User talk:Sj/8

Active discussions

Why Did You Support Granting Private Information of Editors to Anonymous Administrators?Edit

Dear Mr. Klein,

I am dismayed that you and the rest of the board of trustees approved an "Access to No-Public Information" policy that allows totally anonymous administrators on the English and all the other Wikipedias to see the IPs and other potentially personally-identifying information (browser version, settings) of volunteer editors. Even though not usually immediately identifying in itself, this information can obviously be used as a stepladder to identifying through tools like Geolocate and TraceIP, as well as supporting indicators in websearching other clues from the editor's edit history.

Would you please inform me the factors that led to your support of the non-identification revision to the policy? Why would you have done this?

For your reference ( "[t]his policy has been replaced by a new Access to non public information policy, which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25 April 2014."

I don't deny that Wikipedia's administrative participants in some cases do constructive work, in policing clear vandalism for example, or reporting to the WMF the rare cases of threats of violence. But access to personally-identifying information is not needed for that. If there are cases where volunteer administrative participants do somehow need that information, it should be entrusted to identified individuals, not anonymous usernames like "Wizardman" and "Beeblebrox" and "Dord" and so forth. Authorizing checkuser and the other tools to anonymous participants is going to attract, and has attracted, exactly the wrong kind of individuals. It's emboldening, frankly, creepers and cyberbullies. And those who participate in Wikipedia as if it were an online computer roleplaying game, without regard to the fact that those they choose to sniff and snoop (and pursue) are actually people as opposed to a computer game's NPCs (non-player characters).

Have you ever been snooped and sniffed, cyberbullied, websearched, by some creep online? I have, and it's not nice. I think if you'd been treated that way, and really understood the reality of the cyberbully culture, that you'd stand up now and reverse your support of the WMF's granting of these invasive privacy-violating tools to wholly anonymous and thus unaccountable administrative participants. Is that what it's going to take for you to change your mind? Somebody has to do it to you?

Please respond as to why you supported granting access to IP-invasive and potentially personally-identifying tools like checkuser to anonymous administrative participants. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked you in a section above ([1]) and see that you have since responded to another, but not me. Would you mind replying to my question about why you as a trustee in the board meeting earlier this year supported modifying the Access to Non-Public Information policy to grant privacy-invasive IP and other information about editors to completely anonymous administrators? Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC) PS: I saw you in a picture from Wikimania, hope you had a good time. I would also be interested to know your impression about how David Slater's black macaque photo was used there.
This topic has been covered in depth on the discussion on the policy's talk page and rfc. I contributed to discussion there and don't have anything new to add here. SJ talk  20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have made a good faith effort reviewing various discussion pages involved, but I can't find anything from you except a bit in January where you thanked Luis Garcia for development of the amended policy, and then a few months later in what are referred to as minutes where you called for a vote by the board on it. Would you mind giving me a link to your substantive opinions on the policy change, or perhaps telling me something that could help me hunt down whatever your positions were on this important matter? Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Sj, pinging you here for an answer from the Board in relation to Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Images. Two months have now passed and the question has gone unanswered. It's a tough question to answer, I know, given that the Board went out of its way to pass the Pricasso Resolution. The Board's silence on the issue of the right to be forgotten images is even worse given that Jimmy himself stated:

Morally, we should treat this as a complaint about our content that Google passed along to us to deal with. There will be more notices from Google and some of them will be worth fighting. This is not one. This is just a pointless image.

And this ties into the Pricasso Resolution directly, where the Board has stated:

Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest


Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same.

Is it yours, and the Board's, belief that the person in question was treated with patience, kindness and respect, when the WMF made the decision to dump his name into the public domain, knowing full well that the media would jump upon the information and disseminate it more widely. This is ever so important given that WMF Legal have stated that the WMF will be exploring more legal options to fight what they say is a crude implementation.

I don't know about others, but it is my opinion that on the issue as it relates to this individual, that the WMF is ethically bankrupt, and has acted in a most morally reprehensible way. Will the Board answer this criticism, or will it, and you, continue to bury your heads in the sand? Russavia (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that you are concerned about kindness and respect. I replied on the noticeboard. SJ talk  02:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Immediate Action NeededEdit

"While some paedophiles abuse children, not all do" [2] That is not an acceptable comment at all. If you need an explanation, email me. I am absolutely sickened that someone thinks that writing such a thing could ever be acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ottava doesn't know what he's talking about. "Immediate action" isn't needed here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Him reverting a statement when told not to does not make his statements non-advocacy that is strictly prohibited by the ToS. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone wanting background to my factual statement should read the sourced Wikipedia article on w:en:Paedophilia. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 17:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If making a statement of obvious truth, based in ordinary language, not gratuitously controversial or disruptive is a bannable offense, the entire WMF family of wikis would be a lost cause. Ottava is obsessed about this issue, and has long accused people of sickening him, when what Thryduulf wrote was just obvious (and he was mostly supporting the comment of another user). It is possible that many or most pedophiles don't abuse children. We don't know. However, definitely, some do not. The WMF may decide to ban any acknowledged pedophile, but Thryduulf actually pointed to a conflict between that and non-discrimination policy, as "pedophilia" is a psychiatric (medical) diagnosis, and if a different meaning for the word is being used, it should be defined, then. The conflict could disappear if it were clear that only users who are a risk to children in some way were to be banned. Some might claim that any "pedophile" is a risk, and that might be decided. However, what Ottava is doing is arguing that any contrary opinion on this is "pedophile adovcacy," but in debates in this subject, a very substantial percentage of WMF users support a less draconian response. So are all of these, say opposing some draft of CP policy that Ottava wants, going to be reported for "pedophilia advocacy"? Is there going to be a witch hunt, going over all Wikipedia activity of such editors, and searching for RL identity so it can be determined if they have ever "advocated pedophilia"? Is arguing for civil liberties, i.e., say, lowering the age of consent to 16, "advocating pedophilia"?
What most of the wikis have realized is that this topic inflames passions for some people, and I've seen communities torn apart by this. So it is avoided, immediately shut down when raised. Wikipedia punted to the Arbitration Committee, which apparently has said that it doesn't want the task. Making public accusations of violating CP policy -- as Ottava appears to be doing here -- is a bannable offense on Wikipedia. Globally, my understanding is that procedure if concerned is to write to stewards-l. I'm not sure the stewards want the job, either. Since there is a TOS issue, I'd suggest that the WMF create a child protection desk, and put someone on it -- possibly a consultant, a professional -- who has the training to handle the issues. This is probably not a job for community enforcement, as such.
Meanwhile, Ottava has long been highly disruptive with charges like this. --Abd (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
you have mail

you have mail Russavia (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sj/8".