Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Whining

Copy of whining complaints from admin page removed

The admins told you to take it to mediation. This is not mediation. You're making a nuisance of yourself, please see WP:DISRUPT and dispute resolution for the standard processes for how to proceed. Violating WP:POINT is not a suitable way of resolving disputes. -999 (Talk) 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediator will be here tomorrow. I want him to see this information. You do not have the right to remove it until the mediator gets here. It is important background information for mediation for them to see what is happenning. Are you not man enough to stand behind what you all have been doing, 999? --Zanoni666 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)--Zanoni666 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the admins, none of us are doing anything wrong, except for you and User:Frater FiatLux who have been blocked for WP:3RR violations. As you well know, 3RR does not apply to groups, only individuals. Nor is there any rule about bring the matter to the attention of established WP editors. There is a rule against sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Your brand new users are red flags. If consensus is against you, you can be forced to supply citations, which is what is happening here. -999 (Talk) 23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I have never been blocked for a 3rr violation. That statement is libelous. Get your facts straight before you make any further libleous statements, please. Don't worry, I have copies of the evidence that you are attempting to cover-up through repeated improper deletion and it will be presented to the mediator. You are not getting off that easy. If you are so confident that you did nothing wrong then why delete the evidence repeatedly?--Zanoni666 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have, Here is the log entry. Or did you forget which user you were logged in under? -999 (Talk) 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanoni666, "libelous" is a legal term. Are your threatening to try to sue User 999 for libel? See Wikipedia: No Legal Threats.- JMax555 00:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Come off it 999, I was 3RR’d because I was correcting the biased political editing that you were trying to ram though every two minutes. Not only have you being playing tactical games with other users as conspirators to evade the 3RR. You’ve now been debunked for recruiting more users to your edit /revert warring gang so that your faction can evade the three revert ruling.

Not only have you aggressively attempted to promote your political bias but also you have made sure that you’ve out numbered any persons that check your revert/edit war by recruiting more users. I don’t use sock puppets and I don’t attempt to recruit other users to perpetuate an edit war. User 999 just looks more and more to me to be promoting typical frivolous HOGD Inc propaganda.

Your recruitment information should have stayed here as you violated thearticle RfCruling. It is only for other users to give a second opinion or help with build a better consensus, by helping to resolve the conflicts in the discussion pages. I quote from the article RfC "RFC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock."

User Baba Louis that was recruited by user 999 has made no effort to try and build a better consensus, help with the dispute, or alleviate the deadlock, the proof is in this discussion page. He is only perpetuating the edit war by performing reverts on the article back to 999’s biased political version.

999, quit using arbitrary Wiki links in your messages, whilst they may look impressive to newcomers, a mediator will see through your false use of them.

Frater FiatLux 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any serious violation with Zanoni666's comments when put into context against the incessant, exasperating, misguided rhetoric and frequent misrepresentations by 999. And there is 999’s unprincipled recruitment of numerous users outside his faction so that they can all evade the 3RR rule. It doesn't really say much for your arguments or citations does it if you feel the need to recruit a small army of users to evade the 3RR to keep the reverting the article.

I propose this the whole article and the orders separate pages should be deleted, and all this should cease immediately, we will never be able to reach a consensus -on any of this.

Frater FiatLux 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN -999 (Talk) 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll take that as you have no argument to what I have said, and an admission that you cannot contest my argument. As your so heavily infiltrated in mass recruitment for your gang edit/revert warring that you cannot deny it. Your infantile outburst only confirms that you are uncivil and unwilling to reach a consensus when a proposal is put forward. Please remember 999 no personal attacks and civility Frater FiatLux 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]