Deleted by Jimbo

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:41 pm

HRIP7 wrote:27 April 2013

Edit summary: "rm trollimg" (sic)
Deleted link: Kevin Morris, The Daily Dot: Winners of Wikipedia's biggest award still haven't received prize money
Deleted text:
Jimmy Wales a welcher? Say it ain't so!

Kevin Morris seems to really have it in for you, Jimmy. Of course, if you'd just pay up on your debts, he wouldn't have had anything to write about. - [[Special:Contributions/50.144.0.32|50.144.0.32]] ([[User talk:50.144.0.32|talk]]) 10:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In related news, Harrod's is fresh out of platinum-plated shovels, following a visit by that silver-tongued, slightly creepy-looking American chap fresh off the boat. About time his PR-savvy wife told him how to man up.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:20 pm

Our collection of Jimbo talkpage censorship is getting, um, a bit unwieldy. Most of the recent examples are Kazakh related,
but there's plenty of others. It's getting to be really commonplace. And he's getting better at covering it up.

he'll sometimes silently delete a comment while replying to a separate comment so that it doesn't appear in the page history as a "negative" edit. For example: here. Occasionally this sleight of hand even confuses the admins, who try to fix what looks to be an inadvertent removal. In this case Jimbo did clarify his intent.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:32 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =552561175 edit summary: "ending useless trolling conversation"

Please tell me this http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedian ... ize-money/ is not true

Thanks. 71.198.249.253 (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the last sentence of the article, my statement. The author is not a real journalist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I did read it, but got even more questions than before. For instance what did you mean when you said: "First I heard of it." and "Thanks for the heads up."? 71.198.249.253 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What was not clear about those statements?

Also, unless Jimbo thinks that your edits are adding something useful here, please log into your Wikipedia account before posting here again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing was clear. "First I heard of it" about what, about the award, but according to the article and to this Jimbo himself offered the award."Thanks for the heads up" about what, that the payment has not been received yet, but according to the article the award supposed to be coming from Jimbo's own pocket. How could he not have noticed that the payment was not made? I mean $5,000 more, $5,000 less, who cares? Right?

Also I do not take commands from anybody. 71.198.249.253 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, outright hostility to anonymous editors on wikipedia. Shocking. It's not like they're human and make valuable contributions. 62.212.117.24 (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =552564016 edit summary: "rm hostility - a full report about this will come in due course"

Commons is ethically broken (and File:Paul Myners.jpg)

Jimmy—you wrote above that you are "more convinced than ever that commons is ethically broken."

I wonder how you would describe a situation when the founder of Wikipedia uploads a file to Commons without the permission of its copyright holder, and when he is caught on that, instead of working to win a permission, he refuses to discuss it and starts shouting in amok how much Commons is broken. And to make things even worse, instead of admitting his error in the open, he repeatedly avoids the subject with comments like: "I'll respond in a week", "I'm working on that", "There's no urgency to any of that".

How would you call this behaviour, I wonder? Ethically unbroken? odder (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:30 pm

Poof! It's gone:

== Things we're still allowed to ask you about ==

Jimbo, since we are apparently no longer allowed to ask you about the Kazakh Wikipedia, and we are no longer allowed to ask you about your payments of prize money to Wikipedians of the Year, could we still ask you if you've made any progress on this matter that you said 41 days ago would have a resolution time of "within a week"? - 50.144.172.163 13:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that previously, Jimbo had updated the status of his assessment of the improperly uploaded image, that it will come "in due course".

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:17 pm

You should start a new article, "List of things you are not allowed to ask Jimbo"

Silent Editor · Unread post by **Silent Editor** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:50 pm

Vigilant wrote:You should start a new article, "List of things you are not allowed to ask Jimbo"

With the first entry "This list".

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sat May 04, 2013 1:27 am

An anonymous editor asked Jimbo whether he paid Demmy (T-C-L) his "Wikipedian of the Year" prize money. The question was unceremoniously removed.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue May 07, 2013 10:46 am

Poof!

Poof!

Poof!

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Tue May 07, 2013 10:51 am

thekohser wrote:Poof!

Poof!

Poof!

When's the "full report" on Commons coming up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =552564016

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue May 07, 2013 12:42 pm

The Joy wrote: When's the "full report" on Commons coming up?

Real soon now.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Tue May 07, 2013 1:07 pm

Hex wrote:
The Joy wrote: When's the "full report" on Commons coming up?
Real soon now.

Well, I won't be bothering Jimbo on Wiktionary over it because no one can!

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=13740486

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue May 07, 2013 2:27 pm

Jesus,

What a slimy douche.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue May 07, 2013 2:29 pm

The Joy wrote: Well, I won't be bothering Jimbo on Wiktionary over it because no one can!

You've misread. It's only semi-protected.

On the other hand, you've found an interesting little nugget in the form of his three edits to Wiktionary.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue May 07, 2013 2:33 pm

Poof!

That one really must have hurt Jimbo.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue May 07, 2013 3:33 pm

He's had more "contributions" in the last few days than he's had in a while.

It's a real shame that they're all red.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... imbo_Wales

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue May 07, 2013 8:37 pm

Vigilant wrote:He's had more "contributions" in the last few days than he's had in a while.

It's a real shame that they're all red.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... imbo_Wales

Good. He's undoubtedly starting to sweat. Keep it up.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue May 07, 2013 9:04 pm

For interest, since I haven't seen them linked here before, edit statistics for Jimbo.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue May 07, 2013 9:22 pm

Hex wrote:For interest, since I haven't seen them linked here before, edit statistics for Jimbo.

The time pattern of the edits is interesting. There was a peak in January 2006 (half of which were article edits) and then quite quiet until a burst in early 2010 which went on for a few months (few article edits, loads of user talk).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue May 07, 2013 9:42 pm

Outsider wrote:
Hex wrote:For interest, since I haven't seen them linked here before, edit statistics for Jimbo.
The time pattern of the edits is interesting. There was a peak in January 2006 (half of which were article edits) and then quite quiet until a burst in early 2010 which went on for a few months (few article edits, loads of user talk).

If only he could figure out some way to detach himself from wikipedia without losing what little notability he has.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue May 07, 2013 9:55 pm

Hex wrote:For interest, since I haven't seen them linked here before, edit statistics for Jimbo.

A perfect example of a "Wikipedia Facebooker". Once again, we see that "85-15" balance, which pops up all over Wikipedia.
In his case, it's only 16% of his edits are to actual article content, the rest is "overhead" and "socializing".

Of course people use Wikipedia as a "social network". Their Tiny King is doing it.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Wed May 08, 2013 6:09 am

For what it's worth. Within 15 minutes of posting it, 40 people had looked at it. I asked Nova Spivack to help out with the answer since his media group was involved.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed May 08, 2013 11:59 am

Cla68 wrote:For what it's worth. Within 15 minutes of posting it, 40 people had looked at it. I asked Nova Spivack to help out with the answer since his media group was involved.

Let us know when Quora employee and Jimbo buddy Marc Bodnick deletes the question and blocks your Quora account.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Mon May 13, 2013 10:53 am

thekohser wrote:
Cla68 wrote:For what it's worth. Within 15 minutes of posting it, 40 people had looked at it. I asked Nova Spivack to help out with the answer since his media group was involved.
Let us know when Quora employee and Jimbo buddy Marc Bodnick deletes the question and blocks your Quora account.

Jimbo declined my invitation to answer the question, saying, "Trolling question." Over 700 people have looked at it.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Thu May 16, 2013 8:22 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555333430

Not "deleted" but certainly "out of sight, out of mind."

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:45 am

Want to find out what Jimbo thinks of a little twit who publicly declares that he doesn't care about BLP issues?

Poof!

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:03 am

thekohser wrote:Want to find out what Jimbo thinks of a little twit who publicly declares that he doesn't care about BLP issues?

Poof!

MONGO only pawn... in game of life.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:38 am

thekohser wrote:Want to find out what Jimbo thinks of a little twit who publicly declares that he doesn't care about BLP issues?

Poof!

And you guys wonder why I toy with him.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:02 pm

Some Juicer asked Jimbo about the WP articles he's ever created, and Fram responded to point out how clumsy and useless most of Jimbo's article creations are, and so...

Poof!

Everybody's seeing the pattern, right?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:19 pm

Interesting how Jimbo always seems to find time to delete bad things about himself from his talk page, but never has any time when someone else is under fire.

Those poor fools must wait for the archiving bot.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:28 pm

Hex wrote:For interest, since I haven't seen them linked here before, edit statistics for Jimbo.

That pie chart wouldn't get a person elected as an Administrator these days...

I wrote something on Wikipedia Review once about Jimmy Wales as a content creator. As I recall, he's the originator of the article on the M16 rifle (T-H-L).

Early history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history.

Of course, it looked like this when he was finished with it...

Version of 10/1/01: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... did=267401

But we all know that Sangerpedia 2001 was far more fluidly written, scholarly, and accurate than Wikipedia today, so the subsequent ruinization of the piece warn't his fault.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:31 pm

Careful there, Jimbo.
Having the co-founder blocked for WP:NPA would be embarrassing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =558462162

For those just coming to this conversation, note that this is ongoing harassment by Fram continuing from a thread that I deleted in which he made insults about low quality article creations by me. This is not, therefore, an unmotivated inquiry, but trolling. If anyone wonders what kind of editor I think is most responsible for declining participation in Wikipedia, it is this: the kind who goes around digging up old stuff, with no factual basis, to insult and harass people. Fram, you should be ashamed and disappointed in yourself as a human being.

To answer the question: There was a legal complaint that the entry was plagiarized from Jay Robert Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime. Upon investigation, we found that a number of entries related to organized crime figures either were directly plagiarized from that source or were closely paraphrased enough to suggest plagiarism. Additionally, I was informed by the author of that source that he had deliberately placed erroneous information into his encyclopedia to catch plagiarists, which to my mind destroys the credibility of the work as a legitimate source of any kind. There was a cleanup effort involving several editors, including me, and this is one of the ones that I handled. This was the right thing to do, of course.

:I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology, but know that you should be making one pronto.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TIGER!

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:37 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Hex wrote:For interest, since I haven't seen them linked here before, edit statistics for Jimbo.
That pie chart wouldn't get a person elected as an Administrator these days...

"Sorry, you don't have at least five edits to the portal talk namespace, therefore you don't meet my personal RfA standards. Try again in a year."

Bonus points, though, to anyone who can correlate the various activity levels in there to real-world events.

Randy from Boise wrote:I wrote something on Wikipedia Review once about Jimmy Wales as a content creator. As I recall, he's the originator of the article on the M16 rifle (T-H-L).

And submachine gun, as well as box-cutter knife! And, um, Campaign for Real Ale. Go figure.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:39 pm

Prioryman with the bit between his teeth.

(cur | prev) 16:22, 5 June 2013‎ Prioryman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,014 bytes) (+563)‎ . . (→‎DYK for Sale — Cheap!: - Jimbo, please shut up for once) (undo)

One of these days, he's going to find out that Jimbo can still call in some favors.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:21 pm

Jimbo's first edits were about guns.

15:59, 27 March 2001 (diff | hist) . . (+2,139)‎ . . Nm Shotgun ‎
15:47, 27 March 2001 (diff | hist) . . (+555)‎ . . N Saturday-night special ‎
13:13, 27 March 2001 (diff | hist) . . (-4,999)‎ . . Double-barreled shotgun ‎
13:12, 27 March 2001 (diff | hist) . . (+144)‎ . . Side-by-side shotgun ‎
13:11, 27 March 2001 (diff | hist) . . (+128)‎ . . Over and under shotgun ‎

Won't this hurt him in the eyes of his rich elite politically-liberal friends?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:11 pm

I had to laugh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =558475697

It's not quite so simple because it involves delving into editors' motives. I don't think an article that was a blatant advertisement would get through DYK anyway because it would fail the NPOV requirements. That leaves articles which may have intentionally been written for a promotional purpose, or may simply have an unintended promotional side-effect. For instance, [
] ran not long ago. I don't think it had any promotional intent, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it prompted someone to buy some of her songs from iTunes or whatever. I'm not keen on the idea of judging the quality of DYKs on the basis of someone else's speculations about an editor's motives. It fundamentally violates the principle of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] and there is far too much danger of getting it wrong, as we've seen with the Wikipediocracy-driven harassment of anyone contributing content about Gibraltar. I would however think it a good idea if people writing articles for PR purposes would disclose that at the start of a DYK (or GA or FA) review so that extra attention can be paid to NPOV issues (which, to answer Cyclopedia's question, would be the main advantage of such a disclosure). [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] 17:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So funny.

The doe eyed innocence peering out through the thick lenses of his RapePreventionGlasses.

The air of affronted dignity being worn as a shawl while having sold said item to the likes of Bamkin many moons ago for a few negligent pats on the head. (At least Fae got a USB stick.)

The art of the martyr practiced at levels unseen in recent memory.

The faint waft of obsession or paid interest while we peruse this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prior ... ifications

A touch of taint on our erstwhile paladin's aura.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:21 pm

Vigilant wrote:I had to laugh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =558475697
It's not quite so simple because it involves delving into editors' motives. I don't think an article that was a blatant advertisement would get through DYK anyway because it would fail the NPOV requirements. That leaves articles which may have intentionally been written for a promotional purpose, or may simply have an unintended promotional side-effect. For instance, [
] ran not long ago. I don't think it had any promotional intent, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it prompted someone to buy some of her songs from iTunes or whatever. I'm not keen on the idea of judging the quality of DYKs on the basis of someone else's speculations about an editor's motives. It fundamentally violates the principle of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] and there is far too much danger of getting it wrong, as we've seen with the Wikipediocracy-driven harassment of anyone contributing content about Gibraltar. I would however think it a good idea if people writing articles for PR purposes would disclose that at the start of a DYK (or GA or FA) review so that extra attention can be paid to NPOV issues (which, to answer Cyclopedia's question, would be the main advantage of such a disclosure). [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] 17:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
So funny.

The doe eyed innocence peering out through the thick lenses of his RapePreventionGlasses.

The air of affronted dignity being worn as a shawl while having sold said item to the likes of Bamkin many moons ago for a few negligent pats on the head. (At least Fae got a USB stick.)

The art of the martyr practiced at levels unseen in recent memory.

The faint waft of obsession or paid interest while we peruse this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prior ... ifications

A touch of taint on our erstwhile paladin's aura.

When you're good, you're very very good, V.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:37 pm

The Joy wrote:Jimbo's first edits were about guns.

There will have been earlier ones while the site was still running UseModWiki, but detailed records of that era are long gone.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:07 pm

Hex wrote:
The Joy wrote:Jimbo's first edits were about guns.
There will have been earlier ones while the site was still running UseModWiki, but detailed records of that era are long gone.

Not quite. I've got the raw database log files from the first Wikipedia. Most of it is utter drivel, with Larry Sanger probably the primary contributor.
There's very little about firearms in there, although I see a few traces of Jimbo arguing with someone over the "Handgun" article.

You can't fully trust any visible diffs in the present Wikipedia database from prior to 2006, especially from 2001.
The conversion from UseModWiki in late 2001 was botched, and there were "mysterious database problems"
and "mysterious MediaWiki bugs" for years afterward. The September 2006 "crash" was not the only one.
Not to mention the numerous oversights, which makes the editing records of people like Gerard and Prioryman
look like Swiss cheese.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:14 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Hex wrote:
The Joy wrote:Jimbo's first edits were about guns.
There will have been earlier ones while the site was still running UseModWiki, but detailed records of that era are long gone.
Not quite. I've got the raw database log files from the first Wikipedia. Most of it is utter drivel, with Larry Sanger probably the primary contributor.
There's very little about firearms in there, although I see a few traces of Jimbo arguing with someone over the "Handgun" article.

You can't fully trust any visible diffs in the present Wikipedia database from prior to 2006, especially from 2001.
The conversion from UseModWiki in late 2001 was botched, and there were "mysterious database problems"
and "mysterious MediaWiki bugs" for years afterward. The September 2006 "crash" was not the only one.
Not to mention the numerous oversights, which makes the editing records of people like Gerard and Prioryman
look like Swiss cheese.

Wouldn't that be a violation of the GFDL and later the CC-by-SA license?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:19 pm

The Joy wrote:Wouldn't that be a violation of the GFDL and later the CC-by-SA license?

Probably, but you'd have to prove that the oversighted data actually existed first.
Would you like to try taking David Gerard to court for copyright-license violation? Best of luck, old boy!

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:30 am

EricBarbour wrote: Not quite. I've got the raw database log files from the first Wikipedia. Most of it is utter drivel, with Larry Sanger probably the primary contributor.

Neato. You should publish the blighters somewhere, or stick 'em on BitTorrent or something.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:47 pm

Hex wrote:
EricBarbour wrote: Not quite. I've got the raw database log files from the first Wikipedia. Most of it is utter drivel, with Larry Sanger probably the primary contributor.
Neato. You should publish the blighters somewhere, or stick 'em on BitTorrent or something.

I would, if I didn't have bandwidth caps on my DSL. People just don't get that I can't leave huge files shared 24/7 on BT, Dropbox or
whatever. I'd like to put that crap on someone else's server for download. Haven't found it yet. Suggestions are welcome.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:47 pm

Anyway, Jimbo has decided to deflect uncomfortable BLP questions.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:12 pm

Jimbo asked,

I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere. In the media there have been reports of user accounts used on various tech discussion sites by Edward Snowden. He was apparently quite an active person online, particularly a few years back when he was younger. It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Wikipedia - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

: Do we know what usernames he used on other websites? I expect they might have the same name as a possible account on Wikipedia. However, I'm curious as to why we need to know? — '''''[[User:Richard BB|Richard]] [[User talk:Richard BB|BB]]''''' 08:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::I don't think we 'need' to know. I'm just curious, and I imagine many other people would be as well.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion ensued:

::You are asking about ''suspicions'' of which editors may have been Edward Snowden? Isn't that a direct breach of [[WP:OUTING]]? Evidence is a different thing, but asking for suspicions seems like a very bad move. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Is WP:OUTING still relevant if the editor is not active (which, I imagine, Snowden isn't)? I suspect it probably is, but it's an interesting thought if he happens to use the same username across various websites. — '''''[[User:Richard BB|Richard]] [[User talk:Richard BB|BB]]''''' 08:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Yes, it remains relevant, considering "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia." (from WP:OUTING). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::I think Jimbo is just looking for confirmation, not names [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] [[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]][[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]] 08:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Then all one can respond is "I suspect he did" or "I suspect he didn't", hardly informative... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::He would also have the option of responding himself. Although he might be more focused on other concerns at the moment. [[User:Arthur goes shopping|Arthur goes shopping]] ([[User talk:Arthur goes shopping|talk]]) 08:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And now – poof – it's gone.

Edit summary: "Fram's disingenuous trolling is not welcome here".

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:26 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Jimbo asked,
I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere. In the media there have been reports of user accounts used on various tech discussion sites by Edward Snowden. He was apparently quite an active person online, particularly a few years back when he was younger. It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Wikipedia - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

: Do we know what usernames he used on other websites? I expect they might have the same name as a possible account on Wikipedia. However, I'm curious as to why we need to know? — '''''[[User:Richard BB|Richard]] [[User talk:Richard BB|BB]]''''' 08:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::I don't think we 'need' to know. I'm just curious, and I imagine many other people would be as well.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion ensued:
::You are asking about ''suspicions'' of which editors may have been Edward Snowden? Isn't that a direct breach of [[WP:OUTING]]? Evidence is a different thing, but asking for suspicions seems like a very bad move. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Is WP:OUTING still relevant if the editor is not active (which, I imagine, Snowden isn't)? I suspect it probably is, but it's an interesting thought if he happens to use the same username across various websites. — '''''[[User:Richard BB|Richard]] [[User talk:Richard BB|BB]]''''' 08:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Yes, it remains relevant, considering "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia." (from WP:OUTING). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::I think Jimbo is just looking for confirmation, not names [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] [[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]][[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]] 08:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Then all one can respond is "I suspect he did" or "I suspect he didn't", hardly informative... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::::He would also have the option of responding himself. Although he might be more focused on other concerns at the moment. [[User:Arthur goes shopping|Arthur goes shopping]] ([[User talk:Arthur goes shopping|talk]]) 08:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
And now – poof – it's gone.

Edit summary: "Fram's disingenuous trolling is not welcome here".

It's ironic that I find myself in the position of supporting Fram, an extremely abusive and callous admin who should be desysopped. As should all enablers of cabals.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:31 pm

Wer900 wrote:It's ironic that I find myself in the position of supporting Fram, an extremely abusive and callous admin who should be desysopped. As should all enablers of cabals.

I was thinking that very same thought and not for the first time lately.

I'm really not sure who to root for anymore.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:42 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Wer900 wrote:It's ironic that I find myself in the position of supporting Fram, an extremely abusive and callous admin who should be desysopped. As should all enablers of cabals.
I was thinking that very same thought and not for the first time lately.

I'm really not sure who to root for anymore.

Root for Wikipediocracy. As suggested earlier, we could start by producing a large amount of DYK articles about negative aspects of Gibraltar, such as Corruption in Gibraltar (T-H-L), Crime in Gibraltar (T-H-L), and the like. We need to cause Prioryman/Bamkin heartburn. If possible make them TFAs and get Bamkin fired from his consultancy position.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:01 pm

You should not be "supporting" any of them. They are all trolls, okay?

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:15 pm

Fram even dragged Jimbo to AN/I.

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

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:55 pm

The Joy wrote:Fram even dragged Jimbo to AN/I.

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

Jimbo doesn't seem to understand that when you treat someone in an abrupt and condescending way when they think they are doing the right thing, you create a dedicated enemy for life. Or, maybe he does understand it and doesn't care.