User talk:Bradv: Difference between revisions

I have what seems to me a credible report that you have been recommending to people that they use WikiExperts. Is this true?

The report I have is that you contacted someone through Whatsapp to recommend WikiExperts, who then charged someone $15,000 for an article in Wikipedia. I am asking you because if so, then you definitely should not be an admin in English Wikipedia. If it is a lie, then fine. But please tell me the truth. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales I would guess that’s a scam; scammers and spammers have been impersonating admins and other well known editors for years. Bradv also hasn’t been active for almost a year. If you think otherwise, you know who to email… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales, this was also a very unwise way to post this. It refers to offwiki communications while making a public accusation, which is at best seriously unwise and at worst policy-violating. From someone with such weight on their words, I'd have suggested leading with an email to Bradv. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales, I'm disappointed that you would even think that Bradv would do something like that. I would consider this report about as credible as a paid editing firm slapping a picture of you on the top of their website and saying "endorsed by Jimbo Wales himself!" Next time, email first, or if you're dead certain that this sort of abuse of the admin office is going on, send the evidence to ArbCom - but don't go slinging accusations like this around. Paid editing groups lie about everything - what articles they've worked on, the privileges they have access to, the names of their accounts, their ability to manage who is adding things to the article you buy, whether their accounts comply with Wikipedia policy. Any claims they made to the folks they hoodwinked need to be taken with about a pound of salt. (also, for future reference - we do have processes for handling off-wiki evidence for paid editing, generally involving the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org queue). GeneralNotability (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv abdicated his responsibility to the community as an arb for basically his entire last 2 year term because of how busy he is outside of Wikipedia (something I can somewhat but not definitively independently verify). In fact he caused a whole change to the ArbCom procedures so that if an Arb ever goes completely out of touch and can't be reached, as Bradv did, then the committee won't be forced to scramble as last year's committee was about what to do with the grant of Checkuser and Oversight. The idea that this person, who gave so much of himself to the movement and did so much good before this change in time spent, would then start shilling for a firm like WikiExperts would be farcical if it weren't so very unfair to Bradv as a person. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In utter shock that this was even considered without some form of evidence/back channeling. This is so below the line of WP:5P4 and WP:NPA. I've always feared joe-jobs while I was on the committee, for this simple reason. I'm not sure how you think it got to the level of "creditable" but this is absolutely the last thing Bradv would do. You do have resources, people you can reach out to both inside WMF and in the community before leveling such a heavy accusation. Use it next time you want to try this crap. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales:, we have blocked, community banned, and/or locked editor accounts who've behaved as you did here. Shame on you. I hope your next edit is a just as public retraction and apology to Bradv. I never expected to see the day the Founder of Wikipedia cast aspersions. I am very disappointed. Operator873 ^connect 01:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonderful to see King For Life Wales meddling in volunteer operations with evidence-free allegations of off-wiki activities, provided with no details, tossed in to start a lynching bonfire. Disgusting. Resign Jimbo. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Serious accusations require serious evidence. If the evidence cannot be provided in the form of on-wiki diffs or log entries, then you should not make the accusation on Wikipedia itself; instead, you should forward any private evidence either to the Arbitration Committee or to WMF Trust and Safety for review, depending on the kind of conduct involved. The reason for this policy is that the broader community has no way of reviewing and verifying the accusations made without violating the privacy of the involved editors, and unverifiable accusations like this tend to harm the community's ability to work together. Mz7 (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sickened by this. Jimbo, this is outrageous. Did you take even one second to consider why whoever sent you this alleged proof chose to send it to you, instead of ArbCom? Did you even consider sharing it with the committee before publicly smearing Brad's name with these unproven accusations? I think a lot of us thought you had figured out by now that you don't run en.wp anymore and you would at least try to act like a responsible member of the community, but I guess we overestimated you. You almost certainly got played by the very scammers you are accusing Brad of being in cahoots with. It reflects very poorly on you that you apparenty didn't even consider that. I'm absolutely disgusted with you. You are the one that should hand in their admin bits, or founder bits, or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like all the others said, Jimbo, PLEASE use Special:EmailUser for inquiries like this instead of posting it in the talk page. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 03:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbo, you have access to the paid editing mailbox. You had access to the arbcom mailbox. You know the proper places to report this kind of allegation.

You have had a hand in the Universal Code of Conduct. Do you think this is a proper use of the bullhorn you carry? Do we have a legacy founder who has lost touch with WP:NPA and the community's other norms? Cabayi (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What the—? Don't we block people who cast unfounded aspersions against respected editors? SN54129 13:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abtach, Digitonics and other undisclosed paid editing companies often claim affiliation of veteran editors and admins. They even go as far as impersonating them in online communications, which I have reported to Trust & Safety before. Jimbo, you've been duped by scammers. MarioGom (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me apologize for the unnecessary tone in my inquiry. BradV is a well known and respected admin, and my intention was simply to get an answer to a valid question. If the victim of the paid editing scam was additionally scammed by someone impersonating BradV, that's important to know. If BradV didn't recommend WikiExperts, then he can simply say so, and that will settle it for me. What will make that significantly more interesting is that with documentary evidence of fraudulent behavior (pretending to be admin who is promising to approve the page if the firm is used would be fraud on the victim) then it raises the possibility that the victim can fight back in court. If, on the other hand, he - and perhaps other admins - are recommending this firm to people, then that opens a huge other can of worms that needs to be addressed very straightforwardly. I don't think keeping these matters hushed benefits anyone other than the ultimate scammers.

I think it very likely, if $20,000 fees are on the table, that there have been and will be significant efforts to infiltrate the admin corps in order to undermine the honesty of Wikipedia, harming the reptutation of the volunteer admins who do so much to keep the site straight. Let's all work together to speak openly and clearly, with mutual trust and respect, to get to the bottom of all of these cases.

In this case, I have not been duped by a scammer at all - I'm speaking in a verifiable way to a victim of the scammers. It is possible, and indeed likely, that this person has been duped by the scammer through a fake communication purporting to be BradV. I don't know yet, and I hope that BradV will weigh in soon so that we can focus attention in that direction if that's the situation.

I would like us to think about how we might better get the word out to potential victims of these scams, so that the business model of the scammers dries up as much as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow:

1. You are not acknowledging that the correct venue to handle this is emailing ArbCom, Trust & Safety, and/or paid-en-wp@.
2. You have not confirmed if you have sent evidence to ArbCom or not. Hint: You should, right now. Since it involves impersonation, you should also forward evidence to Trust & Safety.
3. You are doubling down on your original claim and still giving credibility to the claim that Brad is recommending WikiExperts.
4. You are still requesting an answer from Brad, who is absent from Wikipedia activity for a while. Instead of deferring to ArbCom to assess the evidence, you're choosing to ignore all relevant policies related to reporting admin abuse based on off-wiki evidence, and while doing so, also being abusive.
5. You say you're trying to open a conversation about this issue. You are not. You're smearing Brad. If you want to open a general conversation about handling UPE, you're welcome to do so at the Village Pump.

All of this is deeply troubling coming from someone who has access to functionaries mailing lists. --MarioGom (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy I share your desire to see what we can do about getting word out about these scams. However, as Mario points out the way to do that publicly would be at the village pump. I can tell that you're genuinely concerned that the report might be true and absent reassurance from Bradv, this concern might continue for you. I would ask you, instead, to consider taking stock of who is telling you that you've misstepped here. You have 2 stewards (1 of whom is also an enwiki checkuser and former ombud), 5 enwiki checkusers (not counting the steward), and an editor who is among the foremost in combatting UPE on enwiki (and who has worked collaboratively with the Foundation on fighting paid editing firms like this), all saying that this kind of accusation is not new or surprising. By asking a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of question you are harming the reputation of an editor who has done so much good for our movement and one who is more likely to get desysopped for inactivity than to show up to respond to your question. There are better ways to handle both the investigation into your specific concern and the broader concern. I hope you will take a moment, think about what you're hearing from editors here who are as concerned as you are about UPE, and adjust course. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I see how that is a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not exactly that. But it is a question whose object can not possibly be to know the answer, since anyone above eight already knows the answer . So far, it looks like the object is to leave a public record of "Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, stands up to scammers". Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, the response here is nearly as concerning as the original post. Even in the face of unanimous upset at the public way you have handled this, you continue to emphatically pursue the matter on-wiki. Multiple sysops, functionaries, and stewards have expressed serious concerns, and you have not acknowledged a single one.

Regardless of merit, I would hope that you can recognize that publicly accusing a user  – any user  – of such a thing when you cannot present the evidence is unacceptable. That is why we have established systems in place for these things, and partially why, given your unparalleled access to them, people are so outraged. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales: I have what seems to me a credible report that you have been selling your edits. Is this true?

The report I have is that you recreated your first edit to Wikipedia and sold it as an NFT for $750,000. I am asking you because if so, then you definitely should not be an admin in English Wikipedia, or making any evidence-free accusations against actual volunteers of secret paid editing. If it is a lie, then fine. But please tell me the truth. Levivich (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed in what I am seeing here. Jimbo Wales, have you emailed Arbcom about this? Unlike everyone else, I am not going to be quick to jump to Bradv's side. However, you should have contacted Arbcom, and not publicly humiliated him on his talk page. I am keeping an open mind on this, but if the allegations turn out to be nonsense, I think you owe him an apology. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 00:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]