Jimbo comes to the rescue...., ...of another hot brunette... Options

[the fieryangel]

Meet Lucy Noland (T-H-L-K-D) : CBS network affiliate news anchor in Houston, TX

For some reason, Jimbo has his eye on this article. So much so that he put a prod tag on it... Somebody else decided that since the article had survived an AfD, that it probably should stay...

Now, is anybody seeing a pattern here?

[thekohser]

Good God, he even says "no one came to the rescue" as his reason for coming to the rescue. He's completely shameless.

[the fieryangel]

Good God, he even says "no one came to the rescue" as his reason for coming to the rescue. He's completely shameless.

Well, there's nothing wrong with a man liking pretty brunettes...especially if what that nasty vandal suggests is true...

(Maybe somebody should, like, over-cite that vandal post? I mean, even if it's true, I can see why she'd be upset about having that on the web...)

[carbuncle]

[thekohser]

(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]

Hmmm... and a strong mention of Detroit in the songwriter's video. Wonder if he lives in Roseville, Michigan.

EDIT: He does not. He is a Houston native, and Noland was previously a newscaster in Detroit. So, Awbrey is once again the number one suspect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Jon Awbrey]

Just for the record, I have never accused anyone of “preforming” anything but concrete.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[thekohser]

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:

[SB_Johnny]

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.

[the fieryangel]

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 :

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 AfD

The one !vote is for keep...

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]

The one !vote is for keep...

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]

I find it very amusing that the first AFD on the Lucy Noland article that Jimmy Wales is trying to overturn, was actually closed by none other than Philippe Beaudette, who is now a paid Wikimedia Foundation staff member, their Head of Reader Relations, and head of the 2010 Annual Giving campaign.

I wonder what Philippe thinks of Jimbo's new fantasy girl's article?

[thekohser]

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]

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.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This is a fun block log. Take a look at the first MarkGallagher block summary of this user.

Now we're having fun, boys and girls. Nevermind the whole Spotteddogsdotorg (T-C-L-K-R-D) thing. Wow, a major puppetteer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Susp...otteddogsdotorg

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...otteddogsdotorg

[thekohser]

Now, an editor with 92,000 article space edits tells Jimbo that he's "totally baffled" by Jimmy's AFD action on Lucy.

Indeed, Jimmy Wales has now voted "Keep" on the article-for-deletion debate that he started.

I think we need to start looking into a managed care facility for the Grand Leader.

[thekohser]

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?

I found it only by sheer chance - I randomly went to recent changes.

[Milton Roe]

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.

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.

[thekohser]

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?

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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?

1. “Jimbo”
2. “Wales”

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

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?

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=333851502

Of 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?