User talk:Starcade
Starcade's Final Statement
I had a sick feeling it would come to this. It always seems to, in this day and age.
This will probably be declared my last wiki-edit by the administrators (and that's even if I'm allowed to put this on my Talk page), for I am compelled to believe that the administrators of Wikipedia will have to extend my ban permanently, not as a function of a Wikibreak, but as a function that I cannot exercise “good faith” in a consensus which does not care whether the information is accurate, verifiable, or even true.
In fact, given the current state of Wikipedia, it is no longer sufficient nor even necessary to act in “good faith” and provide verifiable information. What is sufficient, and the only thing necessary, is to provide information the collective will accept as verified – note that I did not say “verifiable”. If the garbage I have to put up with like on almost every meaningful edit I've made in the last eight weeks is true, the collective has already spoken and I have no place on Wikipedia whatsoever, especially because I believe that the consensus is not only wrong, but either flagrantly mis-informed or down-right stupid.
This stands in violation of basically all five pillars of Wikipedia.
First, Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia as long as the general public is allowed to edit it, but only in the form in which a collective will accept.
I will give a good example of this in the first real problem I ran in to about 6-8 weeks ago:
BCS National Championship Game. I tried a number of edits to properly represent the BCS' nullification of the participation of USC in two illegal Championship Games, and removing their designation, since the games no longer are believed to have taken place. http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=6632189 An edit war began on that subject, and the subject of Wikipedia's rules regarding “no damnatio memoriae came up. I proposed, and repeatedly, that the concept of damnatio memoriae applied, since that was the exact penalty imposed by the BCS when they nullified the entire participation of USC in the 2005 Orange Bowl and 2006 Rose Bowl (pages (along with USC's entire 2005 season, nullified by the NCAA beforehand) I would've deleted eight weeks ago under encyclopedic verification, but we now have a conflict between damnatio memoriae and encyclopedic verification).
AND, since Wikipedia does not respect the BCS as a sanctioning body (trying to remain neutral – I'll get to that in a moment in part two!), Wikipedia accepts as valid USC's 14 vacated victories, including in a BCS National Championship Game which no longer logistically should exist. Hence, Wikipedia recognizes (in the form that they won the 2005 Orange Bowl) USC as the BCS National Champion – if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and their participation in the 2006 Rose Bowl, which was also nullified by the BCS.
Ergo, we now have a non-encyclopedic, non-verifiable situation which is, in fact, false! Only the sanctioning body can give sanction to the event, and only the sanctioning body can take it away. (Remember this one for later, as well!) I had respected the decision of “no damnatio memoriae, but can do so no longer, because of the fact that it creates an encyclopedic falsehood!
And because the collective accepts “no damnatio memoriae, even in cases where it applies, we now have to change one of the hardest and fastest rules on Wikipedia, on every editing page.
Encyclopedic content must only be considered verified by the collective. That is all, and also that is the only acceptable basis for content on Wikipedia – actual encyclopedic verification is no longer sufficient nor necessary. Anything short of that will be removed by the collective.
If I am reinstated, I am considering removal of all mentions of vacated participation in games. That means the 2005 Orange and 2006 Rose Bowls go, as does their mentions in BCS National Championship Game, as well as USC's entire 2005 season page, replaced with notations of the nullifications. Any other games where the participation of one or both schools are removed also go as well. (As one example, the 2011 Sugar Bowl may also be deleted, if the NCAA or BCS nullifies specifically Ohio State's participation in the event.)
That dovetails nicely into debunking pillar number two:
If the collective is the sole basis for acceptability on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia cannot be neutral. In fact, when the collective is mis-informed and prejudicial, on top of being inaccurate, this redoubles that, since the collective enforces the rules, Wikipedia is not at all neutral, but written with the biases of the collective in mind.
An example on this is the last incident which finally led to what drew the ban:
Wrestlemania XXVIII. I don't think I need to go in to great detail, because some of the admins saw it, but the dispute was basically that the collective enforces that one match is already signed to the event while openly denying another match being signed for the event, though both matches were, for the time being, finalized in wrestling “promos” since Mania XXVII.
I believe that the collective of wrestling editors on Wikipedia are a bunch of snot-nosed marks, worthy of little good faith, and little else. I believe their biases have entered into the discussion, making it impossible to be accepted by the collective, meaning only really two options: Leave the editing, or leave Wikipedia. In both options, the material (amount and composition) on the page is now false. Either both matches are “scheduled” for Mania XXVIII, or neither is.
I have no respect, admins, for what I call “truth by consensus”, because of events such as exactly this. Wikipedia's collective can then enforce an encyclopedic reality (in their own eyes, see pillar #1) on anyone using the site, either to edit or to gain information, even if that information is ill-informed, misleading, or, frankly, prejudicial! And again, this basically brings us, in an extreme case, to a statement made on my talk page by a (CENSORED BY ORDER OF ADMINS) named ChristianandJericho:
You know you should just STOP editing your edits are false, you haven't made one good edit, the whole community is against you, you are being uncivil, you have been reported TWICE, and you are not familiar with WP:CRYSTAL. --Christianandjericho (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
He is then correct, even if he is (CENSORED BY ORDER OF ADMINS). The collective has completely rejected any contribution I make on a wrestling page, because of their false interpretation of WP:Crystal. Especially when I demonstrate that they are lying (which I will not be civil with open liars – especially on a forum considered an encyclopedia (again, see pillar #1)) and prejudicial, as I believe the only way that the characterization of the match I wished added being WP:Crystal and the match considered not WP:Crystal is a WP:Crystal in itself! – that the wrestler involved is not considered an acceptable candidate by the community (nor, it is believed, the WWE itself!) for this match, and will be removed from the conditions in which he gains this match by the time the card takes place. It is the open bias against Daniel Bryan that is the basis for their action – no more and no less. Otherwise, either both matches, at this point, are WP:Crystal, or neither match is.
To say that John Cena/The Rock is not WP:Crystal and to say Daniel Bryan's cash-in is is blatantly false, arrogant, prejudicial, and worthy of contempt. If you wish to have this stand, you will have to permanently ban me from posting to any wrestling page whatsoever – the decisions have already been made vis-a-vis the collective, truth and verifiability be freaking damned! No edit I make in any wrestling page will ever be accepted by the collective, because the collective is wrong, and frankly does not even deserve “good faith” nor any respect.
This dovetails nicely into Pillar #3:
Wikipedia cannot, then, be “free content” in which anyone can edit.
Basically, only those accepted by the collective should be allowed to edit. In fact, more and more, I am seeing it basically come down to, as not only a function of the content itself, but of an ambiguous demand to “do it the right way”, that certain parties should be the only ones to edit pages. Edits themselves can be discussed, but the general public attempting to edit will almost certainly be reversed by those within the hierarchy who claim such authority, even if no real authority exists.
An example of this I've ran into:
The Final Fantasy “preferred pages” or whatever you wish to have called their designation. One night, being bored and thinking about it, I realized something interesting in the different concepts of the combat in different Final Fantasy games. In VII and VIII, “Game Over” only occurs when the active party is eliminated through knockout. In IX, an additional condition (either way) of being Stop-ped can create victory or defeat. In X, the same condition exists as VII and VIII. In XII, the entire party must be eliminated. In XIII, only the party leader is defeated.
Having played these games extensively, I decide it might be interesting to put the differences on the pages. All are reverted, and, since I used playing of the games to be the “source”, I'm called for WP:OR.
Now wait a minute! In that case, I have no place editing those pages at all, be it by their status within Wikipedia, or the collective's skewing of the rules – because there is no way to give the hierarchy of the FF pages sufficient sourcing, even though anyone who's played the games enough knows all this to be true.
I have also ran similarly afoul of a number of game show pages as well.
The only people, then, who should be allowed to edit, are those accepted by the collective to do so, and this becomes harder-codified once a page or set of pages receives a certain designation within Wikipedia. Everyone else has to go to the talk pages for the different information they'd like to see added.
Additionally, you get to the point I stated above with the pro wrestling pages: Once a person is shunned by the collective, they cannot post, block or no block, because anything they post will be considered vandalism by somebody! (And I'll address that too, once I get to the end of the “Five Pillars”.)
Pillar #4 is why I got banned. Since I know my beliefs and my edits will not be accepted by the collective (and I knew this before I joined Wikipedia – this is a pre-existing condition, not a function of Wikipedia), I cannot respect nor be civil with a group of people I see as open liars.
If you expect me to abide by Pillar #1 (though I am demonstrating your complete contradiction of all five pillars), then placement upon Wikipedia gives a certain degree of encyclopedic sanction and acceptability as a reference point within the Internet community.
In that case, if the collective becomes the ones propagating falsehoods (see the examples I gave in both Pillar #1 and Pillar #2!), then respecting that undermines the entire integrity of Wikipedia. Effectively, the community has vandalized those pages, through their actions – but since the collective is the final law here, then it inverts, as I will address further once I finish the Five Pillars.
I believe that most people in this country have been either brainwashed to or elect to become as stupid as humanly possible, willing to go with the herd, even if it results in a Lemmings-like plunge off the cliff. If you expect me to respect that collective, then I cannot edit, for that collective will (and sometimes to it's own whims and biases) deny anything, if even the denial's reason be only that it's me who's posting it.
I cannot be civil with open liars. It is fortunate that I have not had an emergency ban put on me beforehand for an even worse offense, since I do have the criminal record, background and mental state to justify that statement – and that incident is already on Wikipedia as well!
Pillar #5, Wikipedia does has one firm rule. The collective rules all.
The collective declares who can post, where they can post, what they can post, the level of verification (if any) required, and what is even considered “true” in the first place.
It does not have be through administrative action, but it might well be through the threats of same.
Wikipedia has false, misleading, ambigious, and prejudicial information probably all over the place, given my limited experience here. But the collective effectively uses a skewing of the rules and concepts of Wikipedia to enforce encyclopedic truth (again, Pillar #1) on events which did not (or won't, at least with present information) legally take place.
The complete repudiation of all five pillars of Wikipedia, with evidence to do so, leads me to one conclusion.
As we look at the definition of Vandalism:
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
I must come, then, to the following conclusion:
Every edit I have ever made to Wikipedia, because the “integrity of Wikipedia” is determined at the sole whim of a collective not interested in anything more than their own power as a collective, IS, in fact, vandalism, and needs to be administratively nullified, consequences on your end be damned.
Every – last – one.
That, effectively, if we are going to be forced to respect the kind of people that openly lie and misdirect other people on Wikipedia, then a person like me, since I do not respect a collective which is demonstratably doing so (and, in fact, reject all five pillars of Wikipedia and the concept of a collective truth), is vandalizing the site by even attempting to edit it, even if the information is true, and even if it is otherwise-verifiable under what would be the stated rules on such information.
In reality, my presence on the site becomes a vandalism to the site.
I refuse to have reality enforced upon me with a set of users who not only lie openly, but cover themselves in Wikipedia's rules to do so. If that's that much of a problem to you, you have but one option, which contains two parts:
First: The block becomes permanent.
Second: Every edit I have ever made on the site is reversed for vandalism, and you guys can deal with all the resulting issues.
--Starcade (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
August 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GedUK 19:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)If an new user associated with this IP address wants to create and account and can't, please contact me on my talk page or via email (left hand side of my talk page) GedUK 19:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
User:ChristianandJericho
I should note that User:ChristianandJericho recently received a long block over some issues regarding a comment about his IP (User:113.161.74.88) on AIV, and more generally referring to former blocks, contested CSDs, and a recent huge blow-up about him saying he's 13 while participating in WikiProject Pornography. My main interest has been ideological pertaining to that last issue, and I haven't looked at the interaction between these two editors, but the range of allegations regarding that editor might justify some leniency for this one if the case is reexamined. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)