Revision as of 03:18, 21 November 2008 view source86.44.30.104 (talk) →Has David Gerard finally flipped?← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:23, 21 November 2008 view source I am Mario (talk | contribs)54 edits →Ugliness of your idea that everybody can contribute - 'discussion' about HolocaustNext edit → | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
:::Indeed. Sometimes humor is a way to deal with a serious or unpleasant situation. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | :::Indeed. Sometimes humor is a way to deal with a serious or unpleasant situation. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Ugliness of your idea that everybody can contribute - 'discussion' about Holocaust == | == Ugliness of your idea saying that everybody can contribute - 'discussion' about Holocaust == | ||
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust | Encyclopedia of the Holocaust | ||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
:::::] is established by Israel parliament for commemorating the 6 milion Jews killed in Holocaust. In Yad Vashem Hall of Rememberence we are having names of 22 largest extermination camps , but even Yad Vashem is making clear difference between 6 greatest and others. This is possible to see on Yad Vashem FAQ about Holocaust which is speaking only about 6 greatest camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz. Similar situation is with ] | :::::] is established by Israel parliament for commemorating the 6 milion Jews killed in Holocaust. In Yad Vashem Hall of Rememberence we are having names of 22 largest extermination camps , but even Yad Vashem is making clear difference between 6 greatest and others. This is possible to see on Yad Vashem FAQ about Holocaust which is speaking only about 6 greatest camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz. Similar situation is with ] | ||
:::::Against this and all scholars (I can add more sources) which are making clear difference between this 6 camps and 16 other we are having user which is screaming: "There is 8 great camps (6 original + 2 Croatian)". It is interesting that 1 (]) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list (see article. This data has never been disputed, but only sources which I can find are on croato-serbian language).--] (]) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | :::::Against this and all scholars (I can add more sources) which are making clear difference between this 6 camps and 16 other we are having user which is screaming: "There is 8 great camps (6 original + 2 Croatian)". It is interesting that 1 (]) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list (see article. This data has never been disputed, but only sources which I can find are on croato-serbian language).--] (]) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
===Response to Mr. Wales=== | |||
A butcher can do butchery - not surgery, even when strictlty adhering to ''Assume Good Faith. Use reliable sources. No personal attacks. Try to make sure that what Misplaced Pages says is actually supported by the sources.'' etc. If the butcher's 'knowledge' is complemented by the utter lack of editorial ethics (fasely referencing books, articles, editorial rules, calling opponents someone's puppets, then falsely accusing and blocking them) you'll see only political pornography - not history, in the Misplaced Pages's articles. As a consequence - Einstein is portrayed as an Ustashe (Croatian Nazi) supporter in 1930eth (] article), and Jewish Holocaust survivors' testimonies attacked as POV (ugly Misplaced Pages term) and removed from the Holocaust era articles. All above will be two additional entries in my anti-defamation move against Misplaced Pages. ] , ], and ] 'discussions' and 'expertises' will be used as the primers of of the abovementioned pornography.--] (]) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Hi == | == Hi == |
Revision as of 03:23, 21 November 2008
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
ANI desysop discussion
Heya, you desysopped Scarian earlier; well, in the subsequent discussion we thought of a wonderfully awesome idea. Copying mine for convenience.
- "If I may, I'd like to remind everyone that Jimbo desysopped Scarian because he believed his account to be compromised (and I'm sure people can see where he's coming from). There's plenty of logic in taking down an account that could be used to blank the main page a few seconds later. However, now that we know what actually happened, I think that Scarian's sysop should be reinstated and then the community can decide whether he should keep it or not."
That was my proposal; several users agree that we should go this way. I was just wondering what you think on the matter. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jimbo. At the above noted discussion there is currently some community consensus to resysop Scarian - although there are arguments that the short duration of the thread make consensus less than absolute. Many editors have noted his immediate recognition that he was in error in his actions - something I think that is most important. Given that Scarian has made highly productive use of the admin tools in the past it would also seem we are doing ourselves some disservice by not alowing him to continue editing with them - but that's my personal take. Will you reconsider your action in light of Scarian's prompt recognition of his errors and the communities calls for resysoping? Pedro : Chat 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- His reconsideration is not necessary, since it is not an action he had any legitimate authority to take in the first place. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- In case any newbies are reading this and wondering, Kurt is wrong about that, wrong in every way. Kurt's view of what constitutes "legitimate authority" is mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Kurt; he had every right to. Any bureaucrat would have acted the same way if they saw a potentially compromised account. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there is no way any bureaucrat would take that action. Stewards, on the other hand... ;-) J.delanoyadds 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Kurt can (somehow) manage to disagree with just about anything, probably even inanimate objects. --Deskana (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I meant steward, my mistake. I was thinking next level up. :P Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 22:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Kurt can (somehow) manage to disagree with just about anything, probably even inanimate objects. --Deskana (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, my view is quite correct. On a community project, no one person has any legitimate authority to unilaterally undo a community decision. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- So then, by your logic, should a sysop's account be compromised, and it shows all the tell-tale signs of being compromised, that everyone should reach a community consensus to de-sysop it, rather than letting a higher-up de-sysop it immediately. The problem with doing this, is that while you're gaining consensus for this de-sysop, the compromised account can go around Misplaced Pages and creating alot of work for people, since it has many powers and tools at it's disposal.
- Actually, there is no way any bureaucrat would take that action. Stewards, on the other hand... ;-) J.delanoyadds 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- His reconsideration is not necessary, since it is not an action he had any legitimate authority to take in the first place. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Quite simply, while we're busy talking about it, it can go around and delete everything at it's whim, with nothing to stop it.
- I don't know about you, but if I were an admin, and my account was compromised, I would want it blocked and de-sysopped immediately to prevent any of that kind of stuff from happening.
- Do tell me, what is your argument for letting the compromised account run around and ruin stuff while we talk about it?— Dædαlus /Improve 04:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- The simple fact that the end does not justify the means. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, in this case, the end does justify the means.— Dædαlus /Improve 04:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If we assume the same principle of community governance you're talking about, there are three groups that have the power to remove community-granted sysop bits: Stewards, Developers, and the Founder group. All three groups have those powers because the community expects them to use them in appropriate situations. In other words, if they have the power to desysop somebody and they decide to sit on their collective ass and do nothing about it, they would be infringing the community's vested expectations of them.
- As for scared shitless: It's a freaking website. What's the worst thing that can happen? Getting kicked out? Man, that's something monumental in the grand scheme of things... besides, people don't whine when they agree with things, so the "fear to speak up" might actually be that other users trust the website's founder to do things in the best interest of his creation? Titoxd 07:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, in this case, the end does justify the means.— Dædαlus /Improve 04:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unless of course, the community by and large supports that person's powers to do so, which makes it a community decision, but thats all a bunch of pseudo political theory, in practice Jimbo has the ability to do the things he does, and has the authority to do so. You may disagree with that situation, but it doesn't change that the situation exists, an important distinction in communicating with the faceless masses of Misplaced Pages readers on this page, policy discussions, and even article writing.--Tznkai (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- The most certainly does not support it; it's just that people are by and large scared shitless to speak up. Were we to start from a blank slate in this regard, the community would never acquiesce to him having these unilateral powers. No one doubts he has the practical ability to exercise these powers; in fact, that's the whole problem! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- So, let's get things straight. You don't agree that people trust Jimbo to use his powers wisely, and you yourself don't trust him.— Dædαlus /Improve 04:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Correct. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- So then you have a conflict of interest in this matter and shouldn't be participating, since you can never be convinced otherwise of your own personal opinions. It's like having a homeowner from New Orleans on a judge panel to decide whether or not to impeach Bush. Because of this conflict of interest, there is no real point in defending one's-self against your rebuttals, as your mind-set does not allow anyone to convince you otherwise. In this case, it could be viewed as disruption, as you would be arguing people in circles about what consensus is versus your distrust in Jimbo, just like LGR, and the way he/she argued people in circles in AfDs. It is nothing but disruptive to the project.
- You're asking Kurt to be reasonable. Get real. --Deskana (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone here knows that you don't really agree with anything, as stated above, or, as stated above, that you just don't trust Jimbo. Arguing with them about their choices isn't helping anything, because, as viewed above, they obviously put much thought into their arguments.— Dædαlus /Improve 05:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- So then you have a conflict of interest in this matter and shouldn't be participating, since you can never be convinced otherwise of your own personal opinions. It's like having a homeowner from New Orleans on a judge panel to decide whether or not to impeach Bush. Because of this conflict of interest, there is no real point in defending one's-self against your rebuttals, as your mind-set does not allow anyone to convince you otherwise. In this case, it could be viewed as disruption, as you would be arguing people in circles about what consensus is versus your distrust in Jimbo, just like LGR, and the way he/she argued people in circles in AfDs. It is nothing but disruptive to the project.
- Correct. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- So, let's get things straight. You don't agree that people trust Jimbo to use his powers wisely, and you yourself don't trust him.— Dædαlus /Improve 04:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- The most certainly does not support it; it's just that people are by and large scared shitless to speak up. Were we to start from a blank slate in this regard, the community would never acquiesce to him having these unilateral powers. No one doubts he has the practical ability to exercise these powers; in fact, that's the whole problem! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
LuketheSpook was trolling for a block/desysop
I think you should be aware that the above now indef blocked sockpuppet had previously reported Scarian to WP:AIV with a view to having a block enacted. I declined the report, commenting that ANI was the appropriate venue. For reasons that are now apparent (his own policy violations would be quickly discovered) LtS contacted you. I again wrote that ANI was a more appropriate place for his complaint when I note he had written here. While Scarian's comments were inappropriate, it should be concluded that LtS was trolling and he has exacted exactly the response he was looking for. I hope you bear this in mind when you review the many comments made in regard to this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your consideration and resysopping Scarian, Jimbo. As I've just pointed out to him, the events have had a very positive outcome, even if the ride was a bit bumpy.--Alf 00:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Softie
Jimbo has re-sysopped Scarian (talk · contribs). Jehochman 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unless I've misunderstood some irony here, that makes Jimbo a "softie"? Forgive me, but I didn't see it working like that. Scarian was undoubtedly under pressure, took it personally, and possibly over-reacted; that lead to a desysop. It was such an out of character glitch that as a preventative measure it was obviously thought reasonable to assume prima facie that his account had been compromised, and there can be no complaint about that. However, those of us whose principal motivation here is preserving Misplaced Pages from those who would seek to make it fail, for whatever reason, are under pressure. We see an editor vandalising one article that perhaps we have watchlisted, look at the contributions, and find a rats' maze of other undetected and subtle subversions, which would be a full-time job to check. The "willy-poo-poo" or "X is gay" vandals are easily detected, because they tend to target well-watched articles; likewise the content-blankers. But we have no rational defence against someone who changes our information subtly, by changing the population of Rhode Island, say, by adding or deleting 300,000 citizens. Such errors tend to persist if nobody is particularly watching those articles, and the less-watched articles tend to suffer from that problem. So is it any wonder that Admins whose principal focus is fighting vandalism tend not only to get frustrated, but also to burn out, because it's often a silent service for which no appreciation is forthcoming? We do it for the correct and proper provision of knowledge, but sometimes that is little reward in itself. --Rodhullandemu 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think Jehochman may have titled this section in a tongue-in-cheek reflection of the situation... Daniel (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Sometimes humor is a way to deal with a serious or unpleasant situation. Jehochman 12:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think Jehochman may have titled this section in a tongue-in-cheek reflection of the situation... Daniel (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Ugliness of your idea saying that everybody can contribute - 'discussion' about Holocaust
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
A joint and most comprehensive Holocaust project of more than 200 scholars which International Editorial Board counted 24 world-renown scholars - a four volume book of 1904 pages collecting and desciribing all aspects of the Holocaust: events, places, actions, people involved in. This book is a reference book quoted and cited by scholars
Definition of the Holocaust on XVII page, Vol 1
... the Holocaust - here defined as the Third Reich's attempt during the period of Nazi power (1933-1945), to physically destroy the Jews of Europe - from the antecedents to its postwar consequences
Concentration camps entry is on pages 308-316, Vol. 1: The camps were subdivided into labor camps (Arbetslager), transit camps(durhgangslager), prisoner of war camps (Kriegsfangenlager) and extermination camps (Vermachtungslager). A map of camps is given on page 308. On the map is visible: one (1) concentration camp in France, sixteen (16+1) in Germany + Prussia, 1 - Austria, 2 - Croatia, 7 - Poland 7, 1 - Lithuania, 1 - Latvia, 2 - Estonia Maly Trostenets near Minsk Byelorussia is not marked on the map but it is described on pages 940-1, Vol 3. by Shalom Cholakowski
There are no other extermination camps and sites as it was suggested in the template
Jasenovac entry on pages 739-740, Vol 3. by Menachem Shelach "The largest concentration and extermination camp in Independent State of Croatia"
Sajmiste entry on pages 1323-1324, Vol 4. by Christopher R. Browning - concentration (85% of Serbia's Jews) and extermination camp (killed by hunger, diseases and gassed in gas vans)
Statements in 'discussion' here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:The_Holocaust) containing explict or implicit Holocaust denial in Independent State of Croatia:
Rjecina: 'Jasenovac has been extermination camp (maybe even greatest non Holocaust camp), but there is agreement between Holocaust scholars that Jasenovac is not Holocaust extermination camp.
VirginSlim: We're dealing with an area of history that's in flux, that's the problem, with definitions of the Holocaust changing, with even the same scholarly sources using the term differently within the same book.
Nitsansh : Bottom line: I wouldn't consider Jasenovac as extermination camp, definitely not by Nazi definition
AniMate: in terms of the Holocaust there have always been six camps designated as extermination camps
EyeSerene: Rjecina, I do see a rough consensus on this talk page that the camps under dispute can be fairly described as extermination camps, although they may not fall under a strict definition of Holocaust camps. Therefore I think your additions to the template are supported.
Ricky81682: Agree with AniMate. At the Holocaust article, Jasenovac is mentioned mostly for the Southern Slavs killed, but here, it is being placed under the Jews. I think it could go under the "Other victims" subsection as an extermination camp there.
Bottom line: Going to expose these 'experts' in newspapers or/and with help of the Anti-Defamation League. Some of the 'notables' above are your administrators. --I am Mario (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo, I'll leave this to others, but this feels a lot like a threat, in violation of WP:NLT. I think I'm too involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo just so you know it, I am Mario was blocked just a few days ago for posting rants like this yet he keeps doing it apparently. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't mean it as "Jimbo, here's something you should do"-type thing so much as a "Jimbo and others, I'm curious about what to do with this user." The argument is at Template talk:The Holocaust where a number of different editors have been popping up all arguing based on the same source. I'm just particular concerned about the "I'm going to 'expose' people to newspapers and complain to the ADF by calling them anti-Semitic because they won't let me put my link at the top of Template:The Holocaust instead of down another section." That can't possibly be conducive to working together or remotely within the lines of civility. There's always WP:ARBMAC because I'm too involved to hand out discretionary sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would simply argue for a focus on the fundamentals here. Assume Good Faith. Use reliable sources. No personal attacks. Try to make sure that what Misplaced Pages says is actually supported by the sources. Make sure that the sources used are generally considered high quality. Make sure that our view of the sources is not arbitrarily selective in order to paint a particular picture. For questions like this, questions surrounding the precise definition of the Holocaust, remember that emotions will be high and that there is a tendency for people to view people on the other side in an unfavorable light prematurely. If we do all of those things, then threats to "go to the press" or to complain to this or that pressure group will have little impact.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I've been helping to keep an eye on the article since earlier edit-warring, and while I appreciate I am Mario's frustration at having his suggestion to include certain Ustaše-operated WWII camps as Holocaust camps rejected, unfortunately the talk-page consensus is against him on this one. A workable compromise has apparently been reached, with the camps included elsewhere in the template, so I don't think there's really much substance to this complaint (disclosure: I recently blocked I am Mario for disrupting the debate). EyeSerene 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do not know if this is right place for answer, but .... (I will add this on template talk page)
- Yad Vashem is established by Israel parliament for commemorating the 6 milion Jews killed in Holocaust. In Yad Vashem Hall of Rememberence we are having names of 22 largest extermination camps , but even Yad Vashem is making clear difference between 6 greatest and others. This is possible to see on Yad Vashem FAQ about Holocaust which is speaking only about 6 greatest camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz. Similar situation is with USHMM
- Against this and all scholars (I can add more sources) which are making clear difference between this 6 camps and 16 other we are having user which is screaming: "There is 8 great camps (6 original + 2 Croatian)". It is interesting that 1 (Sajmište concentration camp) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list (see article. This data has never been disputed, but only sources which I can find are on croato-serbian language).--Rjecina (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I've been helping to keep an eye on the article since earlier edit-warring, and while I appreciate I am Mario's frustration at having his suggestion to include certain Ustaše-operated WWII camps as Holocaust camps rejected, unfortunately the talk-page consensus is against him on this one. A workable compromise has apparently been reached, with the camps included elsewhere in the template, so I don't think there's really much substance to this complaint (disclosure: I recently blocked I am Mario for disrupting the debate). EyeSerene 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Response to Mr. Wales
A butcher can do butchery - not surgery, even when strictlty adhering to Assume Good Faith. Use reliable sources. No personal attacks. Try to make sure that what Misplaced Pages says is actually supported by the sources. etc. If the butcher's 'knowledge' is complemented by the utter lack of editorial ethics (fasely referencing books, articles, editorial rules, calling opponents someone's puppets, then falsely accusing and blocking them) you'll see only political pornography - not history, in the Misplaced Pages's articles. As a consequence - Einstein is portrayed as an Ustashe (Croatian Nazi) supporter in 1930eth (Ustase article), and Jewish Holocaust survivors' testimonies attacked as POV (ugly Misplaced Pages term) and removed from the Holocaust era articles. All above will be two additional entries in my anti-defamation move against Misplaced Pages. Rjecina , Ricky81682, and EyeSerene 'discussions' and 'expertises' will be used as the primers of of the abovementioned pornography.--I am Mario (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi! I know that there is no point to this message at all, but I just want to say hello to the famous Jimbo Wales!! I would be honoured if you would write something on my talk page, anything at all!! TopGearFreak 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Noncompliant mirror
A mirror (SMSO.net) claims copyright on Misplaced Pages's content and has been contacted by numerous Wikipedians. They received a DMCA takedown notice a few days ago (I know because I sent it) and has not responded. They still do not comply. As you are on the board of the foundation, I am telling you this so you and the rest of the foundation can decide what action to take. For more information and a log of our actions, see Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks/Stu#SMSO.net. Dendodge Talk 19:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The best thing to do is contact Mike Godwin, legal counsel for the Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I'll leave a message on his talk page. Dendodge Talk 21:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I emailed him (per the instructions on his userpage). Dendodge Talk 21:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Has David Gerard finally flipped?
Jimbo, you seem to know the person well so perhaps you might like to comment on DG's block of Giano. Is there a belief among certain long established account holders that writing quality articles is the basis of bad hand accounts, or is it simply that holding views contrary to some long established accounts sufficient? Oh, and DG stepping up as the enacting blocker might appear to some as inappropriate - given a past ArbCom where said admin was a party bitterly complained of and against Giano. All this right at the start of the ArbCom elections, too - is there not enough potential drama among the list of candidates and their reasons for standing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it best that I not publicly comment at this time on the underlying issue. Perhaps I will in a few days, if it becomes necessary for some reason, but at the present time this all looks pretty routine to me. However, I will say that I doubt very much that you will find anyone who will argue or even suggest that Giano's quality contributions are the problem, and so the form of your question doesn't lend itself very well to a helpful answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- "confirmed and reviewed by multiple checkusers" I want the name of every single one of these people and I want everyone of them fired. Giano (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, right, I want to be Judy Garland, but it ain't gonna happen. --Rodhullandemu 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why would ya wanna be Judy Garland? She hasn't been too healthy since 1969. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neither have I. --Rodhullandemu 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- You want to be a starlet who was depressed, addicted to prescription drugs, divorced four times, attempted suicide on numerous occasions before finally dying at 47 of a drug overdose? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Stop going on about her good points, already! --Rodhullandemu 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, knowing this Arbcom's snse of justice you are probably right, but let's just see how many of the are brave enough to admit it first. Giano (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- The reasom given for checkusering me was that they there was similarities between Lady C's edits and those of a terrible banned editor. I have now checked those edits to claim any similarity is a blatent lie. There are no similarities what-so-ever. If it were not such an abuse of power, the encyclopedia would die laughing, if they knew which banned editor it was. Gerard should be fired instantly. Giano (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Giano, to forestall future drama and turmoil, would you commit to using only one account in the future? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I want to know what similarities there were between Lady C's edits and that of "???? ?????" When I am shown themm then we will look to the future, as long as Gerard is allowed to perform checkusers, and involve the gullible, to satisfy his own curiousity then none of are secure here, He has abused his powers and must go. He has been 100% dishonest. Giano (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Has Gerard been fired yet? or we taking this to another level? Giano (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Giano, why did you create that account in the first place? Did you really think that it was legitimate to run a sock account for ArbCom? It seems to me that David did the community a service by revealing a hoax. It would have been better if "Lady C" had never been created. Whose responsibility was that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, come on! David did not reveal a hoax, he reconfirmed a hoax! It was clear, even to those who did not know it was Giano, that it was a sock account having a dig at the process. There was no need to do anything apart from have a quiet word via email, or even via the talk page. Use of checkuser and blocking tools was excessive. GTD 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:POINT. It's explicitly against the rules to disrupt Misplaced Pages in order to illustrate a point. If Giano wanted to make a point he should have written an essay. The blame for all of this is squarely on his shoulders. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, David Gerard's block of Giano was clearly more pointy as the alternate account was an open secret. There was no way, under any circumstances, that the alternate account would have been considered to be a serious ArbCom candidate. David Gerard's direct actions went against the spirit of Misplaced Pages GTD 01:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- An "open secret" is still a secret. "Lady C" was asked directly if she was a sock and denied it. Why run a sock of ArbCom, especially if there's no chance of winning? Why waste the time of folks who weren't in on the secret, leaving them wondering what the heck is going on? Things like that bring disrepute to the project, just like the last ArbCom member who pretended to be something he wasn't. Let's just write an encyclopedia and leave the made-up characters with funny voices to other websites. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your last sentence entirely. Let's leave that all to have their own fun elsewhere. Let's have legally-accountable, qualifications-verifiable, named users to create the best encyclopedia on the planet. That's what I want. But, until that happens, who's to say what jokes can and can't go on? GTD 02:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a social networking site, it isn't intended to be fun, though a little fun isn't a problem. But Giano stepped over the line in running an undisclosed sock for ArbCom. Posting an Aprils Fools hoax on April 1 is one thing. Posting a similar hoax on other occasions is another matter. And getting upset when that hoax is deleted just shows no sense of humor at all. Giano had his laugh now let's move on with the purpose of this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- So you'll join me in banning all minors and demanding all remaining editors use their own names, post their addresses and credentials? Great! Deal! GTD 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The obvious reply:
Will Beback is a real name. Is George the Dragon a real name? Durova 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)- no biggie, but isn't Will Beback a pun / pseudonym? - If not then the Beback parents were kinda cruel, to be honest! Privatemusings (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Joke or not, I haven't seen Will demand other editors relinquish their privacy. The gracious thing is to show as much or more respect for the privacy of other people than one attempts to requisition for oneself. With a name like Privatemusings, that sort of explanation shouldn't be necessary. Durova 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- no biggie, but isn't Will Beback a pun / pseudonym? - If not then the Beback parents were kinda cruel, to be honest! Privatemusings (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The obvious reply:
- So you'll join me in banning all minors and demanding all remaining editors use their own names, post their addresses and credentials? Great! Deal! GTD 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a social networking site, it isn't intended to be fun, though a little fun isn't a problem. But Giano stepped over the line in running an undisclosed sock for ArbCom. Posting an Aprils Fools hoax on April 1 is one thing. Posting a similar hoax on other occasions is another matter. And getting upset when that hoax is deleted just shows no sense of humor at all. Giano had his laugh now let's move on with the purpose of this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your last sentence entirely. Let's leave that all to have their own fun elsewhere. Let's have legally-accountable, qualifications-verifiable, named users to create the best encyclopedia on the planet. That's what I want. But, until that happens, who's to say what jokes can and can't go on? GTD 02:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- An "open secret" is still a secret. "Lady C" was asked directly if she was a sock and denied it. Why run a sock of ArbCom, especially if there's no chance of winning? Why waste the time of folks who weren't in on the secret, leaving them wondering what the heck is going on? Things like that bring disrepute to the project, just like the last ArbCom member who pretended to be something he wasn't. Let's just write an encyclopedia and leave the made-up characters with funny voices to other websites. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, David Gerard's block of Giano was clearly more pointy as the alternate account was an open secret. There was no way, under any circumstances, that the alternate account would have been considered to be a serious ArbCom candidate. David Gerard's direct actions went against the spirit of Misplaced Pages GTD 01:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:POINT. It's explicitly against the rules to disrupt Misplaced Pages in order to illustrate a point. If Giano wanted to make a point he should have written an essay. The blame for all of this is squarely on his shoulders. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, come on! David did not reveal a hoax, he reconfirmed a hoax! It was clear, even to those who did not know it was Giano, that it was a sock account having a dig at the process. There was no need to do anything apart from have a quiet word via email, or even via the talk page. Use of checkuser and blocking tools was excessive. GTD 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Giano, why did you create that account in the first place? Did you really think that it was legitimate to run a sock account for ArbCom? It seems to me that David did the community a service by revealing a hoax. It would have been better if "Lady C" had never been created. Whose responsibility was that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why would ya wanna be Judy Garland? She hasn't been too healthy since 1969. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
George, there's a big difference between requiring proven identities and allowing disruptive socks. If you think that socks should be allowed to run for ArbCom or admin or should be allowed for banned users, then I encourage you to answer the questions about those matter on your ArbCom candidacy page. Some of us spend a lot of time trying to get rid of disruptive socks. I don't think it's very funny when a supposedly good editor uses one to mess with the system and then throws a hissy fit when it's blocked. If it's a joke account then there's no need to mourn its loss, and there's certainly no reason to form a mob to attack the responsible person who brought the hoax to a close. David Gerard did the right thing (albeit in a clumsy way) and harmed no one's privacy in the process. Now let's get back to writing the encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, we won't untill gerard is prevented from doing this again - it goes on. He has no right too invade privacy, none at all. What next excuse? He had to be fired. Oh yeah, and let's have a diff for: " "Lady C" was asked directly if she was a sock and denied it." Giano (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll give you two:
- Major Bonkers: "Aren't you a sockpuppet?"
- Catherine de Burgh: "No, no, barking up the wrong tree there."
- I'll give you two:
- Major Bonkers: "Aren't you still a sockpuppet?"
- Catherine de Burgh: "I'm certainly not a Sockpocket."
- But then again, we already know that you are not adverse to peddling the odd mistruth two when it suits you, isn't that right Giano? Rockpocket 18:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- and here is one for you Rockpocket. You see Jimbo and the Arbcom have been terrified I had an admin account and had breached IRC Security, that is what I expect half of this is all about, any excuse to find out, and why gerard has not been punished, he was trying to do them a favour. I don't have a sock Admin account, I never have and I never will, for the reasons given in that diff. Giano (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Giano, you asked for diffs about when you denied running a sock account. Rockpocket provided two and here's a third. I've asked you repeatedly to either disclose your other sock accounts or to stop using them. Nothing good comes from this deception. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are no others. That is a sterile line of inquiry. Thatcher 20:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Beback, you are a very very sad man, I pity you, truly I do. Without humour one may as well be dead, and we are an awfully long time dead, I know one should never laugh at one's own jokes, so I won't, but was there a deal of harm? For some leather bound tool of the arbcom to come in hot and viscious pursuit - No, I think not - and so do most of the "normal" editors' - it's a hoot, get real, get over it. Giano (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make personal attacks on your colleagues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Beback, are you seriously suugesting you and Gerard are colleagues? You're not, no one would regard you as such - what an amazing notion, where can you posibly have obtained it? Giano (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- For what its worth, I would think it would be patently obvious that you would never try something like that, since it would only be a matter of time before that was revealed. The point is though Giano, and I appreciate it may not feel like it sometimes, but 99% of those people who edit Misplaced Pages do not read your talk page and do not follow your wiki-career. That includes a good number of admins and CUs. I do, and I still missed that edit. Therefore its unreasonable to expect that everyone is familiar with all the twists and turns of Giano's wiki-activities. Whether your accusations are true or not, I don't know. But by using CdB in the manner you did, it was only a matter of time before you were CU'd by someone not in on the elaborate joke. You have a right to be upset about being blocked, but your outrage over being checkusered is misplaced. Even if it was done with ulterior motives, you set yourself up by using CdB without being completely open about who she is. I, too, operate an undisclosed sockpuppet account (albeit one that is scrupulously clean and policy compliant), but if someone has any suspicion over it, I would expect to be CU'd. Big deal. If you don't want to risk that, then don't use multiple accounts. Rockpocket 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Beback, are you seriously suugesting you and Gerard are colleagues? You're not, no one would regard you as such - what an amazing notion, where can you posibly have obtained it? Giano (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make personal attacks on your colleagues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This problem with Gerard should have been handled long ago. In fact, I was going to use him as an example in a question to all candidates (but that page seems to be protected now). So, in the light of the current arbcom elections, let me ask it here;
Imagine a powerful administrator who wants to silence some political opposition. He enters into an edit war on a Misplaced Pages project page and censors all criticism of his pet cause. He then protects the page on his version and even threatens to move it to Meta where he can more effectively control the content. The criticism he removed was civil and came from administrators and long time contributors.
It goes to the arbcom and parties present their cases in the usual way, except this admin who presents his case behind closed doors, in complete secrecy. None of the other parties can see or respond to what he says. Furthermore, he's on the arbcom mailing list by virtue of his previous arbitratorship, and is therefore 'in the room' as the arbitrators discuss and decide the case.
He walks away with no consequences for his behavior.
What do you all think about this? Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC ?
--Duk 17:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can still ask questions individually of any or all potential arbitrators. WilyD 17:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- In hind sight I think It's more effective to ask in places where it will actually be read by more than just the candidate. --Duk 17:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hell ya! secrecy and censorship, that's the way to run a project like this. --Duk 18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, otherwise people miss things like J Forrester refusing to answer if he will accept an appointment from Jimbo against the will of the people! Good job no constitutional monarch would ever offer such a position. Tough luck James. Giano (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Monarchs have absolute power until they actually try to use it. Pissing off the nobles or the peasants will eventually be any monarch's downfall. Thatcher 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hell ya! secrecy and censorship, that's the way to run a project like this. --Duk 18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- In hind sight I think It's more effective to ask in places where it will actually be read by more than just the candidate. --Duk 17:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- All this Giano VS ArbCom stuff is entertaining; distracting, but entertaining. Thank goodness the Lady C account is deleted. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, it's not deleted. I spoke too soon. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- So, David Gerard has not finally flipped? Which, given that he knew that Giano and CdB were the same editor some 2 years (should I say here that I didn't know? but then I didn't care who CdB was as long as I didn't have to deal with "her") means that the purpose of the CU was to see if Giano - "exposed" through the CdB connection - was operating a vandal account. No wonder DG blocked both with exceedingly poor rationales; the disappointment must have been excruciating... I truly believe, Jimbo, that some of those entrusted with responsibilities from the earlier days of this project do need reviewing to see if their use of those abilities are in tune with the standards expected in the situations we now find ourselves in. Some people are adaptable and realise that status necessarily changes as situations change, and some are not and are less capable of serving the purpose in the manner in which they were originally entrusted. There is no mechanism to remove these people from the offices bestowed upon them - except by appeal to those who presented them with such powers and still have the ability to remove them. Perhaps it is time, as sometimes can happen to admins and is happening to some members of ArbCom, that CU's are required after some period of service to demonstrate that their use of the tools has the confidence of the community and their colleagues? The trust required of sysops, bureaucrat, and ArbCom members from the community is understood, because of the potential damage those positions may cause; perhaps it is more so for CU's - as events may have demonstrated here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- All those words about the importance of trust in the ArbCom, etc., would make more sense if this weren't a case in which a sockpuppet had been nominated for ArbCom. How would having a lying sock on the ArbCom help build the community's trust? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Lying? You mean she wasn't married four times, proposed to by Mussolini, and the daughter of Phimosis Bonkbuster? 86.44.30.104 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- All those words about the importance of trust in the ArbCom, etc., would make more sense if this weren't a case in which a sockpuppet had been nominated for ArbCom. How would having a lying sock on the ArbCom help build the community's trust? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- So, David Gerard has not finally flipped? Which, given that he knew that Giano and CdB were the same editor some 2 years (should I say here that I didn't know? but then I didn't care who CdB was as long as I didn't have to deal with "her") means that the purpose of the CU was to see if Giano - "exposed" through the CdB connection - was operating a vandal account. No wonder DG blocked both with exceedingly poor rationales; the disappointment must have been excruciating... I truly believe, Jimbo, that some of those entrusted with responsibilities from the earlier days of this project do need reviewing to see if their use of those abilities are in tune with the standards expected in the situations we now find ourselves in. Some people are adaptable and realise that status necessarily changes as situations change, and some are not and are less capable of serving the purpose in the manner in which they were originally entrusted. There is no mechanism to remove these people from the offices bestowed upon them - except by appeal to those who presented them with such powers and still have the ability to remove them. Perhaps it is time, as sometimes can happen to admins and is happening to some members of ArbCom, that CU's are required after some period of service to demonstrate that their use of the tools has the confidence of the community and their colleagues? The trust required of sysops, bureaucrat, and ArbCom members from the community is understood, because of the potential damage those positions may cause; perhaps it is more so for CU's - as events may have demonstrated here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
For creating Misplaced Pages, the greatest online encyclopedia ever! Narutolovehinata5 07:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
whoa!!
YOu created wikipedia!!! AWESOME!! So you know everything about my account!!??--Spittlespat 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- ...the temptation to reply is almost too great........Giano (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Also please drop a message on my talk page!!--Spittlespat 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The control of Misplaced Pages
Jimbo, I should start by admitting I am a journalist, but I still feel i can contribute and do that simultaneously. But, ignoring that, history has shown that when communities outgrow their leaders they move on and elect their new leaders. As the so-called Constitutional Monarch of Misplaced Pages, do you feel the project has reached that stage yet? Are you fully in-tune with everything that goes on? Every policy change, every essay, every guideline, every ArbCom decision? If not, will you not consider stepping down from your monarchical role before you suffer the same fate as King George III?
"Such has been the patient sufferance of this project; and such is now the necessity which constrains the community to alter their former Systems of Government"
In short, Jimbo, it's time for this all to change. The Misplaced Pages community has outgrown you. Please calmly abdicate in the style of King Edward VIII before this starts to get even more messier GTD 01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Edward VIII abdicated for a woman not to improve things for his country. Anyway, Lady C who wanted to be Jimbo's Queen consort has just died so there is no woman for him to abdicate for. Giano (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but if Edward VIII hadn't stepped down when he did, there was the chance of a constitutional crisis which would have damaged his "realm". Churchill threatened to form a "pro-King" party, which would have de facto made His Majesty's Government the anti-King party! Best to go before things do become totally out of control and irreparable, in my view GTD 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am establishing the "over/under" on this section's life-before-removal on Jimbo's talk page at 4 hours, 10 minutes. Your bets (plus a 10% vigorish) may be placed via PayPal to you-know-who. Minimum bet is $11 (to win $10). One-half of the total vig will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation fund drive 2008. -- Kohszilla (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Edward VIII, was pushed into abdicating, because of his Nazi sympathies. Wallis was the cover story. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo has been and continues to be a great leader. Misplaced Pages has not outgrown him; to express otherwise is to claim ignorance of Misplaced Pages and his leadership role thereof. Jimbo has done a great job at Misplaced Pages. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are many things you can accuse Kohs, Giano and GTD of, but "ignorance of Misplaced Pages and Jimbo's role in it" is, to say the least, not among them. – iridescent 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
What Misplaced Pages needs is for more and better leaders to step up to the plate and help lead; not for the few leaders we do have to stop helping. There is too little leadership going on, not too much. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- If/when me & a friend of mine, meet JW. We'll give him a Wayne's World salute (we're not worthy, we're not worthy). GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree that there's too little leadership going on, not too much; that said, I'd like for the community's leaders to be elected by the community, not inherited through tradition. Rule through tradition leaves little room for peaceful change. – Thomas H. Larsen 01:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
SIMPLY EXCELLENT
Mankind will recall you forever for whatever you have done to the Mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapdutta (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm quite sure it will. Thank you for sharing that with us. Giano (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Great of you to patronise an obvious non-native English speaker. Is that what you normally do? Because, to be honest, I'm beginning not to care too much. --Rodhullandemu 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Funny that, cos neither do I. Giano (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Simple answer: Go elsewhere. There must be a website somewhere that would tolerate arrogance. I'm not sure that this is such. --Rodhullandemu 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think this exactly the place to find egos on the make. Let's face it most of them in charge don't do much elseGiano (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest both of you see the "level-headed" message at the top of this page. Please, avoid dispute. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain the following?
One of the articles in your encyclopedia, 4chan, returns a legal complaint from Google when searching for it about child pornography. I do not wish to place myself in danger, and I would suggest that action be taken over the 4chan article because this has serious ramifications to people who might stumble across it. Thank you.-GemPiety (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I mean, go to a google search and it says "In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.". This must somehow be irresponsible.-GemPiety (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the fact that this is supposedly a featured article, one of your 'best articles', concerns me greatly.-GemPiety (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sexualised Content
G'day Jimbo - I recall that you've commented on some of these issues in the past, so thought you might be interested to take a look at this nascent proposal... personally I'm a fan of us applying a bit more rigour in deciding how to handle sexualised images, and would love to hear your thoughts :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
a suggestion to improve Misplaced Pages's credibility
I wrote this up a couple years back, but it wasn't brought up for discussion. See User:Kowloonese#credibility.2C_quality_control_etc.
IMO, an expert's approval mechanism can bring credibility to an approved snapshot of wikipedia without affecting daily activity of the original wikipedia.
Let me know what you think about this idea.
Kowloonese (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Signature
How do I change my signature, because whenever I put what I want in my preferences it says "invalid html tags"? P.S. I want it to look like this Iamawesome800 THANKS!--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)