[WikiEN-l] e-mails to wikien-l being dropped

Thu Jun 30 21:07:44 UTC 2005

> I dropped your messages for the attacks contained therein; I let this one
> through for having a lot fewer of them. The remaining readers of wikien-l
> are largely sick of fifty-message threads of querulous ranting, so they're
> not being encouraged. You don't have some sort of intrinsic right to rant
> as you please here; you can be sure at least a few of the many admins
> reading this list will have looked into the incidents upsetting you.

So out of the entire history of the mailing list, you decide to do
this just now?  Uh huh.  I had only sent about 3 e-mails so far and
you all of a sudden decided to start censoring.  Regardless of my
"personal attacks" my e-mails were still perfectly on-topic and had
legitimate questions.  Censoring them isn't going to make me e-mail
less, it's going to make me e-mail more in response to this nefarious
behavior.

Also, if the readers don't want to read certain e-mails, they don't
have to it.  It's simple really and it's also childish to not be able
to just move past a thread you don't like.

> And I must point out that you always have the option of not making
> personal attacks in your posts.

So why do you use them?

> You appear to take anything said about you that you don't like as an
> attack, yet are unable to perceive your own attacks on others.

Pot, meet kettle, it's black!  I only called one statement of yours a
personal attack, so this statement is just plain ludicrous.  I'm not
sure what math you're using, but the kind I'm using one does not equal
to many.

>  The
> reference to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] should be all a reasonable
> person needs; that you don't seem to get it should not ultimately be anyone
> else's problem.

You have seriously got to be kidding me.  Have you read the talk page
for "no personal attacks"?  There is a lot of debate going on about
what constitutes a personal attack and what should/shouldn't be
allowed.  There is no clear consensus and you suggesting that it's
just what a reasonable person needs just a way for you to continue
being evasive and avoiding defining it.

So I guess all this debate and the many people engaging in it on the
talk page are just idiots, right?  After all, it's *totally* obvious,
it's just that so many people are too dumb to grasp the obvious and
really majority support for your "obvious" definition isn't needed at
all.

I'm sorry, but the facts just aren't in your favor here.  If you're
going to defend yourself, you better damn well not cop-out like you're
trying to do now.  If you can't even see the gray area involved here,
then you shouldn't be an admin at all.  I'm curious, is it a personal
attack if I call someone a black and white thinker?  What about
describing someone's views regarding a specific matter at hand as
"tunnel vision"?

> The wikien-l admins really don't like work, so try to avoid it as
> far as possible. But letting the list turn to querulous ranting is
> leading to (fairly justified IMO) complaints. So we'll be trying
> harder to stop the rubbish at a sensible point.

Huh?  You stopped me after 3 e-mails.  You even rejected my first
response to bishonen which was in direct regard to my block and is one
of the purposes of this list.  Cutting it off that early is hardly a
"sensible point."

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------