I note that on several fronts you are still arguing. It is that habit of arguing which is the real issue. Wikipedia has a number of conventions (so many that only an addict could remember them all). A user will inevitably violate them from time to time. What distinguishes you is that instead of gritting your teeth and cursing a bit is that you then acually engage in a fight. Like for example your insistance in the James I article. You were right (in my opinion) but engaging in serious fussing over crap makes no sense. (Of course it takes two).

Anything you did was colored by the fact you were editing in violation of a ban (which gave everyone license to delete, revert and ignore. So right or wrong the other user was always right. So you were in the wrong in each and every dispute you engaged in after you were banned or started creating clones.

Anyway the tone of your apology is rather argumentative promising more arguement down the line. You joust (but not with real monsters).

Fred

From: Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons] <cddvdlenscleaner@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 21:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] I have apoligized


I have apoligized, on numerous occasions and via numerous channels of communication. I have apoligized both publicly and privately. I have apoligized both to the general community and to specific individuals.

I have even apoligized for specific behaviour which I felt was inappropriate but which the general community does not view as bannable behavior and which nobody has ever attacked me for and that several sysops frequently enage in without any condemnation; for example, swearing.  

It would be appropriate, for those who argue that I am a vandal, to stop stating that I have refused to abide by wiki guidelines, that I have refused to apoligize, or that I have refused to admit that my behavior was inappropriate.

I would like to further note, that while my opponents my claim I am a vandal for referring to the people of "Minoa" (an allegedly fictitous empire), engaging in an edit war over the name of Christopher Columbus, referring to the Queen of England as Ms. Bowes-Lyon, and insisting that regime is a POV term...I must note, I have NEVER taken paragraphs of text inserted by any user and deleted them - the worst I have done is taken paragraphs of text and moved them.

Nor have I ever entered swearwords into an article or changed dates, names, people, places, or any other information in such a way as to render the article clearly fallacious. The closest allegation of this sort which was made against me was, "I don't see anything factually wrong with Lir's additions; but I'm certain there is some hidden POV which we will find upon further investigation."

I was banned for 1 week because when other users deleted my additions, leading to an edit war, I started swearing at them and making personal attacks. That was a very very long time ago, at a point in time where I was suffering from a nicotine addiction.

It is true that I violated my ban, first with one account and then another, but during all that time and all those thousands and thousands and thousands of edits, did I ever vandalize an article? Did I ever swear at anybody? In all those thousands of edits, did I ever do anything wrong besides being me, admitting to being me, writing on topics which only I have been working on, and use an identifiable OS/browser/IP?



Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com>  - Faster. Easier. Bingo.