User:GoodDamon/Misou

I don't like to do this, but witnessing Misou's interactions on Wikipedia have led me to believe someone should document his/her behavior.

Examples of Misou attacking other editors

 * Misou attacks Foobaz.
 * Misou misrepresents a discussion about a new section Anynobody added.
 * Misou attacks me, GoodDamon, shortly after I had complimented Misou and others for working together to make a good, neutral change to an article, a change which involved me undertaking to write an entirely new article for Wikipedia.
 * Misou attacks Stan En during the discussions leading to the good change I describe above.
 * Misou reverts the removal of a reference that wasn't actually related to the article text, and attacks me, GoodDamon, explicitly while doing so. In fairness, a later edit of the article text provided a basis for reintroducing the reference, but at the time, the text didn't support the reference.

Odd attacks - using German?
Misou sometimes adds German to statements he makes to editors who edit at apparent cross-purposes to him. For example, here he adds German to a question he asks of Jeffrey.Kleykamp. I've seen this behavior fairly frequently. It appears he is equating some editors with Germans in an insulting manner.

Examples of Misou intentionally misrepresenting Wikipedia rules for his benefit

 * Misou describes a critical website as a "private hate site" as a reason to remove references to it.
 * Misou describes a critical website as a "private hate site" again, and states incorrectly that it violates WP:EL.
 * Misou reverts the addition of new material as vandalism, although it's demonstrably properly ref'd material.
 * Note: For the record, after some discussion I supported the removal of the section until balancing material could be located, as it did portray the subject of the article in a very negative light. But the references were sterling, and should never have been reverted as vandalism. This would also qualify as an attack on the editor who added the material, Anynobody.


 * Misou reverts the removal of references he added that had nothing to do with the Church of Scientology, and again misidentifies the edit as vandalism.
 * Misou deletes wide swaths of well-referenced material with this explanation: "Sorry Chris, this is just not part of regualar Scientology teachings but some druggies' wet dreams." He does not provide any other arguments for removing this material.

Examples of Misou making factually incorrect edits

 * Misou replaces the word "journals" with the word "scripts", which has the effect of changing the apparent source of a Hubbard quote to a "script," as if it were in one of his works of fiction. The edit summary is also quite insulting.
 * Misou removes a reference he describes as a "porn link farm", which it is not. In fairness, he later removes it again as "non-RS", which may be accurate.
 * Misou removes text as unsourced, when it actually is. He is subsequently reverted.
 * Misou removes fully-sourced text (I read the source article myself), calling it "unsourced and actually just a blunt lie."
 * Misou reverts an edit that neutralized tone, and says "See, GoodD, you actually should read the refs. makes more sense then." I did read the refs. Misou's edit is incorrect.