|
|
|
Jimbo comes to the rescue...., ...of another hot brunette... |
|
|
the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 28th September 2010, 11:23am) (Maybe somebody should, like, oversite that vandal post? I mean, even if it's true, I can see why she'd be upset about having that on the web...)
The vandal post "only" lasted for 2 hours and 14 minutes, so that means it's not a big deal, in WikiLand logic. The IP came from a bad ol' Comcast customer in Roseville, Michigan. Hey, that's only about 20 miles from Jon Awbrey's place. Jon, what do you have against gorgeous Vietnamese newscasters? Note, the traffic stats show the article getting about 50 page views a day, on an average day. So, approximately 4 people might have seen the inappropriate edit. Of course, once Jimbo got his hands on it, page views about doubled their normal average. Way to bring more attention to it, Jimbo -- you got about an extra 50 people to see that defamatory edit that your website published sight unseen. This post has been edited by thekohser:
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
This story is apparently more involved than first meets the eye. It includes intervention by Cary Bass, super-attorney Brad Patrick, again by Brad Patrick with maybe a "vanity" edit, and Patrick arguing quite correctly that Wikipedia " has the obligation to get details right" in biographies about living people. Brad Patrick then blocked another user for disobedience, User:Mjxst. I suspect that user is "Michael Smith-Taylor", as his efforts to create a Wikipedia article about Michael Smith-Taylor were thwarted. This is Michael Smith-Taylor on Twitter and on Facebook (now Michael Cho). All this was in early 2007, so it's clear that nearly four years later, Wikipedia is still having trouble with its "obligation to get details right", as far as Lucy Noland is concerned. This post has been edited by thekohser:
|
|
|
|
the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 28th September 2010, 5:23pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 28th September 2010, 11:12am) Now, is anybody seeing a pattern here?
Is anybody not seeing a pattern? It would be very hard to do (but probably equally fun), but a Kevin Bacon Game connecting Jimbo and the various young brunettes he extends chivalry to would be an interesting project. In the meantime, Jimbo shows how much he understands about WP policy : QUOTE Proposed deletion of Lucy Noland
Hello Jimbo, I have removed the prod tag you placed on Lucy Noland, as the article was discussed at AfD on 30 June 2008. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice against opening another AfD. Cheers! —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Policy doesn't allow a prod when the AfD was more than two years ago? That's not right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Policy doesn't allow a prod, ever, when there was a previous deletion discussion. The idea behind this is that a previous discussion indicates that there are people objecting to the article's deletion, hence they would object to the prod. --Conti|✉ 12:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Ok, that's just wrong. There should be some kind of time expiry on it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why? If you want to have the article deleted, you can always use AFD. Allowing a PROD after consensus was to keep an article is much more likely to cause controversy, no matter when the previous AFD was, while a new AFD usually does not. Regards SoWhy 12:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Jimbo, a lot of things about your so-called encyclopedia are "just wrong". Unfortunately, being God-King doesn't allow you to go against the policy that your minions have created. ...Maybe he's finally getting it, as far as hot brunettes are concerned? He then put the article up for AfDThe one !vote is for keep...QUOTE Keep, no good reason for deletion has been given, and nominator is supposed to do some checks before starting a deletion discussion (or, worse, a ProD). Reliable sourecs like this one validate much of the info in the article, and are available through a simple Google News search. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Tsk, tsk, Jimbo! Not following policy can get you banned for disruption!(He must really want that date!)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 29th September 2010, 8:38am) The one !vote is for keep...QUOTE Keep, no good reason for deletion has been given, and nominator is supposed to do some checks before starting a deletion discussion (or, worse, a ProD). Reliable sourecs like this one validate much of the info in the article, and are available through a simple Google News search. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC) It's Fram! One of my favorite Low Country idiots!
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
Here's what I love about Jimbo and his blundering. Here he is notifying the original creator of the initial Lucy Noland article that the article was now undergoing another AFD. Note, Jimbo gives the author the link to the wrong AFD, the old one from more than two years ago, rather than the current one that Jimbo initiated. What's even better is that the editor Jimbo was notifying hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since September 2006, because that's when he was blocked.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 28th September 2010, 10:23am) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 28th September 2010, 11:12am) Now, is anybody seeing a pattern here?
Is anybody not seeing a pattern? It would be very hard to do (but probably equally fun), but a Kevin Bacon Game connecting Jimbo and the various young brunettes he extends chivalry to would be an interesting project. Yeah, an interesting project for the WMF board. If they cared. Which they don't. QUOTE(Jimmy Wales) But my view is that there is a systemic problem here of bad biographies poorly maintained. Take a look at the vandalism that I reverted back on September 9th. That was in the article for a couple of hours. I found it only by sheer chance - I randomly went to recent changes. What I found was a bad biography, badly vandalized, with only one actual source for most claims, and that source was a 404 not found page which was originally at an IP number in the first place. Yeah, shear chance, my posterior. Whenever Jimbo's lips move, or his fingers hit the keys, false information results. Yes, Jimbo, it is indeed a "systemic problem here of bad biographies poorly maintained." But if they're WMF people bios (Carolyn Doran), or your BLP, or those of your girlfriends (Rachel Marsden, etc, etc), somebody fixes them or deletes them. Everybody else bio'd on Wikipedia just has to figure out who in WMF to sleep with, or how much of a stink they have to make, to get it fixed. The systemic problem of BLP for non-massively notable people on WP will not be fixed by anything less than eliminating the category of BLPs altogether. It might possibly be fixed in negative way, by forbidding all BLP except those the WMF gives permission to exist (a negative rule, with delete and salt as the "default"). The present default, however, is and always will be, unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 29th September 2010, 7:45pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 29th September 2010, 4:31pm) I think Jimmy is telling a whopper of lie right here. Can any of you wiki-sleuths figure out the two key pieces of evidence that indicate that this is a falsehood? QUOTE I found it only by sheer chance - I randomly went to recent changes. Nobody sussed the clues, or are they just too obvious to even bother mentioning? I'll reveal in the morning, if nobody's gotten them. I dunno. Jimbo didn't revert this change until two hours after it was made-- was Jimbo looking at 2 hours worth of recent changes on the whole of Wikipedia? That's rather a lot of changes. Most recent changes are reverted the next few minutes, due to the incredible flow. I'm thinking this article must have been on the Jimbo watch list, or else he was notified personally by somebody outside of WP. Like Ms. Nolan. Incidentally, the edit that suggests she was caught performing on an intern in Detroit and resigned, is not your usual vandalism. Nor has the IP that made the change been blocked or warmed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=333851502Of course there are plenty of Google-able articles available on Ms. Nolan. Jimbo says he couldn't find anything because he didn't use "Google News". But if you Google "Lucy Nolan" you get enough to reference an article. Also, the second reference in the article when Jimbo looked at it was still usable, even if the first gave a 404.... Okay, what did I miss?
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 30th September 2010, 7:14am) Well, in addition to Milton's correct point that "recent changes" would have been a list about a mile long to have come up with a 2-hour-old change, there is the point that the article he edited just prior to Lucy Noland's had its previous edit happen AFTER the previous edit to Lucy Noland's. Anyway, it doesn't matter now. The liar has recanted his lie. After all these years, and you still haven't figured out that Ronnie Raygun didn't get elected President 5 times in spite of his Bumbling Old Moron Persona but because of his Bumbling Old Moron Persona. Badda BOMP — Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
Many of you have more experience with Jimbo than I do, but I think he deserves some credit here. Regardless of his motivations in this particular case, he is quite clearly saying that WP has too many BLPs to maintain all of them: QUOTE * Keep - but there is a broader problem not really acknowledged in the comments above. We have hundreds of similarly unsourced or poorly sourced BLP articles, and if leaving a question on a talk page gives rise to no improvement and no discussion, that's a problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC) * Well, you of all people should know that we are unpaid volunteers. We simply can't always rush to the rescue, especially when it's only noted on a talk page. Most talk pages are not read more than twice a year. That's why we use templates like {{BLPunsourced}} and {{BLPrefimprove}} - so that people can find those articles via a category. Seeing that it was never placed there, it's no surprise that noone came to the rescue. Don't forget, several drives over the last year have reduced the amount of such problems drastically. I doubt there is any way to make it go faster, unless we can either a.) drastically increase our community or b.) pay people to do it. Regards SoWhy 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC) o Yes, of course, we are all volunteers here. I'm not complaining about anyone's performance, just pointing out a systemic failure. You are right, of course, that one way to resolve the problem is to increase the number of people working on it, in some way or another. You are also right that templates of the kind you mention are helpful tools. Another way, though, is to delete articles that we cannot responsibly maintain.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I like what he is saying, whether it is self-serving claptrap or genuine concern. WP editors who aren't already committed to a particular ideological extreme do seem to take some cues from Jimbo (and vice versa). This may be representative of a larger shift in attitudes about BLPs.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 30th September 2010, 8:57am) I agree with you, Carbuncle, but it is unfortunate that he is coming to this conclusion NOW when his authority is waning, if not inexistent, rather than before when he could have actually done something about it.
Too much, too little, too late …
If it were a matter of principled integrity, issuing in across-the-board and logically consistent policy, that might be admirable. But it's nothing more than the Wiki-Perfunctory style of ad hoc special pleading, prompted by a COI convenience of the moment, soon to be followed by a logically opposite special pleading, prompted by a COI convenience of another moment. Jon Awbrey
|
|
|
|
A User |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 5,813
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 30th September 2010, 10:26pm) Many of you have more experience with Jimbo than I do, but I think he deserves some credit here. Regardless of his motivations in this particular case, he is quite clearly saying that WP has too many BLPs to maintain all of them: QUOTE * Keep - but there is a broader problem not really acknowledged in the comments above. We have hundreds of similarly unsourced or poorly sourced BLP articles, and if leaving a question on a talk page gives rise to no improvement and no discussion, that's a problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC) * Well, you of all people should know that we are unpaid volunteers. We simply can't always rush to the rescue, especially when it's only noted on a talk page. Most talk pages are not read more than twice a year. That's why we use templates like {{BLPunsourced}} and {{BLPrefimprove}} - so that people can find those articles via a category. Seeing that it was never placed there, it's no surprise that noone came to the rescue. Don't forget, several drives over the last year have reduced the amount of such problems drastically. I doubt there is any way to make it go faster, unless we can either a.) drastically increase our community or b.) pay people to do it. Regards SoWhy 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC) o Yes, of course, we are all volunteers here. I'm not complaining about anyone's performance, just pointing out a systemic failure. You are right, of course, that one way to resolve the problem is to increase the number of people working on it, in some way or another. You are also right that templates of the kind you mention are helpful tools. Another way, though, is to delete articles that we cannot responsibly maintain.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I like what he is saying, whether it is self-serving claptrap or genuine concern. WP editors who aren't already committed to a particular ideological extreme do seem to take some cues from Jimbo (and vice versa). This may be representative of a larger shift in attitudes about BLPs. I agree with the mass BLP deletions. Most sensible thing he has said in awhile.
|
|
|
|
the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 30th September 2010, 2:46pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 30th September 2010, 10:34am) Meanwhile, could Nuke (or someone) please explain what is meant by " the January incident"? I believe he is talking about the bold IAR deletions of BLPs https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...g_BLP_deletions What is the World coming to?QUOTE As you may know, I take a keen interest in the enforcement of BLP policies at Wikipedia. In that vein, I can tell you that you are way off track in your edits to [[Janette Turner Hospital]]. However, something you wrote attracted my attention:
:MEANWHILE, I can point you toward articles where ONE disgruntled person posted ONE shitty thing on a blog about 1% as prominent as Gawker, and that little piece of verbal caca is then defended as a reason to smear somebody for life on Wikipedia--to HELL with BLP in those cases, right?
I wonder if you could point me to examples of that, so that I can work to clean those up and educate anyone involved that we don't do that.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 14:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Come to Wikipedia Review, Jimbo! We've got lots of examples of that!And then there's this : QUOTE ::::Speaking in general, not just of this particular case, I think that it is clear that decisions taken, let's say, 9 years ago, or 19 years ago (it will happen before we know it!) should have little or no impact on decisions taken today. Virtually every "don't keep doing the same thing over and over, it is annoying" rule should come with a time limit. The rule against PROD-post-AFD is a sensible one in the short term, but after 2 years, I don't think so. If two years is too short, how about 87 years? :-)--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Ban him!! Ban him! Heretic!
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 30th September 2010, 10:46am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 30th September 2010, 10:34am) Meanwhile, could Nuke (or someone) please explain what is meant by " the January incident"? I believe he is talking about the bold IAR deletions of BLPs https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...g_BLP_deletionsAh, yes... the Arbitration Committee action that was prompted entirely by my very own " breaching experiment" with unwatchlisted, unsourced BLPs, and for which Cool3 lost his adminship. Could we please get this event renamed to "the January incident launched by the fine work of Gregory Kohs"?
|
|
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 30th September 2010, 1:51pm) Back on topic... an editor with 100,000+ edits (who is this guy -- I've never seen him before?) seemed to enjoy poking a bit of fun about Jimbo's choice in female article subjects. Will that earn him a block, or a ban? He's been around the block a few times. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 30th September 2010, 2:35pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 30th September 2010, 4:51pm) Back on topic... an editor with 100,000+ edits (who is this guy -- I've never seen him before?) seemed to enjoy poking a bit of fun about Jimbo's choice in female article subjects. Will that earn him a block, or a ban? IIRC, he was involved with WP:PLANTS a while back, so might have lots of edits to taxoboxes and such when they switched taxonomical systems. If you look at the article history, this goes back a long time. Apparently a bunch of info was added in Feb. 2007, and there was an OTRS complaint, because Jimbo himself in 2007 stubbed the article down to about nothing, and volunteer WMF lawyer Brad Patrick (a.k.a. Nutless Brad, for those of you who don't remember him apologizing for Essjay), took out her 1965 year of birth and other personal material "at request of subject." So she was talking to, and getting personal attention from, the tippy-top, more than 3 years ago. One article editor even got blocked for 3 months over re-adding info. BTW, the 1965 birthdate that Nutless Brad removed and many other editors have removed, was reinserted at some point, and remains in the article to this day. All our old friends like David Gerard and Bass/Bastique were involved, back in 2007. And Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
also. However, now that it's 2010 and Nutless Brad is long gone, I suppose the highly-paid Godwin has better things to do than remove birthdates of female hotty news anchors for Jimbo. So, Jimbo is attempting to do stuff on this article himself. But it's an old story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |