Talk:The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc./Archive 1

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) 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who told you to remove that and where did you move it too and upon those authority. Shall I likewise delete the entire discussion here. That would amount to the same thing. Furthermore:

(cur) (last) 21:48, 13 June 2006 Baba Louis (revert obvious sockpuppet of User:Frater FiatLux; obvious enough to report for 3RR violation, I should think)

Baba Louis, how could you possibly call me a sockpuppet? If you cannot accept the fact that people are allowed to join this discussion and that I would do exactly that, it´s your own problem. Keep your comments to yourself unless you can prove your accusations. --Opuaut 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys whining and calling everyone that disagrees with you is a breach of Wikipedia etticate. There are no sock puppets here. Opuat, IP in Germany is not a sock puppet of Frater Fiat Lux, in the UKand neither am I, in the USA. Just because someone is new does not mean that they are a sock. If you want to keep recruiting people for reverts, 999, iinstead of trying seriously to collaborate and compromise, so can we. The reason you took that poge down is because it is so incriminating. Don't worry, though I have a copy, even if you delete it from your talk pages as well.

Your continuing whining and pointing fingers about socks while you acrively recruit to fuel a revert edit war is as unethical as it is pathetic. Or is Baba Louis a sock of you, 999?--Zanoni666 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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. We don’t use sock puppets and we 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 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is everybody who comes into this discussion that disagrees with you at all going to be accused of being in some vast political conspiracy against you? - JMax555 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, isn't accusing every new editor of being a "sock puppet" basically the same thing? Besides, you do not need to insinuate that anyone here is paranoid JMax555. No more personal attacks. Rigorous argumentations, of course, but I can see no reason for this can of condescension just because you are a more "seasoned" editor. There are always editors with more experience than yourself, just as there is always going to be someone smarter than any of us. Kephera975 03:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That wasn't condescension, that was a completely serious question. FiatLux keeps calling everybody who doesn't support him "in cahoots", and clandestine members of the HOGD Inc. Well it's simply not true, there's no evidence it's true, it's been denied repeatedly, but he keeps saying it, improperly filling administrator's pages with paragraph after mind-numbing paragraph of it.


 * So no, it's not the same thing. All sock puppets are good for is edit-bombing an article, which is small potatoes. What I keep hearing about over and over is that everyone who comes along and disagrees with you guys is a "Cicero conspriator" or "Inc sympathizer", to use just some of the less colorful adjectives, and this is all part of an evil plot to corrupt US Federal Court judges with Wikipedia edits. Presumably while we rub our hands together and cackle madly to ourselves. - JMax555 05:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BWAHAHAHAHAHA!


 * YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN -999 (Talk) 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So if someone yawns, you in turn, take it as a personal attack? I'd yawn too, it gets rather tiring explaining policy over and over again. Zos 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But your not though are you Zos, you're simply citing the same arbitrary nonsensical messages to evade dealing with the points we're coming up with!

Frater FiatLux 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will continue to revert as long as this page remains the most biased and POV page in an outstanding controversy. User 999 is unwilling to even consider changing this to an uncontroversial page, apparently. The agreement cited by user:999 was not included to stir up controversy but to show information regarding their trademark. The A+O did NOT include their page on their website concerning the current controversy. Apparently, USER:999 believes that he can not only, first of all, exclude the Alpha et Omega from the list of current orders in a most unethical and POV, biased way, but he also wishes to drag this particular controversy as far out as possible by including a page derogatory to the Alpha et Omega. This is, frankly, oppressive and in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy to say the least. Kephera975 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right Kephera, and will have my full support in reverting this page back, and sure many others to. The very fact that there's only one HOGD/A+O page and there's many other HOGD Inc. licensee pages speaks volumes. Frater FiatLux 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Frater FiatLux: Which talking points were those? You mean the ones that didnt provide citations for the statments that were voted on? I have no sources right now, and havent edited here yet. I've just reverted attempts to add material that isnt cited and voted off by consensus.
 * I'd also like to remind Kephera and FiatLux that this is not the A+O article. Thank you. Zos 04:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind you, Zos, that there is a definite issue of neutrality here which would involve the Order of A+O. Kephera975 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)