User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

RfCs

I'm curious about RfCs: how does one get input from the wider community? The reason I ask is that at this one regarding whether to include text about a BLP subject's sex change (when she has clearly indicated she wants the issue to be omitted out of privacy concerns) the RfC is completely overrun by people who have already commented at BLPN. What is the path for getting outside input here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump would be a good place to start and can post the RfC on WP:CENT.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

One may, of course, post here. Also on any projects which have marked the page as of interest. And the bot which will randomly solicit input from those who are amenable to being asked ("WP:Feedback request service"). Collect (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

One person there is arguing that even if a source admits getting its information by reading tea leaves, we should use it as long as it fits the criteria for reliable sources. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You lot should cast your eyes up ⇑ to this very user talk page where Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#A little reading is also a dangerous thing. has already been pointed to. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, have you looked at this one? It's about inclusionism in BLPs and whether a reliable source is always reliable for all facts. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. I am reminded of how Biography Magazine once published that I have, as a hobby, playing chess with friends. While that sounds lovely and I like the idea of it, it's actually not true. I was baffled as to where they came up with such nonsense until I found that it had been in my Wikipedia entry as vandalism for a relatively short period of time (not 7 minutes, but not years either - I forget now how long but days anyway). Uncle G seems to have come up with a pretty sensible (though not 100% foolproof) explanation of how the biographical dictionary may not be a reliable source for this, despite appearances. Biography Magazine (which has now apparently stopped publication) would normally be considered a reliable source (and why not?) but in this case, they were lazy and simply cribbed from Wikipedia.

At the same time, I think this is an interesting twist on my usual campaign against too simplistic formulations of "reliability, not truth" (which is thankfully finally dead now). In this case, considering the totality of the evidence, it's quite clear what the truth is.

It's not up to me personally, but I do consider it relevant that the subject of the biography was a public figure before the sex change operation, and is a public figure afterwards. I do think we should respect the human dignity of the subject and not engage or indulge a tabloidy writeup of the whole story. Nor should we hammer away at it in the biography. But it is pretty difficult to not mention it at all. I suspect that the right answer lies in a thoughtful compromise on wording that will satisfy those who rightly point out that she was well-known before, and well-known now, while at the same time satisfying those who want to respect the subject's privacy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's obvious she was born male and now identifies as a female, but that doesn't really imply having a sex change operation (which is what most people would take "has a sex change" to mean). She could still be pre-op (or not planning an operation at all). Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. We must not imply an operation without knowing one way or the other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Very reasonable questions/concerns have been raised about the only possible source that could support the text currently in the article; the lack of other sources means it is not something that has received widespread coverage. In addition, the subject has made it clear she wishes the issue to remain private. BLP says (slightly paraphrasing): write conservatively and with respect for people's privacy. What on earth is this material doing in that article?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you keep it entirely out, since she used to go by a commonly-male name, and now goes by a commonly-female name. It seems odd for us to not explain it. I could be convinced, but I'm not clear on it yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how these concerns override "write conservatively and with respect for people's privacy". Nor how they override the paucity of sources, still less unimpeachable ones. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Is there an actual encyclopedic reason why name changes must be "explained"? Is it not reasonale to present the names, and not do more unless and until we have reliable sources for a "reason"? Collect (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, but concerned about the puzzlement a reader might have. Here is a similar case, presented in a respectful, factual, and non-tabloidy way without difficulty. The only real difference I see here is the subject's wishes which I do think are relevant as one of several factors.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been reading and looking into as much of this as as possible and editors do not agree on interpreting either policy/guidelines or the source. I have a problem with the current, single source to the claim of "gender change" Its a little lacking in quality for this particular information even, perhaps any information on the subject.

My concern is the small amount of material in the reference and the unknown "online sources" being cited. I found Uncle G's post and if the sources being cited by this publication are "The JC.com", I am unable to locate the dated articles. A search on their site does not match dates cited: April 7, 2006 - June 30, 2006, November 10,2006 - October 19,2007 - March 28, 2008 - Febuary 13, 2009. A search of The JC.com web site shows a number of articles with the subject but none of those exact dates. In fact, there is a listing in the search that comes close to all but one date that does shows up, but... off by one or two days (the March date does not show up at all). This really makes me more than uncomfortable.[1] (you have to put the name of the subject of the article into the search and hit enter) As I understand it, The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History would be considered a tertiary source. As such I don't think we should be using it for details on a subject of a BLP. Especially not for such a contentious claim. It is niether specific nor truly informative and the sourcing is...not understandable or verifiable in itself.

As stated, we can't call it a sex change from that small bit taken from the dictionary. Is what they are claiming unambiguous enough to mention in our article? Does it even matter if it is unambiguous? The problem seems to be a lack of truly reliable secondary sources. Even the "former name" is referenced from the Palgrave reference as are all mentions of "gender/gender change" as well as: "living as a male until... (which is only being extrapolated from the Palgrave source and not directly stated)".

Is it truly unquestionable fact? What "facts" do we know? The only compromise I can come up with (and to many, this will not sound like a compromise) is to simply seperate the two article completely and perhaps just delete the Lynette Nusbacher articles as a non-notable figure at this time. It sounds a bit odd, but as far as relaible sources go....they are two sepearte people so far. We only have a short tertiary source and to me that seems to be stretching its use for what is acceptable for a BLP article. (My apologies for the length of this reply/comment)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article is now at AfD. It's a shame when some editors insist on abusing articles along these lines, so that we end up upsetting BLP subjects and they then prefer to have the whole thing deleted. But sometimes that's the best we can do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Jimbo has obviously seen some of them, but the talk page watchers here may not know that NetNus (talk · contribs) has made further talk page comments on this matter. Whilst this one is of course my favourite, it's probably not anywhere near as interesting to anyone else as this one, this one, this one, this one, and of course this one.

  Amadscientist, the Jewish Chronicle has both print and on-line editions. A skew in datelines of 1 day is not unheard-of for such publications. My conclusion was that Jolles and the Rubensteins had used the print edition. And the reason that you couldn't find the 2008-03-28 article is someone's transcription or typographical error. The article is datelined 2003-03-28, and can be found here. (This is the article that NetNus is alluding to when xe talks about "reading the Torah in Guildford (all the things relevant to the Jewish Chronicle)".) It doesn't say anything at all about medical operations, of course. Well done for double-checking the dates and articles yourself.

  Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • No, your right. One or two mistakes is not uncommon....every single one is.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RfA (not again!)

Congratulations, you did a fine job on last night's Colbert Report, Jimmy. I understand from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_122#ArbCom_Appointments_2012 that you want to start a discussion this month to address a number of problems, including "the ongoing admin-appointment situation... a problem which I think most people agree needs to be solved, but for which our usual processes have proven ineffective for change". From this and past statements, I get the sense that you're not looking for more of the same at RfA with a 10% higher promotion rate, you're looking for something more ... substantial. What I'd like to do is to have a quick RfC at RfA to set up ground rules for a new discussion that takes your constraints into account, that is: if an RfC can produce, say, 5 options for you to choose from, would you be willing to do that? How much time do we have? And, can you give us any sense of what "magnitude" of change you'd be willing to consider acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just gotten home to London (not actually home yet, on a train) and will go to sleep ASAP. Planning to start writing something substantial tomorrow.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you get any advice from Colbert on possible changes or does he still believe that Thomas Edison was an alpaca farmer? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Having seen the remarkable efficiency with which the general community operates on RfCs, I would sugest instead that the WMF establish an ad hoc discussion forum with invited participants to make such recommendations as they see fit. If we expect the general community to make three or four specific recommendations, we will end up with 20,000 words for each of 100 different choices <g>. Collect (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that episode of the Colbert Report. That had to be something to see! I'll have to look for it in re-broadcast.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I for one want to say thank you Jimbo for taking an interest in this. Unfortunately I, as well as others agree that you are pretty much the last hope of trying to fix the process. RFA has been broken for a long time, everyone knows it, a lot of us have tried to fix it and the community has thus far been incapable of affecting any change. Even now as Dank left the message starting this discussion there has been an explosion of well meaning and well intentioned comments and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Unfortunately I am pessimistic as to what it will lead too. Its been discussed many times but we never come to anything other than an agreement that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. I am hopeful that the solution you come up with will improve the ever dwindling numbers at RFA. Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point, K, I'll reply to this over at WT:RFA#RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Jimmy, I think if anyone can fix this problem at Rfa, it will have be you. Since your famous statement that adminship was "No big deal" it has become just that. I truly hope your proposal is substantial yet easy to implement, and makes sense to a supermajority of the editing community. To me the big three issues are the power to block, the lifetime appointment, and the current relative difficulty of de-admining problem admins, especially ones that "play the edge" by skirting the rules in some cases for years. Most importantly, it must be something that does not get talked into the ground. I hope that you will take back a chunk of your former powers and implement these reforms by fiat. However the well-known statement that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" should be ever in your considerations. My best wishes in cutting the Gordian Knot! Jusdafax 22:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there are a lot of things Jimmy could do here, and I'm sure he'll choose wisely. I'm more concerned about what the history of RfA says about us than I'm concerned about what Jimmy will do. No free society should ever say "we can't solve our problems, please save us from ourselves". We need to keep working on this before, during and after any intervention by Jimmy. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Match fixing investigations of Norwegian Second Division

I don't know anything about Norwegian Football, nor do I have any interest. Perhaps someone who does can assist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Text suggestion. The Match fixing investigations of Norwegian Second Division association football league are two ongoing investigations that started in 2012 in Norway and in Sweden. The investigations have resulted in police charges pending against nine individuals. Three players from Follo FK and two players from Asker Fotball are among those charged. Norwegian police arrested a player from Follo FK on July 11, 2012. He was charged with receiving stolen goods (siktet for heleri) and for receiving benefits/money from match fixing. Timeline: Norwegian police arrested a player from Follo FK on July 11, 2012. He was charged with receiving stolen goods (siktet for heleri) and for receiving benefits/money from match fixing. Follo FK's trainer, Hans Erik Eriksen on July 14, 2012 admits to having been involved in "illegal acts, linked to the same environment that is being investigated in the [alleged] match fixing case".[2] One player from Asker Fotball was arrested on October 19, 2012. He was charged with assisting in acts of grov corruption and assisting in grov fraud against a Norwegian bookmaker (Norsk Tipping).[3] The police dismissed the case against the trainer of Follo FK, on October 4, 2012. A Swedish prosecutor (Thomas Forsberg) said on December 3, 2012 that Sweden has an investigation that is seperate of Norway's investigation.[4] In advance of this, Swedish police had arrested two inhabitants of Vaxjo, Sweden. --Captain jack straitand narrow (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Catch Me If You Can

For every person who tries to find my account and block it, there are ten emails that I am responding to, giving quotes to write their article. No one can make money from Wikipedia?

And more:

• "However, Jimbo has created a monster that can no longer be controlled."
• "By creating the site this way, Jimbo has painted himself into a corner where he is only a single vote in the Wikipedia community. Of course he has his loyal followers who cling to his talk page like lap dogs, but the majority of editors do not see him as a credible influence on policy. Citing an admin that I had the pleasure of speaking with about numerous articles that I had written, “Jimbo is not where Wikipedia is evolving.”
• "Wikipedia has long been used as a promotional tool."
• "In September of 2012, there was a quite a bit of media attention surrounding two Wikipedia employees (yes, they do have some paid personnel – including Jimbo who makes more than $50K per event where he is a speaker) who were running a PR business on the side and editing Wikipedia on behalf of their clients."

176.67.167.252 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)