User talk:Jimbo Wales
Mr. Wales, I would like you to ask the Board to come up with a statement on admin and bureaucrats on Wikimedia sites that no longer abide by consensus or policies. I think it is important that there are some intangibles that WMF sites have that can't be altered by those who managed to gain some local power. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Confirming and refuting real life claims
In this comment on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#missing legal competence by age? I voiced an opinion over the appropriateness of you refuting or confirming whether a contributor was a minor. I suggested it would be best for long term interests o the project if you were to leave such determinations to the volunteers on the OTRS team.
In addition to the reasons I offered there, I suspect it is bad for their morale to learn you were doing their job.
All photos in Wikimedia Commons Category:Igor Janev are nominated for deletion! Why?
After talk with J. Wales on Wikipedia talk, as a special measure: All photos in Wikimedia Commons Category:Igor Janev are nominated for deletion. How democratic way of conduct of business in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- Because we care about copyright. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janev000.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Gaga0000. This is all connected to this huge zoo of sockpuppets. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't needlessly attack our admins
Jimmy, in relation to comments you left here to Jim, I am disappointed that you have used your first edit in 4 months on Commons as another attack on one of our admins. Everything that occurred in that DR was purely investigative work on the image in question, and any admin would have been correct in closing it as a keep, and would have clearly been incorrect in closing it as a delete.
On Commons we are not in the habit of deleting images which are clearly freely licenced and in-scope, and there is often great investigative work done by editors in order to ascertain the copyright status of images; if they are copyright violations we are not in the habit now, nor will we be in the future, of keeping images just because.
Your comments are even more troublesome because Jim isn't even the admin who closed the DR in question; he was providing his opinion to another editor in an outside of DR capacity. I don't know how you came to learn of the DR or the image in question, but your comments were clearly inappropriate in these circumstances, and they have the admin you have all but browbeat questioning their continued participation on this project. This isn't acceptable.
- Russavia, your attack on Jimmy is also very inappropriate. Jimmy's comment was prior to the initiation of that DR. It was Эlcobbola who converted that malformed DR to an original DR. And I didn't see Jimmy's advice to help a person who don't know how to start a proper DR is inappropriate.
- Most surprising to me is that none of you (many of you have Flickr accounts) attempt to contact Celisa B.M.Serra and clarify the matter in question. It took only a few minutes for me to get an answer from him/her. :)
- Please be wise and gentle. JKadavoor Jee 07:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in this case, it really does seem like Jimbo owes the guy an apology or at least an admission of wrongdoing. I can imagine it would be a bit upsetting for someone who has contributed to a site for a long time having the head of the site accuse them of serious incompetence or misconduct for not acting immediately on a questionable complaint from someone who has never contributed here before. That said complaint was promptly proven to be mistaken shows James was justified in his pensive response. Jimbo seems to be letting his feelings about Commons color his perception of any prominent contributors here, which is not the way someone in a leadership role should conduct himself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)