|
|
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | | style="font-size:{{{info-size|8}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|white}}};" | This user is a proud veteran<br> of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030|{{{4|'''<font color="red">Wikigulag.}}}] | | | style="font-size:{{{info-size|8}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|white}}};" | This user is a proud veteran<br> of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030|{{{4|'''<font color="red">Wikigulag.}}}] |
| | |} | | |} |
| − | {{Userboxbottom}} | + | {{Userboxbottom}}[[Image:284991223 72663058ac o.jpg|thumb|241px|right|<center>'''Connent the dots.'''</center>]] |
| − | <big>'''''Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase and Google Watch, was maliciously smeared [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=22336&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry22336] 18 months ago with the creation of his Wikipedia biographical page by SlimVirgin. Brandt recently was unblocked by Jimbo Wales to talk "about a productive way forward". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Unblocking_of_Daniel_Brandt] SlimVirgin said of Brandt, "much of Brandt's abusive posting about Wikipedians, which includes actionable libel, is on the Wikipedia Review site". Below is a thread which had been deleted from the Wikipedia Review site at the request of Mr. Brandt and is presented here in full.'''''</big> | |
| | | | |
| − | Friday, January 12, 2007
| |
| | | | |
| − | <big>'''Brandt & Berlet's problem the same '''</big> | + | <big>'''Karl von Clausewitz, ''On War'',''' |
| | | | |
| − | '''and how to fix it''' | + | '''Chapter II''' |
| | | | |
| | + | '''End and Means in War''' |
| | + | </big> |
| | | | |
| − | '''nobs Yesterday, 10:26pm Post #1'''
| + | If we ask first of all for the aim upon which the whole war is to be directed, in order that it may be the right means for the attainment of the political object, we shall find that it is just as variable as are the political object and the particular circumstances of the war. |
| | | | |
| − | Brandt and Berlet's problems really are the same. Berlet got information he felt defamatory removed from his biographical talk page that was sourced to reliable and mainstream sources. Brandt can't even get information by trolls removed from his biographical talk page that he feels is defamatory.
| + | ... we must at once draw a distinction between three things, which as three general objects comprise everything else within them. They are the military power, the country, and the will of the enemy. |
| | | | |
| − | Why is this? Lets look at the process Berlet followed. Berlet said,
| + | ... the hostile feeling and action of hostile agencies, cannot be considered as at an end as long as the will of the enemy is not subdued also; that is, its Government and its allies forced into signing a peace, or the people into submission; for whilst we are in full occupation of the country the war may break out afresh, either in the interior or through assistance given by allies. No doubt this may also take place after a peace, but that shows nothing more than that every war does not carry in itself the elements for a complete decision and final settlement. |
| | | | |
| − | :This case involves establishing the boundaries of proper editing and discussion behavior on Wikipedia when a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name and identity....
| + | ... we must bear in mind the diversity of political objects which may cause a war,—measure at a glance the distance which there is between a death struggle for political existence, and a war which a forced or tottering alliance makes a matter of disagreeable duty. Between the two, gradations innumerable occur in reality. ... |
| | | | |
| − | :At the heart of the case is a complicated set of questions. If individual Wiki editors are discouraged from editing entries on themselves, what policies might be appropriate to advise Wiki editors who have been in editing disputes with an editor for whom there is an entry? What are the proper boundaries when digging up negative and derogatory information about a fellow Wiki editor with whom one has had a dispute? Is there not a built in bias? Shouldn't there be some ground rules?
| + | ... It follows, therefore, that the destruction of the enemy's military force is the foundation-stone of all action in war... All action, therefore, takes place on the supposition that if the solution by force of arms which lies at its foundation should be realised, it will be a favourable one. The decision by arms is, for all operations in war, great and small, what cash payment is in bill transactions. However remote from each other these relations, however seldom the realisation may take place, still it can never entirely fail to occur. |
| | | | |
| − | :Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to "publish" a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication? How can persons with entries on Wiki defend themselves against the posting of false, malicious, and potentially defamatory text?
| + | If the decision by arms lies at the foundation of all combinations, then it follows that the enemy can defeat each of them by gaining a successful decision with arms, not merely if it is that one on which our combination directly depends, but also by any other, if it is only important enough for every important decision by arms—that is, destruction of the enemy's forces reacts upon all preceding it, because, like a liquid element, they bring themselves to a level. |
| | | | |
| − | Identical to Brandt's situation. Brandt's gonna argue he didn't become a Wiki editor by choice, and when he did, he didn't stop to learn the rules first. He was forced into it, moreless. This may be a valid criticism, and one Jimbo, et. al. the others who are enforcing his block (and/or ban) should consider. Brandt probably should spend the time to learn the rules (such as they exist, or can be called "rules"), then begin the elaborate Appeals process. One thing is for sure, "Making legal threats" is the ultimate taboo, and then weigh the real prospect of gaining any success against a top 10 most visited website. True, grandstanding for publicity is better than no publicity at all. But on the other hand, being a "controversial and notable expert" in Wikipedia with special protections and privileges is a far more enviable postion to be in.
| + | Thus, the destruction of the enemy's armed force appears, therefore, always as the superior and more effectual means, to which all others must give way. |
| | | | |
| − | '''Somey Today, 12:04am Post #2 '''
| + | ...nothing obliges us to confine this idea to the mere physical force; on the contrary, the moral is necessarily implied as well, because both in fact are interwoven with each other even in the most minute details, and, therefore, cannot be separated. ... |
| | | | |
| − | :QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th January 2007, 11:26pm)
| + | That this means must be costly stands to reason, for the waste of our own military forces must, ''ceteris paribus'', always be greater the more our aim is directed upon the destruction of the enemy's. |
| − | :Brandt probably should spend the time to learn the rules (such as they exist, or can be called "rules"), then begin the elaborate Appeals process.
| |
| | | | |
| − | Now you're just being silly, nobs! He already tried that, and do you really think Brandt doesn't know all about their so-called "rules" at this point? He probably knows them better than 99 percent of the WP'ers do.
| + | But the danger of this means lies in this, that just the greater efficacy which we seek recoils on ourselves, and therefore has worse consequences in case we fail of success. |
| | | | |
| − | Besides, nobody is talking about deleting the article on Chip_Berlet, not even The Chipster himself. Him least of all, I'd imagine...
| + | ... If, therefore, one of two belligerents is determined to take the way of the great decision by arms, then he has also a high probability of success, as soon as he is certain his opponent will not take that way, but follows a different object; and every one who sets before himself any such other aim only does so in a reasonable manner, provided he acts on the supposition that his adversary has as little intention as he has of resorting to the great decision by arms. |
| | | | |
| − | :QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th January 2007, 11:26pm)
| + | We have now to consider the opposite of the destruction of the enemy's armed force, that is to say, the preservation of our own....The endeavour to destroy the enemy's force has a positive object and leads to positive results, of which the final aim is the conquest of the enemy. The preservation of our own forces has a negative object, leads therefore to the defeat of the enemy's intentions, that is to pure resistance... |
| − | :One thing is for sure, "Making legal threats" is the ultimate taboo, and then weigh the real prospect of gaining any success against a top 10 most visited website.
| |
| | | | |
| − | It ain't the number of clicks you get, nobs... it's the amount of cash you have available to spend on your legal defense that really matters.
| + | The effort with a positive object calls into existence the act of destruction; the effort with the negative object awaits it. |
| | | | |
| − | :QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th January 2007, 11:26pm)
| + | ... It would, therefore, be a great error in the fundamental idea to suppose that the consequence of the negative course is that we are precluded from choosing the destruction of the enemy's military force as our object, and must prefer a bloodless solution. The advantage which the negative effort gives may certainly lead to that, but only at the risk of its not being the most advisable method, as that question is dependent on totally different conditions, resting not with ourselves but with our opponents. This other bloodless way cannot, therefore, be looked upon at all as the natural means of satisfying our great anxiety to spare our forces; on the contrary, when circumstances are not favourable to that way, it would be the means of completely ruining them. ...consequence of that is generally the postponement of the action as much as possible in time and also in space, in so far as space is in connection with it.... |
| − | :True, grandstanding for publicity is better than no publicity at all. But on the other hand, being a "controversial and notable expert" in Wikipedia with special protections and privileges is a far more enviable postion to be in.
| |
| | | | |
| − | Nobs, if you think that posting statements like this is going to improve your chances of getting unblocked on WP, or help you obtain some sort of "ah-HA!" moment against Mr. Berlet, I'd have to suggest that you may be, shall we say, going about things in a non-optimal manner. That's just my opinion, of course... But the idea that Mr. Brandt could actually obtain that sort of status on WP at any time in the foreseeable future is, quite simply, wacked.
| + | We have seen, therefore, in the foregoing reflections, that there are many ways to the aim, that is, to the attainment of the political object; but that the only means is the combat, and that consequently everything is subject to a supreme law: which is the decision by arms; that where this is really demanded by one, it is a redress which cannot be refused by the other; that, therefore, a belligerent who takes any other way must make sure that his opponent will not take this means of redress, or his cause may be lost in that supreme court; that, therefore, in short, the destruction of the enemy's armed force amongst all the objects which can be pursued in war appears always as that one which overrules all. |
| − | | |
| − | Just try to play nice, nobs. Lots of people want no part in The Grand Project Known As Wikipedia, and there's just no call for disrespecting them on that basis, especially here of all places.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Jonny Cache Today, 6:02am Post #3 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | I think Nobs has The Wikipedia Review confused with some kind of Wikipedia Appellate Court (WAC ).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Judge Jonny -- Not !!!
| |
| − | | |
| − | This post has been edited by Poetlister: Today, 9:40am
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Daniel Brandt Today, 10:43am Post #4 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | I've assumed for some time now that Nobs is actually a bot, programmed with all the arcane policies and rules and pseudo-precedents of Wikipedia. This bot logs into wikipediareview, detects a "problem" with someone's reported experience on Wikipedia, scans for relevant similarities within its wikidata, and spits out comments.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Unfortunately this bot is rather restricted. It has no knowledge of the U.S. legal system, no familiarity with the broad traditions of ethics and fair play as developed over previous centuries by writers and philosophers, and no understanding of where people such as Berlet or myself are coming from, the history that made us who we are, and what our priorities might be today.
| |
| − | | |
| − | All the bot can do is spit out comparisons and pronouncements based on similar instances within Wikipedia's history and lore. The problem with this is that there is no consistency within Wikipedia. It's all a question of the raw power of mostly anonymous and always unaccountable administrators. All the bot can do is cite something that happened to get resolved on Wikipedia a certain way, at a particular point in time.
| |
| − | | |
| − | "A tale ... signifying nothing."
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Jonny Cache Today, 10:56am Post #5 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | Oh goody, somebody else playing the bad cop for a change. That gives me a chance to show my sugar side.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Bot or not, I genuinely sympathize with Nobs, because I can still remember a time when I thought that the English Wikipedia might yet be saved from itself. Alas! Nevermore, and I'm doing what I can to forget that I was ever once so naive, but still ... much like malaria, a touch of the old wikipestilence still lingers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | But when it comes to the cure of souls, in the case of Nobs I long ago decided that Wiki Luv will only e-flame the dis-ease, and that nothing short of Tuff Luv will do.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jonny
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Somey Today, 12:35pm Post #6 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | I guess I agree... I mean, it may be that Nobs is just really, really frustrated with his Wikipedia situation, and at this point is willing to try anything, including attempt to wind us up in order to get back in their good graces. To some extent I suppose that worked for User:Grace_Note, from what I could tell at the time, so maybe there's actually some potential there. Who knows?
| |
| − | | |
| − | It's just that it's difficult for me, at least, and I suppose many others here, to look at things from the perspective of someone who's that concerned about getting back on WP. Y'see, Nobs, the problem with this methodology is that if they think you're really bothering us here - which you're not, really - then they'll maintain the current situation ( i.e., you being unfairly blocked) as long as they can - purely for the amusement value. I am absolutely not kidding about this - that is how they operate, and you should know that as well as anyone here.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Anyway, probably no reason to make a big deal out of it at this point, but still, as we all know, {wind-up = bad}!
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''nobs Today, 12:36pm Post #7 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th January 2007, 11:26pm)
| |
| − | :One thing is for sure, "Making legal threats" is the ultimate taboo, and then weigh the real prospect of gaining any success against a top 10 most visited website.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th January 2007, 12:04am)
| |
| − | :It ain't the number of clicks you get, nobs... it's the amount of cash you have available to spend on your legal defense that really matters.
| |
| − | | |
| − | True. Elsewhere on this site I posted the old numbers for the Foundation. Let's update that.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Income:1,508,039
| |
| − | | |
| − | Assets: 1,066,785
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 11th January 2007, 10:43am)
| |
| − | :I've assumed for some time now that Nobs is actually a bot…Unfortunately this bot is rather restricted. It has no knowledge of the U.S. legal system…
| |
| − | | |
| − | also
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 24th December 2006, 2:08pm)
| |
| − | :slimvirgin AT gmail.com
| |
| − | :cc: info AT wikimedia.org
| |
| − | :December 24, 2006
| |
| − | :Dear Sarah:
| |
| − | :...If the article gets deleted, I will take down the hivemind.html page on www.wikipedia-watch.org (but not the hive2.html page), and will also take down the findchat.html page, the 1,545 chat log files that are linked from there, and the chat search engine.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This bot has enough understanding of the U.S. legal system to know Mr. Brandt, when approaching the bench in good faith, will have to answer the defences' claim to the judge that the U.S. legal system shouldn't even hear this case after Mr. Brandt proposed this quid pro quo blackmail; not to mention the other proclaimations he's not using the U.S. legal system to seek judicial redress, just publicity.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 11th January 2007, 10:43am)
| |
| − | :… no familiarity with the broad traditions of ethics and fair play as developed over previous centuries by writers and philosophers, and no understanding of where people such as Berlet or myself are coming from, the history that made us who we are, and what our priorities might be today.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is why I believe in Wikipedia, as I said several times here in Wikipedia Review, censorship advocates who wannna maintain control of information by a journalistic elite have lost their monopoly, and the common scum who edit Wikipedia should stand up to this impingement on rights (within the rules, of course).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Amazing, despite Berlet linking and tying Brandt to Holocaust denial in Wikipedia, I may have helped reconcile an old troubled marriage…
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 11th January 2007, 10:43am)
| |
| − | :All the bot can do is spit out comparisons and pronouncements based on similar instances within Wikipedia's history and lore. The problem with this is that there is no consistency within Wikipedia. It's all a question of the raw power of mostly anonymous and always unaccountable administrators. All the bot can do is cite something that happened to get resolved on Wikipedia a certain way, at a particular point in time.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Based upon my ignorant misunderstanding of history, it appears time has passed Mr. Brandt by. Once upon a time between 1991 to 1994 Namebase was king. Brandt, for whatever reason (perhaps lack of financial resources), didn't keep up with the technical improvements, and Namebase is largely outdated now. And the improved highspeed technology now threatens to make Namebase look like not much more than another "conspiracist" website (some would say, it always had).
| |
| − | | |
| − | As I've always maintained, the information and sources speak for themselves. Let's let readers decide themselves.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th January 2007, 11:26pm)
| |
| − | :... being a "controversial and notable expert" in Wikipedia with special protections and privil eges is a far more enviable postion to be in.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th January 2007, 12:04am)
| |
| − | :... the idea that Mr. Brandt could actually obtain that sort of status on WP at any time in the foreseeable future is, quite simply, wacked.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I disagree. I've laid out the case and processes moreless. There is a path of redemption and restoration, if we're only willing to find it. Being secure in one's prejudices is hard to overcome, whether it's your own, or others with mistaken views of who you are, and what your intentions are.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I've heard evangelists perform excorcisms over the radio; I wonder if it's possible through a wiki?
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 10th January 2007, 11:26pm)
| |
| − | :Brandt probably should spend the time to learn the rules (such as they exist, or can be called "rules"), then begin the elaborate Appeals process.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th January 2007, 12:04am)
| |
| − | :He probably knows them better than 99 percent of the WP'ers do.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Knowing the rules and playing by the rules are two different things.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th January 2007, 12:04am)
| |
| − | :Just try to play nice, nobs. Lots of people want no part in The Grand Project Known As Wikipedia, and there's just no call for disrespecting them on that basis, especially here of all places.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 11th January 2007, 10:56am)
| |
| − | :I can still remember a time when I thought that the English Wikipedia might yet be saved from itself. Alas! Nevermore, and I'm doing what I can to forget that I was ever once so naive, but still ... much like malaria, a touch of the old wikipestilence still lingers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :But when it comes to the cure of souls, in the case of Nobs I long ago decided that Wiki Luv will only e-flame the dis-ease, and that nothing short of Tuff Luv will do.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thanks guys, I'm truellly humbled. Some of this may help my case.
| |
| − | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=100029537
| |
| − | | |
| − | On a more serious note Somey, I will begin to address as time allows the opt-out issue more directly, as it truelly does deserve scrutiny.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Jonny Cache Today, 1:20pm Post #8 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | Nobs,
| |
| − | | |
| − | Glad to be of service. Speaking of what the Time Being passes by, it's becoming pretty obvious to non-eddicted, non-illiterati observers that the Whole Of Wikia Inc. is nothing but an Eminently Overwritable Usenet, and talking about what you saw on Wikipedia last night will be taken about as seriously as talking about what you saw on TV last night -- and I do mean last night.
| |
| − | G'nite everbody ... Drive safely ...
| |
| − | | |
| − | Here's Jonny
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''anon1234 Today, 1:46pm Post #9 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 11th January 2007, 7:36pm)
| |
| − | :This bot has enough understanding of the U.S. legal system to know Mr. Brandt, when approaching the bench in good faith, will have to answer the defences' claim to the judge that the U.S. legal system shouldn't even hear this case after Mr. Brandt proposed this quid pro quo blackmail; not to mention the other proclaimations he's not using the U.S. legal system to seek judicial redress, just publicity.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Nobs, you have no understanding what so ever of what blackmail is. The fundamental principle of blackmail is the threat to reveal information, in the particular situation you are referencing Brandt offered to do the opposite. Slightly related if you are an associative thinker, but from a legal standpoint they are very separate things.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 11th January 2007, 8:20pm)
| |
| − | :Speaking of what the Time Being passes by, it's becoming pretty obvious to non-eddicted, non-illiterati observers that the Whole Of Wikia Inc. is nothing but an Eminently Overwritable Usenet, and talking about what you saw on Wikipedia last night will be taken about as seriously as talking about what you saw on TV last night -- and I do mean last night.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Yes! Wikipedia is the new Usenet.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''nobs Today, 1:51pm Post #10 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(anon1234 @ Thu 11th January 2007, 1:46pm)
| |
| − | :The fundamental principle of blackmail is the threat to reveal information
| |
| − | | |
| − | Not necessarily; a person or entity can be blackmailed to perform an action.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Somey Today, 1:54pm Post #11 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(anon1234 @ Thu 11th January 2007, 2:46pm)
| |
| − | :Nobs, you have no understanding what so ever of what blackmail is. The fundamental principle of blackmail is the threat to reveal information, in the particular situation you are referencing Brandt offered to do the opposite.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Exactly, and there isn't even any money or property changing hands. From a court's perspective it would simply look like a mutual cease-and-desist, or if enforcement was required, a gag order on both parties. Happens all the time, and not only is there no law against it, it's practically what the laws exist to encourage, when two parties are at an impasse in a dispute.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(nobs @ Just now) | |
| − | :Not necessarily; a person or entity can be blackmailed to perform an action.
| |
| − | | |
| − | That would be coercion, or if money is involved, bribery, assuming the other party is under some legal stricture against doing it, whatever it is.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''nobs Today, 1:59pm Post #12 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ok Ok. You guys win. Delete "blackmail", insert "coercive proposal".
| |
| − | And I apologize for using the shorthand of the journalistic elite instead of legal conventions. "Coercive proposal" should henceforth be the jargon used by common scum.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Somey Today, 2:03pm Post #13 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | Well, as long as we're OK with the idea that a coercive proposal isn't necessarily illegal, then I guess that's OK by me.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Jonny Cache Today, 2:04pm Post #14 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | Bumper sticker du jour
| |
| − | | |
| − | QUOTE
| |
| − | If legal recourse is outlawed,
| |
| − | only outlaws will have legal recourse.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jonny
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''nobs Today, 2:07pm Post #15 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th January 2007, 1:54 pm)
| |
| − | :From a court's perspective it would simply look like a mutual cease-and-desist, or if enforcement was required, a gag order on both parties. Happens all the time, and not only is there no law against it, it's practically what the laws exist to encourage, when two parties are at an impasse in a dispute.
| |
| − | | |
| − | So exactly correct. In fact, the Courts would even much prefer a stipulated solution then them being asked to intervene.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Again, the issue is approaching the bench in good faith.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Daniel Brandt Today, 2:08pm Post #16 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | No, it's not a coercive proposal. It's a negotiation.
| |
| − | Here's another negotiation: Unless some admin blocks Nobs from this board, I'm going to lose interest in it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''guy Today, 2:12pm Post #17 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th January 2007, 7:35pm)
| |
| − | :To some extent I suppose that worked for User:Grace_Note
| |
| − | | |
| − | No, what he did to get back into SV's good books was to try to wreck the List of British Jews by using quibbling so absurd that even Jayjg objected. (He failed, but that's another story.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Somey Today, 2:19pm Post #18 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 11th January 2007, 3:08pm)
| |
| − | :No, it's not a coercive proposal. It's a negotiation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Well, you know that I myself would call it a "plea for sanity," but if we can get one person to tone down the hyperbole, maybe we can get others to do so as well? Or am I just dreaming? OK, I'm dreaming.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 11th January 2007, 3:08pm)
| |
| − | :Here's another negotiation: Unless some admin blocks Nobs from this board, I'm going to lose interest in it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | But we never block people, do we? We have a "Sophists" group, though - he's been veering awfully close to that category over the last couple of days.
| |
| − | I'll check with the others, but in the meantime, how about I move this thread to the Tar Pit and lock it down? Or maybe even delete it completely? It's pretty clear that it exists only for wind-up purposes... I don't believe any of us have deleted a thread in months, but given that the whole underlying issue being discussed involves the refusal to delete something on Wikipedia that exists mostly for wind-up purposes, maybe that would send just the right message!
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''nobs 57 minutes ago Post #19 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th January 2007, 2:19pm)
| |
| − | :.... It's pretty clear that it exists only for wind-up purposes... I don't believe any of us have deleted a thread in months, but given that the whole underlying issue being discussed involves the refusal to delete something on Wikipedia that exists mostly for wind-up purposes, maybe that would send just the right message!
| |
| − | | |
| − | Please, wait a minute. I did try to bring forward certain issues, in good faith, I thought may be useful to consider for a long standing problem. I do have a history of posting in controversial areas. My apologies to Mr. Brandt, since he was offended. And I will try to avoid discussing his particular problems with Wikipedia further. But I do think it is worthwhile for him to review the Nobs01 and others case for these two reasons:
| |
| − | | |
| − | *(1) His situation is very similar to Cberlet as a notable expert, etc.
| |
| − | *(2) His situation is very similar to Nobs01 in trying to gain redress for perceived oversights by the powers that be.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Daniel Brandt 57 minutes ago Post #20 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th January 2007, 3:19pm)
| |
| − | :Or maybe even delete it completely? It's pretty clear that it exists only for wind-up purposes...
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | That would work for me. This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen on WR. It would be a good "negotiated" solution. Rather like a shot across the bow.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Somey 49 minutes ago Post #21 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 11th January 2007, 3:28pm)
| |
| − | :That would work for me. This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen on WR. It would be a good "negotiated" solution. Rather like a shot across the bow.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Dumber than "Scones vs. Waffles"? Yikes!
| |
| − | | |
| − | OK, I think I can do that unilaterally without upsetting too many people... I just wanted to make sure you saw the apology first.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Jonny Cache 41 minutes ago Post #22 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | Deleting is bad precedent unless it's patently offensive -- and I think that the patent is still pending on this one -- but I don't care where you move it, and maybe a cool down period is good for all concerned. We are here for a critical purpose, and I think that it would be a good thing if Nobs could hear the criticisms that others are making of his reasoning, but I also think that life among the hothouse flowers of Arbcom has filled his ears with wikipikipoo.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Q-tip, anyone !?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jonny
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''nobs 36 minutes ago Post #23 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | 10-4. My career as a marriage councellor appears over.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Somey 30 minutes ago Post #24 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | I wouldn't necessarily say it was a precedent - threads have been deleted before that were essentially started for wind-up purposes. (Sorry, that's just my preferred term!)
| |
| − | | |
| − | So basically it comes down to a question of what this really is. If we go by standard Wikipedian reasoning, then if someone has apologized, that means he's done something wrong - which would support the case that it's wind-up. The fact that Wikipedian reasoning is usually incorrect may or may not be relevant to the issue, of course...
| |
| − | | |
| − | The main thing about deleting a thread completely is that only the root admin, in our case Selina, can undelete it. And since Selina's almost never around these days, that's essentially the same as making the thread non-undeletable (and yes, I hate double-negatives, but what's a poor boy to do?).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Anyhoo, I'm just trying to do the wise thing here. If what nobs is saying is reflective of what the general population of Wikipedia actually thinks about the situation, then it may have some value, but I really don't think it is, do you? The issue for them seems to be their right to free speech without being personally identified, and that's all it is.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''nobs 25 minutes ago Post #25 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(anon1234 @ Thu 11th January 2007, 1:46pm)
| |
| − | :Nobs, you have no understanding .... Slightly related if you are an associative thinker....
| |
| − | | |
| − | Which lead me to this,
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE
| |
| − | :Through research on brain-damaged subjects we have discovered that if one part of the brain cannot function other parts try to compensate. Depending on the damage, the entire function may shift to another part of the brain. http://www.wu.ece.ufl.edu/books/recreation/assoc.html
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | So this thread has taught me much about myself.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''the fieryangel 19 minutes ago Post #26 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Let me throw my two cents in here, for what it's worth (probably about two cents)...
| |
| − | The only way to do something about Wikipedia is to refuse to think and act along their policies. Anything which works according to their way of thinking is counterproductive to exposing them for what they are.
| |
| − | | |
| − | If we see conflict as a positive thing, then Nobs and Daniel riffing off of each other is a good thing, since they're forcing the other person to see another position. Your enemy is your friend in this case. It sounds crazy, but it works.
| |
| − | Everybody's figured out that Daniel and Nobs don't get along. Probably even they know that. If that's a given and everyone carries on as if that's a given, I don't see a problem here...
| |
| − | | |
| − | Does that make any sense???
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Jonny Cache 17 minutes ago Post #27 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | Wind-up !? Entschuldigen sie mich, ich kann sie leider nicht verstehen. What's it gotta do with baseball?
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'm just naturally against information destruction, and we all have our personal ignore buttons if it comes to that.
| |
| − | | |
| − | And I spent several minutes thinking up that bumper sticker ...
| |
| − | | |
| − | Seems like the best thing is always just to switch to another window for a while, and think about it again in the morning.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Jonny
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Somey 7 minutes ago Post #28 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | OK, this is a little complicated, but what I'm gonna do is move the thread to a brand-shiny-new subforum I just created, that only the staff gets to see (sorry). That way, if any of the others in the Gang of Five disagree with what I'm about to do, they can always "revert," no Selina required.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Then, I think I'm going to split off a few of the more salient (and less inflammatory) posts from it and move them into the "Wikipedia Review Review" forum. If things start to devolve further from there, then we can treat the new topic accordingly...
| |
| − | | |
| − | So, there's still a chance you might actually be able to read what I've just written! Whoopie-doo!
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''nobs 5 minutes ago Post #29 '''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 11th January 2007, 3:05pm)
| |
| − | :If we see conflict as a positive thing, then Nobs and Daniel riffing off of each other is a good thing, since they're forcing the other person to see another position. Your enemy is your friend in this case. It sounds crazy, but it works.
| |
| − | :Everybody's figured out that Daniel and Nobs don't get along. Probably even they know that. If that's a given and everyone carries on as if that's a given, I don't see a problem here...
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Does that make any sense???
| |
| − | | |
| − | Different worldviews? Perhaps yes. On a personal basis as one editor to a fellow editor, I hope not. I believe Mr. Brandt has been misunderstood by much of the Wiki community, as I have in many instances, too. And I haven't suffered the criticism of the benevolent dictator being placed in my non-notable bio, which I believe is grossly unfair to Mr. Brandt. My intentions were to assist by bringing in some constructive criticism, and it should be given some weight, since I'm probably not an ideological kinsman. I hope Mr. Brandt can learn where I'm coming from (yes, perhaps I am Nixon's ghost) and we can have many pleasant editing experiences together.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As I see it, I'm not as critical of Wikipedia as others on this board, and would just like to facilitate ArbCom to look at particulars of each case, not cast them all off as troublemakers.
| |
Sysop PledgeAs a Conservapedia Sysop,
I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.
Karl von Clausewitz, On War,
Chapter II
End and Means in War
If we ask first of all for the aim upon which the whole war is to be directed, in order that it may be the right means for the attainment of the political object, we shall find that it is just as variable as are the political object and the particular circumstances of the war.
... we must at once draw a distinction between three things, which as three general objects comprise everything else within them. They are the military power, the country, and the will of the enemy.
... the hostile feeling and action of hostile agencies, cannot be considered as at an end as long as the will of the enemy is not subdued also; that is, its Government and its allies forced into signing a peace, or the people into submission; for whilst we are in full occupation of the country the war may break out afresh, either in the interior or through assistance given by allies. No doubt this may also take place after a peace, but that shows nothing more than that every war does not carry in itself the elements for a complete decision and final settlement.
... we must bear in mind the diversity of political objects which may cause a war,—measure at a glance the distance which there is between a death struggle for political existence, and a war which a forced or tottering alliance makes a matter of disagreeable duty. Between the two, gradations innumerable occur in reality. ...
... It follows, therefore, that the destruction of the enemy's military force is the foundation-stone of all action in war... All action, therefore, takes place on the supposition that if the solution by force of arms which lies at its foundation should be realised, it will be a favourable one. The decision by arms is, for all operations in war, great and small, what cash payment is in bill transactions. However remote from each other these relations, however seldom the realisation may take place, still it can never entirely fail to occur.
If the decision by arms lies at the foundation of all combinations, then it follows that the enemy can defeat each of them by gaining a successful decision with arms, not merely if it is that one on which our combination directly depends, but also by any other, if it is only important enough for every important decision by arms—that is, destruction of the enemy's forces reacts upon all preceding it, because, like a liquid element, they bring themselves to a level.
Thus, the destruction of the enemy's armed force appears, therefore, always as the superior and more effectual means, to which all others must give way.
...nothing obliges us to confine this idea to the mere physical force; on the contrary, the moral is necessarily implied as well, because both in fact are interwoven with each other even in the most minute details, and, therefore, cannot be separated. ...
That this means must be costly stands to reason, for the waste of our own military forces must, ceteris paribus, always be greater the more our aim is directed upon the destruction of the enemy's.
But the danger of this means lies in this, that just the greater efficacy which we seek recoils on ourselves, and therefore has worse consequences in case we fail of success.
... If, therefore, one of two belligerents is determined to take the way of the great decision by arms, then he has also a high probability of success, as soon as he is certain his opponent will not take that way, but follows a different object; and every one who sets before himself any such other aim only does so in a reasonable manner, provided he acts on the supposition that his adversary has as little intention as he has of resorting to the great decision by arms.
We have now to consider the opposite of the destruction of the enemy's armed force, that is to say, the preservation of our own....The endeavour to destroy the enemy's force has a positive object and leads to positive results, of which the final aim is the conquest of the enemy. The preservation of our own forces has a negative object, leads therefore to the defeat of the enemy's intentions, that is to pure resistance...
The effort with a positive object calls into existence the act of destruction; the effort with the negative object awaits it.
... It would, therefore, be a great error in the fundamental idea to suppose that the consequence of the negative course is that we are precluded from choosing the destruction of the enemy's military force as our object, and must prefer a bloodless solution. The advantage which the negative effort gives may certainly lead to that, but only at the risk of its not being the most advisable method, as that question is dependent on totally different conditions, resting not with ourselves but with our opponents. This other bloodless way cannot, therefore, be looked upon at all as the natural means of satisfying our great anxiety to spare our forces; on the contrary, when circumstances are not favourable to that way, it would be the means of completely ruining them. ...consequence of that is generally the postponement of the action as much as possible in time and also in space, in so far as space is in connection with it....
We have seen, therefore, in the foregoing reflections, that there are many ways to the aim, that is, to the attainment of the political object; but that the only means is the combat, and that consequently everything is subject to a supreme law: which is the decision by arms; that where this is really demanded by one, it is a redress which cannot be refused by the other; that, therefore, a belligerent who takes any other way must make sure that his opponent will not take this means of redress, or his cause may be lost in that supreme court; that, therefore, in short, the destruction of the enemy's armed force amongst all the objects which can be pursued in war appears always as that one which overrules all.
