Please stop

You are evidently here not in order to contribute to the encyclopedia, but in order to promote some private off-wiki project of yours. You need to stop this. Wikipedia is not a webhost to host your self-promotion. Please take this as a warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Future Perfect, the goal of the Siduri project is to improve the Siduri Wikipedia page with custom community created multimedia and programs, and eventually improve Wikipedia. Is this not in the spirit of Wikipedia?Siduri-Project (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have made any missteps with this project. I assure you my intentions were simply to improve Wikipedia. Can this not be performed under "draft" status on a user talk page?Siduri-Project (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the text I am proposing to include on my userpage (text was deleted again, but you can still see content under discussion in the archive). I will double check Wikipedia's rules to make sure this is allowed.Siduri-Project (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have reported this to the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_Siduri_Project:_what_are_we_allowed_to_develop_on_our_user_pages.3F Siduri-Project (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are evidently here not in order to contribute to the encyclopedia...

If that is the impression you have of this project then the failure is mine, and I apologize. The entire purpose of this project is to develop new and exiting ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Yes, I know some of the material is esoteric and dense to get through, but I suspect that if you took the time to read the text you would at least agree with my intentions. I am not here to promote my website (SidurisAdvice.com) but simply use this as a tool when current Wikipedia limitations make certain aspects of this project (such as image source file hosting) not possible on Wikimedia. Where there are disagreements we should resolve them in a civil manner, as per Wikipedia's dispute regulations. Repeated deletion of the Siduri Project from the Siduri Project user page has made it very difficult to have a productive conversation about this project. If the Wikipedia community consensus is for deletion then I will of course accept this, but this should be discussed with the material in question visible. I politely request you restore the material you deleted so we can talk about which aspect of the project you feel should not be included, on a section by section basis. I welcome your input and thank you for taking an interest in this project.

Please don't feel any antagonism from me, ultimately I hope we both want what's best for Wikipedia.Siduri-Project (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel it is important to note that I could be wrong, and perhaps this Wikipedia improvement project can not actually exist on Wikipedia. I will respect the rules and move and develop the Siduri Project off site if need be, but this will slow the project down, slow down the development of the custom Wikipedia multimedia, and would not, I would propose, be in the best interests of Wikipedia.Siduri-Project (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relationship between you and Gilgamesh-for-the-World?

How can I tell you aren't the same person? Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I changed to a new profile "Siduri-Project" specifically to make a clear home for this new project to improve Wikipedia. Doug, you have always been fair, can this project be developed on a user talk page (under the draft status you implemented), or does this project have to move off-site?Siduri-Project (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an interesting aside of one of the advantages of the Siduri Project, all of the source files are freely available in a open access manner, so, if you wanted to edit it in any way, such as removing text, or changing the image in any way, you could easily have done this. All custom images from this project are Creative Commons and can be modified and freely used by anyone. This is one of the many improvements to Wikipedia the project includes.Siduri-Project (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting note is that you replaced one Siduri Project created image with another Siduri Project image that you preferred. This is exactly what we want, user input. Thank you.Siduri-Project (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Wikipedia Rules with regard to user pages.

Amazingly enough, I'm not actually sure if a project designed to improve Wikipedia actually can exist on Wikipedia, or if it will have to be developed off-site. Common sense and regulations do not always overlap, it is currently unclear what the Wikipedia regulations are regarding the Siduri project.Siduri-Project (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request

Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page?

I don't think the discussion could yet be described as extensive, in fact I strongly suspect most of the differences in opinion are due to the length, density and esoteric nature of the project text.Siduri-Project (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it will become extensive over time, but as of right now discussion has been extremely minimal, but we are in the very early stages and growing pains are to be expected.Siduri-Project (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current Wikipedia regulations around the content of projects developed on a user's page.

Ok, all the fun projects, upgrading custom multimedia, translating it into multiple languages and the Siduri programming project (essentially designing a bot to protect the Siduri Wikipedia article as well as other Wikipedia articles from rogue bots) have to all be put on hold while we crank up a campaign to even exist on Wikipedia. This is more of a political and regulatory project, but a very important one non-the-less, the project needs a home, and Wikipedia is the natural choice for a project designed to improve Wikipedia. Where on Wikipedia this would be allowed (if allowed) and under what restrictions, is currently unclear. Indeed, I am not sure if the Siduri project, (a new community approach to creating Creative Commons content for improving and protecting Wikipedia articles) is even allowed on Wikipedia.Siduri-Project (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't belong here

But if you want more input, try Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you are rejected there I expect you to stop, ok? Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if I am rejected there I will move the project off-site. I need to reinsert the text on the user page until the consensus conclusion is agreed, ok?Siduri-Project (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I hope I can eventually change your mind. The proposal for the village pump is under development here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Siduri-Project#Proposal_draft_1.0 Siduri-Project (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last attempt the reinsert and start developing the village pump proposal was deleted and I have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. I am in the process of appealing the block. Doug, I value your input and I apologize for the delay in creating the proposal.Siduri-Project (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent misuse of the project for promoting a bizarre private campaign. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Siduri-Project (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Future Perfect, I had an agreement with Doug Weller to put together a proposal for the village pump. Please unblock so I can finish it. Also, I can understand and appreciate that you feel the project is a bizare private campaign. If you give me a chance to complete the proposal I hope I will be able to convince you that it is a useful, albeit dense and esoteric public campaign to improve Wikipedia. At the very least there is no evidence that this project has in any way damaged Wikipedia, and considerable evidence that we have improved Wikipedia. For example, the current community created images on Siduri and Epic of Gilgamesh were created by us. Please provide at least one example of an action we have taken that justify any form of block.

Also, just to clarify events, as I currently understand them, and please correct me if I am wrong:

1) My colleagues and I initiated an open source public campaign to improve Wikipedia.

2) We created a bunch of custom community created images that are currently used on multiple Wikipedia pages, inlcuding Epic of Gilgamesh, Siduri and others.

3) We proposed and initiated a large scale translation project to get these images incoporated into Wikipedia pages in multiple languages.

4) You pointed out that the Google translations were inaccurate, so we responded by putting up a warning and creating a new table that can be changed from unconfirmed to confirmed, and moved the Siduri Project to a dedicated Siduri-Project user page. At least somewhat responsive, I should hope, to your initial concern.

5) You deleted the entire project.

6) We reinstated the text and asked you to please discuss any drastic actions on the talk page.

7) You deleted the entire project again.

8) Another Admin (Doug Weller) suggested we submit the proposal to the village pump, and if it gets rejected by the Wikipedia community we will move the entire project off site.

9) We agreed to these terms and began working on the proposal.

10) You deleted the proposal and blocked us from editing it for 48 hours. Is this all correct?

If this block is not removed and the putative proposal text re-instated I will be forced to appeal the block. But this should not be necessary. I would much prefer we agree to disagree on the nature of the project, bizarre/useful, private/public, or otherwise, and let the community decide. Is this fair?

Decline reason:

You state below, While we might only be editing with a single account, there are multiple contributors. This is not allowed under WP:ROLE, and as such, I've extended your block to indefinite. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

Hi Jpgordon, there was some confusion on this issue. Yes there are, by necessity, multiple contributors (a cuneiform expert, a translator, a multimedia expert and me) that contributed to the custom Wikipedia images, the actual account that was used to post this to Wikipedia was not and is not shared, and therefore is not in breach of WP:ROLE regulations and does not, I would suggest, justify a permanent ban from Wikipedia. I would ask, in light of this clarification, that you consider removing this ban so I can get back to work on the Siduri Project proposal for the village pump.

Best, JimSiduri-Project (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC) 14:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Possible appeal...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks

You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy)

This would be the correct justification for any proposal to remove our editing block. Will need to cite evidence in support of case that every action taken has been to improve not harm Wikipedia.

Clearly explain how block goes against Wikipedia's blocking policy

Wikipedia Blocking Policy

Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks may be applied to user accounts, to IP addresses, and to ranges of IP addresses, for either a definite or an indefinite time. Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages.

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see Purpose and goals further). Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see Requesting blocks).

If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block on WP:ANI. Administrators can "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate.

Possible request for review of block on WP:ANI

Please note that this is not an official request as of yet, but a draft of the proposal to have the block removed being in the best interests of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community.Siduri-Project (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The Request for block removal (version 1.3) is now ready for submission. Hopefully this will be resolved quickly and we can get back to work on the actual Wikipedia proposal.Siduri-Project (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am now ready to start this discussion. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. "

Question. Will admin's talk page let me edit and notify them of this action?Siduri-Project (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no. Will need to include this in the request so another Wikipedia admin can provide the relevant notification.Siduri-Project (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for block removal

Dear Wikipedia colleagues,

I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia and having a little trouble finding the right home for a project (The Siduri Project) that my colleagues and I are interested in. The Siduri Project is an open source public project to improve Wikipedia, although it is currently unclear how welcome this project actually is on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, we have already created a number of custom community created images that are currently used on multiple Wikipedia pages, inlcuding Epic of Gilgamesh, Siduri and others, and we proposed and initiated a large scale translation project to get these images incoporated into Wikipedia pages in multiple languages. Admittedly this translation project is at an early stage and the initial translations, which were made using Google translate, contained errors (Google's translation algorithm is not perfect).

An admin (Future Perfect) pointed out that the Google translations were inaccurate, so we responded by putting up a warning and creating a new large table database that can be changed from unconfirmed to confirmed as native speakers in those languages reviewed and corrected the translations. We also moved the entire Siduri Project to a dedicated Siduri-Project user page. At least somewhat responsive, I should hope, to the admin's concern.

The admin deleted the entire project and called it a "bizarre private project". We reinstated the text and asked the admin to please discuss any drastic actions on the talk page. The admin deleted the entire project again with minimal discussion. Indeed, the only discussion so far has been a single post from the admin:

"You are evidently here not in order to contribute to the encyclopedia, but in order to promote some private off-wiki project of yours. You need to stop this. Wikipedia is not a webhost to host your self-promotion. Please take this as a warning." (Future Perfect)

My response was as follows:

"If that is the impression you have of this project then the failure is mine, and I apologize. The entire purpose of this project is to develop new and exiting ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Yes, I know some of the material is esoteric and dense to get through, but I suspect that if you took the time to read the text you would at least agree with my intentions. I am not here to promote my website (SidurisAdvice.com) but simply use this as a tool when current Wikipedia limitations make certain aspects of this project (such as image source file hosting) not possible on Wikimedia. Where there are disagreements we should resolve them in a civil manner, as per Wikipedia's dispute regulations. Repeated deletion of the Siduri Project from the Siduri Project user page has made it very difficult to have a productive conversation about this project. If the Wikipedia community consensus is for deletion then I will of course accept this, but this should be discussed with the material in question visible. I politely request you restore the material you deleted so we can talk about which aspect of the project you feel should not be included, on a section by section basis. I welcome your input and thank you for taking an interest in this project.

Please don't feel any antagonism from me, ultimately I hope we both want what's best for Wikipedia. I also feel it is important to note that I could be wrong, and perhaps this Wikipedia improvement project can not actually exist on Wikipedia. I will respect the rules and move and develop the Siduri Project off site if need be, but this will slow the project down, slow down the development of the custom Wikipedia multimedia, and would not, I would propose, be in the best interests of Wikipedia."

A difference admin (Doug Weller) suggested we submit the proposal to the village pump, and if it gets rejected by the Wikipedia community we will move the entire project off site. We agreed to these terms and began working on the proposal. The first admin, perhaps unaware of the agreement, deleted the proposal and blocked us from editing it for 48 hours. We are currently unable to complete the proposal due to this block. Would it be possible to remove this block so we can complete the proposal for the village pump, as per our initial agreement?

Best,

Jim Braum, PhD

Director, The Siduri's Advice Archival Initiative

http://www.sidurisadvice.com

PS. Please note that there is no way for the admin who placed the block (Future Perfect) to receive notification of this action. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and the actions they take. I would very much appreicate it if another admin would be so kind as to post a notification of this action on Future Perfect's talk page, in case the admin wishes to add their perspective on the situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise Siduri-Project (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Wikipedia's blocking mechanism

Interestingly, the blocking feature on Wikipedia appears to have a defective block reporting mechanism. You are requested, upon being blocked, to request, if you think you have been unfairly blocked, for review of the block at WP:ANI, but in a cruel twist, all the work you put into the request can not actually be saved to that page because you are blocked! This obvious issue should be addressed as part of the Siduri Project, essentially an "identify Wikipedia problems and fix them" sub-Project. It looks like, under the present circumstances, we may have to wait the full 48 hours before reporting this incident. There was a lot of work I had intended to do on this project over this time and this delay is frustrating, but hopefully some good will come out of all this, and it will end up with the Siduri Project having a secure home, whether this home is on Wikipedia will be determined by the proposal, once we are actually allowed to write it...

Siduri-Project (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project: Improving Wikipedia's blocking mechanism

Mission statement: the goal of this project is to develop a work around for Wikipedia editors who feel they have been unfairly blocked, to actually be able to use the stated reporting mechanisms, while in a blocked state.

How could this be done?Siduri-Project (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia regulatory landscape

While we patiently wait for the block to be lifted, there is still a significant amount of background reading and research, specifically on Wikipedia's regulations, that should significantly increase the probability of the project reaching consensus agreement that the Siduri Project can operate on the Siduri Project user page. The most important regulation is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages Siduri-Project (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Siduri-Project (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Siduri-Project". The reason given for Siduri-Project's block is: "persistent misuse of Wikipedia for promotion of bizarre private project".

Blocking administrator: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You are blocked directly, not autoblocked. —DoRD (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update

When life gives you lemons, you develop a lemon-based application that will provide benefit for the Wikipedia community. Perhaps, for my own edification, and as a method to strengthen the village pump proposal, I should perform a gedankenexperiment and spend some time trying to understand Future Perfect's position. It really doesn't matter if the block was justified or not in retrospect, at the time it was placed the admin felt it was justified. Why? The stated reason is that the Siduri project is both: 1) bizarre and 2) private, and in the admin's mind were not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Let's break this into its component parts for analysis:

The Siduri project is bizarre

Yes, I guess it is a bit bizarre. Memes, multimemes, metamemes, predictive modeling, community-sourced multimedia and programming, who's going to follow all that? This is important feedback, we need to make the project not bizarre. This means simplifying, removing and/or significantly modifying the more complicated concepts, such as multimemes and metamemes, and just focusing on what we want to do, improve and protect Wikipedia's Siduri page and use this approach as a possible model for improving and protecting other pages.

What would the admin think? Put yourself in their position. Would they even want this? The vast majority of the administrative work that goes on in Wikipedia is protective in nature. Removing vandalism, reverting edits, protecting what was previously created. A project that aims to make all sorts of novel custom multimedia and programs might not sound so great. If a computer program is protecting a Wikipedia page, might that not eventually replace the administrator? This is one possible concern the admin may have had. One possible solution to this would be to put more emphasis in the village pump proposal on the human element. Along the lines of "yes, I know it perhaps sounds somewhat scary, but we humans will always be, or at least always try to be, in control." A second concern that would fit in line with the "bizarre" comment is that the admin fully understands the project, but disagrees with some component of it. One possible solution would be to ask the admin for more specific feedback of which particular part of the Siduri project they don't like and then we can work on changing that project until they do like it. Of course this will have to wait until the block is off.Siduri-Project (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Siduri project is private

As far as the admin sees, all of the edits are coming from a single source, thus perhaps justifying the claim that the project is private. One possible solution to this would be to more specifically spell out, in the proposal, that this is an open source public campaign on every level. While I personally (Jim) am the only one editing Wikipedia in relation to this project, there are multiple contributors who have provided their expertise in the creation of the multimedia and programs I have previously posted and propose to post in the future, including a cuneiform expert, 2 multimedia experts, a legal expert and myself (not really an expert in anything in particular, but very dedicated and hardworking). We still need a programming expert, but perhaps I will take a stab at that if the village pump proposal gets approved. Anyway, not to get sidetracked, the impression of the project being "private" needs to be clearly addressed in the proposal. The fact that the project is open source and exists in a public space, and any aspect the project, any multimedia or program, can be fully seen, at a source code level, modified and used by any member of the public, at any time, should be more than enough to address the concern that the project is "private".Siduri-Project (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Siduri project is not in the best interests of Wikipedia

The mission statement of the Siduri project is to do what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Specifically, to develop novel community-created publicly accessible and modifiable multimedia and programs. This is perhaps the most important feedback we have gotten so far. This should be the first sentence of the village pump proposal. Due to the standard user page template being more along the lines of "Hi my name is Jim, I am the founder of Wikipedia's Siduri project." may need to be the first line, but the concept that we are here to help, here to improve and protect Wikipedia, should come through clearly in the proposal introduction.

Additionally, we should add a statement to the proposal pledging not to actually add any of this proposed novel content to Wikipedia without first discussing it on the relevant talk page. This pledge should be bolded and also included in the proposal introduction. UPDATE 7/2/2014: It has been pointed out that this pledge is not practical, so instead we will just make sure everything works properly and solicite comment on the beta-testing Siduri page (Gilgamesh-for-the-World) before posting to the article with a talk page justification. Then if anyone disagrees they can discuss it on the talk page.

It is crucial that this concept, that we are here to help, be as compelling as possible. We should also provide a detailed example of custom community created content we have already done. The custom community created multimedia on the Spanish Epic of Gilgamesh (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poema_de_Gilgamesh) is a great example of how the project currently works: 1) the multimedia experts worked on the image, 2) a cuneiform expert (Andrew George) provided the relevant highlighting, 3) I performed a Google translation version and posted it to the Siduri project translation table, 4) a Spanish speaker corrected and confirmed, 5) we posted to Wikimedia and then integrated into the relevant page, providing a customized Spanish image for that page. But we don't want to stop there. Custom Creative Commons (read: free to use and modify) images are just the first step. We dream of using the same approach for audio, video and other multimedia. We want to create Wikipedia pages that are rich with multimedia.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the proposal must demonstrate how we have a consistent track record of listening to feedback and effectively implementing it. A great example of this is Doug Weller's concern about "SidurisAdvice.com" or indeed any link, appearing in a Wikipedia image. This is easy enough to resolve as the source file is available here (insert link) and can easily be modified and reintegrated into the relevant page (sigh, do this once block lifted)Siduri-Project (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Siduri-Project (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the role of SidurisAdvice.com

Doug mentioned a concern that he thought all we wanted to do is promote SidurisAdvice.com with the implication being that this project is promotional in nature. First of all, I do want to promote SidurisAdvice.com, who doesn't want to promote their website? But that is not the goal of the Siduri project. Indeed, if this is in any way a concern we can resolve it now. I pledge to only use SidurisAdvice.com, which is a non-profit volunteer-driven effort, as a resource when no other Wikipedia/Wikimedia option exists. For example, Wikimedia will not allow posting of image source files (like photoshop and PowerPoint files). In order for Wikipedians to have full open access to these files I am currently forced to use SidurisAdvice.com as a publicly accessible server. I may need to use other 24/7 servers in the future for the Siduri bot project, but ultimately this is only if I have to. I pledge, wherever possible, as the Siduri project evolves, to use whatever Wiki-based tools I can, and only use external servers as a last resort where the current Wikipedia technology is lacking.Siduri-Project (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and I'll probably have to hire someone to actually implement this, I could also, if requested, set up a parallel Wiki-based platform to expand on the currently limited tools on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. This would be a huge project and probably very expensive, but this is an alternative option for the project should it get rejected at the village pump.Siduri-Project (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"While we might only be editing with a single account, there are multiple contributors..."

Wikipedia does not permit permit shared accounts: see WP:NOSHARING. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, thank you for the link and warning. Yes, this too should be clarified in the proposal. There are multiple contributors to the project, but this account is not shared, it is not accessed by anyone but myself. I will make sure this is clearly spelled out in the body of the village pump proposal. Can you think of any other regulations you think we should be aware of?Siduri-Project (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any proposal would have to be compatible with Wikipedia policies and guidelines - all of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the link. Sometimes these Wikipedia regulations can feel like a maze. My colleagues and I will ensure that the proposal we intend to submit to the village pump meets all of these criteria. Would it be possible to have the block either removed or at least not be permanent so I can get to work on putting the proposal together?Siduri-Project (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, and can't unblock anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this misunderstanding appears to have resulted in a permanent ban?!? Just to clarify, yes I have solicited help in developing these custom Wikipedia images, I don't read cuneiform, I'm not particularly good with multimedia creation, so I ask for help in developing this content. It is still only me, Jim Braum, who logs in and actually uses this account, there is no account sharing, no rules have been broken. The confusion is understandable, but I hope this misunderstanding does not result in a permanent ban. Remember guys, I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I am trying to help. Ok, I've made mistakes. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and let me finish this village pump proposal. If you guys don't like it I can change it. If you still don't like it then I pledge to leave, but I would politely request the ability to actually write and submit it for consideration.Siduri-Project (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Dear Wikipedia colleagues,

I realize reading over my previous comments that I may well come across, at times, as condescending and/or arrogant. Please do not read this into my words, I am no expert, especially not on Wikipedia, you guys are the experts, and if my tone has in any way seemed condescending, I am extremely sorry. I love the Siduri project and want to make it a success, but this is no excuse for an arrogant tone, if I am being perceived that way, I know I work and write a little differently, but I can do a better job of fitting in the Wikipedia community and not rubbing people the wrong way. I promise to try and make everything as simple as possible as we put this proposal together and make every effort to be a productive and useful Wikipedia editor. I would very much appreciate it if you could lift the block and allow me to access the current Siduri project proposal draft text so I can start to work on it again, as per my agreement with Wikipedia admin Doug Weller.

Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question: is this 'Siduri project' supposed to be an internal Wikipedia project, or is it an external organisation? It clearly cannot be both. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that we are proposing an internal Wikipedia project. The long answer is that for certain activities (for example image source file hosting) this Wikipedia Internal Project is currently forced, due to file type upload restrictions on Wikimedia, to use external servers and tools. This does not need to be on my servers, and in fact I would ideally prefer it wasn't (servers can be expensive) but if no other Wiki-based publicly accessible tool and/or server can be found, then I will of course cover any costs necessary to make sure this internal Wikipedia project has all the tools it needs to ensure its success. Does that make sense? Have I missed something obvious?Siduri-Project (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that any Wikipedia project would be permitted to use external servers to host content (even assuming that it was technically possible). The Wikimedia Foundation provides servers for Wikipedia, and isn't going to hand over control of content to external agencies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, could Wikimedia Foundation servers be improved/customized (if necessary) to support a Wikipedia project? I will do more research on this myself, but your expertise in this area is considerably greater than mine. Best, Jim

Actually, I think the Wikidata server could be the answer this project needs. The source data files could be publicly hosted and modified on Wikidata, then Wikimedia could simply be used to host the final multimedia file that would then be integrated into Wikipedia. I think this could work...Siduri-Project (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are proposing, and accordingly can't offer an opinion as to its practicality. I think we are getting away from the core issues here though. Could you explain, in a few simple words, what is the objective of this proposed 'Siduri project'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, the Siduri project's goal is to improve and protect the Wikipedia Siduri page, with the approach we are taking on this one page potentially being applicable to other Wikipedia pages in the future. To improve the Siduri page we are proposing lots of new community created multimedia, images, videos, audio etc. Anything that will enhance the educational experience for the visitor to the page and make Wikipedia more effective at performing its primary educational role. To protect the Siduri page we are proposing to develop a new Siduri bot that will, ideally, perform the following automated tasks 24/7: 1) analyze bot edits to the Siduri page (and potentially other pages), 2) determine if the bot edits are helpful or harmful to the content (the vast majority are helpful, but some are not), 3) notify all interested human users of the potentially harmful bot changes. If a human user confirms that a bot edit is harmful, I would ideally like a simple email based remote method, that with a single click would: 1) correct the bot error, 2) send Siduri bot through the bots edit archives looking for other potentially harmful bot changes and 3) notify the bot's human creator/curator that the bot appears to have made a harmful change and may need to be re-programmed. Does this make sense?Siduri-Project (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not make sense. You are proposing two different things: (a) to improve a Wikipedia article, by adding further content, and (b) to 'protect' it, by creating a bot. (a) doesn't require a project - if individuals wish to work on the page, and can contribute in a way compatible with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is nothing stopping them from doing this already. Regarding (b), your proposal seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Siduri article, and instead is a vague proposal for a solution to a minor problem. Yes, our existing bots get things wrong occasionally - and we already have mechanisms in place to report such issues. This is hardly a problem of such importance that we need a second layer of bots watching the first layer - and I very much doubt that the current level of knowledge regarding artificial intelligence would allow such secondary bots to do anything useful anyway. So, unless you have a concrete proposal regarding a specific bot (explaining in detail the algorithms etc by which it will work), I think this is a non-starter. Though again, you don't need a project to propose a bot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the Siduri article: there appear to have been nine edits by bots since it was created, and I can see no obvious evidence that any of them were incorrect. Could you please indicate where these supposed bot errors have taken place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am proposing two different things:

(a) To improve a Wikipedia article, but to do it in an open community based way, where image, video and data file information is all publicly accessible and modifiable. Currently you do not have access to the image source file data (which was created in Powerpoint and can not be uplodaded to Wikimedia) on Wikipedia's Siduri page, so how are you meant to improve the image? By standardizing a community-based public data modification process, which takes you step-by-step through the process of how to download, modify and then re-integrate an image (or any data file) into Wikipedia, we extend Wikipedia ease of use from text to image, video, audio and whatever other Creative Commons content we want to generate to enhance Wikipedia's effectiveness as an encyclopedia. Wikidata seems to be perfect for this as a way to provide access to these data files so anyone can access them. Is this clearer now or should I further expand on this?

(b) To protect the Siduri article and Wikipedia in general from rogue bots edits. Yes these are rare, but they do happen. Indeed, one happened to the Siduri page not that long ago and no human editor caught it. For your reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siduri&diff=595050035&oldid=594861502

The bot changed a working "alewife" link from ancient female brewers to a species of fish. A minor error, but indicative of an increasing trend. Making bots to monitor bots seems like a prudent idea and hopefully it is one that I will be able to find support for on Wikipedia.

'UPDATE: It is not currently clear if this was performed by a bot, or by a human, the comment about using visual editor and it having a bug made me assume it was a bot edit, but review by a Wikipedia expert suggests that it was not in fact a bot. If it was not a bot, this does remove some of the justification for Siduri bot. At least as a initial priority for the Siduri project, perhaps we can focus more on the community created multimedia generation side.

One of my side jobs is as a consultant is to make predictions based on current trends. Yes, this issue is a minor problem today, but with close to exponential growth in computer processing power, as well as bot AI, sophistication and use on Wikipedia, there is a significant probability that this will be a much larger issue in the future. As artificial intelligence increases, so will the problem, but so will the ability of Siduri bot to do more useful things. You are probably right that Siduri bot 1.0 is going to be pretty simple. Probably not able to do much more that analyze whether an edit was made by a human or a bot, and then report any bot edits via email for human analysis. Future versions will be more useful if the project is successful.

We would like to develop a concrete proposal regarding Siduri bot (explaining in detail the algorithms etc by which it will work) but we are currently in limbo waiting to see if we even be allowed to write a proposal for consideration at the village pump. Due to a miscommunication between two Wikipedia administrators and concerns that Siduri-Project would be a WP:ROLE account (it isn't and never will be), we are currently still blocked from writing this proposal.Siduri-Project (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What utter garbage. The 'alewife' error was not introduced by a bot, but instead made by User:Brandizzi as you yourself must clearly have been aware when you wrote the edit summary correcting it. At this stage, I'm unsure whether you are trolling or simply lack the competence to edit Wikipedia, but either way I'm not prepared to waste more time on this - and I would advise any admin considering unblocking this account to look at the above example of time-wasting nonsense, leave the block in place, and remove editing rights to this page to avoid anyone else getting suckered into responding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, please forgive me if I have made an error. This is why I thought it was a bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiki-proofer-and-tagger "I'm using the Visual Editor so I can give feedback to developers and it is the second time I insert wrong links through it. I'll pay more attention to discover if it is some bug or my own distraction." Was this not a bot? Visual Editor, a bug? If I'm mistaken it is due to my own lack of comprehension, which I apoligize for. Siduri-Project (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I lack the competence for this project. That is a fair statement. But please do not recommend a permanent ban! Any errors or missteps I can fix. At the very least I would politely ask that the block which was placed due to WP:ROLE concerns be removed, unless you feel I am in breach of a different regulation, other than perhaps incompetence, which it looks like I may be guilty of...Siduri-Project (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Siduri-Project (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please note a permanent ban was placed based on a misunderstanding. Yes there are, by necessity, multiple contributors (a cuneiform expert, a translator, a multimedia expert and me) that contributed to the custom Wikipedia images I have been posting to Wikimedia and integrating into Wikipedia (see Epic of Gilgamesh and Siduri pages, and we're expanding to other languages). The actual account that was used to post this to Wikipedia was not and is not shared, and therefore is not in breach of WP:ROLE regulations and does not, I would suggest, justify a permanent ban from Wikipedia. The Siduri-Project is NOT a Role account. It represents my edits as an individual, any assistance I have received in creating custom Wikipedia multimedia such as can be seen on the Siduri and Epic of Gilgamesh pages (in quite a few languages I might add) does not change the nature of this account being my account. I have final review of any content. I alone log into this account and post material to Wikimedia and Wikipedia. As role violations only refer to the Wikipedia account, and not how data files are generated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ROLE), there is not, as I currently understand and interpret the rules, a Role violation here. Please let me know if I have missed something or misinterpreted the rules, I am still somewhat new here and unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's policies. However, if I have interpreted WP:ROLE regulations correctly then I politely request the block be lifted. Best, Jim

Accept reason:

It does seem to be a misunderstanding, so I've returned this block to its original expiration time. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siduri Project Provisional Plan

(develop on user page template)

1. Introduction to the Siduri Project

1.1. Mission statement

1.2. Possible Wikipedia improvements

1.2.1. Rationale for increased multimedia

1.2.2. Rationale for automated protection (see Siduri Bot)

1.2.3. Rationale for other Wikipedia improvement projects

1.2.3.1. Improving the blocking feature

1.2.3.2. Other Wikipedia improvements

1.3. How you can help

2. Custom multimedia creation

2.1. Image of Siduri

2.2. Image of Siduri's advice

2.3. Educational video

2.4. Associated audio

2.5. Other custom multimedia

3. Custom application creation

3.1. Develop educational application

3.2. Other custom applications

4. Converting content into other languages

4.1. Introduction to translation project

4.2. Translation table

4.3. Developing custom content

5. Developing Siduri Bot

4.1. Rationale for Siduri Bot

4.2. Siduri Bot 1.0

4.2.1. Desired current and future functionality

4.2.2. Source code

6. Memes, predictive modeling and other "bizarre" ways to help Wikipedia

7. Integration and optimization of Wikipedia's Siduri page

8. Expansion of project to other pages.

Siduri-Project (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting your time. (2) and (3) are incompatible with Wikipedia's policy on original research, and much of the remainder is clearly nothing but a fantasy concocted from vacuous technobabble. I suggest you find another outlet for your ideas to avoid disappointment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you may be right. I will check Wikipedia regulations on original research and see how this relates to our project. I am OK with disappointment, but if you don't at least try, nothing will ever happen.Siduri-Project (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siduri project is currently on hold at the early development stage

Please note that the Siduri project, as a project to try and improve and protect Wikipedia, has been put on hold so we can review if this project, as currently proposed in the aforementioned provisional plan, is allowed on Wikipedia under the current Wikipedia regulations. I apologize for this delay, and hope we can somehow get this matter resolved. We can define this project under any parameters necessary to help improve and protect Wikipedia, so whatever issue may arise, as long as we are willing to keep working on solving it, we will eventually, hopefully, breath new life into this project. We are here to help improve Wikipedia. We will have to wait until we know if our community created Creative Commons-licensed Wikipedia article customized multimedia is allowed on Wikipedia. We have zero desire to do this, and it would certainly be damaging for both Wikipedia and visitors to Wikipedia (the exact opposite of our goal) but we may be forced (hopefully not) to remove an awful lot of Siduri Project created useful Wikipedia customized images currently active on Wikipedia.Siduri-Project (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use only one account

I see you have still been editing with several accounts in parallel. Please don't do that; it's confusing. There are sometimes situations where people have alternate accounts for good cause, but no such reason is apparent in your case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Future Perfect, thank you for your input and I apologize for any confusion. The "Wiki-proofer-and-tagger" and "Siduri-Project" accounts could certainly be linked if this helps reduce confusion. However, the "Gilgamesh-for-the-World" was meant as a sandbox account where my colleagues and I could test integration of new multimedia and potentially other applications into a clone of Wikipedia's "Siduri" page, in a safe space. Any mistakes by myself or anyone else would not affect Wikipedia's front page for Siduri, thus protecting Wikipedia and any visitors to Wikipedia. It is probably correct that currently there is little to no need for such an beta-testing account right now, as the project has not even started (due to an amazing amount of Wikipedia red tape). However, if this project is: 1) approved at the village pump, and 2) successful enough to start to involve increasingly sophisticated multimedia and software, then I would propose that this beta-testing page is an important place to test these additions without messing up Wikipedia's front page.

I have not read the relevant rules yet, but would appreciate your advice on this matter, as you have much more expertise that I do, is this beta-testing concept, with the desire of protecting Wikipedia's public pages, a valid reason for this one extra account?Siduri-Project (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, to keep you fully informed and in-the-loop I also briefly discussed this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Can_we_post_our_Creative_Commons-licensed_Wikimedia-hosted_multimedia_.28images.2C_audio.2C_videos.2C_etc.29_to_Wikipedia.3F

Conversation from DRN

Hi Siduri, I have moved the conversation here to your talk page as it is not appropriate for the DRN venue.

You said: Thanks for the advice Keithbob, the block in question has now been removed, but we've run into another problem and had to put the Creative Commons multimedia creation component of the project on hold so we can review if this component, as currently proposed in the provisional plan, is allowed on Wikipedia under the current Wikipedia regulations. An initial interpretation of the rules seems to be that community created Wikipedia article customized multimedia is allowed on Wikipedia if it is uploaded to Wikimedia with a Creative Commons license. Would you perhaps be able to advise me if there is a Wikipedia forum or other page where I could check if this interpretation of the rules is correct
My response: Even though I'm an experienced editor I still use WP:TEAHOUSE and find it very helpful for obtaining information from other experienced users. The Creative Commons is not an area of WP where I have knowledge or expertise. I suggest you ask at Teahouse, there are many editors there who are experienced in a variety of WP areas including media etc. and I think you'll find the information you need. If you are looking for possible dispute resolution forums you can look at WP:DR and/or WP:DRR. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keith, I took your advice and asked at the Teahouse, it looks like Creative Commons-licensed Wikimedia-hosted educational material is acceptable for use on Wikipedia, but I am still double checking this.Siduri-Project (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate you giving me links to the dispute resolution boards, but I sincerely hope that civil discussion can resolve any potential dispute and that they will not be necessary, but thank you for notifying me of them. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Good luck with your project!

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests, contacting others while blocked, and media issues

1. You can save unblock requests on your talk page, but not anywhere else. 2. You can alert anyone from your talk page. {{u|Dougweller}} will let me know you are trying to contact me. 3. Media - we need to protect Wikipedia from copyright violations. If I understand you, your system might bypass our procedures. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, thanks for the advice and the method I could use to contact you, I appreciate it. I didn't see that method highlighted on the blocking screen, but I could have missed it. We as a Wikipedia community may wish to highlight this method a bit more prominently on the blocking page, but this is a project for another time. Regarding the copyright concerns, I completely agree with you that we need to make sure all proposed content meets Wikipedia's regulations in this regard. I will also follow up with a legal expert. I don't want to hurt Wikipedia in any way, so I will make sure the copyright issue is resolved to your satisfaction. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue of your 3 accounts at WP:ANI and used the alert system (in this case simply adding your full username in square brackets). Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug, I responded at WP:ANI, I appreciate you notifying me. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old accounts blocked

As this user is now editing as User:Jim-Siduri I am blocking his 3 old accounts. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]