User talk:Marsden

Archives: Archive1

Oppose Jayjg's Candidacy for ArbCom

(This section was modified without my consent by User:SlimVirgin)

Candidate Jayjg in the December 2005 ArbCom election promotes partisan, minority views as being NPOV. He is aided in this by a small but energetic group of other editors.

A serious shortcoming of Wikipedia is that interested minorities can often promote completely biased perspectives as being neutral. Jayjg is among the worst exploiters of this problem. I urge every Wikipedian to oppose his candidacy to the Arbitration Committee for this reason.

It is likely that Wikipedia is approaching the end of its usefulness. It is sometimes an effective resource for non-controversial topics, but on controversial matters very little confidence can be placed in its articles. Eventually a new platform will probably arise that uses Wikipedia's free-use content where it is useful, but which replaces POV-ed articles with more professionally produced writing.

It would be better, however, if this were not necessary, and getting Jayjg off of the ArbCom would be an important step toward saving Wikipedia from the propagandists for the time being.

User:Viriditas has since removed all of the critical questions from Jayjg's page, eliminating even the pretence of open questioning of the candidate.)

Marsden 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Israel and the United Nations Magen David Adom Zionist Terrorism

Can you check out. Humus Sapiens seems to have discovered a list of articles I have contributed and is busy reverting seemingly to make a WP:Point - definitely to push POV. Unbehagen 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to be blocked. Apparently any word I write now, including "and" and "the" is considered to be a personal attack. ;-) Humus' last edit at Israel and UN seems to agree with yours. Marsden 14:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner (talk · contribs)

Ah, Wikipedia's true colors come out.

I have apparently been blocked indefinitely by one "Snowspinner," with the comment, "Hopeless troll": [1].

Perhaps he was upset that I removed the prejudicial phrase, "... although much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews, had a Jewish majority, or was under state control," which had followed, "The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and by most of the Arab population, ..." in the British Mandate of Palestine article. And, in some edit conflict to keep the propagandist Jayjg from restoring the phrase, the following underlying facts of the situation have been added to the article:

• According to an October 17, 1947 testimony before the United Nations by Moshe Shertok of the Jewish Agency, "the Jews have, so far, managed to acquire less than seven percent of the land area of Palestine." According to British statistics, of the land that became Israel (approximately 78% of Mandate Palestine, by area), Jews owned almost 9%, Palestinians who became citizens of Israel (and retained ownership of their land) owned another 3%, about 18% belonged to Arabs who had left the area, and the mandatory government owned over 70%.

(Jayjg actually added most of the information, although typically he failed to mention the "18% belonging to Arabs who had left the area," even though it was from the source for the rest of his information. And, obviously, he didn't add the "less than seven percent" quote.)

So, this is what trolling is at Wikipedia: objecting to a statement that "much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews ... or was under state control" when in fact Jews owned less than 9% and Arabs owned about 21% -- Bill Gates and I own much of Microsoft's outstanding stock shares, too.

Ah, Snowspinner. I'm comfortable where I'm standing. How about you?

Marsden 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your talk page was protected; I don't know why, but I've unprotected it so you can talk here. I've been arguing with Snowspinner against your block, but there's actually not much I can do, because I have an ArbCom ruling that prevents me from questioning the actions of other admins. Our first strategy should be to try to get Snowspinner to agree to unblock you. Can you think of a way you could appease him? Everyking 09:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You have an ArbCom ruling that prevents you from questioning the actions of other admins???! WTF? Wikipedia just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Everyking, I appreciate your efforts and your sentiments about how Wikipedia ought to function, but it is clear that the way Wikipedia really functions is something else entirely. Wikipedia is broken, and for the last couple of months I have worked at fixing it, to the exclusion of editing articles that I could make my most worthwhile contributions to. But Wikipedia will not be fixed; it doesn't want to be fixed. Frankly, after Snowblower's heavy handed reaction to a comment I made on a user talk pager (for f***'s sake), I take it as given that Jimbo Wales really is selling content control over Wikipedia -- it wouldn't make sense for such a response to be tolerated if this were false.

In any case, as further evidenced by your bizarre ArbCom restriction, Wikipedia, much like Stalinist Russia, does not like questions to be asked. As far as I'm concerned, that's a society's way of saying, "Get the f*** out, NOW!" So that's what I'm doing. Eventually Wikipedia will be put under by a liability threat much as Napster etc. were. (I'll look forward to the day.) And then Jimmy Wales will sell the database to someone who wants to have a more strictly controlled online encyclopedia, who will freeze input, put some resources into professional editing, and sell advertising. That, ultimately, is what you are contributing to by participating in Wikipedia, and I have no interest in it.

If you really work for a grocery store, Everyking, consider that maybe you're wasting your talents there.

Marsden 16:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW: You seem to have made the right enemies: [2] Marsden 16:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Block

I changed the indefinite block to a duration of one month, ending 16 January 2006. If you choose to return, please respect the Wikipedia community and all its editors, and ensure that you are aware of relevant policies such as Wikipedia:civility and WP:AGF. Thanks, Rd232 ^talk 11:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

RfAr against user:SlimVirgin

I noticed that you filed a Request for Arbitration which was then dismissed as irrelevant.

I know that you are blocked, but I thought that you should look at this page User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Whilst in that issue SlimVirgin is just an accessory, there is some suggestion of abuse of administrative priveleges there too. I thought that you might be interested in looking at it (as might anyone else who might come across this page). I am very proud of it actually. Since you would likely be neutral, would you want to take it to Jimbo for me? I don't feel that I can as I am too involved in it now. But you are basically neutral. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)