User:AlexR/060607

User:VemFoices lies and slander on the mediation page
This lists only the most obvious cases, there is lots more in the rest of her rant. See for the whole farce.


 * AlexR claims that this is a personal matter, but if you check the user page User:AlexR you will see “I used to be quite active in the German Wikipedia until I found the climate unfavorable to my health.” That suggests that AlexR was having problems adjusting to the rules of wikipedia there also.
 * I did not have that problem, and I have not here, either. You know nothing at all about the reasons I left de:, but that does not stop you from spekulating. Indeed, AFAIK, it is by now impossible to find the discussion that was the straw that broke the camel's back, unless one is an admin on de:, because the article was deleted. All the more reason, though, to consider her claim as decidedly bad faith.
 * [...] AlexR on the other hand has said “Since you can not prove it is false” which is not what policy says.
 * That is not only a flatout lie, it is a stupid lie as well, since she gives the link that shows I said something considerably different.	What I said is: "Since you cannot proove it is false, either, you are a bit prematur with removing the infomation." Which is quite different from her intentional misquote. [AR]
 * When AlexR says that this mediation is a way of harassing - AlexR forgets to explain all of the uses of vulgarities and disparagement that has been used against not only the three of us, but many others in a long stream. You see, when I found out that the total history of all edits for any particular person could be looked at, I started reading AlexR's edit history and found that AlexR is no stranger to mediation.
 * 
 * I especially like the one where AWilliamson explains that AlexR is behaving like a sockpuppet and to finally ban AlexR as a "troll". I will have to find this user and let them know of what AlexR is doing now and if he would like to survey the edits that are happing and the fairness of those edits.
 * Now, that must be may favourite. Since I have edited not just the trans-related articles, but a lot of others, it seems rather natural to me that in the cause of 3 1/2 years on Wikipedia, there would be a few problems. However, bringing the plain existance of this problems as a proof that I must be the bad guy here, seem ... shall we say, premature?
 * This was brought by another newbie with little patience, there was exactly one edit that was debated, and not even reverts. Probably not surprising, after bringing the case, she was never heard from again. So how does that count against me? Not at all, obviously.
 * Yet another case that never took off, this time the person who brought it was not interested any more after the poor mediation (Cimon) had informed himself about the subject. To quote from Eequors "arguments" befor bringing this case: "The damaging argument is the argument that transsexuals are different somehow. Why would you want to encourage such a conclusion?" See the whole debate on . And note that I was not exactly the only person who disagreed with her, either. So yet another case that can't possibly count against me.
 * Now that is a case I brough, indeed. It hardly shows, however, that I am such a bad guy. The debate that preceeded my bringing the case was rather long . However, I am not the only person who ran into Mr. Williamson when he wanted to "protect" Joan of Arc from even the mentioning of things that spoiled his image of hers. See for example the subpages of . This mediation ended with the following comment:
 * Mediation with User:AlexR and User:AWilliamson has ended. We did not come to any agreement -- User:sannse (talk) 01:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) I recommend contacting Sannse regarding the question who had problems with coming to terms with the facts. So yet another that can hardly count against me ...
 * This case was neither brought by me, nor against me. I merely jumped in, because I had previously edited the article, and just had endured 2 edit wars, just before this one. The case went to RfC instead, because that had not been done. So yet another that can hardly count against me ...
 * Here all I did was commenting on a case, with a recommendation not to bring it to mediation:
 * Are you sure mediation really is what you are looking for? Have a look at the top of the page, and especially WP:Dispute resolution. I am not sure it is, and neither am I sure that mediation could help you. A WP:Request for comment would seem the way to go, if you don't think the discussion works. -- AlexR 06:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * So how does this one count against me?
 * This was not a mediation case (BTW, mediation cabal != mediation, just for the record), but an arbitration case. Njoder had gotten on a lot of people's nerves by then, and indeed I did officially bring it. It isn't exactly as if I had had no support, though, as is evidences by the supporting statements. Also, the result was "Njyoder banned from gender and sex related articles" and "Personal attack parole". Hardly something one can count against me, either.
 * In summary, therefore, it can hardly be argued that FemVoice brought those examples for her point (whatever her point was) in good faith -- even a quick glance at the cases would have shown that they cannot possibly be used against me in any way. Except, maybe, to show that I am indeed familiar with what dispute resolution on Wikipedia means. Which means I can see quite well that this is not an attempt at dispute resolution, but a bad faith attempt to harass me.

Of course, the "lady" is not above some plain insults, either:
 * By the definition of a Internet_troll. "-- In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.--" With all of your inflammatory, rude and offensive messages, I would have to say you are a troll.
 * Given that I have been active here since 2002, it hardly seems seems I am the newcomer here. I am also not the one who slanders other people, and lies about them. Nor did I make comments to annoy and antagonize people, until they started to harass me. So if she insists on that definition, well, I know somebody who fits it perfects. For example:, the summary, translated, reads "You show your stupidity in your acts here". And this was hardly a good faith edit, either. I recommend reading the policy article about not disrupting WP to proove a point.