Deleted by Jimbo

[thekohser]

Once again, when faced with evidence that a Wikimedia Foundation vendor is spiffing up its own article on Wikipedia, without disclosure, Jimbo's first instinct is to hide the facts.

[thekohser]

Once again, when faced with evidence that a Wikimedia Foundation vendor is spiffing up its own article on Wikipedia, without disclosure, Jimbo's first instinct is to hide the facts.

And even as the discussion continues in the open again, Jimbo is quickly on the scene again to hide, hide, HIDE!

[EricBarbour]

I noticed that Guy is still a shithead.....

[thekohser]

What better way to kick off a Thanksgiving Day celebration than with a little hiding of the embarrassing Talk page discussions?

[thekohser]

For posterity's sake (thanks to Dan Murphy -- I had forgotten about this one)...

Here is Jimbo erasing a detailed promise that the domain holder for Wikipediocracy harbors absolutely no physical threat to Wales or his family. That would have gotten in the way of his "I don't vote, because stalkers will find me at my house" schtick.

[thekohser]

Here was a nifty "Deleted by Wehwalt" as an "in your face" turnabout moment for Jimbo.

Oh, darn. Wehwalt caved in, two minutes later. And then caved in again, ten minutes later. Come on, Wikipediots -- show some resolve.

[EricBarbour]

Here was a nifty "Deleted by Wehwalt" as an "in your face" turnabout moment for Jimbo.

Oh, darn. Wehwalt caved in, two minutes later. And then caved in again, ten minutes later. Come on, Wikipediots -- show some resolve.

Yeah, but Jimbo didn't delete it.......

(I have a bit of a problem saying something nice about Wehwalt. He's a very low character, if you ask me.)

[thekohser]

Here's Jimbo tidying up some Wikipedia article content, probably as a favor to his new-found Labour buddies.

[Poetlister]

Here's Jimbo tidying up some Wikipedia article content, probably as a favor to his new-found Labour buddies.

Shouldn't he get someone else to do it? He can't be that careless.

[Ogajur]

Here's Jimbo tidying up some Wikipedia article content, probably as a favor to his new-found Labour buddies.

Shouldn't he get someone else to do it? He can't be that careless.

But how exactly is it supposed to be a 'favor' for anyone? The omitted content doesn't seem to say anything positive or negative about Labour at all. It's pretty obvious that Greg is being tongue-in-cheek - clearly the reason why Jimbo looked at the article at all is that Greg pointed out that Fleishman-Hillard had engaged in COI editing of the article (albeit quite mild in the grand scheme of things).

[thekohser]

But how exactly is it supposed to be a 'favor' for anyone? The omitted content doesn't seem to say anything positive or negative about Labour at all. It's pretty obvious that Greg is being tongue-in-cheek - clearly the reason why Jimbo looked at the article at all is that Greg pointed out that Fleishman-Hillard had engaged in COI editing of the article (albeit quite mild in the grand scheme of things).

Welcome, Ogajur! The problem, of course, is the oft-quoted problem that Jimbo himself has advised us all about, for years -- and that is that editors should avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Jimbo's new employer, The People's Operator, is known to be hand-in-hand with the Labour Party. Therefore, Jimbo is treading on dangerous COI-appearance ground when he picks THE ONE FRIGGIN' PARAGRAPH that mentions the Labour Party in the Fleishman-Hillard article, of all the paragraphs he felt the need to delete.

[thekohser]

Jimbo suggests that an eight-year account on Wikipedia could possibly be a Joe job, rather than the obvious, that it's a self-interested autobiographical account. Another editor tells him that's a pretty foolish proposition. Poof! Away it goes!

[EricBarbour]

Have there been any other deletions from Jimbotalk in 2014? Nothing pops out at me right now.

[tarantino]

A couple of "hat note" quasi-deletions by Jimbo today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567476474

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567476338

Note that in the second one, Jimbo says "Socialtext no longer exists". That's weird -- they seem to be up and running and thriving.

Inquiry to me based on false claims. I do not sit on the board of Socialtext, and have not for many years. Socialtext no longer exists, and I don't know anyone at the company that acquired them. I haven't looked at the article but of course my view is that if it needs improvement, it should be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone should update his Wikipedia biography then. It says in the infobox that he is a board member of Socialtext.

I just looked at the about page for jimmywales.com. It says "He serves on the Board of Directors of Socialtext".

[neved]

Have there been any other deletions from Jimbotalk in 2014? Nothing pops out at me right now.

- rm insult; if you can't contribute helpfully to the debate, then go away

off-topic - I don't claim to be the owner of anything, and there are no legal implications for removing insults

rm trolling

rm trolling

[thekohser]

An important historical marker for anyone interested in the theories and rationale of how and why Jimbo deletes things (or allows the deletion of things) from his Talk page is found here.

Some tidbits:

There is a very strong expectation that every question should be made in a nice, good-faith manner. If we don't have that expectation then we encourage the bad behavior of baiting/trolling and give ourselves an incredibly unpleasant environment. It is very well known that I will try in good faith to answer all kinds of questions, even pointed ones, but even I have limits. In this case, the editor was asking me to compare two completely unrelated things, bringing up a person I consider to be a danger to myself and my family, for reasons that I am not entirely able to share based on professional advice, as a way of (apparently) attacking another user, without even posting diffs or explanations of who they were talking about (and I have no idea). If this were a good faith question, it might be of the form: "Are you aware of a user saying things like this(link) and that(link) and who hasn't been blocked or even warned? What do you think of this and related situations?"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would speculate that the "professional advice" that Jimbo received was, "Jimmy, this guy really doesn't seem like a threat to you, but if you actually name him publicly and assert that he is a threat, given that you don't have any credible evidence to back it up, he might litigate and actually succeed in parting a significant amount of money in damages from you. So, for your own good, you're advised to not 'share' your various and scattered notions about him with the general public."

[Triptych]

An important historical marker for anyone interested in the theories and rationale of how and why Jimbo deletes things (or allows the deletion of things) from his Talk page is found here.

Some tidbits:

There is a very strong expectation that every question should be made in a nice, good-faith manner. If we don't have that expectation then we encourage the bad behavior of baiting/trolling and give ourselves an incredibly unpleasant environment. It is very well known that I will try in good faith to answer all kinds of questions, even pointed ones, but even I have limits. In this case, the editor was asking me to compare two completely unrelated things, bringing up a person I consider to be a danger to myself and my family, for reasons that I am not entirely able to share based on professional advice, as a way of (apparently) attacking another user, without even posting diffs or explanations of who they were talking about (and I have no idea). If this were a good faith question, it might be of the form: "Are you aware of a user saying things like this(link) and that(link) and who hasn't been blocked or even warned? What do you think of this and related situations?"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would speculate that the "professional advice" that Jimbo received was, "Jimmy, this guy really doesn't seem like a threat to you, but if you actually name him publicly and assert that he is a threat, given that you don't have any credible evidence to back it up, he might litigate and actually succeed in parting a significant amount of money in damages from you. So, for your own good, you're advised to not 'share' your various and scattered notions about him with the general public."

Jimbo is such a charlatan and pretender. He probably got that "professional advice" from his psychiatrist helping him deal with his delusional thought processes. Really, he is a lowlife, if he put whatever his thinking re: "danger" out on the table, then it'd be debunked and people would laugh at him. His character-deficient preference is to rumour monger and nurture dark speculation. He's learned though to couch insinuation with escape hatch phrasing like "I consider" and "I believe" and so forth. So he talks like that because it makes it more difficult to sue him for defamation: "your honor, I only ever said no more than what I "thought" and "believed" about the plaintiff, I never specifically made factual assertions." Lowlife.

He's also wrongly calling the Favonian-reverted edit "trolling." The IP civilly made a comparison and said "what about this?" Was it insincere or designed to inflame? No. I've read Jimbo do similar before to stating his approval of Favonian's uncommented reverts. He wants these hyperactive administrative participants reverting madly at his talkpage. It's intellectually cowardly. Let the record be the record. I admire those who never revert on their talkpages. I guess for an annoying and unwelcome repeat visitor, it'd be fine to "hat" the comment with a pithy or dismissive summary.

And then "Dennis Brown" shows up. Before I became familiar with him I thought he was a reasonable and thoughtful guy. Wrong! That is only his tone and immediate appearance. When you look at what this dirtbag actually does as opposed to the superficiality of his demeanor and so forth, you recognize an abusive and stupid administrative participant in the classic Wikipedia mode. Enwikibadscience, who was horrendously wrongly and arrogantly blocked by him, will vouch this point. As well, it's my impression based on all I've seen, that "Dennis Brown" is a pseudonym, much as Wormthatwormed's claim that he is "David Craven" is fallacious, much as "James B. Watson" is fallacious. Pseudonym users are one thing, I of course am one, and they are understandable. But these are among the group of pseudonym users that deceptively use genuine-sounding names. What is Dennis' contribution to the linked talkpage discussion. He calls letting the IP be heard "appeasement" and likens those who'd do so to Neville Chamberlain." A stupid absurdity from the real jackass that is "Dennis Brown."

[neved]

I would speculate that the "professional advice" that Jimbo received was, "Jimmy, this guy really doesn't seem like a threat to you, but if you actually name him publicly and assert that he is a threat, given that you don't have any credible evidence to back it up, he might litigate and actually succeed in parting a significant amount of money in damages from you. So, for your own good, you're advised to not 'share' your various and scattered notions about him with the general public."

I doubt it because he actually named "him" publicly for example here:

A reporter suggested to me that Gregory Kohs was the person who had written the original article about The People's Operator, and I said that was mistaken (which of course it was) and that I'd rather not talk about him. I explained why I would rather not talk about him (the infamous photo that he posted of himself with a gun and his "joke" about getting into a shootout with me). I'd rather not have to talk about this at all, but as Mr. 2601 seems insistent. When I said "I'd rather not talk about him" I was referrring to Kohs, whom I fear is obsessed with my family and children and personal life and should not be given attention lest he grow worse. When I said that he didn't edit the Wikipedia entry about The People's Operator, I meant it. It is very well established and not a matter of current controversy at all there was COI editing of the TPO article (though, it should be said, I am told that it was not at the behest of the company, but by consultants doing a variety of "social media" work) long before I ever even heard of them or got involved with them. When I came on board I read them all the riot act about never ever under any circumstances editing Wikipedia, and that's very firm company policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2014

I think Jimbo simply wants to appear more important, or doesn't know what he's talking about.

[thekohser]

This one is a classic... the live-in partner of the executive director of the WMF gets told by Jimbo that Der Founder has no interest in what breaks Wil Sinclair's precious heart.

Now that that uncomfortable passage is hidden, Wikimedia Movement™ functions and gatherings will be emboldened to be even more exclusionary and closed to the public. What's next? I predict that men wearing neckties will be uninvited from conferences.

[Vigilant]

This one is a classic... the live-in partner of the executive director of the WMF gets told by Jimbo that Der Founder has no interest in what breaks Wil Sinclair's precious heart.

Now that that uncomfortable passage is hidden, Wikimedia Movement™ functions and gatherings will be emboldened to be even more exclusionary and closed to the public. What's next? I predict that men wearing neckties will be uninvited from conferences.

"Excuse me, sir.
There *is* a dress code in effect.
Do you need to *borrow* a fedora?"

[Cedric]

This one is a classic... the live-in partner of the executive director of the WMF gets told by Jimbo that Der Founder has no interest in what breaks Wil Sinclair's precious heart.

Now that that uncomfortable passage is hidden, Wikimedia Movement™ functions and gatherings will be emboldened to be even more exclusionary and closed to the public. What's next? I predict that men wearing neckties will be uninvited from conferences.

"Excuse me, sir.
There *is* a dress code in effect.
Do you need to *borrow* a fedora?"

*ahem* The approved headwear in the manosphere is the pork pie, not the fedora.

Dood in a pork pie

Bogie in a fedora

[Hex]

I think you'll find that it's most commonly the trilby.

[Vigilant]

Great Scott!

Perfect.

[EricBarbour]

Insert random Wikipedian's face there. (Nice place for Raul654's mug, actually.)

[thekohser]

This one is not a "deleted by Jimbo", but definitely a candidate for a full oversight function. That's why I'll save it with an Archive.today link.

And let me be the first to say that I don't have anything to do with the User:What jimmy's good at.

[Vigilant]

This one is not a "deleted by Jimbo", but definitely a candidate for a full oversight function. That's why I'll save it with an Archive.today link.

And let me be the first to say that I don't have anything to do with the User:What jimmy's good at.

Damn it, Greg!

You made me laugh so loud that I scared my dogs.

[EricBarbour]

This one is not a "deleted by Jimbo", but definitely a candidate for a full oversight function. That's why I'll save it with an Archive.today link.

And let me be the first to say that I don't have anything to do with the User:What jimmy's good at.

Removed by Brad eight minutes later. Do Not Mock Jimbo-Ball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =611754088

[Sparky]

This one is not a "deleted by Jimbo", but definitely a candidate for a full oversight function. That's why I'll save it with an Archive.today link.

And let me be the first to say that I don't have anything to do with the User:What jimmy's good at.

Removed by Brad eight minutes later. Do Not Mock Jimbo-Ball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =611754088

And then, 11:30, 7 June 2014 JzG (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:Jimbo Wales: content hidden and edit summary hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)

[thekohser]

It's good to see JzG finally seeing things my way.

Still, that Archive.today link is going to be a bear to oversight, ain't it?

[thekohser]

Poof!

In less than an hour, too, Jimbo. Fifty-nine minutes -- damn, you're good. Hide that corporate cross-promotion, now, eh?

[HRIP7]

Poof!

In less than an hour, too, Jimbo. Fifty-nine minutes -- damn, you're good. Hide that corporate cross-promotion, now, eh?

[Kelly Martin]

Poof!

In less than an hour, too, Jimbo. Fifty-nine minutes -- damn, you're good. Hide that corporate cross-promotion, now, eh?

This one is probably worthy of a blog post, because it also wraps into nontransparency at the WMF. If the WMF received any consideration from Qualtrics for that mention in their blog post (even if that consideration is merely free or reduced-cost licenses), the WMF should have disclosed that there. I have to wonder if part of the reason they didn't do so is that it would make the value of that donation compensation paid in exchange for advertising, and thus make that "donation" actually UBTI.....

[thekohser]

It looks like Jimbo was asked to do a favor for some pal of his at The Observer. Poof!

[Poetlister]

It looks like Jimbo was asked to do a favor for some pal of his at The Observer. Poof!

Don't be so cynical. Jimbo explains his edit.

I've just turned up here as a mere reader of Wikipedia, curious about the history of the Observer and what its current relationship to the Guardian is. I agree with the comment posted above: I don't see the importance and relevance of this to this article. I'm removing it now and encourage further discussion before re-inserting.

link
The comment he refers to has been there for nearly a year. If someone wanted Jimbo to delete that section, either that person or Jimbo has been very slow.

[thekohser]

The comment he refers to has been there for nearly a year.

So, you are saying that inappropriate content in Wikipedia articles can take nearly a year to be removed? That's reprehensible -- we've been told one of the advantages of Wikipedia is how quickly bad content can be removed or replaced!

I win, either way.

[Poetlister]

The comment he refers to has been there for nearly a year.

So, you are saying that inappropriate content in Wikipedia articles can take nearly a year to be removed? That's reprehensible -- we've been told one of the advantages of Wikipedia is how quickly bad content can be removed or replaced!

I win, either way.

No, I think it's good content. I'm surprised that people here consider Jimbo a good judge of what should be removed.

[thekohser]

The edit summary search tool is fairly helpful in finding these gems. Just search for "trolling" or "not interested", etc.

FYI, the tool has moved to a new server.

Thus, the search for "trolling" and for "not interested".

[thekohser]

Uncomfortable with a photo connecting Jimbo Wales and Cherie Blair that sat undisturbed on a high-traffic Wikipedia article for nearly two years?

Jimbo merely asks for it to disappear, and <poof!>, he receives his wish within just a few hours!

[AndyTheGrump]

Uncomfortable with a photo connecting Jimbo Wales and Cherie Blair that sat undisturbed on a high-traffic Wikipedia article for nearly two years?

Jimbo merely asks for it to disappear, and <poof!>, he receives his wish within just a few hours!

Just out of curiosity, do you think the article was better before, or afterwards? Or is this a case where your Jimbo-fixation precludes you from expressing any opinion that doesn't involve portraying him as a cross between a Bond villain and one of the Medici Popes?

[thekohser]

Just out of curiosity, do you think the article was better before, or afterwards? Or is this a case where your Jimbo-fixation precludes you from expressing any opinion that doesn't involve portraying him as a cross between a Bond villain and one of the Medici Popes?

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be the "sum of human knowledge"? Is not a photo of Cherie Blair cutting a "10 year anniversary of Wikipedia" cake with the Founder of Wikipedia (one of the greatest accomplishments of the Internet) a potent part of that proverbial sum?

Furthermore, I thought every edit on Wikipedia can be inspected by the public, so that we know who added (or subtracted) what. Can you explain, why was the IP or user name of this edit removed from view? What needed to be hidden?

[AndyTheGrump]

Just out of curiosity, do you think the article was better before, or afterwards? Or is this a case where your Jimbo-fixation precludes you from expressing any opinion that doesn't involve portraying him as a cross between a Bond villain and one of the Medici Popes?

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be the "sum of human knowledge"? Is not a photo of Cherie Blair cutting a "10 year anniversary of Wikipedia" cake with the Founder of Wikipedia (one of the greatest accomplishments of the Internet) a potent part of that proverbial sum?

Furthermore, I thought every edit on Wikipedia can be inspected by the public, so that we know who added (or subtracted) what. Can you explain, why was the IP or user name of this edit removed from view? What needed to be hidden?

Why was it removed from view? For the same reason that IPs of contributors who accidentally post while not logged in routinely are, I expect - for privacy. Though no doubt your well-fitting tinfoil hat will enable you to come up with another explanation.

And regardless of Jimbo's recycling of an old Encyclopaedia Britannica slogan, Wikipedia isn't (at least according to policies and guidelines) supposed to be a compendium of every photo and/or trivial bit of tabloid tat that can be shoehorned into tangentially-related articles. The photo (not one of Allan Warren's better efforts) has been removed because the fact that Jimbo once cut a cake with Cherie Blair isn't exactly a major part of her life story. Of course, If the photo hadn't been removed, you would no doubt be telling us how outrageous it was that Jimbo's grinning visage should feature prominently in an article on another subject.

[thekohser]

Why was it removed from view? For the same reason that IPs of contributors who accidentally post while not logged in routinely are, I expect - for privacy. Though no doubt your well-fitting tinfoil hat will enable you to come up with another explanation.

And regardless of Jimbo's recycling of an old Encyclopaedia Britannica slogan, Wikipedia isn't (at least according to policies and guidelines) supposed to be a compendium of every photo and/or trivial bit of tabloid tat that can be shoehorned into tangentially-related articles. The photo (not one of Allan Warren's better efforts) has been removed because the fact that Jimbo once cut a cake with Cherie Blair isn't exactly a major part of her life story. Of course, If the photo hadn't been removed, you would no doubt be telling us how outrageous it was that Jimbo's grinning visage should feature prominently in an article on another subject.

As for your first paragraph of rebuttal, I have to say that my special tinfoil hat must certainly give me special powers -- how else would I know that Jimbo Wales was using IP address 90.197.157.137 before it was covered up by an unknown henchman of his? I guess the all-powerful Jimbo is unfamiliar with the Streisand Effect.

As for your second paragraph of contemptuous bile, you may be correct, after all. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a compendium of every photo and/or trivial bit of tabloid tat, is it? You must be so much smarter than me, Andy! I should just quit Wikipedia criticism altogether.

[AndyTheGrump]

This counts as Wikipedia criticism, does it? Really?

And yes, I'm sure the Streisand Effect is in full swing, as the twittersphere grinds to a halt due to the sheer numbers of excited postings about the astonishing revelation that Jimbo posted from a Sky Broadband IP in London. (Assuming that IP lookup works, which for the UK is questionable from personal experience.)

(P.S. Stop Press! Further breaking news. Jimbo's laptop has a flat battery, and he's gone to bed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =623233784)

[thekohser]

This counts as Wikipedia criticism, does it? Really?

It certainly seems to be doing a better job of Wikipedia criticism than your version, yes.

[Poetlister]

Jimbo posted from a Sky Broadband IP in London. (Assuming that IP lookup works, which for the UK is questionable from personal experience.)

It is no doubt reliable in saying it's a Sky IP. Geolocation is another matter; I don't know about Sky, but for some ISPs geolocation is meaningless, something that many checkusers don't know.

[thekohser]

Not so much a "delete" as a "chilling effect" by Jimbo.

[Hex]

Not so much a "delete" as a "chilling effect" by Jimbo.

User talk:Epipelagic (T-H-L)

Y'all are cordially invited to vent at Wikipediocracy, which is a swell place to do that. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't.

[Notvelty]

Not so much a "delete" as a "chilling effect" by Jimbo.

User talk:Epipelagic (T-H-L)

Y'all are cordially invited to vent at Wikipediocracy, which is a swell place to do that. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't.

Yes. I suspect my response to Mr "Cliques are bad so we should give more power to mine" would give Z a migraine. :-)

[Zoloft]

Moved off-topic posts into the bin. Don't.

[thekohser]

What's this? A conversation on Jimbo's Talk page about the history of Sarah Stierch's paid editing experience, and whether this casts doubt on her abilities as an administrator?

Too difficult a strait for Jimbo to navigate, so let's just hide that now.