Jump to content

User talk:AI

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AI (talk | contribs) at 09:58, 13 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • "During the trials, the French judges suggested that a firing squad should be used for the military condemned. Nikitchenko fiercely resisted this, arguing that the accused were common criminals who had disgraced their military ethos and tradition."
  • "I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers, I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place." - David Irving
  • "During a trial in 1998, German historian Mathias Dahl said his research showed that Gross published five articles between 1955 and 1965 based on research using the preserved brains of children killed because they were deemed handicapped or anti-social." - DOC ACCUSED OF NAZI CLINIC ATROCITIES DIES (Associated Press)

__POV__

You are right

"Are there corrupt administrators, then we should get rid of them." - Jimmy Wales

AI you are absolutley right. The group that runs webopedia attitltue is "My way or the highway." THere is very little open mindedness or respect for honest users. -- Added by User:Toolcase on 21:00, 23 September 2005

Yes, but the Criminal Arb Comm thinks they are right because they some of them are sociopaths. --AI 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that Fred Bauder (arbcomm) is a disbarred lawyer? --AI 11:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the only reason that I am here again is to ask for your help. You seem to think that, for one reason or another, Wikipedia is controlled by irresponsible persons. That it needs to be "reformed" before you continue to use it. Well I'm nominating YOU, User:AI, to be one of those very people you wish were in charge of Wikipedia. That's right, I am giving you the opportunity to become the model Wikipedian. To uphold the virtues and morals that must be present for a system like Wikipedia to function. If you can help make Wikipedia a better place, one in which all of it's users are responsible for their actions, it will transform into the ideal site that you dream of. But remember, it starts with you. (unsigned comment by User:70.152.253.173 adsl-154-173.4.mco.bellsouth.net BELLSNET-BLK15)

No, if you will please understand: It does not start with me.
It starts with Jimbo Wales and the arbitrators and those watching wikipedia's policies. They are more interested in the issue over userboxes than working on disputes over false information. Wikipedia is significantly guarded by imprudent persons and if anyone reading this disagrees, they are either uninformed, inexperienced, biased, or sociopathic.
Wikipedia's policy allows for disinformation. There has been no effective effort to address this unmistakably grave error in fundamental policy. Instead, there is intense effort in whitewashing and excuses on why certain personalities should not be criticized for their contribution of disinformation.
When I address this issue, my concerns are answered with justification and rationalization in support of the flawed policy. When I press the issue further, my effort is largely ignored because wikipedians are busy and unpaid or unaware, and my concern is in "violation" of a specious policy.
Some wikipedians who are aware of my background do not want me here because what I do also exposes the dishonesty and ultimately the crimes of some, and so they muster the support of their associates to find any reason to stop me. The arbitrators in "my" case, specifically Fred Bauder the disbarred lawyer, totally ignored my side of the story and devoted his attention to Mark Sweep. I requested assistance from other administrators, but received no help at all. I saw no reason to continue respect for Wikipedia's arbitration process and the current state of Wikipedia. I raged against the committee and decided I would now dedicate my efforts to destroy this disgraceful "encyclopedia", through legal means of course. The arbitration took my statement as a legal threat instead of understanding that I meant I would break no laws in my efforts. Instead of seeking clarification of my statements, they quickly chose to ban me because that is what served them best in their effort to stop me. James Forrester's notice to my page is evidence of arbitration incompetence. Their actions kind of reminded me of old world justice (and some cases of this "new" world justice) in cases such as John Hess and Joan of Arc.
The arbitrators decision did not work, it only served to blind themselves of what I was up to. There is no evidence whatsoever (even in Nikitchenko's history) of the next phase of my plan but I can tell you it will be in pursuit of the truth and entirely lawful. Efforts to stop me will do nothing for the benefit of Wikipedia. --AI 13:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dont even try to hide the truth was here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AI&oldid=58365460"