User talk:Dethme0w/archive/Joaquin

= October 10, 2007 =

The following exchange resulted from my reverting Joaquin Martinez's edits to Conservapedia and flagging them as vandalism. Which they were, as they were disruptive. Long story short, Joaquin escalated this all the way to ArbCom, which resulted not only in his indefinite block but in my first Barnstar! Dethme0w 07:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits to Conservapedia
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * Reverting your heavily-POV laden edits isn't attacking you. And, learn to sign your talk page posts.  Dethme0w 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Labeling edits as vandalism when they are clearly not is a personal attack Joaquín Martínez 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it means you injected a lot of POV into an article which is something (a) that is against policy and (b) that you have been blocked for in the past. You know what the policy is, you know that you're adding very strong, in fact vitriolic POV into the article, and you know that you are going to be called on it.  All of this knowledge of what you are doing kind of tends to indicate vandalism, and that is why I clicked "Rollback Vandal" in Twinkle. Dethme0w 02:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you need to reread your own policies, from WP:Vandalism, vandalism is: I did not do any of those things. In contrast and from the same page, vandalism is not: Out of the two lists my edits could only possibly fall into three categories, however I would disagree with two of them: NPOV violation - I am removing POV from the article by ensuring CP is correctly quoted and that an alternative viewpoint is offered to the liberally biased criticism of the project Stubbornness - if standing up for the truth and acting as a barrier to the liberal smears rampant on the project makes me stubborn then so be it, but history will judge me as being forced to engage in edit wars against other stubborn editors who refused to consider anything other than their liberal delusions It is clear that my edits were not vandalism, and in labeling them as such you made a clear personal attack against me for which I demand an apology. Joaquín Martínez 03:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blanking
 * Page lengthening
 * Spam
 * Vandalbots
 * Silly vandalism
 * Sneaky vandalism
 * Userspace vandalism
 * Image vandalism
 * Abuse of tags
 * Page move vandalism
 * Link vandalism
 * Avoidant vandalism
 * Modifying users' comments
 * Discussion page vandalism
 * Repeated uploading of copyrighted material
 * Malicious account creation
 * Edit summary vandalism
 * Hidden vandalism
 * Tests by experimenting users
 * Using incorrect wiki markup and manual of style
 * NPOV violations
 * Making bold edits
 * Unintentional misinformation
 * Unintentional nonsense
 * Stubbornness
 * Harassment or personal attacks
 * Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration


 * Labeling an edit as vandalism when it is clearly not is a personal attack. How much clearer can I make it? Joaquín Martínez 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Demand, eh. What if that apology is not forthcoming?  I will not apologize for attempting to maintain the integrity of this encyclopedia, which if you'd read WP:NOT you'd find is NOT a soapbox (and you're soapboxing a lot here).  Dethme0w 04:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you blinded by your liberal delusions? I am not asking for an apology for the reversions of my edits, obviously someone has to maintain the integrity of this liberal soapbox you call an encyclopedia. I am asking for an apology for the personal attack you made against me in labeling my edits as vandalism when by your own policies they were clearly not Joaquín Martínez 05:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have liberal delusions. I could demand an apology for your calling me delusional (or liberal for that matter; it's clear from that that you know nothing about me and that you really don't want to) but I'm not Joaquin Martinez so I won't be doing that.  Nor do I find myself inclined to offer an apology that is demanded of me.  At times like this (i.e. when faced with an intractible binary-thinker) a big part of me wants to offer my opponent in debate a big hot steaming mug of STFU but that would violate WP:CIVIL so ixnay there.  Bottom line: I consider your edits vandalism.  I consider you a recidivist vandal and troll.  You may even be a strawpuppet, so comically rigid are your positions.  These are my opinions and I'm not apologizing for them.  Looks like that's all I got for you today.  Bye. Dethme0w 05:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinions clearly violate the guidelines set down at WP:Vandalism. How can you claim to be maintaining the integrity of this liberally biased project if you can't even adhere to your own guidelines? You made a clear personal attack against me using a tool entrusted to you by the community to be used in accordance with its guidelines which you have not done so and for that I demand an apology. Clearly in your liberal elitist attitudes you believe you don't have to give one, lack of accountability is a large component of liberal style Joaquín Martínez 05:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think I am violating Wikipedia policy in any way, why not report me to an admin? You keep demanding an apology, but it is my position that I never owed you one.  There are avenues of escalation and I am growing weary of the merry-go-round ride you've taken me on here.  Either pinch a loaf or get off the toilet.  What do you plan to do about the fact that I am not apologizing (other than keep calling me a liberal, which I should add is absolutely hilarious)? Dethme0w 05:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your liberal excuses have gone far enough, why do you insist on not taking accountability for your edits? You clearly labeled mine as vandalism and you can't see where you are wrong because you are clouded by your liberal delusions Joaquín Martínez 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
I am filing a complaint with the arbitration board, we'll see what they make of the situation. Joaquín Martínez 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not attempt to sabotage the RfA through misinformation. My original comment clearly stated that my edits could only fall into three categories from the "What vandalism is not list". The edit as it stands makes it appear as if I admitted my edits could only fall into three categories from the "What vandalism is" list, a perfect case of liberal deceit. If you had not removed the list you would have noticed that editing another's comments is classified as vandalism and that if there is a problem with another editor's remarks they must be the one's to change it (including minute things such as typos). The list is crucial in explaining to you why my comments weren't vandalism, the underlying problem that has been taken to arbitration. Please do not remove it again Joaquín Martínez 08:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a user talk page. Not an article.  I have considerably more editorial freedom here than I would in mainspace, a point you have overlooked.  I can edit it for brevity if I want, and this was done BEFORE you filed your specious ArbCom.  You have come to this whole project with the attitude that you can edit anything any way you like and no one is allowed to undo or edit your edits or even call you on your rottweiler-like behaviour.  I've got news for you: you are wrong about that.  The second the ArbCom gets rejected, this whole thread gets archived, and I've got a strong urge to archive it on YOUR talk page where I think it belongs. Dethme0w 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)