User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.


Long block issued without warning[edit]

Yesterday an administrator blocked my regular IP 156.61.250.250 for six months. The block reason on the block notice was "persistent disruptive editing". Normally if an administrator feels there is a problem he will go to the user's talk page, give his thoughts, and allow the user a period to respond before blocking. In this case this did not happen. I feel the administrator's action was outside community guidelines and should be grateful if you would review it. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

a) They don't; and b) He won't. PS: You're now a WP:SOCK. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
See [1]. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change/Archive. Banned user Vote_(X)_for_Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was last discussed at Jimbotalk here: [2]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Add links for 156.61.250.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
See User talk:JoeSperrazza#Cited sources described as "unsourced" comment:

Sadly, the evidence is clear

Sadly, there is no link to any evidence, and Joe's link above is to a blank page. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See also User talk:Peter Damian#I was wrong and I apologize:

Nonetheless, I reiterate my sincere apology for all of my bad actions noted here.

Doesn't look as if Joe's behaviour has improved any. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mm ... the plot thickens. The above IP was blocked by Panyd for posting on Jimbotalk. But according to Jimbo (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 178#Semi-protection) it was a perfectly allowable post. Panyd is the wife of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry whose misuse of the blocking tool made headlines in all the media a month ago. The matter is currently being dealt with by Arbcom in camera. 81.157.95.83 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, in all fairness, looking at the block log I see that all these blocks were imposed by the same administrator. Future Perfect at Sunrise shouldn't have imposed the second block, let alone the third and fourth. The editor was accused by another editor, using a template, of synthesis and original research. I don't think there should be a template available which allows an editor to make such claims without giving reasons. Looking at the edit itself, it was almost word for word what was in the source supplied.
The situation seems to be similar to what arose between DangerousPanda and Barney the barney barney, which led to DangerousPanda's desysopping. Incidentally, if you examine the sock puppet investigation file which Joe links to you will see that virtually all the allegations are made by one editor - the same editor who falsely templated 156.61.250.250. People only "try it on" because they think you are not going to use your review powers. 81.157.95.83 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo is not interested in your problem. He only uses his "special powers" to further his own interests.MOMENTO (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't be too sure of that. If you look at his log of admin actions, not so long ago he unblocked an article talk page. Checking on the talk I found it was the result of a post on this page asking for the block to be lifted. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Future Perfect has no excuse. In a recent sock puppet investigation he blocked the socks but left the master for "someone more uninvolved" to deal with. Repeated blocking without justification, with no prior discussion, culminating in a six - month term, is about the biggest misuse of admin tools it is possible to imagine. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Could I please, for once, be responsible for my own actions? If you're blocked and then evade your block to continue editing (by, say, hopping IP addresses), you are a sock. For some bizarre reason I wasn't aware of a discussion had on this talk page in December 2014 stating that this one talk page, was an exception to this long standing rule.
If somebody had pinged me or messaged me earlier, I would have been more than happy to correct my error (and have done). I've no opinion on the original block. The ring on my finger isn't 'one to rule them all'. I am still a human being with their own agency. Please treat me as such. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You blocked 217.44.56.219 and then complain that he/she didn't contact you quietly to get unblocked. How did you expect him/her to do that? Why couldn't you just quietly unblock and leave a message on his/her talk page saying what you had done? Who is your post addressed to anyway? And since you say there is no socking, what is your motive about coming here and talking about people who sock?
In relation to myself, please do not make me responsible for other people's actions. When I sat down at this computer on Friday the IP was 81.157.95.83. By Sunday it was 86.171.246.74. Today it may be something else again.
I try to AGF, but it seems to me that your intervention is a spoiler for Jimbo when he comes to decide whether to undo what is obviously a very bad block. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I was specifically addressing you, who linked to the discussion on Jimmy's talk page that clarified the issue. It's unfair to expect me to know about a discussion that happened 5 months ago, and it's very unfair to the IP user to not do everything you can to remedy the situation. I don't check Jimmy's talk page daily, so there was no way of knowing I'd made an error before I looked today.
I posted to clarify how I came to perform the action that I did (which may actually help others who also haven't read a 5 month old post to not make the same mistake), but also to please ask other users to not constantly insinuate that my actions somehow reflect on my husband. If I screw up, that's on me. Apparently I screwed up.
I'm not sure what 'spoiler for Jimbo' means. It was a block made in error. So I fixed it. That about sums it up. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Administrators are supposed to be au fait with the policy they administer. You are now saying that I am supposed to be 217.44.56.219's minder. Why don't you do something useful, like examining the circumstances of the original block to see if it was justified? Jc3s5h is now rushing round removing references and changing consensus versions to his own pet versions. To get himself into this position he accused 156.61.250.250 of synthesis and original research. Let's compare his/her edit with the references supplied:

Article: Common Era. Edit date 14:13, 27 May 2015.

Removed "although scholars today generally agree that he miscalculated by a small number of years."

Source [20]:

Now the Cyrillan table would expire in A.D. 531, and Dionysius simply provided it with a new continuation covering the years 532 - 627. In front of this table he placed the last 19 year cycle of Cyrillus which was thus rescued from oblivion. But here Dionysius introduced a change of far - reaching consequences. The last cycle of Cyrillus covered the Anno Diocletiani 228 - 247 (or A.D. 512 - 531) whereas the first cycle of Dionysius referred to the Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 532 - 550.

In his letter to Petronius Dionysius explained that he did not want to use his Easter table to perpetuate the memory of an impious persecutor of the Church, but preferred to count and denote the years from the incarnation of our Lord, in order to make the foundation of our hope better known and the cause of the redemption of man more conspicuous.

Source [21] - deadlink

Source [22]:

The Christian era is reckoned from the birth of Jesus and based upon the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus, who, in preparing Easter tables in A.D. 525, said: "We have chosen to note the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ." The date established was at least four years too late, however, for by this reckoning Herod the Great, under whom Jesus was born, died in 4 B.C.

Article Dionysius Exiguus:

Dionysius is best known as the inventor of the Anno Domini era, which is used to number the years of both the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar. He used it to identify the several Easters in his Easter table, but did not use it to date any historical event.

Added:

A complete Easter cycle consists of 532 years and begins in a leap year. Dionysius was unaware of the 532 - year repeating period, but he was aware of the cycle of 95 years over which the date of Easter will usually repeat, and he understands that it is the clash with the four - year leap year cycle which invalidates it after a long period. He listed Easter dates for the remaining seven years of the current 95 - year cycle and then named the first year of the new cycle as AD 532 instead of 248 of Diocletian and the Martyrs because he wanted to count from the Incarnation.

Source [20] page 54:

It is interesting to notice that Dionysius was honest enough to draw Bishop Petronius' attention to the fact that the new continuation of the Cyrillan 95 year period did not constitute an Easter cycle in the true sense of the word. Like the Cyrillan period it was simply a succession of 19 year periods each of which were cyclic with respect to the epact and the date of NISAN xiv, but unable to bring either the concurrentes dies or the date of Easter Sunday back to their initial values, for the simple reason that the days of the week follow a 7 year period which is not a part of period of 95 years. Thus, without mentioning it, and presumably without intending to do so, Dionysius had pointed to a weakness of his own system from which the Cursus Paschalis of Victor of Aquitaine did not suffer. It is all the more remarkable that he never mentioned the 532 year cycle at all.

Added:

However, he did not know exactly when the incarnation was (nobody knows). This is evident from his comments in Argumentum XV of his Liber de paschate sive cyclus paschalis. He gives the date of the Annunciation as Sunday, 25 March and the interval to birth as 271 days. He gives the birthday as 25 December, but 271 days from 25 March is 20 December. He then says Christ was born on Tuesday, 20 December (this Argumentum may not have been penned by Dionysius personally). The date of Sunday, 25 March implies he considered Christ to have been born in 4 BC, which is the date accepted by the majority of scholars.

Source [24]:

And right from then on until the birth of the Lord and Saviour, the day becomes shorter than the night. From March 25 and until December 25, the days number 271. And that number of days after our Lord Jesus Christ was conceived on Sunday March 25, our Lord Christ was born on Tuesday December 20 ...

And that number of days after his birth took place on a Tuesday, he suffered death on a Friday: he was born on December 25 and suffered death on March 25 ...

However, the days of the week are inconsistent with the numbering of years since the incarnation: the year numbers closest to 0 yielding a Sunday for March 25 are Julian date (-0003, March, 25) and Julian date (0003, March, 25) as can be seen easily from the table above and also from [Argumentum 4]. (We use the astronomical numbering of years .., -0001, 000, +0001, .. for which the formula of [Argumentum 4] is always valid).

If you want to be fair to the IP user you can lift the block yourself. You have second mover advantage. 86.171.246.74 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly counsel against doing anything for second mover advantage. If an admin action is correct you should be able to convince your peers that it is correct. Using admin access to perform actions known or suspected to be contentious could be grounds to lose that access. Jehochman Talk 17:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Having read the evidence, what makes you think the unblock would be contentious? 86.145.50.7 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Silence. The following header just about sums it up:

"This Kinda reminds me of 1984..."

Quoting from Jehochman's RfA:

I tracked down the unblocking admin, User:Eagle 101, on IRC and he patiently explained that blocking users isn't our goal and that it's much more satisfying to help them adjust. The user has turned into a productive editor. Getting angry with people doesn't help much. I've learned the importance of trying to be constructive and find common ground whenever possible. Even when requesting a siteban for a long term disruptive editor, I tried to be polite to them and explain what they would need to do to get themselves unbanned. Blocking and banning aren't as good as convincing an editor to follow site standards ... Our goal is never to block somebody. No, we want them to stick around and make valuable contributions.

86.163.126.17 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I more or less missed all the drama but since a comment I made a while back has come into play here, I just wanted to weigh in and say that while I do request that we be more tolerant than normal on this page, particularly when people are bringing complaints to me, I also request that trolls not be given an infinite soapbox for harassment of me or others. This means judgment calls will have to be made sometimes, and I think there's no reason to have any drama about them. If you think a block was premature for this page, then revert it. If you think someone really really needs a block, then block them. That's all. No need for good people to get too worried about any of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This Kinda reminds me of 1984...[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=next&oldid=26709690

Sanger became an unperson due to thoughtcrime!--216.186.248.166 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your point about this 2005 edit would be far more persuasive except for the fact, inconvenient for you, that Larry Sanger is mentioned at least seven times in that version of the article. This kinda reminds me of a cheap shot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The funny thing about this diff, of course, is that it is a clear violation of the so-called Bright Line Rule... Not a big rip, but it makes me smile... Carrite (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
What makes me not smile is that you just faulted Jimbo for failing to jump in his time machine, go back to 2005, and tell himself to follow a rule that he wrote in 2012. See User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not faulting him for not following a then non-existent non-rule that is still a non-existent non-rule. Indeed, I'm smiling because when push came to shove he acted exactly like tens of thousands of other BLP subjects have acted, act, and will act in the same situation. Ya read your own page and fix what is wrong or what you disagree with... It is human nature. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It was also allowed and perfectly normal. Look at our 2005 COI policy. and the page that really addressed editing your own BLP (Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations) wasn't written until 2009, and those early versions allowed you to edit your own BLP[3] You can't blame people for not following rules before the rules exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
To repeat: there still is no rule. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyway the link refers to the Wikimedia Foundation not WP (which was two years previously). Yo! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone needs to read that book again. Gamaliel (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to protect Knowledge instead religious obscurantism[edit]

Hello Jimbo! I know that English Wikipedia has a little relation to other Wikipedias (responsibility), but I ask your help (other method stop anarchy from the side of Russians administrators does not exist in the nature). They block users under any stupid reason (to be free of punishment for violations against rules of Wikipedia). Several of them. Main violator:User talk:OneLittleMouse. He protects any article which is related to the Russian Orthodox Church (when info - terrible murders of this church hundreds years ago). They burned live people like the Catholic chuch if not more. I ask stop Russian vandals with flag of administrator. This can be separate case (when you defend something in other jurisdiction). Best option - block Onelittlemouse forever (in any Wikipedia). He has no any relation to Knowledge (only block people on illegal grounds). He far (he brave only by this reason). Removal of whole sections related to crimes of the Orthodox church - also action of Onelittlemouse. Criminal Christianity governs in Russian Wikipedia instead Knowledge. Last vandalism was several minutes ago (warning for Mouse). Without help of English Wikipedia - nothing will be changed. Thank you! https://translate.google.ru/ 95.29.92.118 (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to weigh in on the Workshop page where Arbitrators and the community hash out issues[edit]

Oh wait. Arbcom skipped that part and went straight to the Star Chamber after being requested to comment on the workshop a month ago. I've never seen that. Do we need a recall for a body that is supposed to represent the collegial atmosphere of community consensus? Maybe a Godhead needs to step up and reiterate why we are here. Arbcom serves the community/encyclopedia, not the other way around. --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: As a drafting arbitrator, that was generally poor. The workshop is often ill utilized or not utilized. It should have been more heavily utilized. I have only done my best to yield the best outcome of this particular case. My ears are open to your concerns, I'm willing to make changes on them. I am bothered by the fact you have felt the need to talk to Jimbo about our lack of reflecting of community consensus, especially given the concern/weight I've already given community comments that came after the PD posting. The community itself didn't well utilize the workshop in this particular case, and I'm very willing to modify the PD based upon community concerns. So imperfect? Yes. A star chamber? Far from it. I've welcomed comments on the talk page, I've read your comments, and I am considering them. I've reviewed several cases, and in another recent case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others/Workshop there isn't much workshop usage either (from arbitrators). From the community however, input was extensive. Compare this to ampol 2, where there was only one thing put forth by the community, and I can see why this seems to be out of the blue. But given we are where we are (and I remind all individuals they are welcome to make workshop additions), we can take input at this stage. NativeForeigner Talk 08:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like I'd be amenable to moving the PD as it stands to take comments in a format similar to the Workshop phase. Also thank you for your comments on the talk of the PD. NativeForeigner Talk 08:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:NativeForeigner what is a typical amount of participation by the committee during the workshop? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@NativeForeigner:My concern has been that we've asked for ArbCom's mind on the topic for a month. There's been no complaints about MONGO either before or after and then out of the blue, within a day, we have a broadly construed topic ban as the first sanction with half the passing committee voting for it. I requested ArbCom at least post something to the Workshop a month ago. The speed from PD posting to voting was very quick and I apologize if this seems heavy handed by me, but you can imagine how discouraging it is to have over a month delay and then suddenly within one day, half the committee has proposed and voted for a topic ban on one of the most prolific editors. MONGO isn't Eric or even Ubikwit. I posted his edit counts on the PD talk page. People that are interested in his edits generally don't have lingering disputes because he moves on. This is why that even those with evidence have already moved on. It seems the process suddenly jumped to lightspeed with solutions not supporting a resolution of a problem. I came here because it is watched and the process looked like it was spiraling out of control with very broad implications on political articles and very little community input. This, I hope, has led to a more deliberative process and slowed the rush to topic ban a 10 year editor with nary a block since 2008. My proposal is for ArbCom to focus on crafting better DS for AE as that appears to be where ArbCom wants these issues resolved (and is part of the PD) and not feel the need to sanction an editor to make those changes or a point. --DHeyward (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)