In a message dated 8/28/2005 9:43:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sean(a)epoptic.org writes:
I win! I got 11 of them; Danny got 9. Tabbed browsing is wonderful.
I came in second!
Danny
Dear All,
While the website said they are not open, I decided to take a peek and see
what they offered. So, for a test, I check out one of my articles [[Hero of
Belarus]]. Well, they have a version of the article, which was an edit done
on June 18 of this year
http://pseudodoxia.flawlesslogic.com/index.php?title=Hero_of_Belarus&action….
That is the only edit, surprisingly, that the history shows. So, for another
test, I clicked the talk page. They are using our templates alright, but no
images (like in the article). I scroll down and see my name, and sure
enough, my user page exists
(http://pseudodoxia.flawlesslogic.com/index.php?title=User:Zscout370). Well,
for other problems, I see the MediaWiki logo to the bottom. If there are
other things that worry you, just let me know and I could snoop around. But,
most likely, they took out site from the end of June, so this could have
been untouched for two months.
Regards,
Zachary Harden
I believe this should be added to Yuber's RFAR...
A. Nony Mouse
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yuber <yuber07(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2005 5:20 PM
Subject: Hey shithead
To: mousyme(a)gmail.com
How goes it?
In answer to the point of no legal threats -
The legal reference was to the fact that I was
being threatened with various forms of complaint that
would need defending against, by the AFF couple, at
the same time as the block began, thus obstructing my
actions. I don't see that as a legal threat to sue
anyone. The point is one should not have personal
feuds from outside Wikipedia brought into it, and if
any harrassment that would be a wrong in the world
outside Wikipedia had been effected during the block
which it had blocked me responding to, then that
clearly would have been a legal wrong, because
Wikipedia can'topt out of the world. It is not
isolated from the existence of those factors in
society as a whole.
e.g.in the argument about Nazism that's going on here,
you are taking a position against having Nazis' target
groups put in danger, and you are doing that because
it's an outside world legal issue.
"Wikipedia is not a democracy" needs quite a sharp
answer given to it. For the reason of keeping itself
in passably right relationship with the outside world,
i.e.readers, Wikipedia holds a policy on neutrality of
content. But the only way this policy genuinely exists
and is not a lie to readers, is if unconditionally
anyone who falls victim to crowd psychology can lay
claim to by right, not have to beg for by favour, any
measure that prevents a force of group numbers keeping
a bullying bias in place without having to find NPOV
ground. Now, "laying claim to" anything, inherently
means being entitled to anything.
This is actually a case-study in how society emerged
from the Middle Ages. To have any credible claim to
work by any principles, a society must show they
operate reliably fairly, and to do that means that
people are entitled to it. No way out of that. Hence,
as soon as any group tries to follow any policy code
like neutral POV, immediately people are entitled to
things and all things are not dependent on favour. So,
it stands absolutely logically proved:
either * it's wrong to say to any user ever "you're
not entitled to anything",
or * it's wrong to say to the public that Wikipedia
has a neutrality policy that works.
They can't both be right because anyone can see they
contradict each other head-on. At least one must be
wrong. Which is it?
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Hi,
This was an otherwise great article that as of late (the past 3 days)
has seen excessive edit warring and POV entries injected into it. Now
it has been (predictably) set up for removal as a featured article.
All of this is due to a single user, Tern, who continually injects this
passage
"These things illustrate how AS appears to correlate with child
authorship, hence a number of aspie communities have a concerned
awareness of the terrible injustice an aspie child can suffer when the
[http://www.phad-fife.org.uk/recognition.html chance to achieve child
authorship] is unfairly wrecked by high-handed [[school]] pressures."
and links to a very controversial site which nearly everyone else
describes as a "hate site", which other editors are editing anonymously
to avoid being listed on.
The link above in question is merely the rantings of a 14-year-old
person with Asperger's Syndrome who could not get a scifi book
published (and some other editors also claim that Tern is the person
referenced there)- so initially users (before I came in the debate)
just reverted the passage and noted on the talk page that it needed to
be reworded to be less POV and needed a better reference. However, as
evidenced by the history page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Asperger%27s_syndrome&curid=37556&action=history
Tern continued to revert back to his version many, many times against
MANY other editors who reached their 3 revert limit VERY quickly
(reverts often happen within 10 minutes!). So, out of desperation the
other users attempted to reword the passage in order to be less pov and
accurate, including myself - however, this was not enough and Tern
continued to revert back to his version.
Some of his edit summaries have been very hurtful and involve personal
attacks, such as
"sysops look how this rv of haters' vandalism gives new consensual
edits to both items"
"the last attack made here, the public can see is blatant personally
malicious bullying against wikpedia's rules and illegal in intending to
suppress prevention of child cruelty"
"creatively revert the llast absurdity, cos it's obviously just an
irresponsible personal insult and not verified"
Tern has also accused other editors of "hurting children" on the talk
page.
Tern has violated 3RR at least 3 times, and depending on how you want
to do the math many more times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/
3RR#User:Tern
I'm just a participant in the war and have reached my 3RR limit twice
already, and I've filed the 3RR against Tern. I WANT to work with the
user, but the user needs to calm down and discuss with more sense about
what he wants to do with the page, not just revert other good faith
editors. I've tried notifying two admins without response on the issue
also - and one admin - Zscout370 - simply voted to remove the article
from FA status and not get in the debate with the user.
I'm the one who brought the Autism article to its Featured Article
status and used this article as a reference more or less on how to do
it, so its really a pity to see this happen - I'd hate to see it lose
its status because of a war with one user.
Thanks,
RN
Attention other admins please. Foul play needing an
emergency response. (Asperger's Syndrome article.)
mailed to Redwolf: "I demand that you put up a vote
for deletion of the Aspies For Freedom article, on my
behalf, now, without waiting 48 hours, in the category
that it is a Vanity Article promoting its own writers'
business and is a totally personally biased view of
themselves. Unless you do this without claiming to
even have even in theory a shred of discretion not to,
I challenge your admin position as abused on biased
behalf of Wikipedia's name. Also that you post the
reply to Amy I just sent you, and relabel the
Asperger's article as neutrality disputed. I'm going
to copy this message onto wikien-l."
I have not broken 3RR, yet admin Redwolf has blocked
me for "user spam" for reinserting a link that has
been discussed in the talk page and that vandals keep
deleting. I reinstate it only because it is needed for
balance against another link, Aspies For Freedom, that
others keep reinstating and I had been seen as
censoring for trying the option of removing it. This
proves that this block on me, the second in 3 days, is
blatantly biased and bullying.
The opposing side of this argument have not been
blocked, yet they are elements associated with a
commmunity outside Wikipedia that has socially hurt
many people and that I had shown evidence of following
peopleto other forums to harrass them. The picture is
now strongly circumstantial that the entire crisis at
the Asperger's Syndrome article since Aug 18 has been
another case of this, in which case I am being
stalked. Now that's very serious. Stalked. With this
block forming part of it.
Blocking me in the stalkers' favour prevents me
answering on talk page some serious accusations that a
character called Amy from this group made against me
there 2 hours ago, and Redwolf has not put it there
for me. Aspies For Freedom also has its own Wiki
article. Its leader Gareth has threatened me with
"filing a DMCA notice to the Wikimedia foundation",
just before a block on me begins whose timing prevents
me acting to oppose this - except by posting here.
On the evidence of this campaign and the disruption of
Wikipedia by it, I propose the Aspies For Freedom
article for deletion as a Vanity Article, + in these
circumstances of foul play I must be legally entitled
to have this proposal filed right now, not with a 48
hour wait.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
So...
- Amalekite wasn't banned for non NPOV (apparently there's no
evidence of his/her non-NPOV edits)
- Amalekite wasn't banned for being a neo-Nazi (the consensus is that
we can't block people of any particular political/religious
persuasion)
- Amalekite wasn't banned for disagreeing with me about group X of
society (the consensus seems to be that people are entitled to their
viewpoints no matter how warped)
(I'm glad we got that out of the way -- hard as it was to put aside)
But
- Amalekite was banned for making a threat to disrupt Wikipedia (even
though this was off of Wikipedia)
Jay, if this user was to write on the Stormfront noticeboard "Sorry
guys I've changed my mind. Let's edit our own encyclopaedia and leave
Wikipedia alone." would you unblock him?
Lisa
[[User:Lisathurston]]
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:59:40 -0400
> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
>
> >From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com>
> >
> >Many articles contain '''cited''' POV, but when they are unbalanced,
> >or express POV in the narrative, they violate NPOV. Were getting off
> >topic here. The point is admins are not allowed to ban others based on
> >differences of POV, because that violates both the letter AND the
> >spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV.
>
> Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned.
>
> Jay.
I thought you were making a reference to my statement
jokingly advocating illegal actions against Nazis,
since you quoted it and posted your comment directly
below it. I apologize for misinterpreting your
comment.
If you want to try to get me banned for "hate speech"
against Nazis, go ahead, I don't care. I have plenty
of unpleasant things to say about them, but I'd just
be violating [[WP:POINT]] to rattle them off. I find
the idea that it's offensive to hate Nazis so
mindboggling that I just don't know what to say
without degenerating into homilies about the Greatest
Generation and all that sort of thing. Anyway, we
might as well let this die as it doesn't particularly
matter to me that you rank me down with the Nazis on
your moral hierarchy, because I'm able to sleep at
night by just not being a Nazi.
Gamaliel
Matt R matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk:
I certainly found your statements offensive, and it's
not clear that they were
a joke at all. They look very much like hate speech to me
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Apparently you are so intent on seeing me as a gutter
dweller for daring to disagree with you that you can't
see an obvious joke for what it was. No need for your
implied threats, though I find it ironic that you'd
make them in the same post while you claim you find it
"utterly wrong to bar people from Wikipedia because
of what views they hold."
This entire discussion (and the rest of these comments
are about this thread in general and not your post in
particular) has long passed the point of usefulness so
I'm going to try to limit my participation in it
unless someone refers to me as pathological again.
Apparently many of you find the profession of hatred
of Nazis offensive; what I find offensive is that so
many of you are willing to make other editors deal
with these Nazis in the name of your principles.
Terms like "rights" and "day in court" are
inapplicable. This is not a court and not a democracy
and not a free speech forum. In those areas, Nazis
should have the rights of anyone else. This is an
encyclopedia. You're here to make this an accurate,
NPOV encyclopedia, or you're in the way. We just have
to decide how much crap you want other people to put
up with before we decide these people have wasted
enough of our time.
Gamaliel
Matt R matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk:
You should be aware that you're beginning to sound an
awful lot like the very
people you oppose. Do not make any more comments of
this nature in this forum.
We certainly wouldn't allow neo-Nazis to post such
comments (mutatis mutandis).
I believe it is utterly wrong to bar people from
Wikipedia because of what
views they hold, regardless of how unpopular or
repellent those views are.
Moreover, I think it would hinder us in our goal of
building a complete and
NPOV encyclopedia to do so.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com