User:Lexein/anisandbox

I'm been threatened with AN/I here under WP:NLT. So I'm here to clarify whether I was right or wrong, faced with outright misrepresentations of my words presented as "analysis" or "summary", to strikethrough under WP:TPOC "Removing prohibited material such as libel". What we do about misrepresentations or falsifications at WP is not clear, aside from WP:TPOC, and I sincerely dislike when my words are outrageously misrepresented.

1. At Deletion_review/Log/2013_October_28, requested a deletion review of the MFD keep of WP:Using Archive.is. In, he posted an "Analysis of Viewpoints" (also stated in edit summary analyzing the viewpoints) which included a deliberately and provocatively false summary of my arguments:
 * "Lexein: Arguing keep on the grounds that other editors conduct (such as Kww) should be the shield that protects this page."

This "analysis" summary misrepresents me and my words, is intended to harm me and my reputation, and confuses argument and opinion. His summary changes my meaning, and doesn't use any of my words. No reasonable person would summarize my arguments as Hasteur has done.

2. In I:
 * struckthrough Hasteur's false summary, under WP:TPOC's permission to remove libel, and under the generally accepted notion that one does not outright lie while using objective-sounding words like "analysis" and "summary"
 * added a comment in which I included my actual arguments
 * "Keep while archive.is is in use anywhere on WP, and there's no consensus to universally stop using archive.is", and


 * included the diffs to my actual arguments (1 2 3 4 and 5). (At this point I had neglected to include 6).

3. In Hasteur closed discussion. It was reopened by another editor who wanted his long comment seen.

4. In Hasteur reverted my strikethrough.

5. In Hasteur posted  my diff 6 which he claims his "summary" embodies. It does not. (I had erred in not including that diff in my list of five.)

6. In I restored the strikethrough, changing "struck as libelous" to "Utterly false and unsupported by diff", and added a comment, referring to the "lie", but not libel, and responding to his demand that I request that he change his summary, with replacement text.

7. In Hasteur reverted the whole edit, including replacing my discussion comment with his own.

8. In I reverted, unintentionally deleting his comment.

9. In Hasteur again replacing my discussion comment with his own, referring only to the revert, and claiming a "vandalism exception", though that's clearly not allowed in ongoing discussions.

10. In I belatedly restored my discussion comment from step 6 above, and did not restore the strikethrough.

11. In Hasteur "asks" (accuses) that my #6 "was not writen by you? I just want to make sure when I ask admins to have your account hard locked as you appear to not be in control of the account." And he threatens to take me to ANI for No Legal Threats. Ok, so here we are. And he lies about "continued use" of the word libel: I never reused the word.

12. In, another editor suggests Hasteur "remove the summaries altogether". In, he collapses it without rewording any of it, and rewrites a paragraph, again falsely summarizing my arguments: "one editor whose conduct at the MFD was to point at other editors as the problem".

I later struckthrough my use of the word libel, while not altering the quote of WP:TPOC.

I'm aware of the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG. There's libel, and IMHO there's wikilibel: lying about other editors, and falsification of their words, to deceive and damage reputation. This should not, in my opinion, be simply allowed to stand. I do not intend, and will not engage literal legal action for libel, but I want Wikipedia policy-based strong action against lies made against editors and their words, if at all possible. --Lexein (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm wrong about using WP:TPOC "Removing prohibited material such as libel" to strikethrough (or deletion) falsehoods about my words and me, so be it. But I'm not wrong about how wrongly I've been treated by Hasteur, including being lied about in three different ways, having my comments deleted repeatedly, and being threatened with administrative procedures by User:Hasteur for defending myself and protecting my words.
 * What we do about misrepresentations or falsifications at WP is not clear, aside from WP:TPOC, and I certainly sincerely dislike when my words are misrepresented.