User:Njyoder/Archive

No Personal Attacks
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you add that "poll" again, I will block you.

Though feel free to file charges. I haven't been arbcommed in a while. Snowspinner 15:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This doesn't even come close to violating WP:POINT. Nothing on that page describes what I've done as a violation, no examples or pecedent back up your behavior.  It is not a disruption to Wikipedia to hold a simple survey.  You are clearly abusing your power here.


 * For anyone reading this, see this edit where Snowspinner has decided to remove my comments and a survey wholesale from the talk page of NPA. This is the second time he's done this. Nathan J. Yoder 15:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I point out that you specifically ought not be the one to start that poll, by the "do not ruleslawyer" clause in your own personal attack parole. Snowspinner 15:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Creating a survey is not ruleslawyering, it's asking how people feel about a subject. Ruleslawyering only applies to arguing about rules/rule enforcement.  It seems to me that the only one ruleslawyering here is you, by trying to apply a policy which obviously doesn't apply and changing the definition of ruleslawyering (and WP:POINT) to apply to something other than arguing about rules/rule enforcement.  And there is absolutely nothing in my RfAr that forbids me from starting surveys or that even implies that I shouldn't.


 * This is the second time you've attempted to grasp at straws to find something to "get me" on. First you say it's WP:POINT I'm violating, then you're saying I'm forbidden for making surveys because I was warned against ruleslawyering, even though surveys have ntohing to do with ruleslawyering.  If you keep jumping from one random defense to another, it's not going to make your point look any stronger. Nathan J. Yoder 16:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Between this and your comments on my talk page, I have blocked you for 24 hours as per your parole. I encourage you to be more civil and less accusatory, and to assume good faith - I think doing so would really take a lot of the hostility out of your words, and make them harder to construe as personal attacks. Snowspinner 16:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So what exactly did I say which was a personal attack? You even admitted to being hostile on User:Gator1's talk page.  You don't assume good faith yourself.  You have even blatantly personally attacked me, and admitted it.  Your conduct is highly inappropriate.  Nathan J. Yoder 16:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your assertions that I am trying to "get" you are false accusations of motive intended to insult and demean. Your threat of "charges" is most reasonably read as a legal threat (Since few refer to the arbcom as "charges"). And your speculation of my de-adminship is little more than querrulous sniping. Taken in concert, it was my judgement as an admin that your personal attack parole should apply. Snowspinner 16:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, they are an acknowledgement that I am aware of the type of game you're trying to play. Is it now against Wikipedia rules to point out of someone else on Wikipedia is trying to play out a vendetta against you?  I've pointed out your fallacious arugments in the past, you have gotten very annoyed and this is the result.


 * Now you've countered with dubious accusations against me. My "threat" of "charges" is you, yet again, distorting the meaning of things simply to justify your improper conduct.  If I meant to file legal charges, I would have said that and would have actually used the names of the specific legal charges I would be filing.  Your need to take a single ambiguous word and extract such meaning out of it, especially when I have ZERO history of legal threats of any kind, only reinforces my point about grasping at straws. My pointing out your de-adminship is just pointing out the inevitable if you don't stop this, in the fleeting hope that you might actually stop.


 * Every single time you have to try REALLY hard to come up with a reason to justify your blockings of me. Your jusfications are of the form "assume the most absolute worst faith possible, by default."  Nathan J. Yoder 16:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While I understand that you disagree with my assertion that you have made personal attacks, I point out that, for the purposes of your parole, personal attacks are defined by the blocking admin, and that, were you capable of moderating your conduct without such a parole, no such parole would have been imposed. Which is to say that the fact that you don't think you've done anything wrong is exactly why you've been blocked. Snowspinner 16:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The assumption for admins determining what constitutes a personal attack is that they're acting in good faith. You accidentally incriminated yourself on this talk pag, indicating your actions were bad faith.  Your first response said: "feel free to file charges. I haven't been arbcommed in a while."  In other words, you recognized I wasn't referring to any kind of legal charges, I was referring to wikipedia-based charges.  Then later when I questioned you about the alleged personal attack, suddenly the "charges" became legal charges ("threats"), as the "most reasonable" interpretation, despite that not being your original interpretation.  That deliberate alteration is an act of bad faith.     Nathan J. Yoder 20:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I assumed good faith until the continued invective made it clear that the assumption was in error. Snowspinner 20:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh give me a break. Even if you changed your assumption of faith regarding me (which is dubious since your deletion of my content from the talk page assumed bad faith from the beginning), that really wouldn't matter, since "bad faith" doesn't equate to "threats of legal charges."  I'm curious as to where the logical connection between "invective" and legal threats is.


 * Your reasoning had NOTHING to do with assumptions of good or bad faith. You specifically said that the "most reasonable" asssumption associated with the use of the word "charges" was that it was legal, on the basis that /few people/ refer to RfAr charges as charges, not on the basis of bad faith (which you didn't mention until now).  In other words, you changed your reasoning, which goes to my point of your bad faith actions.  Nathan J. Yoder 21:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I ignored the most obvious interpretation of your words in an attempt to assume good faith. Snowspinner 21:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And what's the logical connection between "invective" and legal threats again? You still haven't explained how "bad faith" would make the "obvious interpretation" true.  Considering I have absolutely zero history of legal threats and that I do have people who agree your actions were unwarranted, it wouldn't make sense to assume that I was talking about anything other than wikipedia based charges, since wikipedia ones would be the only ones with any basis.  And as I already said, your revert assumed bad faith from the beginning, so don't play the "I was just assuming good faith" game.  Nathan J. Yoder 21:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you seem congenitally incapable of not rules-lawyering, I'll just let whatever you reply to this be the last word. If you feel as though I've been gravely abusive or something, feel free to take me to the arbcom. Snowspinner 22:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, if backed into a corner, just say "you're ruleslawyering", which means that I can't contest a block, no matter how illegitimate it may be. And why would I take you to the arbcom if I'm intent on taking you to a court of law?  You can't seem to make up your mind regarding what I meant by 'charges.'  Given a history of certain admins saying that they immediatly assume my actions to be in bad faith and that your revert of my talk page edit was assuming a deliberate disruption (bad faith), it is a bit hard for me or anyone else to believe that you were ever following a good faith assumption.  Nathan J. Yoder 22:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Hey don't worry about Hipo's opposition. He just hates me no matter how much I try and reach out to him and he thinks this is a way to get back at me. I opposed an RFC he filed against another user and told that user not to respond. He thought that was SO wrong, but now he's telling Snow to do the same to get back at me (like I care), I guess he thinks two wrongs make a right and that getting revenge on people is a way to foster good relations. He just follows me around and tries to make life harder for me because I crossed him once.

I bet he's watching this too: Hipo:  I'm honestly interested in making up with you and offer you the same thing I offered Derex. Seriously, let's just let bygones be bygones. Seriously.Gator1 21:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't assume everything is about you. I agree with Snowspinner's vision for Wikipedia. I've supported him in other RFC's that were brought against him because of his agressive user management, and I expect to support him again. That you are on the wrong side of a debate yet again is a result, not a cause of the disease. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not any side Hipo, I want nothing to do with this one and that is why I have not signed on. Disease? Wow. Please, I'd really like to have peace with you. Like I said on the RFC talk page, I will assume good faith. Have a nice day.Gator1 15:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

everywhere!
See? You're everywhere. I just saw you on a talk page. — ceejayoz &#9733; 03:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I own the internets. I'm guessing you saw me on Harriet Miers, I remember seeing you there a while back.  Nathan J. Yoder 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

New Block
Could an admin please remove the existing block on me? Snowspinner blocked me for some unspecified, alleged personal attack on the WP:NPA talk page. He knows since I'm currently trying to take rectification for his threat of a block that's against policy, that him blocking me is entirely a conflict of interest. If he thinks that something I said is a personal attack (nothing I've said on that page has been), then he should hand it over to another admin. He was already warned by another admin (fvw) for blocking me before because of this conflict of interest. Nathan J. Yoder 16:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * fvw was dead wrong in his warning, as conflict of interest is not a criteria in enforcement of your parole, and the alleged conflict of interest stems entirely from my involvement in enforcing your parole in the first place, making claims of a conflict of interest absurd. As for the attack, it was your accusation of the arbcom's "lying" that set it off this time. Snowspinner 16:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were of the ideology that rules were meant to be flexible, not strict, un-hinging policies that didn't abide by "common sense." One would think that a conflict of interest would qualify as one of those "common sense" things. You weren't enforcing my parole, my parole was a personal attack parole, not a "no polls" nor a "block on ruleslawyering" patrol. Nowhere in that ruling did it say you could even block me for ruleslawyering, even if it qualified as that. So the idea that you were enforcing my /personal attack parole/ for a /poll/, which you admit wasn't a personal attack, is ridiculous.

And how is an accusation of lying a "personal attack"? What you're saying is that I'm banned from accusing anyone on Wikipedia of lying, even if it's true. Nathan J. Yoder 17:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack parole violation
I've just blocked you for 24 hours for these two:. Assume good faith - David Gerard 18:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you are blatantly acting in bad faith here and are not a disinterested third party. Why don't you get an uninvolved admin to initiate a block?  People pointed out his conflict of interest, I pointed out his history of ignoring conflicts of interest, as determined by actual disinterested third parties.  Me pointing out his fallacious arguments is also not a personal attack.  Don't be fooled, this is nothing more than a politically motivated block.  It's funny how you're using this to justify your constant appeals to authority, when it has never once been established that Snowspinner is even an expert in the notability of webcomics.  Quite the contrary, people who researched and checked his assertions found the opposite, that his claims were provably FALSE.  HE has advocated using "comic syndicates" which are, at best, minor banner ad services, one of which isn't even self-sustaining (it needs google ads).  He even advocated using the non-notable comixpedia site, despite the fact that it has practically no readership.   Some expert.  When lacking a valid argument to defend your point, just claim you're an expert and dismiss all counter-arguments on the basis of how you know better than everyone else without presenting any evidence.


 * I should mention, the fact that you posted this block on the wikipedia:websites page is actually a personal attack against me and an attempt at poisoning the well. You seem to use that tactic everywhere when you lack a valid defense to back yourself up.  Two other independent parties in that page ALONE called you on your obviously fallacious argument, I STRONGLY suggest you take that to heart.  You tried using an appeal to emotion (poisoning the well) to strengthen your "but he's an expert, anyone who says otherwise is wrong and he's always right no matter what"  argument, it got quickly shot down AGAIN (as it had in other places).  You even violated Wikipedia civility as well to the participants who challenged your views regarding so-called "experts," which is actually a frequent occurance for you.  David, I don't even understand why you bother continuing this tactic, it's obviously not working, not even with the added abuse of admin power.  Nathan J. Yoder 21:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Alternately, you could consider not making personal attacks. I know you know how to do this because you actually learnt how to do this quite well on wikien-l. Consider it - David Gerard 23:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Questioning someone's expertise and showing that they have a bad record when it comes to conflicts of interest is not a personal attack and you KNOW it. Other people had explicitly brought up the subject matter, I was just adding evidence to the preexisting conversation, so you'd be VERY hard pressed to argue it wasn't relevent.  What you're doing is your absolute best to suppress dissenting views, to manipulate the guidelines to fit your agenda.  By disallowing people from questioning his expterise (which was NEVER established) and trustworthiness, you've disallowed them from forming a good guideline, which is a blatant violation of WP:POINT, WP:Civility, among other things.  Besides, what can I learn from someone who is NOTORIOUS for violating civility and personal attack rules.  You get repeatedly warned by other users to cool down and you STILL don't stop.  It's a pot and kettle situation, David.  I mean that seriously, you, among all the admins, are one of the worst offenders and you don't even care about the fact that you violate that policy ALL THE TIME.  Nathan J. Yoder 23:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for proving my point. Right after leaving this comment, you went ahead and violated civility rules on the Websites talk page.  Not just that, but you engaged in your very typical and worn-out straw man arguments.  David, if you want people to listen to you, being condescending won't work, nor is deliberately misrepresenting their argument to push your agenda.  You don't even seem to have many arguing tactics in your arsenal, it seems to be limited almost entirely to poisoning the well and straw men arguments.  Nathan J. Yoder 00:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your uncivil message to that guy also assumed bad faith as well, since all he was doing was asking about snowspinner's views on the matter, he wasn't questioning motives. I am honestly puzzled as to how you can tell so many people to abide by so many policies while disobeying them yourself, are you consciously aware when you violate them?  Nathan J. Yoder 00:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for chipping in at Data Encryption Standard. I didn't want to engage in an edit war over it, so I was hoping someone else would back me up. (By the way, I'm sorry if this message was not wanted here -- I found the notice at the top too confusing to work out!) (Thanks, too, for placing your contributions here into the public domain!). &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem, the whole argument was really a waste of time and energy. I just looked through the guy's history and it seems he's been committing possible copyright violation from various CISSP manuals too.  He edited quite a few articles though, so I just reverted two pages (for potential copyvio) and left a message on his user talk page about it so hopefully he can clean the rest up himself.  Good work on the Wikipedia Crypto project btw, it's really one of the nicest parts of Wikipedia.  Nathan J. Yoder 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Neurofeedback
I have added a post to talk:neurofeedback that might be worth reading. Can you let me know if it's relevant or should be included in the case Im working on? Thanks. FT2 18:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

User Bill of Rights
You may be interested in User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 05:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Chalupa
Your change to the page Chalupa was determined to be unhelpful, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Based on your past contributions, I'm guessing this wasn't actually you. Rather, perhaps someone else made the edit in question from a computer where you had logged in. -- Gyrofrog (talk)