well. I have let enough admins know so at least their is more information about it.

Thank you WeldNeck for looking into the matter of the original SPI. The evidence is strong and I believed it deserved more attention. I would of been ok with the SPI going nowhere after the process which was very short and deleted, why? The clear abuse of someone who started a SPI has become a bigger issue for me. I did not even know about Chillum's block until I went back the next day to look at the SPI. My IP had already changed when I turned on my Cellular device. Chillum has tried to use my changing IP as evidence. That has no merit as cellular networks continually change IP's to allow more people to use the network than they have IP's allocated for. Take your cell phone for example (same type of network) and google "my IP" and then turn it of for awhile or go somewhere and google "my IP" again and it likely changed. The bigger the population of people the more likely it will change faster. I could of said oh well to Chillum's block and went on about my business and no one would of known or cared.

However there are people out there who use an IP that does not regularly change (unless they unplug their modem over night) who have been targeted by an abusive admin and I stood up for the community. It is possible Chillum thought I fell into that category and would be an easy target to abuse. Maybe he acted maliciously due to his involvement in the very controversial [[Cultural Marxism]] AFD. Maybe he has an dislike of IP editors or is paranoid about them. I do not know his reason and it does not matter so I fought against the abuse and false allegation. I forced the issue rather than just walking away which would of been easy. I knew I could fight him at ANI as blocking my IP is pretty much a waste of time unless admins are willing to go nuclear and range block millions of cellular users. That is unlikely to stop someone who has other access and knows how IP's are assigned. I pointed that out to Chillum on his talk page in a smart a$$ way to prevent such a meat head move on his part that would do a lot of collateral damage. I was successful in preventing that.

I have been very determined and sometimes a little to much of a smart a$$ towards Chillum as he has been towards me. Chillum's lying, false allegations and twisting to cover his a$$ did not bring out the best in me at all times. '''However as an Admin Chillum is the face of Wikipedia and he needs to exercise better judgment and that is my reason for not ignoring it.''' [[Special:Contributions/172.56.32.8|172.56.32.8]] ([[User talk:172.56.32.8|talk]]) 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

:'''Thanks Jimbo''' for letting this see the light of day here and for being accesable. Here is a link to the SPI I started that was deleted in three hours and then deleted so no one else could see it. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/RGloucester]] This investigation was started to investigate RGloucester and suspected sock or meat puppet Jobrot. [[Special:Contributions/172.56.21.218|172.56.21.218]] ([[User talk:172.56.21.218|talk]]) 05:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

::How many times are you going to post the same thing on different talk pages? This was already discussed at ANI. [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b>]] 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

* Quoting myself: '''Timbo's Rule No. 12.''' ''Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot.'' '''Rule 13.''' ''Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose.'' — Solution? Register a damned account and use it ''every'' time. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::There was some disruptive editing by this editor prior to the block. But the actual reason given for the block was not a good one - the editor has adequately explained by now that he did not log out of any account to make the SPI. The SPI itself was ill-conceived but apparently based on a sincere suspicion, so certainly not a blockable offence. All in all, [[User:Chillum]] does appear to have made a mistake about what had happened, but it was not an abusive block and IMO there was independent justification for a short block (probably, tbf, against more than one person).
::I've suggested (at ANI) to the complaining editor that he create an account, and thus an easily recognizable identity for his edits, comments on talk pages, etc., and edit cooperatively in the future. He doesn't seem to be amenable to that solution, so I doubt that anything more can be done now, apart from everyone moving on without grudges. As the original block doesn't actually prevent him from editing, no harm is done. If the editor concerned will now simply edit without soapboxing and using battleground tactics, there is no need for any future problem. He does appear to have some relevant subject-matter knowledge, so he just needs to edit neutrally, incrementally, with civility, etc. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] ([[User talk:Metamagician3000|talk]]) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed and resolved at [[WP:ANI]]. It was also hatted here prior. It is only here because this IP keeps putting it back. If you want to discuss this you are welcome on my talk page. [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b>]] 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


== Should Wikipedia have an article about a Wikipedia article? ==
== Should Wikipedia have an article about a Wikipedia article? ==

Revision as of 05:52, 27 February 2015



    (Manual archive list)

    Should Wikipedia have an article about a Wikipedia article?

    Please have a look at this collection of links to sources. http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html When doing so, please notice that there is enough there to create a new Wikipedia article about a notable Wikipedia article. All you'd have to do is summarize these sources into an article about the referent Wikipedia's article about gamergate. In the future, if there is enough published in WP:RSes specifically about specific Wikipedia articles, more articles about much-written-about Wikipedia articles could also be created.

    Thoughts? Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been suggested that I should explain about the above link. If you would, please look at this collection of links by scrolling down just a tiny bit and clicking on the names of sources, here: http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html. The first one is "The Guardian". Each one links to another publisher's article about Wikipedia's gamergate article. That article in itself is apparently notable, and so we could base an article about it from those articles.
    Thoughts? Chrisrus (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it more about the controversy? Wikipedia has articles on several controversial events in its history.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no particular reason to change the usual inclusion standards. There are at least two articles that're essentially about Wikipedia articles, Henryk Batuta hoax and Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. WilyD 08:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What if Wikipedia's article on the Gamergate Controversy is itself covered substantially in reliable sources, say by people complaining about self-reference in Wikipedia? Then we could have a Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia's article on the Gamergate Controversy and so on ad infinatum. In all seriousness, there should be an article provided substantial and credible sources exist. --Jakob (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall a science fiction story about a digital encyclopedia that had indices, then an index to the index (index2) and so on for several iterations. And then they discovered an error ... one thing about Wikipedia, we've abolished the index (thank God, as they were usually unhelpful).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think an index (not to articles but for guidance of Wikipedia editors) would be very helpful. I've raised this point before but it did not get any traction. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia and Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual.
    —Wavelength (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the problems we already have is outlined at WP:NAVEL. I believe that it is well-established (and unfortunate) that anyone who has any sort of run-in with Wikipedia is likely to have a disproportionate section about it in their article. I think this is a bad thing. In terms of the current question, I would say that - yes, of course - it is possible that we could have a wikipedia article about a wikipedia article. But I'd want to scrutinize it very carefully. We do have articles about individual articles in other publications, although only very rarely. I know of one example, here: A Rape on Campus is about a Rolling Stone article that attracted a lot of attention when published, and then subsequently unravelled. UPDATE: I just checked it and WP:NAVEL isn't what I meant. I don't know where the discussion is about the problem of excessive attention being paid to news about ourselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: is there anything more seminal about Wikipedia's article than a dozen other well-known articles that have come out about this teapot tempest? Certainly I think the video by Gurney Halleck would deserve a separate article first, by which I certainly don't mean that one is actually needed. If the article grows to the point where a split is needed, I'm sure there are better organization ideas than giving every source its own little article. Wnt (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another question: Why would people go to Wikipedia to look for an article about an article on Wikipedia? They can just go to the main article and look up the info from the main article, and if there is external info about the main article, these mentions can be added in a section in the main article. Epic Genius (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclosure issue

    Jimmy, could you comment on a situation? If an organization hired a consultant with a proprietary area of practice (one that they sort of have a "name trademark" in doing -- like Google is practically associated with "contextual advertising", or like Apple is practically associated with "portable media player"), to do research that results in a report that finds that the organization is the world's best/biggest/fastest-growing entity in that area of practice, I understand that there's nothing wrong with that. But, what if the organization's employees also create and author a new Wikipedia article about the area of practice, using primarily the consultant's white paper as a reliable source, then promote the research results with a press release that links back to the Wikipedia article about what it is that they're supposedly best/biggest at -- and none of the organization's employees disclose any conflict of interest in their authorship of the Wikipedia article. Is that a violation of the Wikimedia Terms of Use clauses about disclosure? Do you feel that the organization has behaved ethically? Looking forward to your response. - WilmingMa (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Participatory grantmaking, mayhaps? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is certainly a convoluted restating of a discussion going on at Wikipediocracy about WMF's "Participatory Grantmaking" and allegations of a paid self-congratulatory propaganda offensive relating to that. Carrite (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, I find hypothetical questions like this to be unsatisfactory. Please give actual information so that people can evaluate it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Jimmy. I thought that if I put the scenario in hypothetical terms it would enable you to respond sort of generally about what constitute ethical practices for employees at large, rather than be put on the defensive to try to "cover" for your Foundation. There is a story you can find on Google that should summarize the "actual information" that you requested. - WilmingMa (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not be my style. I prefer to speak plainly and directly, and that's much easier to do when we have clear facts. As I only now know what you are referring to, and know nothing about it, I'll have to look into it before I can comment sensibly. I can speak in the abstract, of course, that the ethical principles which I think apply to all organizations in terms of their editing of Wikipedia apply in the extreme to the Wikimedia Foundation itself. It would be impossible for the Foundation to take a leadership role on the issue if they did not adhere to the strongest possible standards themselves, including my "bright line" rule. I can say that before knowing what is even being alleged here, because that is at the level of principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6068 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Gregory Kohs's Examiner.com article is a lot easier to read than a forum thread, but since it can't actually be linked to from here I suppose a "soft redirect" will have to do. The WMF has an unfortunate habit of holding cozy relations with firms it contracts research to, but this is the first time I've seen WMF staffers actually create an article for a firm, and then link to the article from the WMF blog (google "citogenesis" and "wikiality"). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 09:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Giving Jimbo a chance to respond, once he's had time to have a look into it. - 50.144.3.133 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy, do you think you will have anything to say about the provenance of the Participatory grantmaking article? Did Wikimedia Foundation employees act in accordance with Wikimedia terms of use regarding disclosure, and do you think the article holds up to Wikipedia's best practices for notability, sourcing, and NPOV? If you're not going to respond, please say so, such that this section need not keep getting rescued from your page's cleaner bots. - WilmingMa (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm in Bangladesh for the 10th birthday of Bangla Wikipedia. It will be when I get back when I will have time to review.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ethical question aside (which I don't have strong feelings about one way or the other, for what it's worth), I've put Participatory grantmaking up for decision at Articles for Deletion. It strikes me as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image of Journalist Censored in Wikipedia

    Shamin Zakaria is a noted journalist ,Photographer and this can be verified here. This image commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SHAMIM-ARVIND.jpg was taken in Guwahati Airport along with Arvind Kejriwal and IAC volunteers of Assam with the I am Akhil T shirt Akhil Gogoi was a senior leader there. The image is a selfie of a noted journalist uploaded by the subject himself into Wikipedia commons in 2012 however when the image added to an article it became an issue and the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm wanted it deleted as per including this.Ankur J Das is his friend and he watermarked and developed the image. Sabajit Roy 's person contacted Shamin Zakaria on this but Shamin refused to oblige but sadly it was deleted based on banned editors request almost all those who voted where open proxies. This image has never been published anywhere nor has Ankur J Das made no any claim of copyright and is a third party here .Note Ankur J das is a professional Photographer he would surely published this photo the fact he did not and gave to Shamin.In India photo developers do watermark images and watermark does not mean Copyright ownership for a selfie.Is there a policy that anyone who has watermarked a image has to give hios consent through ORTS for an image to be uploaded in wikipedia ? Note IAC have hijacked Citizendium.What do want from Shamin to undelete this image.122.167.249.106 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Off topic stuff
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Humans are animals. Wikipedia's policy is that animals can't have claim to copyright protection. Therefore- copyright claims are moot. Use any photo anytime for anything. Logic. Boom.Camelbinky (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of the similarly confused, this comment is more malingering about this thread above, and not actually germane to the IP's concern. HiDrNick! 15:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a comment by User:Lupo at the Commons deletion discussion that explains what is needed. It says...
    "Just follow the instructions I gave above and make Ankur J Das send a formal release via OTRS, from a verifiable e-mail address. If it's as you claim, it's also fine if he sends in a release saying "no, I didn't take that photo and I do not own the copyright; the photographer and copyright owner is Shamim Zakaria", and then Shamim Zakaria also sends in a formal release via OTRS confirming that (also from a verifiable e-mail address). Although both would have to explain how this image was taken, given that the subject who claims to own the copyright is in the picture. What's so difficult to understand about this? Either we get a valid traceable release via OTRS, or everybody can make unsubstantiated claims here on this page all day long and we'll still delete the image in the end".
    An image does not need to be published anywhere to be copyrighted, and nobody needs to explicitly assert copyright. All creative works are considered copyrighted by default, and what Commons requires is a valid assertion that that copyright has been released in accordance with CC-BY-SA terms or freer. If what is claimed is genuinely the case, then it should be easy enough to get Ankur J Das and Shamim Zakaria to formally confirm it. Commons cannot really accept claims by anyone other than the person who claims the copyright and the person who has watermarked it. Squinge (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a quote in WP:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat#6._Gaming that is brought to mind when situations arise that "If what is claimed is genuinely the case, then it should be easy enough":

    "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell."

    — old lawyers' nostrum, The People, Yes (1936), Carl Sandburg





    In this case, substitute "policy" for "law". JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This actually is related to the monkey issue. Supposing for a moment that person A asks person B to "press the button", with person A being in the shot, when is the copyright held by A and when by B? My guess would be that if person A tells person B to stand "right here", and person B at his direction presses the button at that exact spot, then A might hold the copyright by that "directed the path of the shot" criterion that was brought up in the monkey discussion - just as if he had set a timer. (But then, how much can B monkey with the shot before it's his?) There's probably some actual legal precedent about it, and Wikipedia and/or Commons should set up a page of explanation in preparation for future cases. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ROFL Nyth63 04:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 25 February 2015

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=649048659"