http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=31674

Its obviously not a "hoax"; even if the people are lying about being administrators, that doesn't make it a "hoax". All you have to do is read the article on Jimbo Wales and you can see why Jimbo doesn't like it.

At least one user contributing there is an adminstrator, I can verify that much. "They're just a bunch of banned trolls" is getting to be a popular defense to legitimate criticism, however.

I think what Jimbo means is "As soon as we find out who they are, we are going to ban them, and label them forevermore as trolls".

Jimbo wrote "There's no evidence at all that there are any Wikipedia administrators associated with it."

I think that is the most public outright lie that Jimbo has ever been caught saying.

There is *considerable* evidence that administrators are associated with it. How the hell else are they rescuing the wikitext of deleting articles.

Hopefully some good will come from this. There are plenty of blind followers of Jimbo these days. But he makes mistakes and sometimes lies. Perhaps some people will wake up and think for themselves.

Yes. Had Jimbo said something along the lines of, "These rouge admins will pay - what they are doing is against the very idea of Wikipedia, and is destroying it" then some people might have respected him for it, and supported it. But what he did was to lie about it. He said that it was a hoax. And because he said that so publicly, I doubt he will ever live it down.