So when jaygy does one alledged incident of sock puppetry used against wikipedia policy result in an indefinate ban?? and when jaygy does citing someones ethnicity on their wikipedia biography result in that person being antisemetic , and henced banned indefinately on wikipedia
if i were to trawl through your posts it would not be difficult to see a pattern emerging of extreme POV pushing, reverting posts to ensure your POV held.
I think it is quite clear that BJorn has hit on a very sensitive and important point. That certain administrators abuse their position by banning or reverting posts to ensure their POV remains on wiki pages that are close to their life view. And that there is NO wiki policy to protect the neutrality of wiki pages from these abuses, or of the victims of these administration abuses.
I give you a simple example of the extreme POV pushing that goes on by certain administrators I attempted to include in the "further reading" section of the zionism page, the 5-10 year academically researched book "zionism the real enemy of the jews" by Alan Hart. Now this was disallowed on the grounds of POV, yet if we look at the list on the zionism further reading section one has to wonder why these aren't POV yet the alan hart book is
Sholom Aleichem. Why Do the Jews Need a Land of Their own?, 1898 Paul Charles Merkley. The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891 1948 (London: Frank Cass, 1998) A. Dershowitz, The Case for Israel, Wiley, 2003 ISBN 0-471-46502-X.
etc. yet of course my attempts to include it whilst it being repeatedly removed by slimvirgin, jaygy and humus sapien, are examples of my 'anti semitism'.
If i were you jaygy i would be extremely embarassed by the episode of my ban, and be questioning whether such a clear case of injustice actually helps your goals.
From: jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:15:45 -0400
On 6/4/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
There has never been a shortage of criticism of certain admin actions.
A
high proportion of this has always been mud-slinging by those rightly
the
target of admin sanctions.
The issue of 'bias' is better phrased another way. Do admins apply
admin
powers in attempts to control article content, in a way that is
negative
from the point of view of compliance with fundamental policies on
content?
It turns out that it is much harder to make a good case of this kind,
than
to make general accusations on 'bias'.
It is not. A user named Saladin1970 was recently indefinitely banned by administrators because his political views was diametrically opposite to theirs.
You mean the one who kept insisting that Britain's most prolific mass murderer be identified as a "Jew" in the lead, the one who kept inserting copyvios in other articles, kept logging out and using his IP to violate 3RR, etc? That one?
There was absolutely no reason for that ban, and had Saladin1970's political views been better aligned with theirs, he wouldn't have been blocked at all.
Well, aside from his sly 3RR violations, his poorly written, unsourced, POV, and arguably anti-Semitic insertions, his copyvios, etc.
Since virtually all his edits were reverted solely because they were made by a blocked user, it should be painstakingly clear that (some) admins apply admin powers in attempts to control article content and that that is negative for Wikipedia.
Actually, what is painstakingly clear is that not only were his edits a net detriment to Wikipedia, but also that your posts on this list are pretty much the same; uninformed, POV, and almost always factually incorrect. What is also painstakingly clear is that the only reason you defend him (apart from your inevitably choosing the wrong-headed position on any situation) is that his political views coincide with your own.
BJorn, you've been asked to stop projecting your own faults on others; if you cannot desist from this, at least please stop using this list for doing so.
And it won't change, because despite the probably hundreds of policies wikipedian-en has, not a single one of them says that when an admin fucks up that bad, s/he shouldn't be an admin.
Well, except for all the admins who have been de-sysopped.
So while Saladin1970 is stuck with some weird arbitration thing with Fred Bauder,
Saladin1970 is not involved "with some arbitration thing with Fred Bauder". Can you not even get the simplest facts straight? He is involved in an arbitration case with the Arbitration Committee.
the admins can continue their free roll. Saladin1970 is far from the only case, he just happened to be particularly persistent and polite when complaining in this list.
Actually, Saladin1970 indundated this list with a series of lengthy, dubious, and often factually false e-mails; for example, his copyvios would be pointed out to him time and again, yet he would still post further lengthy diatribes insisting he had never been shown them, and also insisting on apologies. Much like you, he seems to have completely missed (or avoided reading) every e-mail which detailed the actual behavioral reasons he was blocked, and instead concocted a bizarre conspiracy theory which blamed admins for blocking him for political reasons. This, in fact, accords with his political views in general - the world is controlled by a conspiracy of secret forces (and you can guess exactly who those secret forces are) - but there's no reason why this list (or Wikipedia) need be subjected to them.
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview