User talk:Juxo: Difference between revisions

User talk:Juxo (edit)

Revision as of 12:36, 16 March 2004

29,230 bytes removed , 16 March 2004

m

moving AWR to AWR

Jukeboksi

Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators

9,854

edits

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 :It isn't a "place".  It's supposed to be a service emphasizing accountability and transparency with a [[sysop power structure]] committed to same.
-------
-In compensation for driving off [[User:Angela]], which there was no choice about, trolls recommend recruiting [[w:User:Mirwin]], [[w:User:Netesq]], [[w:User:Ed_Poor]], [[w:User:Jrincayc]] (especially), [[w:User:Anthere]], [[w:User:Mydogategodshat]], [[w:User:The_Cunctator]], [[w:User:GrahamN]], as Wikipedia contributors who have never contributed to any [[echo chamber]] nor committed any [[sysop vandalism]], and in fact, protested it when it happened.  These are the ones Consumerium needs to recruit.  And it will continue to need to drive off the sysop-vandals, racists, anti-accountability quackers and such.
-:As yet another proof of Angela's lack of integrity, here she is at [[m:Talk:Draft_privacy_policy]] strongly opposing deleting user_talk pages, and of course, she asked for that to be done for her here.  Someone takes your position, Juxo:
-::"The user pages are not part of the encyclopedia, they should be deleted upon request. Keeping them viewable by everyone against the user's will is, in my opinion, a misuse of the GFDL." - tristanb (not logged in) 203.96.104.226 00:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-::to which Angela responds:
-:::"I disagree. User talk pages are there to support the development of the encyclopedia, and as such include information that is relevant to particular articles. Perhaps that should have gone on the article talk page, but often it doesn't, and the talk pages provide a very useful history of how particular articles and issues were developed. The user talk page is not supposed to be something private. If you want a private discussion with someone, you can do that by e-mail, so I see no reason why these pages should be made part of the privacy policy. The same might not apply to user pages. Angela 01:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)"
-::All the information about why she had to be driven off, was quite relevant to the development of [[moral purchasing potential]].  Then she goes on again to talk about how important the talk filse are:
-:::"I don't think you would have to remove the comments completely though in order for someone to vanish. This could be done through a name change. Also, agreeing to delete a user talk page doesn't really solve anything if comments they would rather vanish from also appear on article talk pages, which is quite likely to be the case. Article talk pages are obviously not going to be deleted, so there needs to be a solution that can apply to both these and to user talk pages. I can't see any strong reason to treat these differently. I'm also not sure you can state different privacy rules for banned users. It's possible that they might be the ones most wanting to hide their past on Wikipedia after they are made to leave. Angela 23:07, 29 Dec 2003 (PST)"
-::It's amazing, really, how bald-facedly she says one thing one place and another in another.  She's appalling, and she really is the worst of them.
-:::Funnily enough, I thought the same thing myself - ie that I was contradicting myself, not that I was "the worst of them" etc. My current thoughts on the matter following my experience here are that a talk page and user page is something more personal than what you write on article pages.
-::::Here we agree, it is more personal, but that does not mean that it is entirely or only personal.  For instance it is common to bring up issues with someone's editing habits with them on the talk page, or general questions about their intentions, etc., there.  Often these are well documented challenges to what they have done, where they stand, etc.  [[w:User:RK]] for example managed to rack up a lot of such challenges which he would delete, then whine about the fact that people wanted to document his various abuses.  He succeeded in many manipulations and in subverting all those who wanted to apply accountability to his various lies and abusive claims, and many think he succeeded in this simply because he was successful at covering his own trail and removing the evidence that he was doing the same thing over and over and over again.  So the solution that various conscientious users including [[w:User:MyRedDice]] tried to apply was the "/ban page", which Wales did not support, and then the "Community case" page, which again he did not support, and in the end, Wales has let RK run riot.  Trolls tend to think that RK now runs the Wikipedia by default, and that others such as [[w:User:Maveric149]] have pulled very similar tricks in the not too recent past, although it's not clear whether they still attempt to do so.  A culture of zero accountability and personal control over all information about oneself is not necessarily conducive to making good trust decisions.
-:::User and article talk pages already follow different rules. For example, a user is, in nearly all cases, allowed to refactor and delete comments on their own user/talk page in a way that would not be regarded as acceptable on article talk pages.
-::::True.
-Therefore, it makes sense for those differences to apply to deletion of the pages as well. People are more attached to their pages than to their comments on article pages, and I think it is this level of attachment that would cause someone to feel uncomfortable about leaving an undeleted user page behind when they  exercise their [[MeatBall:RightToLeave|right to leave]].
-::::Maybe true.  However, that was not what you advocated earlier, and, you were I think rightfully mocked for advocating a policy somewhere, leaving that assertion in place, and then advocating an opposite policy somewhere else when you wanted a different outcome.  This combined with the exchange with [[w:User:Cyan]] where you were ''clearly'' demanding the same type of "community censorship" to be applied at the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] as at the Full English (a request [[w:User:Tim_Starling]] eventually granted), and then denying that in our exhange on the SEW, is a valid reason to conclude that you are two-faced in these policy discussions and intervention requests.  That is still our conclusion.
-:::It doesn't solve the problem of not vanishing from article talk, but if the user feels separated from these in a way they don't from their own pages, then there is reason to treat the pages differently. Deletion of your user/talk page may also be a way of psychologically breaking away from a wiki, which has a stronger effect than just walking away. Perhaps when people leave they need this as some sort of final statement that they have left, and not only that, but a statement that they no longer wish to be associated with it at all.
-::::But they reappear.  By your own rules, again demonstrated in your reverts to valid edits at Wikipedia, people do not have the right to reappear with some new identity let alone the original.  Your "witch-hunts" clearly deny that right.  So if they may reappear and there is a need to compare exchanges of their past incarnations with the current ones, then, one needs the old talk.
-Thus it should never be deleted, to allow the witchhunters, such as yourself, to identify the "heresy" and point out to others proof that "it's the same person".  Failure to provide that is simply usurping a right to identify one IP or name with another by instinct.  Which of course is what you actually do want, and what you actually do usurp, whenever you make unilateral decisions and operational distinctions that result in banning any IP that you don't like.  Morwen at least admits she has "itchy trigger finger" and that there is no concept of "due process" - but that is not what the mythology of Wikipedia claims...
-:::The history of user talk pages can be fascinating and offer huge insights into the working of the wiki, but this isn't what they are there for. The aim is to build an encyclop�dia or a guide for consumers or whatever the aim of a particular wiki is, not to provide insights into how the community works or to document how individuals played a part in that.
-::::But "to build an encyclopedia" is not ''your'' aim.  Your aim is to make certain people that you like feel comfortable, and make others that you do not like invisible or even make it impossible for them to participate.  You are one of those who believe in a "virtual community".  So you stand simultaneously for a lack of "insights into how the community works" and no right or ability "to document how individuals played a part in that."  This is the classic definition of a [[w:carceral state]] - an unexamined and unexaminable power structure capable of presenting any image of itself that it wants to, while simultaneously claiming the right and ability to investigate and judge any ordinary contributor/citizen.  So you actually want a "virtual police state".  Wikipedia is your paradise.  But it is not an encyclopedia.
-:::So, I now feel that the privacy policy at Wikipedia, and probably on other wikis too, should state that a user/talk page will be deleted on request after someone leaves. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 16:50, 2 Jan 2004 (EET)
-:::p.s. Thanks for deleting my talk page Juxo.
-::::Fair enough, you've changed your position.  But if you don't note that fact over at meta.wikipedia.org, then, it will be obvious to all that you advocate one position when you want something, and another when someone else wants it.
-Follow up to the above discussion:
-:I recall seen some case of [[Wikipedia]]ns having experienced problems beyond the realm of Wikipedia due to having at some point revealed their real identity and/or contact information on their User-page, which resulted in them leaving the pedia and perhaps returning with an another username. Unfortunatelly since people have characteristic style of writing and tend to focus on same articles as before this may not help out in the situation that someone is getting harrassed or threatened because of their information or views.
-::This situation is increasingly common there, which is one reason why pseudonyms and accountable-anonymous (visible IP numbers) are popular.  However with the current regime at Wikipedia it is necessary to subvert the sysops by various technical means, fuzzing identity, running proxy servers on private IPs, etc., which is going to enable abuses as much as it enables dissidents.  This is not the solution trolls prefer, but it is the one that we must apply if we don't wish to let advocates of a [[w:carceral state]] control the Wikipedia and thus the direction of the [[GFDL text corpus]].  The alternative is not for us to go away - the alternative is for us to respond to technological censorship with further escalation, e.g. to the legal or direct military realm.
-::If someone's "information" includes outright lying about groups or whole ethnicities or religions, as [[w:User:RK]]'s does, or their "views" include the assertion or implication that certain ethnicities or religions resort preferentially to violence and so must or should be repressed in advance (certainly that is a common Zionist belief and RK is a common Zionist), then, of course they are likely to be "harrassed or threatened because of their information or views."  Those exact views are killing people in Palestine now.  So why should people in the USA not be killed for them?  On 9/11, some were, and this is going to continue as long as RK's view gets through to the media, and the troll view does not.  Those who are censored, tend to realize that they are going to have to submit to a regime or fight it with violence (legal means is violence, since the law is backed by violence), and, many will simply fight.
-:And point the blame to those "dreaded wikipedians" eg. the ones with access to logs it is even more easy for them to match historical data way beyond IP-numbers to point out that someone new is infact someone old. I just have to trust they don't abuse this. I personally see no problem with deleting talk_pages when they have back-history of clearly offensive edits by other users having a personal problem with the user elsewhere.
-::They abuse it constantly.  Angela also advocated only revealing IP logs to developers in cases of "vandalism" (not trolls who are a distinct category), but has again used this to identify people with views that she doesn't like.
-::I see no problem with deleting talk pages containing actual offensive edits with "a personal problem".  The issue between Angela and the trolls however is not personal, but obviously political, and our edits may offend her, and you, but, it would be offensive to most [[w:fair trade]] advocates not to be warned that they were dealing with someone who advocated a [[w:carceral state]] well in advance of having to deal with them on a real issue.  For this and other good reasons political [[faction]] really should be declared in advance, and it should be factions, not "just anyone" and not "sysops" who decide that edits do or do not represent a valid action.  That is why parties exist in legislatures, too, and the situation in wikis is easily as complicated.  The [[Content Wiki]] will have this problem worse than any other, and just shoving the controversial material to an [[Opinion Wiki]] doesn't solve the most basic problem, which is that there is an investment in identifying the trustworthiness of any one edit, and that there must be some group that validates these, or refuses to do so, that is neutral politically and does not permit things through on "reputation", and does not revert things due to "reputation", but applies ONLY a "due process".
-::There are MANY advocates of that at Wikipedia, but, they are drowned out by the Angelas.  Perhaps she is not "the worst of them" since she talks about it, even to trolls it seems, but, she is certainly engaged in witch-hunts that may actually violate the GFDL, when combined with the various measures taken by the sysops and developers she influences.  Certainly trolls will work hard to make sure that everyone who, for instance, restricts access to source texts that were licensed under GFDL, pays a serious price for it in their "real lives"... is that "harassment"?  If so, it's harassment they have completely earned.  Which is what most people call "justice".
-However, that was not what you advocated earlier�
-:No, I change my mind every half an hour. Women's prerogative. ;)
-::If so, then, you cannot conceivably be trusted with any enforcement oriented responsibilities, period.  Which is in fact our position exactly about you and your abilities.  Stick to writing and editing.  Stay out of "who has a voice".
-:It wasn't my first change of heart on the issue. I once fully defended [[w:user:BuddhaInside]]'s right to blank his talk page, and later argued strongly against that before he was banned. I also said RK had the right to remove criticisms from his talk page and that the [[w:User talk:172 sysop status|172 desysop page]] should be deleted, whilst later arguing that [[records are a good thing]] and the trail of RK's behaviour ought to be documented.
-::And you have no problem with this kind of thing, or see why people consider this sort of changes of view on demand to be self-serving or politically self-selected?  The GFDL does not say "...and submit to the sole editorial judgement of User:Angela".  Which would not matter if others had equal power to yourself.  Give up your sysop power, permanently, on every wiki, and cease to ask for ANY policy decision to be made or applied, i.e. talk only about the content of matters on talk pages, and we have no issue.  You are out of your depth.  GET out of it.  STAY out of it.  Leave depth to those who know depth, and can see the implications of policy decisions, what they mean for the future, and have some experience defining the missions of a [[large public wiki]].
-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.
-::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 more debates about Wikipedia - it is an enemy project, it is wasting vast amounts of talented people's time and damaging other talented peoples' reputations (is it REALLY valid to have a full page on Mel Gibson's alleged anti-semitism and NOTHING about the innovation of a Bible film in Aramaic word for word from the text?  REALLY?)  and therefore it will be destroyed.  Every person who has attached their reputation to it will suffer, years from now, the word "Wikipedia" will mean "libel" the way that "dotcom" now means "fraud".
-::We will also do our level rational 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 Angela-type filth who think your judgement is supreme, you "masters of truth and justice".  We understand you.  And we hate you.  Now get lost.  You have all that you need to leave the net and make a serious change in yourself - if you reject all hate, for instance, then you may go be a Buddhist or something.  If not, at least you might now know why so many brown and darker people around the world have been killing white colonists.  For insisting on "more talk" while doing power play after power grab and more and more removing the grounds of privacy, economic and technology power from them, and allocating it to your friends.  For being part of this, you of course deserve to die, and you will, but it won't be trolls who do it.  We have bigger fish to fry.  Now go to hell.  It's waiting for folks like you.
-:::My mistake. I thought I could reason with you. Clearly not. Goodbye.
-::::"Reason" only applies to those with enough integrity to check their premises, and apply their own principles to themselves.  Any attempt at reason without that, is a fraud.  Game over.  Good riddance.
 -------------