Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikid77 (talk | contribs) at 11:19, 10 December 2018 (→Prescient comments: updated prior post +sources & redirect "Genízaros" slaves). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    [ATJ] Misbehaving sysop "Pablo Escobar", piracy, and permanent ban at the EO Wiktionary

    Hello

    My name is Taylor and I have been active at various wikies (EN,EO,ID,SV) for 2 years. Unfortunately I have run into severe trouble on EO Wiktionary. I am currently permanently (formally 3 months) banned there for the 3rd time.

    The state if the EO Wiktionary is fairly bad (example of a Wiktionary in a good state: SV). The worse thing is the excessive piracy there. The administrator Pablo is obsessed by "improving the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by mass-copying everything from everywhere (other Wiktionaries (preferably DE), Wikipedia, over 100 years old low quality dictionaries, other (non-GFDL) sources, ...). Maybe copying from DE Wiktionary is not a "real" crime, it is just desperately useless. Pablo has already copied 10'000's of pages and templates from there. For example the section about the SV word "mus" (EN: mouse) as left behind by Pablo "improving the quality" was full of explanations in DE and translations to DE. I have fixed that page. I have fixed 100's of other pages with similar problems. Another fine page recently "contributed" by Pablo (efter having banned me) Kaiser - note the red template and category links, the "nekonata" whining and the script errors, as well as the dominance of DE and lack of EO. I have also fixed 100's of pages copied from some old SV<->EO dictionary, by correcting the provided translation, adding further translations, or labeling the word as "archaic". There used to be 7 templates for same thing: plural form of EN noun. One of them is copied from EN Wiktionary, others are copied from DE Wiktionary and renamed several times by Pablo. Many of them worked badly due to Pablo's lack of skills and "puristic" changes (replacing traditional grammar terminology like "pluralo" by "genuine" EO words constructed by literally translating ridiculously long compound words from DE) resulting in broken templates showing things like {{{2}}}. I created a new well-working template even suitable for "though" words like "virus" of "die". My work switching to the new template and deprecating the broken ones was violently interrupted by the ban. I have also created several (not insanely many) EO pages with definitions and examples. EO Wiktionary is far away from having satisfactory pages about even the most elementary EO words. Pablo doesn't care at all about definitions (the hardest part). Many pages about EO words "contributed" by em consist of nothing but the translation block, brainlessly copied from DE Wiktionary without changes, frequently even containing EO as destination language (the translation of the EO word "kato" into EO is "kato"). But the "best contributor" Pablo copies (frequently particularly lousily) from other (non-GFDL) sources as well. The problem got pointed some time ago by one former user (who had left EO Wiktionary). Pablo deleted the 3 pointed pages (I re-created 2 of them without piracy soon after) and ey promised to delete all other pirated pages that ey would find. Ey gave a f**k about even searching. Later I pointed 2 further pirated pages. Pablo ignored the message. There are 1000's of more of less directly pirated pages there.

    There are currently 3 active "contributors" at the EO Wiktionary. Me, permanently banned and unable to edit anything except my discussion page full of unproductive bickering with Pablo and appeals than nobody reads. Then Noelekim contributing valuable edits to an EN->EO list-type dictionary. Pablo has even created a few EN pages, (lousily) copying from this dictionary. This contributor doesn't edit any other pages and doesn't participate in discussions and bickering (maybe ey just fears a ban). The last and actually pretty exclusive "contributor" is Pablo "working" hard in order to turn the former EO Wiktionary into another (piracy-powered) DE Wiktionary.

    Pablo doesn't appreciate my contributions at all. I have been accused many times for "notoriously destroying other people's work". According to Pablo brainless mass-copying is valuable "work", while fixing such mess by me is "destroying other people's work". I was also working to create a few smarter templates allowing to replace hundreds of primitive mass-created or mass copied-in templates. This was not appreciated either, the work is not finished and I can't continue. There are frequently absurdly many (3 or even 5 or even more) templates for very same thing, just abbreviated and spelled differently ("ark", "Ark", "ark.", "Arkit", "ARK", ...). There are redundant templates copied from other Wiktionaries, spelled in DE, ES, IT and more. Pablo is continuing to "really improve the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by adding further redundant templates. I got also accused for "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". I had admittedly edited many templates, but none of my edits had the effect according to the accusations. More likely Pablo is angry about the fact that I have skills for editing templates and modules while ey does not have such skills, and solved eir problem with undesirable competition by banning me. But it comes even worse. Some time ago (year 2014) Pablo emself performed a (primitive) edit on a template (EO verb declension table) with effect according to accusations: "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". Ey even boasted with this edit in the news (year 2017, pretty late news) on the title page (that nobody else can edit). Apparently Pablo has the right to "spread evil neologisms to all pages via templates" while I don't have such a right, because Pablo is the emperor while I am just nothing. Note that I actually have NOT spread any neologisms to all pages via templates. The previous ban was "justified" by among Other Nonsense Complaints About Me Refusing To Use Uppercase Letters. This seems to be a "rule" imported by the DE nationalist Pablo from the DE Wiktionary. I refuse to follow DE rules (Obligation To Begin Every Word With An Uppercase Letter) at the EO Wiktionary.

    I have got banned 3 times. The "justifications" given by Pablo are very long but incomprehensible even for people proficient in EO, and accusing me for including but not limited to "acting like a dictator" (Pablo emself either doesn't act like a dictator, or maybe ey does have the right to act like a dictator while I don't), "using lowercase letters" (see above), "notoriously destroying other people's work" (see above), "repeatedly submitting nonsense" (apparently Pablo's own nonsense (this is DE again, not EO) either doesn't count as nonsense, or maybe Pablo has an absolute right to submit unlimited amount of (pirated) nonsense, while I don't have a comparable right), or "spreading evil neologisms to all pages" (see above).

    After having banned me the last time, Pablo published a news item about me containing not only false accusations about "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates", but also evil sexist insults using male words despite I am not male. I cannot answer to the post denying the shameful nonsense because I am banned.

    Pablo got crowned to permanent administrator in year 2010 by just 3 YES votes from totally 3 votes. Those 3 people left the project long ago, Pablo remained and became the permanent absolute emperor at the EO Wiktionary. The last successful election to an administrator was held 2017-Jan, Castelobranco got 4 YES votes from totally 4 votes. The steward restricted Castelobranco's adminship to 1 year pointing to the low amount of votes of 4, while Pablo with 3 votes previously got permanent adminship. Castelobranco left the project 4 months later, eir adminship expired silently 2018-Jan, and Pablo alone is now the absolute emperor for all eternity.

    Pablo gives notoriously a f**k about community consensus. About 1/2 year ago I initiated 2 ballots:

    • "Should DE play a privileged role here at the EO Wiktionary?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes
    • "Should non-EO words have a translation block?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes

    Great! But Pablo gives a f**k about it and continues copying complete pages from DE Wiktionary, together with all "needed" templates with DE names. This method apparently "saves work" for Pablo. The SV Wiktionary does not have a single DE template, and non-SV words don't have any translation block (and not images either). Pablo's aggressive DE nationalism is taking over the EO Wiktionary and nobody (except me) dares to protest.

    I have repeatedly suggested for Pablo to go back to the DE Wiktionary where ey apparently came from. No result.

    There are further problems with Pablo's conduct. In the recycle bin there are almost 1'000 candidates for deletion accumulated during many years. Pablo gives a f**k about deleting them. Ey doesn't archive the discussion page (90% of content is globally distributed spam in EN) either.

    On the title page of the EO Wiktionary (that nobody except Pablo can edit) we can read that the EO Wiktionary is supposed to become "the greatest and most complete" dictionary ever. Just now this "greatest and most complete" project ever has the most incapable and arrogant administrator ever, filling the dictionary by (lousily) pirating from over 100 years old low quality dictionaries and other dubious sources (DE Wiktionary), and banning everybody attempting to contribute in a different manner. Pablo has repeatedly boasted with things like "I have been tolerating your" ... (followed by absurd accusations) ... "but now my patience is exhausted". Pablo behaves like the exclusive owner of the EO Wiktionary and a dictator.

    There is no reason at all why Pablo should be an administrator. Neither the election 8 years ago (electors went away long ago, and on many wikies all admins have to be reconfirmed evey year), nor merits (the amount of edits is tremendous, but it's >= 99% piracy, Pablo is a manually operating pirating bot), nor the skills (Pablo can barely code templates, and not att all code modules), and last but not least nor the conduct.

    On the EO Wiktionary there is a page Administrantoj with section Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj (abuse of the admin rights) saying:

    Al administranto povas esti liaj rajto deprenita, se tiu la rajtoj misuzas. Nuntempe povas la admnistrant-statuso esti deprenita aŭ per decido de Jimbo Wales, aŭ pere de decido de Arbitracia komisiono. Laŭ ilia decido oni povas doni malpli altajn punojn, ekz. limigo de uzado de iuj funkcioj. Teĥnike povas la administrantajn rajtoj depreni stevardoj.
    An administrator can be deprived of eir rights if ey abuses those rights. Currently the admin-status can be canceled by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee. According to their decisions lower punishments can be ruled, for example restricting the usage of some functions. Technically the stewards are responsible for removing administrator rights.

    The "Arbitration Committee" is a red link. There doesn't seem to exist any Arbitration Committee on the EO Wiktionary, and the promised "Global Arbitration Committee" doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I tried to appeal via my user page but the template {{unblock}} doesn't work there, Pablo gives a f**k about my appeals and no other admin exists. Then I appealed to the Arbitration Committee on the EN Wikipedia. The result was a rejection by only 8 NO-votes from 8 total votes sending me to "Requests for comment". Nobody seems to read that page, the only one comment posted there sends me to you. During a pause between 2 bans I seized the occasion and posted a proposal to desysop Pablo. Not a single comment or vote came it.

    It is extremely easy to create a new account and continue editing from it, or just edit as an IP-address. Unfortunately I would prefer to leave Pablo alone with bad behaviour and avoid coming near to sockpuppetry. Nor I am willing to wait until 2019-Feb-13 when the ban is expected to expire, allowing me to perform a few edits before I get banned again, maybe for 2 years, maybe genuinely permanently.

    The EO Wiktionary has been hijacked by a severely misbehaving administrator. There is no local community able to deal with this. There is no exclusive private right for Pablo to own a public wiki. 2 "instances" have sent me to you with the issue. Please desysop Pablo. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please provide links to 10 separate examples of copyrighted material that is reproduced on the Esperanto Wiktionary? I would like to see links to the Wiktionary page and links to the copyrighted pages the material came from. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy Macon and Jimbo Wales: YES we can. Do you need 10 pages? Here you have 4 (this is NOT all):
    BTW: some IP-dumbhead succeeded to create a "well working" template "unblock" in the meantime. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) fixed Taylor 49 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The first three led me to a box that supposed I should fill out -- but I don't understand the language. The last one claims that https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/komparacio was pirated from https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/komparacio.
    Let's try again. Give me a single example where I can read both pages and verify that the text is the same or nearly the same, and where the source does not have a Creative Commons or public domain license that allows re-use. I plan on using Google Translate to figure out what the pages say, and may ask for a translation of the Goggle translate software doesn't give me the same general meaning for both pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed my stupid C&P-error above. Is it the left links or right links that do not work for you? The right links "vortaro.net" do work for me and there is no box that one is supposed to fill in. If they don't work for you then we have a phenomenon called Geo-blocking. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Page eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/junto was pirated from vortaro.net/#junto (screenshot of "vortaro.net": s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/3227363piracy.png). Hopefully you are not geoblocked from seeing the screenshot too. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday, after a minor intervention by AFBorchert, some pseudo-progress occurred in the matter. Pablo answered to my appeal (result: still permanently banned) and deleted the two pages junto and loka%C5%ADti with empty comment. Note that something like "Deleting page previously pirated by me, Pablo Escobar, from PIV ie vortaro.net, and sorry for the piracy." would have been more suitable than silence. There are more piracies available: ricevi pirated from vortaro.net/#ricevi. Is it now my task or Pablo's task to find and delete all the piracies from there? I still don't see any reason why Pablo should be sysop there or anywhere on any public Wiki. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Prescient comments

    I was going through dusty old files and found this. Thought it might give you a chuckle. Or a shudder of recognition. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Just to let you know....

    ...that whenever I see a racist comment on any page, I plan to remove it, and I will likely block the contributor. Please let me know if you have any problems with this. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    That sounds completely appropriate to me. Be sure to carefully follow policy and of course don't over-interpret remarks. But yes, racist commentary has no place in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    This edit [32] just wrecked my head. I hate this kind of garbage, deeply. I thought about this post a bit while at work today, and I should add a disclaimer that I wouldn't remove material that is "contextual," within an article. For example, a (very stupid) politician who has made some kind of racist remark that was noteworthy, or you know, historical comments, that are part of the knowledge base in WP. But if it's just random bigotry that I happen to find here and there, well....none of us should suffer such fools gladly. Or at all. Thanks for the "nod." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, yes, of course. Sometimes articles need to cover racism and racist attitudes. Of course we'll need to have examples in at least some such cases. I understood your meaning the first time around. But yeah, that comments - the one you linked to, above - is clearly out of line and not ok for Wikipedia at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)"
    I hope we are still standing strong against this - and a lot more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a big deal to a lot of people. I'll use this space to wish you the best in the coming year... WP is still one of the best presents I've ever gotten. Can you guess how many times I've cracked a Britannica in the past 15 years!? Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some racial issues are difficult to explain: There seems to be confusion about racial issues, with some users being suspicious about hidden racial terms. For example, in the U.S., many people think the term "slave" automatically means "African black slave" because more than 10 million negro slaves were shipped from Africa into the Caribbean or South America during colonial times, while over 90% of U.S. antebellum slaves were born in the U.S. plus thousands were Native American slaves (not black) as in the New Mexico Territory, slaves termed "Genízaros" (see: [1]). Hence, talking about slaves can seem a suspicious reference to black/white racial issues, and people will hunt for hidden meanings behind every phrase. Meanwhile, WP has been overrun by users trying to equate the Confederacy with slavery, rather than check the sources which note how Southerners were freeing slaves up through the War and some States wanted the Confederacy to become a slave-only nation; however, the moderate legislators from Alabama and others decided not to banish free states as expelling states from the Confederacy if they emancipated slaves within a state ([2] p.105). After checking the facts, the Confederacy emerges as a moderate nation which limited the powers of their central government, limited federal spending on lighthouses or maritime navigation, forbid protectionist tariffs of import bounties (see: Morrill Tariff), and tried to deter federal pork barrel projects while allowing states to free slaves.

      Unfortunately, when trying to update WP pages about the phase-out of antebellum slavery, there is the risk of people seeing all issues as black/white tensions and screaming "racism". Such screaming has stunted WP's coverage of the American Civil War and the immense accomplishments of black people in building towns and bridges or elaborate mansions (Arlington House, Nottoway Plantation, etc.). Just mention blacks working with whites to build massive buildings or towns operating with numerous slaves running the daily activities ([3]), and beware the bickering.... For example, the first black soldiers in the Civil War were armed Confederate troops (thousands re Battle of First Manassas, see: [4]), while the Union had almost no black soldiers until March 1863, two years later, with the late introduction of the U.S. Colored Troops (USCT). There are many fascinating sources about teaching black craftsmen, better conditions after the French Code Noir (1685), and 1840-1865 attempts to repatriate slaves to Africa as in the American Colonization Society, etc. WP needs to stop all the racial witchhunts, add the facts about what black people actually have accomplished (even in the Cotton States), and try to discuss racial fears in a civil manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2018, +sources & link "Genízaros". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Habeus corpus/Huawei arrest

    Jimbo, I am no fan of who I still call Communist China, but I do have an overriding concern about theHabeas corpus aspect of this Meng Wanzhou's arrest in light of Reuter's saying "Reuters was unable to determine the precise nature of the possible violations." and "The company has been provided very little information regarding the charges and is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms. Meng," it said in a statement. and "Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a daily briefing on Thursday that China had asked Canada and the United States for an explanation of Meng's arrest, but they have “not provided any clarification". and "She was detained while transferring flights in Canada, it added." I believe that the Magna Carta first gave all us little people in the civilized world all the right of habeus corpus and I was pissed off when the big bully stole that right with double speak "Patriot Act"...and even more annoyed that the rest of the western world allowed our right of habeus corpus to be castrated. I don't know or care about whatever the USA is up to with their secret courts and global intimidation tactics but I am concerned when my Canadian government is enlisted into this kind of apparent habeus corpus abuse on steroids. What do you think about the threat to our, your and my, habeous corpus right? Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Without actually having read a full article on the arrest (that's not required to comment on this page, is it?), I don't believe that it's a matter of habeas corpus. There is a law in the US on economic sanctions, preventing people from selling certain goods to certain countries. Yes, these laws sometimes are intimidating and meant to be so. It may be better than the alternatives (e.g. war or doing nothing). In this case, I think it's related to the sanctions on Iran. I don't personally buy into the economic sanctions in this case, but I might, e.g. for North Korea. Canada has apparently agreed to the law and to help enforce it. So Meng may have broken this or a similar law, and she got on the "wrong" plane. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WSJ on bail hearing Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    more details on bail hearingNocturnalnow (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any relevance of the right of Habeas Corpus in this case. I don't think there has been any suggestion that she should not or will not soon have a day in court. Note that I'm neither supporting nor opposing nor even commenting at all on the merits of the case, as I have no idea. I'm just saying, Habeas Corpus is a technical term with a specific meaning and that it seems to have nothing to do with this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, habeas corpus involves telling a judge what the charges are, not the press. The police often ask the judge to look at the information privately, so as to avoid revealing information about an ongoing investigation.
    In this case, we know why the press isn't being told:
    " 'Wanzhou Meng was arrested in Vancouver on December 1,' Ian McLeod, a Canadian Justice Department spokesman, said. 'She is sought for extradition by the United States, and a bail hearing has been set for Friday. As there is a publication ban in effect, we cannot provide any further detail at this time. The ban was sought by Ms Meng ', McLeod said."[5]
    -Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This article says "Meng also has the right to appeal the extradition judge's decision and apply for a judicial review of the minister's decision all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada." So, I think this could be a long and interesting case. Apparently she was arrested at the airport during a flight change, which just seems a bit Kafkaesque to me; I just feel sorry for her for some reason, I mean, its not like she killed anybody or invaded a country under false pretenses, and as of this moment, the way the system works, our Canadian government lawyers are arguing against her even getting out on bail. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't just the US that has an issue with Huawei:

    "In May, the Pentagon said that devices from Huawei and ZTE posed an "unacceptable" security risk. Personnel on US military bases are banned from buying equipment manufactured by the Chinese tech firms.
    Over the summer, Australia barred Huawei from providing 5G technology for wireless networks in the country over espionage fears.
    New Zealand followed suit in November, but said the issue was a technological one.
    Britain's largest mobile provider too has joined the global ban on Huawei. On Wednesday, BT announced it was removing Huawei's telecommunications equipment from its 4G cellular network, following a warning from the head of MI6 foreign intelligence service that singled out the Chinese company as a potential security risk."[6]

    --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The fallout about this case between the US and China has more to do with sovereign rights of countries. Note that Huawei does actually stick to the US laws regarding exporting US equipment to Iran and other countries sanctioned by the US. So, this case may be about the US invoking the law on extremely flimsy grounds to force Huawei out of Iran in a way that's unacceptable to Huawei and the Chinese government. China's sovereign right to trade with whatever country they want to trade with is then being infringed by the US as far as China is concerned. This may prompt China to retaliate on another matter that also has this dimension of sovereign rights. E.g. the US has a made a big deal about freedom of navigation in the South Chinese sea, while China claims that the South Chinese Sea belongs to China. China has so far not imposed its own laws to block US ships from sailing close to its artificial islands, but that could change. So we may see a big diplomatic escalation between the US and China on many outstanding issues. Count Iblis (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks similar to the ZTE case, only that this time they arrested the CFO instead of enacting export sanctions against the company. From a company's point of view, the former is probably a lesser evil. ZTE got away by paying a hefty fine and giving promises. Maybe it is also relevant that Huawei, like Apple, has a patent royalty dispute with Qualcomm and refuses to pay. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We only got the Habeas Corpus Act because back in the seventeenth century a voting teller at the House of Lords recorded the vote of an unusually corpulent peer as ten votes in favour Habeas Corpus Act 1679#Parliamentary history. 91.110.30.168 (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks 91.110.30.168. But I do see that the essence and spirit of habeas corpus does go back over 800 years to the Magna Carta with the Habeas Corpus Act, centuries later, providing a name and additional law supporting that essence and spirit, i.e. "King John’s Magna Carta guaranteed to all free men immunity from illegal imprisonment, a guarantee that has traditionally been invoked by way of the writ of habeas corpus."
    Getting back to Meng Wanzhou, there is one critical point that none of us have been considering, which is:
    From what is being reported, the secret, "sealed" warrant issued for her arrest was issued by 1/ONE Dept. of Justice District in the USA, the Eastern District of New York, and no charges have even been laid against her as yet, just a warrant for her arrest. And she, as of Monday, will have been in jail 10 days solely because 1 USA DofJ District/officials wanted her arrested when she was at an airport in the middle of a trip. I have no idea how many DofJ Districts there are in the USA, but I bet there are a lot. So, unless we all trust all of the DofJ officials in all of those districts to exercise intelligent, reasonable and non-politically motivated discretion in obtaining their secret "sealed" warrants, then each and every one of us have to be prepared to be arrested at any airport in the world during any trip we take if that airport is in a country which has an extradition treaty with the USA, AND, to be held in a jail of that country for at least 10 days before even knowing what the charges are against us, AND to have the 3rd. country's lawyers be pushing for us to 'REMAIN LOCKED UP' for perhaps many years if we want to exercise our right to fight the extradition. Now, maybe I'm missing something here, I hope so, if I am, please tell me.
    Maybe you trust all of the USA officials in all of the hundreds of DofJ local Districts to think and act in a way that respects your civil rights but I sure as hell don't. I think the process of this arrest, regardless of who the target may be, is a blatant and abusive and revealing wake-up call to all believers in basic, universal human rights that the long reach of American law enforcement entities has become an existential threat to all of humanity and especially to each and every person who dares to exercise freedoms of speech, religion and association. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will never forget what a different so-called "District Court" did to this nice, gentle, helpful young man, who I never met but I imagine many of you did, through one of their kangaroo court "grand jury" indictments which only requires a 50% vote to indict, and yes, I know there is no similarity between the targets of these District Courts but I see an identical bullying and satanically secretive process. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    China has demanded that Canada release the arrested Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou or face consequences. Count Iblis (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "100s" There are 89 United States district courts in the 50 states plus 5 in US territories, each with their own US District Attorney. I certainly have some sympathy here, but are you saying that before somebody is arrested they have to be notified well beforehand that there is a warrant? How long do they have to wait? As I understand it, they now have the law enforcement officer tell you that there is a warrant, maybe even touch you with a printed copy if they brought that along, and then arrest you immediately - seems reasonable in most cases.
    I'm surprised that nobody here has stressed the extra-territorial nature of the arrest and extraterritorial law. It does seem extreme at times, but it does have it's uses, e.g. in war-crime cases and similar, e.g.2 remember the Spanish court trying to arrest Augusto Pinochet while he was in a British hospital? I might go along with that type of extraterritorial law. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a real concern. It is likely that it was ignored because Nocturnalnow started this off with a bogus habeas corpus argument. We have four relevant articles at Extraterritorial operation, Extraterritorial jurisdiction, Extraterritoriality, and Conflict of laws. I would encourage anyone reading this to look those articles over and see if they can improve them. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, I stand corrected re: habeas corpus, at least technically, but much more importantly ,imo, would your thoughts, opinions be the same if Mark Zuckerberg were sitting in a Chinese prison for the past 9 days because of some secret arrest warrant issued by a court in Russia? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [EC] I wasn't aware that I had expressed an opinion on Meng Wanzhou's arrest, but I certainly wouldn't have a different opinion if it was Zuckerberg arrested in China. Assuming that anyone cares about my opinion, I am neither automatically against or automatically for extraterritorial jurisdiction. An example of a case where I would be against it is Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. An example where I would be for it is in cases of International child abduction, where I support the approach found in the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction over whatever local laws exist in the country the kidnapped child ends up in. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, Guy, about not having expressed an opinion re: this case, sorry. Also I like your approach of using intelligent discretion about extraterritorial jurisdiction, which I'm confident our Minister will do, but I hear the target has some health issues, so I just hope this all works out ok for her and Canada. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm trying to say is that we all have a natural tendency to be parochial when it comes to things like this to the point of any non-Canadian not really giving a hoot about the spot this process puts Canada in. About half an hour ago, I had to hear on CBC about the State-owned China Global Television Network calling Canada a "loyal dog" and "servant" of the USA as well as "Canada's “judicial independence” as a sovereign country (being) a joke and a lie" and threatening that "Canada could pay an unexpectedly heavy price for its action", all this when we're trying to get more trade going in Asia because USA is screwing up our steel and auto industries with big tariffs from "Tariff Man". Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Russians against for Net Neutrality

    As if the issue wasn't complicated enough, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai conceded that 500,000 fake comments urging the death of the popular system came from Russian emails. and this Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The above is one reason why we should ban Huffington Post the same way we banned The Daily Mail.
    Huffington post: "Millions Of Fake Messages Opposing Net Neutrality".[7]
    Engadget: "Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has admitted that around 500,000 comments submitted during the net neutrality public comment period were linked to Russian email addresses. Pai noted in a court filing that most of the comments were in favor of net neutrality, which the FCC repealed last December".[8]
    Actual words of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai: "...Instead, one finds the now-standard overheated rhetoric about “net neutrality” (omitting, as usual, the fact that the half-million comments submitted from Russian e-mail addresses and the nearly eight million comments filed by e-mail addresses from e-mail domains associated with FakeMailGenerator.com supported her position on the issue!)."[9] (He is referring to Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a supporter of net Neutrality).
    Brian Hart, an FCC spokesman: "The most suspicious activity has been by those supporting internet regulation"[10]
    (Emphasis added). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd want a reliable source for this, obviously, i.e. one not associated in any way with Ajit Pai. Guy (Help!) 06:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Huffington Post should be deprecated as a source, but outright bans are unhelpful as they look spiteful and inconsistent, "Why did you ban A but not B?"--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=872972476"