Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 11 June 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Pwok, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --Elonka 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

de-escalate

Please go back to your comment at Talk:Matt Sanchez and remove every instance of calling other Wikipedians (including Bluemarine) liars, deceptive, etc. This is not conducive toward an editing environment that can achieve consensus. Please de-escalate and tone down your comment, removing anything that can be perceived as a personal attack. Thanks, ··coelacan 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you are not online at this time, I have removed the comment. When you come back online, please go ahead and remove the attacks and accusations of lying, and then resubmit the altered comment. Remember No Personal Attacks is policy. ··coelacan 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you you could bring back the issues you had with the article, just without personal attacks. Instead you responded with only personal attacks, instead of issues with the article content. I've blocked you and your IP for 24 hours to prevent further disruption. If you'd like to come back to the article talk page and refrain from personal attacks, your contributions are welcome after the block expires. I understand you are frustrated, but please do not take this out on others here. ··coelacan 07:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

You seem to have an awful lot of questions... If you're on IMs, I'd be happy to chat directly? --Elonka 07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an IMer. That's not a hostile response, it's just a fact. I don't even know how to do an IM, and to the extent I am familiar with it I've disabled it because of all the warnings about viruses. In any case, it's 12:30 in the morning here in Seattle and I've got to get off to bed. We can continue this later. Incidentally, I've been in contact with the USMC, and I expect to get a reasonably complete copy of the investigative report on Sanchez. Will that be an acceptable secondary source, or will there be some Misplaced Pages pillar principle that will be used to omit it? Pwok 07:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An investigative report would be a primary source. I'm very interested in seeing the report, myself, so thank you for obtaining it. I'd also very much like to see or read the Colmes interview from March 30. :) As for IMs, Google Talk is fairly easy to install, and to my knowledge is not a virus risk. IRC is also an option? I'm just thinking that we seem to be having some communication issues, but I'm confident we could resolve them fairly quickly if we were able to talk real-time. I'd be happy to talk you through setting up an IM client. :) --Elonka 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I want you to know that I'm not being squirrelly about IMing you; I think it would be a good idea. It's just not something I've done. I have no idea what "IRC" is. Does Microsoft have one of these things built into Windows XP that I could enable for a while? Let me know; I'm in a period over the next few days where I'll be on again, off again on my computer because a bunch of real-world stuff is going on. So if you don't get a response out of me but you see comments, don't assume that I'm brushing you off. It means that I've got five minutes here and 10 minutes there. Pwok 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood. My recommendation is to try Google Talk as the easiest install and the least intrusive on your system. Send me an email (elonka@gmail.com), and we'll get started with setup.  :) --Elonka 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Did you send me an email? If for some reason my spam filter picked it up (sorry), please try the "e-mail this user" link at my userpage instead? --Elonka 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not send you an e-mail. Sometime next week I'll do so and will do the IM thing. It's a matter of having sufficient time to install the IM client; you being there when I am there; and then having a least an hour to chat. I've got a bunch of stuff going on, and I'm getting these 15 and 20 minutes stretches in between other stuff. Pwok 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand about not having enough time, so it's okay if we do this slowly.  :) Go ahead and at least send me an email (elonka@gmail.com) and then I'll send you a gmail invite, so you can at least sign up for a gmail account. I promise, it's free and easy. :) --Elonka 00:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just sent you an invite.Pwok 00:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Pwok, I appreciate that you feel strongly about the issues at Matt Sanchez and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pornography, but that does not give you the right to insult other editors. Please stop making personal attacks, and try to be more civil. Before using the word "troll" again, you may also wish to read the essay at WP:TROLL, thanks. --Elonka 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are participating in bad faith. You have objected to exactly the same language that someone used against me. You said nothing about that person's language, while objecting to mine. I find your behavior insulting, provacative, officious, uncivil, dishonest and unwelcoming. Please stop using your position at Misplaced Pages to launch personal attacks on me; similarly, do not presume to instruct me as to what articles to read before using a word again. Misplaced Pages purportedly has a no-censorship policy. It applies to you, too. Thank you. Pwok 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of bringing down the heat on one another, it would probably be a good idea now for both of you (I know Elonka is reading this) to pursue our recommended second step of dispute resolution. And as an aside, Pwok, since you're still relatively new here, you might benefit from Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance. There's a lot of helpful people there. I don't know exactly which issues you're facing, but an experienced guide wouldn't hurt and you can probably find someone there who's interested in helping. ··coelacan 09:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This has become a real problem. Misplaced Pages purports to have a WP:NPA policy. Elonka has attacked me on a discussion page, on my talk page and privately, accusing me of being drunk, sick and having a crush on the subject of an article. I don't care if she wants to mix it up with me, but when she does that and then turns around and invokes this phony "civility" pillar to shut me out of this place, then it's nothing but high school. The result of this is that an articulate and dissenting voice will be silenced. Maybe that's what Misplaced Pages is all about, huh? So you guys choose. Either play by your own rules or keep running this like that movie, The Election. Pwok 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a great suggestion for you right here. Please consider it. ··coelacan 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks on Talk:Matt Sanchez

A review of your recent posts on Matt Sanchez and Talk:Matt Sanchez indicates that you are perhaps getting a little carried away in your quest for Truth. Remember, civil debate does not include accusations, especially of censorship or of bad-faith action. Additionally, Misplaced Pages is not the place to challenge Sanchez's claims or post the results of your own investigations thereof, and our policy on biographies of living persons suggests that you scrupulously source everything at the time of posting instead of arguing first and sourcing later.

Remember, the Mediation Cabal hasn't yet done anything publicly with your request, so continuing to argue with others on Talk:Matt Sanchez will not help your case. I suggest you edit someplace else for a little while so that things calm down a bit; Misplaced Pages:Cleanup is a great place to start. - jredmond 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you make a decision on anything other than the factual merits, then your participation will be a joke. I am intensely skeptical that Misplaced Pages is anything other than a high school popularity contest. There has been abundant evidence that some editors of the article have violated Misplaced Pages's purported "pillars" and "principles" with impunity. Don't presume to tell me not to continue to participate in the editing process, or to state my opinions. Stick to facts, and the so-called Misplaced Pages "principle" (or was that a "pillar?") of "getting it right." I am not asking you or anyone else to render an opinion about whether I'm qualified to sit on the Student Council or chair the Prom Decoration Committee. Thanks. Pwok 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not intended to be an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how true or verifiable that information is, and Misplaced Pages is not a forum for advocacy, no matter how well-intentioned. Our neutral point of view policy also comes into play here; even if all of the information in Matt Sanchez is verifiably true, we must work to make it as neutral as humanly possible.

You're welcome to ignore my suggestion, of course, even though many articles on Cleanup could use tireless devotion to fact. However, experience teaches that, if you can rephrase your more combative replies, you will have better luck convincing others to take you seriously and you will have a much easier time with your mediation case.

Finally, I need to remind you the Five Pillars places just as much emphasis on neutrality and civility as it does on accuracy, and the alternate approach of the Policy Trifecta places a higher emphasis on neutrality and civility than it does on accuracy. Whether you like it or not, wikis force users to work with other people, not against them, so the sooner you can start working with Elonka and Horologium (et al.) to improve the article then the better the article will be. - jredmond 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the article that must be neutral, not the editors or the writers. If Misplaced Pages doesn't care about accuracy, that's news to me and renders Misplaced Pages an unreliable joke. Facts are not negotiable in my world; I pity that they appear to be negotiable in your world and on Misplaced Pages. In my opinion, Elonka has disregarded all of Misplaced Pages's purported "pillars" and "principles," and Horologium has vandalized the article. That's my complaint, and I will continue to voice it no matter what you say.

Again, if you have any integrity, you will consider the facts, and you will follow Misplaced Pages's purported principle of "getting it right." If you cannot or will not do that and instead want to turn this into a high school popularity contest, then by all means go right ahead and discredit Misplaced Pages and prove my distrust utterly valid. The choice is yours; if the article isn't factual and you decide that you can simply ingore the so-called "pillars" that you find inconvenient, I'll be entirely happy with that result in the sense that it'll be Exhibit A in the story of Misplaced Pages not caring about what it pretends to care about.

I'm not demanding your agreement. I am demanding that you operate honestly and in good faith. Let's see if it happens. Frankly, I doubt it will. I have suspected from the outset that Misplaced Pages's arcane process is nothing but a sham perpetrated by a handful of self-appointed insiders who do what they please regardless of fact, "pillar" or "principle." In this vein, I fully expect that you'll retaliate by blessing what they've done, and that you'll do so not on the merits but because you can't separate your opinions from the facts. Pwok 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right; the article must be neutral. However, that means that "none of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one". Your history of edits is making it difficult for me to believe that you are capable of editing that article in a neutral fashion. Additionally, Talk:Matt Sanchez is not the appropriate place to challenge Mr. Sanchez's claims; it is not the appropriate place to engage in investigative journalism; and it is definitely not the place to publish numerous links to your own Web site.

I will look into how Elonka and Horologium have behaved there, and deal with them as appropriate. However, no matter what awful things they may have done, their behavior is still no excuse for yours. Either learn to work with them on that article, or learn to work without them elsewhere. Your call. - jredmond 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are not judging a popularity contest as you appear to be doing, you will judge my edits on their own merits. So, tell me exactly what in my edits is not neutral. Be specific. Please note that even Horologium has now admitted that he (his words and capitalization) FUCKED UP when he reverted my most recent edit. I have invited him to restore the text that he now agrees was accurate. If he does it, things will improve dramatically between the two of us.

As for links to my website, I have been very careful about that. I have published one link several times. It goes to a narrow issue, which is the status of the Marine Corps investigation. I posted it when Elokna, who in my view has abandoned every so-called "pillar" or "principle" Misplaced Pages purports to hold dear, suggested without any evidence that the investigation of Sanchez had been "dropped." She was utterly wrong, and utterly without foundation.

The link I posted consists mainly of a JPEG of a letter from the Marine Corps explaining the investigative process. Mr. Redmond, please show that you are serious about Misplaced Pages's so-called "principles" and "pillars" regarding facts, neutrality and "getting it right." Thus far, I think you have been careless with details and anything but neutral. Come on, show anyone that you actually care about facts.

By the way, yeah, I'm nasty. Proudly nasty. People who censor relevant, verified facts deserve to be called out in the harshest terms. Facts are not negotiable. If you think facts are negotiable, then I couldn't possibly care less about a single other thing you have to say, here or anywhere else. Pwok 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm digging through your edits now; there are many, most of which are incremental (use "Show preview", it helps), so this will take a while. However, since the nastiness on that page revolves almost entirely around you, and since nastiness is inherently antithetical to any collaborative endeavor (wikis included), and since you revel in that nastiness, you and your nastiness have earned a lovely wikivacation while I do that digging. Have a nice week.

While I dig, please contemplate this: Different individuals can have different interpretations of what is "relevant", what is "verified", and what is "verifiable". These different interpretations are not necessarily "censorship"; instead, they may represent a different approach to truth which is no less valid than yours. - jredmond 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The fun part of this is that Redmond, along with Elonka and Horologium, are members of Misplaced Pages's Prom Committee. So they can not only ignore the so-called "principles" and "pillars" but they can (and have) excluded my input. The grounds: I've been too critical of the Prom Committee. Let the word go out to those who object to Misplaced Pages's hijinks: The objection itself will be cited as "uncivil." So be it; as soon as Redmond wrote that facts are less important than agreement, he invalidated not only himself but Misplaced Pages as a whole. It's what I always suspected, i.e., that the clique who controls Misplaced Pages couldn't care less about its "principles" or "pillars."

Don't bother with your "dig," Redmond. Even if you came down on my side on those issues, I wouldn't have a shred of respect for your opinion. It's worthless. You have no intention of "digging" into anything; you're incapable of it, because you don't believe in facts. Your "digging" will consist of a search for evidence that I am a son of a bitch when it comes to rebutting people, like you, whose reaction to a fact is to censor it.

My prediction is that, Misplaced Pages will allow Sanchez to delete sources unfavorable to him one by one. Sources favorable to him, including his own website, will be deemed factual in spite of their unverifiability. As a result, the article, which had been approaching something useful, will revert to the p.r. job that Elonka, Horologium, and now Redmond, have desired all along. My only question is why are you making common cause with the likes of Matt Sanchez? You really ought to try to pick better soul mates than that. Convenience and a lack of integrity make strange bedfellows. Pwok 00:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pwok (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked because Redmond objected to my comments on my user page. See explanation below.

Decline reason:

Climb down off your soapbox, please. — Yamla 13:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Misplaced Pages is a high school, and Redmond is a member of the Student Council. Redmond accused me of "harrassing" other users, but in fact didn't implement his block until I had given my opinion here, on my page, that he and other Misplaced Pages editors have ignored the purported "principles" and "pillars" (did I get the order right?) which allegedly guide things here but in fact have no influence whatsoever. I hadn't posted anything on the page in dispute; rather, your Student Council member doesn't like being talked back to by a mere user who has the termerity to call him out.

So, kids, is that what Misplaced Pages High and its popularity contest is all about? Tell off a member of the Student Council and be prohibited from participating? Interestingly enough, Horologium has acceded to my request to restore the material that he had censored. At least most of it, that is. He's defended some remaining censorship on political grounds, which I consider to be completely unacceptable. That said, he shows signs of returning to good faith.

So, I'm not sure who rules on this. Is it Misplaced Pages High's assistant principal? That might be a good sign, because even though the typical assistant principal isn't known for his insight, at least it's typically an adult. So, assistant principal, see if you can dig into your so-called "pillars" and "principles." If you do, you'll see that your Student Council member has blocked my account for nothing more than telling him, forcefully, that he's wrong and that I have utterly no respect for his opinion because he has completed ignored the so-called rules of this game here.

No one was harrassed. That was a baldfaced lie to justify Redmond's arbitrary and capricious exercise of what "authority" you people grant him. Moreover, when I asked this individual for his specific complaints, I received generalities in return. The other editor, Elonka, who has ignored all of your purported "pillars" and "principles," has routinely ingored my requests for explanations, and/or responded with justifications that are manifestly contradictory with her justifications for her own inputs. In short, you have people who are ignoring your so-called rules, and turning right around and using them to censor relevant, factual and -- dare I say it? -- neutral input to the article in question.

Put this individual, Redmond in his rightful place and restore my account, if you dare. And then take a good, hard look at what's being implemented by the other editor, Elonka, who has been operating in bad faith and at blatant variance with your rules. Not that I am expecting it. At this point, I think Misplaced Pages's "pillars" and "principles" are transparent shams; at no point has any Misplaced Pages administrator done anything other than back up its insiders.

In my opinion, I have been excluded from the editing of the article for nothing other than advancing small insider clique's goal of allowing its subject to turn it into a p.r. sham. Show me I'm wrong, and that any of you have any integrity at all. Pwok 05:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As Expected

The Sanchez article is moving back toward the promotional puff piece that Elonka, a Misplaced Pages High School insider, has been working toward all along. The purported "pillars" and "principles" continue to be ignored, including neutrality, consensus, verifiability, good faith and "getting it right." There has been no mediation of the underlying issues, likely because Misplaced Pages's mediation processes, like its other rules, procedures and beliefs, are a sham. I haven't decided what I'll do after this suspension expires, but the whole thing is going exactly the way I thought it would. Pwok 01:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If Matt Sanchez was a "puff piece", I doubt it would mention his gay porn career, certainly not in so much detail. And if I were a partisan supporter of his, I wouldn't be arguing for inclusion of claims he doesn't want included. Honestly, I'd never heard of the guy before your mediation request, and I can really only establish what's true and what's not from the published sources that people bring to the discussion.

I'll agree that the Misplaced Pages process wasn't working particularly well when you requested mediation (which is when I started looking at it). There were a lot of editors reverting things for not very good reasons. Usually these issues get taken to the talk page and worked out. Sometimes I find it's necessary to ask previously uninvolved editors for help when a small group of editors has taken control of an article and is developing it in a wrong-headed way. Which you wisely did. But then when the outside editors didn't agree with all of your edits, you started attacking Misplaced Pages in general, and accused people of not following its policies. In some cases, it's actually the application of Misplaced Pages policies like Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons which has caused the process to proceed in a way which you didn't like. I'm sure Sanchez won't like all of the decisions we make about the article, either.

You also seem to have strong negative opinions about Sanchez, which is useful in that you are sensitive to text in the article which supports the opposite view unfairly, but which also is a source of disagreement with regard to interpretation of references. The article is getting some outside attention now, but it will probably take some time to stabilize. If you aren't completely mad at Misplaced Pages, it might not be a bad idea to come back in a few weeks and see what's become of it. I hope it will more fairly and accurately represent the published facts, but if not, you can let us know, hopefully calmly and professionally. -- Beland 05:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was a professional journalist for a number of years, and my work won national recognition for its quality. I know the difference between fact, analysis and opinion, and I know how to keep them separate. The reason I created a website about Sanchez is because of the terrible quality of the Misplaced Pages article. Given what has happened to it, and what is almost certain to happen in the future, I expect that I'll be paying the hosting fees for the site for quite some time.

If you look at what I've created, there isn't a single assertion of fact that's unverified. There are no irrelevancies. All of my opinions there emanate from facts, not the other way around. I've done very little editing of the Misplaced Pages article on Sanchez, and before I did I floated the proposed edits first. Once I made the edits, they were reverted not for factual issues but because of personal animosity. Moreover, you've had editors there who are clearly biased toward the guy. In and of itself I have no problem with that, but these same editors -- in particular "Elonka" -- has stomped all over each and every one of your organization's purported "pillars" and "principles" in an effort to exclude facts and put a POV spin on the article.

It so happens that my father once wrote an artice for the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I fully realize that their business is in deep trouble and might cease to exist, just as the mainstream media might cease to exist as well. Be that as it may, I can tell you that on their very worst day the people at Britannica showed more "professionalism" than Misplaced Pages displays in the proverbial month of Sundays. At Britannica, facts are religion. Nothing gets by them, or at least to hear my father's complaints and ultimately praise, nothing got by the people who edited his article.

I've never wanted to insert POV into the Sanchez article, nor have I ever given a rat's ass about my specific wording. I got over those sorts of arguments with editors a long, long time ago. What I cannot tolerate, though, is suppression of fact amid the cheesy, selective and hilariously transparent gamesmanship of your organization's "rules" that has characterized this article from the get-go.

Among other things, POV in a Misplaced Pages article about Sanchez (or anyone else) isn't necessary or desirable in terms of affecting anyone's viewpoint. The Misplaced Pages editorial voice, honestly executed according to its purported "pillars" and "principles," would more than suffice. At this point, however, I am convinced that there's a clique of insiders who are bound and determined to prevent this from happening.

Yup, I'm a tenacious bastard when it comes to "getting it right." The fact that I'd meet the amount, and especially the type, of resistance that I've met speaks volumes about Misplaced Pages. It's been a hell of an introduction, that's for sure. The Sanchez article, and its editing, has been an utter travesty. I think there are two underlying reasons for this. First, Misplaced Pages regards facts as negotiable, which means that they're irrelevant. The second emanates from the first. When facts themselves are negotiable, then so are "pillars" and "principles." They are meaningless, and it shows. Pwok 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup

Here's what will happen: Because I've accused Misplaced Pages of running a sham operation, and because you know the accusation is accurate, you'll split the difference. This will be a sort of p.r. gambit, and you'll do it because facts and "getting it right" don't matter to you, just as they don't matter to bureaucrats and power-holders everywhere, no matter how minor. The only non-negotiable "pillar" at Misplaced Pages is that the organization's insiders can ignore the "pillars" and "principles" at will, and lie about what they've done.

You'll allow Mr. Sanchez to omit a number of verified facts from his biography and to mischaracterize others. The rule against subjects of biographies not editing them won't matter, because Misplaced Pages's rules are shams to begin with. To provide verisimilitude, which to an unprincipled organization like Misplaced Pages that exists solely to accumulate influence is just as good as the real thing, you'll leave in a few facts that he doesn't like. You'll pat yourselves on the back for having solved your truth problem.

Then, either directly or in a de facto way (most likely the latter, because it's how Misplaced Pages works), you'll lock down the article to prevent the wrong people and the wrong facts from making their way into the People's Encyclopedia. This is what happens when facts are negotiable. As soon as you do that, then no facts really matter and you are off to the races. Come on, Misplaced Pages, go to China. You're made for each other! Hey, you're in Florida already. It's the craziest state in America to begin with; you're halfway there right now! Congrats kids, you're on your way. When's the merger with FoxNews? Pwok 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

a compromise

G'day Pwok,

it looks like you're in a spot of bother. I've been asked, as an uninvolved administrator, to review your situation, and I have a suggestion. It seems that only point of contention here is your view of the Matt Sanchez article. Now, you may be right or you may not, and I don't intend to buy into that discussion, but it's quite clear that you aren't achieving anything on your current course. You've been blocked for one week, and if things continue as they are you could be looking at an indefinite block. We generally try to avoid blocking good-faith contributors to the encyclopaedia, unless they prove so disruptive that we decide we're better off without them. "Disruption" takes many forms, but the biggest problem in your case is the repeated personal attacks you have launched at your fellow editors.

I don't want to see you run off the encyclopaedia. I'm told you are usually a good writer and a nice chap, and you could be valuable to the project. However, you aren't making any headway with Matt Sanchez, and are just stressing yourself and other users to no good purpose. We have this thing on Misplaced Pages called eventualism, which basically means: there are no deadlines, there is no rush, there is no reason to stress if an article isn't perfect right now.

My offer is: I will shorten your block. You will be able to start editing Misplaced Pages again tomorrow. In return, you will agree not to get involved in the Matt Sanchez article (including the talkpage, and related projects, like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pornography), except in the context of your mediation request, and to refrain from making personal attacks. I will monitor the situation, and will consider lifting the restriction on Matt Sanchez-related edits after one month. You would then be free to edit as you pleased, provided you followed the same rules as the rest of us. How does this strike you? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal amounts to a permanent block from editing the article I not only care most about, but know more about than all of the rest of the editors, and from participating in issues I care about. And why? Because I've complained. So, not only does Misplaced Pages High School freely ignore its purported "pillars" and "principles" at will, but it hates free expression and it blocks those who seek to practice it. In the former Soviet Union, they called it "sluggish schizophrenia." At Misplaced Pages, it's "disruption." In both cases, those in charge were uncomfortable being told the truth about anything, and about themselves.

Meantime, Misplaced Pages High School does nothing about the underlying issue, as the article is turned into a propaganda vehicle. Welcome to Eastern Europe, pre-1989. Nice little system you've built here. I reject your outrageous, laughably stupid, one-sided, disingenuous, dishonest, bad-faith offer. You should be ashamed of it, and of yourself.

My real question, and it's a genuine one, is this: 'Why are you willing to completely and so visibly abandon Misplaced Pages's so-called "pillars" and "principals" on behalf of Matt Sanchez?' Josef Stalin, sure. But Sanchez? Strange. Tell me, does Misplaced Pages operate in China? Is it like Google, helping the government track down dissenters so they can be imprisoned and executed? Pwok 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mate, we have a sister-project called "Wiktionary" that you can use if you want to know what "disingenuous", "dishonest", and "bad-faith" means. It's not my intention to take your side or anyone else's in this dispute. You have behaved inappropriately on this project, and been blocked, because of your passionate views on Matt Sanchez. I am offering you the opportunity to contribute to this project in other areas, and to prove that you are capable of refraining from personal attacks and other disruptive editing practices. This is not meant to be sweetness and light and Pwok gets his own way, and I never intended to market it as such. It is, quite simply, an alternative to you serving out your current block, and a chance to prove that you should not be blocked again, for longer periods (or even indefinitely) in the future. If you choose not to take that offer, that is entirely your decision. By replying to my offer with personal attacks and embarrassingly silly hyperbole, however, instead of simply rejecting it, you've shown exactly the sort of attitude that got you blocked in the first place — and will again. Pull your head in, mate, for your sake and Misplaced Pages's. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Misplaced Pages does not operate in China, although a small number of people access it through anonymising proxies. The reason for this is that the Chinese government does not approve of us. Of course, the issues there are much more significant than whether or not Pwok can control his poor behaviour. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion to use a "Wiktionary" is laughable. I wouldn't use such a compromised and meaningless "reference," because it's been made clear Misplaced Pages and its insiders regard reality (which would include the definitions of words) as subject to "consensus," and that they regard fact as negotiable and therefore irrelevant, sort of like in the Bush White House. Your offer is a dishonest, bad-faith joke; it's not a "compromise," it's a chloroform rag.

You haven't even bothered to make a show of looking at the underlying issues. I quite strongly believe that you have never intended to; rather, as a bureaucrat, your prime interest is to be rid of an irritant. Not only is it easier than doing the real work, but it avoids the possibility that you'd discover that my complaints are correct. This is the very definition of bad faith and a lack of neutrality. Not that any of that matters, because those "pillars," like the rest of them and the so-called "principles," are nothing more than building materials in a Potemkin village.

I strongly suggest that you re-apply to the Chinese government. They'd approve of the emptiness of your organization's purported "pillars" and "principles," and its willingness to exclude those who lack a bureaucracy-pleasing "attitude." The modus operandi here is perfectly compatible with China. Who knows, maybe they'd even provide 10 or 20 million slaves to edit articles in a way that Misplaced Pages deems acceptable. They'll work in a Chinese factory. Ever seen one? I have. They come complete with soldiers holding machine guns. They are posted inside the doors. Pretty cool, eh, Wikipedians?

As for the Sanchez article, I have little doubt where it will end up. For whatever reason, Misplaced Pages's insiders are determined to airbrush out the facts and promote his latest enterprise. The appeals in its discussion thread for "professionalism" are falling-down funny! There is nothing even remotely "professional" about what you're doing. Behold the work of the People's (Republic) Encyclopedia! No one who wants to "get it right" would even think of using it as a reference, other than for those anodyne World Book Encyclopedia entries that tell us how much corn was grown in Iowa last year. Until there's a reason to phony it up, that is.

By the way, where can I find the Misplaced Pages Five-Year Plan? That should be a knee-slapper! You'll doubtlessly regard this is foolish, but I've already seen the Hero of Soviet Production medals scattered about on the pages of your Inner Party members. Back to the future, baby! Pwok 19:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)