User talk:Eloquence/non-process

Your talk page is quite long, pardon the subpage.

You say "while I don't know if there was enough evidence to ban EofT, I certainly hope that he will re-examine his behavior and then write a letter to Jimbo, who is usually quick to unban people who promise to follow the rules."


 * Sorry to disappoint you, but this will not occur. I do not beg.  And I do not promise to follow rules that do not exist.  This amounts simply to promising to obey arbitrary rulings, which is precisely what must no longer happen here - the project has outgrown Wales, and needs some process of appeal from *his* decisions.

"As for RK, he seems to have mellowed down somewhat, and I hope that he will understand that he is taken much more seriously that way. If you are in contact with EofT, please explain to him that he can participate again if he focuses on being a productive member of the community rather than engaging in personal vendettas.&mdash;Eloquence 21:15, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This is not personal at all, and if you examine the edits and comments each party has made, you will see who is actually "productive" in an encyclopedic sense - although there is clearly no "community".


 * The project will be destroyed by one of several means:


 * An "empowered" RK targetting, taunting, libelling, and lying about many individuals who do not share his Zionist/Platonist POV, nor think for instance that ethics is something "applied" to women, "applied" to workers, to queers, etc., as he amazingly seems to claim in his ethics rewrite.


 * Wales' abuses of power disgusting every serious contributor, particularly those of credentials (I refer to User:Anthere, User:Netesq and User:172 in particular), who hopefully will go start another project with a more democratic way of settling disputes.


 * Racist attacks of the kind that erase http://wikipedia.org/wiki/ape_genocide, http://wikipedia.org/wiki/bushmeat, http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_as_a_political_movement, and redirect http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Islam for instance to articles that are only about extremists. All of this amounts to vandalism, and if it is tolerated, can only lead to more vandalism.


 * Libels of the kind done to Mel Gibson, who is a fellow who does actually sue those who say such stuff, true or not.


 * If you actually care about the project, consider that a technological escalation to erase neutral comment on Liberal Islam, on democratic Islam's roots, wipe out any comment on the extermination of our nearest human relatives - by cannibalism, target those who just happen to agree with the UN that Zionism is racism (as most of the world does), etc., amounts to racism by default, at best. It's fairly clear why Wales would side with RK, sadly, and why such creatures as User:VRosensweig and User:RickK would as well.  Without a deliberate attempt to give voice to mute hominids, under-represented races or religions, etc., the project simply becomes yet another mouthpiece for those already empowered by mass media, to lie about others incessantly - all the while claiming that they are the victims.


 * And they wonder where the suicide bombers come from...

Entmoots, did you or did you not make the edit on Talk:Militant Islam you have been accused of making?&mdash;Eloquence 21:06, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)