Oh, btw, I also see your next post to the mailing list, where you have "figured out why it's doing it". Is that your idea of an apology?
I wonder how many times I'll have to resend this totally on-topic e-mail before it finally gets through (not censored by the mod).
Let's put this response in a numerical list clearly outlining every totally relevent statement.
1. It's not an apology. 2. It's an acknowledgement that either your did something wrong or there is a bug with the system. 3. Are you going to apologize for your false accusation against me? The _only_ account under which I hit 'edit page' was njyoder. Knowing this, you must retract your accusation. 4. Since I have not actually violated the block, will you now remove it 24 hours from when it was originally issued (as you are obligated to)? 5. I'd like specific examples of what personal attacks I used that warrant this block. Note that no one has attempted to define personal attack yet because they know if they did the accusation and blocked would become completely unwarranted and make you look bad, as well as the other arbtrators in my case who _flat out refused_ to define it.
Simplying describing someone's behavior--calling them a hypocrite, is NOT a personal attack. This has been a matter of debate on the no personal attacks talk page, especially considering the policy does not state what constitutes a personal attack. The examples given on the "no personal attacks" page (the closest thing to a definition) are very different things from what I've said and you'd either have to be either incredibly stupid or very dishonest to state otherwise.
I expect a direct apology from you and a removal of the block immediatly.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
Simplying describing someone's behavior--calling them a hypocrite, is NOT a personal attack. This has been a matter of debate on the no personal attacks talk page, especially considering the policy does not state what constitutes a personal attack. The examples given on the "no personal attacks" page (the closest thing to a definition) are very different things from what I've said and you'd either have to be either incredibly stupid or very dishonest to state otherwise.
This is specifically left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator, and you were specifically warned against wikilawyering on this issue, so I'm afraid you won't be getting much sympathy from me.
-- ambi
This is specifically left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator, and you were specifically warned against wikilawyering on this issue, so I'm afraid you won't be getting much sympathy from me.
That still doesn't answer my question and doesn't address how unjust the issue is. A rule that allows an admin to ban for some undefined thing is inherently unjust. You might as well make a policy that says "you're not allowed to be a floobit" and then leave it up to the discretion of the admin to define what a floobit is.
Your entire argument here is just "you knew it was up to the admin, therefore you are wrong." That's just plain absurd and is incredibly ridiculous. "Well you knew it was illegal to speak out against the government under the 'bad things are illegal' law which doesn't define bad things, so it's your fault for going to jail."
SHouldn't a requirement of being an arbitrator be that they are able to defend their actions without resorting to "because we say so" logic?
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Please read the decision in your arbitration case. We will try to answer any questions you have about it.
Fred
On Jul 1, 2005, at 5:19 AM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
SHouldn't a requirement of being an arbitrator be that they are able to defend their actions without resorting to "because we say so" logic?
Please read the decision in your arbitration case. We will try to answer any questions you have about it.
Already read it. Already asked these questions a loooong time ago in my case (which you probably didn't even read). None were answered. There arbitrators, yourself, included, just ruled without bothering to address what I said.
In fact, you're one of the arbitrators who inserted a whole bunch of bogus claims in the 'findings of fact' (and even a joke and very off-the-wall sections that are contrary to Wikipedia policy in other parts) that were not only wrong, but they were completely unrelated to the accusations made by the parties involved (such as the 'citing your sources' thing which was completely irrelevent to the case).
You also added content disputes on the page. It does nothing but indicate that you, at best, briefly skimmed and didn't read what was said. Then the other arbitrators just took your word for it and voted. You could have added a "finding of fact" like "racist remarks are not appropriate on Wikipedia" and they would have all voted 'support' without checking themselves to see if I made any.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
If the other arbitrators don't like what I propose they raise hell and so does the Wikipedia community at large. Just take a look at the Jguk case. What was going on in your case was that you came here to push a point of view, Instead of using your point of view to identify reputable resources which expressed it or diverged from it, you declared that other points of view were nonsense and attempted to structure articles accordingly. Rather than familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policy about citing sources, you decided that you would judge for yourself whether what a source said was true and based on your own judgement decide whether or not the source could be cited. What is much worse, you show absolutely no insight into the issues that were involved, and we can look forward to nothing but more trouble. It comes down to this: Wikipedia is not a forum or platform for advocacy. Many other internet venues exist for that, but Wikipedia is and ought to be a frustrating, even punishing environment if that is what you are here for.
Fred
On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
You could have added a "finding of fact" like "racist remarks are not appropriate on Wikipedia" and they would have all voted 'support' without checking themselves to see if I made any.
Instead of using your point of view to identify reputable resources which expressed it or diverged from it, you declared that other points of view were nonsense and attempted to structure articles accordingly.
This is just plain ridiculous, I cited *very extensive* resources on the Bisexuality article from experts, alternative studies and even direct quotes from the Kinsey institute.
I'll note that you didn't provide a single link for that 'cite your sources' nonsense, because there is no place where I should have cited a source where I didn't.
What makes this even crazier is that I had contested content for which the parties involved in my case took forever to cite a source for and even then the best they could come up with was some random magazine publication and a random website, not anything written by a historian or other relevent authority figure. They couldn't even produce a single book written on the stuff related to Bisexuality, what does that tell you?
Rather than familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policy about citing sources, you decided that you would judge for yourself whether what a source said was true and based on your own judgement decide whether or not the source could be cited.
I'm extremely familiar with the Wikipedia policy about citing sources and if you're going to make this claim, you better damn well provide examples (NONE were provided in my case). The "cite your sources" thing was in response to just the gender article, for which I had removed/rephrased, not added to like the "finding of fact" incorrectly suggested. The fact that you even added that, knowing the other arbs wouldn't bother to check, shows that you're intent on using any lie possible to make the case against me.
The issue with the gender article had _nothing_ to do with citing sources and I was not even contesting any sources given anyway (they didn't give any since it wasn't relevent). What's really odd is that you seem to have added the part of my case that recognizes that it's the obligation of the person who added something to provide a source, not the remover and yet you deliberately ignored that policy. These are the reasons for my modifications:
1. The sentence was incoherent and meaning was unclear. (No cite necessary) 2. Various POV statements that contributed nothing to the article (Such as calling the change of the usage of 'gender' dissapointing--obviously POV). 3. A factually incorrect statement calling a usage of gender 'incorrect' even though a general consensus had already been reached, with evidence provided by others (e.g. the dictionary) that it's a perfeclty valid usage. No sources contesting the dictionary definition, which is common usage, were provided. 4. Etymology which I removed because it was a) inappropriate for the article as I explained (and you didn't read and b) incorrect (source provided from an etymology website).
In summary, you are inventing claims here that not even the parties of my case made. Worst of all, the RfA for me didn't provide a single example of me supposedly violating the Wikipedia:cite your sources page. Really, what kind of decision is made with ZERO EVIDENCE?
What is much worse, you show absolutely no insight into the issues that were involved, and we can look forward to nothing but more trouble.
Really? On what basis are you making that judgement? What edits have I made that indicated anything like that? The removal of POV content? The mountains of proof I prevented that Kinsey statistics were not valid? You make a lot of accusations with NO evidence.
It comes down to this: Wikipedia is not a forum or platform for advocacy. Many other internet venues exist for that, but Wikipedia is and ought to be a frustrating, even punishing environment if that is what you are here for.
What exactly was I advocating? Please, point to a single example where I was putting POV into an article--oh wait, you can't!--because I never did it. I wasn't even accused of POV pushing, I was accused of perseonal attacks. You should really take a look at yourself when you're the only one making a claim and you can't provide an ounce of evidence for it.
You should tell that to AlexR and Axon who are massive POV pushers. They used some the most absurd logically fallacious arguments to defend their edits and even suggested that calling usage of the term gender to mean sex dissapointing wasn't POV. Someone who can't identify obvious POV like that shouldn't be editing articles.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
Since you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways, why should we care what you think?
The way you treat anyone who isn't in your little clique is nothing short of barbaric, and your behavior as an ArbCom member deplorable.
I'm not surprised you're jumping in to attack Nathan either. Give Gerard my regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him long enough to speak.
-Not Marmot but tired of seeing Wikiadmins cover up each other's crimes constantly.
From: Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com Reply-To: Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org,English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin power Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:53:27 +1000
On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
Simplying describing someone's behavior--calling them a hypocrite, is NOT a personal attack. This has been a matter of debate on the no personal attacks talk page, especially considering the policy does not state what constitutes a personal attack. The examples given on the "no personal attacks" page (the closest thing to a definition) are very different things from what I've said and you'd either have to be either incredibly stupid or very dishonest to state otherwise.
This is specifically left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator, and you were specifically warned against wikilawyering on this issue, so I'm afraid you won't be getting much sympathy from me.
-- ambi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ It's finally here! Download Messenger 7.0 - still FREE http://messenger.msn.co.uk
A Nony Mouse wrote:
Since you are nothing but a fascist hag anyways, why should we care what you think?
The way you treat anyone who isn't in your little clique is nothing short of barbaric, and your behavior as an ArbCom member deplorable.
I'm not surprised you're jumping in to attack Nathan either. Give Gerard my regards if you can be bothered to stop fellating him long enough to speak.
-Not Marmot but tired of seeing Wikiadmins cover up each other's crimes constantly.
From: Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com Reply-To: Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org,English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin power Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:53:27 +1000
On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
Simplying describing someone's behavior--calling them a hypocrite, is NOT a personal attack. This has been a matter of debate on the no personal attacks talk page, especially considering the policy does not state what constitutes a personal attack. The examples given on the "no personal attacks" page (the closest thing to a definition) are very different things from what I've said and you'd either have to be either incredibly stupid or very dishonest to state otherwise.
This is specifically left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator, and you were specifically warned against wikilawyering on this issue, so I'm afraid you won't be getting much sympathy from me.
-- ambi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's finally here! Download Messenger 7.0 - still FREE http://messenger.msn.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
Bishonen did nothing wrong with the autoreblock -- it is an _intentional_ feature of the system. Equally, she is not obligated to unblock you. Nevertheless, she has. That seems quite fair to me.
Sam
On 6/30/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
Oh, btw, I also see your next post to the mailing list, where you have "figured out why it's doing it". Is that your idea of an apology?
I wonder how many times I'll have to resend this totally on-topic e-mail before it finally gets through (not censored by the mod).
Let's put this response in a numerical list clearly outlining every totally relevent statement.
- It's not an apology.
- It's an acknowledgement that either your did something wrong or
there is a bug with the system. 3. Are you going to apologize for your false accusation against me? The _only_ account under which I hit 'edit page' was njyoder. Knowing this, you must retract your accusation. 4. Since I have not actually violated the block, will you now remove it 24 hours from when it was originally issued (as you are obligated to)? 5. I'd like specific examples of what personal attacks I used that warrant this block. Note that no one has attempted to define personal attack yet because they know if they did the accusation and blocked would become completely unwarranted and make you look bad, as well as the other arbtrators in my case who _flat out refused_ to define it.
Simplying describing someone's behavior--calling them a hypocrite, is NOT a personal attack. This has been a matter of debate on the no personal attacks talk page, especially considering the policy does not state what constitutes a personal attack. The examples given on the "no personal attacks" page (the closest thing to a definition) are very different things from what I've said and you'd either have to be either incredibly stupid or very dishonest to state otherwise.
I expect a direct apology from you and a removal of the block immediatly.
Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bishonen did nothing wrong with the autoreblock -- it is an _intentional_ feature of the system. Equally, she is not obligated to unblock you. Nevertheless, she has. That seems quite fair to me.
She is obligated to abide by the injunction, which means making it a 24 hour block. You don't understand what happened. It is NOT an intentional feature of the system to auto-reblock for someone hitting 'edit' under their regular account that they were blocked under. It's a bug.
That wouldn't even make sense as a feature even if it were intentional (which it's not), because that would mean if someone didn't know they were blocked yet and went to hit 'edit', their block would automatically be reset. IT also means that if they wanted to check if their block was over or wanted to see the block page again their block would also be reset.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
She is obligated to abide by the injunction, which means making it a 24 hour block. You don't understand what happened. It is NOT an intentional feature of the system to auto-reblock for someone hitting 'edit' under their regular account that they were blocked under. It's a bug.
That wouldn't even make sense as a feature even if it were intentional (which it's not), because that would mean if someone didn't know they were blocked yet and went to hit 'edit', their block would automatically be reset. IT also means that if they wanted to check if their block was over or wanted to see the block page again their block would also be reset.
As far as I recall (and if I am wrong, please correct me with evidence) that the idea is to encourage problem users (and that is not to call you thus) to stay away from wikipedia until their block has expired. I believe it is mostly intended for bans. I think it is also true that it looks at IP addresses, to stop people evading blocks. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe that is how it works.
Sam
You're correct - the second block is an IP address block, designed to prevent people from just creating a new account.
The only odd thing here is that Nyjoder's parole is phrased as "block," whereas the standard personal attack parole is usually a ban. This merits a request for clarification, I think.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
She is obligated to abide by the injunction, which means making it a 24 hour block. You don't understand what happened. It is NOT an intentional feature of the system to auto-reblock for someone hitting 'edit' under their regular account that they were blocked under. It's a bug.
That wouldn't even make sense as a feature even if it were intentional (which it's not), because that would mean if someone didn't know they were blocked yet and went to hit 'edit', their block would automatically be reset. IT also means that if they wanted to check if their block was over or wanted to see the block page again their block would also be reset.
As far as I recall (and if I am wrong, please correct me with evidence) that the idea is to encourage problem users (and that is not to call you thus) to stay away from wikipedia until their block has expired. I believe it is mostly intended for bans. I think it is also true that it looks at IP addresses, to stop people evading blocks. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe that is how it works.
Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You're correct - the second block is an IP address block, designed to prevent people from just creating a new account.
Yes, which why this isn't functioning properly. It should only renew it if the person tries it while not logged in or if they create/use another account (a sock puppet) to try to edit (in other words--if they try to evade the block). That's not what I was doing though, I was logged in as User:Njyoder the entire time and didn't realize until later that by hitting 'edit' it automatically renewed it.
The only odd thing here is that Nyjoder's parole is phrased as "block," whereas the standard personal attack parole is usually a ban. This merits a request for clarification, I think.
What's the difference? It's a 24-hour period in which I can't edit anything in response to an alleged personal attack.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
-Snowspinner
On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
You're correct - the second block is an IP address block, designed to prevent people from just creating a new account.
Yes, which why this isn't functioning properly. It should only renew it if the person tries it while not logged in or if they create/use another account (a sock puppet) to try to edit (in other words--if they try to evade the block). That's not what I was doing though, I was logged in as User:Njyoder the entire time and didn't realize until later that by hitting 'edit' it automatically renewed it.
Ah, I see. Perhaps you would like to look at the Mediawiki code and fix this problem then, because, honestly, you're the one who cares.
-Snowspinner
On 7/2/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
-Snowspinner
On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
You're correct - the second block is an IP address block, designed to prevent people from just creating a new account.
Yes, which why this isn't functioning properly. It should only renew it if the person tries it while not logged in or if they create/use another account (a sock puppet) to try to edit (in other words--if they try to evade the block). That's not what I was doing though, I was logged in as User:Njyoder the entire time and didn't realize until later that by hitting 'edit' it automatically renewed it.
Ah, I see. Perhaps you would like to look at the Mediawiki code and fix this problem then, because, honestly, you're the one who cares.
-Snowspinner
This utterly dismissive attitude toward a complaint is very harmful to Wikipedia, even if you don't believe the complaint is legitimate. You should have either directed him to the developer's list, or civilly stated your opinion whether this was a desirable bug or feature, or simply left it to others to discuss.
Haven't you noticed by now?
This utterly dismissive attitude by users like sandifer/Snowspinner and GMaxwell is typical of the inner admin clique - they really, truly, DO NOT CARE unless it involves them staying in power.
Anything that would mean they would have to pay attention to the rules and policies, or do their job properly, or admit they were wrong... forget it.
And it's the users - the same users we rely on to write an encyclopedia - that are hurt by their constant, dismissive, arrogant attitude.
Admins are not "better" than other editors. They are editors with a couple extra buttons.
There are too many Admins today who have forgotten that and seem to think that Adminship is a license to throw their weight around and lord it over all the "common folk" editors.
A. Nony Mouse
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Reply-To: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin power Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:34:56 -0400
On 7/2/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
-Snowspinner
On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
You're correct - the second block is an IP address block, designed to prevent people from just creating a new account.
Yes, which why this isn't functioning properly. It should only renew it if the person tries it while not logged in or if they create/use another account (a sock puppet) to try to edit (in other words--if they try to evade the block). That's not what I was doing though, I was logged in as User:Njyoder the entire time and didn't realize until later that by hitting 'edit' it automatically renewed it.
Ah, I see. Perhaps you would like to look at the Mediawiki code and fix this problem then, because, honestly, you're the one who cares.
-Snowspinner
This utterly dismissive attitude toward a complaint is very harmful to Wikipedia, even if you don't believe the complaint is legitimate. You should have either directed him to the developer's list, or civilly stated your opinion whether this was a desirable bug or feature, or simply left it to others to discuss.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos! http://meegos.msn.ie
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
Haven't you noticed by now?
This utterly dismissive attitude by users like sandifer/Snowspinner and GMaxwell is typical of the inner admin clique - they really, truly, DO NOT CARE unless it involves them staying in power.
Anything that would mean they would have to pay attention to the rules and policies, or do their job properly, or admit they were wrong... forget it.
And it's the users - the same users we rely on to write an encyclopedia - that are hurt by their constant, dismissive, arrogant attitude.
Admins are not "better" than other editors. They are editors with a couple extra buttons.
There are too many Admins today who have forgotten that and seem to think that Adminship is a license to throw their weight around and lord it over all the "common folk" editors.
A. Nony Mouse
You're generalizing in such a way as to not criticize individual behaviors, but the people behind them, and you appear to be assuming a lot of bad faith regarding their attitudes.
In doing so, you're making it difficult to consider both your criticisms or your suggestions seriously. The instinctive response to accusations and insults is defense. You're triggering a strong wall of resistance for the changes you desire before you even propose them.
I suggest more civility and reasoned discourse, as they are much more likely to be productive.
On 5 jul 2005, at 18.34, Michael Turley wrote:
No, actually what you wrote isn't the point so much as your subject line. Mark Ryan wrote in a message yesterday that "insults are disallowed" on the list. And yet there's been this hefty thread running for quite a while now, supposedly on the subject of my "exercise of abuse". I thought it had stopped. If you care about the tone of this list (which is what you're writing about) then please don't re-animate it.
Bishonen
I will state for the record that Bishonen is one of the few Admins who does NOT seem to be in the clique of power-abusing admins, as he DID do the right thing and unblock Yoder when push came to shove.
However, the fact that push was required to come to shove before anything happened, and the subsequent treatment of Yoder by OTHER admins, is still a cause for concern.
A. Nony Mouse
From: Bishonen bishonen@ungoodthinkful.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Insults disallowed,was: Re: (fwd) bishonen exercises abuse of admin power Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:56:11 +0200
On 5 jul 2005, at 18.34, Michael Turley wrote:
No, actually what you wrote isn't the point so much as your subject line. Mark Ryan wrote in a message yesterday that "insults are disallowed" on the list. And yet there's been this hefty thread running for quite a while now, supposedly on the subject of my "exercise of abuse". I thought it had stopped. If you care about the tone of this list (which is what you're writing about) then please don't re-animate it.
Bishonen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Send a sexy animated wink with Messenger 7.0 - FREE download! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
That wouldn't even make sense as a feature even if it were intentional (which it's not), because that would mean if someone didn't know they were blocked yet and went to hit 'edit', their block would automatically be reset. IT also means that if they wanted to check if their block was over or wanted to see the block page again their block would also be reset.
I hate to break it to you, but this is an intentional feature. You won't be able to blame this one on Bishonen.
-- ambi