User:Hecato/BHG

Bold highlighting added by me. --Hecato

Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_160
It's a great pity that Moxy's deep deficiency in logic and of reading comprehension does not debar him wasting the community's time with this WP:POINTy RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, either you are either a congenital liar or you have a very poor grasp of facts. [...] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a waste of the community's time for a linguistically-challenged "editor" to be free to unilaterally start to waste the community's time with this sort of straw man game. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

[...]given the exceptionally poor writing skills which Moxy has displayed in all the discussions I have seen, it is probably a blessing that Moxy puts their efforts into defending the indefensible chunks of portalspace rather than polluting articlespace with gobbledygook such as We need to fix what the criteria are so deletionest cant use it in a bad way,,,should be greadre towards improvement and sustainability over deletion. criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive_10
One of the biggest problems in discussing the future of portals is the ongoing problem that most such discussions include participation by NA1K, '''but NA1K is a liar, by which I mean that NA1K repeatedly makes statements of fact which they know to be demonstrably untrue. This systematic deception poisons the atmosphere.''' --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

In other words, NA1K wants abandoned crap portals to continue to be advertised to readers indefinitely, regardless of how crap they are or how long they have been abandoned ... and regardless of the possibility of them being moved to another place where they could be developed. This approach brings zero benefit to readers. It simply underlines what long been clear; that NA1K and many other vocal portalistas are simply engaged in a circular exercise of keeping portals because they like making portals, without regard to reader benefit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note And some more I did not bother to quote. I suggest searching for "NA1K" and "liar" in the document. Hecato (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Golf
Hecato simply ignores the evidence of a decade's neglect by both readers and maintainers, so their assertions about this meeting portal guidelines are at best magical thinking, and at worst a downright lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Hecato, I will to continue to apply WP:SPADE when critiquing the disruptive deceptions of portalistas. You are at it again, engaging in deception games by creating a straw man. You wrote: "Just because something has not been improved for a long time, does not mean it will never be improved". That's a classic straw man, because nobody is arguing that it will "never" be improved. The test here is "likely" to be improved. Straw man arguments are a classic technique of deceptive, disruptive, dishonest people who don't like honest debate. If you find those terms derogatory, then you can avoid their usage by desisting from using that sort of dishonest argument. In this case, everything you say is predicated on a hypothesis: "If it is improved and well linked". This is fantasy reasoning, because no evidence has been offered that it is likely to be improved and well-linked. On the contrary, we have evidence of 13 years of these things not being done. So the "if" which posit you is highly unlikely ... and per POG, that's enough reason to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that the comment above by Knowledgekid87 is a blatant lie: i.e. it is a statement which is demonstrably untrue, was known by Knowledgekid87 to be untrue, and made with the intent of deception.

At the time when Knowledgekid87 wrote that, no editor had made a significant edit to this portal for ages. No editor had posted to volunteer their services to this portal. It is truly astonishing to see how many of those who wish retain abandoned and unused portals resort so rapidly to outright lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I apply the label "liar" only to those like you who tell lies. Honest disagreements are a different matter. You wrote "Editors seem willing to make improvements for this portal", and you now acknowledge that you had no evidence to support that assertion. You now claim that some other portals have been expanded. Even if that is true, it is not evidence that editors are willing to expand this portal. However, I see now that is possible that you might not actually have told a lie, because if you don't comprehend the difference between an editor improving some other portal(s) and multiple editors improving this portal, then you simply wouldn't understand how you statement was false. If your comprehension was that poor, it would make your comment an unintentional untruth rather than a deliberate untruth. However, the fact remain that regardless of whether you are confused or mendacious, your keep vote is based on an untrue statement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia
[...]NA1K is well aware of this. However, because NA1K is a shamelessly deceitful serial liar, they chose not to mention that when replying to GB. The liar NA1K instead chose to try to deceive GB by misrepresenting my cleanup work as some sort of disruption.[...] Let me blunt about this. The sort of calculated mendacity in which NA1K is engaging here cannot be mistaken as accidental; the misrepresentations are too severe, too calculated and too persistent to be accidental. They happen not by error or oversight or even by incompetence, but as only a part of a deliberate, sustained smear campaign by the serial liar NA1K to malign my good name and to achieve by deceit and misrepresentation what NA1K has not been able to achieve by open consensus-building: the retention on Wikipedia of a vast collection of abandoned junk portals which readers do not read and which editors don't waste time maintaining. '''NA1K's web of lies, deceptions, distortions, misrepresentations, subversions and strategic omissions is a despicable way for any human to behave in any context. NA1K's despicable conduct here will not earn them fame or cash, which are the common motivations elsewhere for such abysmal conduct. But even in this anonymous cash-free space of Wikipedia editing, the ethics revealed by this liar-admin NA1K is the ethical framework of the fraudster or confidence trickster.''' --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As you know, evidence was presented at MFD that this portal has neither readers nor maintainers, but you plough on as if the guideline didn't exist or the evidence had not been presented. This section of the guideline has been drawn to your attention many dozens of times, yet you plough on as if it did not exist. What on earth is wrong with you? What are you trying to achieve by continually misrepresenting both the guideline and the discussion? Your campaign of deceit and misrepresentation is is completely transparent, and it is shameless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment to closer, As North America well knows, I don't "attack" editors with whom I have honest disagreements. When people discuss in good faith, I sustain my assumption of good faith. However I do object to NA1K's sustained pattern of strategic mendacity, and per WP:SPADE I call it out for what it is. It is notable that liar NA1K resorts once again to blatant lying, even in this note the closing admin. Here's one example: NA1K writes: "comes across that BHG is unable to counter views that are contrary to theirs in a constructive manner". But as noted above, I did give a series of substantive, civil reasoned responses to NA1K's questions about removing backlinks[7]. My complaint above is that the liar NA1K chose not to mention that, and chose instead to misrepresent my position ad my actions. '''Now NA1K responds to my compliant with another demonstrable lie. It takes an extraordinary level of mendacity to double down on a lie like that.''' The only WP:BAITING here is NA1K's persistent and sustained lying about guidelines and about other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_153
WARMONGER Certes LAMENTS WAR HE STARTED. Certes has a really brass neck writing that, because Certes is one of the two editors most responsible for insisting that portals become a battleground.

Back in February/March, there was extensive discussion about how to remove the 4,200 automated spam portals created by @ The Transhumanist (TTH) and his cronies.[...]

[...] But a very large proportion of the blame for that lies directly with Certes, who has consistently rejected dialogue and actively sought to create a battleground. The editors who have worked on clearing TTH's portalspam and then on the sea of abandoned junk have been subjected by the portalistas to sustained abuse, hostility, personal attacks, repeated lies ... and Certes is one of the instigators of the battleground atmosphere in which cleanup has proceeded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete list of times various users asked BHG to be more civil (with no positive effect)

 * User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_052
 * User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_051 (search for WaltCip)
 * User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_050
 * Wikipedia_talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive_10
 * Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_153 (Headbomb, Hecato, isaacl)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&oldid=925732544#Selective_Application_of_Consensus