User talk:Xydexx/Archive2

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pre-2008 discussions can be found here. —Xydexx 13:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Knock it off

Not the place for hoaxes/funny puns of non-existent groups. Enough already, grow up - Spirou 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh ye of little assuming Good Faith! Nice to see you've returned from your unexplained hiatus. I was starting to think all the Admins at WikiFur were asleep at the wheel or something. I was wondering if you might finally get around to reviewing and unlocking Forum:Popping (Under revision), as I know this subject is vitally relevant to WikiFur and we need to tell all sides of the story. —Xydexx 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I believe that Spirou may have jumped the gun a little. Xydexx has a record of otherwise positive contributions to this Wiki. Banning him over what appears to be a disagree on a couple of articles seems a little excessive at this point. --Douglas Muth 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, he has, plenty!. Great editor with vast knowledge of the fandom, which he has written a great deal about on the wiki. That's why it was so disconcerting to witness this "change" of personalty which degerated into this insulting, condensding, quasi troll like beavior. No amount of good deeds gives anyone a free pass to act as a jerk/vandal on the wiki Spirou 21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur. While positive contributions are welcome, they do not excuse sniping criticism. It's not cool, here or anywhere. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, this never would have devolved into sniping criticism had the WikiFur Admins handled this properly back in May April. I feel I have gone above and beyond in soliciting advice from the WikiFur Admins on how to appropriately handle this situation, only to be stonewalled and given contradictory instructions. I think after four months of this, my frustration is certainly understandable, as is my lack of confidence in the ability of the WikiFur Admin staff to handle this appropriately. —Xydexx 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I noticed that site you referenced states "Trolls are often insane. They are created when the insane jump from one community to another looking for a home; after a while they become trained that they are only going to get attention if they attack." When I told you the guy had been kicked off two forums previously for using them as platforms for his insanity, you chose to make excuses for him rather than dealing with it.
The funny thing is that y'all banned a longtime supporter and contributor to WikiFur for creating "hoaxes" and "non-existent groups" instead of taking action against the actual troll who was doing it. Good work! -:D —Xydexx 22:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Spamming user talk

Do you really think spamming the user talk pages of administrators is likely to get a positive response? Or setting deadlines which you have no power to enforce?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of a wiki - there is no "final resolution" on a continuously editable website, nor are editors who have remained uninvolved in a topic likely to get involved at your prompting. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So nice to see your fine tradition of assuming Good Faith of WikiFur editors' actions is alive and well!
I assure you I am once again abiding—to the best of my ability—WikiFur's mercurial and contradictory policies and procedures.
I do not think requesting assistance from other Admins to resolve an outstanding issue is considered "spamming" at all, especially when Spirou himself suggested contacting other Admins to resolve it (because he apparently can't be bothered to, y'know, resolve the issue himself). If you have a problem with this, perhaps you should take it up with Spirou. He doesn't seem to be doing a very good job as an Admin by neglecting his duties.
I also do not think requesting a speedy resolution to outstanding issues as a courtesy to WikiFur Admins (who seem all too eager to leave the issue unresolved as long as possible, and then have the temerity to complain that I'm "wasting their time" with it) is unreasonable. Certainly requesting Admins take action within a week is preferable to continuing to them stonewalling and dragging this on ad nauseum for months on end. Not that I have the power to enforce a request, but it doesn't really make you or WikiFur look good by ignoring perfectly reasonable requests for action and letting things drag on for months at a time.
I think you're the one who misunderstands the concept of a wiki. For something to be continuously editable means it has to actually be editable, not locked down by a negligent Admin who clearly can't be bothered to fulfill his duties. —Xydexx 20:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
And that's why I unprotected the article. So go edit. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. —Xydexx 20:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversation moved from Talk:Vivisector (website)#"A neutral and factual resource", since it isn't about that article. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(A reliable Furry news site would be nice too, since Flayrah's partnership with Burned Fur-owned and nutball-owned Vivisector doesn't inspire confidence.) —Xydexx 14:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh Xydexx . . . you're so keen to see conspiracies. Alas, there is no mysterious "axis of drama" - no shadowy Burned Furs pulling the strings, no secret plans to destroy the fandom through misinformation. Let me lay it out for you:
  • Flayrah is in competition with - we want to acquire their audience, news exclusives, etc. We both seek to deliver news that furry fans want to hear about, but that's it. (Anthrocon and Midwest FurFest are far more closely related, yet I'd hesitate to call them "partners".)
  • Flayrah links to sites that may be useful to our readers. I imagine does much the same. We are not "in partnership" with ArtSpots, Dutchfurs, the Furtean Times, InFurNation,   furrymedia or, either. As for Vivisector, our own description says it "claims to take the good with the bad, but inevitably focusses on the latter."
  • Flayrah may credit a source when a story has been published elsewhere, but this does not imply any special relationship – it's just good manners.
If you don't like any of the current news options, I suggest you go to the trouble of making one yourself. Variety is the spice of life. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh Greenreaper... you really need to start controlling Flayrah's branding better if you expect to regain some of your lost credibility. —Xydexx 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I said they shouldn't be doing that several months ago - before I had control of Flayrah - and warned of consequences in the form of increased competition, which came to pass less than a month later. I don't tend to bluff. As for losing control of the tagline, I'm not particularly worried. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, though, I'd say "partner" is an accurate description considering your blog Flayrah and Burned Fur owned and operated are link partners and you're letting them use your logo and tagline. You're certainly cooperating with them—and their other partner Vivisector—an awful lot for someone who claims to be a "competitor."
You are of course free to associate with whoever you like, but these days I'm starting to understand why you said some people trust Encyclopedia Dramatica more than Wikifur.
And yes, I'm aware of your "love it or leave it" attitude toward criticism of your fiefdom here, that's certainly your right as well. And as a former supporter of Flayrah/Wikifur I'm sad to say you're probably the biggest reason it would be easier for someone to start a new Furry news site than try to improve sites like Flayrah/WikiFur.
PS: Just saw your "It's not news, it's Flayrah!" comment on The irony is delicious. -:) —Xydexx 22:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
No, Xydexx. They took Flayrah's logo and tagline - several years ago. Even if I wanted to protect the past logo, I've no effective means of forcing them to remove it beyond a lawsuit, which would be stupid. (Perhaps I missed the part where AC sued the Steel City Diner back in '07 for their own far more profit-oriented infringement.)
As your obsession with the Burned Furs . . . are you really claiming an organization that's been dead for a decade has relevance to anything? Innumerable websites and 38 separate conventions have been created since 2001. It's time to move on.
The situation is very simple: provides information which some furs consider valuable; I feel it is useful to link to them as part of Flayrah's service, if only so that readers might come to us first. If you dislike that they have an audience, I suggest beating them at their own game rather than grouching about those who run it. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
So let's see if I understand this correctly: stole Flayrah's logo and tagline years ago, and since you couldn't force them to take it down, you linked to them, because they're your competition. Okay. I'm sure that makes perfect sense on whatever planet Norns are from. -=)
Obsession's a pretty strong word to use considering I don't sit around all day thinking about Burned Fur. Obsession's a word I'd use with my passion for old maps or abandoned buildings, which I think about pretty much 24/7. Burned Fur ranks somewhere below... I dunno... something I don't think about very often and isn't worth the effort to research how often I don't think about it. That being said, pointing out your decision to associate with them is very relevant considering they're still around today. In case you've forgotten, they called themselves "Improved Anthro" now. AshMCairo is the self-appointed leader who took up the name, and last time I asked he told me and Furry101 were Burned Fur projects.
So here's the situation: You've deliberately chosen to use the former news site Flayrah to support a Burned Fur project. Add to that the puff piece you recently wrote about Vivisector (who, by amazing coincidence, just happens to be a link supporter!), it kinda shows my statement that I didn't think you were fit to run a furry news site was right on the money.
I mean, seriously, what happened to you? There used to be a time when I could recommend links to WikiFur with confidence instead of regarding them as a necessary evil. It was an optimistic project that filled a need and I was happy to be a part of it. But after trying to trying to navigate your mercurial and contradictory standards last year, I finally gave up, and was actually surprised to discover I wasn't the only one who felt that way.
It's nice that you're investing all this time and effort into supporting WikiFur and Flayrah and your newfound friendships over on Vivisector, but that's no excuse to be a jerk. You were, and maybe someday you'll realize you could have handled a lot of things differently.
Maybe. —Xydexx 00:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Since you seem to be on a crusade to highlight the shortcomings of the dispute resolution process on Wikifur, would you be willing to outline a process that you would consider both fair and workable? Assume for the sake of argument that if we like your idea enough, we might just make you an admin so you can help resolve other people's disputes.

By the way, it would not be my decision whether you would become an admin, but I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that you'd have to promise to stop making the kind of snarky, sarcastic updates such as many of those you've made today, and have done in the past. Once again, if you were an admin, how would you handle someone else who was doing that? --mwalimu 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Webster's defines a crusade as "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm." While I'll agree this is a remedial enterprise, it's undetaken with the same level of zeal and enthusiasm I have dental work, so your characterization of my edits as a "crusade" is a bit misguided.
I think a process I would consider fair and workable would be the one currently in place over on Wikipedia. That seems a hell of a lot better than the current practice (based on past performance) of allowing edit wars to carry on ad nauseum for six months by making editors try to reach consensus with people who are determined to add irrelevant and erroneous information to WikiFur and turn it into a battleground. I think assisting editors when they request help from Admins to roll back Vandalism instead of ignoring them would be a big plus as well. I'll give you credit, you finally got involved with the discussion four months later, but in my opinion that was four months overdue.
I mean, looking at the facts of the situation in 20/20 hindsight, it's kinda hard to believe y'all still think I'm the bad guy in all of this: All I did was try to get assistance from Admins to deal with a troll who was using a sockpuppet account to import irrelevant and—let's be honest here—completely delusional arguments that had gotten him banned from two forums previously onto WikiFur. The fact that I ended up banned for opposing Vandalism instead of the guy who was actually doing it says a lot about y'all's priorities; it will be remembered as a high point in WikiFur history I'm sure.
Everyone knows GreenReaper has a penchant for giving soapboxes and megaphones to kooks, but you need to realize his laissez-faire attitude toward fact-checking is a serious detriment to WikiFur's credibility. You may think my recent updates are "snarky" and "sarcastic," but the bottom line is they are an accurate reflection of WikiFur's current policies and procedures.
My updates in the past have involved rolling back Vandalism and correcting misinformation on a variety of controversial topics. It's a thankless job, but someone has to do it (especially since, y'know, the Admins weren't). -:)
That being said, I have no interest in being an Admin; thanks anyway. —Xydexx 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
And I mean, seriously, I honestly don't get why WikiFur Admins are so dead set against having a dispute resolution process. I mean, call me crazy (lots of folks do), but I think rolling back Vandalism when someone points it out to you is preferable to having edit wars roll on for half a year while the powers that be do everything in their power to not resolve it, y'know? —Xydexx 22:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll be at MFF over the next few days and hope to get a chance to discuss with other admins what improvements may be needed with regard to resolving disputes, and it may take some time after that to implement whatever measures we may decide upon. We would appreciate it very much if you would hold off making any further attempts to provoke us during that time. --mwalimu 20:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Just as long as we're clear that I'm just doing it to "provoke" y'all and not because, y'know, I support the concept of a Furry encyclopedia or something.
Heh. That's what I like about this place; always good for a laugh. -:P —Xydexx 00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
WikiFur:Noticeboard has been created and may be used for resolving disputes (among other things). It's still experimental at this point, but it's a start. --mwalimu 20:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but what remains to be seen is if WikiFur Admins will actually pay attention to requests for assistance instead of outright ignoring them as they've done in the past. I mean, seriously, if the Admins ignore requests for help on their talk pages, I'm not sure how making one central page where is going to change anything, except maybe make it more efficient to ignore them. I don't think the problem is with the method of reporting, but rather the inaction on the part of the Admins. Has there been any further progress on fessing up to WikiFur's negligence on this issue, or is it WikiFur policy to just sweep it under the rug and hope nobody notices? —Xydexx 21:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that the Admins and I are pretty much the only ones who know of the Noticeboard's existence, my suspicions are probably entirely justified. Good to know requests for assistance on WikiFur may be directed to the locked filing cabinet in the basement with the sign taped on it that says BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD. -:D —Xydexx 21:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Answer: Sweep it under the rug and hope nobody notices. Because for all their talk about being an encyclopedia for the Furry community, working to build consensus, and asking the Admins for assistance, in practice it's not all that. Man, someone should set up a WikiFurLeaks website. —Xydexx 07:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Xydexx, you edit AC's conbook. Imagine how you'd feel if you were given a promising assistant who split their time between:
  • Adding subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) put-downs to the introduction for a guest with whom they shared a long-running animosity, then debating its accuracy with them
  • Padding their staff biography
  • Arguing with people on the forums in such a way that nobody really wants to be on their side even if the other guy's a loon
  • Grouching to you, the other staff, and anyone else who cared to listen about AC's process for dispute resolution
I really do think you care, but it's hard for any of us to see any of your contributions in a positive light when all you've done lately is complain. As for dispute resolution, I tried mediating the first time you got into a long and mostly pointless argument, and what happened? You got stuck right into another one. Nobody stepped in because they remembered the last one all too well. We're all volunteers, and admin rights do not come with a requirement to throw yourself into stressful situations. And so you got frustrated, and lashed out, and the situation deteriorated.
A wiki is a bottom-up enterprise run through good deeds, not policy. If you want to see disputes arbitrated, don't go editing 'WikiFur talk:' pages; get out there and help arbitrate other people's disputes, and avoid starting your own. Even better, focus on content. Copyedit some random article on a topic that you don't hold a personal opinion on. Help a newbie format their first article in the house style. Polish an article on an obscure comic, write a blurb, and get it on the front page. Be a well-rounded contributor. And above all, if you get into a disagreement with someone, avoid picking at it until it becomes a month-old sore.
If you spend the bulk of your time and effort writing WikiFur, rather than arguing about how WikiFur should be written, I guarantee everyone will be a lot happier - including you. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be careful with trying to portray me as Big Bad Xydexx Who Loves To Start Arguments, especially considering my position in the last big argument I was in was that it didn't belong here, and yours was that it was "interesting" and "appropriate". IMHO, there wouldn't have been an umpty-frump month argument had you actually followed your stated goals of running an encyclopedia for the Furry community and put the kibosh on that. Instead, the powers that be decided it was somehow relevant and thus was a "content dispute" and the best way to deal with it was to try to reach "consensus" with someone who was trolling at best and in need of psychiatric help at worst.
Hate to break it to ya, but part of the responsibilities of running a wiki is managing your userbase and getting involved when problems arise instead of ignoring them. Is that stressful? Of course it is. Boo-fucking-hoo! Admin rights don't come with a requirement for the job to be easy. Man up and learn to delegate, or step down and give the job to someone who can actually do it.
Not that I'm applying for the job, even though I have a consistent history of solid, fact-based edits to controversial topics (as well as rolling back vandalism). I think the best use of my skills is by editing articles I know something about, rather than ones that I don't. Sorry to hear that correcting misinformation and rolling back vandalism aren't considered "positive" contributions here on WikiFur. Because if they were, I guarantee you we wouldn't be having a discussion about how WikiFur should be run.
But let's put the shoe on the other foot. Say you're an editor on WikiFur. You support the idea of an encyclopedia about Furry fandom. One day, you find dubious edits about a topic unrelated to Furry fandom, which sound an awful lot like trolling attempts that were made on two other forums you frequent. So you give a helpful heads-up to the powers that be, because they're running an encyclopedia about Furry fandom, and you don't want to get into an edit war.
But then the WikiFur admin tells you this unrelated topic somehow belongs on WikiFur... because what harm could it do, right? It's "interesting" and you need to Assume Good Faith about the guy making the dubious edits... even though he admits he's using sockpuppet account.
So then you start requesting evidence for the dubious claims, figuring the admin wouldn't allow a bunch of unreferenced accusations to stand. Just as you suspected, the references presented are just the trolling attempts from the other forums you frequent. But when you point this out, the admin tells you they have an obligation to tell all sides of the story. "But it's not true!" you say. And the admin tells you it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, just that they believe it's true is sufficient.
You keep debunking the dubious claims with facts, getting sucked into an edit war that would have been totally avoidable if the admins had just banned the guy like the two previous forums he was kicked off of had done. You try to get assistance from an admin, but they just lock down a version of the article with the dubious claims and tell you to work it out with the guy spouting increasingly paranoid conspiracy theories about everyone and everything.
Eventually the admin you're dealing with gets tired of dealing (or not dealing, as the case may be) with the edit war and tells you to get another admin to deal with it. You send out a blanket request to all the admins, hoping someone—anyone—will have enough common sense to be able to handle this reasonably. Instead, you get accused of "spamming" the admins, told they'll take care of it in their own sweet time, and if you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
And this goes on for days. Weeks. Months. And though it's frustrating, you eventually learn you're not the only one who feels that way about how things are run. And so you wonder, in what universe do wiki admins protect trolls who are vandalizing the wiki and expect to have any credibility whatsoever?
Would you feel this is a wiki that you really want to contribute to? —Xydexx 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Policy

There's a proposed Wikifur:dispute resolution policy up now. Since it's apparent that this is an issue near and dear to you, I'd be very interested in seeing your thoughts and input on it. I agreed with you that Wikipedia's policy was probably as good a place as any to start, so that's basically what it is at this time. Naturally, Wikifur being smaller than Wikipedia, there will need to be adjustments and so on, which is where I think you could help, you having been here much longer than me. --GingerM (Leave me a message) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate for WikiFur

Discussion moved from Talk:Inflation#Inappropriate for WikiFur --GreenReaper(talk) 02:19, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

All right, Xydexx, as you've made it quite apparent that you're going to be a belligerent ass about this, I'm going to once again point out my original post for my opinion on the matter, and hope that this gets better. Good luck with your efforts to "ttly pwn" us with your ability to search random things on FA. Equivamp 16:38, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors or community members. Do not make them.
Maybe you need a time out? Go outside. Take a walk. Get some fresh air. You seem to be getting awfully worked up over this. Hope you feel better! —Xydexx 17:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Oh, my! Totally pwnt again! Is that not what I just said I was doing? Read carefully. Equivamp 17:13, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Arrrr u mad because "equivamp" only has 8 hits on FurAffinity? —Xydexx 17:45, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Dang it, you got me. Even though that account is inactive. Equivamp 17:46, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Well, that's a shame. Hey, you post a lot for being outside. You must have one of those fancy internet phones or something. —Xydexx 17:58, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Your first post suggests that you came here looking for an argument with the curators. What you got is a response from a regular contributor who quickly tired of your adversarial attitude. WikiFur's discussion pages are not a courtroom or political debate where your goal is to discredit and/or humiliate your opponent - we are colleagues, working together towards a mutually-agreed solution. Looking to "score points" on your fellows only hurts your cause. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:14, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I believe my first post is an accurate summary of the months-long inaction and poor decisions made by the Admins that explains in a nutshell why this article is the way it is. I don't think the problem here is my "adversarial" attitude, but rather your inability to properly run an encyclopedia about Furry fandom.
I'm not looking to "score points" or "humiliate" anyone. If you find your previous mismanagement of the wiki so embarrassing, perhaps you'd do better to remedy those problems instead of trying to discredit and humiliate the people who point them out.
(By the way, your words would probably carry more weight if you actually practiced what you preached and did your job as so-called "curator" by taking Equivamp to task for her personal attacks instead of, y'know, making excuses for them. Gee.) —Xydexx 18:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
And FWIW, I'll remind you of my previous admonition against trying to portray me as Big Bad Xydexx Who Just Likes To Start Arguments. It doesn't make you look good, especially considering the last big argument I got into here was trying to avoid a pointless six-month edit war. —Xydexx 21:36, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Every time you come here, you manage to get into an argument. With your old antagonists from a.f.f. With me. With other contributors. Now with a teenage girl - who as far as I can see was trying very hard to deal with you reasonably, until you became unreasonable. Time and time again, you have gone out of your way to remind us of past disagreements; using talk pages not to talk about articles, but to criticize WikiFur and its lead editors. You took your cause outside the wiki, to the Furtean Times, Flayrah and other locations.
Understand that it is not your opinions that are objectionable, or your content edits, but your conduct - the way you seek out opportunities for criticism during unrelated discussions, to the extent that it appears to be the primary motivation for your involvement. It's not enough to focus on the topic at hand; you have to twist the conversation towards how we are Doing It Wrong - or worse, how we Did It Wrong several years ago. (I'm not even sure what you hope to achieve by that; I can't turn back the clock and change what happened while we were preoccupied with moving off Wikia.)
You said we need to get more involved in managing the userbase when problems arise. Fine. How do we deal with a user whose participation in a discussion routinely results in disruption; who seeks to dissuade editors from working on the project and discredit its leader; and who appears to seek out arguments over building consensus with other editors? Ignore them? Admonish them, yet again? Restrict their editing? Show them the door? If it your goal is to force us to implement arbitration by making this the test case, you may achieve it, but I don't see a happy ending here. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:19, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
Every time I come here, I make solid, fact-based edits which lead to arguments with people who aren't.
This time around, I got into an "argument"1 with someone on ED who has mental problems a mental disorder, who called me a "belligerent ass" despite WikiFur's alleged prohibition on personal attacks, and who you have chosen to blame me for being "unreasonable" instead of saying even a single word to her about behaving inappropriately.
Before that, I got in an argument with someone who was using a sockpuppet account, who had gotten kicked off no less than two inflatable forums prior to bringing his crusade here, claimed (but had no evidence!) that a KGB-funded secret cadre of ninjas was sneaking into his home while he was asleep/away and damaging his inflatable collection2, and despite my warnings that he was disrupting WikiFur with arguments that had nothing to do with Furry fandom and repeated (and repeatedly ignored) requests for assistance from the Admins, you said we needed to reach consensus with him and his rampant fucknuttery instead of dealing with him the same way you'd deal with any other type of Vandalism.
Before that, I got into an argument with Some Guy Who Used To Be A Big Name who had a longtime grudge (and a personal webpage slamming me to prove it) who was trying to whitewash information about his less-than-gracious departure from the fandom, who made a lot of personal attacks against me, and who for his own self-aggrandizement tried to claim that improved media controls/PR awareness were changes he was calling for all along (yet could never come up with even a single reference to back this claim up, despite repeated requests for such3).
Before that, I got into an argument with a Burned Fur diehard who was removing historically-accurate and referenced material about the group's embarrassing few years of activity, who was replacing them with so many inaccuracies and errors it was hard to keep count of them all.
Pretty much all the arguments I've gotten into on WikiFur can be summed up as the result of:
  • Ensuring articles have accurate, sourced, fandom-related information
  • Removing inaccurate, unreferenced, non-fandom-related information
In other words, I get into arguments because I don't believe "building consensus" with other editors means allowing them to make shit up. If someone says "2+2=4" and someone else says "2+2=6" it doesn't mean "2+2=5". This, admittedly, is where we disagree. You think requiring facts on WikiFur is "authoritarian." (I think the word you're looking for is "authoritative.") I think Furry fandom deserves a reliable reference resource; it's much needed. However, you've demonstrated time and again by giving soapboxes and megaphones to kooks that you're not up to the task (and honestly, nothing illustrates this better than the way you (mis)handled the whole Wolfkid23/Dr.AgonRawg incident).
I think you should definitely take action when userbase problems arise. The interesting thing is that instead of the users who make personal attacks, add paranoid conspiracy theories, whitewash embarrassing information, and add wholesale inaccuracies to WikiFur, you think the guy who "disrupts" WikiFur by ensuring it has accurate information about the fandom is the problem.
Seriously, Laurence, what's wrong with you?
It's nice that WikiFur has better coverage of Furry fandom than Wikipedia does, but you're doing so in a way that makes WikiFur barely more reliable than Encyclopedia Dramatica, and if you don't think that reflects poorly on the credibility of yourself or the wiki, you are sorely mistaken. If you don't like me pointing out problems here or elsewhere, perhaps you should do something to fix them instead of just sweeping them under the rug.
1 Assuming you can even call it an argument. It takes two to tango, and I thought I did a pretty good job of staying cool and not stooping to her level by calling her names in return. I'd say I handled that pretty well, especially considering the Admins weren't.
2 Whether he was just trolling or has genuine psychological issues is irrelevant; the fact that it took you six months to do anything about it is a colossal example of mismanagement.
3 There are, ironically, plenty of references saying they were changes I supported.
Xydexx 16:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
Just for your information, Xydexx, I have been on WikiFur far longer than I've been on ED, and I don't see why it was relevant to bring this up, nor the fact that I have "mental Problems". It isn't a problem, it's a disorder, and, again, is irrelevant. Equivamp 16:46, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
I stand corrected. —Xydexx 16:55, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
The pattern we've seen over at least the last year is that soon after you get involved in any discussion over content, you take on a very abrasive, sarcastic approach in your discussion. That tends to be very offputting to others you should be trying to work with (that's a polite way of saying it pisses people off). Didn't anyone ever teach you the old adage, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? In spite of this, at one point I made an effort to see past the abrasive, sarcastic nature of your posts to look for any valid criticisms, got a noticeboard set up, and all I got from you in response was more complaints. You don't make it easy for others to work with you!
The most recent discussion on Talk:Inflation indicates you haven't changed much. Being civil, diplomatic, and assuming good faith are among the basic tenets of wikis. You say you're trying to make correct, factually based edits, but to quote another adage, it's not just what you say but how you say it. Continuing to annoy other contributors in the manner you've been doing may be regarded as uncivil behavior that could be considered cause for blocking your access to the site if it continues. --mwalimu 15:54, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
Fair enough, but I think my approach would be a lot less abrasive and sarcastic if my requests for assistance didn't involve trying to navigate WikiFur's contradictory and mercurial standards and getting stonewalled; if I had confidence that the so-called "curators" would actual do something about problems when they were pointed out; if I thought WikiFur were trying to be a fact-based encyclopedia instead of a faith-based one (i.e., the standard for inclusion on WikiFur is not whether it's true, but whether you believe it's true); if you actually took other contributors to task for their abrasive, sarcastic approach instead of singling me out for it.
For what it's worth, I do appreciate that you got involved in the discussion. It's just a little mind-blowing that y'all thought a discussion was necessary to reach "consensus" instead of just dealing with it the same way you normally deal with people adding nonsense to WikiFur1. It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Just my $0.02.
1 I suppose the discussion was necessary was because y'all thought a guy claiming inflatable-hating ninjas were secretly breaking into his house while he was asleep and engaging in clandestine shenanigans and then leaving without a trace was credible enough to be taken at face value. Clearly, any sarcasm I dealt out in response to this was undeserved and I should have tried harder to work with him. (The funny thing is, when I stopped arguing with him and tried to help him expose the Russian Popper Mafia, I ended up getting banned for creating "hoax articles." Man, there's just no pleasing you guys!)
Xydexx 17:22, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

All right, Xydexx, just gonna go ahead and apologize for my "personal attack" on you. While I don't feel it was an attack by my definition of the word, it was uncalled for. I wasn't in the best of moods for personal reasons, but that is no excuse, and I'm sorry. Equivamp 11:49, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

No worries, and I'm sorry if I did anything to provoke you. Apology accepted. —Xydexx 11:53, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Re: I Saw What You Did There

At first I didn't realize what you were talking about. Yes, I typed a few words into your ED page. No, I didn't go looking for it--I was looking through Category:Furries/People and saw a name I recognized. I don't know why you seem to think I'm out to get you, or why you're so interested in my off-site exploits, but ED is a site for laughs. Lulz, to be specific. Oh no, I used a site for its intended purpose! I must be a troll and a hater! Equivamp 17:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT) Afterthought: You thought I was an admin? I'm flattered. Equivamp 13:06, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Lulz are not laughs. Lulz are what's left over after all the humor has been sucked out of a joke. —Xydexx 10:39, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Well, I suppose that is just your opinion, is it not? Equivamp 10:44, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Well, I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. And while you may think adding to an article about me on a site intended for recreational harassment is funny, it says a lot about what an apology from you is worth. —Xydexx 11:04, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
An apology shows regret for the past. And, as adding five words to an article is not an attack by any means, I'm afraid I shan't apologize for it, if that's what you were expecting. Honestly, I don't much care how much you think anything related to me is worth--I'll go on and continue to live my life as I have been; and that includes editing both ED and WikiFur indiscriminately. Equivamp 11:19, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Well, we all have to live with the decisions we make. Hope you're happy with yours. —Xydexx 18:06, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
As I fail to see how this could turn out negatively for me, I suppose I will be. The worst that could happen is that I become labeled a psuedofur or popufur, but I don't care much for labels. This is just the internet. Don't take me--or a page on a satirical and oft-offensive site--so seriously. Equivamp 19:45, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Watch what you wish for. —Xydexx 12:11, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
Oh, my! Doesn't that sound ominous! :-) Equivamp 12:18, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
Nevada. —Xydexx 12:17, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
Oklahoma? 40x40pxEquivamp 12:24, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

I smell butthurt

Xydexx, your hypocrisy astounds me. You accused me of causing drama off-site by typing four words that didn't reference you at all, yet you make a vicious, attacking blog entry challenging my location, age, and sex, as well as accusing me of being a Burned Fur. That's outrageous. Why would I be planning a furmeet if I don't live in Kansas. Furthermore, why would I lie about living in such an isolated place? And while it is true I am bigendered, my anatomy tells me that I am, in fact, female. Why would that surprise you? Did you think there were no females on the internet? And as for me being a Burned Fur: what proof do you have to back up such claims? You have questioned my integrity, Xydexx. Why? Are you so obsessed with me that I cause you to lose sleep at night unless you convince yourself that I'm a man in Hawaii? 40x40pxEquivamp 18:24, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

Heh. Sounds like I got a little too close to the truth! Alas, you won't be the first troll sockpuppet Greenreaper's given carte blanche to on WikiFur, and probably won't be the last. Nothing personal. It probably says more about what WikiFur claims to be than anything you claim to be anyway. -=) —Xydexx 22:12, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm not a sock puppet. When have I made a single nonconstructive edit to this wiki? And if I'm a sock puppet, who controls me? 22:33, 15 June 2011 (EDT)
You can drop the pretense. Did you really think you were going to get away with your little ruse?
I've gotta admit, you almost had me fooled. (You probably fooled Greenreaper, too, but he's like the poster child for gullibility.) Well played. I must admit I'm kinda curious whose picture you're using. Is she your daughter or something? I don't really wanna turn this into a commentary on your parenting skills, but using your daughter as a pawn in your trolling attempt is really kinda sad.
So now I guess the only question left is what did I do to you to make you so butthurt? Or are you just that desperate for attention from anyone who randomly shows up? —Xydexx 00:40, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
That is my picture? And I'm not butthurt--it's a question. 40x40pxEquivamp 10:42, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
Uh-huh. Sure it's your picture. I believe ya. -=) —Xydexx 10:55, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
That's good. But you still haven't answered my question. 40x40pxEquivamp 11:11, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

Is WikiFur Becoming the New Encyclopedia Dramatica?

It is hilarious that you now consider disrupting and vandalizing WikiFur unacceptable, when previously you've done anything and everything possible to defend such behavior in the name of assuming good faith. The last time I pointed out you had a troll who had disrupted several other sites running amok on WikiFur, you lectured me about not calling a troll a troll and how we've gotta assume good faith and we need to include insane conspiracy theories in the name of NPOV even though it doesn't have anything to do with Furry fandom, but didn't do a single thing about the troll. Some folks might wonder how WikiFur got this bad, but I don't. I mean, seriously, you keep driving away the editors who want to see WikiFur be the Furry Encyclopedia you allegedly want it to be, and then wonder why you get criticized when you pull a bait-and-switch? —Xydexx 21:13, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Vandalism has a specific meaning on a wiki - as does disruption, within which I would include "preoccupying editors with matters that have nothing to do with improving articles". By this standard you have been more disruptive than almost any user in our six-year history. You seem obsessed with commenting negatively on my actions, past and present, to the point that you see blocking a serial wiki-vandal (who is still attacking the wiki) as an opportunity for criticism. It is as if I turned up to Anthrocon and started following Kage around, second-guessing his every move while telling everyone he talked to how I disagreed with a decision he made in 2001. It is obnoxious, and does not improve the wiki in any way. Please stop it. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
According to the link you posted, Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page." Our disagreement stems from the fact that you consider a guy who claims there's a conspiracy of inflatable-hating ninjas breaking into his house at night a "content dispute" whereas I consider it rampant fucknuttery patent nonsense.
The other link you posted defines Disruption as "a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of: disrupting progress toward improving an article, or; disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." While we agree on improving articles and building an encyclopedia, where we differ is the best way to do that. I think articles are improved by removing patent nonsense and focusing on what the encyclopedia is about, whereas you feel articles are improved by arguing with trolls and allowing them to use WikiFur as a forum for arguments that have nothing to do with what the encyclopedia is about. So yes, my edits are "disruptive", but probably has to do with the fact that The Powers That Be seem more interested in making excuses for problems and making it an uphill battle to fix them. —Xydexx 23:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Epilogue: Greenreaper's knee-jerk defense of the 34-year-old EDiot troll who is intent on dropping dox on the guy who just wants WikiFur to be about Furry fandom pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the way WikiFur is run these days. I'm done. —Xydexx 20:00, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Just a question

What happened to half of the content on your blog? Why was it suddenly removed? Joey Evers 23:44, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

I wonder if anyone has any interest in starting a Furry encyclopedia that is actually about Furry fandom as an alternative to Wikifur? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xydexx (talkcontribs) .