User talk:EricBarbour

You want to fix this "encyclopedia"? I posted some of the requirements on Wikipedia Review many months ago. For reference, I will repost and expand them here.

1. Jimbo Wales has to leave. He should turn over the server admin passwords to a professional, responsible IT person who is salaried by the WMF.

2. Said IT professional has to make some major changes to the MediaWiki system currently hosting WP. Changes would include but not be limited to:

  a. BLPs must be heavily restricted and protected, or better yet, removed entirely.

  b. A proper set of guidelines for editing and administration should be enacted AND ADHERED TO. 
     This would include limitations on the powers of all administrators, and requirements for editors to be
     personally responsible for whatever they do on the wiki. No more IP-address editing. Anyone seeking
     to write for WP must apply and be approved. NO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18. "Assume good faith" my ass.

  c. ALL administrators must be elected by OPEN BALLOT, by the editors whose work they oversee.

3. Most critical to the project's success: certain untrustworthy administrators MUST BE REMOVED and banned from WP PERMANENTLY. This would include but not be limited to:

   FT2
   Durova
   David Gerard
   JzG
   MONGO
   Jayjg
   Elonka
   Jaakobou
   Raul654

Either make drastic changes, or Wikipedia will continue to decline.

Eric Barbour (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI:

I am so sick of this "encyclopedia" and its lunatic "administrators" that I won't be checking this userpage very often in the future. Also don't intend to add any articles on tubes, or anything else.

If Mr. Wales wants any more of my knowledge, he can fucking PAY ME FOR IT.

Oh, and btw, if anyone posts one of my old VTV articles on Wikipedia, I will tell Charlie that Wikipedia is pirating his content. (He'll probably threaten to sue the Wikimedia people.)

If you wish to talk to me, try Wikipedia Review instead. Far more honest.

(PS: I use Scroogle every day.)

--Eric Barbour (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for outing a fellow wikipedian offsite. You are probably aware of who it was. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not supported by the blocking policy. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

On behalf of this user, I request that this out-of-policy block be undone. Blocking is not punishment, no matter how much we might hate someone for something they did. This is one of those times were we need to be emotionally detached in regards to administrative actions, so that personal matters do not influence those actions. Consensus on this issue has been to not block people based on off-wiki activity. And several others have already noted that the personal information that was relieved was not secretive, and easily accessible by other people. We don't bend the rules just because we don't like some people. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've been looking over the ANI post for the past hour now, and I feel I'm now in the position to decline this unblock. As far as I know, Eric posted material regarding another editor of en.wp on Wikipedia Review (the material has now been permanently removed to my knowledge) and I also believe that Eric requested (or at least he did) removed the offending content. Cordesat states in his comment to this thread that Eric communicated and came to some form of mutuality and it was decided to not take any further action. I've not been here for a very long time and my knowledge of policy may not extend to the same lengths as some others, but I feel that an unblock is not the 'correct' thing to do at this moment in time because of the severity of the actions Eric conducted, despite the fact that the information may have been available elsewhere on the internet or that agreements with the user involved may have prevailed. If you are unblocked however, I would agree that a long, but reduced blocked (to an appropriate length, whatever that may be, could probably be made clear at ANI in the following period of time) is pertinent and relevant to your particular recent past. Although this move is not reflected in policy (at least to not what I can find) I agree that this block was implemented correctly, with due cause and due attention, so I am not willing to unblock. I'd also like to point out that this measure was prevantative in my opinion, and further action (which you may have taken) could have caused even more disruption that this block is already having. Rudget (review) 12:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Looks like Moreschi unblocked you.

Request handled by: Rudget (review) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Now do you see why I quit? These people are INSANE.