Nathan J. Yoder (njyoder(a)energon.org) [050701 06:26]: I dropped your messages for the attacks contained therein; I let this one through for having a lot fewer of them. The remaining readers of wikien-l are largely sick of fifty-message threads of querulous ranting, so they're not being encouraged. You don't have some sort of intrinsic right to rant as you please here; you can be sure at least a few of the many admins reading this list will have looked into the incidents upsetting you. And I must point out that you always have the option of not making personal attacks in your posts. You appear to take anything said about you that you don't like as an attack, yet are unable to perceive your own attacks on others. The reference to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] should be all a reasonable person needs; that you don't seem to get it should not ultimately be anyone else's problem. The wikien-l admins really don't like work, so try to avoid it as far as possible. But letting the list turn to querulous ranting is leading to (fairly justified IMO) complaints. So we'll be trying harder to stop the rubbish at a sensible point. - d.

So let me get this straight, I'm not allowed to talk about the thing that was my whole purpose in e-mailing this list in the first place? Considering that 'blocked page' directly refers to this list, it would make no sense to then censor discussion about blocks. Gotca, the whole referral to this list thing was really just a farce to lure users into the false sense that there might be justice for malicious blocks. You are also missing the point completely, it's about the block being unjust and in not in accordance with wikipedia policy, it doesn't matter that the lbock will "soon end" (which is actually 12 hours now since the bug or whatever it was extended the ban wrongfully). But hey, even if an admin overstepped their bounds completely, it doesn't matter if the block is gone, right? And who cares about censorship?! I also find it curious that not a single person has defined what constitutes a personal attack yet. I think the admins knew all along that they were acting in error, which is why I've never received said definition or any clarification of any kind. What do you call it when someone in an authority position enforces an undefined rule? I wonder if that will even come close to being addressed. It seems doubtful since the arbitrators really don't actually care about being just or enforcing the rules properly, it's simply a matter of how many people you don't like you can get away with banning without a significant backlash against themselves. I say that in all seriousness true, the admins/arbs really don't seem to care at all about justice, but rather saving their ass when they act in prejudice. I think there is some sort of sense of infallibility coming from the fact that their positions are pretty much ensured, especially for arbitrators. I expect this to backfire severely in about 5-10 years as Wikipedia gets more popular and more of the general population becomes aware of this and people are forcibly removed from their positions due to public pressure. ---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------