User talk:Worldedixor

Talk Page for Worldedixor

I will recuse myself from contributing and editing and will openly express my opinion on my Talk Page for the record.

1. I am not known to remain silent when faced with injustice. It is my opinion that Wikipedia's duplicity inflicted injustice on me and on itself to protect and further "enable" a darling super-editor. I had NO idea that, in this day an age, I would be at the mercy of an insensitive "exclusive club" where my abuser is their "darling" and a flagrant policy violation is "endearingly" overlooked and left without sanctions.

2. I was verbally abused on Wikipedia. I felt violated after being humiliated, cursed and insulted in a despicable manner that is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society.

3. I felt so strongly about this personal attack, a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy, that I sent a notice with a verifiable "strong and convincing evidence" of the abuse at [1].

4. I copied the notice below for easy reference.

5. In my opinion, my abuser walked away with a gentle slap on the wrist, and with a great sense of entitlement to continue doing what he has always done, and a flagrant and violent violation of policy and its supporting "clear and convincing evidence" meant absolutely nothing.

6. The lack of sensitivity, justice, equitable policy and care, even by the admin who dismissed my complaint was self-evident: "Yes, AtG can be a bit rough sometimes, and sometimes he sounds like a total asshole (note how carefully I comment on tone, not on editor! Bbb23 would be proud of me)". This is coming in the form of a public comment on my complaint of abuse from what is supposed to be an "unbiased" admin.

7. I received no protection for "whistleblowing". Retaliation by "the supportive friends" came within seconds of my posting the notice as can be seen below.

8. I copied the notice and all interactions/threat/evidence in its entirety for full disclosure.

Worldedixor (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent block of user AndyTheGrump

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=578774054&oldid=578772290 [2]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If at all possible, I respectfully ask for an unbiased admin who has had no dealings with AndyTheGrump whatsoever in the past, if that’s at all possible, and preferably who does not even know who he is, so that he or she can have a fresh look at this matter and JUSTLY adjudicate this matter without any conflict of interest.

I also seek protection as a “Wikipedia whistleblower”, if such protection is affordable, as one incident of subtle retaliation by an apparent "friend of Andy" has already occurred today, as well as a "restraining order" against AndyTheGrump and his future accounts, if such protection is afforded.

I sincerely thank Wikipedia in advance.

PREAMBLE

It is no secret that AndyTheGrump with his superior policy knowledge is the “darling” of many “well-meaning” admins in Wikipedia who may or may not know his dark side, and who genuinely try to remain unbiased, but their “soft spot for darling Andy” is unmistakable, and what may as well be called the “Blue wall of silence” couldn’t be any clearer after I saw the way my legitimate complaint was handled yesterday as no admin wants to be the one “incommodating Andy”…

I would genuinely like to think that Wikipedia is better than allow, and systematically “enable/give license” to super-editors like AndyTheGrump, who has been blocked more times than most (please refer to his block history), and has shown a systematic pattern of "selectively" using Wikipedia policy as a pretext to abuse and demoralize editors with a grumpy, trollish (instigating not vandalism), nasty, bad faith, uncivilized, antisocial, and passive-aggressive behavior, hinder their “good faith” progress with petty warring edits, badgering and nitpicking, frequently reverting edits seconds after they are made even when WP:BLP clearly allows the editor to insert an edit, and baiting them in a patronizing manner, knowing that they do not know policy well, and he has the edge, while knowing that he is the “darling” of many admins.

Such uncivilized, patronizing, indecent and abusive behavior is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society. It robs many well-meaning editors like me, acting in good faith, who just want to share their knowledge, edit in good faith and return to their normal lives, of any incentive to contribute to Wikipedia. Such conduct is also not in Wikepedia's best interest and is completely inconsistent with its CIVILZED culture of harmonious assumption of good faith.

I just want to edit in good faith. I come from a good, highly respected family and I deserve to ALWAYS be treated like an INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING. I am not a street person to be called names, cursed and be the emotional dumping ground on Wikipedia for random super-editors to take their frustrations on me without even knowing me or my station in life. Most importantly, normal human beings have feelings and feelings are fragile. I can assure you that he would be completely different, probably act like a gentleman, had he being talking to me in person.

I must applaud the good admin Bbb23 (talk), who, albeit clearly having “a soft spot for Andy”, did the right thing by removing the personal attack by AndyTheGrump and “courageously” exposing the true nature of AndyTheGrump, acknowledging the futility of my patient and numerous attempts to reason with him on one particular edit dispute in a civilized debate and good faith:

• “I wouldn't continue the discussion with Andy on the talk page as it's not going to go anywhere. I've removed Andy's personal attack against you as it was truly nasty.” [3]

THIS NOTICE

A. Carefull scrutinizing AndyTheGrump’s dark record will reveal a mountain of evidence to justify the permanent block. However, for this particular notice, I will bring one strong and convincing evidentiary incident of flagrant abuse and complete disregard for the dignity of other human beings. He wrote this to me publicly when I pleaded with him to "treat me like an intelligent human being" after "patiently" trying to reason with him in a civilized manner:

I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[4] [5]

B. I will also disclose that even though I felt so strong about this matter that I brought it up to the attention of the good, well-meaning admin Mark Arsten who, in all fairness, has shown even-handedness previously, he did not block AndyTheGrump as not to “incommodate Andy”, and referred me to WP:ANI “if I'd like to seek sanctions against AndyTheGrump", and then “hid” my report that exposes AndyTheGrump. [6] [7]

C. For full disclosure, I will also expose AndyTheGrump's self-description that goes to shows where all such grumpiness and abusive behavior came from, and that is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's harmonious and civilized culture and "try to educate" assumption of good faith, as widely displayed by well-meaning admins.

My Name is Andy, and I am a Grump. Well, you'll probably have figured that out from my username. I've not yet determined whether Grumpiness is an infliction or a Human Right, though I'm inclined to the latter view. As for further autobiographical details, I'll remain relatively anonymous for now, beyond stating that I'm male, old enough to know better (if not always wise enough), and educated sufficiently well to understand how little I can ever know. I'm also prone to writing over-long, unnecessarily convoluted sentences (with unnecessary parenthetical insertions and unnecessary repetition of the same words); often with dubious punctuation, which I'll leave for other editors to clarify, disambiguate, and otherwise improve on, while I concentrate on addressing the core of the topic in hand (if I can remember what it was by the time I've written this much...). I can sometimes write short pithy sentences, however. [8]

D. I just want to add that, in my opinion, uncivilized, indecent and abusive conduct by super-editors like AndyTheGrump are perhaps the main reason for the widespread Criticism of Wikipeda article and thousands of negative reviews all around the world at a time it is striving to establish credibility and make justifiable fundraising appeals to families like ours. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldedixor (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 October (UTC) 2013‎ Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Worldedixor (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet you can't seem to be bothered signing your posts here or on Andy's page when you notified him.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark Miller for giving one more evidence of what I stated above. But you are 100% in the right. Please forgive me as it was an unintentional error, and thanks to you, I just fixed it. have a blessed day... Worldedixor (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh....this is gonna be a popcorn thread I see.......--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I will deal with the substance of this later - if anyone shows any signs of taking it seriously after looking at Worldedixor's recent edit history (and not so recent - his/her edits at DHgate.com are as good an example of why Wikipedia doesn't need Worldedixor's 'expertise' as one could possibly find). Meanwhile, a couple of points for Worldedixor. Firstly there is no protection for 'whistleblowers' here - see WP:BOOMERANG. And secondly, if you are going to make allegations about "subtle retaliation" by others, you had damned well produce the evidence - I will freely admit that my behaviour wasn't at its best, but I see no reason why you should be permitted to make wild allegations about others without justification. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, Worldedixor, Andy was being perfectly civil with you until your umpteenth freak attack. I look at the fact that you have been arguing on the wrong side of policy up and down Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk, seem to exhibit ownership behavior on that same talk page, and based on this conversation seem to view your disputes with Andy as some kind of battleground. You seem in general to be extremely quick to accuse people of being mean to you when they have done nothing of the sort, for instance at Talk:Aida_Nikolaychuk#YouTube_links. Frankly, Andy is being more than respectful to you in that exchange.

What you really need to do is take a step back and chill. You don't know all the rules yet. Attempts to educate you on the rules are not an attack on your work - they are meant to help your work. Being a collaborative encyclopedia means that there will be disagreements and you won't always get your way. If that's not something you're comfortable with, it's your problem, not Andy's. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'not knowing the rules yet', Worldedixor has been a contributor since 2006. [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221 for giving yet one more subtle evidence. I think my intial statement gave all the verifiable facts. I only contribute minimally here and there to Wikipedia. I do not edit full time. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a little more sympathetic to Worldedixor's plight than others. At the same time, I don't think the content dispute belongs here, and I don't think Andy will be sanctioned for his comments. My suggestion is that the content dispute be resolved through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms (if Worldedixor clings to naming the son - regardless of who's right I think it's a fairly insignificant thing to get into a snit about), Worldedixor forget about the unpleasant exchange with Andy, and move on, hopefully with a little less drama and verbosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23 (talk) for being fair and just. I highly value your opinion but I respectfully disagree. Have a pleasant day, my friend. Worldedixor (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'content dispute', such as it is, was never really the primary issue as far as I'm concerned - it was more a matter of getting Worldedixor to acknowledge that the article had to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. It is difficult to work alongside someone who objects to the removal of unsourced trivia about the name of Aida Nikolaychuk's dog, and the name of a friend (with no indication of why this friend was even of any significance). [11] And then there is the matter of Worldedixor contacting (or claiming to contact) the subject of the article. [12] (That particular diatribe was the result of me asking Worldedixor where s/he was getting information from [13]). I for one don't think Wikipedia contributors should be contacting article subjects - particularly contributors who seem entirely oblivious to the basics of how Wikipedia works. Right from the start, Worldedixor seemed to want to ignore policy and fill the article with unsourced fluff - apparently expecting hypothetical 'fans of Nikolaychuk' to do all the donkey-work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Worldedixor, please see AndyTheGrump's recent edit history, then see WP:NOPUNISH. AndyTheGrump, please try to work things out here, or else one or more of the administrators here may block you. Best regards, Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Epicgenius for giving such a threat and an evidence of all that I stated above. This notice is about much more than one edit dispute. It is about indecent conduct and much more. I refer you to my original statement to read carefully. Worldedixor (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut to the chase:

• Oppose - and suggest that the editor Worldedixor be blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours, double the length of the block from the 24th that appears to not to have done the trick of preventing further disruptive behavior. I don't know if DR/N will accept this. Certainly not while this thread is open.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I respect "your support of Andy". However, please respect my wish delineated in my original statement to eliminate conflict of interest. Thank you for your cooperation. Worldedixor (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest"????? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Do we really have to vote on this (sigh)? I recommend closing this topic with no action against anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: Not something that the admins have to vote on (the one vote here is opposing the move (I mean the action (nobody seems to care anyway))). Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, Bb23 we don't have to....if you feel there is no need and wish to close this thread now, I will not object.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yikes, Worldedixor has been editing since 2006, yet they feel that the OP is somehow helpful, and they think Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk#Voting on the inclusion of the name of Aida's son in the article is reasonable. Andy's initial comment (in full) was: 'See WP:NOTVOTE. Content issues are decided in reference to policy, and after discussion. And no, Wikipedia is not governed by "case law" or precedent.' As normal, let's again thank Andy while asking that he bang his head on the desk rather than publicly flame out. @Worldedixor: Wikipedia is a project to develop an enccyclopedia based on certain standard procedures—please listen to editors like Andy when they explain those procedures, and ignore them when they flame out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Johnuniq for making an effort to "show non-bias to Andy". I listened carefully to your respectful advice and will assume it was made in good faith, but I will refer you to my original statement. Have a blessed day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, close this complaint. And maybe, despite his long tenure at WP, it's time for Worldedixor to get a mentor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• This seems to be one of those cases that requires an admin to either take action or simply close as no action needed. I feel there is enough evidence that Worldedixor has continued disruptive behavior to boomerang for their own disruptive behavior coming off a requested unblock. It might appear to some that the unblock, while seemingly the right move from the fair minded unblock request was, in fact, too soon. Perhaps Liz is correct and a mentorship requirement instead of another block will do.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for thanking me

I appreciate your feedback. If you appreciate what I said on Andy's talk page, then please try to appreciate what I say on yours. You really ought to read the whole thread carefully and humbly, study this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, and heed the criticisms of your editing offered. Yeah, Andy was excessively brutal in his criticism. But the substance and the core of his criticism was correct. Please take that to heart, if you hope to be a successful editor here. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't ask me to "have a blessed day". I arrange my own blessings in accordance with my own religious traditions, and have engaged in "at least" four blessings in the last 24 hours. But who is counting? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Cullen³²⁸. I sincerely appreciate your words and respectful approach, but I believe you completely missed all that I stated in my complaint and how a flagrant policy violation was "endearingly" overlooked, the abuse I was subjected to was utterly disregarded, and the abuser was left without any sanctions. Anyone other that that "darling super-editor" would have been sanctioned. Within minutes of my Notice, 4-5 admins/editors came to tell me about how I violated policy (I unintentionally forgot to sign my name), yet not a word to the "darling" for his violent violation of policy. This is called sheer bias and duplicity. If you genuinely cared, please read carefully every word in my "opinion" here on my Talk page and my statement copied below it and how it was handled.

I will no longer edit in such a hostile, insensitive and biased environment. I have a wonderful real life where no one ever treats me as abusively and as violently as the admins' "darling Andy" has treated me.... right here... on Wikiepedia. Worldedixor (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I read and pondered every single word of it. It is always sad when a promising editor persists in disregarding the good faith advice offered by several other experienced editors about their own conduct, and persists in ignoring their own misconduct, while obsessing about the faults and failings of others. This is a path toward departure from productive contribution to the world's leading free information resource. I truly regret that you are trotting down the wrong path. But if you are determined to do so, I hope you will find another place where your contributions will be appreciated. I bid you peace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You obviously are unable to understand what I stated, and chose to "overlook" a flagrant policy violation by my abuser. Thanks anyways. Worldedixor (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:ANI

Sorry for being so harsh on you in my comment on WP:ANI. I was just trying to say that you needed to look closely at AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)'s edit history—not all of his contribs are vandalism. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 11:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said that all or any of his contributions were vandalism. I did not know till recently that he indeed engaged in vandalism in the past. However, he has a long and embarrassing history of being "enabled" to use his superior policy knowledge to act like an abuser and a troll, with utter disregard to the Principles of Wikipedia.

He is clearly protected, "enabled", even cheered on by admins who say, and I quote, "(Our darling) Andy can be a bit rough sometimes, and sometimes he sounds like a total asshole". Acting like a "total asshole", and worse "enabling" a "total asshole" by admins, is a total embarrassment to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot talk out of both sides of its mouth. There is no place for a "total asshole" in Wikipedia. In my opinion, he is the equivalent of the "pimpled face" schoolyard bully with ED at a very young age, and he bullies students to compensate for his incompetence.

A troll can be a vandal or, what this "protected" user is, 'a disruptive instigator who sows discord and hinders progress by instigating arguments in a passive-aggressive manner upsetting people, and using his superior policy knowledge as a pretext to deliberately provoke editors into an emotional response'.

At the ANI, my cause of action against him was neither vandalism nor trolling nor edit warring. I gave ONE "strong and convincing evidence" of violent abuse and one nasty personal attack in clear and utter disregard to policy, namely WP:NPA. He was not blocked... he was protected and the rules were bent for him!...

In my opinion, he is an embarrassment and a net liability to Wikipedia. Such duplicity and bias in "selectively" applying policy and "enabling" super-editors that have frequently violated WP:NPA will fire big time on Wikipedia. Worldedixor (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't call for a permanent block. At the extreme most, an indefinite block would be put in place so that AndyTheGrump at least has a chance of appealing it. But he isn't deserving of a block that extends indefinitely or forever, in my opinion. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Epicgenius, for "choosing" to discuss this case in a rational and respectful manner on my talk page. I respectfully disagree. Worldedixor (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

<- gross violations of WP:NPA etc redacted - this is being reported at WP:ANI, and I'd STRONGLY advise that it not be restored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC) >

Worldedixor (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Worldedixor. Having just noticed your note on ATG's talk page, I would like to ask you to read WP:VANDALISM. To constitute vandalism edits have to be deliberately damaging to Wikipedia. Removing unsourced content falls far short of being vandalism. Thank you SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SmartSE. I heed the guidance of "unbiased", well-meaning, self-respecting admins. I will read WP:VANDALISM. The fact remains is that I reverted uninformed removal of factual content. I also supported my action by two reliable sources. Worldedixor (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Adding sources was of course the correct action, but there is no need to assume bad faith on the part of other editors for removing information - the onus is on editors who add content to provide sources. SmartSE (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And can I add that it would be very wise for you to follow Nick's advice once your block expires. I fear that if you don't your account is likely to be blocked permanently. SmartSE (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks again SmartSE. Nick obviously is an "unbiased", well-meaning admin who cares about Wikipedia a lot more than protecting AndyTheFGrump. I see many people being bullied and life is too short to tolerate such injustice and look the other way. There is an unmistakable "double standards" in Wikipedia and I feel made a difference by raising awareness about such INJUSTICE. The fact remains that flagrant, repeated disregard of WP:NPA has gone unpunished. Worldedixor (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Content removal

The content added by this diff has been removed (I arrived here to remove it, but I see AtG has done the necessary removal himself). Elements of that text do overstep the mark and are clearly not acceptable, please do not add the text back. Nick (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance, Nick. I do not add that an unbiased, well-meaning admin removes. I am not the one who have the complete disregard for WP:NPA. Worldedixor (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

I have blocked you for a week for disruptive editing, including harassment and WP:IDHT. Please read WP:GAB if you wish to appeal the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23: You strike me always as being well meaning. I will scrutinize harassment and WP:IDHT. However, I have no doubt that you yourself can see the "double-standard" here. A flagrant disregard to WP:NPA was left unpunished.Worldedixor (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can vouch for Bbb23's impartiality here - they are acting with the best intentions.

I'd like to touch on a few points, if I may:

• The personal attack on you resulted in a warning for the other party.
• Wikipedia's policies do not encourage punitive blocks, but preventative ones - we block users only if we believe they'll still cause harm.

I do have to admit that posting on Andy's talk page was ill-advised given the recent friction between you both. Branding him a vandal was also uncalled for, though I do appreciate that you owned up to that mistake above. Likewise, I'd advise that you not make a habit of going around telling people that they are 'uninformed' - there's nothing civil about calling someone uneducated, and even if your intentions are good, your actions won't necessarily be interpreted as such.

This all being said; you've been respectful to us up to this point. I take that as a sign of good faith. I know you don't mean harm. But help me help you; I can't do anything if you're actively baiting other users into conflict or accusing them of vandalism without reason.

If you can promise not to interact with Andy - for any reason - and to stop comparing people to deposed Colombian dictators or the mafia - I'd be happy to unblock you. Just say so below. Best, m.o.p 00:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)