Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 27 June 2010

Template:Fix bunching

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: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 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 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

How just 1 bully admin can drive out good editors

This doesn't mean a hill of beans as far as the viability of Misplaced Pages, nor do I imagine that anyone will much care. You have a problem with your admin system when an admin can make inappropriate comments, mistate facts, violate several policies, refuse to talk to editors trying to resolve the issue, and basically bully editors. In this case, at least 4 separate editors pointed out what she was doing was wrong - and she continued. Not a single admin that participated in the discussions stepped forward. Not one.

I'm a good editor with over 6,000 edits, 2 GAs, another getting close to GA, and a 4th that might have gone to FA. I do most of my article work in Native American case law and statutes, an area that few are working on or in. I've been on Misplaced Pages since 2006, but lurked for a good while before I started to edit. I've engaged in numerous debates, won some and lost some, and loved the consensus process. Until now - I have never been treated so rudely by an admin. I won't be editing any more, nor will I be fighting at the university I work at about the reliability of Misplaced Pages.

I'm leaving because I'm not going to participate in a system where an admin can make innuendos, assume bad faith, be rude and misstate facts (i.e. lie), and refuse to talk to editors that attempt to resolve the issue. In fact, she tells them to go away, in rude terms, and refuses to discuss the reasoning for her actions, as required by WP:NOTPERFECT.

As long as you allow this type of behavior to be tolerated, you will lose good editors who won't put up with that type of treatment. Most of us have other things we can do, and we don't need the BS. Again, I'm sure I won't be missed, but you might want to ask yourself how many leave without saying a word? All it would have taken is for one admin to step forward and point out her (and I'm sure my) faults. Just one. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• If you leave, you let the bad guys win. Why not stay and kick some ass? Misplaced Pages has no monopoly on BS. "Admins" are like hall monitors in elementary school, they are just like everyone else, so don't elevate them to the point where they "become" wikipedia in your eyes. You are wikipedia too.--Milowent (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ugh that argument is so cult-ish sounding it kind of turns my stomach.  :( JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Incidentally, as I stated on the RfC in question -- Greg has been my mentor and was the person who got me excited about wiki in the first place. I don't have a high edit count or long time participation, just a couple of months, but if Greg is discouraged and disillusioned enough to leave, then so am I. I was a part of the same incidents that he is speaking of and I echo his concerns and disappointment. Minor4th • talk 05:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Milowent, primarily because no one will stand up to her. If Wiki can't come up with some way to effectively control the bully admin-type (since other admins don't seem to have the cajones to do so), why should I stick around? I have no desire to be an admin, but apparently was thought highly enough of to be given reviewer and rollback without asking for them. All I wanted to do was to make Wiki a better place, to write good articles in an area that had few, and to build an on-line encyclopedia. If this was a paid job, there isn't enough money to make me want to work in an environment where that type of admin can do that to people without being called on it. Wiki has a policy that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed" yet she won't respond and not one admin will call her on it. Why should I put up with it? GregJackP Boomer! 05:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• If you're not enjoying yourself, by all means leave. Mean people are everywhere in real life too, but leaving the Earth is not as easy. If you care about Misplaced Pages and its goals, you should stay. Being an admin is a thankless job anyway from all I've seen; editing is much more fun. (And even I have reviewer rights, so its resume puff at best, let's not go crazy about such "credentials".) You can cite policies about civility all day long, but the fact is, just like in real life, some people are mean. There's no true bosses here, so you have to fend for yourself to a great extent. If not a single person will call someone on their behavior, you either aren't articulating your point of view well enough, or you need to just move on to something else, so you can enjoy things.

What could be lost if you don't stay? No one knows. Following the recent AfD (nom. withdrawn) of Christine Terhune Herrick, I had a conversation here that went a little like this: "I find articles like that fascinating sometimes. Here is this woman who was known to millions of homemakers in the late 19th century -- she was literally a household name to many. She wrote about raising her son in 1913 in "The Boy and I," which would probably be an interesting read to parents today, indeed, one source suggests it has timeless observations. But today she can suffer a good faith AfD because we have no immediate reference points for pop culture of the 19th century available to us anymore. Radio dramas of the 1920s are old, but not yet so old, so some living persons can recall their notability, and probably have passed on their memories to children and grandchildren who might edit wikipedia in 2010. But Christine Terhune Herrick first made a splash way back in 1885, and though she remained well known for some time, those who would remember her rise to popularity are all long dead, and the memories passed on about her outside books are consequently weaker. I wonder, who was the Christine Terhune Herrick of 1650? Or 300 B.C.? These people existed and were notable at the time, but are long forgotten, and may be permanently lost if no historical record of them exists. But if there are sources, we can make that information available. People can find that knowledge and draw new parallels from the past to the present and to the future, insights we cannot foresee. That is the potential of wikipedia.</off naive soapbox>"

So, if you leave, what will you be depriving us of? Perhaps just some drama, but perhaps something more.--Milowent (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply that reviewer/rollback were important - just to say I didn't care one way or another and one day they just appeared. Thank you for your kind words, most here have been that way, and a pleasure to work with. Good luck. GregJackP Boomer! 06:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, your last comment was when you were supposed to a shed a tear in response to my inspirational speech and declare your undying love and renewed commitment for wikipedia. oh well.--Milowent (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, so this is very interesting to me, as I certainly don't like to see anyone with 6,000 edits have such a bad experience. But without diffs or something approaching an NPOV explanation of what happened here, it's hard for me to even get started looking into it. I try to look into situations like this, not so much for the purpose of direct intervention - that's not usually what I do, although I can help try to mediate a conflict now and then - but from the perspective of policy. That is, I like to ask: what went wrong here and how can situations like this be avoided in the future? But first I need to know what happened. Diffs are always welcome. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, it happens more than Misplaced Pages can probably stand. This topic on your talkpage is resonating on other talkpages. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, please do not judge the admin being referred to here without taking about two weeks to go through all the posts to deconstruct it. It is a very confusing discussion to try to understand. This admin not only came into a very contentious room, but chastised all of us for creating such a hostile article environment. The same admin also refused to lift my 24 hour ban that the same complaintants here created by mischaracterizing the dispute (how's that for civility?). Anyway, this one is a good egg and was fair to everyone. The real problem is that the admin did not agree with their arguments on the article we were AfDing, and the article was evetually scrapped. If you have the time, I would suggest you look through this scenario's entirety and you will discover the truth. I'd also say a quick look at the admin's User page should put your mind at ease if you are indeed putting any sort of substance behind these unfounded accusations. I'm afraid the admin will leave Wiki, and honestly even though the admin did not always agree with any one of us, the admin was fair minded and there were other admins involved as well. Responsibility for the ugliness of this thing does not in any way fall on this person, and in fact, the admin did whatever the admin could to try and guide the discussion and answer policy questions. When this group didn't like it, they would argue against the admin even to the point of making this ridiculous notification on your Talk page. I believe they also tried to report the admin in an official capacity for discplinary purposes, as they did me, but it was laughed away by the preciding admin. It seems they want to involve you since the standard approach didn't work. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I will try to summarize the dispute as I understood it:

• At an AFD discussion, a user supporting keeping the article used socks
• User:GregJackP who also supported keeping the article filed an investigation Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus/Archive against that user
• Users who supported keeping the article accused User:Nineteen Nightmares who supported deleting the article of incivility and opened a discussion at ANI. A 30 days 3 month block was proposed.
• Admin User:Sarah, who supported the deletion, acknowledged that NN has a civility problem but she opposed the proposed block because she said that most of the supporters of the proposal were involved in a dispute with NN
• GregJackP was offended by comments made by Sarah which he interpreted as accusation of socking, and he complained to her about it, see
• GregJackP opened a RFC on Sarah , and was disappointed that admins who participated on that discussion did not fault Sarah. Sole Soul (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify a minor point in the above: the request was for a three month block, and Sarah argued that other sanctions should be tried first, as well as arguing that the support votes were coming from involved users. Otherwise the RFC/U seems to have the best summary of GregJackP's concerns. It should, I guess, also be noted that GregJackP's issue with lack of support from admins stemmed from the discussion on his talk. - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is a more fundamental issue than any of that (which is a bit POV-y). Sarah (an admin) made a number of accusations and criticisms against Greg, not the least of which was an insinuation that a Greg (and I) were additional sockpuppets for Dmartinaus after an SPI with CU had already confirmed various socks. When asked for an explanation, she refused to provide one and told us to go away and stay off her talk page. , . The accusation remains unresolved and Sarah will not explain why she made the accusation or what evidence supports it, despite polite requests for an explanation. When trying to resolve the issue, Greg has continually been told by other admins to drop it or that he is using the wrong process, and there remains a refusal to address the underlying issue of the accusations by Sarah. She has not responded to the RfC. Please see the discussion here: . There have been ongoing instances of incivility by Sarah, including edit summaries: . Minor4th • talk 14:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Minor4th, I accidentally stumbled on this thing. Being a bit curious about this "insinuation that Greg (and you) were sockpuppets...", I had a look at your 50 earliest contributions. I must say that I am really astonished when I see your highly advanced editing skills, which you seem to have acquired in less than one week. This is truly amazing. Surely you must have been around in read-only mode for a very long time? If not, congratulations! - DVdm (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the overall controversy, but this argument keeps turning up in discussions and it's always wrong. Lots of people start out editing Misplaced Pages as "anonymous IPs" (to be oxymoronic) before they get an account! And no matter how much certain people want to puff up the definition of "sock puppetry", I refuse to accept that there's anything wrong with that. Nor do I think it's fair to call it sock-puppetry when people without globalized logins get logged out in half an hour while they're editing and end up submitting under an IP. Nor do I think that it is right to impose any great punishment nor the stigma of "sock puppetry" on irate blocked editors who edit as IPs only to protest the injustice of a block without deception, though I can understand shutting up the IP address with a block if they get annoying enough. The concept of "sock puppetry" should be limited to actual deceptive manipulation. And as long as Misplaced Pages is open to "anonymous" edits, we must always allow for the possibility that pseudonymous editors have made them. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, you say that this argument is always wrong and that "lots of people start out editing Misplaced Pages as "anonymous IPs" (to be oxymoronic) before they get an account!" => In his first edit, he says "I am new to editing wikipedia, so I will take some time looking around and familiarizing myself." From where I am standing, it looks like he took 1 day to become a professional in a mere two hours. I find this extraordinary. DVdm (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain further? All I see is that it looks like he downloaded Twinkle and started playing with it to leave a bunch of those ugly little "authoritative-sounding" speedy delete messages. I don't blame him, I blame the tool... (also to me "new here" doesn't necessarily mean "my very first edit") Wnt (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, thank you for noticing my edits. Perhaps your observation is the reason Sarah thought I was a sock (although inexplicable why she would think I was a sock for Don Martin). If she had simply stated her observations and given me an opportunity to address them, much of this ensuing discussion would have been avoided. Since you raise the issue (somewhat passive-aggressively), I will oblige you with an explanation. When I stated that I was a new editor, that was indeed true. What's also true is that a week or so prior to my first edit as Minor4th, I had created another account -- and someone off wiki was able to identify the real person behind the handful of edits, presumably from information on the user page and the subject I was interested in editing. I have a particular need for anonymity that I will not go into. I abandoned that account and created this one. I have not used the other account since I created this one and don't intend to. My first edits with this account were on the Indian Child Welfare Act, a subject I'm interested in as a practitioner in the field. At the time GregJackP was in the middle of an overhaul of the article, and I offered to collaborate. As it turns out, we have similar interests. I don't know if GregJackP is also a lawyer, but he clearly has a strong interest in legal articles. I found him to be helpful and patient, and I have always found him to be thoughtful in his edits and articulate in his expression of his views. I have essentially followed him around wikipedia, and because of our similar interests we have sometimes edited in the same areas and on the same articles. Our participation on Don Martin and the related drama, however, was coincidental. I responded to an RfC posted on the legal/government/politics noticeboard about the Don Martin lawsuit, with no intention to hang around the article further. Regrettably, however, I was drawn into the drama by responding to various attacks by NineteenNightmares. And here we are today. As far as your comment on the quality of my edits and my proficiency on Misplaced Pages....all I can say is thank you very much. Peace. Minor4th • talk 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Still overwhelmingly astonished about the switfness of your learning how to effectively use everything meta-Misplaced Pages has to offer, and assuming that indeed you merely "have essentially followed him around wikipedia", I advise you to actively stay away from your alleged puppet master as far as you possibly can. Surely you do not want to risk getting blocked/banned for the wrong reasons. Take care. DVdm (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So either file an SPI or be quiet. Make sure and ask for a checkuser, and you can check the IP's with the dates and times of near simultaneous edits and determine that a) we don't use the same computer, b) we're not in the same location, c) our style of writing is different, and d) we also edit in different subject areas, despite having similar interests in (some) legal article issues. If you have evidence, submit a case. Otherwise, you're just assuming bad faith on our part and getting close to making personal attacks (i.e., "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."). GregJackP Boomer! 20:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Of course I'm sure that an SPI based on IP, location and style would turn out negative. Nevertheless, looking at WP:MEAT and WP:DUCK, I think that, unless you actively stay away from each other, someone could make some case here. Not me. I have no interest in getting you blocked/banned whatsoever. Just giving some advice. Take it or ignore it. Take care too. (Added some emphasis in my previous remark) DVdm (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, I thought the "meatpuppet" policy at least was limited to human recruiting from off Misplaced Pages (like Misplaced Pages Review's censorship crusade...). If you're prohibiting people from making friends here or agreeing with the people they agree with, that's a whole new level of nuttiness. Personally I think that this whole Sesame street circus sockpuppet meatpuppet duck and all is a disgrace to Misplaced Pages, and would miss any operation that even cursorily invoked the black art of "planning" — I think we should openly allow all editors to have multiple accounts and adjust ourselves to that reality. Wnt (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, sad to the bullying continue here. Why not shoot Daffy now and be done with it? ----moreno oso (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The passive-aggressive behavior is mind-boggling. Maybe I should just commit seppuku now and be done with it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have avoided commenting on this. Looks like a wasps' nest. Sigh. DVdm (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't care at this point if I am blocked or banned or whatever else. GregJackP said he was retiring, so following him around won't be an issue in any event, but thanks anyway for your advice. If he stays, then I will likely continue to edit in the same areas. You take care as well and thanks for your reply. Minor4th • talk 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Admins will often do what Minor has cited. Drop it is not good policy. Bullying isn't either. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What also hurt in that AfD and also its article is that the socks were not clearly discerned until the AfD was just about complete and could be viewed as a Keep. Unsupported claims should never be made in an AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• That summary is what everyone is butthurt over? Jeebus christmas. Who really cares if someone questions whether someone else is a sock? If you're not a sock, say so, and move on. Unless one is proven to be a sock, this kind of idle speculation happens all the time. It should not dissuade editors who like to actually write articles from writing articles. Don Martin is barely notable at best, let's all move on.--Milowent (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope! ----moreno oso (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Milowent - I shouldn't have to remind you how Rachel Uchitel and its AfD went. Talk about beat up? You were taking some major league shots as an editor trying to save an article. I've seen punching dummies take less hits. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Did I? I didn't even pay attention if I did, because its not about me. The article was kept, because notable content always wins out in the long run, no matter who claims its not notable in a given AfD. (Uchitel was originally deleted and then subject to a super drama AfD six months ago. Then it came back, went to AfD again, and was kept. The sourcing kept improving as editors actually did constructive work on it.). If you are going to descend into battles over the the small number of AfDs that deal with potentially marginal BLPs, you need a thick skin. But even most marginal BLPs AFDs are not contentious.--Milowent (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Then why did you keep interceding in the AfD? And who was the editor who really save it? It was not editors plural. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been accused of socking in the past but I don't get offended by it, I just tell them to take it to SPI as I've got nothing to hide but the fact is they never list it. I'm sure Sarah never meant any harm and is infact over the drama but I think everyone needs to move along as going over same ground isn't going to get you anywhere. Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You weren't there for the show. Even I was scared and I hadn't participated in the AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said I wasn't watching? AfD's can be a mine field and infact some can turn out quite nasty, part of everyones different opinions and ideas. Bidgee (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, and come up with a totally different issue. I am not bringing this up so as to deal it here. I am having the same similar experience, what Greg is pointing out. I usually edit Indian Christian articles. One admin (American), who is a little biased with one particular denomination, bullies all other editors and adamantly clings to his preferred sources. His way of talking is monopolistic and dictator like. This leads to sockpuppety (and further being blocked) and ultimately there are no editors and critics to left to voice their concerns, against the admin. Many novice editors are being turned back. And articles without consensus are left to hold. Can we have a solution of creating a dedicated group of editors who can swiftly come for mediation, in cases of disputes? Southstock1 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

• Jimbo, my concern is no longer the issue with Sarah (talk), but with the process. I have a little different outlook than some of the above posters, not that I think they they are wrong, but everyone perceives things differently (which is just the nature of being human). To get at the process, I do believe that the underlying matter needs to be looked at however, not for action, but to understand the dynamics. I'll try to summarize it concisely below:

• There has been an on-going issue with a BLP article and subsequent AfD (Donald G. Martin), where the subject of the article (Dmarinaus) became involved and used several socks. An SPI without CU (here) was initiated by me and the clerk determined that a CU was needed. As a result, Dmarinaus was blocked for 2 weeks and the socks blocked indef. The AfD was initially closed as keep in a process tainted by socks.
• During this period, a user that supported deletion, Nineteen Nightmares (see Mission Statement section User talk:Jimbo Wales#Mission Statement) had WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY issues and received a 24-hour block.
• The closing admin of the AfD, Balloonman reviewed the AfD and reclosed as delete. Several editors asked him to reconsider and he self-initiated a DRV to check on consensus Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 18. The result of the DRV was to endorse his decision.
• During the DRV, I made a statement that I believed one of Sarah comments to be "disingenuous" - a word I probably shouldn't have used but was meant in the form of the definition to mean "not frank or open." Sarah took offense at this (which can be understandable) and stated that it was "really insulting of my integrity as an editor and an administrator." My next comment after I realized she was upset was to try and clear it up and make sure that she knew that I was not trying to insult her nor impugn her integrity (,). I received no response.
• Also during the DRV, Nineteen Nightmares began to throw out baseless accusations, was warned by Giftiger wunsch and I initiated a WQA . This was later moved to AN/I by Giftiger wunsch at the suggestion of Modernist .
• At this point Sarah came to the AN/I and immediately stated that:

• Those supporting a block had "a vested interest in silencing an opponent" , which could be failure to WP:AGF
• Stated that she believed the users mentioned by Nineteen Nightmares could very well be puppets , that no diffs were provided (not true, 19 diffs were posted), stated that I only notified users that would support my position (not true, everyone that was mentioned in the diffs was notified, including her and others who were likely to disagree with my position), unilaterally stated that there was no threat to contact the media about the BLP subject , (the subject of the article felt it was a threat , as well as 4 other editors , , , and since one of these editors is an attorney, I feel confident that he is able to recognize a "threat").
• Several editors pointed out that they believed Sarah was being unnecessarily confrontational and unfair , , , , , or asking why she was doing/saying something , her response was comments like "Martin Gang" , and the like, deleting without responding.

• I requested admin help on my talk page and was told to drop it, without being asked about the matter in detail, just from a cursory quick check , one admin said no help was needed , one non-admin suggested a note or uw-agf template . On templating her for not AGF, an admin immediately came to my talk page and wanting to know if I was trying to provoke someone and that I needed to back off .
• Without any other resources, and without any guidance on how to proceed, I initiated an RfC, believing from the information on the RfC and AN/I pages that the RfC was the less confrontational, as I did not want any sanctions (which the RfC page said it was a "non-binding, informal process"). On doing that, every comment has been that it was the inappropriate place to take it, without looking at the underlying conduct or our concerns. It is also curious that of those commenting on the RfC, half of those saying to leave it alone and go away are from Australia (which seems like a high percentage to me, based on the number of total users/admins by country) - not that there could be any off-line canvasing. In a conversation with another admin, I was told that it "it is best to not pursue even the most justified grievances" and to "back off very quickly when I challenge certain people" .

It is apparent that one is not to question, in any way an admin, and that other admins are going to stonewall any question or concern about a bullying admin - and there is no way to get past it. Even Arbcom consists of admins. There is no avenue for addressing behavior or concerns without running the risk of putting a target on your own back - a number of editors told me that I was right, but crazy to pursue this. There is no help for editors in the WP:DR process, no one that will guide them or advise them. As a consequence, you're losing editors that you should be encouraging to stay. In my case, it's not worth the time or effort to deal with that type of individual. I'm also sure that I am partially at fault here, but without an open discussion (instead of the "Move on, nothing to see here" from the admins), I have know way of knowing how to correct them. So I'll "move on." Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also curious that of those commenting on the RfC, half of those saying to leave it alone and go away are from Australia (which seems like a high percentage to me, based on the number of total users/admins by country) - not that there could be any off-line canvasing.

Why worry about where someone lives? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand (I'm not having a go at you GregJackP but the comment you made really doesn't help). Also there is no canvassing going on. I have been watching this dispute and noted the reverts made on Sarah's page. Bidgee (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, it was an assumption of bad faith on my part (intentionally) along the same lines as the one Sarah made. I was just curious if I would get questioned about it, while no one questions an admin on similar comments. Why is that? It is also why I said "off-line" - I know that she hasn't done anything on-line. Anyway, thanks for making my point for me. GregJackP Boomer! 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you accuse an Admin not assuming good faith but then you intentionally assume bad faith (The idea is that even if someone ABF (intentional or not), you AGF). Sarah is not an Admin who would intentionally assume bad faith nor intentionally do off-line canvassing and the fact is she is currently busy on other matters (as she has stated on her talk page). Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, this editor has made absolutely ludicrous accusations towards me regardless of fact for weeks, provided NO diffs, provided no evidence and generally will make very general statements that on the surface, make the accused look very bad, when in fact he himself has been the one attacking editors and supes because his article got deleted. I've been chastised to be civil here and I will. However, the "attacks" staged upon me by this editor (and others in his assocation) are baseless pipedreams designed to make him look like a victim and everyone who doesn't agree with him to be unreasonable cads. He and his group reported me for attacks when they could not silence my opposition to the piece in other ways, reported the admin who came in to "break it up," and has gone around with a general bent on harrassing anyone who doesn't agree with him. I questioned whether he was a sock (did not accuse) because his edits were nearly identical to all the later-discovered sock accounts that were created by the BLP subject himself. Talk about disengeneous! Also, I've refrained from answering all the charges leveled against me because it is a huge waste of time and I have better things to do. If we were involved in a dispute resolution, it would be easy, easy, easy to break down every one of his accusations. Aside from getting a bit angry at this editor's obviously outrageous behavior, I've done nothing wrong here and came to edit with intent to clean up Wiki because I saw the banner advertising the program this year while I was here as a reader. There has been nothing but assumptions of bad faith on this person's part, and yet he will trot that out like a billy club everytime he has a disagreement with someone. Please check this person's posts, they have been going around the site tagging and harrassing a good number of people and I've wondered actually when the supes were going to get around to doing something about it. Cheers! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

In case you didn't notice the list of current RFCs is shown at the top of AN so you are bound to get traffic from there. I'm also curious why you are here? Isn't an RFC enough for you or are you planning to take this to every board and page on wikipedia until you find enough people to support you. Its time for some perspective guys. Spartaz 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz, can you not read? I'm leaving. I don't care what happens, I just thought that Jimbo should know that good editors are being treated poorly and deciding it is not worth it. That is what my initial post here was about. From the above comments, I would say that it is a problem that admins don't want to admit. ("Move along, nothing to see here") I don't care if anyone supports it or not, Jimbo asked for more info, and I gave it to him. He has the right to know what is going on. Other than that, I am just here long enough to see if he needed anything else. But thanks for emphasizing my point for me. GregJackP Boomer! 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment As way of explanation of my role, my first encounter with this entire episode came when User:Nineteen Nightmares left this at User:JNW's talk page. As JNW is one of the best visual arts editors in wikipedia with more than 40,000 edits, I was shocked by the personal attack and issued this warning: , I went on to warn him that his images had no - copyright tags of any kind and were in danger of being deleted. That particular editor continued to create what I would describe as chaos as evidenced above. I suggested AN/I as a question posed to JNW and I was somewhat surprised in the resulting thread added there, however I also supported a block in hopes of finally cooling 19Nightmares down. This affair is unfortunate...Modernist (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think all the discussion here is missing the main point. While there is no question that WP:NOTPERFECT requires an admin to respond to queries on why the did something on Wiki, and there is a clear decision by Arbcom stating the same thing, this is no longer about what User:Sarah did or did not do. The problem is that the system and process is flawed.

When an editor complains about an admins actions, there is nowhere for them to get help. The other admins all circle the wagons, and stonewall. The suggestions of "drop it" is not appropriate nor helpful. This entire matter could have been resolved so easily if just one admin had offered to help resolve this, by acting as a go between or just talking to both parties. Instead, it became apparent that editors are on their own, and the admins will focus on where it should be filed, any mistakes on the part of the editors, etc. What resources exist to help the editor? There is no one to go to for help.

At this point it is no longer productive to discuss this. I don't care - I'm leaving. Jimbo, I answered your question on what happened, but if I stick around, the focus will be on the specific complaint instead of the process and policy problems. So I'm leaving, but will be happy to answer any other questions that you have if you'll just leave a message on my talkpage. I'll check it from time to time. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I must admit the beginning of this long drawn out discussion was highly interesting at first I quickly got disenchanted with the bickering and only skimmed the last 1/3 of the thread's posts. These are my observations on admin abuse and how it affects a Wikipedian's experience for what it is worth- there is a well-recognized problem in Misplaced Pages of Admins being rude, or at best curt, with their responses and many do not see a need to explain their decisions; when confronted with a "wrong" by another user other admins often come to their protection with "this is a non-issue, drop it" and inflict harsh incivility (one AN/I complaint against an admin even rose to the point of harrassment by other admins against the accuser to the point that some had to come back and apologize for their collective behavior and admit that behavior at AN/I by most of them was over the line even though they still agreed the original complaint was unfounded against the original admin), this is natural and happens in many facets of real life, those of a common position often have to protect each other in order to get others to protect them in the future (a quid pro quo if you will, its why a congressman from Albany, NY may vote for a pork project in a district in Sante Fe, NM, he can then reasonably expect a vote for his pork in return with no real discussions ever taking place, this is poli sci 101 stuff).

• My idea of what should be done- If admins want to continue to make decisions and have additional tools that can be abused to the detriment of other editor's enjoyment then they need to be held accountable outside of their peers. An unfortunate number of Wikipedians see our policies as laws and Admins as police/judges, if this is how they wish to be seen then a "civilian review board" needs to be established of ONLY non-admins to review impartially any and ALL claims put forth to them. If we are more empowered and feel things will at least get looked at fairly the average user will be happier.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you have hit the nail squarely on the head as far as what the real issue is. I like your proposal, but see here: . Incidentally, on the RfC regarding Greg's complaints (which I certified as well), I requested that one of the other participants please request that the Sarah (the admin in question) engage in a civil and calm discussion with Greg and me so that we could put the issue to bed and get back to editing. Greg supported my request, but interestingly, the requests have sat there all day unanswered. This RfC is posted at the top of the admin noticeboard. Minor4th • talk 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps other participants are reluctant to volunteer to request Sarah to engage in discussion, because Sarah kindly asked you to leave her alone a few times: , , , , and without comment: , , . DVdm (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the most important diff and the reason for my participation in this discussion: . She accused me of socking for Don Martin, insinuated in one of your diffs that she had evidence, and when asked to explain she chased us off her talk page and has refused to address the accusation. Meanwhile, you and several other admins and editors have piled on with the "drop it" chorus. Perhaps you should participate in the open RfC discussion. Minor4th • talk 09:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The first diff I provided included the reason. When asked to explain, Sarah explained. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Sarah did this, someone else did that, to be frank nothing is going to be accomplished by continuing to talk about it because there is no method for dealing with it anyways. Can we get to the heart of the underlying problem that affects all of Misplaced Pages? There are many of us that feel there are simply too many bad apples among the admin corp and the occasional good apple that is simply pushed over the edge, that their attitude and actions drive away good editors. It is not the incivility of other editors, it is the incivility of admins and their abuse of power that is the main problem when it comes to civility. Can we please talk about what can/may be done to alleviate this problem? Unfortunately I know it wont go anywhere, we cant even get a consistent and impartial procedure to desysop, why would expect any action on something simple like telling admins to "be nice" or get sanctioned? Regular editors are consistently sanctioned and blocked for not being courteous, we are all completely equal, there is no lesser standard for admins.Camelbinky (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no doubt a very different standard for admin behavior compared to editor behavior, different sanctions, different process for dealing with it. In fact, as you said there is not a process for dealing with poor admin behavior -- editors are just told to drop it and are chastised for insulted as wrong-minded for bothering admins. This abuse of power and we/them mentality will continue to disenfranchise content editors. (see Greg's initial post on this thread) and keep potential new editors away. Have you thought about the citizen review board in any more detail? Minor4th • talk 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have and have mentioned it before in discussions at the Village Pump (both policy and proposal) unfortunately while some will agree with it, the lack of support from the admin community kills any serious discussion of it. I am afraid it will take someone with a bigger pulpit or soapbox than me to get the attention needed for a serious discussion and implementation, like an ArbCom member or Jimbo or even just a really well-known and respected admin. If any of those are out there and think a review board of just non-admins is a good idea, please step forth, there are alot of us who need you.Camelbinky (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I was hoping Jimbo would comment on this, as he seemed interested in Greg's initial post. The thread got carried away and derailed, however, and turned into a mess. Since this issue has come up, I have read around about various other places on Wiki where this identical issue is being discussed with the same futility. There is an impasse it seems. The people with the power to do anything about it are the same people who have an interest in preserving the status quo. The RfC that was the impetus for this complaint has stalled out amid a multitude of instructions that Greg and I "just drop it" and subtle hostilities expressed toward us for attempting to resolve an issue with an admin who had chosen not to resolve it or even address it at all. Minor4th • talk 01:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Minor4th just got blocked for 48 hrs for putting sourced information into an article on admin behavior at Wiki - I guess the admins don't like their action being brought to light. GregJackP Boomer! 13:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • GregJackP, I think that's hardly a neutral summary of what happened.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up question

Can I take your non-response as a "go ahead"? Or did you just miss my question? Here it is again, in case you missed it: Would you mind if I changed your guestbook icon to work with the topicon template? If I'm being annoying by asking this again, I apologize. ~~ Hi878 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked it. I'm afraid I don't really understand the question. :) It sounds fine to me, but what does it mean? :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it fit with this template, becuause it makes it easier to have it line up and whatnot. It would pretty much look the same as mine, just with the link and text changed. The way it is, it looks like it is in a different position on all computers, but with topicon, you can use "icon_nr=x", which makes it go in the spot you choose, and it makes it so that a row of icons looks pretty much the same on any computer. ~~ Hi878 03:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really sounding stuffy, aren't I? I seem to always talk like that to people I've never talked to before... I must do something to stop this! Erm... FORTY-TWO! ~~ Hi878 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So is that a yes? ~~ Hi878 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds great. If you had just done it, I probably wouldn't have even noticed. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright; just wanted to make sure. :) ~~ Hi878 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done. Now I have to go through and fix all of the icons on user pages. :) ~~ Hi878 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And now I'm done with that. Hopefully, I didn't mess up too many userpages... :) I'l stop bothering you now. :) ~~ Hi878 18:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility

Hi Jimbo. I would ask to stimulate and stimulate the use of alternative (alt=...) text on images in the Misplaced Pages and Global projects. In Misplaced Pages in Portuguese is difficult. My son is visually impaired and want to read the texts. My Wiki-pt adjustments are being reversed. I'm stop edits now. Please help...help. Congratulations, Misplaced Pages is good for world. 189.65.177.161 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disappointed that this post hasn't had a reaction in nearly two days. I feel we are somewhat unaware, if not dismissive, let alone intolerant, of those users who are not fully able as regards the full Misplaced Pages experience. I cannot understand why pt:wiki should be doing this, because it seems to be unhelpful. Meanwhile, some specific examples would help to identify the problem at least but since I don't speak Portuguese, and my Spanish is extremely basic, I would not be able to intervene directly but I may be able to pass it on to someone who can help you. Rodhullandemu 01:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Estou um pouco decepcionado que este post não tenha tido uma reação em quase dois dias. Sinto que estamos um pouco inconsciente, se não desprezo, muito menos intolerantes, daqueles usuários que não são plenamente capazes no que diz respeito a experiência completa Wikipédia. Eu não consigo entender porque pt: wiki deveria estar fazendo isso, porque parece ser inútil. Entretanto, alguns exemplos específicos que ajudam a identificar o problema, pelo menos, mas desde que eu não falo Português, e meu espanhol é extremamente simples, eu não seria capaz de intervir directamente, mas eu posso ser capaz de dá-lo a alguém que pode ajudá-lo. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Having just spent some time in Brazil and having met a few (though sadly too few) Portuguese language Wikipedians, I can ask in English for more information but yes, diffs would be helpful.

As a general principle, I strongly support accessibility for Misplaced Pages, but I have to admit that the complaint from an anon was ignored by me because I think it is not likely to be true. I don't know of any Wikipedians who think that accessibility is a bad idea and who wouldn't wholeheartedly support non-disruptive edits in support of accessibility. Therefore, I'm sorry to say, I suspect there's something else going on here, and I get too many emails and concerns raised from all quarters to be able to deal well with them all. Still, if there is a real problem here, I am happy to hear from people and to offer a hopefully-helpful bit of encouragement and coaching.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs (in Portuguese!)

going on the assumption that the editor used the same IP on the PT wiki, i went a looked it up, and... yeah. He's right. John Isner, Avril Lavigne #1, Avril #2 (this one was only up for a couple minutes before being removed), Santa Cruz del Isolte (to be fair this one appears to have been removed by accident with the conversion to an infobox). -- ۩ Mask 17:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox News report

Did you see this? I'm sure you probably have. I think it's just terrible.. everything. Thanks for your time  – Tommy 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't seen it until just now! Thank you for showing it to me. My response is quite simple: the story is absolutely scandalously idiotic, and Jana Winter, the author, should be fired from her job. The story is idiotic nonsense from top to bottom. As in the statement from Sue Gardner, we have longstanding policies that deal with this very effectively, and there is zero evidence for any of the sensationalist and negative claims put forward about Misplaced Pages. Much of what she writes is simply transparently idiotic: that some message board has hundreds of links to Misplaced Pages ought to be no surprise, no matter what the content of the message board. That pedophiles think we are bigots for not allowing them to advocate here is no shocker, but neither is it evidence that we are a haven for pedophiles. Jana Winter is a disgrace to the professional of journalism, full stop, and I will complain about her at the highest levels possible.

I do not mind stories critical of Misplaced Pages - lords knows there are plenty of sensible criticisms that people can and do make. What I do mind is deeply irrational character assassination based on absolute untruths.

At the same time, I note with some happiness that the story is receiving exactly as much pickup and discussion in the general media that it deserves: zero. Real reporters will look at the story, look at our policies, ask real questions, and realize there is no story here. (In fact, if there is a story here, it is simply about how low Fox News has sunk.) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is less accurate than Misplaced Pages on balance, but I fear to find if any of it is true.--Milowent (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Regardless, their viewers will believe it and will be detrimental to Misplaced Pages's rep. There's already been like 3 4chan threads on it already.  – Tommy 20:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox News should probably run an article about the fact that most Wikipedians are members of an internet hate group....it would be more credible.... in any case, what they've written is sensationalist drivel - I doubt there are a significant number of pedophiles on Misplaced Pages. Claritas § 20:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do they get the idea to write such bollocks? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain (so that excludes most Fox News viewers) that that story is, at best, a gross over-exaggeration and at worst a work of fiction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me if they didn't have an army of mindless followers. You know this guy gets paid $2M a year? But I digress. I think such a report merits a statement from the WMF, in my opinion.  – Tommy 20:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't their statement contained in the article? Like where it says "Sue Gardner, executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, Misplaced Pages's parent organization, said in a statement..."--Cube lurker (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, talk about WP:UNDUE (on their part).. Yea I see that but I don't know if that statement merits nearly enough weight vs. the rest of the article, ya know? They mention it in the beginning... and then go on about how we should have a neutral point of view on pedophilia... bla bla bla you know the rest.  – Tommy 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, really? I know what that guy is saying, but I think it's blown out of proportion.  – Tommy 20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone can see that FOX is badly biased here, but I suppose it can't hurt to go over the details.

• "Misplaced Pages has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles..." using "chat rooms" and "message boards". But these chat rooms and message boards are all somewhere or another else, because Misplaced Pages doesn't encourage people to get together and bias an article toward their point of view.

• Specific example given: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marthijn Uittenbogaard. Note that the grand international pedophile conspiracy here consists of — at most — six votes. Anybody on Earth can sign up for an account and have a vote like that. And I'm not convinced any of those six voters are necessarily pedophiles anyway. And that's the most compelling example FOX News could come up with. At this point I think it is fair to ask whether they are merely skewing and biasing the news as is their custom, or whether they are making it up from scratch using purely hallucinatory data.
• Fox News cites Hemanshu Nigam of SSP Blue, who — they say — speaking of the articles Pedophilia, NAMBLA, Child sex tourism, Sexual objectification, Child erotica, and Simulated child pornography, said that "These Misplaced Pages articles, edited and shared by pedophiles, are nothing but guideposts to get them aroused". I think that a brief examination of any of these articles refutes this outright.

• N.B. I owe some responsibility for this particular rhetoric as I moved simulated pornography to simulated child pornography in the course of discussions about Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and the PROTECT Act of 2003 arising from the Commons:Commons:Sexual content proposal. I regret that this facilitated FOX's abuse, but it is the better name for the article given its current content.

• The broader issue here: do pedophiles have the right to unbiased coverage on Misplaced Pages? It is a misleading question. The readers have the right to fair and unbiased coverage, and I don't mean the FOX News variety. It is easy for snide commentators to suggest that an encyclopedia shouldn't mention disturbing things like NAMBLA, but I bet that no matter what FOX thinks there are probably millions and millions of mothers who have never heard that word, and if someone in the apartment building tells them over the washing machine that there's a guy in their floor in NAMBLA, they should be able to look it up here and see what that means.

• Where FOX and I agree is that Misplaced Pages is open to pedophiles. That's what you get when you make an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If they want to start a 💕 where everyone has to present an identification card and fingerprints and get run through the FBI and local police databases before they are allowed to edit... let them start their own and see how that works out for them. But I think it is important for us not to pretend that Misplaced Pages is "child-safe" — that's just not possible, unless you can trust your children not to arrange meetings with pedophiles.

• A specific claim that they make is that "Misplaced Pages can be accessed unfiltered in public schools across the country". I interpret CIPA to mean that Misplaced Pages can't be accessed unfiltered in any public school in the country. Who's right?

In summary, I feel that FOX, apparently having found no legal support for claims that Misplaced Pages distributes child pornography, is now criticizing us because we allow the description of well-known pedophiles and pedophile political organizations. But it's all too clear that pretending the issue doesn't exist has never done anything to protect children. Wnt (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What would be amusing would be if the WMF were to sue FOX News for defamation! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be pretty interesting to watch. :) I can't believe that anyone could write an article like that, and if anyone actually believes any of that garbage, I will be amazed. It's just unbelievable, and somewhat depressing, actually. ~~ Hi878 18:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Depressing, yes. Unbelievable, no. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I don't see how our current policies are working. Case in point: Futanari. The current revision (here) displays an image that has been up since June 21. The image passed a Deletion Review on Commons (fail). I twice tried to remove the image (fail). I went to AN/I to request that the users be blocked and the page be full protected (fail). I've actually been warned to not remove the image again or face a block (fail).I also reported the image to infowikimedia.org yesterday, no reply (fail). I even reported this to ArbCom - no action taken (fail). Finally, I've reported the image to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children yesterday, however I do not expect quick action from them. Bashing Fox News is not helpful. They did not cause this problem, and vehement denials will not solve this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)None of those are fails, they are all good. This is more clear cut than the Virgin Killer farrago, and the image is clearly not problematic. If you continue to make threats you may be blocked again. This is not a case in point, but an example of the policy working. Verbal chat 20:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Commons:Category:Erotic activities involving children "all good" too? How is it a example of policy working for you to threaten me here for something I'm not doing? Isn't this just an example of and admin not following existing policies like WP:Harassment? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in clicking that link and I have no interest in the commons. Your "example" is irrelevant as it does not depict "child porn" in a legal sense or the Fox sense. It is irrelevant. As I said on ANI, you are continuing to attempt to induce a chilling effect with your ill-founded claims and canvass them. You've stated your opinion, you've reported the picture. No action has been taken. Learn from that. Verbal chat 21:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with verbal, I don't know what you're on about. I clicked the link, it contains about half a dozen century old cartoons. Yup, that's really abusive. Sickening in fact. Not. If you can't deal with a cartoon, don't look at it, if it's in an article, don't visit the article. We're not censored. I'm not entirely sure what you hope to achieve by reporting a cartoon to an organisation that locates missing children, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Some thoughts: Including the picture in the Futanari article strikes me as potentially WP:UNDUE, just like using the goatse picture as an illustration of our article on that shock site was undue. Why? Because I think reliable sources, even if they write about goatse, would not include the goatse image to illustrate their writing about it. So why should we? WP:UNDUE applies to all article content, including pictures, and due weight is established by reliable sources. So in the case of Futanari, we should ask ourselves if there are precedents in reliable sources for using this kind of illustration when they are writing about Futanari. We may not be censored, but that does not mean that our approach to article illustration should sharply diverge from that used in reliable sources. (Besides, the Futanari image may be WP:OR to boot, because it is one Wikimedian's artwork "in the style of" Futanari.) Related discussion at the Content Noticeboard here. --JN466 00:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• As reported at http://blog.fefe.de/ i also read this article and was upset how poorly this article was written. No sign of an proof, vague arguments, etc. How in hell can you recruit pedophiles? Do they really compare an mental illness with an religion? --Niabot (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

...So I just read this article. And I have to WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE with Jimbo Wales. I don't think anyone at FOX News should be fired. It says that they investigated the issue and I trust them on that. It wouldn't surprise me if some group of people are somehow "gaming the system" in their favor to make an article slanted towards a certain viewpoint. Why wouldn't it? BECAUSE IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME HERE. That doesn't make it right, but that's precisely why we have great such great tools as Semi/Full Protection, the ability to block accounts and entire IP ranges, perform CheckUser investigations and now Pending Changes. Does it really surprise anyone that this is going on? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree if they had cited examples, with links. But they don't. We here are required to provide reliable sources for our more extreme contentions; but it seems that they can get away with innuendo, and an unbalanced innuendo at that. I'm not surprised that shoddy journalism attacks us, but I am surprised that anyone should accept it at face-value. Shame on you. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@JBSupreme - I investigated their investigation and it was a load of old bollox - Maybe you should as well and you will find that your reliance on FOX is unfounded and downright dangerous for your own good - paranoia making crap

Their new motto-

"We make 'em guilty so you can hang 'em - Fox news, Ignoring the truth since 1902

Go look at the sites, go through the lists of "Misplaced Pages Campaign - Wikisposure ": and check their info and links its all out of date and has been for over a year

Take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch

Now, go join the Group, then come back and make a comment that is more in keeping with the truth "The Truth is Out there - but not on Fox"

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this gives some reason for pause. The page you mentioned targets eight Wikipedians who "have not yet been banned", and of those two in fact are banned for the very reasons they suggest: see User talk:Jovin Lambton (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive147#Community ban discussion - Jovin Lambton) and User talk:AnotherSolipsist (without a discussion I could find, following his posting at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive436#Gratuitously long_block by User:Neil). But we're getting into some very HUACy territory here. Are these people getting banned because they're pedophile POV-pushers, or because Wikisposure is WP:CANVASsing for them to be banned? Are the administrators punishing biased attempts to push a POV onto articles, or are they banning people for having the wrong POV? We have to remember here that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an inquisition into the faith, and both sides of an issue will always make for a more reasoned discussion of a topic than one side talking to an emptied chamber. Who is better qualified than a pedophile to edit articles about pedophilia? So long as someone is paying attention to make sure they don't distort the article with misinformation (and yes, that is a worthy task), their efforts should be to the common good.

Finding mention of a "longstanding established special policy" in the first ANI discussion above that "those who appear to be advocating pedophilia are subject to immediate and indefinite blocking by administrators" inevitably makes me wonder — how many such special policies are there? How many points of view have to be banned on sight to make an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view? If this is the only such example, then why treat it differently from all others? And if it's not the only one, we deserve to see the full list, so people can take the Pillars of Misplaced Pages with the proper number of grains of salt.

And after all this, possibly seriously compromising core principles, what is the thanks? FOX News articles like this one! Wnt (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok... so we should encourage pedophiles to edit pedophilia related articles to keep them NPOV? Well... other than the disturbing idea of encouraging them to actually do anything related to that which they do, there's the fact that their COI (because they are editing articles about themselves basically) is one of such a magnitude it is very much like letting serial killers edit the serial killer article. Pedophilia is illegal, ADVOCATING pedophilia is ILLEGAL, promoting or allowing the advocating of pedophilia is illegal. Anyone who comes out in Misplaced Pages and admits to pedophilia or thinks that people should be pedophiles should in fact not be allowed around those articles, not to mention those who have been convicted of that crime MUST by law not access those articles anyways since they would be a registered sex offender anyways. I find it such a big stretch to say that "stopping pedophiles from editing is compromising our principles" that it turns my stomach. What kind of principles do you think Misplaced Pages has if you think it should allow such a thing?Camelbinky (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

During the "porn" debate there was much mention of Christianity, but this is truly the case where such guidance is needed. That pedophiles can be prosecuted at all reflects that they are human beings, with the same souls as everyone else, capable of choice for good or for evil. And those who choose not to harm children for all their lives, defying temptations unknown to the rest of us, deserve our honest respect. Of course, we do not allow the sexual abuse of children, and the prohibition of child pornography was retained after the Miller decision largely legalized adult pornography. But there is no law against pedophilia per se in the United States. It is also legal to advocate pedophilia, as ages of consent or for marriage in the U.S. vary widely, and the voters and politicians of each state are free to advocate changes in that age in whatever direction. It certainly follows that we at Misplaced Pages can choose to accept these people in good faith, not dehumanizing them for their differences but welcoming them as part of the human experience. It is simply a question of our courage and our commitment to follow the truth wherever it leads us.

I don't think that the benefits of dehumanizing the pedophile are as great as you imagine. When people say they can't be anything other than child molesters, does that help them hold their resolve not to abuse children? When people say they can't be cured, does that help them seek treatment or spur further research? Who knows how many opportunities have already been missed to create a lasting treatment, simply because people preferred stigmatization and harsh judgment over open discussion and compassionate assistance? Wnt (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, you provided a link to a page on Wikisposure listing alleged or suspected pedophilia POV-pushers with a statement implying that other than those listed as "currently unblocked", the others are "banned" on Misplaced Pages. This is generally not the case - those users are indef blocked by Arbcom, but not explicitly banned. Take for example User:Tyciol, who was blocked on 15 April of this year. Despite this, Tyciol continues to edit on Wikimedia Commons, where their most recent edit was to a picture of children bathing just about a week ago. This suggests to me that perhaps these types of blocks would be more properly applied at the WMF level, or at least as a global project block or ban. Thanks for bringing this to light. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You all should know by know that Misplaced Pages is for Porn.76.177.47.225 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the internet is for porn. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Never

Sorry WNT but we are NEVER going to stop condemning pedophilia and pedophiles with whatever force it takes, wheresoever it rears its ugly head in the public square. So don't hold your breath waiting for the condemnation to stop. Jimbo. PLEASE do whatever it takes to get those who apologize for these sickoes, out of our faces permanently. If they are going to be so bold as to parade their mental illnesses in front of the rest of the world, they shouldn't act all indignant and surprised when the rest of the world starts to take action against them. If you do not, then you deserve every bit of the attention you are now attracting, and you will attract far more. This ridiculous conciliatory attitude to appease only the most degenerate and soulless few who unfortunately dwell among us, makes wikipedia a disgrace in the eyes of the other 90% of earths population who are decent and don't want to be assaulted with their advocacy at every opportunity. That's precisely why most countries have laws against their advocacy. It would be very sad if this militant activist minority has your ear and you are in their pocket, while you brush off the majority who are decent people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.20.3 (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I never asked you not to condemn pedophiles, nor to accept any danger to children. But you cannot condemn what pedophiles believe if you don't know what they believe. You cannot watch what pedophiles are doing on Misplaced Pages (where virtually everything is very public, and where a few things like IP addresses and private e-mail forwards probably aren't hard to get by subpoena in this case) if you intimidate them into hiding. Do you really think they're going away just because they're afraid to edit the NAMBLA article? Wnt (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinks.... Is the timing of this just coincidence? I'm referring in this sense to ASCAP Declares War on Free Culture.--Aspro (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed unfortunate. The ASCAP model of taxing radio stations and apportioning copyright fees afterward could be viewed as a crude prototype for the fair compensation of artists with tax revenue in a post-copyright society. Artists describe the current system as "indentured servitude", and I think it sacrifices quality talent in favor of the sordid tastes of middlemen. We should persuade artists and ASCAP to abandon copyright in favor of a system where taxpayers check off a list of artistic, educational, and scientific organizations to fund with a surcharge on their income tax returns. Of course, Misplaced Pages should be among them.  ;) Wnt (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite an interesting idea and theoretically a functional and more efficient method of distributing tax revenue to the artistic community for the benefit of society-at-large, however you may want to read up on the free-rider problem. In poli sci we have thought of similar alternatives, however great they are in a perfect world, realism (and human nature) dictates that they cant work due to human nature encouraging free-riders (same thing applies to littering, a problem that theoretically is easy to eliminate with extremely little effort on each individual's part).Camelbinky (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You know what the funniest thing in the article was?

Its this gem here

Nigam, who is co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Group and sits on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said it's not that complicated. "Almost every other social networking site has taken steps to clean up their sites, except for Misplaced Pages," he said.

It's Possibly the First time i have EVER seen them use a connection to Obama as a way to to poof up someone's credibility!Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish we could get him to log in here to actually discuss these things with the community. I have a feeling he didn't really say what FOX made it sound like he said, and given his association with NCMEC maybe he does have some ideas that could help protect children when laid out properly. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the real gem - "Almost every other social networking site has taken steps to clean up their sites, except for Misplaced Pages"....Misplaced Pages's a social networking site ? I though we were here to write articles =D Claritas § 15:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please make me a founder

Hi, I read that you can change the user access level of a user to any other level. I've also noticed that you are the only member of the usergroup "founder". Please add me to the usergroup "founder" because I want to be a founder too. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I'm pretty sure you didn't help found Misplaced Pages... :) ~~ Hi878 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a novel idea, though...I don't think any user has ever asked to be a part of the founder group before this. Still, the credentials required are doubtfully present (doubtfully rather than certainly because for all we know, he may have founded something...=) ). Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I demand to be part of the founder group. I did, after all, found... Erm... The Alden J. Blethen article? ~~ Hi878 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I can handle this one! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't be right if Jimbo just simply gave the "founder" user access level to anyone he wanted. I recommend we create Misplaced Pages:Requests for foundership. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it should be called Misplaced Pages:Requests for jimboship. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! You can go ahead and create it; I'll be the first to apply! :) ~~ Hi878 00:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Let me try again. *Poof*, you're a founder!!! ----moreno oso (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Super Hamster, let's create it! Jimbo can go through and review every request. He'll just have t edit the Misplaced Pages article to add in each person. ~~ Hi878 20:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the "ability to change any user to any other level" theoretical or has Jimbo actually used this power recently to any extent? I would assume from Jimbo's comments that the only time he would ever use the ability to change someone to a Founder would be when he is ready to "retire" and would like to personally have the honor of bestowing upon his successor the title, and even then I assume he would only do so with the blessing of the Misplaced Pages Community, thereby making the "annointment" purely a pro forma affair. Of course this is just my personal musing based on his previous comments and actions. But of course I would love to be a Founder if he's willing to hand the title out to those who ask! :) Camelbinky (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the Founder flag currently has the ability to change anyone's level. It gives me "read-only" powers for basically everything project-wide, but no rights to actually "do" things. In my view, the Founder flag was an honorary technical bundle of rights bestowed by the developers and not at my request, and not particularly important. Certainly not important at English Misplaced Pages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot, then please recommend me to a user who does have the ability to change my user level to "founder". --WikiDonn (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Special:ListGroupRights, the founder right can Edit all user rights (userrights); Make users into Administrators or Bureaucrats (makesysop). According to that, you can change anyone's rights - however, whether "founder" is one which you can change, only you can really tell by looking at Special:UserRight - and I'm not aware of any of the other WMF project where the 'founder' right exists. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiDonn, I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse... create your own wiki, and assign yourself the 'founder' right by adding the following line to your LocalSettings.php file:

$wgGroupPermissions = true;

and then you just assign the right to yourself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@Phantom: Jimbo is right, see . Sole Soul (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So does this mean no Misplaced Pages:Requests for jimboship page? Darn... ~~ Hi878 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Hi. The copyright of your photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbo_wales/143261674/ AKA File:Ann Coulter.jpg is being infringed by http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Ann_Coulter2.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How is that a copyright violation?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it is. The image is cc-by, and they do attribute you by linking to the Commons image page that says you made it. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I think, too. It's a shame that the best (only?) freely licensed picture is a bad cellphone picture.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That image description page on Conservapedia does not directly "make clear to others the license terms of this work" per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en and more specifically, it does not "include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform" per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode section 4a, and it does not "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode section 4b.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It links directly back to Wikimedia Commons, which I think is sufficient. From there you can look up changelogs. That's a lot more than I can say about MOST websites who pilfer the free images off of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia. Usually there is no credit, no link back, nothing. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if we want to get really technical here, under your interpretation of Creative Commons, we violate the same licensing schema. I've seen countless examples where tons of corrective changes are made to a photographic image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, then it gets deleted by an administrator and moved to Commons. The uploading admin in effect is essentially stealing credit for the work, at times not even crediting the primary uploader but most often failing to credit all changes in between. Is that a violation as well? If so, what are you going to do about it? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, uploaders should be using or emulating CommonsHelper, which copies the image description page, including the upload log. When I see that such info was not copied, I copy the appropriate information from the source project (if I can still access it).   — Jeff G. ツ 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that Jeff G. never contacted Conservapedia, or me, to complain, but brought this here. I reached the same conclusion as JBsupreme long ago, and to the best of my knowledge I have always credited Wikimedia Commons and linked back to the source. I am lax sometimes :-( and don't copy over everything, but always at least link back and credit Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia. Jimbo, if you have any concerns or requests at all, please email or call me, and I will do all that I can to accommodate you. Enjoy your summer! --TK-CP (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's all fine with me. I'm not uptight about the details, although I agree that - in the abstract - they should be followed scrupulously. I'm just saying that for my work, I am happy that people are able to reuse it, and not very concerned about getting credit for it. But in this case, I did get credit for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! I did go back and add that it was licensed under the CC Generic 2.0....anything else comes up, just let me know. Sleep is overrated, isn't it? --TK-CP (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Super. Taking a look at it now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)