Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info
Eph 3:21 Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, World without end. Amen.
Eph 3:21 ..ipsi gloria in ecclesia et in Christo Iesu in omnes generationes saeculi saeculorum amen.
Saeculi = Ages.
Saeculorum=Secular=World, Worldly, World w/o God.
Godless New World Order...you know separation of church & state...No 10 Commandments.
Latin puts the Noun before the Adjective...so Novus Ordo Seclorum means New World Order...It is Masonic for One World Government under Satan the All Seeing Pagan Eye ON the TOWER OF BABEL & the French Masons gave us the Worlds Largest Pagan Goddess the Statue of Liberty in the BIG APPLE & the next cities water tower reads Babylon New York...the Mystery Babylon mentioned in the Holy Bible (KJV).
> Yup. I intend to use the arbcom ruling to its full extent.
> Basically, you will behave civilly or you will find yourself able to
> make roughly one edit a day. And I will be watching your
> contributions carefully.
Well you've setttled any doubts about whether or not admins get off on
the "little" power that they have, congratulations. It's too bad we
don't have equally immature, higher up admins to do the same to you
when you act uncivilly. There's also the irony of this action you're
taking here being a violation of WP:POINT.
I just love the double standard here. Apparently unless an admin does
something extreme, they should not only not get blocked, but they
should keep their admin status. But if I make anything that could be
construed as a "personal attack", I get blocked. It's kind of strange
that the admins are held to a _lower_ standard than the users are.
P.S. Reply to the list, not just me. You don't see them mailed
through the list yet because they haven't been through moderation yet.
----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------
I accidentally deleted this from the moderation queue, so am forwarding it
by hand as wikien-l is an official conduit for complaints about blocking.
This is not meant to imply that I attribute any substance to this complaint
whatsoever, and personally I would say "cheers to Bishonen, keep up the
good work." But anyway.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder(a)gummibears.nu>
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:09:43 -0400
Subject: bishonen exercises abuse of admin power
I was just recently given a temporary block for all of wikipedia by
bishonen for comments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_transgendered_people
Of course, that block was based on an injunction in an RfA that she
was a party to (as a person filing a complaint, not an arbitrator).
It's a conflict of interest and she definitely over stepped bounds
there. This reeks of personal vendetta and given her personal history
of irrational behavior and personal dislike for me it's not
surprising
Not only that, her block was based on non-existant "personal attacks."
Calling someone a hypocrite or a liar has already been determined to
not constitute a personal attack, however she has decided to override
already existing Wikipedia policy and invent her own.
Another issue I'd like to address is regarding my RfA (since I can't
comment in it due to being blocked).
1. The admins invented a new Wikipedia policy on the spot, that IRC
logs can't be used. Their reference is a meta article which is not
part of Wikipedia policy.
Not just that, but they violate their newly
invented policy by using evidence from IRC against me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Njyoder/Pro…
2. Just for emphasis, there is not wikipedia policy against posting
IRC logs, so that can't be used against me. Not just that, but it's
totally and utterly irrelevent to the reason the RfA was created--for
my actions on the gender articles. The whole thing involving Bishonen
existed over about 2 days and ended over 3 weeks before the RfA, but
it was drug up again for the sole purpose of using it as "evidence"
against me. I pointed this out in the RfA, but the arbs ignored it
completely because it didn't support the conclusion that they wanted
to reach.
3. There are "findings of fact" that include disagreement over my
edits on pages. A disagreement is not grounds for an RfA at all.
4. I wasn't ever using personal attacks. The arbitrators
deliberately refused to define personal attacks since they knew that
if they did try to define them in a way that made me a violator,
they'd end up being guilty themselves. If I'm going to be accused of
using personal attacks, they better damn well define them, because the
policy page on it and other disinterested third parties don't consider
accusing someone of lying to be a personal attack.
5. I was said to not have cited sources in the "findings of fact,"
and yet there was _no_ evidence of this. You'd think they'd at least
provide a link to something I didn't cite a source for. I didn't
insert new information into the gender article.
I removed information because some of it was wrong (which I did cite
sources for), some of it was _obviously_ POV, some of it was totally
incoherent and some of it I was asking for a source for. The only
thing I removed for reasons of factual accuracy was the etmology, for
which I did quote an external source regarding the etymology of it.
So it's a lie to say that I didn't cite anything.
To say it's a "finding of fact" that I didn't cite sources for things
I removed makes no sense. That's not how wikipedia works. According
to them, if I remove or add anything I have to cite a source, but if
AlexR and Axon add or remove anything, they don't need any citations
at all.
That's completely backwards, if something in an article is contested
and no source is provided, it is standard wikipedia procedure to
remove it until a source can be provided.
This makes even less sense because neither Axon nor AlexR (the main
parties to the dispute) never accused me of violating the rules to no
cite sources. That was something added in by an arbitrator on a whim
for no reason.
I don't even understand their complaints, I removed a lot of very bad,
non-encyclopedic garbage from it and as a result now two people are
working on completely new versions of the article.
6. "2.5) Njyoder seems to lack insight into the complexities involved
in crafting an adequate article regarding gender; his editing style
could be fairly characterized as ham-handed [38] and [39]."
Some of these bullet points shouldn't even exist. Personal opinion of
my understanding and editing style aren't even relevent and yet 3
aribtrators voted on this. If these arbs weren't biased, it should
have received _zero_ votes. I'll note that most of these points were
added by one arb, even though most of them, even from the standpoint
of the complaintants, weren't actually relevent. It's trully sad, he
could have completely fabricated numerous accusations, like saying I
was making racist remarks and inserted it as a bullet point and none
of the other arbitrators would have bothered to check if it was true
and would have just voted "support."
7. They are disputing my arguing style in quite a few bullet points
and are arguing that I should be banned on the basis that they
basically disagree with my viewpoint. It makes no sense to reprimand
me for persisting with my argument when those arguing against me were
persisting with theirs just as much. It's also not against any
wikipedia policies to stand firm in your views, if it were, there
would be a lot of problems.
Also, they engage in a strawman by quite literally, out of my entire
argument, just quoting a part of a single sentence. they got my
"basic argument" entirely wrong and I'm betting you the arbitrators
didn't even bother reading through it, they just took the summary
given by Axon and AlexR even though I actually gave a summary myself.
8. "Extensive attempts by other editors to explain that the talk page
was not an appropriate venue for extended discussion of the "truth" of
a particular reference were ineffective."
and "The establishment of truth is not one of the purposes of
Wikipedia which merely attributes the knowledge it contains to
published sources."
These are just plain ridiculous points. Talk pages most certainly
exist to discuss the validity of things included in an article.
Wikipedia does not exist to simply parrot any arbitrary source that
someone decided to pick. Of course, it appears the arbitrators voted
to suggest that you should just blindly take any information from any
source and it's perfectly ok as long as you cite it.
Not just that, but that's not what was even being contested on the
talk pages. Most people arguing against me weren't arguing that it
shouldn't be discussed on the talk pages, they were arguing that the
source was actually valid and thusly should be included.
You'll also note that this is another example of inventing a policy on
the spot. Why don't the arbitrators put up a vote for this as a
policy and see how well it goes over? I guarantee you that it will be
shot down quickly, because it's absurd.
Following their logic, you can include any information from any source
in a Wikipedia article. As long as it's a published source, nothing
else matters.
This wasn't a quotation of popular opinion either, this was a matter
of statistical fact as stated by the Wikipedia article. It stated
something from the Kinsey Report as fact, even though it was factually
incorrect. In what strange bizzarro wikipedia is incorrect
information allowed to be included simply because it's from a popular
published source? I guess this means now I can start taking
statistics from random popular websites that were clearly pulled out
of thin air.
----
Anyway, as you can see the arbitrators are inventing new policies,
refusing to address my concerns, not reading what happened and are
fabricating things which never happened.
They're proposing a ban on all gender/sexuality related articles. I've
only made two significant edits on any gender/sexuality articles
(gender and bisexuality). If you include talk pages, I've edited a
total of 3 pages for which there is dispute: gender, bisexuality and
third gender.
This doesn't make any sense to me, I'm basically being banned from all
sexuality articles for removing a single paragraph (with strong
evidence backing my reason doing so--I cited NUMEROUS expert sources
and a primary source) from a single sexuality article.
I'm also being banned for removing POV, incoherent sentences and bad
information from a single gender related article.
How the heck does a year long ban make sense here? This is a bad case
of the arbs trying to enforce their own opinions. Heck, at least one
of the arbs on the case (ambi) is part of the LGBT Wikipedia notice
board that tries to regulate articles, so it's pretty obvious she
wants to keep those articles as-is.
THE FOLLOWING IS JUST A RANT AND IS NOT DIRECTLY RELEVENT, NO NEED TO
READ.
I don't really care so much for editing the article so much as I care
about the absolutely astounding level of intellectual dishonesty going
on here. They don't like someone challenging obvious POV and
extremist LGBT propaganda (yes, I can provide direct links, if
necessary, to the parties trying to defend obvious POV).
They are trying desperately to make as large a number possible of
Wikipedia articles on every tiny little subject concerning LGBT things
and the articles themselves read as if they are taken straight out of
a LGBT book for a queer studies course, except a lot more poorly
written. I imagine a couple years from now they'll have an article
for everything, even things like
Gay_rights_and_the_views_of_third_baptist_church_in_podunk,Utah.
I just am so surprised how sheltered some of these sub-cliques are,
because you know damn well their the types are college undergrads
(with mommy and daddy paying their way), they just discovered they had
a large group of people they can whine to and have validate heir
feelings and biases.
I think a few years down the road, when they start meeting those of
the gobbleteequa type outside of school, they'll realize what pansies
they are and that most gobbleteequa aren't whiny academic PC cowards
who have no understanding of the real world. Yes, that's right,
you're not actually representative of the group, you're representative
of just the extremists. You're theoreticians and idealists. And you
know the irony of it all? It's almost always the most privileged who
are whining about being underprivileged. The ones who actually ARE
underprivileged get pissed off at these types for that very reason and
as a result become more distanced from movements (they scared the less
privileged ones off).
The one example that I always like to think of is how the rich white
female feminists always try to speak for all women and then have they
audacity to privilege check middle and lower class black women when
said black women call the rich white ones on their BS. This is
paralleled in all of the gobbleteequa groups as well and is truly sad.
:-(
----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------
Or instead, we could give the trolls what they
actually deserve and kick them off the list, that way
we don't have the list overwhelmed with troll posts
that we have to pick through to get to the actual
discussions here. Turning the other cheek only goes
so far.
Dan Grey dangrey at gmail.com:
Why don't people just give trolls what they deserve?
Do us all a favour, and when people post here only
looking for
trouble, give them what they deserve - the silent
treatment.
Dan
On 02/07/05, Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Calling someone a "fascist hag" is not a crime
either,
> but it is obnoxious namecalling that should not
belong
> on this list. We shouldn't tolerate such trollish
> behavior in the name of "dissent".
>
> Geoffrey Bell truetheatertype at gmail.com:
>
> Wait wait wait...I haven't been watching this list
> like a hawk, and maybe
> we're talking about two different people, but I
don't
> see any trolls, only a
> dissenter. And dissent is not a crime, of course.
>
> On 7/1/05, Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can we please remove the anonymous troll from this
> list?
> >
>
--- wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power (David
> Gerard)
> 2. Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs
> (Fred Bauder)
> 3. Live 8 and the In the news box (Dan Grey)
> 4. Re: Personal attacks and low EQs (Fred Bauder)
> 5. Re: SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power (Sean
> Barrett)
> 6. Re: Personal attacks and low EQs (Jerome
> Jamnicky)
> 7. Re: Personal attacks and low EQs (Timwi)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 01:37:06 +1000
> From: fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard)
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin
> Power
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <20050702153706.GH7309(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> I have a dream ... of a wikien-l that isn't the
> [[Thomas Crapper]] Memorial
> Sewer for en:. One that has something vaguely to do
> with writing an
> encyclopedia.
>
> New members of the list now start moderated. This is
> a major PITA for your
> power-crazed fascist list admins (to be addressed
> henceforth as Dear
> Leader), but that's the problem with persistent
> trolling.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 09:46:52 -0600
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low
> EQs
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <79149CF7-ADE9-4123-802E-EAB4A51A1854(a)ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
> delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> > Date: July 2, 2005 9:45:36 AM MDT
> > To: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder(a)energon.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low
> EQs
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2005, at 8:32 AM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
> >
> >>> "You are a hypocrite" is a personal attack. "You
> seem to apply a
> >>> lenient standard to yourself and a strict
> standard to others" is a
> >>> description of behavior, particularly if you
> cite examples.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Those mean the exact same thing! You just gave
> the definition of a
> >> hypocrite. You're making a meaningless
> distinction here and I
> >> seriously doubt you follow your own logic. Are
> you saying you've
> >> never called someone a troll or accused them of
> using sock puppets?
> >> Can you honestly say that you've been using a
> very long-winded,
> >> politically correct version of a troll
> accusation?
> >>
> >> And I do give examples, but you seem to keep
> ignoring that repeatedly
> >> because it suits you to ignore it.
> >>
> >> You REALLY do not have the authority to make an
> arbitrary distinction
> >> like that as it's outlined in *zero* policies.
> >
> > What it says, at
> [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Don.27t_do_it]]
> >
>
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Don.
>
> > 27t_do_it) is "Comment on content, not on the
> contributor." Let's
> > suppose you are trying to add content and someone
> is reverting it
> > on the basis that it is "personal research" "POV"
> "unsourced" or
> > whatever. You look at their edits and find they
> are doing the same
> > thing or a number of other things equally bad and
> are vigorously
> > defending their actions behind a smokescreen of
> righteousness. This
> > is all publicly visible on Wikipedia and can be
> demonstrated by
> > diffs. Going to a person's talk page or the talk
> page of an article
> > and discussing this double standard is not a
> personal attack. A
> > bald statement that someone is a "hypocrite" is.
> >
> > I have sinned and doubtless will sin again;
> however, I think I'm
> > doing better; partly because looking at all the
> ways people get it
> > wrong and serving as a spokesman for Wikipedia
> policies does get me
> > to thinking about my own behavior. When you find
> yourself about to
> > do something you have banned someone for you can
> sometimes pay
> > enough attention that you don't do it.
> >
> > As to authority, doubtless Wikipedia policies can
> be expressed more
> > clearly, doubtless decisions of the Arbitration
> Committee could be
> > both plainer and more comprehensive, but Jimbo and
> through him the
> > Arbitration Committee do have authority to make
> reasonable
> > decisions. Please keep in mind that you are only
> being limited in
> > the range of voluntary work you chose to do on a
> particular website.
> >
> > This politically correct business is worth a
> comment. If I succeed
> > in following Wikipedia policy or correctly
> restating it I am in
> > some sense "correct" in that I have followed the
> "party line." That
> > is what I am supposed to do. I am not in a state
> of sin because I
> > describe in detail behavior which could be
> summarized as an
> > invidious characterization.
> >
> > Fred
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:48:58 +0100
> From: Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Live 8 and the In the news box
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <cfe1dfe1050702084871d548ce(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> It would be nice if any admins reading this could
> update the In the news box:
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Oh give me a fucking break and stop lying.
"If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views."
Been there. Seen that. Once you have "moderated" someone, they're never
heard from again. It doesn't matter if they send a one-line "I agree with
user X" email, it NEVER fucking makes it through moderation.
This is ALL about censorship. You do it solely to ensure that dissent is
never heard, the exact same thing you did to Marmot for dissenting about the
way Admins cover up each other's crimes.
I'll freely admit that YOU could construe what I said as personal attacks.
You know what? They were also the truth. Just as what I'm saying NOW is the
truth, but you'll try to ban me for it anyways.
That's why I'm anonymous. Because I don't trust 90% of this list's
membership not to go hunting through the Wikipedia userbase trying to find
my account and block it out of spite.
Civility will be had when you start behaving civilly yourselves. The way you
have treated Yoder, the way you have treated Marmot, and the way you treated
Kurita77 were anything BUT civil.
Oh wait, I forgot. Policy only fucking matters when there's an admin
wielding it. And heaven forbid that a user point out when the Admins are
acting like a bunch of power-mad thugs, or even come to this list with a
good-faith request to get their account back.
"I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
requests."
You've already destroyed community participation on the mailing list, so I
don't see how I could do any more damage than you've already done. Like I
just said, you'll get my respect back when you stop acting like a bunch of
power-mad thugs and start acting like Wikipedians again.
A.Nony Mouse
>From: Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power
>Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:57:17 +0800
>
>For the public record, this user is not "booted off the list". Rather,
>he or she is mdoerated, with postings to be approved by moderators.
>Here is an email I sent to this anonymous user:
>
>----
>
>You (and your other two accounts) have been moderated on WikiEN-l
>because you were rude and abusive to others. The WikiEN-l mailing list
>information page is at the following URL:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>You must have seen this page to subscribe your accounts to the mailing
>list. You will notice down the bottom it says "[u]sers who are
>extremely disruptive or uncivil may be banned from the mailing list by
>the [mailing list] administrators". As I am sure you will freely
>concede, your messages were very rude towards certain other
>subscribers of the mailing list. Here are a couple of examples from
>your messages:
>
>"you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways"
>"Give Gerard my regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him
>long enough to speak."
>"running around like a complete fat fool"
>"you idiots spend your time jerking off"
>"power-mad cretins"
>
>In view of this extreme lack of civility on your part, you are hereby
>moderated on this mailing list. Any messages you now send to the
>mailing list will be held for approval by one of the list's
>moderators. If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
>they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
>what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
>conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views.
>
>If, however, you continue to create new anonymous accounts (we're up
>to 3 now), I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
>approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
>participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
>undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
>requests.
>
>~Mark Ryan
>WikiEN-l Mailing List Administrator
>
>
>
>
>On 7/2/05, A. Nony Mouse <tempforcomments3(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Whoops! Looks like somebody didn't like the truth told of them, they
>booted
> > me off the list for speaking truth to power.
> >
> > You wanted abuse of power? There you have it JT.
> >
> > Seems to happen a lot around here and on Wikipedia. Speak truth to the
> > circle-jerk of power mad fools known as Admins, get booted.
> >
> > Ambi is the Red Queen of arbcom - running around like a complete fat
>fool,
> > screaming "Orf Wiv is 'ead" whenever a case comes before her. She gets
>some
> > sadistic pleasure from it I'm sure.
> >
> > The rest of ArbCom isn't any better. Never do they actually talk to
>anyone
> > involved in a case. Never do they let little things like facts get in
>the
> > way of their witch hunts.
> >
> > Ambi posts up a message that her say-so ought to be considered basis
>enough
> > for banning Marmot, whose only crime was exposing the Adminship
> > self-protection racket for what it was, and you all just sit there
> > applauding.
> >
> > I think you proved Marmot's case FOR him.
> >
> > An arbitration request comes up and someone adds an extra name to it,
>and
> > all of a sudden the original name on the arbitration request isn't even
> > MENTIONED in the final verdict and an innocent user who (and I checked
>the
> > log to be sure) has not used a single naughty word is banned.
> >
> > Yoder gets caught in an infinite ban loop by an Admin who was involved
>in
> > his case, and you idiots spend your time jerking off saying "well you
> > shouldn't have crossed an admin" and calling him names rather than
>paying
> > attention to what was going on. And you're STILL DOING IT.
> >
> > And then there's what you did a couple days ago to Kurita77. A new user
> > comes in, reads the tutorials, makes edits, and you ban him for the
>crime of
> > knowing too much? I was watching that. Poor kid didn't do anything wrong
>but
> > you spent your time harassing him, one of you sends him crank emails,
>and
> > before you know it we have a user screaming profanities.
> >
> > Not his fault. YOUR fault.
> >
> > There's a reason I post these sentiments anonymously. It's because you
> > power-mad cretins would like nothing more than to get ahold of anyone
>who
> > dares to speak the truth about you around here. You'd ban my Wikipedia
> > account just out of spite if you knew who I was. And I know you WAY too
>well
> > for you to claim otherwise, JT.
> >
> > Come on. Prove me wrong. Show some sense. Show for even ONE SECOND that
>you
> > actually respect the policies and procedures of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Biting the newbies, attacking anyone who's not part of your inner circle
> > jerk, and insulting new users once you've bitten them isn't doing you
>any
> > favors.
> >
> > A. Nony Mouse.
> >
> > >>
> > >and your a sockpuppet but that's beyond the point, I would be
>interested in
> > >seeing an iota of proof of any of these accusations, that would support
> > >your case, and the case of the longwinded Nathan J. Yoder much better
>than
> > >these unceasing tireless rants.
> > >
> > >-Jtkiefer
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
Create a cute, funny or sexy Meego - click for more info!
http://meegos.msn.ie
Sorry, I appear to have forgotten to send this reply to Anonymouse to
the actual mailing list, and instead sent it to Anonymouse alone. I
note that I haven't received a reply to it in the 16 hours since I
sent it to him or her.
-----
First off, who is Marmot? Who is Kurita77? I don't know. I'm the list
administrator; I make sure it is used appropriately. I'm not here to
make judgments about the actions of people on Wikipedia; I'm here to
facilitate meaningful and constructive discussion.
You were incredibly rude. As a result, you were moderated, but not
banned. You are still free to send emails to the list, and, like I
said, if they are civil then they will fairly quickly reach the list.
This email of yours I am replying to now was not civil, and would not
have got through. Please try a little harder next time to be civil. As
for your claim that moderated users never get heard from once they get
placed under moderation, maybe you don't realise that NJ Yoder is also
currently moderated and the last few emails from him that have arrived
on the mailing list have gone through the moderation process and been
approved by the mailing list administrators. It's not what you say
that's important to me, it's how you say it.
You claim that your alleged personal attacks were the truth. So you're
saying it's the absolute truth that one Wikipedian is a fat hag who
constantly fellates another Wikipedian? I'm sorry, but that is so out
of line that I do not accept any arguments of censorship or freedom of
speech or anything like that as persuasive. If you have a point to
make, it is more than possible to make it without personally attacking
people in that manner.
As for your worries of people hunting you down and blocking you on
Wikipedia for what is said here, you shouldn't worry about that. As
far as I am concerned, although WikiEN-l is expressly *about*
Wikipedia, it is entirely separate *from* Wikipedia, and anything
which goes on one should not have a bearing on the user's
participation in the other. In this way, a user who gets blocked on
Wikipedia proper is not automatically banned from the Mailing List,
and vice-versa. Having said that, the fact that the mailing list is
independent means that in *extreme* cases action must be taken in
order to stop spam, abuse or inane repetition. In my view, yours is
the second most extreme case I have seen in the last year of being the
administrator of this mailing list. However, since that last case I
have taken a more liberal approach and instead moderated you instead
of banning you from subscribing to the mailing list outright. This is
because I see considerable value in what you say, and want you to help
thresh out the discussion, just not without abusively kicking other
people in the guts in the process.
So if you would please get over the accusations of thuggery and
censorship on my part, and back on topic in a civil manner, hopefully
we can actually get somewhere and maybe even lift the veil of
moderation.
~Mark Ryan
WikiEN-l Mailing List Administrator
On 7/2/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh give me a fucking break and stop lying.
>
> "If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
> they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
> what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
> conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views."
>
> Been there. Seen that. Once you have "moderated" someone, they're never
> heard from again. It doesn't matter if they send a one-line "I agree with
> user X" email, it NEVER fucking makes it through moderation.
>
> This is ALL about censorship. You do it solely to ensure that dissent is
> never heard, the exact same thing you did to Marmot for dissenting about the
> way Admins cover up each other's crimes.
>
> I'll freely admit that YOU could construe what I said as personal attacks.
> You know what? They were also the truth. Just as what I'm saying NOW is the
> truth, but you'll try to ban me for it anyways.
>
> That's why I'm anonymous. Because I don't trust 90% of this list's
> membership not to go hunting through the Wikipedia userbase trying to find
> my account and block it out of spite.
>
> Civility will be had when you start behaving civilly yourselves. The way you
> have treated Yoder, the way you have treated Marmot, and the way you treated
> Kurita77 were anything BUT civil.
>
> Oh wait, I forgot. Policy only fucking matters when there's an admin
> wielding it. And heaven forbid that a user point out when the Admins are
> acting like a bunch of power-mad thugs, or even come to this list with a
> good-faith request to get their account back.
>
> "I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
> approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
> participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
> undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
> requests."
>
> You've already destroyed community participation on the mailing list, so I
> don't see how I could do any more damage than you've already done. Like I
> just said, you'll get my respect back when you stop acting like a bunch of
> power-mad thugs and start acting like Wikipedians again.
>
> A.Nony Mouse
>
> >From: Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
> ><wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power
> >Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:57:17 +0800
> >
> >For the public record, this user is not "booted off the list". Rather,
> >he or she is mdoerated, with postings to be approved by moderators.
> >Here is an email I sent to this anonymous user:
> >
> >----
> >
> >You (and your other two accounts) have been moderated on WikiEN-l
> >because you were rude and abusive to others. The WikiEN-l mailing list
> >information page is at the following URL:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >You must have seen this page to subscribe your accounts to the mailing
> >list. You will notice down the bottom it says "[u]sers who are
> >extremely disruptive or uncivil may be banned from the mailing list by
> >the [mailing list] administrators". As I am sure you will freely
> >concede, your messages were very rude towards certain other
> >subscribers of the mailing list. Here are a couple of examples from
> >your messages:
> >
> >"you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways"
> >"Give Gerard my regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him
> >long enough to speak."
> >"running around like a complete fat fool"
> >"you idiots spend your time jerking off"
> >"power-mad cretins"
> >
> >In view of this extreme lack of civility on your part, you are hereby
> >moderated on this mailing list. Any messages you now send to the
> >mailing list will be held for approval by one of the list's
> >moderators. If you construct your messages with meaning and civility,
> >they will be readily accepted onto the mailing list, regardless of
> >what you are arguing. This moderation is to maintain respectful
> >conversation on the mailing list, not to censor your views.
> >
> >If, however, you continue to create new anonymous accounts (we're up
> >to 3 now), I may be forced to make mailing list subscriptions by
> >approval only, which would have the effect of hindering community
> >participation in the mailing list. As I'm sure you appreciate how
> >undesirable an outcome that would be, I'm sure you will respect my
> >requests.
> >
> >~Mark Ryan
> >WikiEN-l Mailing List Administrator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 7/2/05, A. Nony Mouse <tempforcomments3(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Whoops! Looks like somebody didn't like the truth told of them, they
> >booted
> > > me off the list for speaking truth to power.
> > >
> > > You wanted abuse of power? There you have it JT.
> > >
> > > Seems to happen a lot around here and on Wikipedia. Speak truth to the
> > > circle-jerk of power mad fools known as Admins, get booted.
> > >
> > > Ambi is the Red Queen of arbcom - running around like a complete fat
> >fool,
> > > screaming "Orf Wiv is 'ead" whenever a case comes before her. She gets
> >some
> > > sadistic pleasure from it I'm sure.
> > >
> > > The rest of ArbCom isn't any better. Never do they actually talk to
> >anyone
> > > involved in a case. Never do they let little things like facts get in
> >the
> > > way of their witch hunts.
> > >
> > > Ambi posts up a message that her say-so ought to be considered basis
> >enough
> > > for banning Marmot, whose only crime was exposing the Adminship
> > > self-protection racket for what it was, and you all just sit there
> > > applauding.
> > >
> > > I think you proved Marmot's case FOR him.
> > >
> > > An arbitration request comes up and someone adds an extra name to it,
> >and
> > > all of a sudden the original name on the arbitration request isn't even
> > > MENTIONED in the final verdict and an innocent user who (and I checked
> >the
> > > log to be sure) has not used a single naughty word is banned.
> > >
> > > Yoder gets caught in an infinite ban loop by an Admin who was involved
> >in
> > > his case, and you idiots spend your time jerking off saying "well you
> > > shouldn't have crossed an admin" and calling him names rather than
> >paying
> > > attention to what was going on. And you're STILL DOING IT.
> > >
> > > And then there's what you did a couple days ago to Kurita77. A new user
> > > comes in, reads the tutorials, makes edits, and you ban him for the
> >crime of
> > > knowing too much? I was watching that. Poor kid didn't do anything wrong
> >but
> > > you spent your time harassing him, one of you sends him crank emails,
> >and
> > > before you know it we have a user screaming profanities.
> > >
> > > Not his fault. YOUR fault.
> > >
> > > There's a reason I post these sentiments anonymously. It's because you
> > > power-mad cretins would like nothing more than to get ahold of anyone
> >who
> > > dares to speak the truth about you around here. You'd ban my Wikipedia
> > > account just out of spite if you knew who I was. And I know you WAY too
> >well
> > > for you to claim otherwise, JT.
> > >
> > > Come on. Prove me wrong. Show some sense. Show for even ONE SECOND that
> >you
> > > actually respect the policies and procedures of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Biting the newbies, attacking anyone who's not part of your inner circle
> > > jerk, and insulting new users once you've bitten them isn't doing you
> >any
> > > favors.
> > >
> > > A. Nony Mouse.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >and your a sockpuppet but that's beyond the point, I would be
> >interested in
> > > >seeing an iota of proof of any of these accusations, that would support
> > > >your case, and the case of the longwinded Nathan J. Yoder much better
> >than
> > > >these unceasing tireless rants.
> > > >
> > > >-Jtkiefer
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Create a cute, funny or sexy Meego - click for more info!
> http://meegos.msn.ie
>
>
Can we please remove the anonymous troll from this list?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
In a message dated 7/2/2005 10:07:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik_moeller(a)gmx.de writes:
10% of active users? You want hundreds of people playing games and doing
nothing else before you consider intervening? Absolutely no way. For the
reasons I cited, late intervention is not an option -- particularly
since those 10% will then become vocal opponents of any such
intervention, citing precedent and lack of consensus. The problem needs
to be stopped at its very root now. You have presented no single
plausible argument why this is not so.
Thank you, Erik, for intervening in this. I support your position
wholeheartedly. To wait until this gets out of hand before attempting to intervene is
not only ridiculous--it endangers Wikipedia.
Danny
Phyzome threw together a mailing list in May of the people who came to
the East Coast meetup in DC, to discuss a potential US Wikimedia
chapter. If you are interested in the subject, don't worry, you
haven't missed anything; there have only been one or two posts to the
list so far.
There is now a public mailing list, WikimediaUS-l, for these
discussions. You can sign up here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Cheers,
SJ
> The Apollo moon landing article is mostly about
> what is most widely considered by *relevant authorities*
> to be true -- it doesn't matter if 60% of the world
> population doesn't believe it happened that way if 99%
> of scientists do, in my opinion, as this sort of knowledge
> is firmly within the domain of scientists to provide the
> best answers on. So they get the "unmarked" POV.
Well put.
> [I]t would be best if someone with authority
> (cough cough, Jimbo) would put out a decree saying,
> "Wikipedia should strive for NPOV as much as
> possible, but if there are questions as to which
> direction to lean in terms of very subtle unmarked
> POV, it should lean towards the POV of the relevant
> scientific community."
Seconded. You have a flair for understatement.
> The need to have some meaning indicates we will
> have to perhaps sometimes have some statements
> which are less neutral than others.
Beautifully put - I think I'll quote this statement
on my user page if you don't mind :)
> [T]he question of whether certain aspects of homeopathy (not the
> diluting part, but the other "like helps like" part) is unclear.
As long as you end with diluting your solution so there's
not a single molecule left of the original substance the
other aspects of your methodology are fairly irrelevant to
the efficacy of the results.
I will have to admit that a small part of the homeopathic
"remedies" you can buy are not so diluted. And again, a
small part of *those* may include some active ingredients.
So, some people start with active ingredients, don't dilute
them out of existence and still call it homeopathy - presumably
to make use of homeopathy's "good name". I'd argue that it isn't
really homeopathy but I'll admit that it confuses the issue. The
"like helps like" theory, as it is applied by homeopaths, is
pseudoscience. Perhaps not quite as egregious an example as
"water can remember stuff you put in it", but still pseudoscience.
I still maintain that classifying homeopathy as pseudo-science
makes Wikipedia a more useful encyclopædia. (Marginally of course.)
Regards,
Haukur