User talk:James Salsman

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

mailto:jim@talknicer.com

Recently I have been using abbreviations and concepts you may be able to learn more about here. James Salsman (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey page[edit]

The page has been deleted at the instruction of the legal team. Mr. Salsman, you are directed to provide any data that you have collected, including any telephone numbers, IP addresses, and email addresses, and other information related to this survey, to the Foundation's Research Committee, and delete them from your system. I'm sure they will work with you as to whether to allow you access to the portions of the survey which do not constitute personally identifiable information, which is protected by Foundation policy. Philippe (WMF) 00:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to do so, but I would like to speak with the person who directed this first. I am quite sure I have not violated any policy or even any recommendations. You have had two and a half years to administer this survey, and it took me less than three days. So far I would say that the results have been enormously successful. All of the respondents were clearly informed that answers to each question of the survey were strictly voluntary, and that they would be kept anonymous, and they were given a way to respond while remaining completely anonymous. I would like to know exactly which provision of what policy I am being accused of violating. James Salsman 00:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Related: [1]

You may write legal@wikimedia.org, and they will be expecting it. Philippe (WMF) 01:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Sent. James Salsman 03:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for CheckUser information[edit]

Please note the relevant section at the above page. Tiptoety talk 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[2]. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Meta:Requests for CheckUser information‎. You may appeal this block by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} below. I will remind you that this does not prevent you from sending emails, but I trust that the only emails you will be sending will be to the legal team as per their request. Tiptoety talk 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

False claim[edit]

Your user talk page claimed that you were the only one to bring an article to FA while banned. I brought forth two, without socking, plus many GAs and DYK. I was the first and I was the only actual person to do that. It is rather strange that you would attempt to take my accomplishment. Your article should not have been promoted per many problems, but mine were upheld without any issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

@Peteforsyth: thank you for your email. I agree to delete the offending paragraph from my userpage here and abide by the username, IP editing, and related policies and guidelines, and any other restrictions you and the unblocking admin specify, and agree to and ask for redirections or vanishing of any accounts attributed to me as you and he unblocking admin see fit. I also agree to permanently suspend any actions based on my opinion that WP:IAR is to be given a higher priority than username and multiple account policies. If you have any questions or concerns about my sincerity, please share them with me, and please consider allowing an unblock for the limited couple of weeks that the consultation at Community Engagement/Leadership Development Dialogue remains open. I note that the blocking admin is no longer active. I am completely sincere in my desire to return as a contributor in good standing. Please let me know your thoughts, here or in email or both. James Salsman (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


×
Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had his or her unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: I believe Special:Diff/3518314#James_Salsman is the requested block infobox content. I ask that my account be unblocked please, so that I may explain how to expand my student's successfully completed Google Summer of Code Accuracy Review of Wikipedias project for the Foundation in accordance with these dataflow diagrams and task list. If unblocked, I further agree to a probationary period for the next two weeks during which I will limit my edits to those in accordance with User:Peteforsyth's instruction per his emailed request, this talk page, and Talk:Community Engagement/Leadership Development Dialogue pertaining to the linked diagrams and task list. Thank you for your kind consideration of this request. James Salsman (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason: No consensus to unblock at WM:RFH. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

English | español | français | magyar | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

Thank you for the considered request. This looks like a more sincere effort than past activities, such as creating and using an alternate account, Jsalsman, without disclosure and without acknowledging problems. Properly evaluating this request will require careful study of several years' worth of sock puppet activities from, I believe, several accounts. I lack the time and inclination to take that on, but will be interested to see the results if somebody else does. No strong position either way on unblocking. -Pete F (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: if declined, or not acted on by Friday, October 7, I withdraw the unblock request and ask that you use your independent judgment to consider adding the following paragraph at [3]:
James Salsman, who recently completed mentoring a Google Summer of Code Project for accuracy review of the wikipedias recommends the review system architecture be expanded to accommodate a general peer learning content development, execution, and speaking skills intelligibility remediation system.
Thanks again. James Salsman (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I just now corrected [4] per your request. I forgot it was there until I used "what links here" to find your comment about it. If there are other such comments elsewhere that I can remove, please let me know. James Salsman (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks James Salsman. Would you like me to post the comment you added above to the relevant wiki page? Happy to do that right away if that's your preference. -Pete F (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Absolutely, that's all I really want before the consultation closes, please. If you let other admins decide on the unblock whenever they get to it, that is fine with me. James Salsman (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Special:Diff/15966185 -Pete F (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: thank you. I really appreciate your help. May I please ask also that the comment appear under the "Thinking about affiliates, peer mentors, and other kinds of community leaders, what kinds of events, tools, or resources would most help leaders reach their goals?" section heading? I'm not sure it's clear that the proposal isn't just to help people speak clearly, but as a more general peer learning system suitable for the kinds of instruction proposed at Talk:2016 Strategy/Recommendations for example. James Salsman (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done -Pete F (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, Pete. James Salsman (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: thanks for your email just now and [5] regarding which, yes, I certainly do agree to only use one account going forward. (I can't claim that I didn't understand the policies, but I formerly took the view that e.g. WP:IAR had precedence and felt that it was operative here and on enwiki because of the serious issues I encountered with organized advocacy. But I no longer hold that view, and have renounced it above, because of my belief that effective blind review is feasible and can counteract such malfeasance with systems such as those implemented in the GSoC project.) James Salsman (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes IAR should very very rarely be used and typically only with consensus. Can you comment on the further concerns here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: All of the accounts I was accused of creating for the inactive administrator survey in 2012 were in fact mine, and I don't remember why there were so many of them. The account I created this spring in preparation for the GSoC project was too. None of them were malicious, and there are no others on meta. On enwiki, at least a handful of the accounts I have been accused of using were not mine but the vast majority are. Again, I can only claim that my intentions were in line with IAR but not the multiple account policy. James Salsman (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Correction: I remember now: there was rate-limiting to 50 emails at the time, and I was sending survey links to about 312 inactive administrators. James Salsman (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks. So going forwards you need to agree to us only one account and not invoke IAR for other accounts which I think you have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vogone: do you have any remaining concerns or questions you would like to ask me? James Salsman (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I don't have anything to add, I know too little about the past issues to be of help here and will accept any decision. --Vogone (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New unblock request[edit]

An attempt to correct this prior revision in light of this updated data.

start-Per the direction at [7] to participate in the discussion at Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Briefing. The block rationale is at Special:Diff/3518314#James Salsman. James Salsman (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)-end

  • Okay, five months since a low-attendance discussion and 96 hours in the unblock queue is enough to say no one is inclined to unblock -- or decline unblock -- unilaterally. So, that means another trip to M:RFH. If you've got anyhting else you want copyed over to the discussion, please post it here and I'll move it over. Courcelles 23:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Thank you for your help. Please just let them know that I would be glad to answer any questions, and that I want to regain my posting ability here primarily so that I don't need to use wikimedia-l to express my opinions in a way which is never recorded in the meta discussion history. My original block here was because of an enwiki admin survey which resulted in the return of 13 admins there, and resulted in a block under false claims that I had violated an unadopted research policy. James Salsman (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I left this on the request itself but adding here for the record as well. Anna made the comment that James refers to without knowledge of his block/history (and not intending to make an invitation to a blocked user). It probably goes without saying that the Foundation has no specific stance on the unblock. Jalexander--WMF 02:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Courcelles: since someone suggested a year between appeals, I want to mention my more pressing concern in August. Please move this statement into the discussion?

I did not intend to deceive anyone with this request. I would like to retain the right to make another unblock request in July ahead of Wikimania, because my pronunciation assessment project for language learning using the javascript version of pocketsphinx is very likely to be part of the the Google Summer of Code for CMU Sphinx this year, in part because of the very large number of student applicants who are already working on it, and because I am the organizational admin for CMU Sphinx this year, and I expect it to be ready by Wikimania in August, when I hope to formally propose a group effort to integrate it with Wiktionary. I'm going to be giving a demo at the International Speech and Communication Association's seventh Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE 2017) in Sweden later in the month, where I want to ask the experts to support such a proposal to integrate with Wiktionary. If the unblock requests are declined, I would ask in the alternative that I be allowed to work with another metapedian to post the proposal and respond to questions and comments about it on Meta, such as Doc James or Pete Forsyth, who has helped me in copying such proposals in the past. James Salsman (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Copied over. Courcelles 01:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Courcelles: thanks. I'm strongly in favor of the probationary period. @Doc James: would you be willing to supervise my probation if we could find a Meta admin to agree to your doing so? James Salsman (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay would be willing if during the probationary period your editing just involves the project you mention.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to agree to that, through the end of September? @Courcelles: are you willing to trust Doc James and I with a probationary unblock under those conditions? If not, please copy the proposal to the discussion. Thanks both! James Salsman (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
[8] I'm going to give a little time for objections, but absent such, I'll unblock before I go to bed tonight. Courcelles 19:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 24 hours without a peep on RFH. Unblocked. Courcelles 21:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged, @Courcelles:. Thank you! @Doc James: how do you feel about http://sphinxCAPT.org/ for optimizing pronunciation assessment performance? I want to optimize the accuracy of remediation, too. I hope we can get an interface like this Adobe Flash demo (source code) to failover in case this nicer WebRTC/GetUserMedia recorder isn't working with these live student WebRTC demos. And maybe we can get tech help for mobile apps that don't need an internet connection to score pronunciation, but can always use a server to improve the quality of their pronunciation score and remediation feedback if they can reach it. I can put that on Tool Labs, but we need to raise the money to collect the data to build the server and the apps. So I am going to file a placeholder grant request reserving the right to re-assign the requester in case the Foundation wants to fund the data collection; otherwise we can pass the SphinxCAPT hat, ok? We will do single words on Wiktionary and have a link for people who want to register and/or use their OAuth to keep track of which diphones they are above or below average on to select practice words and phrases. OK? James Salsman (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The offline app already reads aloud fairly well in English at least :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: we can use synchronization technologies to support offline apps. Please replace my name with your name, because you are a Wikipedian in good standing on all projects, by editing the grant application because the deadline is in just over a day. James Salsman (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Do not know much about the tech aspects of this sort of stuff. What is the end goal? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Project goals: Improve speaking skills. James Salsman (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
"speaking skills" of humans or machines? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Humans as per the expanded goal statement, clearly now ("Improve speaking skills by improving resources, tools, and data to assist people to improve their own speaking skills") thanks to User:John Vandenberg, and machines too if you, he, or User:CFCF endorses the grant proposal for Ronanki so I don't have to be grovling for money when I could be co-mentoring the acoustic simulation of the vocal tract we want to use for anatomical illustrations of phonetic production. The sooner we can get good endorsements for the idea, the better. The w:Festival Speech Synthesis System is a diphone-based speech synthesizer which many CMUSphinx volunteers have worked on.James Salsman (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James and CFCF: please consider endorsing Grants:Project/Intelligibility transcriptions. James Salsman (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Supplementing intrinsic rewards[edit]

backward bending supply curve of labour
The backward bending supply curve of labor, showing a worker offering fewer hours after their hourly compensation rate exceeds a certain point 'F'.

@Doc James: how do you feel about extrinsic prizes for w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame? If we covered all languages' such halls, would cash prizes be acceptable? I'm concerned that enwiki has only had three so far this year. James Salsman (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing here [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Fixed link, thanks; please see also [10]. James Salsman (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the first time I have seen Editor of the Week. A cool idea. Would be more inclined to give a WP branded momento such as clothing than cash. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Volunteers are at point H(E) on the backward bending supply curve of labor. I'm certain they should be sent swag, but they should also be given a one-time surprise monetary award. I think someone should compose a resolution to pay them and to pay you for getting kicked off the Board without cause. James Salsman (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not willing to accept money from the WMF. There are many people within our movement who need financial support more than I.
I also think it is very important for board members not to get paid in part as they need to be willing to make difficult decisions to protect the organization even when they realize these decisions might be unpopular among some. Not getting paid creates less concerns of conflict. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That would make such a resolution easier to pass but less likely to result in corrective behaviors over the long term. I'm using [11] in trying to figure out the unified computer aided instruction system that we want to build out of this year's pronunciation remediation system and last year's accuracy review system. Which tasks people should be paid to do (e.g. transcribe a student trying to pronounce an utterance) and which tasks they traditionally pay (e.g. tuition) for are not obvious, but since there are many fewer of the former in total I know it is going to work out. James Salsman (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Periodic survey prototype[edit]

@Doc James, WereSpielChequers, and Keegan: are you okay with an attempt to address [12] and [13] on Meta? My proposal would include:

  1. Asking to endorse the general process on Will's proposal except as per below;
  2. Asking how often the survey should recur;
  3. Asking the year the respondent started editing, with optional quarter or month on large wikis (instead of the exact date for privacy);
  4. Sending the survey to a smaller random sample of inactive editors;
  5. Asking about what to do regarding undisclosed paid advocacy editing;
  6. Asking whether the wikipedias' economics articles should be reviewed for supply-side trickle down bias;
  7. Asking whether the Foundation should support an expanded Making Work Pay tax credit;
  8. Asking whether the Foundation should support free community college;
  9. Asking whether the Foundation should support the implementation of single payer universal health care while holding median physician salaries constant;
  10. Asking whether the Foundation should support sliding scale incidence of compulsory copyright license royalties;
  11. Asking about the issues Will listed at [14];
  12. Asking whether Doc James should be compensated, and in what manner, for his ejection from the Board of Trustees without cause, e.g. by creating one or more new named seats on the Board which Doc James can appoint and/or describe how they should be filled;
  13. Asking whether the Endowment performance should be benchmarked against competing investments offered by large mutual fund companies marketed to institutions for their endowments;
  14. Asking whether the Endowment should avoid investments such as REITs, fossil fuel, and perhaps other classes of investments, and/or make strategic investments in technology enabling, supporting, or otherwise advancing the mission
    1. e.g. Alphabet/Google Project Foghorn dialysis of oceanic carbonate (please note this sustainable, enabling, and appropriate technology produces fuel less expensively than from petroleum and clean fresh water as a byproduct when powered from discount nighttime wind power) and/or
    2. recycling natural gas power plant flue exhaust CO2 for hermetically sealed storage of renewable power;
  15. Asking whether the w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame awardees should be further awarded and if so how;
  16. Asking whether the Foundation should support ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child without reservation;
  17. Asking whether the Foundation should support BT mosquito abatement in timed release formulations such as with both floating and sinking spores;
  18. Asking to endorse and/or critique the Code of Conduct in Technical Spaces draft; and
  19. Asking whether the Foundation should support reducing class sizes and increasing teacher salaries.

What else am I missing? Please let me know your thoughts. James Salsman (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Bucket brigade, with each element of the chain independent of others but the mission dependent on all.
Hiearchy of needs, with each element dependent on the one below it.
How could I have almost forgotten class size? @Doc James: is this survey proposal suitable for discussion under the Strategy Topics? Plenty more where those come from e.g. https://sites.google.com/site/amendmentact/ and trying to err on the side of supporting the Mission, I hope. @CFCF: I would like to know if you support these too. Oh by the way have you seen the Pink Trombone? James Salsman (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Stuff like this "single payer universal health care while holding median physician salaries constant" and "reducing class sizes and increasing teacher salaries" are not within the remit of the WMF. Other organizations are working to address these issues and well individual members within our movement may engage with such issues I am not sure it is appropriate for the WMF of movement as a whole to be involved.
With respect to compensation for me, I am not interested in any and would decline to accept any that was offered. Appointment of the community seats should be by the community and while I will likely run again I would not accept any greater authority in such a process than that given to any other community member. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I want to take a step back and, when I have the bandwidth, do a cost-benefits analysis, not in terms of financial success or the all-too-common goal of trying to offend the fewest number of people, but a causation analysis of what does and does not support the Mission. I just noticed my reply to [15] was not published. I was trying to engage off-list, possibly.... As for the Board ejection without cause, if we just added more community seats, would that be enough to prevent such abuses in the future? If you merely want to convert them into community seats, that would be fine with me, but the point is to have some action that would dissuade such abuses in the future. Let me see if I can come up with something that doesn't even appear to benefit you, but still would prevent abuses in the future. James Salsman (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: so for the sake of argument, if you accept that this unopposed-in-reviews MEDRS-grade source proves that economic variables influence individual and community health, is it reasonable to claim that economic factors mediating health care and education delivery influence our ability to effectively create and disseminate free educational content? What are the strongest arguments pro and con concerning such causation? James Salsman (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes economic variables affect the ability to deliver health care and education.
We want to stay mostly focused on the part we mainly deal with which is creating "free educational resources". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: What is the advantage of weighting some parts of the Mission more heavily than others? Also, I hope you didn't think I was suggesting to hold the median US salaries of all the physician specialties equal. I think the median all-physician salary should be held constant and the GP and gerontologist, and other below-median salaries should be raised, while cardiologist, neurosurgeon and other such specialists' salaries far above the median should be reduced. I have a feeling that the AHIP would not be able to overcome an AMA-friendly plan just after the Republicans tried to torpedo Trump with an absurdly bad healthcare bill. Trump is on record several times as being single payer-friendly, contrasted to Clinton for example who only wants the public option (Medicare for pay) and has only spoke in favor of single payer while in Canada, or Obama who was last in favor of single payer around 2003 before the AHIP started throwing cash around. James Salsman (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The lifestyle of a neurosurgeon sucks badly (I almost became one before I came to my senses). The high pay is required to compensate for that in part. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: I would love to understand the details. They and the cardiologists make more money than G.P.s everywhere, right? But in the U.S. they make much much more. I don't mind compensating for legitimate hardships, but not at the cost of leaving communities without the GPs, gerontologists, and the like they need to achieve the greatest gains. By the way, please have a look at this. Where is the line over which cuts to NIH rise to the level of hinderance of the mission? James Salsman (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm in the UK, and while there are some issues where I'm not with the majority here, I'm with the concensus that the NHS (National Health Service) is sacrosanct and above criticism in the way that half a century ago the monarchy was or in the states the flag is. But when I'm on wiki I try to leave such political issues at the door. So in my view a survey should not go political except where it is directly relevant. If we do ask anything political we should ask questions in a globalised way - not a US one. I'd also suggest that if we ask controversial questions or ones that require people to do research or look for jargon we do so at the end of the survey - assuming we get incomplete surveys that are abandoned when they come to a question that gets people to stop answering.
Questions I'd like to see us ask are:
  1. Your current account started editing in yyyy was this:
    1 When you first edited Wikipedia
    2 [__] years after you first edited Wikipedia
  2. Which of the following sorts of machines do you edit Wikipedia on (tick all that apply):
  1. Smartphone - edit regularly
  2. Smartphone - occasionally edit
  3. Smartphone - only read Wikipedia
  4. I have a smartphone but don't read Wikipedia on it
  5. I don't have a smartphone
  6. Tablet or Ipad - edit regularly
  7. Tablet or Ipad - occasionally edit
  8. Tablet or Ipad - only read Wikipedia
  9. I have a Tablet or Ipad but don't read Wikipedia on it
  10. I don't have a Tablet or Ipad
  11. PC, netbook or laptop - edit regularly
  12. PC, netbook or laptop - occasionally edit
  13. PC, netbook or laptop - only read Wikipedia
  14. I have a PC, netbook or laptop but don't read Wikipedia on it
  15. I don't have a PC, netbook or laptop
  1. Have you ever had an "edit conflict" when clicking save on Wikipedia?
  1. No, not that I remember
  2. Yes - I just open another tab edit the article and use copy and paste
  3. Yes - I save frequently to reduce the risk
etc etc WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers: add [ ] Other: _________ ? What do you call repealing the payroll tax in the UK? Should we randomize the order so we can measure per-question response rates? How can you say you leave politics at the door while in the same paragraph claiming that you think the US holds its flag more sacrosanct than its people's health? Where do you draw the line on what is and is not political? Is the Mission not political in a fundamentally inescapable way? Is geographic continent awareness a superior alternative to randomizing the order of question presentation? Would improving the diff algorithm reduce edit conflicts? Do you know Len Tower? He could probably tell. James Salsman (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Katherine (WMF): thank you for your email encouraging further participation. There is so much I want to tell you. I would work harder on doing so but I promised Doc James that I would finish the computer-aided instruction for speaking skills stuff first. You will be glad to know that Priyanka Mandikal, my Wikimedia Google Summer of Code mentee from last year who is now at w:INRIA in France, has agreed to co-mentor with me this year on [16] to prove that general instruction can be provided concurrently with pronunciation remediation, by teaching people how to review the wikipedias for accuracy. Is that as exciting to you as it is to me? A completely new frontier in computer-aided instruction, ripe for exploitation by the public, private, and nonprofit sector alike. Please support my survey proposal. James Salsman (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Topics/Metrics[edit]

I would like to share my list of preferred metrics with Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Topics/Metrics. Some people may find it more balanced than the status quo. In the mean time I will try to improve the list. James Salsman (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Community Wishlist[edit]

Dear James, you expressed your endorsement for the Auto-save feature in Visual Editor and WikiText Editor proposal, but haven't voted yet. The proposal is on the 10-11th place now, and every single supporter is needed to be finished in the first ten. Please consider voting for this proposal. Kind regards, Samat (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Late response ping[edit]

For lots of reasons (paper submission, vacation, wikimania travel), I just saw your ping @ Wikipedia_&_Education_User_Group. Can you tell me more of what you have in mind for the backlog ranking? I'd like to get it on our backlog :D See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/scoring-platform-team --EpochFail (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@EpochFail: thank you! I've noticed the legal climate will probably force Foundation-funded paid editing for things like BLPs, and I hope removing bias from economics topics, too. I will look more closely at that Phab tag and get back to you, but in the mean time, my main recommendation is to try to use a re-design of [17] for [18] which I believe has the cryptological properties to form the basis of a distributed workflow system with or without payments, and you feed it by populating its filesystem-based database with the issues to be resolved, and then it hands them out to first and second level reviewers, who presumably get paid unless two disagree, in which case a random tie breaker decides which one gets paid and which one gets their reputation docked. Even if you can't re-use the code, the architecture is all yours as far as I'm concerned, if you promise to use it for good and not evil. I'm super-focused on [19] and if we could get Brij hired away from Microsoft as a contractor before he starts his Ph.D. at INRIA, I would really feel more comfortable. Can you help with that please? James Salsman (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Your Community Wishlist Survey proposals[edit]

Thanks for participating! This is a friendly reminder that you have made three proposals, which is the limit. If you have anymore ideas for proposals, you should find other users to adopt them. Kind regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

[Wikipedia & Education User Group] Updates: November 2018[edit]

Greetings,

Integrating Wikimedia with education is a powerful strategy for the outreach of Wikimedia projects. Realising this concept, a group of leaders promoted this and formed the Wikipedia Education Collaborative. After some time, this evolved to become a user group, officially recognised by the Affiliations Committee in June 2018. The user group had its first board elections earlier in September. In the process to formalise activities and give a shape the user group for long-term sustainability, we are now revamping our processes. Thanks for supporting us during incubation stages, we are now inviting you to formally join the user group by following the instructions on the members' page. Being a member will allow you to be a part of this wonderful collaboration and also do interesting stuff.

Kind regards
On behalf of Wikipedia and Education UG, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

article[edit]

How did you get an article to FA status while banned?

Benjamin (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: by holding the importance of improving the encyclopedia paramount. James Salsman (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you explain? Benjamin (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, what's in it for you? James Salsman (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

In fact, I've got a number of kind suggestions and questions. But as you seem to find your single question with no answer given within 2,5 hours to be standalone grounds and a sufficient justification for any edit, I decided to inform you that I'm about to write a longer message, to secure talk pages from your further edits that could be made in the meantime. Thank you in advance for collaboration. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): I'm sorry, I had a hard time distinguishing the meaning of the unused template headings. Is there any advantage to fragmenting the discussion between working group talk and community discussion talk pages? James Salsman (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In regrads to the Scoping Documents:

  1. Distinguishing the meaning of the unused template headings - please have a look at a scoping document, take as an example the Capacity Building Working Group scoping doc. There are 4 sections that may be discussed separately, 4 different buttons leading to 4 different dedicated sections. Then take Mandarin version and its talk page. There are empty sections as well because no one has put a comment, but that's because we've just started the Conversations. The architecture (structure) of discussions is ready though.
  2. In these sections, we don't discuss purely *any*thing we like. We discuss the content of respective base pages. Namely, Working Groups scoping documents. If it hasn't been clear for you, then maybe it should be clarified, but I could also ask how you got there, not knowing the point of the discussins.
  3. Because the buttons lead to defined dedicated sections, please don't change or remove the headings. Either add comments related to a specific section in an existing section or add a new section with comment related to the scoping document.
  4. An implication of point 2 is that these talk pages do differ from WG talk pages. On the latter, you may ask about WG members, minutes, style of work, resources they use, technical issues related to *those* pages, etc.

As for transclusion of talk pages, by transcluding an entire talk page you force all readers to go through the transcluded one and look for possible common points between what they assume to be the subject of discussion on the transcluding page and subjects of discussions on the transcluded page. It's logical and obvious that a number of issues raised on WG talk pages is not related to the scoping document. So instead of transcluding an entire talk page, you could transclude a selected section. But what's the point of transcluding sections of different talk pages, if you may as well add your comment on one talk page and simply wait for response?

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm sorry I misunderstood the intent of the heading, and that I was hasty in trying to help. Thanks also for fixing it back up. There are still some things on some of the WG talk pages which seem to be more community discussion-oriented than questions about the WGs. I will try to link to those from the community discussion pages. James Salsman (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues on the Scots Wikipedia RfC[edit]

Hi. As you know, some editors have raised issues with your contributions to the ongoing RfC. In line with that, I have some recommendations for your continued participation.

  • It would be best if you did not create many more proposals unless you believe them to be absolutely necessary. Some people have taken issue with the amount of proposals and changes of topic you have introduced into the discussion, and the attitude you have projected through doing so. A lot of these proposals have been completely out of line with community norms, feasibility, and precedent.
  • Generally speaking, governments are not who determine languages. The people who speak it are. Relying on the Scottish government to provide an accurate dictionary and have any degree of involvement with regulating the project is not a precedent the wider community would want to set. It is also arguably contrary to the mission statement. Would we do the same with the PRC, Iran, or Egypt, in consulting government officials on the content of their languages?
  • With regard to hiring consultants in general, that is not something you should be going out of your way to find, whether it be on Twitter or elsewhere. There's no established consensus as to whether doing so would be a good idea, and it'd be the first instance of this ever happening, to my knowledge. Further, I highly doubt that hiring consultants for the development of the Scots Wikipedia would be approved by extensive community discussion, which would be necessary to start looking to implement something as dramatic as that. Of equal importance, there's no money set for it. The WMF does provide grants, as do several other free knowledge organizations, for topics like this, though as far as I've been able to discern there is nothing set at the moment. Prior to going this route, we would need both community support and a budget, neither of which exist at present.
  • Incivility is also at play, to a lesser degree. Nothing you have written so far has been explicitly uncivil or overtly rude, though a decent portion of it has been considered "unnecessarily vindictive", insulting, disrespectful, etc. And from my interpretation of your writing, there is no choice but to view some of this as bad faith. For example, you wrote "My comments were intended to try to cheer him up..." and, when a third contributor asked you to drop the stick, "do you suggest that actions should not have consequences?". These are inherently contradictory statements; you cannot be simultaneously trying to cheer someone up (which is a long shot considering your wording of the proposal this issue centers on) and impose consequences on them. It would be best to focus on fixing the project in the future rather than targeting the mistakes of the past.

I hope you take my above recommendations to heart, and change the way you have been contributing to the discussion. If you have any questions or issues with what I've written above, I would be more than happy to clarify. Best regards, and happy editing, Vermont (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: regarding paid consultants, I hope you are familiar with the actual history of Foundation spending on reviewers, consultants, and auditors, which I believe began in 2008 with medical articles on the enwiki. Similar work continues to this day. This work has become relatively common, and I don't know how to interact with those who imply it is out of line with norms, infeasible, or has no precedent. I was not the originator of the idea, nor am I the first to have voiced support. I'm involved in ongoing discussions in email and Twitter DMs with both Foundation and Government of Scotland officials, for whom I have already referred multiple parties to the Scots Language Center.
My question is, how do you intend for me to proceed when there are so many, including yourself, who deny the history of Foundation work to pay consultants in these sorts of situations?
Regarding, "you cannot be simultaneously trying to cheer someone up and impose consequences on them" -- I wonder if you understand my position, that this is a blessing in disguise for the endangered languages, if we don't damage it further. James Salsman (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I was not aware of the WMF hiring consultants in 2008 to work on medical articles. What I can say is that the WMF does not pay people to edit, that has never been the norm, and to get paid consultants for the Scots Wikipedia there would, by necessity, need to be money available and community consensus to pursue that goal, neither of which currently exist. The WMF, at present, does not give grants for work that would be done by volunteers, like editing or reviewing articles; this can be viewed clearly on their grants pages here on Meta-Wiki. If editing for WMF money is "relatively common", I would highly appreciate some more modern examples. They fund research, they fund activism work, they fund editor recruitment and training, but they do not fund work that would otherwise be done by volunteers. If your statement is true, then my perspective, and that of many others, about the WMF's involvement in content creation has been entirely backwards for years, as with their boilerplate messages, OTRS responses, replies from WMF legal, etc. With regards to your position on the other issue, I understand that it can be perceived as a "blessing in disguise"; tons of people are currently interested in the Scots Wikipedia. However, that's completely besides the point of my comment, and is a red herring. if your definition of cheering someone up involves stating that their "pursuit of self-gratification is vandalism", asking them to agree to an indefinite ban, and requesting they support your idea of paying consultants, I'm more inclined to believe your later comment that your intention was to impose consequences. Regards, Vermont (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: how do you respond when someone asks you whether WiRs are paid to edit? I fully agree that there have for years been pervasive myths on the topic, probably stemming from the esoteric details on the limits on what the Foundation has and has not been legally allowed to do when protecting their safe harbor provisions, which has changed over the years and never forbade paying editors (not to mention reviewing auditors) as long as they exercise fully independent editorial discretion. I haven't sought formal sanctions, just an acknowledgement that the behavior was damaging and that consequences, even if only a voluntary agreement to keep away for at least six months and help in correcting the problem, are an important part of preventing similar abuses in the future. I'm no longer interested in pursuing any of that, but I do note with some consternation that A.G. has apparently registered as participating in the editathon this morning.[20] What message do you think that sends to Scots speakers?
In any case, my opinion on the propriety of sanctions is orthogonal to the question of whether the situation is a blessing in disguise. I am trying to understand why you don't agree that asking someone to agree to sanctions and help ensure that the situation actually is a blessing in disguise does not provide a cheering light at the end of the tunnel, at least. James Salsman (talk)
To respond to your last point, that isn't how we treat volunteers here, quite frankly. You've been given a lot of rope here; lay off AG, please. And if you present an idea that doesn't gain traction -- oh well, it happens. I personally think that paid consultants could be used through a grant process, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But if the community doesn't want to consider it as the first line response, then state your case and let others discuss the merits. And to be clear, you have stated your case. Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. James Salsman (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Unproductive tangent at Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia/other wikis[edit]

Unless that letter from Chelsea Clinton specifically highlighted issues with that wikipedia, how in the world is it relevant? Wikipedia is not mentioned once in that link you shared. This is not the place to discuss Haitian politics. SecretName101 (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Do you believe that oppressors must name the oppressed in order to be guilty of oppressing them? James Salsman (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
WHAT RELEVANCE DOES CHELSEA CLINTON HAVE WITH WIKIPEDIA????? Good lord! You are being obscene. This is not a political forum, and not a place for you to voice your opinion on the Clintons. SecretName101 (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: firstly, there is no need to shout. Secondly, what definition of "obscene" are you using? Do you agree that the United States has been acting in an obscene manner towards Haiti? James Salsman (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
That is beyond irrelevant, and this was an inappropriate conversation for you to bring up there in the first place. SecretName101 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: what are your answers to my questions? James Salsman (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Regardless of my misgivings about US foreign policy, the analogy was tenuous and seems to have only resulted in annoyance. I'd suggest to drop the stick. PiRSquared17 (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: Tenuous in what way? I believe the analogy is quite direct. James Salsman (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
What reason do I have to answer your question? It is of zero relevance. You should understand that you are being inappropriate. It's like if someone used the talk page of the Wikipedia page for Hello Kitty to spread a anti-circumcision message. It's totally irrelevant and beyond inappropriate to hijack a discussion like that. It's pretty destructive, actually. SecretName101 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: destructive how? And to whom? Imagine our positions were reversed, and I couldn't see the analogy. Would you appreciate me saying that your comments have zero relevance? James Salsman (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
If your positions were reversed, then SecretName101 would have apologized for posting about politics in the wrong location, then written a blog post about Chelsea Clinton & Haiti on their personal blog instead. Which is what we suggest you do if you really feel the need to tell the world about that issue. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ban from Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia[edit]

In accordance with RfC policy, I am imposing a ban from contributing to the above-mentioned RfC and it's subpages. Your behavior has, in the last 24 hours, gone from questionable to outright disruptive. I attempted to correct this with my statement above, to which you preferred to argue technicalities and specifics than addressing the issues I had tried to make you aware of. Since then, more problems have transpired, and it's become necessary to take administrative action. Though there is no MediaWiki limitation placed on your account from editing the RfC, if you do so it will be enforced with a block. Appeals can be made at RFH. Regards, Vermont (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The result of your appeal[edit]

Hello, with regards to your appeal at WM:RFH (Permalink), the result is not lifted. There had been no further discussions by any other sysops for a couple of days now, I had closed the appeal as unsuccessful. Since this had went through a community discussion, this ban is now a sort of community ban (we don't have such thing here, but de facto it is). There is no consensus to lift it at this moment, and I will recommend you not to appeal until at least 3 months have passed. In addition, I will remind you to not to engage in any further logged out editing using IPs. Any accidental logged out editing should be reported to meta oversight team via Special:EmailUser/Meta-Wiki_oversighters or meta-oversight(_AT_)lists.wikimedia.org. Any further disruptive editing on meta will most likely result in a block. Feel free to ask me if you don't understand any of the above, Best Regards, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

moved to RFH discussion. James Salsman (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Block[edit]

James, I'm completely appaled by your response here.

"This is either a very substantial lack of competence or an attempt to paint me as unresponsive to the request. For shame, both of you!"

You are the editor who posted MJL's personal information on scowiki and Twitter, information they had clearly made an effort to make less public, and which resulted in your block on scowiki. And yet, as you have shown a habit of doing, your response is to blame the other party when you were clearly at fault, and you have mixed in personal attacks. This is an incredibly blatant violation of our civility policy, and of basic decency. At no point in my attempts, over the last few weeks, to rectify your behavior have you accepted that many of your actions have been nonconstructive. I have tried to make clear the problems with your manner of communication multiple times, and yet your responses to those who disagree with you have remained wholly unacceptable. Your edits have reflected a marked inability to communicate and contribute constructively in a community environment. For this reason, I am placing an indefinite block on your account. Regards, Vermont (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I admit that you have not convinced me that I have not been acting in a civil manner and in the best interests of the Foundation, the Scots language, and the Scowiki. I intend to appeal after discussing this with others. I addressed MJL in the same manner they addressed me. A short last name left as a redirect is not doxing. James Salsman (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

{{re|Vermont}} while I am waiting in a self-imposed cool-down period before finding a steward on email or IRC willing mediate the questions of political censorship and propriety of reference to a publicly reserved name, I would like to ask you to please consider adding "Please see [21]" or the like to the end of Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Architecture#Constructors. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

I reiterate my request in light of [22]. James Salsman (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@DVrandecic (WMF): it is more appropriate to ping you at this juncture. What is your opinion of [23]? James Salsman (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not read the paper, but it looks like interesting work. Thanks for the pointer. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk)
@DVrandecic (WMF): my pleasure. Here is an example of transformers for question answering. It seems like the IBM approach is compatible with manual schema engineering, but Facebook's isn't. I am probably offending my accuser by speaking with you about these things, and frankly I want pseudonymity too. Legal gave a flat no to going after the worst paid editors recently, and whether they ban, block, lock, or otherwise, I far prefer pseudonymity under those conditions. James Salsman (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Please stop discussing things here that are irrelevant to the block on meta or global ban. This talk page access is now restricted to only matters pertaining to the above matters. Any further irrelevant chatter will result in this access to be revoked per DannyS712 warning below.
@DVrandecic (WMF): with all respect, didn't you notice that you are talking to a blocked user and by normal wiki conventions, talkpage of blocked users should be only used by the blocked user to appeal, I will hope you don't continue the conversation, thanks so much for your kind understanding. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Part of my appeal are these ongoing examples that the vast majority of my interactions with the community and staff have been productive and collegial, on all of the wikis I edit. I believe that the difficult interactions occur at a tiny fraction of the rate of any other editor focusing on controversy as much as I have. James Salsman (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The reason for your block is a lack of civility here. This is metawiki and we have our own policies independent with the rest of the wikis. What the blocking admin seen is a lack of civility. You should address the reason of your block, how will you mitigate the blocking admin blocking reasons. Pulling DVrandecic (WMF) into a conversation here might show you are civil to him, that's good. However, it doesn't negate the fact that you aren't civil to others, as above quoted by Vermont. This is like how common AFD reasons of keep like "why other articles aren't deleted but mine only, this is similiar to others". I hope you get the point. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: My apologies. I did notice the block, but I wasn't aware about the rules regarding the limitations on talk topics. Thank you for educating me. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Replied on DVrandecic (WMF) talkpage. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Global lock request[edit]

@Camouflaged Mirage: re [24], per [25], "Warning! This is not the place to ask for locks based on your opinion that someone is disruptive. Global locks are used exclusively against vandalism and spam, not because of content disputes, not because you think that someone deserves to be globally blocked...."

Again, I addressed MJL in the same manner they addressed me. A short last name left as a redirect is not doxing or outing. They were referring to me as "Mr. Salsman," in condescension. A redirect left after page renaming with an annotation that it's the editor's real name that they wish to reserve from use by others is not outing in any way.

More importantly, the block ban because I pointed out the political similarities between how the US treats Haiti and how the Scowiki has treated Scots language is the worst kind of base censorship against which I appeal off wiki if necessary. If the admin corps believes it is acceptable to label the expression of such opinions as civility issue, then the upper functionaries need to address that. James Salsman (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(not the addressed user) I intuitively agreed with your assessment that a lock without a global ban discussion would be improper. On the other hand, Camouflaged Mirage cited a steward policy that claims indef blocks on multiple wikis might be enough to qualify for a lock, so maybe the request is valid. I'm not sure how the policy would apply in your case, but it's at least iffy. I added a comment on SRG bringing up the point about the personal info being public, which might matter for whether it counts as a ToS violation (but it was still inappropriate in any case). Btw, you were not blocked for the Haiti analogy; that's a red herring. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
How is politics a red herring? You put it at the top of your list, followed by pinging Foundation staff asking their advice. James Salsman (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Because the blocking admin, Vermont, specifically said which quote of yours prompted your block, and it wasn't that one. Maybe the earlier decision to bar your participation in the RfC was partially due to the Haiti comment (I don't know), but your block yesterday was not. By the way, I'm not the one who blocked you, and I'm not even an admin here, so what I wrote does not say anything about the reasons why you were blocked. I won't engage further in this section because I doubt it would be productive, but I wish you the best and I trust that stewards will judiciously evaluate the facts of the case and established guidelines before making their decision. Regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
My mistake; I corrected "block" to "ban" above. Do you believe people should be censored because.of their political, technical, policy, or critical path analysis opinions? James Salsman (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, James.. just stop talking about me. Like.. forever? –MJLTalk 04:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think you have any right to tell me what I may or may not say? You have repeatedly insulted me and my intelligence while I was trying to help you, and denigrated me in front of my professional colleagues. I repeat my question to you: did you accuse me of doxing you because I used your short last name in the same manner you repeatedly addressed me, from a redirect that you specifically reserved to keep others from registering a user ID with your real name? Are you trying to avoid scrutiny and responsibility for your actions by insisting on a pseudonym? James Salsman (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That isn't my name anymore, and I have tried to leave it behind me. Also, I'm not a guy. –MJLTalk 06:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Finally, the reason I started calling you Mr. Salsman was to avoid confusion with the other James. If you don't want to be referred to by your username, then change your it on our own accord. –MJLTalk 06:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
No, when you told me that I was making too many proposals, there was no ambiguity with Mr. Hyett. Oh what a tangled web you weave. I reserve the right to republish all of the messages you have sent me on wiki, discord and twitter under the fair use doctrine for critique. James Salsman (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification of global ban proposal on your account[edit]

This is a notification of global ban discussion per the global ban policy. –MJLTalk 04:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: may I please participate in the discussion? James Salsman (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You can comment below, which will be transcluded to the banning discussion page.--GZWDer (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


MJL says they "have a particularly negative bias towards" me, but a week ago called me "a good faith contributor,"[26] because their accusations are against my expressions of opinion, political beliefs, and manner of reference by published name instead of pseudonym, with all of which they disagree.

During the content dispute regarding depleted uranium in 2007, I was providing sourced and verifiable information to counter what I still believe was deliberate misinformation being inserted by pseudonymous editors who claimed to be highly credentialed chemists and a medical doctor working for the US Army. My point of view was upheld by others after I stopped editing, and remains in the pertinent sections of the depleted uranium and Gulf war illness articles to this day. The Department of Veterans Affairs now recognizes the harm of, and provides compensation for, depleted uranium exposure. I don't know whether that would have been achieved if it were not for my efforts, but I am certain that the encyclopedia would still have medically dangerous false information otherwise. So I don't regret my actions then, and I believe I applied w:WP:IAR correctly. My indefinite block, months after arbitration concluded, was placed because my telling an editor who claimed to be an M.D. that saying breathing uranium combustion fumes is safe would be medical malpractice, was construed as a legal threat. I don't believe it was a legal threat to this day, because I wouldn't have standing to bring such a claim, among other reasons. While I was socking, and within what I believe was w:WP:STANDARDOFFER at the time, I brought one article to featured article status and several others, including w:Birth control, to good article status.

MJL is mistaken about the order of events concerning the Scots Wikipedia proposals, e.g., someone else refactored the proposals. And their accusation of an "attack on a colleague of mine" means my request to ask the 19 year old evangelical Christian brony who, after obtaining administrator permissions on scowiki, created more than 42,000 articles in a language other than Scots ("Scotched English") to voluntarily agree to refrain from editing on the Scots Wikipedia. (He did not, and resumed editing during the editathon created to repair his vandalism.) This request was considered insufficiently sensitive towards the admin's neurodiversity, but I persisted saying that consequences serving to prevent further such abuses were necessary. At least five other people at the RFC expressed the same opinion, but I was singled out because of my persistence. When another editor pointed out that the Haitian Creole Wikipedia suffered similar problems, I pointed to Chelsea Clinton's letter to her parents from Haiti, and argued that the way the US government treats Haitians and their language and educational infrastructure is directly analogous to how the Scots Wikipedia has been affecting the Scots language, e.g. with Scottish Members of Parliament reading articles from the Scots Wikipedia in proceedings which caused the language to fail to achieve official status in Scotland along with English and Gaelic, even though millions of adults and hundreds of thousands of students speak Scots. That political argument quickly led to my being banned from the RFC.

A long time ago, I decided to focus on editing controversial issues, and so I am used to the fallout from arguments about controversial topics, of which these accusations are the most recent but hardly the most substantive. Just because editors can not tolerate political arguments which do not show them in positive light does not mean that they or anyone else is being disrupted. Mature people are able to accept criticism and learn from it, not rush to censorship. My communications with Government of Scotland officials have already resulted in multiple referrals to the Scots Language Center's clean-up effort, and I intend to continue them.

Vermont, an admin on Meta, claimed that my proposal to pay editors fluent in Scots to help correct the problem was beyond the pale because they believed incorrectly that the Foundation never pays people to edit, but when I asked them whether Wikipedians in Residence are paid to edit, and brought up the long history of the Foundation funding paid editing projects, they became very angry and unilaterally banned me from the RFC.

MJL is a public figure who has campaigned for and very recently held public office   As MJL has said, the use of their short last name is not outing (although now they are calling the use of their   last name "doxing" -- which they apparently originally accused me of, leading to my block on the scowiki) and is not against the letter or the spirit of the Terms of Use. Avoiding accountability and scrutiny by hiding behind pseudonyms is par for the course on the projects, but the right to do so ends when it harms readers by deteriorating the accuracy of the encyclopedia. I have long complained about the very serious deleterious effects of libertarian skew in the English Wikipedia, leading to bias in favor of austerity and economic inequality. Moreover, while I am still researching their position on abortion, I believe it is in agreement with the 19 year old vandal they seek to protect. I am disappointed but not at all surprised that the clash of these opinions has led to this situation. A public figure who claims that their newfound genderfluidity must keep them from the accountability of others scrutinizing their public record does not mean that referring to them by name is outing, doxing, or a Terms of Use violation as they alleged.

I am certain that I didn't mention or ping MJL off-wiki any more frequently than they were pinging me. The replies on Twitter were to their tweet inviting questions about the Scots Wikipedia issues. You can't complain about uncomfortable comments and mentions if you've invited questions about a huge problem which may involve dozens of potential solutions.

MJL says I have "never seriously considered himself to be wrong before," but fails to mention the work I put in to determining the most appropriate name for the Scots Wikipedia draft namespace, including correcting my mistaken proposal of the word "preliminary".[27] This casual disregard for accuracy in the form of personal attacks pervades the case against me as stated. My successful completion of a Google Summer of Code mentorship for the Foundation in 2016 shows that I have the ability to support newcomers along with the technical and editing community without drama. MJL says I have "a long and troubled history of socking on multiple projects," but hasn't identified any such instances since 2013 or on any projects other than the English Wikipedia.

I have indicated that I intend to seek mediation with the help of a steward after a cooling-down period, and I still intend to do so. Even moreso, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my case with the Trust and Safety team members assigned to it and the other Foundation officials involved in the Global Ban process.

Finally, I note for the closer that the first nine !votes in the #Survey were cast before I had posted this response to the allegations. James Salsman (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I corrected the three mistaken pronouns which were inadvertent errors, as evidenced by the several other uses of your preferred pronouns. You are a public figure by choice,  . Running and holding public office under an announced ideological political platform is not your "personal life." With regard to your claim that I've never admitted error, that's inaccurate hyperbole, as evidenced by my paragraph describing "correcting my mistaken proposal" above. James Salsman (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Isabelle Belato: yes. The facts you describe as personal attacks were published by MJL on-wiki. Do you believe that those under scrutiny for behavior issues should not be allowed to refer to such facts as they believe are necessary to explain their choices and circumstances? James Salsman (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Admin note some of the content in James Salsman's post has been redacted as non-public personal information of another contributor. James Salsman, regardless of any ongoing global ban discussion, continuing to post such information here will force me to revoke your talk page access. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The redacted information was published by MJL both on their project user page and a newspaper article they wrote as part of a political campaign for public government office. The redactions are also inconsistent, in two instances leaving the same information unredacted elsewhere in my statement. Even the proposed Universal Code of Conduct's stricter of its two standards on the topic does not prohibit discussing information the user has published on a project wiki. James Salsman (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@MJL, PiRSquared17, and Base: Is the accusation of me "speaking inappropriately, out of the blue, with a member of the free knowledge movement" in reference to a Foundation official who I have met in person and have been on good terms with since? Is the accusation of speaking inappropriately one of an in-person or online contact? It's impossible to respond to such vague accusations. James Salsman (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: is the person who provided the message the recipient or a third party? If the latter, you and they had no idea of whether I have met the member and whether we are on good terms prior to the messsge, did you? This is the only time I've ever been accused of outing anyone, so your "tendency" description is more inaccurate hyperbole. James Salsman (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: so a recipient of a message from me considered it inappropriate, and reported it to you as such, instead of raising the issue with me or T&S? James Salsman (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: so, on a scale of 1 being relatively innocuous, 2 being asking for free work, 4 being offering indentured servitude, and 5 being something worse? James Salsman (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for my lack of response; I've been away since Friday morning. Thank you GZWDer for answering James's question above. James, I will note that I'm quite saddened by what you've written here; you've responded to accusations of attacks with more attacks, responded to accusations of releasing personal information by releasing that personal information, blatantly lied about the reasons for your ban from the RfC and the block, and accused others of using identity to escape "accountability" when you are the only one here being legitimately accused of wrongdoing. Your response to MJL's claim that you never consider yourself to be fallible was to point to your accomplishment finding a name for the scowiki draft namespace and how you corrected your spelling error. And yet, you find it necessary to entirely fabricate the base of your arguments here. James, I'm tired of this, and I've done everything in my admin toolbox to rectify your behavior, giving you much more rope than necessary, especially for someone with such a long history of issues. We, and by that I refer to myself and the admin team, seek to have as many editors as possible contributing constructively to discussions on Meta-Wiki. You, through the problems outlined on this page and in your contributions over the last month or so, have forced administrative action. Your responses to other editors continue to ignore, in full, what you're responding to, and dramatically misrepresent the truth. So, let me make this clear: the people commenting on your global ban discussion know how to read. They can scroll up a few sections on this page and see, in plain detail, the vast difference between your dramatic retelling of this saga and the truth of the circumstances around your warning, RfC ban, and block. On that note, given that I've made previous administrative actions regarding you, and that you've now accused me of wrongdoing, I will refrain from voting on the global ban discussion or taking any further administrative action on this issue. Regards, Vermont (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: may I omit disclosures which could expose the Foundation or me to legal threats? James Salsman (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It's neither of those reasons, although I'm sure I've violated censorship laws in at least two non-US countries. I'm not interested in associating any editing with my real name any further, for reasons I'm willing to discuss privately with T&S or an uninvolved steward. James Salsman (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Factual error: "e.g. with Scottish Members of Parliament reading articles from the Scots Wikipedia in proceedings which caused the language to fail to achieve official status in Scotland along with English and Gaelic"

The above quote is not true. No such thing has ever happened. A Scots Language Act (or similar opportunity for it to receive equal status with English, Gaelic and British Sign Language) has never been presented to the Scottish Parliament for debate. I'm also unaware of any occasion where a MSP has directly quoted articles from Scots Wikipedia during any parliamentary proceedings. Soothrhins (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Soothrhins: did you intend to post that in the ban discussion instead of my comments section? In any case, as Ultach wrote, "When a politician pulls out a piece of paper and reads an excerpt from it and the entire chamber erupts into laughter, I run the risk of repeating myself but I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss the hurt that some people experienced from all of this. 400 years of being told your language is a backwater peasant cant and someone dedicated seven years of their life to confirming that...." The fact remains the language lacks official status even with millions of native speakers, whether the derision from politicians because of the Scots Wikipedia ever made it to the floor of the Scottish Parliament or their written proceedings. It's probably been more damaging when the same thing happened in the press several times. James Salsman (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@James Salsman: The factual error is here not on the RfC. I believe that the user you are quoting was referring to proceedings in the Northern Ireland Assembly not the Scottish Parliament. In your reply to myself above, you are making unsubstantiated claims. Assuming that "derision from politicians" in Northern Ireland means that Scottish politicians have done likewise—if such derision from Scottish politicians has happened then I am unaware of it. In fact I can find examples of the exact opposite, here and here. Your personal opinion may be different, but as a native Scots speaker (and someone who follows Scottish politics) I want to make it clear Scots Wikipedia is not the reason the language lacks official equal status (with other languages) in Scotland. Soothrhins (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: why do you think I had included "the user's name in the reply on this page" -- I did not. I took it down off-wiki as soon as noticed I was asked. The name had been published on-wiki to reserve the name from use by others, as MJL indicated when they renamed their account. If you leave a redirect to make sure nobody can use your real name, you can't claim you're trying to keep it secret. James Salsman (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

If it has to be redacted by admins, it's a problem for me regardless of the specifics. Zoozaz1 (talk)
The redactions were by MJL. Two of them did not remove information from the statement, and the third corrects a perceived personal slight. Moreover, I did not misrepresent the truth as Vermont alleges. James Salsman (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@MJL and WhatamIdoing: I am unlikely to place the naming desires of an inexperienced admin who has run for and held public office above the needs of millions of speakers of an endangered language. I think I made my opinion of the Legal department's attitude towards Status Labs clear -- are they using similar loopholes to avoid scrutiny? James Salsman (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: that's a double standard. You are asking me to forfeit any remaining privacy for what I have already admitted include edits very likely against the law in at least two non-US countries, but asking that I respect the demands for retroactive pseudonymity of an editor who became an admin on a wiki in a language he does not speak, read, or write (and makes light of that fact still) after announcing their political agenda [redact] and outlining political strategies to achieve their goals while discussing editing with their like-minded associates. James Salsman (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I do not share your opinion about the fact that you are insisting on a double standard. I reserve the right to decide whether to make the disclosures you request after I have had the opportunity to discuss the Status Labs situation[28] with a representative from the Legal Department. James Salsman (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the account you're considering disclosing EllenCT? Vermont (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
No, Ellen has stopped editing, and is considering her next move relative to being accused as the same person as I am. Both of us are secure in our confidence that you should review [29]. James Salsman (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Seemplez: desperate for what? If the global ban succeeds then my pseudonymity will be enforced by Foundation policy. James Salsman (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@My hat stinks: I trust that we both look forward to the day when the Government of Scotland produces its official documents necessary for enfranchisement in Scots in addition to English and Gaelic. James Salsman (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


Guys, Please stop sending off topic messages. --Giratto (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Hello James. As your usage of this talk page has become less and less on-topic, please note:

This talk page is only to be used for comments directly related to your global ban discussion. It is not for arguing with people, it is not for doubling down on personal attacks, it is for replying/appealing civilly to issues on your global ban. Vermont (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Special:Diff/20513652, please either remove your off topic mentioning of a petition for rulemaking that you submitted, or explain how it related to your global ban. I'll note that if you have talk page access revoked due to misuse, you will be unable to participate in your global ban discussion at all. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Question[edit]

@Camouflaged Mirage: regarding [30], are there any functionaries who believe blocks or bans should interfere with scholarly communications? James Salsman (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear above, let me repeat: "This talk page is only to be used for comments directly related to your global ban discussion". This is your final warning, and if you post another comment like this (or the one above about a petition for rulemaking) I will remove your talk page access. DannyS712 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)