Tue 14th November 2006, 6:17am
There's an interesting chess game being played here, of sorts. To be somewhat fair to Jimbo, I'd have to say he's been painted into a corner: He can't admit that he's ptoecting Weiss's identity without turning the SlimVirgin crown against him, and he obviously can't do that - they're his Number-One "stalking horses," if nothing else! If he loses them, heavens to Betsy, people are going to start thinking a lot of the crap that goes on at Wikipedia might actually be his
QUOTE(Jimbo Wales @ 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC))
The page contained wildly inappropriate speculation that a notable author was sockpuppeting. As I am sure you are aware, many authors have had their careers badly damaged by being caught sockpuppeting at Amazon, etc., and it is deeply wrong for people to ask me to restore a page with such speculations in Wikipedia after the claims have already been investigated and dismissed. If there are further problems in the future, there will be no problem restoring the article at that time. In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people.
QUOTE('126.96.36.199' date='10:06 @ 13 November 2006 (UTC)')
Well that makes the situation quite a bit easier to understand, though I'm curious to learn more. Can you provide a link to the results of the investigation? I'm not finding it on my own.
QUOTE(Carcharoth @ 11:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC))
Hang on. Quoting from the above: "the claims have already been investigated and dismissed" - as we say when asking for sources in articles, "according to whom?". I have no problems with the volunteers that are Wikipedia editors writing an encyclopedia, but they should not be investigating claims like this, and indeed there is no need to do so. WMF Office staff and lawyers might choose to investigate further, but at the encyclopedia level the answer is simple: remove the speculation because it is speculation, not because it is 'true' or 'not true'. Saying that an investigation was carried out means nothing unless you say who carried out the investigation. And it is much simpler to remove stuff like this for two reasons, and two reasons only: (a) unsourced claims; (
potentially libellous claims. These reasons can be assessed regardless of whether 'an investigation' is carried out or not. ie. If unsourced and potentially libellous speculation exists anywhere on Wikipedia (including talk pages and deletion discussions), just remove it. No need for investigations.
So what is Jimbo supposed to do now? I don't think he has any choice at this point but to ignore the question, and the entire issue, until enough time has passed that he can delete the discussion entries and pretend the whole thing never happened... right?
And of course, meanwhile, Weiss continues to use Wikipedia as a personal promotional tool to support his highly questionable beliefs about short-selling of stocks, all with the collusion of the site's most powerful admins.
I still think the whole situation has become a little tedious, though... At this point, whenever I see the words "Gary Weiss" now, I want to get up off the chair and pogo for a while, if only to take my mind off it.
Also, Jorge, I'm sorry to see about the ban and all... But you had to figure that would happen, going after them so directly, right?