User talk:Xed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Talk archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Contents

Adam Carr's missing article

I removed that article from my site some time ago and I don't think I any longer have a copy of it. Adam 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The wording of the caption is "I have left this text as I posted it at the start of the war, so that my comments and predictions can be judged in the light of what actually happened." This would indicate you would have kept a copy. Perhaps you can post it here. - Xed 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Its funny how that article just diasppeared. From memory the articles gist was that Mr Saddam was a very bad man who was resposible for killing 1000s some of who were gay. Because of this it was OK for US, UK and Australia etc to invade-NO MATTER HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED OR MAIMED. The end justified the means. Also ask Mr Carr how he justifies his membership of ALP and active support for that parties stance against gay marriage. Like the missing pro-invasion article he keeps VERY quite about this. Eric A. Warbuton 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy

I'd keep myself far from Arbcom cases and snowy things alike if I were you. It's likely to bring nothing else than wikistress. — mark ✎ 06:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. - Xed 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

clutter? - Xed 05:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I just had to drop a note to say that I laughed out loud at the incongruity of Tony's message just after Mark's above. One might begin thinking about nefarious plots if they saw enough coincidences like this. Anyway, I hope you are doing well. - BanyanTree 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the procrustean world of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. - Xed 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Phill Reiss

Hello Xed, I just thought I'd remind you that you are in danger of violating the 3RR please do not revert again to avoid a block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There's truth and there's 3RR. - Xed 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
And then there's repeatedly readding irrelavent information. I've reported you for the 3RR violation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
How brave.- Xed 10:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on May 20, 2006 (UTC) to Phil Reiss

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 11:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, my version hasn't been reverted for days. What does that suggest? It seems my additions weren't the issue. - Xed 16:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It means that I didn't want to violate the 3RR myself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding edits such as this: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

More of an observation than a personal attack. - Xed 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right.--Jimbo Wales 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The facts speak for themselves. Jimbo hangs around with someone who views arabs as, and I quote, "ragheads, camel jockeys, and jihad monkeys". He then goes out of his way to make their articles more sympathetic, after they have complained about the article. It's not uncivil to point this out. Rather, it is a service to Wikipedia. - Xed 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"Hangs around with?" False. "Make their articles more sympathetic?" False. Associating Ann Coulter with Scaife is not negative for her, it is negative for him. Please.--Jimbo Wales 04:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"I met Anne Coulter recently and she brought this tidbit up to me as an example of a flaw in the Wikipedia biography of her, and I have to say that I agree with her criticism on this point." Your words, Wales. - Xed 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Gee, if someone walks to up me and says that they would like to talk about their bio in Wikipedia, and I do so, that hardly amounts to "hanging around". And saying that she was right about her criticism is in now way about making the article more sympathetic to her. The specific factual issue at hand (about the details of a funding source of a college newspaper) seems to me to be neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic to her. The other edit I made was an unsourced reference to what her official birth certificate supposedly says. Is that sympathetic to her?
Perhaps you would be much happier if Wikipedia consisted of biased hatchet jobs on people you don't like, but that isn't the way it works. Even Ann Coulter, as much as you despise her, will have a factual and neutral article. --Jimbo Wales 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on Wales. Get a grip. Ditch the strawmen. Take criticism seriously for a change. Even if it's not from Coulter. (note: this got me blocked by one of Jimbos minions for making personal attacks. Seriously.) - Xed 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I know how DARE they block you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Xed, I would encourage you not to remark on the editor (Jimbo, in this instance) themself. Saying he lacks integrity (which you've said multiple times now) is a personal attack. If you have a problem with the content of one of his edits, please be specific and state that. It is fine if you disagree with someone, as we all should disagree with people sometime (we're not sheep, we have our own opinions on matters), just don't make it a personal dispute. Keep the discussion limited to the article's content. Do not comment on the editor themself. Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My views on his integrity were formed in another matter. A behind-the-scenes thing. - Xed 14:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That may be true, but please do not bring it to Wikipedia. If you don't like the guy behind the scenes, comment on him behind the scenes too. Personal attacks harm the community, not just those being attacked. Thanks, Xed. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 14:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --InShaneee 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits such as this:
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.
I can't really see how Come on Wales. Get a grip. Ditch the strawmen. Take criticism seriously for a change. Even if it's not from Coulter. is a personal attack. Oh, I see. I'm criticizing the Leader.... - Xed 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What it is is harrassment. What it isn't is helping to make this a better encyclopedia. If you can't discuss article content in a civil manner, you are in violation of policy. --InShaneee 00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It's neither harassment nor personal attack. It is precisely what you claim it not to be - it is aimed at making this a better encyclopedia. If the Leader can't be criticized, then Wikipedia may as well officially become a cult. - Xed 00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the comments you made were to an anonymous IP; I would have blocked you all the same, as would any other administrator here. We're not here to discuss other editors; wikipedia policy dictates that we keep on topic with discussing article content on its own merits. --InShaneee 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can find one instance of a similar comment to an anonymous IP which resulted in a block I'd love to know. - Xed 00:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Check my block log. I'm sure you can find more than one in there. Oh, and thanks for the email. --InShaneee 00:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, can't find one instance. I guess you made it up. - Xed 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Making incivil accusations while blocked isn't going to get you anywhere. --InShaneee 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
When truth is judged as incivility, what meaning does it have? - Xed 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If the truth accomplishes nothing but insulting another user, we don't want it. This is an encyclopedia, not a flame-filled Usenet group. --InShaneee 01:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You've said if the comments you made were to an anonymous IP; I would have blocked you all the same and subsequently claimed you've done so in the past. There is not one instance of such a block. You made it up. - Xed 11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:SlimVirgin

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. FloNight talk 02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. - Xed 07:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked him for a week after further disruption [2]. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again

For criticizing the Leader again. This time for saying, As documented here - "Policies are often applied to critics retroactively. Critics are punished, and then a policy is stuck on or invented later." on User_talk:Anittas. - Xed 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As a note, since this is your third personal attack block in only a little more than a month, it is my opinion that you have reached the threshold of "repeated personal attacks," and, under your personal attack parole, I, at least, will be blocking for a month in the future. Phil Sandifer 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created a log of blocks and bans at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2 --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, twice blocked for criticizing Wikipedia or Wales (1: Come on Wales. Get a grip. Ditch the strawmen. Take criticism seriously for a change. Even if it's not from Coulter., 2: As documented here - "Policies are often applied to critics retroactively. Critics are punished, and then a policy is stuck on or invented later.") - Xed 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tit for tat

Hi Xed,

Sorry I haven't got back to you since your messages. (I've been a bit busy with work.) Wondered if you might like to take your mind off Wikipedia political troubles and take up an Africa tit-for-tat thing? I can probably manage an hour or so on Culture of Kenya or Culture of Tanzania (not sure which yet); perhaps by next Monday or so? — Matt Crypto 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderful idea. I'll do Culture of Botswana or Culture of Cameroon. - Xed 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia problems

i am very interested just now in others who are experiencing problems with Wikipedia and who are finding the entire experience to be somewhat abusive.

I am hoping that we could examine some very specific ideas here and try to avoid ad hominem attacks etc. Prometheuspan 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ps;I have a lengthy bit on jimbos talk page you might be interested in.

Yes, I read some of it. A useful analogy for Wikipedia's present woes is alcoholism. The first step in recovery for an alcoholic is admitting that there is a problem. Wikipedia has yet to take this first step. Like alcoholics, it attacks those who suggest it should. Moments of clarity will become increasingly uncommon until it reaches rock bottom, and there are no more choices. - Xed 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that is true. There are a variety of useful analogies. In this case, there is also a second path; that of intervention. I believe i am qualified to lead this intervention, and would hope that you would support such an effort by clearly delineating specific problems and specific ideas for fixes. I'd rather not see it hit rock bottom if we can dry it out by getting it lucid first. So far, I seem to be enjoying a certain amount of leeway in making the suggestion that it should. So far, only inshannee has taken actions against me. If we can, we owe it to ourselves to try to fix this before it gets too bad to get fixed.

So, what do you see as the primary problems and flaws? Prometheuspan 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Article quality, systemic bias, lack of accountability from admins, and the trivialising effects of the "Wisdom of Crowds". - Xed 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article quality can be very poor. For instance,

psychonaut is an article i was involved in which demonstrated early on a systemic bias against experts and expert information. They were totally clueless in the face of my information, and wanted me to referance everything; Which i might have been able to do in like 15 days considering the quality of google and my search speed. But that wasn't the only problem. Ad hominems, straw arguments, and essentially an assumption of ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence that i was in fact an expert on the subject... The article is still just sort of an anchor of a justification for the entheogen project.

Systemic bias is a bigger problem, and "wisdom of crowds" might also be termed simply "groupthink" esp where pack psychology is obviously running mobs, like it is here.

So we agree on the basics. Heres my brain popper for the day;

Q.E.D.

Logic Logical argument Rigour Causality Necessary and sufficient conditions Logical fallacy Fallacy Validity Soundness Logical consequence Psychology Sociology Political science Anthropology Groupthink False consensus effect List of cognitive biases Conformity (psychology) Herding instinct Herd behavior Collective hysteria Crowd psychology Stupidity Pack (canine) [3] Pack Psychology Argumentum ad populum Propaganda News propaganda Spin (public relations) Trolling Internet troll Troll-friendly Evolution Natural selection Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

Prometheuspan 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Porto-Novo

Should the history be deleted? That's my concern. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary. Good article. - Xed 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid propaganda

Dirty trick. You didn't create the article, But after it is deleted hard to recreate it. Fred Bauder 20:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand your meaning or grammar. Xed 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq article

As I have already advised you, I no longer have that article. Adam 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • What you find likely or unlikely is of no interest to me.
  • It's my website and I add and remove material as I see fit.
  • I have no further comment on this matter. Adam 08:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your questions

  • Can you tell me if you were acting on behalf of Michael Danby when you added text to the Julia Irwin article? It seems unusual at best for you to edit that article.
No. I wrote a large number of basic articles about MPs and Senators at that time. I did not subsequently "add text" to the article, as its edit history will show you.
  • On a similar subject, do you have any sources to back up your claim that Jennie George was a member of the Communist Party of Australia?
It's in the Brad Norrington biography (1998)
  • And was this "information" added at the behest of Danby as well?
No

Adam 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nanjing Anti-African protests

Hi, Xed. Thanks for the clarification. --AngelRiesgo 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


User:Anittas

Hey, I was about to critisize your comments on Jimbo's talk page, when I checked myself, and then looked into the User:Anittas situation. You're right there is deffinitely something VERY weird going on there. Easter rising 13:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

jimbos talk page re

hey, believe me i understand...its tuff to hold it together when you are one versus the mob...but hey, its not like that anymore. the best way for us to stay chill is for us to talk about how to support each other in this.

Let me know if there are any more new and interesting torches to pick up and what page to go to Xed. I am really with you in this effort and will be happy to assist you in any way possible.

(including where necessary, checking you if you get overheated... and i hope you will do the same for me.)

peace and light be with you bb ppan Prometheuspan 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

care for any input?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#starting_rough

I started my journey with Wikipedia several months ago. After using it on a few occasions as a handy resource, I became intrigued with it because it’s general conceptual

Modus operandi matched my own personal objectives. Wikipedia exists to create an online encyclopedia, the largest and most complete ever. For many years, and since well

Before Wikipedia, my personal goal has been to participate in a collaborative Textbook

Writing experience, and to use good information and lucidity to end the age of propaganda and start a genuine age of information. As a child, I learned to speed read,

And managed to read thousands of textbooks. This put me in a unique position to integrate the concepts from many different sources, and to try to solve apparently unsolved problems.

As I explored Wikipedia, I found an article which was very poor in overall quality and Very skewed with patently bad information on a topic I am an expert in. The Wikipedia Article “psychonaut”. This article still stands as a good example of the problem with Wikipedia. Drug using self justifying people have written an article about Psychonautics Which frames Psychonautics as being about drug use. Psychonautics is not about drug use, it is about the exploration of the psyche. I made an effort to improve the article, and succeeded in getting the definition changed, but it became rapidly apparent that I was facing ignorant people who didn’t know what they didn’t know and who were prepared in any case to fight to defend their turf. After giving them a very complete outline, and starting a professional level conversation with them, all they could do was include A few minor points in a new version and otherwise tell me more or less to shut up and go Away. This alerted me to the problem, which I will now try to define.

<o:p> </o:p>

The primary problem with Wikipedia is that it is in fact written by everybody collectively, and, THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO PREVENT DRIFT TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. Expert level knowledge is irrelevant; because what goes into the article is what 10 uneducated people want in the article, not what is

True, important, or most useful or informative to the general public. This ends up meaning that if you are an expert on a topic and want to participate in Wikipedia, your

Real task is an uphill battle that may take months or years just over even a single Article.

This problem could be theoretically dealt with if there were lucid rules to deal with content disputes. However, Wikipedia offers exactly the opposite. If you are in a conflict on wikipedia, there is almost no recourse for you if the other person is both abusive, but clever enough not to violate only a very few insufficient rules. You can be attacked and maligned at any time, and there is no real recourse for you. There is a rule against personal attacks, but it is really only enforced on Wikipedia by admins using it for

Personal warfare purposes, and otherwise, you are more or less swimming alone.

Wikipedia is thus completely vulnerable to the Tyranny of the majority. Wikipedias articles in general character are very low in quality, and the reason for this is simple;

The people writing the articles are factually ignorant, and any interference from somebody who knows what they are talking about will only cause that person to get ganged up on and abused.

<o:p> </o:p>

The next biggest problem on wikipedia is the way that it handles neutrality. Wikipedias definition of neutrality is that something is neutral if the “mainstream press” has said it.

The problem is that the mainstream press isn’t neutral, and the mainstream press is by vast majority republican owned and operated. This skews wikipedia badly towards the right, which doesn’t stop the left from being represented. Wikipedias policy is that articles should be written from a “neutral point of view”. This is called the NPOV

Policy. The problem with this policy and how it is actually applied in practice is that

In the first place, “neutrality” is never rationally defined. Neutrality doesn’t just consist of neutral language, and it doesn’t just consist of giving equal time to different sides of an argument. It also requires a real understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. There is no method for pointing out the difference between opinion and fact.

On Wikipedia. Wikipedia side steps the issue by calling something a fact if somebody else said it. It requires only references, not a cogent evaluation of those references. References are only required to be mainstream, there are no criteria and there is no methodology for determining if a reference is itself biased. The result of this is that “neutrality” as such Becomes incredibly vague and hard to pin down, and, more importantly, “neutrality” As such is only what the local administrator says it is. These admins are not required to understand logic, aren’t required to know how to evaluate fact from opinion, and, aren’t even required to follow the rules set for mere editors. It is factually common practice for admins to verbally attack others, and there is no recourse for the abused.

<o:p> </o:p>

           Wikipedia has thus become a battleground, not an encyclopedia. There are no real

Criteria set forth to limit persons from becoming admins, and so eventually, those who seek power for nefarious purposes, including Trolls, can become administrators on Wikipedia. Once a person is an admin, they are essentially above reproach. Confronting an admin over abuse is enough to get people banned. (Or blocked.) Wikipedia essentially has become nothing more than several different point of view camps, which war with each other in never ending battles to twist the truth and facts

Their way.

<o:p> </o:p>

           The proof that this is true is actually written all over Wikipedia. Any given exploration of a science topic will demonstrate quickly that the information presented is substandard and often not even factual, just well sourced. With a million articles, you would think that by now a single textbook worth of material on some topic or another

Would have been generated. Not so. Check out the “portals” on Wikipedia. “Portals”

Are ways of grouping articles together by subject. Any cursory examination of the portals

Shows that there wouldn’t be enough material out of any given portal to justify a whole

Textbook. So what are 1 million articles covering? Everything you can think of, and mostly noise, nonsense, drivel, entertainment, Movies, Television, Games, Politics,

Biographies, and so forth. Wikipedias content is by vast majority “non-encyclopedic.”

If we define “encyclopedic” material as being that which would be found in some given textbook, or if we define an encyclopedia as a topic orientated textbook, Wikipedia is

Already a gross failure.

           This proof is content driven, but there are more and better proofs that Wikipedia

Is a battleground of point of view warriors. Perhaps the best proof is Jimbos talk page.

Jimbo is the person who came up with the idea of Wikipedia, and he is the defacto

Dictator of Wikipedia. Jimbo is a pretty kewl dictator as far as such go, because he believes in consensus process. But the point is, if you read his talk page, every third entry

Or so is somebody making an appeal to him versus outlandish abuse. And he doesn’t answer these people, and the abuse goes on. At the top of Jimbos Talk page is a message saying to take such complaints to and Administrative page. Good luck. If your complaint for instance involves an admin, they might just delete the complaint and block you. If you are being personally attacked, the standard answer is to go “work it out yourself.” Of course, there are other methods to deal with problems on Wikipedia, and to be fair, we should discuss them. There is in fact an entire dispute resolution process. The first step is called a request for comment, or RFC. Here, you are invited to make a page, list your evidence, and make a complaint. The reality is that you are just drawing a big bull’s-eye across your forehead. It’s not against the rules for others to seek the help of all of their friends, and “consensus” process thus really amounts to nothing more than a popularity

Contest. If you are new to wikipedia, or an expert with less time to devote than the next

Whole month, you are pretty much out of luck. You’ll be crucified, happily, and if you get upset about it, and do anything other than allow yourself to become a good well behaved martyr, you are likely to get blocked or banned. After all of that trouble, and we will say a minimum of 5 days, an RFC must in theory be filed before any other complaints, but an RFC carries zero weight of authority. So if you are being abused, you just lost five days fighting where it doesn’t really matter, and on top of it all you have been tricked into criticizing Wikipedia, and thus have become a defacto enemy and

Scapegoat for Wikipedias pov warriors and ignorant admins. Now that things have escalated, you can start a new process that will last a minimum of five days, and which also carries zero actual weight of authority called mediation. Here, you are expected to compromise and give in and allow others to assault you, mischaracterize you, and insult

You, and further scapegoat you. There is no recourse here to logic or fair play, and despite rules that supposedly require civility, nobodies required to stay civil except you. Any admin can attack you, and, you simply are required to endure it. So now you have spent a minimum of ten days, nothing has changed, and nothing has been done about your complaint. Your article may have been nominated for deletion and been deleted by then, Before you even have a chance to seek genuine authority to resolve the dispute.

<o:p> </o:p>

           The next and last and final step, is called Arbitration. Unlike two prior steps, Arbitration actually has authority and weight to actually make people do things or face consequences. However, you should know that there are Arbiters who are pov warriors, and that the process only requires one arbiter to more or less act as facilitator. So if you are lucky, and you get an arbiter who favors you, you are in luck. But if not, you are basically in a court of law where the main judge is also the prosecution against you. You aren’t allowed to defend yourself versus the arbiter, nor to cross examine the arbiters case or logic. By now, the people you were in the conflict with have had at least 10 days to attack you, bait you, and abuse you. There is an evidence page where you get to make your case, but arbiters aren’t required to read it, and most don’t. Instead, the facilitating arbiter makes his or her case, and the other arbiters vote to agree with or disagree with the facilitating Arbiter. The page on which that happens you aren’t allowed to even make comment to.

<o:p> </o:p>

So justice is elusive at best, and impossible at worst on Wikipedia. This creates a host of other systemic problems. It means that in the end, 99 percent of the participants put up or shut up, and learns to go along with the flow of apparent “consensus”. (Which is often generated by only a single admin.?) The idea here is that conflict takes time and process to resolve. The problem is, nobody in their right mind is going to put up with all of that. Wikipedia thus chases away anybody of decent or high caliber unless they are for whatever reason truly dedicated, and willing to spend hours and hours and hours being abused in order to accomplish writing a short article which will then probably degenerate into noise anyways.

<o:p> </o:p>

           Wikipedias government is thus definable as a tyranny of the majority based in pack psychology and anarchy. Its claim to consensus process is totally illusory, in fact it practices a perfect example of the now well discredited <st1:place w:st="on">Delphi</st1:place> process. It forces false consensus via threat, intimidation, and manipulation.

<o:p> </o:p>

Nowhere does this become more apparent than in trying to specifically bring these problems to the attention of Wikipedia. Like all bureaucratic monsters, Wikipedia isn’t

Really interested in criticism, and serious critics are punished by intimidation, threat,

Blocking, and banning. Standing up to an abusive admin is “asking to be banned.”

Standing up to wikipedia as a whole on account of this problem was a lesson is doublethink and pack psychology. Being blocked for defending somebody else against blatant admin abuse (and reckless flagrant disregard for the rules) demonstrated the simple truth. People are blocked or banned from wikipedia simply for the crime of standing up for their rights, or other people’s rights, or for demanding that the rules be followed. The rules are followed selectively and at the convenience of the admins. Personal attacks are the modus operandi of admins, Votes for deletion, and even arbiters.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia; it’s a political battleground, a war zone of ideologies,

Complete with total blatant and flagrant corruption.

<o:p> </o:p>

Now, having made my case against Wikipedia, the next question is why bring this up

With you? The answer of course is that I am interested in collaboration of the type that Wikipedia promises but cannot hope to deliver. For over 15 years, my goal has been to

Write Textbooks or Tomes on those subjects which are most contended over, and to use truth and knowledge and logic and reason and fact to facilitate real change and evolution

In our society towards the better. Specifically, I am interested in getting together with others and building a knowledge base prequel to writing textbook tomes on the following subjects. Ethics, Psychology, Sociology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, World Religions, Politics, Psychonautics, Permaculture, Arcologies, Architecture, Space Exploration and Colonization, Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Herbology, Botany, Aerodynamics,

Computer Sciences, Robotics, Alternative energy, Propulsion Physics, Electricity, The Strong and Weak Nuclear forces, And Gravity.

<o:p> </o:p>

My Email is Prometheuspan@hotmail.com

KucitizenX@yahoo.com

Or

ThinkStarship@hotmail.com

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

I do not "hang around with" anyone like that. I would like to ask you to stop repeating this untruth. I have explained this to you before, but I will explain it again for you here and now, and if you insist on repeating it, I will simply link people to this comment so that they can understand what you are up to and draw their own conclusions.

I was invited to the Time 100 party. At this party I met and spoke to a wide range of people including Al Franken, John McCain, Ann Coulter, Rachael Ray, Martha Stewart, Condi Rice, etc. Fox News reported on the brief conversation that I had with Ann Coulter in this way: "Meantime, I left the Time Warner Center just as my pal Ann Coulter was busy chastising Jimmy Wales about her Wikipedia entry and finding out from him how to change it. Listen, you Wikipedians, be nice to Coulter."

In fact, Coulter made two complaints about the article, two factual complaints which, in my view, were about things which are neither in favor of nor against her. The first complaint was that our article apparently at one time indicated that she was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. Not true. The other complaint was that our article suggested that her newspaper startup during college was funded by a particular conservative philanthropist, which she felt was not true. (And to date, as far as I know, this has not been confirmed.)

Whether or not she was or was not raised Catholic seems to me to be neither "pro" nor "anti" Ann Coulter. Whether or not she was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife seems to me also to be neither "pro" nor "anti" Coulter. (She is a hell of a lot more controversial than he is, and she is of course a well known and open conservative, so what's the difference.)

Why you would want to remove Scaife's name from the article after receiving so much money from another right-wing organization [4]?

Xed frequently tries to spin this chance meeting and discussion into some kind of evidence that I am opposed to a serious and neutral discussion of politics, or that I am somehow racist, or right-winger. All I can really say to that is: this rendering of the facts is so absurd that all that is required is for me to state them plainly and people will judge for themselves what this may say about Xed.--Jimbo Wales 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice pic. For once, Fox News got it right. Let me ask you this, Wales. Coulter refers to Arabs as ragheads, camel jockeys, jihad monkeys, tent merchants etc. Obviously, only a moron or a racist would want to associate with her. You were eager to not only do that, but subsequently do her bidding on her article - extraordinary! My question is: would you be so willing to stick up for someone who routinely refers to Black people as "Niggers", or someone who routinely refers to Jews as "Kikes"? I suspect not. None the less, you are happy to associate with her. You are on the side of bigotry. So please don't act surprised if, when you start a new site which you proclaim is a "meeting ground for people on all sides of the political spectrum", I am skeptical. - Xed 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Xed, you are the only person on the planet who would characterize someone walking up to me and chastising me about their Wikipedia article as "hanging out". --Jimbo Wales 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what language you speak, but hanging out means spending some time with someone. News reports indicate you did just that. - Xed 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I took a picture. I suppose that proves I hang out with Paul Simon[5], Stephen Colbert [6], and the Easter Bunny [7], too. :-) Having said all this, I must admit that your whining inspires me to go out of my way to hang out with Ann Coulter. --Jimbo Wales 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I bet it does. I can imagine the conversation - full of ragheads, camel jockeys, jihad monkeys, tent merchants etc. Edifying stuff. And then run back home to edit her bio. You didn't answer my question above, now bolded. - Xed 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My answer, now bolded: I am willing to correct errors of fact in any article on Wikipedia, no matter who it is about. I do not view any action that I have taken in the matter of Ann Coulter as "sticking up for" anyone. I am perfectly happy to let other people judge the degree of coherency of your claims, because I am quite certain any reasonable person will draw the conclusion that you are just flat wrong.--Jimbo Wales 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question, so I'll rephrase it for you - If someone who routinely refers to Black people as "Niggers" and Jews as "Kikes" cornered you at a party, would you go out of your way to implement the minor changes they deemed were necessary? Furthermore, if you were criticized for this, would you say that the "whining" inspires you to go out of my way to hang out with them?
In hindsight, your wish the Asian Tsunami 'donation banner' be removed from the main page right after the disaster may have more to it than admiration for the Ayn Rand selfishness cult. I can't imagine how many suffered because of that (a similar banner on Amazon was generating more money, from the public, than many major governments). - Xed 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see I've been blocked, indefinitely, for criticizing the Leader. - Xed 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked you. For the last time. You're on your own now, I am tired of defending you.--Jimbo Wales 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't award yourself a halo you're not qualified for. - Xed 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, Xed. The point is, you are on your own. You no longer can depend on me to save you from your own behavior. My protection of you is finished.--Jimbo Wales 16:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
My ban-worthy behavior includes saying to you "take criticism seriously for a change", so you, or your cringing bootlickers, may as well ban me now. I'll give you a reason too - "take criticism seriously for a change" - Xed 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not answering for Jimbo or anything, but I would like to say that there's nothing wrong with defending racists. We have an equal duty to Adolf Hitler and to Mohandas Gandhi to deliver factually accurate articles. Bigots have rights too. You seem to be exhibiting prejudice against bigots (you suggest bigots don't deserve that people make minor corrections to their articles at their behest. Only non-prejudiced people deserve that service). Well I, and perhaps also Jimbo, think that everyone, even bigots, deserve fair treatment here at Wikipedia. -lethe talk + 19:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take it easy. Fred Bauder 03:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not the position I take. I would rather not have bigots telling the Leader of an encyclopedia what to write. That's far from ideal. I don't think it's the position Wales takes either - at least not in the universal sense - as my unanswered question above indicates. Some prejudices, it seems, against certain groups, are more acceptable than others. Hence his declaration above that he is "inspired" to hang out with someone who uses language like ragheads, camel jockeys, and jihad monkeys etc. Whether this is because of the time and place that he lives in, or whether it's because of his own deeply held views, is hard to know. - Xed 10:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't hang out with her. She buttonholed him and harangued him about her article. She was apparently not raised Roman Catholic. He just corrected that error and one other. It would have been very hard for him to stiff her. I don't find it hard to know about Jimbo. He's basically decent. But so are you and your input here will be lost if you keep failing away at Jimbo. Please put your efforts into reducing our systemic bias. Fred Bauder 12:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fred. This is a minor issue. The bigger issue is that it should matter at all, and that one person is put into a position of power where their inevitable failings are going to be magnified. -- Danny Yee 12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only are his failings magnified, but those failings influence the project. English Wikipedia should learn from the German one. According to here, the comparative success of the German Wikipedia is due to "The independence of the German community from Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation. The English Wikipedia is very much a monarchy, with people looking to Jimbo for advice and guidance. The German Wikipedia had, and has, nobody with Jimbo's authority. People had to deal with the fact that there is no ultimate appeal." Jimbo seems unlikely to relinquish his power. Even if he did, he has managed to install so many yes-men that most arguments would be deteriorate to variations on What Would Jimbo Do? - Xed 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a fascinating view of the German wikipedia you just linked to. In any event, the whole Ann Coulter thing is a red herring. The problem is with the basic governance structure, not anyone's personal foibles. (In Australia we have a tradition that politicians' personal lives are not drawn into their political careers - at least in contrast to the United States, anyway.) -- Danny Yee 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Final ban appears to be about my last comment above, which suggested Wikipedia was better off without Wales. Such a self-evident truth is too much for him. - Xed 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That I don't understand. Suggesting that Wikipedia would be better with more democracy is not a personal attack (unlike the complaints about Coulter, which were about Jimbo's personal life rather than his status as Wiki-dictator). Whether Jimbo distances himself from Coulter is unimportant. Whether we have the freedom to try to make the English Wikipedia more like the German one - and to discuss that freely! - is much more significant. -- Danny Yee 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It was even a quote from someone else! ... don't think they'll be banned, indefinitely or otherwise - nor should they. - Xed 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Since it's not the reason Xed was blocked, no, Elian is not going to get blocked for it either. --Michael Snow 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A quote from Elian and then suddenly "enough is enough". - Xed 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
More than two days, in which you were able to make a number of other edits, is "suddenly"? Given that he mentioned checking your contributions, emphasis on the plural, I would venture that the subsequent edits have much more to do with it than the comment above. --Michael Snow 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You can venture as much as you want. Lack of specifics is an easy get out. - Xed 23:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I disapprove Xed's accusations of Jimbo "hanging around with Ann Coulter" (Islamophobia is not contagious), it would have been nice to read, that Jimbo distances himself from Coulters slurs on Muslims instead of blocking Xed for his baseless accusations. Raphael1 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You have made a massive leap in your logic. Jimbo did not block Xed indefinitely, but was a block instituted by Cyde (talk • contribs). The situation was reviewed on WP:AN/I and was verified to have massive community support. Jimbo made an unblock later and noted that Xed's next block would be uncontested by him as per previously. -Randall Brackett 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wales blocks me and says he won't contest the block. Rather circular. Clearly a moral giant. - Xed 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../x/e/d/User_talk%7EXed_4a5e.html"