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?

[Kelly Martin]

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

A more interesting problem is to identify the statements, if any, in Jimbo's elocution which are, in fact, true.

I don't believe for a moment he did any "googling" before trying to delete the article. His "My bad, I forgot to check Google News" doesn't fly in face of the fact that Google checks it automatically for you these days (assuming you haven't really messed around with your search preferences, which I rather doubt Jimbalooni even knows how to do).

[thekohser]

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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]

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:

* 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.

[the fieryangel]

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...

[Jon Awbrey]

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

[thekohser]

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.

That may well be. But, how is it that he picks a smoking hot brunette upon whom to lay down his test case?

[A User]

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:

* 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.

[thekohser]

Well, if they're going to delete articles that they can't responsibly maintain, I'd say that's about 3,000,000 articles. Go for it, Jimbo!

Meanwhile, could Nuke (or someone) please explain what is meant by "the January incident"?

[Apathetic]

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

[the fieryangel]

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?

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 :

::::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]

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

Ah, 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"?

[thekohser]

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?

[Jon Awbrey]

Dear Mods,

Isn't it about time to move Duh Jimbo Phenomenon to the Annex?

It's really getting to be a hyper-bore …

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

[Zoloft]

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)

[SB_Johnny]

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.

[Zoloft]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (T-C-L-K-R-D) had a major dispute with TreasuryTag, who then took an axe to his contribs while RAN (as he's known for short) was serving a block.

This led to some screaming and whinging.

[Milton Roe]

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- ) (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.

[SB_Johnny]

Is this really about her age? For Pete's sakes, she's only 45!

[Milton Roe]

Is this really about her age? For Pete's sakes, she's only 45!

Female news anchors age in dog-years. Leslie Stahl owes her job at 60 Minutes only to the fact that they figured she was post-menopausal and thus wouldn't give them any of the hassle that the fertile Meredith Vieira did.