Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 12 December 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Disgusting

I would like to say that, as an educator, I find your recent comment which states that "it's a bad educator that bans their students from reading Misplaced Pages" is ignorant, rude, and disrespectful of people who actually know how to teach and have dedicated their lives to doing so. You may revel in amateurism, but professionals can see that this site is a terrible education resource. 1.33% of the Misplaced Pages is tagged for cleanup alone. It may be interesting as a general trivia site, but it is not something I would permit my students to learn from, whether you call me a 'bad educator' or no. 86.142.48.123 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to write something here but I was stuck in a meeting this morning for 3 hours *groan* I, too, have to disagree with your statement that Misplaced Pages should be accepted for schoolwork. You even included the caveat that only articles that are well-cited should be used. What teacher is going to want to analyze every Misplaced Pages article cited to see if it is acceptable for use? Also, many (if not all) elementary, middle or even high school students would not be able to determine if an article overall has good citations or not. Besides, it is generally accepted that terciary sources are not academically acceptable. I teach my students to use encyclopedias, Misplaced Pages included, only to begin their research when they have no clue about the topic. Also, there is nothing wrong with chaining to the sources that many entries cite like newspaper articles, books etc but use the information from the original... not the encyclopedia. I write you this as one who uses Misplaced Pages extensively (see my user page and WP:SUP) for my writing and Advanced EFL classes. Don't throw down the gauntlet to educators... you get the reaction like the one above. However, keep pushing to make Misplaced Pages better. You are right that students do use it, even if prohibited. Plus, it is proving to be a really excellent way to get students to write and research.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article is entirely misleading about my remarks. My opinion on the proper use of Misplaced Pages in the educational environment has not changed one bit. I believe that our anonymous teacher, above, would respond as the audience did: strong applause. The key, of course, is to hear what I actually said, rather than this misreporting. I have asked the BBC to run a correction.

I believe that educators whose entire response to Misplaced Pages is to tell students not to look at it are in fact bad educators. Good teachers will understand that the right approach is to teach students about the weaknessess - and strengths - of Misplaced Pages. And to caution them that Misplaced Pages is not an acceptable source for an academic citation, any more than Britannica is. Thelmadatter, I agree absolutely with your remarks about the use of Misplaced Pages in the classroom, and based on reading what you have said, I suspect we would have to work really hard in a conversation to find any differences in our opinions at all on these matters.  :-) So, I plead innocent.--Jimbo Wales 19:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting? No way. It was a good BBC article and good to see you yet again promoting wikipedia and this time in Old Blighty. Would that I had access to such a vast body of knowledge when I was a teenager and of course those of today should be encouraged to use it. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

could you tell us what you really did say?Thelmadatter (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a video or audio anywhere, but I said basically the same things that I always say. If you have seen any of my speeches where I address these questions, well, I said what I always say. (Basically, teachers can use wikipedia as a teaching opportunity to help students better assess information sources. Misplaced Pages has strengths and weaknesses. An outright ban is silly... you can tell students not to listen to rock and roll music, too. But accepting wikipedia as a citable source is not really right either.)--Jimbo Wales 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree Misplaced Pages has some flaws like anything else, BUT it is fairly new and getting better every single day. I would strongly argue that the educational system has so many more flaws, and it has had over a 100 years to reform itself. As an author, I can state that I have probably learned double the amount of information on wiki than I did in school. Our schools have ancient textbooks which have become antiquated, wiki has thousands of editors that keep everything up to the minute, from new science advances to news updates. Once they perfect all the flows in the wiki system, I strongly believe the world will embrace it as the new system for learning and education. I quote the great Thomas Edison who I believe was the greatest genius of all time: "Our schools are not teaching students to think. It is astonishing how many young people have difficulty in putting their brains definitely and systematically to work." I completely agree with Edison. In the 21st century, not much has changed with the school system, it is almost as it was one hundred years ago (that is disgusting)! I believe wiki is a system that encourages students to think and participate in history, science, and current events. Thank you Jimbo for starting Misplaced Pages!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One of my teachers frequently cites Misplaced Pages. He first gives the page a read over, then tells us to look at the specific article. He thinks it's a valuable resource. I agree with him. I learned a lot from Misplaced Pages on my Software Engineering course, and I did well on an essay (something I don't do much of on my course) thanks to Misplaced Pages. --Deskana (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that any good teacher should say "do read Misplaced Pages but don't trust Misplaced Pages - use it as a starting point". Any reference to Misplaced Pages as a resource necessarily has to include the need to look at the page history, the article talk, and the internal and external links. The article the student sees is only a node on a temporal trajectory (can I trademark that?). My first contribution to en:wikipedia (as an IP) was following up on an argument in a pub about orbital mechanics. Don't try this at home kids! :) Geostationary orbit said 9 miles above the surface of the Earth and I looked at it 17 times, got my CRC Handbook out, checked two websites, I knew it was obviously wrong, I couldn't just walk away, but I had to be sure that "Undo" was going to make things right. So at any given time, there are errors and I could have left that one - and if people in any way learn to rely on Misplaced Pages, well, don't shoot your mouth off in your local pub based on it and for God's sake don't build any bridges or railways. I hope Jimbo would agree that the key is to teach how to use Misplaced Pages, it is not the answer, it's the way to find the answer. Franamax (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And there's the tradeoff between accuracy and accessability. If you use anything on the internet which is free, you usually have just the same problem as with Misplaced Pages (PUBMED govt subsidized medical references being a major exception). And what are the chances you're going to spend the afternoon at the local library pulling tomes off shelves to get something you really know you can trust? Usually you don't need to trust anything that much. It's NOT the airplane or bridge you're building-- if you do that for living, somebody has bought you refs that you damn well CAN trust. So what do you use Misplaced Pages for? Somebody's doc sends them for a PET scan and they and you want to know what that is. In 10 min with a computer or even the right cell phone, you can find out more about PET scans than the average MD knew 10 years ago. And most of what's in Misplaced Pages is accurate, or if it is not, it's obvious that it's been messed with, because 99.999% of vandals are fools and all they can do is delete stuff or add scatology. Changing a decimal in an orbital calculation is actually what you very seldom find. SBHarris 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have said many times, while WP is not itself a reliable source (you never know when the page you load will say POOP), it is an excellent and possibly unparalleled resource for finding reliable sources on almost any topic. That is why some of us have worked hard to make the footnoted cites as complete as possible, so that any kid in a library can go find those sources. - Crockspot (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! How to desysop an admin in the German section of the wikipedia who misused his sysop-status and broke even more rules?

Hi!
As I didn'T find the appropriate section neither in the German nro the English section of Misplaced Pages.org though it is a topic that should be decided quickly, I just summon up some key facts about what happened.
The admin broke rules.
The admin used an arrogant, inappropriate reasoning for deleting parts of an article.
The admin was involed in deleting these parts and protecting the page in a changed status.
The cause for changing the article was not only a legal threat, but actually an user who comlained about the article and additionally filed an action very fast.
The admin, though he addressed an user in an answer on the discussion-page of that article as the complainant, didn'T block or delete that user as far as I know.
That entry which was answered by the admin did neither have an IP-adress or the user name: Unusual for my knowledge is, that even in the old versions of the discussion-page no IP-adress or user-name could be found, but only in the history-overview the user was to be seen. In the contributions-page of that user that entry could then be found.
The admin twice deleted entries of the discussion-page, that I had written as answers to entries from this admin(!), though they were neither intended nor unintended insulting. (That deletion of my entries to the discussion page is what really bothers me, followed by the next point.)
After the second deletion the admin blocked my IP-address.
As reason for blocking he stated that I would have written that I "don't want to write anymore" on wikipedia: This citation is a lie! I *never* wrote *that*!
The blocking must not have been done by that admin as he was involved in the discussion: From an old desysop-decision I know that this alone is enough of a reason to desysop that admin. (If I remember right it was even you yourself who wrote, that such in inaceptable.)

My question: How could I help you and wikipedia to prevent this admin of further breaking and bending the wikipedia rules? Please answer here!

With best regards 212.23.103.75 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! After I informed the admin that I will initiate an Arbitration to Desysop him, he removed that entry and the second entry that he deleted and I put back again. That way of course it will be more difficult to find more people who were blocked by him and/or pointed out how and when he broke rules alone on that discussion page and the related article.
After that within only hours he moved links on his userpage that pointed to former complaints against him to him being desysoped from top of his page to a not so prominent place. Actually maybe because only of that moving of the links I only have become aware of that links. (So that really backfire. I now know by these same links where to find the right page on the German wikipedia-section, to start a movment to desysop him.) These arbitrations were caused by rule-breaking blocks performed by the admin. One complainant said: 'This admin is known to use his admin-privileges to try to make other users who are in discussion with *him* "mundtot"'. (mundtot: to silence) The admin on the same page wrote, he deliberatly considered that his actions could result in him being desysoped, but he would do it again in the same situation.
As you maybe know, the situation in the German section of wikipedia is far worse regarding the cameraderia of the admins, supporting each other whatever topic and action is discussed or decided.
After seeing the old movements to desysop him, and now seeing him rule-breaking by blocking and deleting entries on discussion pages, I really wonder if you, Mr Wales, really could stood by watching. With best regard, and still hoping for an answer from you 212.23.103.85 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! I could understand that you don't want to comment on a topic that is in any way related to the filed suit i mentioned above.
But why don'T you show interest that it seems the user who filed the suit was not banned or blocked? With best regards 212.23.103.5 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this relates to this Agathoclea (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A message from a disillusioned Wiipedian.

The Politics of Misplaced Pages

When I discovered Misplaced Pages a few years ago, I almost immediately become enthralled. I got so into it after a while that I decided to "be bold" and contribute.

Over the course of the past year I've become rather discouraged as I've discovered that just like any big corporation, Misplaced Pages has it's share of "bigwig Pinheads" as well.

Common sense is thrown out the window here far to often.

Unless you happen to "have the right connections", then being a Wikipeian can't amount to much more than correcting spelling errors and punctuation.

Start a new article on what common sense dictates should, be a "notable" subject and the wikiclique will deem it "not notable" (while not applying the same standards to other similar articles). I guess it's about who you know. :(

After that, your optons are arbitration. And you know what? Most people have better things to do with their lives than jump through (what seem to any rational person to be) needlessly unnecessary "hoops" to get anything corrected here.

And if all this weren't bad enough, I come across this and this today.

What is wrong with this place? I thought Misplaced Pages was supposed to be "open"? --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, please note that this is further evidence that others have noticed some of the same issues that I've noticed. Have you reached out to this edtor to ask him why he/she feels this way? Perhaps you, or somebody with some authority and a good faith reason to be here, should. Cla68 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like part of why he feels this way is that he read the news stories that you contributed to which spread this nonsense about "secret mailing lists" and similar stuff. The other thing he seems upset about is an AfD for "zorpia". I will try to find the time to look that up but the google link he gives does not seem very helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, how can you call the "secret mailing list" stuff "nonsense" when you yourself admonished Giano for posting private emails from it on the wiki? If the "secret mailing list" wasn't a secret mailing list (judging by your quotes around the term), then since those e-mails were licenced under the GDFL (including the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially"), distributing them should have been no problem. If, however, there e-mails were supposed to have been kept private, then referring to it as "nonsense about 'secret mailing lists'" can't be accurate, right? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Secret" and "private" mean completely different things. And the list is not GFDL licensed. So I really do not understand your comment at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, even a cursorial search for the definition of secret turns up "secret - not open or public; kept private or not revealed", "secret - not expressed; "secret (or private) thoughts", etc. The words "secret" and "private" don't entirely have completely different meanings: there's a lot of overlap. terms of use state "Wikia's content is made freely accessible for informational or entertainment purposes to anyone with a connection to the World Wide Web." and "All Wikia are available under the GNU Free Documentation License." The list even contains the GNU logo at the bottom of the page. While I can appreciate that you don't feel the content is licensed, it's not at all clear that that is the case, and could use some rewording on the Wikia Terms of Use page. At the very least, the Gnu logo on the bottom of the page should absolutely be removed, because it is the logo of the GDFL. Yours, Firsfron of Ronchester 14:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The GNU logo is part of the default installation of the mailing list software, and it is not the logo of the GFDL. The mailing lists are not GFDL. (Indeed, not all Wikia are GFDL, so I will ask someone to correct that. Some are under various Creative Commons licenses.) If you don't know the difference between "secret" and "private" I really don't know what to tell you. Here are a couple of sample sentences to help you. "There are many private clubs in New York, but only some of them are secret." "My son attends a private school in New York, you can look it up on the web if you want to know more about it." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have corrected the Wikia Terms of Use page, Jimbo. That makes it a bit clearer. Misplaced Pages's article on the GNU Free Documentation Licence has shown the GNU logo on the page for the past three years. I understand there is a difference between the GNU and GFDL, but even the official GFDL text contains the logo. Misplaced Pages tags which reference the license also use the GNU logo. As far as "secret" vs. "private" goes, I've already linked above to the definitions. There clearly is a difference between a private school and a secret school. Not so much when we're talking about secrets on a mailing list, though: it's all about context, Jimbo. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		I herewith award you, Jimbo Wales, the Special barnstar for your contribution to humanity, by creating Misplaced Pages! Thank you--Octavian history (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Menudo

Sure, the item has been on my watchlist for some time and the article has been under my attention since the AN/I thread and subsecuent protection. I am under the impression that this situation may be related to the creation of a new version of Menudo, maybe as some kind of negative propaganda towards the group since the page's webmaster has claimed that he promoted the original version of the group once in his now deleted article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is something in that general area. The former participants in that battle all apparently have some kind of legal dispute with each other. In any event, none of them should be editing the articles in question, that's for sure.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Layout

Dear Jimbo, I can use the layout of its profile in this Misplaced Pages to place it in my page of profile of user of the Misplaced Pages in Portuguese, of which I am part? Forgives me the bad translation.. :) ONE I hug. I wait its reply,

FERNANDO  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.171.182.247 (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fernado, to answer your question: Yes, you can! All userpages must be licensed under the GFDL, which means you are free to use anything you see! For more information: Misplaced Pages:Userpage#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space Poeloq (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about Merkey

I have no clue whether or not I'm stepping into a landmine here...

I'm a brand new admin and in trying to clean up pages that have been "semi" protected, I ran across Jeff V. Merkey. From what I can tell, there seem to have been several bouts of COI, BLP, harassment, etc around the article. But most if not all of that seems to have happened last year (late 2006), so I was wondering if the page should still be protected, or if it can be unprotected. Since you protected it back in Oct. 2006, I bring it to you to decide :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend keeping it semi-protected for now. It could be unprotected at some point in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikia is a completely separate organization

Jimbo, your User page says "Wikia is a completely separate organization." But there's a page on Wikia that says "Wikia, Inc. and The Wikimedia Foundation are independent companies, though there are some relationships between them, as described below." Is your definition of the word "completely" flexible in some way? If so, please elaborate. -- ZD Netman (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion about this here a while ago. Hut 8.5 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely separate companies often have relationships with each other. For example, Steve Jobs is on the board of both Disney and Apple. Presumably, Disney buys some Apple Computers. And I believe that Apple sells some Disney movies on iTunes. Nevertheless, Disney and Apple are completely separate companies. I should think this is obvious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A small group can control a large group

I've edited WP for a while, and I've noticed that small, dedicated groups of editors can control large groups of less dedicated editors. Is this how it should be? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, it is a good thing, yes. In cases where the small, dedicated group is a group of serious Wikipedians who care about quality and neutrality, it is a great thing indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Providing that that small group is willing to grow with the increasing interest and membership, and to take comment from outside of the group and consider it on its merits (and not its non-internal origin) and evolve, then, yes, it is great. It however may become problematic when the small grouping begins to believe that its purpose is to exist, and not to provide guidance, and stifle the growth and development of the larger faction. Therein lies the inherent problem of a small group controlling the larger, to whose benefit does it exercise its influence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's edits

Got no time to do this myself, but one of Jimbo's edits to the talk page seems to have inadvertantly erased someone else's edits. Can someone bring them back? — Ravikiran (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 13:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hell, I never thought I'd be reverting Jimbo, but it seems like an honest mistake since Jimbo didn't leave a message about it and there was nothing particularly offensive in what got deleted. - Chardish (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar from Shankbone

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For the work you do in keeping a communal feel on Misplaced Pages, and for your recent support and help with my pending Wiki trip to Israel. David Shankbone 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New Misplaced Pages User

Hello, I am Marianian, a user of one of the Wikimedia projects, NSWiki. It is nice to see you on somewhat a very chilly day here in Britain. How are you doing today?

See you later,

--Marianian (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fund raising header and coordinates in en.Misplaced Pages - a major problem

I can understand the need to use a fundraising header from time to time; but I can not understand why it can not be created in such a way as to display properly on pages that use the coordiates template in en.Misplaced Pages. I realize that the problem is the absolute location of the coordinate entry, but why no one with the power to do something about it is willing to invested in the programing costs to fix the problem escapes me. The following page is a good example of the problem which displays differently dependant upon that status of the fund raising header (hidden or fully displayed) both create problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/St._Joseph%27s_Catholic_School_%28Hamilton%2C_New_Zealand%29# Note: the smaller the window the worse the problem becomes.

Also see the discussion related to the issue in greater detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Problem_with_the_position_of_coordinates_with_fund_raising_header

Also posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Talk:Fundraising_2007/Archive2#Conflict_with_fundrasing_header_and_coordinates

These document some of my attempts to address the problem over the past 40 days

Would you be willing to forward this to someone with the tallent to fix the problem? Dbiel 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A Respectful Challenge to Jimbo Wales

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain

Jimbo & Wikipedians:

You inhabit one reality. I will posit an alternative reality.

Imagine a world where a massive financial crime is ruining our market. Imagine that the past head of the SEC, various economists and finance professors, journalists at financial publications such as Bloomberg, and now even the current head of the SEC, have confirmed that this problem is real.

Imagine also that the crooks perpetrating the crime have a shill whom they unleash upon Misplaced Pages to doctor certain pages to reflect only half-truths and negatives to keep the cover-up in place, to run an attack site smearing anyone who tries to reveal the truth.

Into this world steps Judd Bagley who, through technical knowledge and patience, discovers how they are running the cover-up. He posts his results to Misplaced Pages, but his posts are expunged and he is banned. He posts them on his own site, but any discussion of his site (even its name) become a Wikipedian thought-crime under the Orwellian moniker of "attack site." Ironically, they accuse him of running a smear campaign, apparently hoping that none will check for themselves and see he has written well-documented exposes of their smear campaigns.

In addition, imagine that an investigative journalist gets interested, reviews the evidence, and writes a story connecting the dots. His story gets expunged within Misplaced Pages, the publication for which he writes (TheRegister.com) gets banned, and all concerned pages are locked down so no evidence of these other points of view exist. Does this sound like people committed to free discourse in a market-place of ideas ruled by "the wisdom of crowds"? Does it sound like "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Or does it sound like North Korea?

I respectfully assert, Wikipedians, that your entire worldview is as distorted as those of North Koreans who are never exposed to an idea that contradicts the opinion of Great Leader. You are living in The Matrix, and your reality on the subjects of naked shorting, Overstock, and myself, is fabricated and manipulated by just such arrangements.

You will scoff, I know. One will write more “Patrick Byrne is so nuts” blogs. Perhaps he will add quotes from those blogs to his Wiki-page here (citing his blogs as evidence), and then friends of his will quote it in their stories, then he will cite them, and so on and so forth in a self-referential cover-up. While those pages remain locked under the control of people who stand accused, you Wikipedians cannot tell which reality you inhabit, and you lose your right to count yourselves among those committed to free thought. In addition, if he remains unwilling to let subjects in which he has personal interest be discussed by the same set of rules by which other Misplaced Pages articles exist, Jim Wales will be a hypocrite. In fact, I challenge Jim Wales to expose the following two statements to the normal Misplaced Pages processes, and if he will not, then he should abandon all his claims about the virtues of Misplaced Pages:

a) JzG and Samiharris cannot produce evidence for the claims they make about Judd. Repeating a lie many times does not make it true.

b) Jim claims that “Overstock launched an ‘attack site’ against Weiss..." This is false.

Jim, you always sounded so confident about Misplaced Pages’s virtues, until now.

Respectfully submitted,
Patrick M. Byrne
CEO, Overstock.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.120.86 (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding item (b), I have responded on Talk:Gary_Weiss. I do not really understand what you are claiming to be false about it, but I have given an expanded version. Can you take a look at that and see if you can agree that it is accurate? Just how is that different? Are you claiming, for example, that although Bagley created the attack site, he did so on his own, not as part of his job at Overstock?

Regarding item (a), please be specific about which parts of Judd Bagley are wrong?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are talking about. How does this relate to The Matrix and North Korea? Thank you. - Jehochman 04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is for that very reason we have administrators, bureaucrats, overseers, and the allmighty "revert" button to revert massive amounts of doctored edits; such a method was proved in the past when someone changed every appearance of the word "abortion" to read "murder", our stewards, administrators, and pretty much everyone else started exercising their rollback fingers, and the administrators started exercising their ban buttons. In addition, Jimbo is not the all-powerful person many people see him as (sorry, Jimbo). Should something happen to his account and he would start doing this, or any other account for that matter, a bureaucrats would immediately de-sysop (remove administrator privileges) the offending account, and initiate a block. Misplaced Pages is a encyclopedia anyone can edit with checks and balances, read 48,528,028 registered users of Misplaced Pages who constantly patrol the community. We really are a lot more reliable than you think. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And as for "alternate reality", why does it apply to us if it isn't going to happen? It may appply someday when there is a starship named the USS Enterprise orbiting the Earth, but it dosen't now. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fastlizard: the mechanisms that generate reliability are absent while those pages remain under the control of a few. All that they are then is an exercise in mass mind control.
"'And as for 'alternate reality', why does it apply to us if it isn't going to happen?" Because maybe it already has and you don't see it yet. PatrickByrne (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it this way: . Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I have extremely serious doubts about you being the CEO of Overstock.com. Again, . --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, based on this evidence gathered from your IP address data:

1. WHOIS
2. OPEN RBL
3. Multi RBL
4. Traceroute
5. TOR NODE checker
6. ARIN North America

I am futher convivced that you are not the CEO of Overstock. The data indicates that you are operating out of a AT&T/Comcast DSL/Cable proxy server, not a corporate proxy, which an exec would probably have in most cases. However, data seems to indicate that the data is coming from Utah, which is the only supportative evidence on your behalf. However, that can be ruled out since you are operating from a dynamic IP, which could just mean that the server broadcasting your IP is in Utah. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not in the business of investigative journalism. It is an encyclopedia whose mandate is to neutrally summarize reliable sources. Bagley can go to the Washington Post and maybe help someone get a Pulitzer, but here he's barking up the wrong tree. Crum375 (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't he be better off keeping his business afloat? Durova 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's consistent with Byrne in this one important respect: the only person I have never seen Byrne blame for his company's dismal performance is himself. He's blamed sinister cabals, Wall Street journalists, Misplaced Pages and MI5, but never himself. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also consistent with Byrne to make intemperate public statements that later get him into trouble, as in his remarks on CNBC on Friday that had to be "clarified" by his lawyers, which sent his stock plunging 21%.. --Samiharris (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First, on whether this is or is not Patrick Byrne: yes I could enter through a corporate IP, but since those are blocked, as is discussed in TheRegister.co.uk's article "Misplaced Pages's Black Helicopters Circle Utah's Traverse Mountain" (which I hope is not a thought-crime to mention), I chose not to enter from a corporate IP.

Second, "He's blamed sinister cabals, Wall Street journalists, Misplaced Pages and MI5, but never himself" is just part of the clogging that forms the cover-up. In fact, I have repeatedly taken responsibility for any and all operating mishaps at Overstock. I also want to talk about a major financial crime that I believe is harming America, and when I do, the knee-jerk response is, "Byrne's just blaming" blah blah blah. Let me reverse it: now that Overstock is back generating pretty good cash flow again, does that make me right about the subjects of naked shorting, regulatory and journalistic capture, and systemic risk? Because when we were losing money some folks were sure insistent it made me wrong about these subjects.

Third, Fastlizard says that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Agreed. I can post the evidence here, but it will all be deleted immediately. So I'll just post the places where you can read it and decide for yourself. If I do so, and those citations are deleted, then I think you will concede my point: you cannot simultaneously call for citations, and then delete any citations that I adduce as being "attack sites" or otherwise Haraam. I provide them at the end of this post.

Fourth, Jimbo asks, "Are you claiming, for example, that although Bagley created the attack site, he did so on his own, not as part of his job at Overstock?" To which I respond: It was definitely not "part of his job at Overstock" (in fact, I did not know about it until later, or that he was behind it, until even later), and moreover, it is not an "attack site," it is a site which documents abuses within Misplaced Pages which are expunged from the record other Wikipedians are allowed to consider.

Fifth, you folks have devoted a lot of time and attention to the discussion of how awful Judd Bagley (WordBomb) is, and given that, how this and that must be forbidden, and how someone posted something that read like WordBomb may have written it so they must be banned, and so on and so forth. In all that discussion of how bad Judd Bagley is and all that flows from it, there is precisely one person excluded from the conversation, and that is, Judd Bagley. He is the Goldstein in your 1984.

Here are citations for places where you can explore the fact that you are inhabiting a hermetically-sealed self-referential alternate reality: TheRegister.co.uk's"Misplaced Pages Black Helicopters Circle Utah's Traverse Mountain" and Antisocialmedia.net.
PatrickByrne (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

TheRegister isn't exactly known for fact checking and accuracy in journalism. Perhaps you should take your story to the New York Times or Wall Street Journal and ask them to publish it. As a tertiary source, Misplaced Pages is happy to use reliable secondary sources as references. Please understand we're generally not going to rely upon material from The National Enquirer, or somebody's blog to support a controversial statement. - Jehochman 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He has already received coverage in the Times. Here is a passage from a February 2006 article by Joseph Nocera entitled "Overstock's Campaign of Menace":

"This is what Mr. Bryne does: along with Mr. O'Brien, he bullies and taunts and goads the small handful of reporters who dare to write about Overstock, making it clear that there will be a price to be paid for tackling the company or its chief executive. And as a result, financial reporters have become very chary of taking him on." /

In his obsession with this project, and his ham handed effort to influence the article on a non-notable reporter, we see this "campaign of menace" in its full ugliness.--Samiharris (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Register named me in two stories, including the one mentioned here, without ever attempting to contact me and check the facts. Durova 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus v. NPOV

Hi, I am not sure if this is something that you will have any interest in addressing, but I figured that I would run it by you anyway just in case. There where two discussions at about the same time on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability concerning WP:V Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and a second conversation that touched upon consensus.

Often times “…there is not a clear line between reliability and questionability…” concerning sources, especially when the material being discuses is controversial, and editors are left to use their best judgment. I had proposed the following sentence be added to the Exceptional claims section:

Such claims may only be included when there is a consensus amongst editors that the sources cited are reliable for the claims made.

This following well founded argument: “too easy to circumvent NPOV with this too: a single editor declaring a source "unreliable for the claims made" (with or without giving a foundation for his/her declaration) leads to a no-consensus situation that would exclude the material from the encyclopedia. Of course consensus is the best way, but lack of consensus on the sources should not be used as an excuse to delete, nor, of course, as warranty for inclusion.”

The inclusion argument goes something like this:

If someone removes questionable material that supports your side of an argument, an effective means of maintaining that material against policy or the opinions of other editors is to revert, and add an edit summery stating “rv deletion of text without consensus” or similar. This gives the outward appearance of being civil while at the same time maintaining material that you know or should know is not supported by policy.

This argument was made by one editor: “…there was not "consensus" to delete, as WP:CON describes it…”

To which I replied: “There was not consensus to delete.” I might point out that you have inverted consensus here, there is no such thing as consensus to remove questionable material, simply a lack of consensus to retain it. Anyone restoring questionable material on the claim that there is “a lack of consensus to remove” is being disingenuous."

So here is the problem, Consensus is written in such a way that agreement amongst all the editors involved is implied. “Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.” Commonsense would seem to indicate that if 10 editors where involved in an effort to reach consensus on a controversial topic, the best anyone could hope for would be that six or seven would agree, two or three would still disagree but abide by the will of the majority, and that with luck no more than one would stick firmly to their position come hell or high-water. So at best your breakdown would be 7/2/1; the one alone throwing any hope of reaching a consensus beyond reach. I would have to say that having multiple editors agree on any subject is a challenge, and on controversial subjects it is unrealistic. If you compare this to a civil trial, unlike a criminal trial, there are few jurisdictions that would require unanimous consent of all jurors before returning a verdict. And that’s based upon “preponderance of the evidence”, one side's case must simply be considered more provable than the other's. Or again drawing upon the judicial system; how often do the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court reach unanimous agreement? If they can not, why should there be any hope for the rest of us?

I would say that 7/10 agreement is sufficient meet consensus and move forward. But as I look through CON, and what others have written concerning CON, I would say that WP seems to be shooting for 10/10. The higher the requirement for agreement, the easier it is to block material that is contrary to your POV, or block the removal of material that is contrary to your POV; thus the higher that the bar is set for CON, the easier it is to undermine NPOV. I wonder if CON is not written so tightly that it has become in some ways self-defeating. On the other hand I am not sure how you write 7/10ths into policy (my figure, 7/10 could just as easily be 2/3 or 6/10, or even 51/49 -but hopefully not that low.) And maybe I will read CON again tomorrow and wonder why I wrote this;) Thanks, Brimba (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to be quoted. Even nicer with a reference, which I inserted above.

I'd like to start with a general thought (not a direct answer to your question, but needs to be understood as general framework of thought): "NPOV is non-negotiable." (from the second sentence of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view) - this means that even if 10 editors would reach consensus on a talk page on how to "bend" NPOV, such consensus should immediately be overturned. Consensus can't outdo NPOV. Seeking consensus w.r.t. NPOV is in practice limited to seeking consensus on how to best apply the NPOV policy/principle.

Other than that I see no limitations to promoting consensus as the best mechanism to settle all sorts of differences in Misplaced Pages. The point I tried to make in what you quoted from me above is that content policies should not include prescriptions in the vein of: "in case of non-consensus party X wins the content dispute". It really makes no difference whether in such prescription "party X" is the inclusionist or the deletionist... the important point is that one should avoid to create a party who would actually gain from a state of non-consensus. If a party benefits from a state of non-consensus, that party would most naturally strive for non-consensus. The practical result would be that such policy prescription would undermine consensus-seeking processes. So, I promote "consensus" as a most important principle for Misplaced Pages, and for that reason I likewise try to avoid policy or guideline regulations that would undermine consensus dynamics by allocating advantages to a "non-consensus" escape route.

Now, someone who undeletes with "there was not consensus to delete" (my bolding added) tries that very same "non-consensus" escape route. Re-deleting with "no consensus te keep" would be a similar attempt at "non-consensus" escape route. Repeat the cycle a few times and another policy kicks in: WP:3RR. Well, you'd be blind not to see that all these policies work towards the same: discuss on talk page until you reach consensus (compare also: WP:BRD). Then, policies are also there to help you in sorting out content disputes: if the source is unreliable then the material shouldn't be included (WP:V). If the reliability of the source for the particular case is at the heart of the dispute, try Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: this might help in finding a durable consensus, etc. But be aware that in most cases content disputes can't be resolved as if they were mathematical equations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet

Sorry, Jimbo. I had to spill the beans. People have been hounding me for The Great Secret. Please change the password. I've been operating your sockpuppet long enough. The full confession is here. Durova 08:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiReview of Menudo Scandal

This site has alot of comments by readers regards this controversy WikiRevew in Menudo Scandal

== Jimbo Please Respond ==

I found this quote regards this Menudo mess on a message board and it makes some sense people comment below :

"Well, for all of you people who still think that there are still articles on WP which can be edited without WWIII taking place, I present for your examination : Menudo (band).

On the talk page, it seems that the nexus of conflict is an alleged "Menudo drugs and gay sex" scandal which was covered in tabloids about seventeen years ago. The usual argument about WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:POINT has raged for the past few days and yesterday, the GodKing took the bull by the horns and issued an edict of article banning to the two editors who seem to be at the center of this, alleging that one of them owned a pseudo-"official" fansite which was pushing a certain POV agenda, but said POV agenda includes sources in reputable newspapers (NYTimes, Miami Herald, the NY Daily News), Police reports, official bankruptcy reports, Department of justice letters. This person certainly seems to have documented all of this and it certainly doesn't look like original research.

Now, what I find interesting is this:

QUOTE Admins are recommended to be quite firm about not letting the two sides of this fight carry on their fight within Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not the place for external fights to be re-enacted. We are writing an encyclopedia. This is our project, not a free speech zone for people to engage in public spats.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, it would seem to me that WP:RS has more than been covered here and this just amounts to censorship to avoid legal problems for WP, since probably there's a record co. exec. who is threatening to sue them even if it's all true (that's SOP in the Pop music biz...).

But given current events, don't you think that it would be more...um....cost-effective to solve others large-scale site issues rather than putting out these small fires by spouting policy issues which are not enforced elsewhere?

I guess that Jimbo can't just send in the Durova/SV Bucket brigade anymore to clean things up..."

--66.229.248.172 (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a really silly comment. There is no legal threat from any record company. There is just a routine dispute. Try not to get so excited.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing interesting about run-of-the-mill protecting the project from those that would make it a battlefield and a web hosting service (both of which Misplaced Pages is NOT). Trying to describe that type of protection as censorship is disingenuous at best; calling it that is quite charitable indeed. Everything that follows is just a still-beating-your-wife fallacy. And the last comment is blatantly contradicted by the very quote you bring; he was implying permission for bucket brigades of all persuasions to be on the ball. So there is nothing to see here. Move along. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I'm sorry, I hate to do this, but I have a major problem.

Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) posted this in an arbcom case:

9) Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has repeatedly used his administrative tools in order to further his position in content disputes, including protecting and unprotecting pages he was editing (Radionics: , ; Homeopathy: , , ; George Vithoulkas: , , ), and blocking other users editing those pages (Sm565, for edits on Homeopathy; Martinphi, for edits on Homeopathy).

However, consider the actual edits of these four sections of my supposed bad behaviour:

George Vithoulkas:

• Here someone blocks a page.
• Here, after the block, I edit then immediately revert myself, seeing the page was protected.
• Then JzG puts up an AfD tag
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=George_Vithoulkas&diff=next&oldid=116806071 <- So I unprotect it.

...How is this described? Using protect tools during a dispute!!!!!!!!

Homeopathy

• Protected on a version by someone I was in dispute with. Oh no!
• What the hell are these supposed to be evidence of, anyway? That I edited the page? Was it under protection and I hadn't realised, or something?

User:Sm565

• A 31 hour 3RR block.

The other two are slightly more complicated - the Radionics one appeared to be recruiting to get around 3RR, and the Martinphi was based on my understanding of an arbcom decision, and so I contacted arbcom on several of their talk pages to check I got it right.

However, the fact remains that in a case where I'm being dragged over the coals for failure to properly review the situation and judge correctly before making a block, the one of the arbcom members made up evidence themselves that was never put into the Evidence section with extremely questionable perception, and then all of them fell over themselves to support it. This is rank hypocrisy. Adam Cuerden 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I have not researched all of these cases but I can respond to two of Kirill's examples. You are an extensive editor of Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with more than 100 edits to the article or talk page. Under those conditions, it is a misuse of your adminship to decide to protect, or even semi-protect the article. When you are involved in an editing dispute as an editor, you must use WP:RFPP or some other means to contact an uninvolved admin for an unbiased assessment. Sm565 (talk · contribs) was also an extensive editor of Homeopathy. As such, you are forbidden to block him, even for a clear-cut case of 3RR violation, but instead you must file a report at WP:AN3 like any other editor. Basically, it boils down to this: When you are acting like an editor, you may not intervene as an admin. I'm afraid I agree with the sentiment of the 5 arbitrators who have so far voted to desysop you that RFA made a mistake in your case and you are not (yet) ready for the admin toolbox. Thatcher131 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not easily upset. So it's good to know that when I am filled with righteous anger that others have tact and can help calm me down by calling me a mistake and worthless as an admin. Adam Cuerden 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well, in the case of the protection of Homeopathy and the block of Sm565 your "righteous anger" is entirely misplaced. You violated the blocking and protection policies. When this is pointed out in a calm voice, you react with anger rather than contrition. It is one thing to say "I got carried away" or "I did not fully appreciate the ramifications of the policy." Yet you continue to deny that you did anything wrong when four other Arbitrators have endorsed Kirill's proposal. One thing that is certain is that you and the 5 voting arbitrators have a very different idea of the use of administrator tools when one is involved in a content dispute. I think it is highly unlikely that Jimbo will see things your way. Thatcher131 19:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your view of the role of an admin is ludicrous and would turn adminwork to bureaucratic hell. You claim that admins cannot unprotect a page they've edited under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. You claim that admins' judgement is so poor that having edited a page means they're unable to block a clear 3RR. Misplaced Pages encourages us to ignore all rules, not create towering edifices of bureaucracy to prevent admins from actually getting anything done. Adam Cuerden 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if your judgement in blocking Sm565 was crystal clear and the block endorsed by a dozen other admins, you should not have made it. Admins only have credibility if they and their actions are perceived as being fair and unbiased. WP:BLOCK#Disputes has an exception for removal of unsourced BLP material because of the sensitivity of the project toward this issue. It does not have any exceptions for "unless the 3RR is clear" or "unless the admin is really using good judgement." Thatcher131 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that in the course of this case, you lot have decided to extend content dispute to include "edited the article 9 months ago, and also edited some related articles" for the purpose of the main issue of the arbcom, it probably wouldn't help much. In any case, it's hard to see significant harm done from a several month old 31 hour block. It's not like there's an admin training program, you know. We're told to go forth and use our best judgement, and to follow policy. And then someone becomes upset, and suddenly every action is under the microscope looking for the tiniest error so that a desysop can be justified. Adam Cuerden 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam, this isn't an isolated case. Are you not a significant contributor to ID-related articles, and have you not taken administrative actions related to some of those articles? Thatcher131's point is correct, admins are not to take action in articles they edit, or against users who disagree with content positions that they have taken. Even if there is not a real COI, a perceived COI is just as bad. - Crockspot (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC) To be fair: There are more experienced admins who make this same mistake, even in some of the same set of articles (I won't mention names). You just happened to end up in arbitration over it. - Crockspot (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam, whether or not you edited the article Irreducible complexity‎ is, to me, a minor issue at best. Your block of Matthew Hoffman was unacceptable because "POV pushing" is rarely sufficient reason for indefinite banning, and certainly not without a hell of a lot more effort as far as education on our policies, community feedback, and dispute resolution including RFC. (Hoffman had only 7 mainspace edits) That's strike one. You failed to engage in appropriate review of your own actions and discussion with another admin. That's strike two. In response to the proposal to desysop (which I do feel was inappropriately hasty) additional cases of misuse of the tools were uncovered. That's strike 3. In all the subsequent discussion, have you ever agreed that the block of Hoffman and Sm565 were wrong? No, but you have referred to the requirement to ask an uninvolved admin to make a 3RR block as "bureaucratic hell"--how many strikes do you think you get? Thatcher131 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, you KNOW I upgraded to indef because I thought he was a sockpuppet. I gave him a 3 day ban because I thought he was attacking others, due to not reading all the context. Adam Cuerden 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There actually is an admin coaching program, and discussion with other admins is always available before making tough decisions. —Cronholm 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

However, not that discussion with other admins actually is any help. Everyone I discussed with got pulled in and attacked too. Adam Cuerden 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam, please take a break for a day or two. You're obviously upset by all this. The processing of this case has created the appearance of unfairness, but I don't think you are helping your own cause at the moment. Hopefully ArbCom will see the wisdom in the criticism they've received. - Jehochman 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Losing the admin bit isn't the end of the world, and it isn't like they are restricting them permanently. I understand that you felt like you were doing the right thing with some of those blocks, but the fact remains that they were against policy. As for the discussion about Hoffman, unfortunately only two admins (and one non admin) commented and neither comment was of much substance (I don't think they looked at the case too closely). Indef blocking is heavy stuff and shouldn't be hurried through ANI IMHO and appears to be the opinion of arbcom as well. Again I feel for you, but it isn't like Arbcom can just ignore everything and give out a pass. Also, I agree with Jehochman about the break, getting scrutinized by Arbcom can be really stressful. —Cronholm 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I disagree with the first part of Cronholm's statement. The effort it takes to desysop someone makes it similar to the end of the world. And for some folks who have been one for a long time, it is like a permanent edit restriction. It is a fantasy that adminship is "no big deal" and it is time to put that particular fantasy aside. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted block of a user

Hi Jimbo. Pleas take a look at this.

On 8 December, User:EVula blocked User:Goodshoped35110s without warning or evidence and proceeded to vote canvass his unblock discussion. Is this not a violation of admin guidelines? Sure, Goodshoped was a little blunt with his username warnings, but let the record show that all of his edits have been in good faith. As far as I see, this was uncalled for and deserves immediate attention. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)