User talk:Xed/Archive3

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

Don't remove {{NPOV}} when an edit war is going on!

Please do not remove the {{NPOV}} marker from articles which are clearly a subject of active disagreement and the so called "edit wars". You have recently done so both at Hasbara and NGO monitor, without engaging in the corresponding articles' discussion placing any sort of justification. Please stop and try to find a more constructive way to make your point. Hoping for understanding, BACbKA 16:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have just discovered that you did it today again at NGO monitor. You've just endorsed Alberuni's reply on my talk page, so I have a hope that you'll listen to my message now. Please, don't remove the dispute markers. I believe this is a serious insult to the editors who try to achieve consensus and collaborative editing spirit on the Wikipedia. There are surely other ways to make your point. BACbKA 22:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your block

I am dreadfully sorry I did not get to this sooner, so it's ever-so-slightly deferred, but it seems that you violated the three-revert rule on Hasbara yesterday. I have blocked you for 24 hours in accordance with that policy. Please do not engage in edit wars in the future. It's totally against what Wikipedia stands for. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

I see your block has expired or you were unblocked since the Fennec's note, and now you make another 3RR at NGO Monitor... :-( BACbKA 00:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) incorrect. - Xed 00:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe I was incorrect at 00:32, and I apologise for that case. However, your last edit made a 4th one in a 24-hour window, with the only differences being re-arranging the paragraph placement that offended the other parties. In any case, I support Jayjg's original research claim there, and think that just mentioning that it appears on the hasbara site report is more than enough, reader should draw own conclusions as to whether this implicates NGO Monitor as an hasbara organisation. BTW, I never heard of it before reading this article. BACbKA 00:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have now been unblocked entirely. The four edits I thought constituted violation of the 3RR were [1], [2], [3], and [4]. The first, third, and fourth were certainly reverts, while the second added new content. I have apologized for having blocked you when you did not strictly violate the 3RR, but the new content you added was in context of a rephrased version of the statement you had been reverting before. Several other administrators have since told me that a "revert" could be interpreted more liberally than I had done. Had I looked more closely and discovered my error, I would probably not have blocked you in the first place, but in any case please know that someone else probably would have. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 19:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point is that the second edit added, in different words, the statement that NGO Monitor is a hasbara organization. That is the very statement over which you had been reverting. The only actual new content was a link to a website. Someone quickly looking through a page's edit history (like myself) might see that you had reverted people's removal of that statement several times already and assume that you were simply trying to add your content without its being construed as a revert. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Permit me to observe that the notice of departure on your userpage is misleading as to the length of time and reason I blocked you. You insisted that I get the facts straight, and I expect you will extend the same courtesy to me. I mean you no ill will, and I hope you return soon. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was blocked for 42 hours, from 00:46, 14 Dec to 18:47, 15 Dec 2004. Do you really deny this? And there was no valid reason to block me, as in your email you openly admit to not bothering to examine the edit history:

"upon examination of the edit history of NGO Monitor, I

find I owe you an apology. I and several people on IRC misinterpreted

one of your edits as a revert, apparently not realizing that the first

was not a revert, but in fact the addition of new information. Please

accept my sincere apologies, and know that it was a mistake on my part

and not any sort of malice. I also apologize for not having

re-examined the page's history until now."

- Xed 02:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above quote still doesn't, in my opinion, justify saying that you were blocked for "no reason", as the reasoning behind the block were clearly stated by Rdsmith. His request to reword it in a straighter way is very reasonable. BACbKA 17:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, as far as I was educated, personal email is not the same as "openly admitting" as doing anything. Quoting someone's personal email especially to prove the other party's wrongdoing is frowned upon on the net and even in some coutries' laws if I am not mistaken. It seems to me that Rdsmith4 had tried to politely reconcile the matter with you; what you have just done above is trying to break the dialog and use his own words against him publicly instead. (When somebody sends you spam/hate mail etc. and you are specifically asked by the relevant authorities/admins to provide an example to substantiate your complaint, then it's a different story, of course). BACbKA 19:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did I just encourage an admin to block you?

...blocked for forty-two hours for no reason by Rdsmith4. BACbKA has admitted encouraging him to block me. Rdsmith4 has indicated that the discussion took place on IRC, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia...

(your user page)

• I believe that your formulation of the facts doesn't exactly reflect what was going on, and gives a skewed impression on my role in the matter. Quoting from my email to you (the email which is the basis for your claim which I sent you offline in a private mediation effort) as to what I did and why:

Xed, I support the admin decision to block you today. Moreover, the second time it was done by an admin specifically by my request after the admin verified your 2nd violation of the 3RR. I think that the way to attempt to compromise is to use the talk page to make your point.

In the NGO Monitor case, JayJG's point was that your text is original research. To counter it, you shouldn't just comment on his inability to understand that it is hasbara. This is not an attempt to compromise. However, I am not saying that your edit should not exist. If indeed there exists a source defining NGO Monitor as a hasbara project, then you should both make your edit AND cite the reference in the article, pointing to such a source. Given that the article is controversial, I would first try to do it on the talk page. You can rest assured that if then JayJG or somebody else attempts to revert your edit w/o discussing it in the talk page, I'll be the first to support you.

[...]

When your block expires, I heartily welcome you back and wish you more thoughtful and substantiated edits. I am sure that in this way you will be able to earn unconditional respect from other editors on WP. Also, please don't violate the 3RR again, call an admin to block the article if nothing else helps. Finally, when you bring in new arguments into discussion, never use the change log comment, but put it into the discussion page.

BACbKA

I.e., while the edit war was going on, I first asked an admin whether the edits were 3RR at NGO Monitor took place in their opinion and then suggested that the block be done if they, too, think the 3RR took place. Nobody took my word for granted, and all I did was asking extra admin scrutiny in an attempt to defuse an ongoing edit war. I did it in good faith, and I trust the explanations of the admins above as to the good faith reasons behind their blocking of you.

• As to calling an admin to look at it on the IRC #wikipedia channel, I apologise if this is indeed countering the WP spirit in some way, but I would prefer you to give me a pointer to the respective policy as to why this is considered bad. I can easily believe such a policy exists because I am a relatively new user (here since August, and around 800 edits).

BACbKA 17:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan says "I and several people on IRC misinterpreted one of your edits as a revert". I presume he means you, as well as others. Of course I'll never know, because IRC logs are not kept, so discussions on Wikipedia IRC are by there nature unfair and opaque. Objections about IRCs use are here. I don't really like being blocked for 42 hours after being falsely accused of breaking a rule and then being told "please don't violate the 3RR again". Especially by a person who instigated the block. -XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 18:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I support the idea not to make unpublished policy decisions there. Still I don't think it's a bad idea to call an admin's attention to an article via the IRC. The decision to block was done by a single person, it's not like a vote was being held or smth like that. In general, I think that off-line communication in the community are sometimes even better than being on the WP. At that particular time, WP was very slow IIRC, IRC had a much better response. Also, some arbitration issues have much better chances of success if done privately, don't you think?

You were certainly successful in getting me blocked. Well done. Give yourself a pat on the back. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 13:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As to the timing of being told "3RR again", it's a quote from the email sent before anybody had any other interpretation of the fact.

I certainly had a different "interpretation". And I was right. However, I was still blocked for 42 hours because of you. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 13:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I read the (policy enforcing) admins' comments above correctly, some of them still perceive the edit history as a vio. of the 3RR.

Who? tell me who else contributed to the decision to get me blocked. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 13:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appologise if my interpretation of your 3RR breakage was wrong; in any case, it's the admins' opinion that counts. If you prefer, I call on you not to engage in actions perceived by some of the admins as the 3RR violation and by others bordering on it :-) BACbKA 19:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a degree in advanced smugness? - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 13:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD and VfU

Hi! I thought you might be interested in the VfU for User:IndigoGenius/Micronation and the associated VfD. [[User:Eequor|‣ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SecretLondon

There was an exchange on the mailing list about this issue a while back, and in it I posted the full story. I have additionally emailed SecretLondon to open a dialogue with her, but she has not answered. To my knowledge, she does not say that she was forced out, nor is it likely, I think, that she would appreciate your going around and saying it.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm interested in justice. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 21:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in justice, too. But what should we do? The fact is, I said one little thing to her that anyone would judge as minor, I apologized to her three times anyway, and she isn't complaining about it. If you want to write to her and ask her to contact me, I can do what I can to make further amends. Would this satisfy you?

Actually, would _anything_ satisfy you?

You say you're interested in justice, but you consider yourself immune to criticism. An unusual viewpoint to say the least. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb.donate 15:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's what happened. She posted a comment to the mailing list which involved an attitude of anti-Americanism. I wrote her a very short email in which I said that I was getting sick of this, and please stop it. That's the worst thing that I ever said to her, and we had previous to that some very pleasant email exchanges.

I have never seen this comment of hers. But you sending her an email, as the "benevolent dictator" of Wikipedia, telling her you're sick of her, sends a very strong message. The message could easily be interpreted as "fuck off and don't come back". - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb

I did not say that I'm sick of her. Please try to focus your mind. --Jimbo Wales 02:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You argue like a lawyer. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb.donate 15:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Within a couple of hours of writing that to her, I wrote a long apology for being snippy. I explained fully what I meant and why I said it. After you brought her blog post to my attention, I sent her yet another apology.

Here's the thing: there was nothing particularly awful about what I wrote the first time. It was snippy and I'm not usually snippy. She made other claims about me in that blog post that are simply not true. For example she claims that I banned danny at the behest of RK, which I absolutely did not. She claims that I'm a "rightist" which I manifestly am not.

So it is difficult for me to know how to respond further.

What I ask of you is quite simple: please stop going around telling people that I forced SecretLondon out of wikipedia.

Any sane person would regard a dictator saying "I am sick of your attitude" as being a deliberate way of forcing someone out. Of course, you could always claim to be the Henry II to Thomas Becket to abrogate responsibility. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 21:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not a dictator, and I specifically told her on multiple occassions that I appreciate her work. I'll email her more if you like, but I get the impression she'd rather not hear more from me. It's a terribly unfortunate situation, of course. --Jimbo Wales 02:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Terribly unfortunate, tragic etc - but it worked out quite well for you.... I'm not surprised she'd rather not hear form you. Did you ever think why? - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb.donate 15:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But there's a bit more to it as well. You said that I have "sad history" of forcing out users who disagree with me -- but this is not at all true. If there's anything that's sad about my history in wikipedia it's got to be the exact opposite -- my unwillingness to force out users who I don't agree with. How many good users did we lose because I was unwilling to force out RK, for example, with whom I disagreed on just about everything about his conduct at wikipedia?

I don't really know what you're talking about. I do know that you have helped to create an encyclopaedia that has more on Middle Earth than central Africa, more on Star Wars (fictional TV program) than Second Congo War (ongoing war which has killed 4 million people). Despite the strange balance of articles, you intend to release a printed version (Wikipedia 1.0) for the third world. Surely you jest? - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 21:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My position here is likely no different from yours, so why yell at me? I want the encyclopedia to continue to improve, and I'm open to ideas for doing so. I'm not particularly open to personal attacks on me that are not grounded in reality, of course. But, I have said publicly and privately that I support efforts and ideas to reduce the degree of systemtic bias in wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales 02:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are not open to ideas at all. The opposite is true. Witness your response to Larry Sanger - [5], full of the kind of condescending haughtiness often produced by those surrounded by sycophants. I might also point out that when I drew attention to this response on your Talk page it was immediately deleted. So much for openness. You also have the habit of construing everything critical of Wikipedia to be a personal attack on you. This is what Wikipedia has become, a clique of outwardly obsequious admins too cowed to question the status quo or their Leader. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb.donate 15:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for our relations, I have never quite understood you from the very beginning. The first I ever heard of you, you were angry at me for things that I didn't do, attitudes that I don't hold, etc. You sent me angry and demanding emails and angry and demanding talk messages. Why? I think one possibility is that you have gotten a wrong idea of who I am, what I believe, and what I do. But I encourage you to open up a friendly email dialogue with me about, rather than continuing to go around spreading falsehoods.--Jimbo Wales 08:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know your ideas, your beliefs. Your Ayn Rand friends have some interesting ideas - [6] (Note: Even the Ayn Rand people have now backtracked). In our previous email correspondence you indicated that yes, you were bound by the votes of other Wikipedians. However, you didn't tell the rest of Wikipedia! Hence, in a vote for arbitration, almost all of the voters believes they had no jurisdiction over you. I will tell you this, a fork will come soon unless Wikipedia is reformed. - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb 21:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Psst, don't tell anyone, but there already are like a billion wikipedia forks: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Dori | Talk 02:19, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your treatment of Jimbo, who has spent more money on this project than the average person will see in his/her life and is now working on it more or less full-time, frankly sickens me. Pakaran 15:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope you get better soon. The many who suffered because Jimbo thought a banner was unnecessary may take longer to heal. - XED.talk.

You have such a small, petty mind. Slrubenstein 19:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote the above, there was nothing here about "tsunami relief" so I do not know what you are talking about. Do you really not know what I was talking about? You have a small and petty mind because of the combination of ignorance, arrogance, and meanness with which you insult Jimbo. Since this is pretty obvious to everyone else, I thought it would be obvious to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You moron -- you keep claiming that I think it is petty to help others when I explicitly state that it is petty to insult Jimbo. Also, you claim that my comment follows a discussion of tsunami relief. I checked for a third time: the words "tsunami" and "relief" do not appear in this section, except in this comment and the one I made earlier today. I repeat: you have a small and petty mind, because of the way you misrepresent and insult others, especially others who have given much more of themselves to this project than you. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Happy new year!

I wish you the best, Xed! — mark ✎ 00:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, objectivism, et cetera

A person who happens to share a philosophy with Jimbo posted on a website dedicated to said philosophy that he feels that the US government should not give money to the disaster because taxation is unfounded, and as such they should not have the money to begin with. On the basis of this, you feel that Jimbo, who was not the author of that passage, would oppose using the main page of Wikipedia to solicit voluntary donations. This is analogous to saying that since Joseph Stalin murdered his political opponents, I as an Atheist would like to do the same. Please THINK before posting these sorts of comments. Pakaran 15:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of the Main page you will see removing donations box on the suggestion of Jimbo. link is now included in "in the news". Jimbo later said, "I was asked an opinion, and I gave it, no more and no less. I think my opinion was right". - XED.talk.stalk.mail.csb.donate 15:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Convicts and Puritans

I remember seeing a Australian car sticker which said "Thank God it was the Convicts and not the Puritans"

Thanks for that! It was laugh-out-loud funny. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LRA on FAC

Hi Xed, can I ask you a favor? I nominated Lord's Resistance Army at WP:FAC and I'm really keen on getting this one through, because it's worth it but also because the Featured Articles suffer from systemic bias too. BanyanTree asked me to check the language because he has a blindspot for flaws in his own sentences. Since I'm not a native speaker of English, I'm very slow at that kind of task. Could you maybe devote some attention to it and try to fix some of the style and language-related problems that surface on the FAC request? That would be really cool. Needless to say, I won't feel offended if you ignore my request because you have other things to attend to. Thanks! — mark ✎ 00:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

they're quick

Thanks for giving me a heads up. That's amazing. They already have the assaulted women photo I put up yesterday on Second Congo War. I suppose we owed them for taking the Rwandan Genocide subpages.  ;) - BanyanTree 18:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:CSB-circle.gif

Hello xed. I was image tagging, when I came across Image:CSB-circle.gif and its mate, Image:CSB-circlelogo.jpg. Did you make these? I was unable to determine the copyright status, so I tagged it as "unverified". Could you add a proper image copyright tag to it? Pictures without tags will eventually be deleted. There are probably other CSB-related logos and such that are also not tagged. By the way, great work keeping up with CSB! Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:14, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Done - XED.talk 13:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)