Deleted by Jimbo

[HRIP7]

By popular request, here is a thread to record all the uncomfortable questions, criticisms etc. that Jimmy Wales deleted (or hatted) on his talk page, complete with diff link and edit summary where appropriate.

This thread may also include a record of Jimbo-related news articles or Quora questions that have disappeared.

"Hatted" (collapsed behind a coloured bar), with hat box message "Hatting useless drama", no edit summary:

Just an FYI, Jimbo's opinions hold very little sway on Commons, for the same reason that his rights on Commons were revoked. Put simply, we didn't think he had the best interests of the project at heart. We're not averse to deletion of content, we just want to see a good reason for it. As those of you who follow me closely know (but possibly do not admit), I do sometimes vote to delete sexual content, but not when there is no good reason for it to be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is the time and place for this. We really do not need more drama than already is present on this thread. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Matt, the last resort is always the ol' WMF Office Action, something that gets called in when the Commons admins are unable/unwilling to clean up their messes. This time, thankfully, it wasn't needed. But I fear this small dose of common sense by your crowd will be the exception rather than the rule. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck is a prominent administrator on Wikimedia Commons.

[Randy from Boise]

Mattbuck is a prominent administrator on Wikimedia Commons.

Awwww, give the man his due. Mattbuck is the Poster Child of Commons Administrative Dysfunction...

RfB

[Mason]

In one thread here somebody offered the tip that you could find edits Jimbo deleted by looking for a minus sign in the page history.

Well, Jimbo's a little more clever than that; 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.

[HRIP7]

Jimbo's a little more clever than that; 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.

Indeed. The text deleted in this case was:

Note figures given here: [1]. It seems to have been much more than 30m Tenge (though the dollar sign is clearly wrong: I believe these higher amounts for 2011 and 2012 are Tenge amounts). Also note reports earlier this year that Kazakh PR agents are suspected of having manipulated Wikipedia entries on Kazakhstan: [2] The Kazakhstan (T-H-L) article does not even mention the word "dictator[ship]" ... wow. Just wow. Andreas JN466 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

[thekohser]

If we were to assiduously complete the intention of this thread, it will eventually stretch to 6 or 7 pages of incidents.

[HRIP7]

If we were to assiduously complete the intention of this thread, it will eventually stretch to 6 or 7 pages of incidents.

Well, we have room.

This deletion was on 12 January 2013.

Edit summary: rm trolling.

Deleted text:

Global Wikipedian of the Year

This [4] report claims that at the Wikimania 2011 conference in Haifa, Israel, you announced the creation of an annual award—Global Wikipedian of the Year, given to Rauan Kenzhekhanuly of Kazakh Wikipedia, as well as a $5,000 award to Wikibilim, the chapter in Kazakhstan, to pay travel expenses to Wikimania next year.

There's a picture here [5] - the person by the rostrum in the white shirt looks like you. This picture [6] says the prize was donated by you personally. See also this.

It is difficult to find any information about this award. Did it have to be approved by the WMF, or is it personally given by you? Ws the $5,000 your own money? If so, it's quite a lot of money. What inspired you to give it, and when did you first meet Rauan? Would appreciate any help. [[Special:Contributions/86.146.79.118|86.146.79.118]] ([[User talk:86.146.79.118|talk]]) 13:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on now. Jimbo will never pay $5,000 of his own money even to the Global Wikipedian of the Year whatever it is. [[Special:Contributions/71.202.123.185|71.202.123.185]] ([[User talk:71.202.123.185|talk]]) 18:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(The Wikimedia Foundation later confirmed in response to an enquiry that the award is Jimbo's, and that the WMF makes no input into nominating and selecting candidates.)

Update: The 71.202.123.185 IP's words above proved oddly prophetic: In April 2013 it was reported in The Daily Dot and in Wikipedia's own Signpost newsletter that to date, neither award winner had in fact been paid the prize money by Wales. The 2012 winner reportedly had to cancel plans to attend Wikimania 2013 as a result.

[HRIP7]

Date: 15 July 2012

Poster: Larry Sanger

Background: Larry was commenting on the news that the Wikimedia Foundation board had voted to rescind the image filter resolution. There was some initial confusion as to whether Wales, who had confirmed a few weeks prior that he was a strong supporter of the image filter ("if I could write it myself and turn it on tomorrow I would.") had voted for or against rescinding it. The page announcing the new resolution first said Wales had voted against the rescission, and then was changed to say he had voted for rescission. Related discussion thread.

Edit summary: none.

Deleted text:

Jimbo, the situation regarding your view is so confusing as to be incoherent. The resolution page says you opposed. Above, you say you voted "yes" on the resolution--which has the only ''real'' effect, namely of rescinding the resolution. Then you say that you support the creation of a filter, and that, "In my view, stated vigorously at the board meeting, an early version of the resolution would have been interpreted incorrectly as the board rejecting the image filter completely." Huh? So, the board, despite voting 10-0 (according to you, and not 9-1 as the page says) on a resolution that clearly rescinds the earlier resolution, does not reject the image filter completely?

On my blog, I'm going to report that you voted for it, as you said, but that you still support a filter; I'll let people draw their own conclusions from that. You're going to have to explain in much greater detail if you want to make it the slightest bit plausible that the board has not "completely" rejected a filter. So, yes, I'll be looking forward to reading the FAQ. I'll be expecting more double-talk, "I voted against it before I voted for it," "we'll start making a new filter that will make everyone happy really soon now," etc. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ([[User talk:Larry Sanger|talk]]) 16:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Larry's assessment proved accurate. Jimbo said:

I strongly support the creation of a personal image filter. I worked very hard to reach a compromise resolution which does not close off the possibility of real progress on this. SJ and I will be releasing an FAQ about this soon (tomorrow, I think, but time zone differences may mean a delay of a day or so). In my view, stated vigorously at the board meeting, an early version of the resolution would have been interpreted incorrectly as the board rejecting the image filter completely.

What I think we can do is convene a small group of people (design by massive wiki discussion tends to suck) to design a very lightweight solution, taking into account and resolving genuine and thoughtful objections, and hold a project-wide vote to get a clear instruction for the Foundation. I am confident that this can take place relatively quickly.

I think it important to note publicly that an early version of the resolution was, in my opinion, deeply disrespectful to the community. At least some senitments were expressed that we actually should reach "closure" on this and pass a resolution that would cause the community to think that they should not work together on a new proposal. Those sentiments did not carry the day. [...]

I'm starting a page where I hope to see a constructive discussion of the desired characteristics of a personal image filter, with a view towards getting a very high degree of community support for the concept. User:Jimbo Wales/Personal Image Filter with discussions at User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Personal Image Filter. I'll kick the main page off in the next few minutes with some initial thoughts.

Jimbo created the subpage, as promised. This took the pressure off the situation, and silenced critics. Jimbo only made a few edits to the subpage and its talk page; after two days, he stopped working on it and never returned to it.

[Mason]

(design by massive wiki discussion tends to suck)

That's an interesting thing to see from Jimbo in any context.

[EricBarbour]

If we were to assiduously complete the intention of this thread, it will eventually stretch to 6 or 7 pages of incidents.

Yes, it would. However, you could help me most by posting samples from 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Some of it would be impossible to find anyway, because of oversighting. Just find as many as you can.

[HRIP7]

Date: 10 January 2013

Quora diff, with Jimmy deleting the following (quite accurate) info from the "answer wiki" for the Davos question:

WikiBilim uses Wikimedia trademarks on its website (Басты бет (links to: http://wikibilim.kz/)), and the official Creative Commons weblog (Kazakhstan and Rwanda: Two more CC Affiliates for 2011 (links to: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30928)) has described it as "a non-profit organisation which also operates as the local representative of Wikimedia. Wikibilim in turn is supported by the Government of Kazakhstan and personally by the Prime-Minister Mr. Karim Masimov."

[EricBarbour]

Date: 10 January 2013

Quora diff, with Jimmy deleting the following (quite accurate) info from the "answer wiki" for the Davos question

Got it. I will put it under "Jimmy As Jesus", partly because it's not on his talkpage.

Has anyone got some further blatant examples of Jimbo editing reality to suit himself?

[Cedric]

Jimbo created the subpage, as promised. This took the pressure off the situation, and silenced critics. Jimbo only made a few edits to the subpage and its talk page; after two days, he stopped working on it and never returned to it.

As I recall, that very result was predicted here, although I don't recall now which of the members said it. Not that it was that much of a stretch; Jimbo's lack of follow-through on difficult matters has long since passed into legend.

[thekohser]

Discussion of pedophiles on Wikipedia? "I think I will just remove it."

Who co-created Wikipedia? "Rm trolling".

What did you think Essjay did for a living? "question was already asked and answered multiple times".

Someone fed up with Wikipedia and quitting? "clearing old section".

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

Hypocrite Snottywong's search tool has made easy our job of documenting Jimbo's censorship of criticism.

[Peter Damian]

A discussion about Wikipedia's beginning and the decision not to have advertising, from January 2011, was 'archived' here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =409927595

There is some nicely observed dialogue, e.g. Jimbo - "Could you comment on what could be interpreted as a discrepancy in what you and Sanger are saying took place with regards to intent to use advertising in Wikipedia?". Cla68 - " I don't see what the discrepancy is supposed to be." . […] " Jimbo, could you please respond?" Jimbo - "Maybe someday I'll publish all the old emails from back in the day. In the meantime, I'll simply reiterate what I've said so far." Larry - " Reiterate what? All you said was, "I don't see the discrepancy," and I pointed out the discrepancy quite clearly. I guess you're reiterating that you still don't see any discrepancy. Well, apart from your toadies, everybody can see the discrepancy, and you can too. So this is a typical Jimbo non-response: when confronted with lying, or wrongdoing, you simply say something that sounds like friendly communication but really dodges the question." (Larry) . Shortly after, Jimbo archives.

[Tarc]

Mattbuck is the Poster Child of Commons Administrative Dysfunction...

I will see your Mattbuck and raise you a Saibo, who still carries a torch for the dearly-departed Beta M.

As for Jimbo deletions, hatting or archiving stuff is not a terrible offense, at least it is still there and viewable in context with the discussion. I get annoyed when he just reverts singular entries in a discussion entirely because it is someone/thing he doesn't like. I believe he did that to me a few times during the Muhammad image fun fest.

[EricBarbour]

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

Hypocrite Snottywong's search tool has made easy our job of documenting Jimbo's censorship of criticism.

Thanks, now I've got too many examples.....

[Hex]

Jimbo's a little more clever than that; 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.

I think you're ascribing quite a lot of intent to the talk page equivalent of pointedly ignoring someone in a real life group conversation.

[thekohser]

Jimbo's a little more clever than that; 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.

I think you're ascribing quite a lot of intent to the talk page equivalent of pointedly ignoring someone in a real life group conversation.

Removing speech is not at all the same as ignoring speech.

[Randy from Boise]

(design by massive wiki discussion tends to suck)

That's an interesting thing to see from Jimbo in any context.

He is a realist.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

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

Hypocrite Snottywong's search tool has made easy our job of documenting Jimbo's censorship of criticism.

Hey, that's a fun tool, Greg.

Here is Malleus for use of the word "fuck"...

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-b ... ki&ns=none

RfB

[TungstenCarbide]

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

wow, it's been almost a year since Jimbo called you; "... a dangerous stalker who posts about my children and fantasizes about gun battles with me..."

[thekohser]

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

wow, it's been almost a year since Jimbo called you; "... a dangerous stalker who posts about my children and fantasizes about gun battles with me..."

Still about 6 weeks to go before the anniversary! Strange, I've never once been contacted by police or other authorities about this "danger" I've posed to poor Jimbo.

[Malleus]

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

Hypocrite Snottywong's search tool has made easy our job of documenting Jimbo's censorship of criticism.

Hey, that's a fun tool, Greg.

Here is Malleus for use of the word "fuck"...

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-b ... ki&ns=none

RfB

I'm rather surprised that isn't a much bigger list, but a much more impressive one I think is http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-b ... 00&ns=none.

[Hex]

I prefer http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-b ... 00&ns=none

[Poetlister]

I've never once been contacted by police or other authorities about this "danger" I've posed to poor Jimbo.

That shows how much love Jimbo is showering on you. Although he is so terrified of you that he has fled to London, he cannot bring himself to do anything but turn the other cheek. Doesn't that make you feel humbled?

[Malleus]

I prefer http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-b ... 00&ns=none

This is much more revealing in the context of Wikipedia's double standards.

[Hex]

This is much more revealing in the context of Wikipedia's double standards.

Less fun but certainly more revealing. What a class act.

[EricBarbour]

This is much more revealing in the context of Wikipedia's double standards.

Less fun but certainly more revealing. What a class act.

I could tell you some really disgusting things about Beeb. He's a "perfect Wikipedian" in that he is obviously a gamer nerd who showed up on WP as a teenager. And he's done a remarkable job of covering up his personal identity online.

If anyone wants to waste their time trying to "out" him, PM me for more information. You will not have an easy time of it, although one never knows.

[HRIP7]

In this edit, Jimmy Wales struck out the following sentence by Cla68:

Now, instead of hiding the assertion, why don't you address it?

To clarify: Wales added the strike-out codes to the text in question (<s> </s>). The text still appeared, but crossed out. I assumed – wrongly – that Cla68 had struck it, and most other readers of the talk page would have assumed the same, as striking out parts of other editors' posts on the talk page is forbidden by Wikipedia talk page guidelines:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

Edit summary: none.

Fram (T-C-L), a Wikipedia administrator, today reverted the strike-out, and added a note citing the relevant talk page guideline. Two hours and a half later, Jimmy Wales deleted Fram's note, as well as another post pointing out that Cla68 had been blocked (for an unrelated matter), with this edit. The deleted text read:

I have undone the change Jimbo Wales made to Cla68's comment (i.e. striking his last sentence). Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments is very clear on this; "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request."(bold and italic on original). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 10:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::::Just a note that Cla68 is unlikely to be able to reply in a timely manner, as he has been indefinitely blocked for attempted outing of an editor using an attack page on the boxcutter site. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 11:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' edit summary: "- I'm fine with that so adjusting my text accordingly".

[everyking]

Why was Cla68 blocked exactly? The explanations given are so vague that I can't work out what happened.

[Mason]

Why was Cla68 blocked exactly? The explanations given are so vague that I can't work out what happened.

He asked Sue Gardner to comment on this blog post.

[everyking]

Why was Cla68 blocked exactly? The explanations given are so vague that I can't work out what happened.

He asked Sue Gardner to comment on this blog post.

Blocked for requesting comment on something that was done by someone else? That seems peculiar.

[DanMurphy]

Why was Cla68 blocked exactly? The explanations given are so vague that I can't work out what happened.

He asked Sue Gardner to comment on this blog post.

Blocked for requesting comment on something that was done by someone else? That seems peculiar.

On Wikipedia, the rules demand you ignore that things like this exist.

[Mason]

Next step: an eager admin hopeful replaces Cla68's user page with an "indefinitely blocked" template.

Circle of life.

[The Joy]

Next step: an eager admin hopeful replaces Cla68's user page with an "indefinitely blocked" template.

Circle of life.

Russavia (T-C-L)'s userpage doesn't have the template. I would be infuriated if Cla68 is treated more shabbily than Russavia.

[Malleus]

Then prepare to be infuriated.

[thekohser]

It's not exactly a "deleted" comment, but it is a good example of a chilling effect. Jimbo rebuked Silver seren in May 2012:

As I say, this is an absolutely morallly reprehensible statement - disgusting. You should be ashamed, and you are hereby formally invited to stay off my talk page until you apologize.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 18:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren never apologized (that I can see), yet by January 2013, Jimbo had annointed Silver seren as "people I trust".

[thekohser]

When Jimbo uploaded a photo to Commons, on behalf of a friend, he was asked to provide proof that he had licensing rights to the photo. He got in a big snit, saying that his word should be good enough, and that he provided "ample evidence" to release the photo. Well, the Commons overlords decided to check with the actual copyright holder of the photo, and they replied that they did not want the photo released under the CC-by-SA terms. So, either Jimbo had lied, or he was sadly misinformed. The Commons folks started to badger Jimbo about it on Commons, but Jimbo was silent and would not reply. So, they took the bashing to Jimbo's Talk page on Wikipedia. Jimbo continued his tactic of non-reply, until...

Poof!

He made the problem disappear.

He is really so painfully predictable -- when caught in a lie or a big, public mistake, he shuts down all discussion of it. What a baby.

[EricBarbour]

When Jimbo uploaded a photo to Commons, on behalf of a friend, he was asked to provide proof that he had licensing rights to the photo. He got in a big snit, saying that his word should be good enough, and that he provided "ample evidence" to release the photo. Well, the Commons overlords decided to check with the actual copyright holder of the photo, and they replied that they did not want the photo released under the CC-by-SA terms. So, either Jimbo had lied, or he was sadly misinformed. The Commons folks started to badger Jimbo about it on Commons, but Jimbo was silent and would not reply. So, they took the bashing to Jimbo's Talk page on Wikipedia. Jimbo continued his tactic of non-reply, until...
Poof!

So, add it to the list.
http://wikipediocracy.com/wiki/index.ph ... s_Talkpage

[SB_Johnny]

This one just gets better and better, as Jimmy:

1. closes the discussion because it has been "moved to commons", then
2. zips over to commons to close the discussion there with the classic Jimmy "I'll get back to you sometime".

[lilburne]

This one just gets better and better, as Jimmy:

1. closes the discussion because it has been "moved to commons", then
2. zips over to commons to close the discussion there with the classic Jimmy "I'll get back to you sometime".

OTOH Many of the twonks ask people to contribute a photo to wikipedia, they hardly ever specify that by doing so the image has to become CC-BY-SA or what that entails. It is perfectly possible for JW to ask his friend can I use this on WP and be given a YES, and then for someone to come along and say you do realize that if it is on WP any 3rd party can use it for whatever nefarious purpose they might have and provoke a subsequent NO.

[rd232]

Many of the twonks ask people to contribute a photo to wikipedia, they hardly ever specify that by doing so the image has to become CC-BY-SA or what that entails.

Well they should; and if the person isn't OK with that, then the twonk in question should upload it to Wikipedia as a Non-Free File.

One point in favour of the WP File Upload Wizard is that under the "this is a free work" option it explicitly says "I can demonstrate that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purpose. "

[lilburne]

The last request I got was along the lines of "do you feel like being generous and allowing this to be used on WP?"

[DanMurphy]

It is perfectly possible for JW to ask his friend can I use this on WP and be given a YES, and then for someone to come along and say you do realize that if it is on WP any 3rd party can use it for whatever nefarious purpose they might have and provoke a subsequent NO.

If Wales didn't spell that out for his friend then he was unethical and irresponsible.

[TungstenCarbide]

It is perfectly possible for JW to ask his friend can I use this on WP and be given a YES, and then for someone to come along and say you do realize that if it is on WP any 3rd party can use it for whatever nefarious purpose they might have and provoke a subsequent NO.

If Wales didn't spell that out for his friend then he was unethical and irresponsible.

Or incompetent.

Jimbo is in a new country with a new wife and her circle of powerful friends - he's probably eager to demonstrate his value, and mortified that he couldn't get something as simple as this right. I wonder if his new found friends are people who attach meaning to their words, and do what they say they are going to do, when they say they will, and hold others to those same standards. It might be an overwhelmingly foreign experience for him after so many years on Wikipedia where, as SB_Johnny notes, "I'll get back to you..." was effort enough.

[Poetlister]

If Wales didn't spell that out for his friend then he was unethical and irresponsible.

How can you put Mr. Wales and words like "unethical and irresponsible" in the same sentence?

[Cedric]

If Wales didn't spell that out for his friend then he was unethical and irresponsible.

How can you put Mr. Wales and words like "unethical and irresponsible" in the same sentence?

With conjunctions, of course.

[/center]

[thekohser]

This one is a classic one, too. Poof! Problem of a "globally locked" user still editing numerous Wikimedia projects? Out of sight, out of mind.

[thekohser]

Uncomfortable questions about how Wikia.com was going down the tubes? Poof! Make it disappear, Jimbo.

[HRIP7]

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)