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 ----------------------------------------------

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 ----------------------------------------------

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? 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? 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. 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 ----------------------------------------------

A Nony Mouse wrote: 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

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 ----------------------------------------------

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:

-Snowspinner On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote: 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

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 _________________________________________________________________ Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos! http://meegos.msn.ie

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

On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder(a)energon.org> wrote: 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