User talk:Xtra/Archive abuse and replies

Abuse received over Liberal Party
I've actually put in an official protest against Xtra (about his misleading tersm for the Liberals), and alerted many good "liberal" blogs/sites about yor move to propaganda, so expect a few peope to start changing this post beside me. It's good to know you're not about truth anymore, but lies and misinformation. Just what the liberal party usually stands for (WMDs, children overboard, etc). It's good to see people like "Mark" here on your side. So much for honesty, and non-partisan, huh? Great Job.

I suggest resolving the situation by incorporating into the article the disagreement over whether the party is conservative or neo-liberal. Excellent point, there has been little discussion on the issue, and "consensus" cannot exist with the beliefs of only one user. A note about the "controversy" welcomes open discussion, so this issue can be resolved. - --PSYCH 03:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * there is no dissagreement over whether the party is conservative or neoliberal. it has components of both. if you are the person who has until now posted anonomous insults about me, i would appreciate if you would no longer contact me. Xtra 03:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have never insulted anyone, but where is the evidence that this party is neo-liberal? There is controversy because you seem to be the only one who agrees that the party is in fact neoliberal. You hardly constitute a consensus on all things Liberal, when few users have challenged you on this.--PSYCH 03:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

>I agree, how can anyone assume this party is Neoliberal without offering any links, internal or external? Saying it is just because you think it is, is hardly a reliable source.--Buffy05 04:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no-one, other than an anonomous user and you. who apear to be the same people. have challanged this undisputable fact. just as the earth is round, so does the liberal party have a large neoliberal element. as such, do not disturb me. Xtra 04:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

see http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12197191-1702,00.html if you like for evidence. Xtra 04:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read that article. Only ONE person has "broken ranks," with the government? One person is your "strong" neoliberal faction? That's great evidence to use against your neoliberal claim. I'll make sure they consider it during content mediation. Thanks. - Buffy05 04:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who the other guy is, but of course I'm the anon guy. The admins (the real unbiased admins unlike yourself) told me I ned to reg to be taken seriously with a complaint(you seem to think it's your right to spread false truths about the lib party, and your anti-gay adoption and marriage views speak volumes about the type of person you are).

'''Seeing as how you're more interested in propaganda than the truth, this post probably won't have a long shelf life. We know you like to spin the truth to ensure yourself and your party are seen in a positive light.'''

I hope Mark knows where you stand on these issues. - PSYCH 06:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it odd how, according to you, you supposedly "SUPPORT freedom of and from religion" but then oppose gay marriage and see gay adoption as a last resort (after singles!)? Have you heard of a separation of church and state? How can the "biblical meaning" in any way impact Australian law? Similarly, how can anyone oppose gay marriage without running into a legal web vis-a-vis separation of church and state? Not to mention, the fact that you put gays last for adoption rights demonstrates that not only look down on homosexuality, but you embody the Australian "Liberal" spirit. This is a statement, not a PERSONAL ATTACK.

- PSYCH 07:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * thank you for removing your inflamatory, insulting and innacurate assertions Xtra 01:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calling you something that rhymes with "Mazi" wasn't innacurate, I just didn't want to get banned so I decided to remove it. I think the burden is on you to prove why you're not a (rhymes with "Mazi") because your politcal views closely resemble those of a (rhymes with "Mazi"), your suspicious views on gay marriage and gay adoption speak volumes (when according to you, gays have "plenty of rights."). - PSYCH 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you prefer to silence me than hear the facts? that's fine. You just keep giving me more evidence to use to prove your inherent political bias.

Oh, and Mediation has been sought over your political bias. Check the mediation page. - PSYCH 07:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not trolling; I was trying to present the facts. The fact the he wanted to permanently ban me because I didn't share his POV...well make up your own mind.


 * Regardless, Xtra started all this by smugly questioning why I didn't get into Melbourne Law.




 * Sterling was incorrect when S/he wrote: "The ALP is neo-liberal, balanced budgets, selling off state interests, free trade and lower regulation." This is supposed to be: The Liberal Party is neo-liberal, balanced budgets, selling off state interests, free trade and lower regulation." That's why my HECS have an 8 year quota and were increased by 25%.

Regardless, even if I were 100% correct, given who Xtra's "friends" are I wouldn't stand a chance.

- PSYCH 01:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC "successful" arbitration
Could you please remove the link to the "successful arbitration" ; it is hardly a NPOV (nor an attempt at moving on), considering you yourself were cautioned for occasional personal attacks in the arbitration ruling. -- PSYCH 12:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was not cautioned. read the result. it is not POV. in any case user pages do not need to conform to NPOV. please stop vandalizing my page. Xtra 12:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Cautioned" as in admonished, not as in an official caution, To quote:

"User:Xtra and other have at time been either patronizing or insulting toward User:PSYCH" and that you had "threatened" me. It passed 6-2.

Regardless, I did not vandalise your page, I just asked for an RFC. How can that be possibly be vandalism? -- PSYCH 12:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * the motion of admonishment failed. the only user who the arbitration committee made any sort of order against was you. read the case. Xtra 12:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it states: (to quote)


 * Insults and discourtesy toward PSYCH

9) User:Xtra and other have at time been either patronizing or insulting toward User:PSYCH, see "you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look", "ridiculous claims and partial truths", "buy a dictionary", "I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia", "i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense",  "get a life" and


 * Passed 6-2.''

Secondly, I would like the history notation "vandalism by PSYCH" removed immediately - if you look at the IP address, it's not even Australian, infact, it comes from the University of California (I suggest downloading the program IPNetInfo, or check the ARIN WHOIS database fir the IP name). '''I would like that removed immediately (as I did not do it, and I am on probation), or else I will have to file a complaint to have it removed. End of discussion'''.

Finally, please do not edit my talk page. Why did you post your allegations AGAIN when I had already removed your slander the first time? Now that is vandalism, and I will report it. -- PSYCH 13:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * clicking here will show that you have once again distorted the truth. the motion to admonish me FAILED 2 - 5. you were placed on personal attack parole unnanamously. end of story. Xtra 05:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, considering most of the people making up the arbitration panel were "friends" of yours, it doesn't surprise me they sided with you. That would never float in a court of law, that's for sure.
 * No response regarding your slanderous remarks. I don't want to have anything to do with you either, but accusations like "reverted vandalism by psych" in the history page isn't fair, considering you have no basis whatsoever that it was me, and the IP address wasn't even located in Australia! Speculation isn't enough, and the facts prove me right. Please remove it immediately. I don't want to have to try other avenues....again. Please remove them. -- PSYCH 06:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * it is not nonsense, you claimed that I had vadalized your page when I did not; you made an accusation with no basis whatsoever, and expect me not to complain about your slander? Remove the slander in the history page, or I will have to (once again) have to try other avenues. -- PSYCH 14:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

 * Excuse me, but that is a direct attack on me which is completely unfounded. I am a contributing member of Wikipedia, check my contribs to the HECS and WAIS-III page to name a few. I disagree with Xtra's choice to brag about the arbitration which I have asked a wikikette/3rd opinion on and that is all. I ask you that you keep your insults to yourself, instead of publicising them (considering you were the one who had a hand in the arbitration, which isn't the most impartial of ties is it?). -- PSYCH 04:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooo, excuse me. I apologise. You have made ONE real contribution in the last month. I know you are the vandal and you know you are the vandal, so stop pretending otherwise. Xtra 05:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise you were in charge of wikipedia and had enforced quotas. Regardless, if you keep spreading lies about me, then I'll have to once again go through the DR process... this time asking for fair, impartial mods to assess the situation, not those in cahoots with you. Please stop this unwarranted defamation. In case you need a brush up:
 * slander n.
 * 1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
 * 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
 * -- PSYCH 09:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read the second part of your definition. Xtra 09:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC) p.s. when you do get up to it in your law course, you will learn that a person needs to have a good reputation to be tarnished in the first place to sue for either slander or defamation. Xtra 09:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, that 2nd line pretty much sums you up. You speak in a very, arrogant, Holier-than-thou way, but this is my 6th year of uni, I'm a Melbourne Uni Grad (BA/BSC(HONS)) & starting my law degree at an institution that was good enough for your precious Peter Costello. Not wise to criticise me on that. Anyway, I'm sick of defending myself from someone as stubborn as you, so I'm taking this page of my watchlist. -- PSYCH 09:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

fuck u —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picks.14 (talk • contribs)