Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Just H 4

User:Just_H

run at Wed Feb 21 17:46:09 2007 GMT

Category talk:	2 Category:	1 Image talk:	10 Image:	14 Mainspace	2264 Portal talk:	2 Portal:	4 Talk:	361 Template talk:	1 Template:	163 User talk:	3290 User:	361 Wikipedia talk:	124 Wikipedia:	709 avg edits per article	1.37 earliest	01:47, 19 August 2006 number of unique articles	5319 total	7306 2006/8 	102 	2006/9 	93 	2006/10 	0 	2006/11 	94 	2006/12 	4209 	2007/1 	2061 	2007/2 	747

Hmm
Not sure editor review is going for, but if you're looking for feedback on your editing, I just noticed a comment of yours that makes me think you don't understand what "assume good faith" means. It does not mean "assume this person did the right thing". Friday (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to disagree on that, Friday. In my opinion, Assuming Good Faith means that "assuming the person did have good intentions unless there is proof or consensus to the contrary." I can understand the hypocrisy of not AGF-ing someone who doesn't AGF, but I'm talking about Jimbo's arbitrary use of power, not his desysopping of Yanksox. If the consensus of the community wanted Yanksox desysopped, or if policy stated that he should be desysopped, then i'd have no problem.


 * Perhaps he did do that in good faith, but he didn't do it in the right way, and two wrongs do not make a right. If I can find a way to keep the sentiment of my comment in AN/I while being more civil, please let me know and i'll change it immediately. Just Heditor review 01:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Then I'd say we agree on what AGF means. In the case at hand, I don't see any indication that Jimbo said Yanksox was deliberately doing the wrong thing.  Yanksox clearly thought he was in the right- I don't believe there's any real dispute about this.  There's also no dispute that he used his admin functions in a way that Jimbo considers very inappropriate.  So, Jimbo can easily make a rational decision to desysop pending further investigation, even while he assumes good faith on the part of Yanksox.  I think you were a bit off-base in your assertion that he did not assume good faith, and I think you were fairly rude about it too.
 * PS. (after seeing your edit) Since you see that it's possible Jimbo was assuming good faith, if I were you I'd strike that part of the comment.  If you disagree with the desysopping, go ahead and explain why, there's nothing wrong with that- I just thought the statement that Jimbo wasn't assuming good faith was ill-considered.  Friday (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think that it is possible that Jimbo could have did what he did in good faith, but that isn't conclusive, so assuming is all good and fine, but I can only focus on that certainty -- that Yanksox is a good contributor who made a mistake and is now potentially lost due in part to Jimbo's rash action.


 * If Jimbo apologizes and doesn't act and instead allows the community to act and follows its will, i'd have no problem striking out that comment. Until then, the best I can do is assume that he meant good faith until that likely crumbles, because the more I see him talk, the less I think he means well -- assuming good faith is only clear in instances where there is doubt about good faith, and good faith cannot be gained by coercion or force. Just Heditor review 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)