I object strongly to DW being called an idiot. I resent the fact that it is considered ok
to call him an idiot. He brought up some very legitimate complaints, not the least of
which is that Zoe openly reverts changes based not on their merit, but merely because she
doesn't like the user who made them. She is open about this, she has admitted it, she
has argued, "But User:XX made the change, why should we listen to that idiot?"
It is true that wikipedia is full of argument and that this is a problem, but the problem
is not merely those, like DW, TMC, or even myself the mongrel troll Vera Cruz, which
engage in inappropriate behavior not because we are incorrigible, but because we honestly
don't always know better. For example, DW does not know that informing JW that he has
a system of approved ignorance is not going to come across well, nor did I know that
arguing that it is racist to refuse to use forign spellings would be bad.
Certainly I have learned to be increasingly non-argumentative, and I am sure DW, TMC, 172,
Danny, etc can definitely become even better contributors than they are. So no, I
don't think we are the real problem, even if we can from time to time be offensive
because we don't have a high enough level of class or protocol.
I think there is a serious problem with people such as Isis, who insults people (me
others), refuses to discuss the problem with the people she hates, and then winds up
threatening to sue somebody for libel, a crime she regularly commits herself!
There is an amazing difference between the two groups, the most notably difference being
that Im no advocating banning anybody. Isis can call me names all day, I don't care.
User:172 can go insane with insisting that his dry rambling articles are the ultimate
nobel prize explanation of every subject every written. But I don't want to ban them.
Banning is for people that load goatse or change the dates of WWII to 1836-2321. Banning
is not for somebody who writes, "Columbus was a slavetrader" or "The
Israelis are actively conducting genocide in Palestine". Yes, anyone with brains know
those statements are absolute truth, but it takes time to learn NPOV.
At this wiki, we have a group of people who are snide and elitist. They do not have
perfect NPOV, they do not have perfect decisions, but they believe they do. They reinforce
their belief because they are just about the only people who read or talk on the mailing
list and they are arguing all over the wiki, thus making them feel that they are the wiki,
and everybody else is a noobie or non-contributor.
Those people should not be banned, they should not lose their sysop privileges. But, at
the same time, the bullshit has got to fucking stop. You don't sue somebody from
England because they tell u that as a paralegal you don't know jack about law. You
don't call people an idiot simply because they don't agree with anything u think.
Id like to talk about how I shouldn't be banned, its pretty obvious that Im somebody
who is going to contribute valuable material. I don't think even my biggest opponents
can deny the fact that just about every time I click submit I am adding something of value
and just about everytime there is a problem, I back down or its eventually decided that I
was correct.
I know Im not a problem, but I can't convince anybody of it. There is a reason that
legal courts do not require a defendant to prove their innocence, its IMPOSSIBLE to prove
one's innocence. It cannot be done no matter what the crime or no matter how innocent
you are. Not a single one of you can prove that you were not Adolf Hitler who committed a
genocide and then, via parapscyhological phenomena, teleported himself into the future.
Im supposed to apoligize to people or something so I can be unbanned. Ive apoligized, Ive
apoligized ten-fold. Am I changed? I change every morning when I wake up, its a gradual
sorta thing. Nobody has apoligized to me, and nobody can honestly deny that I haven't
been the victim of rude abuse. I don't want your goddamn apologies, I want you to grow
up and realize that from time to time somebody is gonna show up at the wiki and not only
have info to contribute, but they are gonna start revising stuff that everyone of u
thought was perfect. Its gonna happen next year, and ten years down the road, and its
already happaned. Because Im not just a spell-checker or information-dumper, Im a reviser.
Look at that ridiculous New Imperialism, its got to be just about the most boring piece of
crusty lecture Ive ever looked at, you can't honestly expect some 4th grader, or
working class stiff, or even an academic, to want to read that. Thats why none of you have
actually read it! Don't tell me you've read that, I know you haven't read it.
If you'd read it you'd be able to discuss it with me. Yes, I know, thats
argumentative, maybe u even have read it and Im sorry if you have and I just libeled you.
But the point is, that article needs revision and I need to revise it and nobody will let
me simply because we don't get along.
Why? Why can't we all just get along? I don't see any reason we can't get
along. I've obviously taken numerous steps to try and reconcile things, Ive written a
great deal of material which NOBODY has read. I admit that Im not the greatest writer
ever, but Id like somebody else to take a step. Id like somebody else to consider the fact
that I might be right, maybe a student of New Imperialism shouldn't be required to
read a massive paragraph about the word imperialism, maybe he should just be able to click
on imperialism when he decides he wants to read all that.
In any case, thats what I was doing when I was last banned and I apoligize for not
apoligizing enough and instead using this opportunity to make demands and concessions, but
Im pretty stuck on this territorial dispute regarding New Imperialism, and I know, if you
give in at all the floodgates will come crashing open and pretty soon Ill be over on Isaac
Asimov or Charles Dickens insisting that he wasn't the greatest writer ever whose
greatest book ever was such and such, but yah know, I did have a point about the Asimov
article being POV.
So let's like talk about articles sometime, cuz honestly, I don't know what to say
about anything else. At least DW was trying to talk about whatever changes he was going on
about on Jimbo Wale's talk page, I know for a fact that Zoe doesn't discuss
things, she argues "This is the wiki way!", but the wiki way is to make a good
encyclopedia. And I don't see how that can be done without a little more conversation
and a little less resorting to law by commandment and imperial decree. Not to state that
Jimbo is a King or some totalitarian, just to note that no matter how benevolent things
may be, there hasn't been enough friendliness.
Oh, I almost forgot, for about the hundreth time, plz add some simple chatrooms like even
the most moronic of websites have. You can't honestly expect to go another year
without even one chatroom, can you?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now