Hi, I am Rocky7.
Admins of unblock-en-l have not delivered mails of unblock-en-l since May 4, 2007.
Admins of unblock-en-l have not allowed me to enter unblock-en-l Archives.
Q1. Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me with no explanation?
Q2. Why do you cling to closed unfair trial?
Q3. Why do you stick to Chinese or Korean facism trial?
Re: unblock-en-l identification? (Reply to Prodego) You(at least Luna and Prodego) have been stalking, indeed, and I don't think you(all admins) would be subjected to non-admins' stalking. How can we(non-admins) do stalking? We can't know even your IP addresses, unless you email me(us) personally.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
Errr, what? I don't think the idea of anonymity will go away soon, a large majority of admins, myself included, would be subjected to stalking, which has actually happened to quite a few people.
Prodego
He's a lying scoundrel...?!
On 3/4/07, Rocky7 FreudianJungianP@hotmail.com wrote:
Now admins' real identifications are needed to be revealed. Stop such a nasty intrigue, or all admins would not be trusted because of your timidness and wickedness.
_________________________________________________________________ ウィルス対策ソフト ただ今、2,000円キャッシュバックキャンペーン中！ http://onecare.live.jp
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
Regardless of whether or not Korean and Chinese claims have been exaggerated, it is undeniable that those countries WERE invaded by Japan. Whether the Empire was all nice and cuddly to its non-ethnically-Japanese subjects is debatable, but it is not debatable that these places were invaded without invitation.
And stop being so arrogant, you are not "pure", you are not "special", you are not somehow better or smarter than Koreans or Chinese people. We are all human beings.
And if you were blocked without a reason, as you claim, I'm sure you would've been blocked very soon because of your explicit and unwelcome racism.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Rocky 7 freudianjungianp@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am Rocky7.
Admins of unblock-en-l have not delivered mails of unblock-en-l since May 4, 2007.
Admins of unblock-en-l have not allowed me to enter unblock-en-l Archives.
Q1. Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me with no explanation?
Q2. Why do you cling to closed unfair trial?
Q3. Why do you stick to Chinese or Korean facism trial?
Re: unblock-en-l identification? (Reply to Prodego) You(at least Luna and Prodego) have been stalking, indeed, and I don't think you(all admins) would be subjected to non-admins' stalking. How can we(non-admins) do stalking? We can't know even your IP addresses, unless you email me(us) personally.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
Errr, what? I don't think the idea of anonymity will go away soon, a large majority of admins, myself included, would be subjected to stalking, which has actually happened to quite a few people.
Prodego
He's a lying scoundrel...?!
On 3/4/07, Rocky7 FreudianJungianP@hotmail.com wrote:
Now admins' real identifications are needed to be revealed. Stop such a nasty intrigue, or all admins would not be trusted because of your timidness and wickedness.
�����륹���ߥ��եȡ�������2,000�ҥ���å���Хå������ک`���У� http://onecare.live.jp
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
What on earth is wrong with you?
Even if he is Vampire-Kim-Jong-Hitler, I'm not sure an outright ban from unblock-en is appropriate. What recourse can someone take from that point?
-S
On 3/8/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
Regardless of whether or not Korean and Chinese claims have been exaggerated, it is undeniable that those countries WERE invaded by Japan. Whether the Empire was all nice and cuddly to its non-ethnically-Japanese subjects is debatable, but it is not debatable that these places were invaded without invitation.
And stop being so arrogant, you are not "pure", you are not "special", you are not somehow better or smarter than Koreans or Chinese people. We are all human beings.
And if you were blocked without a reason, as you claim, I'm sure you would've been blocked very soon because of your explicit and unwelcome racism.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Rocky 7 freudianjungianp@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am Rocky7.
Admins of unblock-en-l have not delivered mails of unblock-en-l since May 4, 2007.
Admins of unblock-en-l have not allowed me to enter unblock-en-l Archives.
Q1. Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me with no explanation?
Q2. Why do you cling to closed unfair trial?
Q3. Why do you stick to Chinese or Korean facism trial?
Re: unblock-en-l identification? (Reply to Prodego) You(at least Luna and Prodego) have been stalking, indeed, and I don't think you(all admins) would be subjected to non-admins' stalking. How can we(non-admins) do stalking? We can't know even your IP addresses, unless you email me(us) personally.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
Errr, what? I don't think the idea of anonymity will go away soon, a large majority of admins, myself included, would be subjected to stalking, which has actually happened to quite a few people.
Prodego
He's a lying scoundrel...?!
On 3/4/07, Rocky7 FreudianJungianP@hotmail.com wrote:
Now admins' real identifications are needed to be revealed. Stop such a nasty intrigue, or all admins would not be trusted because of your timidness and wickedness.
�����륹���ߥ��եȡ�������2,000�ҥ���å���Хå������ک`���У� http://onecare.live.jp
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanm�� yo paske nou posede pw��p bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 3/8/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
What on earth is wrong with you?
Even if he is Vampire-Kim-Jong-Hitler, I'm not sure an outright ban from unblock-en is appropriate. What recourse can someone take from that point?
-S
On 3/8/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
Regardless of whether or not Korean and Chinese claims have been exaggerated, it is undeniable that those countries WERE invaded by Japan. Whether the Empire was all nice and cuddly to its non-ethnically-Japanese subjects is debatable, but it is not debatable that these places were invaded without invitation.
And stop being so arrogant, you are not "pure", you are not "special", you are not somehow better or smarter than Koreans or Chinese people. We are all human beings.
And if you were blocked without a reason, as you claim, I'm sure you would've been blocked very soon because of your explicit and unwelcome racism.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Rocky 7 freudianjungianp@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am Rocky7.
Admins of unblock-en-l have not delivered mails of unblock-en-l since May 4, 2007.
Admins of unblock-en-l have not allowed me to enter unblock-en-l Archives.
Q1. Why have admins of unblock-en-l blocked me with no explanation?
Q2. Why do you cling to closed unfair trial?
Q3. Why do you stick to Chinese or Korean facism trial?
Re: unblock-en-l identification? (Reply to Prodego) You(at least Luna and Prodego) have been stalking, indeed, and I don't think you(all admins) would be subjected to non-admins' stalking. How can we(non-admins) do stalking? We can't know even your IP addresses, unless you email me(us) personally.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Prodego prodego@gmail.com wrote:
Errr, what? I don't think the idea of anonymity will go away soon, a large majority of admins, myself included, would be subjected to stalking, which has actually happened to quite a few people.
Prodego
He's a lying scoundrel...?!
On 3/4/07, Rocky7 FreudianJungianP@hotmail.com wrote:
Now admins' real identifications are needed to be revealed. Stop such a nasty intrigue, or all admins would not be trusted because of your timidness and wickedness.
He's complaining that we unsubscribed him from the list, not that we aren't listening to his complaints. We unsubscribed him because people send identifying information to the unblock-en-l list fairly often, and we had a number of trolls and abusive users sign up for the list to gather information.
We aren't listening to his complaints at this point either, because he has repeatedly sent us abusive and racist and threatening emails, and we have a finite tolerance for that.
Unblock-en-l was not designed to be another step or venue in the serious ongoing abusive user management process. The venue and responsible authorities for that are Arbcom, who also accept emailed requests.
Mark Williamson wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
-Mark
On 09/03/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
To paraphrase Harry Truman:
"[They] blocked him for continually trolling, not for being a dumb son-of-a-bitch - which he was, but that's not against the law for people on the internet. If it was, three quarters of them would be in jail"
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 09/03/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
To paraphrase Harry Truman:
"[They] blocked him for continually trolling, not for being a dumb son-of-a-bitch - which he was, but that's not against the law for people on the internet. If it was, three quarters of them would be in jail"
Unfortunately on this mailinglist and on local wikipedia's the practise of shooting the messenger and shooting off anything we do not want to hear is practised more and more widely. Also putting our heads in the sands like an ostrich is.
The tactics used are simple:
Tactic 1: We see someone post something we do not like, or we do not like the poster in the first place. We then start digging up past transgressions by the poster and with that we kill the topic because it becomes a flamefest and no one is talking about the topic anymore.
Tactic 2: We just tell someone to solve the problem locally, even though it is the reason it couldn't be solved locally in the first place that the poster is talking about it.
These tactics are more and more employed, both on this mailinglist, other wikimedia mailinglists, and on the foundation projects.
Please read about a topic, do not charge the poster.
Waerth
It becomes an issue when somebody espouses racism in every post and uses it to personally attack others. "You guys won't listen to me because you must all be Koreans", for example.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hmm, sure. I also think administrative skepticism is > always < neccessary, regardless of the tally of charges. Demonization is always a very useful tool against people who have done something wrong, and is a very effective marginalizer.
Your initial smarmy, condescending rant was totally inappropriate, and I was glad that George Herbert followed it up with a measured description of the problem.
-S
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
It becomes an issue when somebody espouses racism in every post and uses it to personally attack others. "You guys won't listen to me because you must all be Koreans", for example.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I don't think it was inappropriate. That's what matters here - what I think, and what the list admins think.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, sure. I also think administrative skepticism is > always < neccessary, regardless of the tally of charges. Demonization is always a very useful tool against people who have done something wrong, and is a very effective marginalizer.
Your initial smarmy, condescending rant was totally inappropriate, and I was glad that George Herbert followed it up with a measured description of the problem.
-S
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
It becomes an issue when somebody espouses racism in every post and uses it to personally attack others. "You guys won't listen to me because you must all be Koreans", for example.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Of course you don't. The fact that continue it is equally pitiful.
Please elaborate on your class-system idea of this list. I'm sure its very fascinating.
-S
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it was inappropriate. That's what matters here - what I think, and what the list admins think.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, sure. I also think administrative skepticism is > always < neccessary, regardless of the tally of charges. Demonization is always a very useful tool against people who have done something wrong, and is a very effective marginalizer.
Your initial smarmy, condescending rant was totally inappropriate, and I was glad that George Herbert followed it up with a measured description of the problem.
-S
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
It becomes an issue when somebody espouses racism in every post and uses it to personally attack others. "You guys won't listen to me because you must all be Koreans", for example.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 3/9/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Of course you don't. The fact that continue it is equally pitiful.
Please elaborate on your class-system idea of this list. I'm sure its very fascinating.
-S
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it was inappropriate. That's what matters here - what I think, and what the list admins think.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, sure. I also think administrative skepticism is > always < neccessary, regardless of the tally of charges. Demonization is always a very useful tool against people who have done something wrong, and is a very effective marginalizer.
Your initial smarmy, condescending rant was totally inappropriate, and I was glad that George Herbert followed it up with a measured description of the problem.
-S
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
It becomes an issue when somebody espouses racism in every post and uses it to personally attack others. "You guys won't listen to me because you must all be Koreans", for example.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
-Mark
Please stop trolling Mark here...
The reasons that our Asian user was removed from the list have been explained. That some of the unblock-en-l participants have also vented that they don't like him is perhaps not the single most focused calm response, but neither do they reflect a generic list intolerance for minority opinions.
We didn't remove them from the list because they're personally distasteful; we removed him from the list because he's abusive and he absolutely should not still be seeing anyone else's unblock request filings.
Had this been an official policy or position statement, it would also have been inappropriate for Mark to mention that here. But it was just an informational response to queries.
I think it's unreasonable to expect us not to form personal opinions regarding some of the unblock-en-l complaintants. It's reasonable for the community to insist that we still deal with them professionally, and I think we're doing that.
I'm not the one who used the words "smarmy" and "condescending".
In response to Steve, the class system here is similar to that on Wikipedia - if you are not a list admin, what you think of people has little impact, while if you are, you can place them on moderation if you feel they are "smarmy and condescending" enough that they should not be tolerated.
Mark
On 09/03/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/9/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Of course you don't. The fact that continue it is equally pitiful.
Please elaborate on your class-system idea of this list. I'm sure its very fascinating.
-S
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it was inappropriate. That's what matters here - what I think, and what the list admins think.
Mark
On 09/03/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, sure. I also think administrative skepticism is > always < neccessary, regardless of the tally of charges. Demonization is always a very useful tool against people who have done something wrong, and is a very effective marginalizer.
Your initial smarmy, condescending rant was totally inappropriate, and I was glad that George Herbert followed it up with a measured description of the problem.
-S
On 3/9/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
It becomes an issue when somebody espouses racism in every post and uses it to personally attack others. "You guys won't listen to me because you must all be Koreans", for example.
Mark
On 08/03/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Because you are a racist :-) You probably even deny the indigenous > status of the Ainu.
I would hope that's not the reason... if we were to block people for holding objectionable opinions (even exceedingly objectionable ones), I could submit a very long list of names of people to be blocked, including many admins!
-Mark
Please stop trolling Mark here...
The reasons that our Asian user was removed from the list have been explained. That some of the unblock-en-l participants have also vented that they don't like him is perhaps not the single most focused calm response, but neither do they reflect a generic list intolerance for minority opinions.
We didn't remove them from the list because they're personally distasteful; we removed him from the list because he's abusive and he absolutely should not still be seeing anyone else's unblock request filings.
Had this been an official policy or position statement, it would also have been inappropriate for Mark to mention that here. But it was just an informational response to queries.
I think it's unreasonable to expect us not to form personal opinions regarding some of the unblock-en-l complaintants. It's reasonable for the community to insist that we still deal with them professionally, and I think we're doing that.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org