Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) m →sighs |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
::I guess Zordrac's belief is that I should have told Antaeus Feldspar to "fuck off" as soon as I got a comment on my talk page from Antaeus, despite the fact I had never heard of Antaeus before that, and still have no idea what Zordrac's dispute with him actually is about (it's hard to discern between the swearing and insults... somewhat from both sides, but mostly from Zordrac; I can tell it has something to do with Daniel Brandt). I'm not going to do that: it's rude and unprofessional. And whatever Antaeus Feldspar's editing history might be, I've never seen that he's gone around adding scurrilous comments about ''me'', which is a point in his favor. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 20:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC) |
::I guess Zordrac's belief is that I should have told Antaeus Feldspar to "fuck off" as soon as I got a comment on my talk page from Antaeus, despite the fact I had never heard of Antaeus before that, and still have no idea what Zordrac's dispute with him actually is about (it's hard to discern between the swearing and insults... somewhat from both sides, but mostly from Zordrac; I can tell it has something to do with Daniel Brandt). I'm not going to do that: it's rude and unprofessional. And whatever Antaeus Feldspar's editing history might be, I've never seen that he's gone around adding scurrilous comments about ''me'', which is a point in his favor. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 20:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::That wasn't *quite* as harassing as your usual comments, but it still wasn't nice, and wasn't true. I did not make any threats against you at all. I stated that I believed that an appropriate course of actions for the affected users was to escalate their claims from mediation towards the next stage, as you refused to engage in mediation. This is not a threat. Please do not lie. I am stating my recommendation to these people. I did not at any stage lie about you. If I summarised things a bit vaguely, I apologise. However, you did in fact observe poor editing practices on the List of Jews lists, and you did remove NPOV tags and refused to acknowledge cited references, and were generally extraordinarily rude to these people who were trying to edit an article. That is not helpful to the encyclopaedia. It does not help when you go around threatening users, and you should not do this. We should be working as a team, not in opposition. You do not need to go around accusing people of all sorts of ridiculous things, claiming that everyone is a sock puppet of each other, claiming that everyone is ganging up on you or any other paranoid nonsense. |
|||
:::And yes, you should have told Antaeus to "fuck off" as you put it. Everyone else did. Every single person that he went to to say the exact same thing that he told you had either told him to go away or deleted his comment or told him to "fuck off". That you were the first person to listen to him, and that you blindly accepted such nonsense either shows great compassion on your part, in agreeing to see a point of view that nobody else was willing to listen to, or alternatively demonstrates that you were extremely biased and narrow sighted, unable to see the truth. The fact of the matter is that I did not ever go on any kind of campaign against you. You acknowledge that, prior to this, I had never talked to you. I had never talked to you and you had never talked to me. I had never talked to SlimVirgin, but had heard of her, and thought highly of her. Indeed, if anything, I was pro-you. And I was trying very hard to stay pro-you. The unfair ban and its associated problems, which revolve around you, make you look very bad, but I am still trying very hard to remain pro-you. If it weren't for your constant attacks on me, following me around, threatening me, abusing me, and harassing me, not to mention lying about me to everyone, then I probably would be able to be pro-you. And you know, you have to respect other people's opinions. Its a very important thing to do. You have to realise that you are not always right, and your opinion is not the only one in the world. The way that you dealt with the people on these lists was as if you were talking to 3 year olds - it was disrespectful, abusive and threatening of nature, and is not conducive to good editing. That you then turned around and treated me with the same disdain when I was trying to sort out the problems really doesn't help matters. I don't know what you hope to achieve through this. If you are aiming to try to "prove your innocence" by repeating your earlier failings, then it doesn't work in that manner. If you want to prove your innocence, then try being nice. |
|||
:::As for Antaeus, it is good that you recognise that it was surrounding Daniel Brandt. I have explained this many times. I had never met him prior to Daniel Brandt, and indeed, before we had communicated, he threatened me on the Daniel Brandt talk page, and made wild accusations about me, claiming to have been "watching me". He then engaged in an obstructive edit war to try to engage me in it, and when I backed out of it he engaged others in it and repeatedly accused me of things in edits. I tried to calm him down, but nothing would work. And you know what, Lulu? If you were someone who was trying to help matters, you are in a very good position to calm him down. If you really are here to try to sort things out, then you should be going to him to get him to stop harassing me. |
|||
:::And what you should realise is that going to Arbitration is not the same thing as threatening to have you banned. There is a definite conflict that exists within the List of Jews lists, and you are a major part of that conflict. This conflict needs to be resolved in order to create peace with a lot of members of Wikipedia. Whilst you refused the mediation and acted obstructively towards everything else, and even went so far as to get these users banned - and if it turns out that that anon IP vandal was you then it has gone even further than that - but what you have to realise is that I am not recommending for you to be banned. I am hoping that you will apologise and sort things out with these people. You don't need to apologise with me. I have no argument with you. I just want you to stop harassing me. |
|||
:::And, as you no doubt realise, your prior edits were harassing in nature, and I had every right to wipe them from here. This one was not quite as bad, so I didn't remove it. No, I do not wipe "every edit that I don't agree with" as you put it. I wipe threatening abusive edits on my talk page. Again, NOBODY should EVER have to put up with that kind of abuse. I am hoping that you are now committed to ceasing this behaviour. [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] [[User_talk:Zordrac|(talk)]] <small>[[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]] [[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinian]] [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]]</small> 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:36, 24 December 2005
User talk:Zordrac/Archive1:Dates: 24 November 2005 - 24 December 2005 :Posts: 95
Please see: User talk:Zordrac/FAQ for information on what I consider to be acceptable editing of this talk page.
First comment here. Edit below this line
Bans lifted
I thought that I would advise you that the bans on User:Poetlister, User:Newport, User:Taxwoman and User:Londoneye were all lifted yesterday by User:Dan100 for the reason of "no evidence", and he has since begun an investigation in to the matter, and is gathering evidence. As he is independent to the matter, and you were directly involved, you may wish to contact him regarding the case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Despite your continued insistence to the contrary, I was not "directly involved" in that matter. Your repeated failure to assume good faith has been noted for the record, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please stop threatening me. Thank you. You were directly involved via the request made on your talk page from SlimVirgin, which began the proceedings towards the ban. I have not failed to assume good faith, as WP:AGF is not relevant when questioning someone else's inability to assume good faith. If I was failing to assume good faith by doing this, then so too are you, by suggesting that I failed to assume good faith. Your circular logic deludes you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
IMO
- In my opinion, The Powers That Be have concluded that you are more trouble than you ae worth and are collecting evidence to ban you. You just gave them more ammunition. Maybe I'm wrong. But I saw your comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales and looked at User:Zordrac/experts and I think you'd benefit from looking at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and think about learning as much as teaching. You suggest people write their own bios? People lie. You suggest we let people both edit wikipedia in username that is also making legal threats? We have enough problem as it is with abusive behavior. Sue if you want or edit if you want; just don't do both. Make a legal threat with one username and edit with another on an unrelated article. That's way more freedom than you'll find anywhere else. I'm really glad you care so much you want to help wikipedia and lots of individuals. Some of your help may not have helped. People don't want help that they perceive is not helping. How would you feel if someone thought being a female was the best thing and offered to pay for a sex change operation for you? You feel complimented? I would guess not. By the way, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Your suggestion to turn it into something else by having a contact the expert section is simply not what Wikipedia is about. It might be a good and useful suggestion at Meta Wikipedia. If you fancy youself an idea man, maybe you should check them out. They are in a way the larger group that Wikipedia is a subset of. Anyway, please use wikipedia to learn as much as you use it to help others. Thanks, friend. WAS 4.250 16:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005 and learn a little about Kelly Martin. You communications with Kelly would be improved if you knew more about him. WAS 4.250 16:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- If they ban me, that's fine. Its just Wikipedia, it won't matter to my life. My suggestions at User:Zordrac/experts are my own personal beliefs, and it is a suggestion that I thought might work. If they don't agree with it, then that's fine, I am not forcing them to adopt it. It is just a suggestion. However, that is how regular encyclopaedias work - where possible they interview subjects of the articles or get experts involved. So it would not be changing it from being an encyclopaedia to being something else - it would be making it more encyclopaedic. As for the legal threats issue, I have explained this. It is an important way to control abuse, and to protect people. You might disagree, and that's fine. This is my opinion on it. And as for Kelly Martin, I do not know her (or him) and do not plan to. I am responding purely on her (or his) comments. Yes, I am fully aware that they are a member of the Arbitration Committee, as they were the person who I contacted a month ago to ask how CheckUser worked. I have no issue with Kelly Martin, just with her misinterpretation of WP:AGF and her threats, which are not acceptable to me, no matter who she is. I do not think that it should matter what rank someone is in terms of their behaviour. If anything, I would hope that higher ranked people work harder to be civilised. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
ArbCom
As you can see by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Kelly Martin, many people agree with you. WAS 4.250 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I just asked her/him some questions (sorry, but to me, Kelly is a girl's name, similar deal with Lulu lol). I plan to vote for User:Jayjg. I am not sure who else. Jayjg is the best administrator I have seen anywhere so far. I have seen a lot of his work and he is fantastic. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg and SlimVirgin operate as a team from what I've seen. You get one, you get both.
You may have meant "eludes" rather than "deludes" in your comment to Kelly.
I'm not sure I'm going to vote at all. I think its all rigged anyway, why bother. I hope I'm just being pesimistic. WAS 4.250 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with SlimVirgin. Her actions with regards to the case that I was critical of have only demonstrated her loyalty to other administrators. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't have a problem with anyone here. There are 2 people who I wish would stop harassing me, but beyond that I really have no issue with anyone, and if those 2 would calm down and speak properly towards me, I am sure that we could resolve things too.
I just went around and asked all candidates that I am considering, as well as those that I think would make dreadful candidates (just so as to show to everyone how bad they are) the following questions:
- What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
- Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
- Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
- How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
- Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?
What do you think? I picked out Charles Matthews, Everyking, Morven and Karmafist as people who I would consider as well. I also gave a couple of others some questions, and gave a lot to ones who I think would be dreadful candidates. But its up to them to prove me wrong, I suppose. If they are hoping to become good candidates, then they just have to prove me wrong. Just ask User:Linuxbeak and User:Izehar as 2 people who I was very critical of, but their subsequent actions proved me wrong. The door is always open for people with a committment to doing the right thing, and in the end intentions always shine through ahead of whatever mistakes that they make. Mistakes are forgiveable. Intentions are much harder to forgive. But even bad intentions are forgiveable eventually. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
And you should note that I tried to convince people who were involved in disputes with SlimVirgin that she was not involved to the extent that they think. I am very much pro-SlimVirgin. And, with the exceptions of the harassment I have received, I am very much pro-Lulu too. Or at least I was. The door is open for him just as soon as he calms down. If he could also convince his friend to stop harassing me, I would think that Lulu is wonderful. But it is up to him to do the right thing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I just put headings on. Actually, to be fair, I asked questions to everyone I had ever had any interactions with or had heard about. The names that I know nothing about I didn't bother to ask questions of, since I won't vote for people who are strangers. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion
Can I suggest that you are taking things a little too personally? Sometimes other users try and make it personal, often there seems to be bias and agendas... but at the end of the day, we're writing an encyclopedia and nothing else. When people try and make it personal, my suggestion is simply to ignore it, and focus on content issues. Always stick to the highest standards of civility. Never make a personal attack, or even something that could be mis-read as one. (I'm not saying you have, this is just general advice!)
Just let anything personal roll off you and focus on content. Part of that includes making sure that other useful editors don't get a raw deal, but in doing so try to stick to a neutral, cool, tone. You'll find WP much more enjoyable and peaceful if you do this! Peace and have a Happy Christmas, Dan100 (Talk) 17:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry if you think that I am taking things personally. I like to think a lot. Some people don't understand what philosophy is, or why people think. I don't know if I ever gave a personal attack to anyone. Most likely, per their own personal view of a personal attack, at some stage someone probably did think that I did. But I didn't ever attack anyone. Not once have I gone to someone's user page so as to harass them or attack them or anything like that. I have sometimes gone to pains to try to convince people of my argument, and to express my point of view, and I have also sometimes tried to defend people from being attacked. But that's about it. It is difficult to be neutral, as you likely know. I don't think that anyone can ever truly be neutral. However, I find that with thought and consideration, it makes things easier to do so. You are right that in the past few days I have not really contributed anything towards building the encyclopaedia, and I have become focussed on righting wrongs and at the same time trying to avoid harassment and to stop the harassment that I have received. This has been both very rewarding and very distressful. Righting the wrong has been very rewarding, whilst the harassment has been very stressful. In fact, it is the harassment that I have received which has made me reluctant to edit, because I have been followed in to articles which I tried to edit and the users began immediate edit wars with me in those articles, making me feel like I wasn't safe to do anything. In effect it made me feel like I couldn't do anything because of it. Thus I focussed on this for now. I think that my sub pages are coming along nicely and long term I think that my having created them in this way will make things better for everyone. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
sighs
It sounds like someone's been accusing me of something. I just wish that people would stop being hostile and work to try to get along. It is frustrating sometimes that no matter how much I work to try to prove to someone that I am not against them and am not trying to fight with them, some people still insist that I am against them, and therefore think that harassing me or stalking me or going to great lengths to attack me is reasonable. Apparently I am being threatened with being banned because I tried to help a newbie in trouble and tried to right a wrong. And also being threatened with being banned because I have 2 people stalking me. So if the powers that be deem that I am required to allow people to harass me and stalk me and that I am forbidden from helping anyone out, then fine, they can ban me. I don't come here to deal with nonsense. Nobody should ever have to put up with treatment like that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I know what you mean. Months ago (long before I was an admin) a then-member of the arbcom made some very uncalled-for comments about me, and I proceeded to tell everyone I could find and demand "punishment". I was soon told that that's not how things really work. Admins aren't police officers, and it's amazing what kind of nastiness people can get away with. But know this - when they do that, they lose the respect of everyone else, and people are much less likely to listen to them or ever support them. Further, severe misbehaviour and harrasment can lead to an RfC against a user, and then an arbcom case if necessary.
- The key though is to take the moral high ground. Never threaten (vieled or otherwise), always be extremely civil, overlook personal attacks, never use aggresive or confrontational language etc. Do that and you'll gain respect, and if RfCs or more are ever needed, people will be on your "side". Dan100 (Talk) 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sure Zordrac will delete this, as he does all user talk comments he disagrees with, contrary to Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes on archiving user talk pages. But let me try just one more time to say "Amen" to Dan100's comment. Zordrac went to probably a dozen different user talk pages and admin pages to add RfAr/RfC threats against me, accompanied by false and unpleasant accusations. All despite the fact I never even interacted with Zordrac before two days ago. That certainly doesn't win him any points in my mind.
- And yet, despite that, I never once made any personal attack or any comment at all that I do not wholly endorse (or that I would not want to see in other editors). And despite the ongoing onslaught of nastier and nastier accusations (the latest about five minutes ago on this talk page; but then deleted by Zordrac, thankfully). What I did do (and maybe I should not have), was point out in some (but certainly not all) of the places where Zordrac attacked me, that Zordrac's statements were false. Which, of course, led to the nonsense about "Wikistalking" (and that I was in some sort of conspiracy with a bunch of editors I had never heard of until Zordrac pointed them out).
- I guess Zordrac's belief is that I should have told Antaeus Feldspar to "fuck off" as soon as I got a comment on my talk page from Antaeus, despite the fact I had never heard of Antaeus before that, and still have no idea what Zordrac's dispute with him actually is about (it's hard to discern between the swearing and insults... somewhat from both sides, but mostly from Zordrac; I can tell it has something to do with Daniel Brandt). I'm not going to do that: it's rude and unprofessional. And whatever Antaeus Feldspar's editing history might be, I've never seen that he's gone around adding scurrilous comments about me, which is a point in his favor. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- That wasn't *quite* as harassing as your usual comments, but it still wasn't nice, and wasn't true. I did not make any threats against you at all. I stated that I believed that an appropriate course of actions for the affected users was to escalate their claims from mediation towards the next stage, as you refused to engage in mediation. This is not a threat. Please do not lie. I am stating my recommendation to these people. I did not at any stage lie about you. If I summarised things a bit vaguely, I apologise. However, you did in fact observe poor editing practices on the List of Jews lists, and you did remove NPOV tags and refused to acknowledge cited references, and were generally extraordinarily rude to these people who were trying to edit an article. That is not helpful to the encyclopaedia. It does not help when you go around threatening users, and you should not do this. We should be working as a team, not in opposition. You do not need to go around accusing people of all sorts of ridiculous things, claiming that everyone is a sock puppet of each other, claiming that everyone is ganging up on you or any other paranoid nonsense.
- And yes, you should have told Antaeus to "fuck off" as you put it. Everyone else did. Every single person that he went to to say the exact same thing that he told you had either told him to go away or deleted his comment or told him to "fuck off". That you were the first person to listen to him, and that you blindly accepted such nonsense either shows great compassion on your part, in agreeing to see a point of view that nobody else was willing to listen to, or alternatively demonstrates that you were extremely biased and narrow sighted, unable to see the truth. The fact of the matter is that I did not ever go on any kind of campaign against you. You acknowledge that, prior to this, I had never talked to you. I had never talked to you and you had never talked to me. I had never talked to SlimVirgin, but had heard of her, and thought highly of her. Indeed, if anything, I was pro-you. And I was trying very hard to stay pro-you. The unfair ban and its associated problems, which revolve around you, make you look very bad, but I am still trying very hard to remain pro-you. If it weren't for your constant attacks on me, following me around, threatening me, abusing me, and harassing me, not to mention lying about me to everyone, then I probably would be able to be pro-you. And you know, you have to respect other people's opinions. Its a very important thing to do. You have to realise that you are not always right, and your opinion is not the only one in the world. The way that you dealt with the people on these lists was as if you were talking to 3 year olds - it was disrespectful, abusive and threatening of nature, and is not conducive to good editing. That you then turned around and treated me with the same disdain when I was trying to sort out the problems really doesn't help matters. I don't know what you hope to achieve through this. If you are aiming to try to "prove your innocence" by repeating your earlier failings, then it doesn't work in that manner. If you want to prove your innocence, then try being nice.
- As for Antaeus, it is good that you recognise that it was surrounding Daniel Brandt. I have explained this many times. I had never met him prior to Daniel Brandt, and indeed, before we had communicated, he threatened me on the Daniel Brandt talk page, and made wild accusations about me, claiming to have been "watching me". He then engaged in an obstructive edit war to try to engage me in it, and when I backed out of it he engaged others in it and repeatedly accused me of things in edits. I tried to calm him down, but nothing would work. And you know what, Lulu? If you were someone who was trying to help matters, you are in a very good position to calm him down. If you really are here to try to sort things out, then you should be going to him to get him to stop harassing me.
- And what you should realise is that going to Arbitration is not the same thing as threatening to have you banned. There is a definite conflict that exists within the List of Jews lists, and you are a major part of that conflict. This conflict needs to be resolved in order to create peace with a lot of members of Wikipedia. Whilst you refused the mediation and acted obstructively towards everything else, and even went so far as to get these users banned - and if it turns out that that anon IP vandal was you then it has gone even further than that - but what you have to realise is that I am not recommending for you to be banned. I am hoping that you will apologise and sort things out with these people. You don't need to apologise with me. I have no argument with you. I just want you to stop harassing me.
- And, as you no doubt realise, your prior edits were harassing in nature, and I had every right to wipe them from here. This one was not quite as bad, so I didn't remove it. No, I do not wipe "every edit that I don't agree with" as you put it. I wipe threatening abusive edits on my talk page. Again, NOBODY should EVER have to put up with that kind of abuse. I am hoping that you are now committed to ceasing this behaviour. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)