At 08:12 PM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Here is how guile is defined:
Noun 1. guile - shrewdness as demonstrated by being skilled in deception
craftiness, cunning, foxiness, slyness, wiliness, craft
astuteness, perspicaciousness, perspicacity, shrewdness -
intelligence manifested by being astute (as in business dealings)
2. guile - the quality of being crafty
deceitfulness, craftiness
disingenuousness - the quality of being disingenuous and lacking candor
3. guile - the use of tricks to deceive someone (usually to
extract money from them)
chicanery, wile, shenanigan, trickery, chicane
dissimulation, deception, dissembling, deceit - the act of deceiving
dupery, hoax, put-on, humbug, fraud, fraudulence - something
intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
jugglery - artful trickery designed to achieve an end; "the
senator's tax program was mere jugglery"
My friend, what you did is known as "guile".
Who was deceived?
Guile is a form of lying. It is condemed in the Bible and equated
to outright lying. But apparently, by your own testimony of having
commited it in Wikipedia, you have no problem with it. OK. I'm not surprised.
Right. Not only have I no problem with what I did, it's one of the
best things I did that year.
The administrator in question had written: "I can demonstrate
functional evidence of my bans existence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=306819768
I saw that and knew immediately what to do. He was saying that he
could prove that his ban existed, and how was obvious: if I violated
it, he'd block me. So I announced my intention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=prev&oldid=306978541#Notice_regarding_the_editing_of_Cold_fusion_and_its_talk_page.
The core of it: "I now withdraw that voluntary ban extension." Nobody objected.
And the next day, about 24 hours later, a question was asked on the
Cold fusion talk page that I could answer, and so I answered, and the
rest followed like clockwork.
Guile? Only by some of the first meaning. I wouldn't mind
"perspicacious." I knew what I was doing, and there is no harm in
that. I simply stopped cooperating with an improper ban, declared by
a highly involved adminstrator, against policy. The policy, in fact,
was clarified by this case, bans like he'd issued became known as
improper. I looked him in the eye, openly, and said, No.
Really, I was not a powerful editor, directly. This was David and
Goliath. But I didn't take him down, he took himself down. I knew he
would do it. He'd committed himself, and he was proud, very proud. He
was not about to make an empty threat. He said he'd prove it, he'd prove it.
I did not hate him. I said nothing about him that I could not
absolutely prove. He was far from the worst Wikipedia administrator,
but he was doing damage. And he'd come after me. (He didn't give a
fig about cold fusion, but he was a friend of JzG, who'd blocked and
banned Pcarbonn, and Jed Rothwell. He was really just supporting his
friend. I had taken JzG to the Arbitration Committee, successfully
getting him reprimanded, over the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, and
that was not to be allowed. These people strongly disliked any
challenge to their authority., and they retaliated.)
I'm being reminded that I'm a Muslim. We are not pacifists, we are
permitted to establish justice, we are permitted to defend the weak
and stand for freedom from oppression, and sometimes we are even
commanded to do these things, where we are able. This never excuses
going beyond limits, the verses on fighting are very explicit, it is
not allowed to attack those who don't attack us, and responding in
kind is *the limit*, and forgiveness is better *if justice is established.*
Hmph. End speech.
Jojo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 01:12 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
My friend, just because your morality allows you to troll and lie
in wikipedia does not mean that I am like you.
I never lied on Wikipedia. I did one action that I allowed as a
form of trolling. It's more like what a soldier might do in a war,
present himself as a target so that a sniper betrays his position.
There was no lying involved, and the purpose wasn't actually to outrage.
The action itself was completely legitimate. In fact, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=306930963
A talk page edit, not actually controversial, just providing information.
It worked. The admin took the bait, following his ego. And he lost
his privileges as a result. My purpose was to allow him to do that,
to take himself out of the Wikipedia adminstrative corps, where
he'd been doing damage for years. Mostly, Jojo's not realized this,
he'd been acting to harass and ban global warming skeptics, but he
was also generally allied with the pseudoskeptics when it comes to
anything fringe or psychic. He was famous, probably the most famous
abusive Wikipedia administrator.
There was no purpose to insult him. The edit had nothing to do with
him, except that he'd declared a total ban, something he did not
actually have the authority to do. And we were in the middle of a
case, over whether the ban was legitimate. His action showed a
total loss of balance, and even his friends were backpedalling,
distancing themselves from it.
Stop the off-topic posts and I will go away never to post here
again, but I will read. I am sacrificing my participation, my
chance to ask questions if the chronic off-topic violators would
simply stop their abuses. JUST DO IT.
"Off-topic posts" are not going to stop, period. These threads
might stop. But these threads are maintained by Jojo's continued
insistence on the points he makes in them.
Clearly you understood Bill's no off-topic rule cause you quoted
parts of it here and still claim that I am lying about it. You
are such a blatant liar. I'm not surprised.
I quoted the rules, and I didn't just quote parts, I quoted the
entire set, as far as I know. I don't recall having say that Jojo
was lying about the rules, only that they don't contain what he
claimed. Since I don't know if he even read the rules recently, I
have no idea whether he lied or not. He was merely incorrect or misled.
I'm leaving the relevant part of the post to which Jojo was
responding, so that it can be seen that he is incorrect in his
claim that I said he was lying about the rules. I don't see any
reference to lying. When he said I "still claimed" that he was
"lying," was he lying, or was he so engaged in his anger and attack
that he wasn't aware of what was in front of him?
Jojo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax"
<a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
[...]
If Bill changes the rules, I will follow. But in the meantime,
people should follow his rules and not "make it up as we go" -
as famously said by one chronic off-topic poster here.
Jojo
So, what are the rules? I don't know if they have been changed,
but below is what I was sent. There *are* rules that could easily
be applied to this situation. Some of the rules were obviously
written long ago, because behind some of the rules are conditions
that used to apply, that hardly ever apply any more. "Off-topic"
isn't a rule, per se. What is there related to that is
3. Small email files please. The limit is set to 40K right now, those
exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty. If you wish to
start extremely off-topic discussions, please feel free to exchange
initial messages on vortex-L, but MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO PRIVATE MAIL
IMMEDIATELY. Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for
received email. Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me and posted
on a webpages for temporary viewing.
In other words, "starting extremely off-topic discussions" is
specifically allowed, but the instruction is to "move these to
private email immediately." That does not resolve a certain
problem, where a poster has posted something to the list which is
broadly offensive. It assumes what is really a private discussion
that merely starts here.
I'm not "discussing" with Jojo, not any more. I responding to his
egregiously offensive claims here that attack all Muslims and
what they believe, that attack the President of the United
States, that attack almost the entire community of climate
scientists, and that personally attack and deliberately insult
anyone who dares to disagree with him, including many long-term
participants on this list, such as Jed Rothwell.
He's acknowledged it, even today. This is what he does. He escalates.
I have *not* started these off-topic threads, generally. Only
very recently, I started *this thread* and the like, to address
the problem of massive trolling. That's been made necessary by
administrative neglect. Bill is obviously busy elsewhere. I
highly recommend that he delegate some of the list
responsibilities, he could overrule a moderator decision if
necessary. Frankly, I hope he's okay.
The rule that is really more on-point is NO SNEERING. And that
rule has been *routinely* violated by Jojo. He'll claim the same
about me, I'm sure, but he also claims that about many here. He
perceives sneering at the drop of a phrase. And his response is
to sneer back, escalated, drastically. And Jojo sneers
spontaneously, with no apparent trigger to justify "sneering back."
The rules:
[and then I quoted the whole welcome message]
