Jump to content

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
Reverted to revision 665349644 by 95.29.74.52 (talk): Looks to be a troll. (TW)
Line 54: Line 54:
::{{Ping|Hell in a Bucket}} Depends, but it can be quite limited. I went through quite a few cases, and workshop is generally only touched by a few arbs, almost always drafting, and broader participation would almsot certainly be a good thing. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Hell in a Bucket}} Depends, but it can be quite limited. I went through quite a few cases, and workshop is generally only touched by a few arbs, almost always drafting, and broader participation would almsot certainly be a good thing. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|NativeForeigner}} For the cases where the evidence doesn't match the case presented, I would hope that ArbCom would feel free to punt it, especially if the case was crated by Arbcom. If I go to a restaurant and order steak, I don't think anybody would reasonably expect me to accept tuna casserole instead and pay for steak just because I ordered steak. It would be perfectly reasonable to reject the tuna casserole after ordering steak. I realize Arbcom split this case out and instead of a specific and a general case, they got two specific cases (one is very weak). AP2 is Tuna Casserole, not steak. It would not be out of line to conclude that the evidence isn't broadly topical behaviors but rather the onesy/twosy complaints normally handled elsewhere and ArbCom should decline it. The problem is that only one case was brought to Arbitration and when it was split by ArbCom, the community followed the case they filed, not the case called AP2 created by ArbCom. I understand what ArbCom was attempting and it would have worked if the community had an AP2 dispute to resolve instead of just editor complaints. None of it will matter as the 2016 election cycle will quickly escalate disputes and, so far, I see nothing proposed that anticipates that issue. I made a couple proposals but they may be too wordy and difficult. I like some sort of "Writing for the enemy" type of broad sanction but enforcement and interpretation would be difficult. It's still not too late to punt it back or make broader AE sanctions instead of specific editor sanctions. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|NativeForeigner}} For the cases where the evidence doesn't match the case presented, I would hope that ArbCom would feel free to punt it, especially if the case was crated by Arbcom. If I go to a restaurant and order steak, I don't think anybody would reasonably expect me to accept tuna casserole instead and pay for steak just because I ordered steak. It would be perfectly reasonable to reject the tuna casserole after ordering steak. I realize Arbcom split this case out and instead of a specific and a general case, they got two specific cases (one is very weak). AP2 is Tuna Casserole, not steak. It would not be out of line to conclude that the evidence isn't broadly topical behaviors but rather the onesy/twosy complaints normally handled elsewhere and ArbCom should decline it. The problem is that only one case was brought to Arbitration and when it was split by ArbCom, the community followed the case they filed, not the case called AP2 created by ArbCom. I understand what ArbCom was attempting and it would have worked if the community had an AP2 dispute to resolve instead of just editor complaints. None of it will matter as the 2016 election cycle will quickly escalate disputes and, so far, I see nothing proposed that anticipates that issue. I made a couple proposals but they may be too wordy and difficult. I like some sort of "Writing for the enemy" type of broad sanction but enforcement and interpretation would be difficult. It's still not too late to punt it back or make broader AE sanctions instead of specific editor sanctions. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

== Shared IPs ==

Jimbo, Jpgordon wants to introduce a new rule that shared IPs should be blocked because some users do not edit Wikipedia and therefore do not read the talkpage. What's your view? [[Special:Contributions/78.145.19.110|78.145.19.110]] ([[User talk:78.145.19.110|talk]]) 17:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
:Where's your evidence? Can I question whether you know what you're talking about? [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 19:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:11, 3 June 2015


    Request to protect Knowledge instead religious obscurantism

    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)[reply]

    • Content of this page - is copy of the deleted article in Russian Wikipedia (terrible crimes of the Russian Orthodox Church against people and science). Material contains a large number of references from different independent sources. You need use bot translator to read this and use, if will be need. Request take some action vs Russian violators from Russian Wikipedia (also is actual). - 95.29.131.6 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • The deal in other. I have no any relation to this article. I said about materials which can be extracted from this article. Russian vandals struggles against super references in other articles. Main vandal (Mouse) blocks any trying write explanation and any edit in other articles, when are used good references. I not ask restore this article. I ask provide possibility use several good references in other related articles. Mouse must be stoped - including (defense of the ROC against Knowledge - his deal). 95.29.74.52 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaaand we have a winner. Godwin's Law invoked, we can all go home now. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @DHeyward: I"m not particularly happy with what we proposed. I would hope it's reasonably proportionate to evidence (we were striving for that), but the evidencep rovided wans't representative of the case request. Part of what delayed the case so long as a feeling among me and an initial codrafter that the evidence wasn't really representative of hte problem this case was established to fix. I would also hope it's somewhat slowed it down. Although I hope this isn't a minority opinion, I"ve never been opposed to changing PDs once posted, although as you've alluded to it's much better to get these things ironed out in the earlier stages. NativeForeigner Talk 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hell in a Bucket: Depends, but it can be quite limited. I went through quite a few cases, and workshop is generally only touched by a few arbs, almost always drafting, and broader participation would almsot certainly be a good thing. NativeForeigner Talk 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @NativeForeigner: For the cases where the evidence doesn't match the case presented, I would hope that ArbCom would feel free to punt it, especially if the case was crated by Arbcom. If I go to a restaurant and order steak, I don't think anybody would reasonably expect me to accept tuna casserole instead and pay for steak just because I ordered steak. It would be perfectly reasonable to reject the tuna casserole after ordering steak. I realize Arbcom split this case out and instead of a specific and a general case, they got two specific cases (one is very weak). AP2 is Tuna Casserole, not steak. It would not be out of line to conclude that the evidence isn't broadly topical behaviors but rather the onesy/twosy complaints normally handled elsewhere and ArbCom should decline it. The problem is that only one case was brought to Arbitration and when it was split by ArbCom, the community followed the case they filed, not the case called AP2 created by ArbCom. I understand what ArbCom was attempting and it would have worked if the community had an AP2 dispute to resolve instead of just editor complaints. None of it will matter as the 2016 election cycle will quickly escalate disputes and, so far, I see nothing proposed that anticipates that issue. I made a couple proposals but they may be too wordy and difficult. I like some sort of "Writing for the enemy" type of broad sanction but enforcement and interpretation would be difficult. It's still not too late to punt it back or make broader AE sanctions instead of specific editor sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=665363934"