User talk:Sj

From Outreach Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I am Samuel Klein - For fastest response, please leave me a message on meta.

with the aid of cocktails, all things are possible. -- Phoebe 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsavory action[edit]

I think it's rather unsavory how you deleted thoughtful analysis of the Belfer Center situation, hiding your action in an obscure edit summary. I wonder, is anyone affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation capable of acknowledging and facing criticism head-on, or is the infamous "let's quietly sweep this bit under the rug" the only tactic you all know? - Thekohser (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The text in question cited Wikipediocracy, which is not only hardly a reliable source, but it also is not something that should be cited on any Wikimedia site in relation to criticism of anything. Now, if you can find this on another website that doesn't act as a black hat/white hat site, then we might have something to talk about, but until then, I don't see the point of keeping that on there, as this site is a Wikimedia site, not a gossip site. And before you get the impression that I am not already aware of the WMF's issues, I am well-versed in many of them, but I don't agree that we should be citing outside sources like that on pages that new users who aren't familiar with the site can read. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia, so "reliable source" doesn't apply. But, regardless of that, Wikipediocracy is a reliable source (in the general meaning of the phrase) for subjects relating to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation criticism. Wikipediocracy has its own Wikipedia article. Wikipediocracy has been mentioned by journalists, or played a role in their publication of stories, including: Andrew Leonard in Salon, Dan Murphy in Christian Science Monitor, Kevin Morris in Daily Dot, Amanda Filipacchi in Wall Street Journal, Perry Chiaramonte in Fox News, Martha Nichols and Lorraine Berry in Talking Writing, Fernando Alfonso III in Daily Dot, Joe Kloc on Daily Dot, Audra Schroeder in Daily Dot, and Andrew Orlowski in The Register. So, while you, Kevin Rutherford, may deem Wikipediocracy "hardly a reliable source", it does seem to have been used as a source by at least a dozen different journalists. Do you suppose you're smarter and more insightful than each of them? And finally, Klein didn't just delete the Wikipediocracy link; he also deleted a link to one of the most thoughtfully compiled pieces of research that I've ever seen on a Wikimedia mailing list, compiled by Scott "Russavia" Bibby. The only "impression" that I'm getting of you is that you are wrong, and that the evidence stands on my side, confirming that Wikipediocracy is a reliable source (at least for an "Outreach" page where Sue Gardner proactively requested that we "add additional material"). I added highly relevant additional material, and Klein took it away... doing zero to reconstitute the information in "a subpage with collated community reviews", which was the initial suggestion from Nemo bis. You're now on record as one of those infamous Wikimedians who is a "criticism hider", rather than an "open and transparent" community member. Congratulations. - Thekohser (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, I really don't care about accusations, and I don't necessarily agree with how things were done, but I do not think things should be pointed here. Yes, discussion on criticism needs to be done, but we shouldn't be attacking others on this site based on how they act. It was wrong to remove anything here without a proper edit summary or reason, and I side with you in that regard. I do disagree adding the colored box in the text though, just because we shouldn't focus on one thing over the expense of others. 16:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sj, that removal of Gregory Kohs post was entirely inappropriate. Can you please explain it, yourself, why you did it.

Also, whilst I am here, can I ask you when you became aware of the Belfer fiasco? We've heard that basically everyone in the WMF knew about it, but we have no idea if the BoT were ever aware of it. I will be posting this question on the BoT noticeboard too, but would appreciate your answer as well. Russavia (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Per Wikimedia:Inactivity policy, your account is due for having advanced user rights removed. If you would like to retain these user rights, please post a message on this talk page and use {{Ping}} to alert me. Note that this message is being sent to several users who are in the same situation and many have never used administrator tools. In the past, community standards were more lax about who received adminship or bureaucratship and between this policy and a further solicitation of consensus, we are reigning in some of the requirements for advanced user rights. You will also be receiving an email from me if you have it enabled. Koavf (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Koavf:, I would like to retain for exigencies if possible. But do spend much less time here atm, so I understand if not. Regards, Sj (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks. Koavf (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)