User talk:Juxo: Difference between revisions - Consumerium development wiki

Line 193:

But if you don't note that fact over at meta.wikipedia.org...

:I copied the above to Meta at the same time I wrote it here, almost identically worded.

Angela also advocated only revealing IP logs to developers in cases of "vandalism"

:Have I actually said this? If so, I must have changed my mind. I advocate the revealing of IP logs in ''any'' circumstance where a dual identity is suspected.

::Look up the privacy debate, where you said something clearly contradictory. We all have a "dual identity", I *suspect* you are a mindless twit in real life as much as you are as a sysop. That is a controversy, so I demand the IP logs to find out who you are and get you fired etc...

...advocates of a [[w:carceral state]] control the Wikipedia

:I don't advocate such a thing though I can see why you might think I do.

::You behave exactly like any jailer, or censor, and believe you know best what others need to read, and what they don't, resisting ANY rational debate about it. If you accept any position it's a temporary ceasefire until you can get an authority to put you in charge. People like you DESTROY nonprofit projects. EVERY project they get involved in.

The issue between Angela and the trolls however is not personal...

:Really?? Why do you keep bringing my name into it then? If it is about some "political issue", you ought to be addressing that rather than making random death threats to people you don't like. I see doing that as very much a personal issue. It's when you do this that people get defensive and therefore likely to resort to whatever means they have (deletions, IP bans etc) to stop that from occurring. You seem to be forgetting that before you turned this into a personal attack on me I was writing things like "All RK wants is for you to be banned...which is something I don't want to see" [http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls&diff=1354065&oldid=1353919]. I don't see someone changing their opinion from not wanting someone banned to applying an IP block to that same person as a [[political dispute]]. Rather than continuing the rant about how I'm a member of the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]] or whatever, why not try to find some solution rather than just making it into something personal by saying [[Sysop vandalism|sysops are bad]], [[Enemy projects|Wikipedians are bad]] etc. They quite clearly aren't. The people you constantly list as the people you like are often sysops themselves. If it isn't a personal thing, refer to general principles you dislike rather than people. At [[Talk:Political dispute]] for example, surely I'm not the only person in the world to have done whatever it is you accuse me of doing, so why not write that in general terms? State that people who revert text for ad hominem reasons are wrong to do so. Don't just rant about one person. It's going to be pretty meaningless to people coming here who know nothing of Wikipedia to keep seeing this mysterious user:angela being mentioned all over the place!

:Really?? Why do you keep bringing my name into it then? If it is about some "political issue", you ought to be addressing that rather than making random death threats to people you don't like. I see doing that as very much a personal issue.

::If such "random death threats", or really any death threats other than a vague "here are some buildings full of people doing bad things to stay away from" or "here are some bad things not to do or you may die in an accident" (i.e. political) observation, were occuring "randomly", then, they probably would be personal or taken personally. However, absolutely no troll we know of has made any "death threats to people [we] don't like," random or not. You may see it as you like, but, we didn't do it. You are basically saying we are stupid - if we wanted to kill someone, we would not be talking about it on a public wiki with traceable IPs. The assertions of "death threats" are provable lies, and, you are simply too stupid or vile to actually look into the facts. It is not a discussion we intend to have again. You are libelling whoever you have claimed "is" those people who made those so-called "death threats" and are very likely to face that claim in court, if you persist in such allegations. We trolls like to notify people who are libelled out, that they're libelled - that is part of our "trouble-making" as you put it...

::"Your name" is in it because *you* have attached "your name" to it as a sysop at both Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia, both of which had good potential to provide non-controversial background material to projects of Consumerium, but now do not, and that is at least in part because of you. Thus to politically SUPPORT THIS project, one must politically OPPOSE YOU. Is that clear? It is not personal. You declared yourself an enemy by inventing new and bad editorial policies at Simple, and "enforcing bans" at English. You are being treated no differently than any other enemy, and have no right to complain, as these are exactly the rules that you apply for this yourself, in those venues.

:It's when you do this that people get defensive and therefore likely to resort to whatever means they have (deletions, IP bans etc) to stop that from occurring. You seem to be forgetting that before you turned this into a personal attack on me I was writing things like "All RK wants is for you to be banned...which is something I don't want to see" [http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls&diff=1354065&oldid=1353919].

::You advocate lots of policies that you, when personally discomforted, later change your mind on. What you say about anything political or policy-wise is therefore meaningless. I am not interested in "whatever means they have".

::If everyone resorted to "whatever means they have" simply because they happened to "get defensive", we'd all be dead, since some of those people have enough nuclear weapons to kill us all and poison this planet. So this logic is not something a sane person accepts. And RK got his wish, and he now runs your precious "Wikipedia" user interface, which merely degrades the [[GFDL text corpus]] at this point. There has been much non-controversial text hidden from GFDL users for no rational reason, certainly none "an encyclopedia" should be using, and, this will certainly come to the attention of GNU and contributors who thought they were contributing to "an encyclopedia".

:I don't see someone changing their opinion from not wanting someone banned to applying an IP block to that same person as a [[political dispute]].

::Depends on their rationale, but as yours is not consistent, well, one is free to conclude you are a political enemy with a consistent clash of values. The deletion log at Simple is enough to prove this, even without anything else. It does not seem you widely consulted anyone else about the policies or deletions, or have done any examination of the stupid policies (use only 1000 words, less than half of what would be required to make the Simple actually usable as any basis for real work) that now seem to be standard there. You're just an idiot pretending to be a professional editor. You are probably that in real life too, and a failed editor, and trying to practice your stupidity on a project where people are FORCED to deal with you, and cannot FIRE you as you deserve. At work you likely also suck up to the boss, but since the boss cares about the final output product, you can't get away with what you get away with at the Wikipedias.

:Rather than continuing the rant about how I'm a member of the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]] or whatever, why not try to find some solution rather than just making it into something personal by saying [[Sysop vandalism|sysops are bad]],

[[Enemy projects|Wikipedians are bad]] etc. They quite clearly aren't.

::But they ARE. They are INHERENTLY BAD PEOPLE who seek control of things - for instance, you make up phrases we rarely use ("sysops are bad", "Wikipedians are bad") and pass them off as if they were titles of articles we did write - describing REAL phenomena like [[sysop vandalism]] (according to sysops, NO sysop can EVER be a vandal - isn't that amazing? Like NO COP CAN EVER BE A CRIMINAL). Note that NO sysop has had their powers taken away for abusing it on a non-sysop, only on other sysops. So YES, they/you quite clearly ARE BAD PEOPLE. That is hardly a minority view. There are many groups in the world that clearly understand that killing the bad people who run developed nations governments and military, democratically elected or not, is the only way they will ever get fair treatment. So they do that. You invent names for such people like "terrorist" or "troll" but in fact they are all the same people - just different weapons, same politics. We all do what we have to do with the weapons we have, right? Why? Thank God its not just because we "get defensive", but only when we actually can PROVE that people DIE as a result of what you do. Yes even you: your mission for the Simple English Wikipedia is so useless that all energy put into that for purposes of say educating refugees or unschooled mothers in poor nations will be lost, subverted by your nonpolicy. So there are people who might be saved, that you are killing.

::The only solution to Wikipedia wasting the time of good contributors is the FINAL SOLUTION - to DESTROY IT and force the contributors into another fork to contribute. Once cells are metastatized into cancer, they remain cancerous...

:The people you constantly list as the people you like are often sysops themselves. If it isn't a personal thing, refer to general principles you dislike rather than people.

::Already done. Spent too much time on that. Every time someone agrees, they get politically targetted by the clique, etc., so certainly you'd like nothing better than for the discussion to continue for another WHOLE YEAR as IP ranges that agree become visible or invisible, you can invent your "identities" etc. - but that won't happen. It's over, this is a political year, and the garbage has been identified. Now it's time to take out the garbage (like from here), and then do garbage collection into a valid project that pursues its mission by valid means. "Wikipedia", "Wikimedia" and probably also "Mediawiki" will have to be destroyed or marginalized in the process, but that's just the way it goes. Lots of wasted effort. But, probably as necessary as Linux was to get past the problems of GNU's Unix, which also was led by an ideological control freak.

:At [[Talk:Political dispute]] for example, surely I'm not the only person in the world to have done whatever it is you accuse me of doing, so why not write that in general terms? State that people who revert text for ad hominem reasons are wrong to do so. Don't just rant about one person. It's going to be pretty meaningless to people coming here who know nothing of Wikipedia to keep seeing this mysterious user:angela being mentioned all over the place!

::No, anyone who knows you, knows you're the worst example, especially given your sabotage at Simple. When you're gone, and that means REALLY gone, like for a few months without your saying a word about any of these disputes you claim don't exist, then, maybe, it will make sense to generalize references to you. Permitting you to participate in that editing AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU SUPERVISE VAST AD HOMINEM DELETIONS FROM SIMPLE and probably ENGLISH too? No. That's too much. Go away. If there's one person worth a "rant about" and a "warning against", it's CERTAINLY you. You are MUCH worse than RK, who was only an idiot pushing his POV by putting mostly-valid text in invalid places. He refused sysop powers. You embrace and abuse them, then cover up by trying to reduce examples that show ALL your faults (you are the anti-editor archetype more or less) to "people who revert text for ad hominem reasons are wrong to do so".

::"People who revert text for ad hominem reasons are wrong to do so." There it's said. You've ignored it, and even if you agree with it now that is only "because" you are firmly in control of some text base you already brain damaged to the point of being unsaveable. So this is nowhere near "enough."

::Profound, pure, undiluted hate is a wonderful thing to experience, if it in fact comes from a genuine rejection of something abstract and via one's values. The best Christians can for instance truly hate The Devil and feel quite good about that, even if The Devil is an anonymous IP number or made up pseudonym.

::There will be no debates about Wikipedia - it is an enemy project, and it will be destroyed. We will do our best to convince Consumerium not to use Mediawiki in the [[Content Wiki]] and [[Opinion Wiki]] phase, but to wait for better software that will almost certainly come out of the Metaweb project - they are using Mediawiki also for testing and R&D purposes, but they refer to their pages as "intermediate page format" implying strongly that they will be providing drastically better tools to suck in those pages and spit out useful semantic webs. Since this will work for that format, it'll work for Wikipedia pages too, and obsolete all the Wikipedian filth, including any need to have any conservation with such as yourself. Try to remember the wise words of Ferris Beuller:

::"It's understanding that lets people like us, deal with people like yourself."

::And so it is for trolls, and you filth.