Talk:Claims of corruption - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Protected "Talk:Claims of corruption": Excessive spamming ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite))

2016-08-26T13:36:19Z

Protected "Talk:Claims of corruption": Excessive spamming ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:36, 26 August 2016
(No difference)

Jukeboksi: answers and stuff

2004-09-14T14:37:50Z

answers and stuff

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:37, 14 September 2004
Line 214:		Line 214:
	--Jimbo		--Jimbo

	::"honestly and simply raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner" is actually not possible since Wales has a policy of [[outing]] those who offer any criticism, and actually attaching bogus labels to their names like for instance "criminal" or "liar". Besides no one needs to discuss the [[GFDL]] with Wales, or ask his interpretation of it - he is not a lawyer and is not qualified to say what is reasonable interpretation, and with a pet board, he is certainly not committed to actually asking [[independent board]] opinions of any matter - so the upside of talking to him is zero, the downside considerable, and the [[trolls]] are doing the right thing to just continue to ignore him as much as they can and make note of all his legal errors for later eradication of [[Wikimedia]] in court. There is no reason in the world to have any conversation with this guy, and still less given this:		::"honestly and simply raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner" is actually not possible since Wales has a policy of [[outing]] those who offer any criticism, and actually attaching bogus labels to their names like for instance "criminal" or "liar".

	:"...to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him. "		:::This maybe so but most of us are accustomed to dealing with people who reveal their identity when raising concerns, like me. People who remain anonymous aren't as convincing as those who are exposing themselves by being '''[[body\|some body]]'''. --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)

			::Besides no one needs to discuss the [[GFDL]] with Wales, or ask his interpretation of it - he is not a lawyer and is not qualified to say what is reasonable interpretation, and with a pet board, he is certainly not committed to actually asking [[independent board]] opinions of any matter - so the upside of talking to him is zero, the downside considerable, and the [[trolls]] are doing the right thing to just continue to ignore him as much as they can and make note of all his legal errors for later eradication of [[Wikimedia]] in court.

			:::Actually if you think that Wikimedia is in violation of [[GFDL]] you should speak to them about it, not just try to intimidate with assumably false threats of [[Class action suit]], [[Suing for funding]] and other crap that really really is not the consumerium way of trying to make things better. I mean that I understand that the lawyers in the US profit the most from the silly legistlation that allows all sorts of anti-common-sense-cases to actually go to court or seem likely enough to go to court that it affects people's behaviour --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)

			::There is no reason in the world to have any conversation with this guy, and still less given this:

			:::I actually sorta enjoy debating with him about economic systems and such. --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)

			::"...to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him. "

	::[[libel chill]] of the plainest sort, and a clear message: 'complain to me or any authority directly, and you can expect court orders issued against you once I have your name on paper'		::[[libel chill]] of the plainest sort, and a clear message: 'complain to me or any authority directly, and you can expect court orders issued against you once I have your name on paper'

	::the above says all it needs to say, and proves autocratic [[GodKing]] behaviour and total contempt for [[open content]] or its quality or completeness		::the above says all it needs to say, and proves autocratic [[GodKing]] behaviour and total contempt for [[open content]] or its quality or completeness

			:::[[Libel chill]] alright, but one interesting point that escaped you is that Jimbo refers to "ban '''them'''", but "file a libel claim against '''him'''" This might indicate that he has some understanding for the [[trollist]] ideology and usefullness of [[trolling]]. Not that I claim that as a fact. --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)~

142.177.108.112: there is no motivation whatsoever for any reasonable person to talk to or contact Wales - and every motivation to disenfranchise him - the libel chill is plain as day, as are other legal ultimatum

2004-09-14T07:30:36Z

there is no motivation whatsoever for any reasonable person to talk to or contact Wales - and every motivation to disenfranchise him - the libel chill is plain as day, as are other legal ultimatum

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:30, 14 September 2004
Line 213:		Line 213:

	--Jimbo		--Jimbo

			::"honestly and simply raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner" is actually not possible since Wales has a policy of [[outing]] those who offer any criticism, and actually attaching bogus labels to their names like for instance "criminal" or "liar". Besides no one needs to discuss the [[GFDL]] with Wales, or ask his interpretation of it - he is not a lawyer and is not qualified to say what is reasonable interpretation, and with a pet board, he is certainly not committed to actually asking [[independent board]] opinions of any matter - so the upside of talking to him is zero, the downside considerable, and the [[trolls]] are doing the right thing to just continue to ignore him as much as they can and make note of all his legal errors for later eradication of [[Wikimedia]] in court. There is no reason in the world to have any conversation with this guy, and still less given this:

			:"...to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him. "

			::[[libel chill]] of the plainest sort, and a clear message: 'complain to me or any authority directly, and you can expect court orders issued against you once I have your name on paper'

			::the above says all it needs to say, and proves autocratic [[GodKing]] behaviour and total contempt for [[open content]] or its quality or completeness

62.214.28.126: here's jimbo's post of 1 May (just in case 142.177.X.X attempts to censor it)

2004-09-10T16:11:35Z

here's jimbo's post of 1 May (just in case 142.177.X.X attempts to censor it)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, 10 September 2004
Line 84:		Line 84:

	If [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] brokers such a deal, its prestige will rise, and it will effectively be more trusted than [[Wikimedia]] by defn.		If [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] brokers such a deal, its prestige will rise, and it will effectively be more trusted than [[Wikimedia]] by defn.

			----
			Just for the record (in case our friend [[142.177.X.X]] - alias banned English Wikipedia user EntmootsofTrolls alias Mediator alias Enforcer etc. etc. - attempts to censor this information), here's the full text of Jimbo Wales' mailing list post of 1 May 2004:

			[Wikipedia-l] Reponse to troll [[The Enforcer]]

			Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com

			Sat May 1 14:25:14 UTC 2004

			One of our frequently banned users is making a variety of legal and
			financial accusations that I wanted to respond to early and firmly
			lest any of these things take root in any way shape or form as
			reflective of reality in any way.

			1. First, the Wikimedia Foundation is currently in full compliance
			and more with all legal requirements for filings, etc. It is my
			intention that we remain so, and that indeed, we are proactive about
			doing whatever is necessary to go above and beyond what is required of
			us in terms of organizational transparency, etc.

			I am always eager to hear suggestions for improvement in this regard.

			2. Second, there are no plans of any kind to release a 'for-profit'
			version of the Wikipedia, for the separate benefit of me or Bomis or
			any other company that I own, control, work for, etc. We will be
			working to release Wikipedia on CD-ROM, in paper format, etc., but
			these will be projects of the foundation, carried out with perfect
			consistency with our nonprofit mission.

			Such efforts will necessarily and properly involve the work of
			for-profit publishers, but of course any contracts entered into will
			be to the benefit of the Wikimedia Foundation.

			3. There are no current plans for salaries for anyone. In the
			future, I do intend that as we grow, we will become a large
			organization patterned after the National Geographic Society, the
			International Red Cross, and so on. This will eventually necessitate
			employees, etc. But for now, any suggestion that I am personally
			trying to get money from Wikipedia is beyond ludicrous.

			It is commonly thought that I'm a wealthy person, but I'm not really.
			I'm a very committed person who drives a 4 year old Hyundai and lives
			in an ordinary middle-class American home in an ordinary neighborhood,
			while spending far more in the last 5 years on my dream of a free
			encyclopedia than I have on my own salary, none of which, of course,
			is derived from Wikipedia in any way.

			I do this because it matters to me. There are lots of ways to spend
			money in life, some frivolous, some meaningful. To me, doing
			something meaningful is the best reward.

			4. As of June 1, 2004, I am resigning as CEO of Bomis, and my partner
			Tim Shell will take over that role. This is primarily to reflect the
			reality of the situation, which is that I spend virtually all my time
			on Wikipedia and non-Bomis work. But it is also in part to further
			emphasize and underscore the fact that the two are unrelated. Bomis's
			ongoing provision of free hosting for the Wikimedia Foundation as a
			gesture of appreciation of "giving back" to the free software
			community whose software has helped us to do so much is not going to
			change. But that ongoing gift is the only relationship between Bomis
			and Wikipedia, period.

			5. One troll has suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation needs to
			disclose something about it's relationship to Bomis. This is a
			classic propaganda technique: to demand the disclosure of some shadowy
			secrets, with ominous overtones, when there is actually nothing to
			disclose. I am happy to answer any questions that anyone has about
			it, but there's not much to say.

			While I was a futures and options trader, I founded Bomis partly as a
			sideline hobby. It was eventually successful enough for me to retire
			from trading and do it full time. The company rode through the
			dot-com boom with good times and bad, and has always prospered enough
			to provide me with a decent living.

			I eventually became consumed with the passion to create a free and
			freely licensed encyclopedia, and started to spend money on it. In
			the early days, I thought of it as a possible business venture like
			RedHat. Nupedia was an expensive failure, Wikipedia was a big
			success.

			But through that process, it became apparent that in order for
			Wikipedia to achieve it's full potential it needed to be owned by a
			non-profit organization. I promised then to give it all away to the
			non-profit organization, and I did. I did so fully and completely and
			with no regrets. My reward will be a Nobel Peace Prize, ha ha.

			Why has Bomis funded Wikipedia? Because my partners in Bomis shared
			my vision and let me do it. Bomis had servers, technical employees,
			etc., and was the original owner of Nupedia/Wikipedia. The transition
			was natural and spontaneous, and that's where things are today.

			6. I have said before that although there are no plans for it at the
			current time, and no need for it, it would please me greatly to have
			the Wikimedia Foundation grow into a large enough organization that it
			would be sensible for me to accept a salary for running it. If and
			when that time comes, of course my compensation will be decided
			according to the standard practices for charitable organizations, i.e.
			through a vote of the other members of the Board of Directors, and in
			accordance with the advice of an independent outside compensation
			agency.

			In short, if anyone has any questions or concerns about legal or
			financial matters, I ask you to please write to me privately and
			express those concerns openly and honestly, so that I can resolve
			anything of this sort to everyone's satisfaction. If, after you've
			talked with me privately, you find that you have any remaining issues
			that you don't feel I've addressed, then by all means I encourage you
			to go public with your complaints.

			That's my biggest problem, really, with what this troll is doing.
			He's issuing a lot of lies (anonymously of course) and insinuations,
			attempting to make a public stink, rather than honestly and simply
			raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner. I don't actually
			fear any actual legal action, because in order to file a legal action,
			he or she would have to reveal his or her true identity, which would
			then enable us to finally take legal action to permanently ban them
			from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a
			libel claim against him.

			Anyhow, really, I wanted to say all this because I want you you all to
			know my keen interest in openness, transparency, fairness, etc. I
			want to do whatever I need to do to make sure that the Wikimedia
			Foundation is looked to as a shining example of how a nonprofit should
			be run, with tight attention paid to expenses, good stewardship of
			donor money, etc.

			--Jimbo

Jukeboksi: moving claim later proved false to FUCOC

2004-09-09T15:24:55Z

moving claim later proved false to FUCOC

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 9 September 2004
Line 9:		Line 9:
	----		----

	The partially released [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000370.html results] of the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] "election" proves what [[trolls]] have always said: it is a front for the [[sysop power structure]]:

	~~"The top 3 for contributing rep were:~~

	~~Anthere 269~~
	~~Eloquence 258 ([[Erik Moeller]])~~
	~~Maveric149 163 (([[Daniel Mayer]])~~

	~~The top 2 for for volunteer rep:~~

	~~Angela 345 ([[Auntie Angela]])~~
	~~Maveric149 159" ([[Daniel Mayer]])~~
	~~----~~
	~~Moved from [[Wikimedia corruption]]~~

	*withholding full [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] election results from the voters! [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000360.html apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo] the [[GodKing]] of Wikimedia and [[Bomis]]

	::This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly.

	:::Sorry, this was true when written, and, full disclosure is full disclosure. What were they trying to hide? Whether they succeeded in hiding it or not. It appears they were trying to hide just how many cronies could use their cronyism to score high in this "election"

	~~::::After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)~~

	*no [[independent board]] free of influence from [[Bomis.com]] - although [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000371.html "two of the current trustees don't seem to be active Wikimedians"], those being [[sock puppet]] votes of [[Jimbo Wales]]: his employees at that corporation.		*no [[independent board]] free of influence from [[Bomis.com]] - although [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000371.html "two of the current trustees don't seem to be active Wikimedians"], those being [[sock puppet]] votes of [[Jimbo Wales]]: his employees at that corporation.

142.177.41.102: broker a deal?

2004-09-07T18:13:48Z

broker a deal?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 7 September 2004
Line 98:		Line 98:

	:how can one libel an organization whose sole purpose seems to be libel? Hmm.		:how can one libel an organization whose sole purpose seems to be libel? Hmm.

			-----------

			Is it actually acceptable to simply remove [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Daniel Mayer]] publicly? Will those subjected to [[libel]] by these people actually back off if they are publicly removed and Wales apologizes? Or is Wales, himself, the ultimate problem, due to his history as a [[GodKing]] and so on?

			[[Trolls]] are unlikely to all agree on this. Perhaps the debate on a [[negotiated settlement between trolls and Wikimedia]] should be very public.

			If [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] brokers such a deal, its prestige will rise, and it will effectively be more trusted than [[Wikimedia]] by defn.

142.177.103.75: moving Moeller and Starling concerns as they are not officers of Wikimedia

2004-09-04T18:41:54Z

moving Moeller and Starling concerns as they are not officers of Wikimedia

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 , please provide specifics and references for these claims.
 :Doing so for new claims;  However, since lies, [[libel]] and [[echo chamber]] fraud are freely spread on [[vile mailing list]]s run by [[Wikimedia]] without any such specifics or references, it might be abusive to require such documentation from their opponents;  most specific references are in the sub-articles using the most infamous [[Wikimedia]] clowns as the universal bad example for how not to do [[wiki governance]].
@@ Line 84: / Line 86: @@
 Attempts to rename this page "[[unsubstantiated claims]] of..." are bogus.  Most of what is '''alleged''' is actually rather easy to substantiate.  For instance all you have to do to see a [[GFDL violation]] is try to retrieve source text of a single article from a blocked IP.  It's obviously true that a search engine company like [[Bomis]] can use data on which articles are most popular - it's up to them to prove they AREN'T using it for advantage.  And you can find most of the rest of the stuff in the [[vile mailing list]] archives.  To demand "substantiation" for this kind of obvious observation is abusive.

142.177.97.118: all claims are "substantiated" in that the prima facie evidence is easy to establish for oneself - whether it represents corruption or not is what is alleged, but facts are undisputed

2004-08-19T20:35:37Z

all claims are "substantiated" in that the prima facie evidence is easy to establish for oneself - whether it represents corruption or not is what is alleged, but facts are undisputed

New page

142, please provide specifics and references for these claims.

:Doing so for new claims; However, since lies, [[libel]] and [[echo chamber]] fraud are freely spread on [[vile mailing list]]s run by [[Wikimedia]] without any such specifics or references, it might be abusive to require such documentation from their opponents; most specific references are in the sub-articles using the most infamous [[Wikimedia]] clowns as the universal bad example for how not to do [[wiki governance]].

:Is [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000365.html being blocked in China] evidence of corruption? hm. [[Trolls]] would say no, but, [[sysop power structure]] would have to respect China's [[power structure]] and their pet sysops who are their friends in fascist power plays. - [[w:User:Plato/red_faction|hail to the red faction]]!

----

The partially released [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000370.html results] of the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] "election" proves what [[trolls]] have always said: it is a front for the [[sysop power structure]]:

"The top 3 for contributing rep were:

Anthere 269
Eloquence 258 ([[Erik Moeller]])
Maveric149 163 (([[Daniel Mayer]])

The top 2 for for volunteer rep:

Angela 345 ([[Auntie Angela]])
Maveric149 159" ([[Daniel Mayer]])
----
Moved from [[Wikimedia corruption]]

*withholding full [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] election results from the voters! [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000360.html apparently there will be NO release of figures (!), even on a sitewide basis, according to directives by Jimbo] the [[GodKing]] of Wikimedia and [[Bomis]]

::This is not true. Imran and Danny have decided to not release full results apparently because some candidates wished they not be released. This has been critisized in the #wikipedia IRC channel recently and a plan is proposed that all results of those candidates who agree to releasing their votecounts would be released and those withholding would just look silly.

:::Sorry, this was true when written, and, full disclosure is full disclosure. What were they trying to hide? Whether they succeeded in hiding it or not. It appears they were trying to hide just how many cronies could use their cronyism to score high in this "election"

::::After taking up the issue with Danny here are the full election results http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_results --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (EEST)

*no [[independent board]] free of influence from [[Bomis.com]] - although [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000371.html "two of the current trustees don't seem to be active Wikimedians"], those being [[sock puppet]] votes of [[Jimbo Wales]]: his employees at that corporation.

:#Jimbo no longer works for Bomis, thus he has no employees at Bomis
:#Michael Davis never worked there
:#Only Bomis employee on the board is Tim Shell

::What absolute nonsense - Wales *OWNS* [[Bomis]]. And Davis has shares too apparently. This is a fairly transparent and bogus attempt to create a [[false front]] organization. And again, what are they hiding? Surely they realize they're doing something wrong, if they're quitting and pretending to set up these structures.

:::Ok. Ownership naturally leads to some power over current employees, but may I remind once again that it is not true that two of the [[independent board]] members work for Bomis.com, only Tim Shell works there

--------------

''How about this: [http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16564]''

:"[[Daniel Mayer|Mayer]] said: "At Wikipedia the authors and administrators of our content enforce the GNU FDL by searching for infringes and contacting them. At first we use a friendly form letter, then a more sternly worded letter, and finally a very stern letter. Usually this works, but some web sites are still in breach - we are still trying to figure out what to do with them".

It turns out that Wikipedia.org keeps a list of all its "mirrors and forks" here.

He continued: "I'm one of the Wikipedia administrators who informed WordIQ that they were breaking the terms of our license by not providing a link back to the Wikipedia original and not mentioning that their copied version of our articles were licensed under terms of the GNU FDL. After some time they did finally provide the link-backs and the mention/link to the GNU FDL that we were asking for."

He added: "At Wikipedia we use a very liberal interpretation of the GNU FDL in order to make it easier for people to copy our content"."

:This is laughable. [[Wikipedia]] itself is in constant [[GFDL violation]], and the license does *not* require "links back to the Wikipedia original", it requires access to the source text version of the article, which Wikipedia itself does not provide to all users.

::What articles does it not provide the source for? (r3m0t)

:::There are many [[IP address]]es from which the current article source is not retrievable. This is a "technical barrier" to its retrieval and is specifically forbidden by the [[GFDL]].

:::Also, the source of a [[protected page]] is not retrievable from ANY IP address, and it is often exactly these that people would want to copy and begin to evolve in some other place. This is an attempt to claim a monopoly on the edits of very controversial pages and prevent people from exercising their right to [[fork off]].

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_(low_degree_of_compliance) here is a list of all the sites they bully and harass into making themselves the centre of the] [[GFDL corpus]] universe.

-------------------

''the following was added under''
*false claims added to [[Wikimedia]] article here, and true claims removed

::Note that most false claims here have been made by [[142.177.X.X]] who seems to be on a personal vendetta on Wikipedia for banning him for persistent non-encyclopedic edits in the past
:::This is itself a false claim. Almost all material contributed by the 142 range has remained in the encyclopedia and passed several [[ad hominem delete]] tests - that is, many people agree it belongs. Whatever issues there are with this material, it's not it's lack of encyclopedic relevance. Whenever 142 or similar material is removed, it's almost always [[ad hominem revert]] or [[ad hominem delete]], that is, there is no valid reason to remove it at all, and requiring its removal is simply [[sysop vandalism]].
:::Furthermore, the "vendetta" is beyond anything personal at this point, and includes whole [[faction]]s such as the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]], and even some sympathetic sysops who we do not name so they will not be targetted.

-----------------

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Developer_payment Developer payment]s are considered corruption by some. Obviously [[Erik Moeller]] is trying to get paid for doing whatever damage he wants to [[MediaWiki]] with charity money. It is not clear he will succeed at this damaging and being paid to do damaging.

------------

It speaks to the credibility of this page that there is never any response to it except denial and censorship. Lies are told about [[trolls]], and the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] is censored off the entire net, everywhere, by the [[sysop power structure]] (woops forgot to add that), but no one ever responds substantially to allegations.

Question: If [[James Wales]], [[Daniel Mayer]], [[Tim Starling]], [[Erik Moeller]] were all kicked out, would the rest of the project stabilize and solve its corruption problems? Or is fated to be run by the likes of [[Angela Beesley]] and her friends? If so then where will the default [[GFDL corpus access provider]] come from?

------------------

Attempts to rename this page "[[unsubstantiated claims]] of..." are bogus. Most of what is '''alleged''' is actually rather easy to substantiate. For instance all you have to do to see a [[GFDL violation]] is try to retrieve source text of a single article from a blocked IP. It's obviously true that a search engine company like [[Bomis]] can use data on which articles are most popular - it's up to them to prove they AREN'T using it for advantage. And you can find most of the rest of the stuff in the [[vile mailing list]] archives. To demand "substantiation" for this kind of obvious observation is abusive.