Jimbo asks Bradv if he encouraged paid editing

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ol ... allegation

[badmachine]

his majesty requested removal of all flags except "founder" otherwise it couldve turned into a shitshow. ps this could be merged into the other thread

[ericbarbour]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... les@enwiki

He has even been booted from the WMF wiki

"Improve site security". Ha ha ha ha. Liar. I suspect he did this because administrators are threatening him with blocks. And if they block him, he can't talk back to the thousands of people who post something to his talkpage every year. And throw his pontificating ego around on the thing "he built". It would be most embarrassing--publicly.

It's only a matter of time before the crazier insiders force him completely off English Wikipedia. It's been obvious for years that some of them would love to have a coup d'etat, so they can call THEMSELVES the "founders of Wikipedia". And rewrite history in that manner.

[wexter]

The net effect is that Jimbo "elevated himself" in that he can have "founder status (a trump card)" without the exposures of administrative rights. For Jimbo nothing is lost and everything is gained (which he clearly states).

I am asking T&S to simply remove all my advanced permissions across all projects, .... , but with no actual technical capabilities. I don't use those powers at all, have no intention to use those powers, and if it will prevent people from gearing up for some kind of wild constitutional crisis, then by all means, let's just take that off the table https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ol ... imbo_Wales

Instead of taking personal responsibility he deflects and then re-frames his issue back to paid editing of others; and then he plays the victim.

There is no constitution on Wikipedia just Social Capital (who you are within Wikipedia)

The three issues are distinct and separate
1) Abuse of Power
2) Lack of Process
3) Paid Editing

I'd like us all to get back to the real issue at hand, which is not about me getting irritated and then apologizing, and it is not about advanced tools in the software that I'm not even using. The real issue is one that I hope we can rally everyone on together which is the problem of paid professional COI editing going on and someone being victimized to the tune of $15,000. (That part is not seriously in doubt in this case, and it should upset us all.)

Notice how quickly the issue of Jim's conduct was closed - facts don't matter because there was no fact-finding
The process is farcical, disgusting, wrong, and toxic

The real issue at hand for Jim is "Abuse of Power" which is systemic across the platform
Wikipedia lacks process, rules, and procedures
Paid editing is also systemic

So we have potential abuse of power by Jim and Wikipedia lacks the process, rules, inclination, integrity, guts, and procedures necessary to investigate facts based on the merits of the issue. The same issues repeat over and over again because everything on the site is based on your internal Social Capital (speaks to the person, who you are at Wikipedia, not the issues)..