Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 28

Moved from WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 28
(The following was moved from the DRV discussion, since it referred solely to edits to the DRV discussion, rather than the DRV itself.) Without evidence, that "indication" in your mind is nothing more than an assumption. I've become pretty defensive myself of certain things as a mere result of having worked on them at Wikipedia. Had others thought as you are, they might've likewise accused me. The bottom line is you don't know what could be motivating Lexein, and you shouldn't assume you do know -- but if you feel you do have serious cause, you should bring it up somewhere officially, rather than merely mention it in an offhand way.
 * Procedural Fault I have undone Lexein's edits to my analysis. It's my analysis and not Lexein's.  It is not libel as it is a summary of what they said in the MFD and therefore not untrue.  Furthermore if Lexein wishes to move forward with the claims of libel, he must first request that I modify it and secondly Libel is a specific word used to chill discussion and therefore subject to the WP:NLT prohibited language.  Lexein is strongly advised to present their own evidence showing how the summary is false and let outside editors decide. Hasteur (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And again Lexein takes a creative and oblique interpertation of changing others comments. Undid again.  Please respect the general consensus and object in your comments. Hasteur (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And again he undoes me. 3rd time.  Next time it's off to 3RR with you. The Diff specifically shows where you attempt to claim that the keep should be motivated by others actions.  That's not libel, it's a summary of your own statement.  I claim the Vandalism exception as none of Lexein's undos meet the WP:TPO rules. Hasteur (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By repeatedly deleting my discussion, you've been acting in extremely bad faith. Your edit summary asserting vandalism is also laughably false. As I said:
 * This is not your talk page. Never misrepresent my words. I restruck your lie (as it may uncontroversially be described), as I am directly permitted to do, as already stated above (really, I am entitled to delete). And I've already refuted your lie with diffs to the direct evidence. Above, you may keep your struck statement in place, and may insert "Keep while archive.is is in use anywhere on WP. There's no consensus to universally stop using archive.is." exactly, and may then remove my signature there, but not my anchor. These are my conditions, which constitute a "request", for the purposes of honoring the spirit and letter of a properly run DRV. And I'm entitled to revert twice more, because four literal reverts are needed to justify a trip to 3rr, which you should know. --Lexein (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your added diff justifies your unabashedly false summary of my key arguments. It in fact supports only my position, not yours. Stop lying, and wikilawyering. --Lexein (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you admit that the 2nd line in where you say "This unseemly use of words like "botnet" "spambot", and "illegal" (by User:Kww) and "sock" and "SPA" by (User:Someone not using his real name), without really solid substantiating evidence is in astonishingly bad faith, and it disgusts me."  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.  Either you wrote that and my summary is accurate, or someone else did and there fore your account is compromised and therefor it should be blocked.  The words you use only expose your lack of understanding.  Libel is printed words that are not truth.  Using the word Libel has a chilling effect and is specifically prohibited from being used to describe other editors on wikipeida.  It implies that you are considering seeking legal action outside of wikipedia.  I hope that is not your intention, however your continued use of the work is indicative that you intend to use a legal threat to get me to stop persuing this issue.  Therefore I give you this opportunity to strike every instance of the word prior to my filing an AN/I thread asking for your actions to be evaluated within the prisim of the No Legal Threats policy. Hasteur (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand by every word I've ever written, as I've repeatedly said. I wrote that single diff which you falsely summarize, but you have born false witness about what I wrote. Your summary is deliberately misrepresentative of 6, based not on the major points I made, but a deliberate misreading of selected text, intended solely to paint me in a bad light, and not supported by the evidence. You even confuse clear argument, and clear expression of opinion. Your false summary is clearly not based on the obvious major points I made in response to the XFD. No reasonable person would summarize my arguments the way you did. Your attempt to cover your falsehood with threats of AN/I are laughable, and any such action will fail. I've always found to be in the right, or not wrong. I will defend my WP:TALK-based right to strike your lie, and now simply request that you follow through with your offer to change your summary if requested, made above by you. --Lexein (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, I think it might be best to just remove the summaries altogether from your original post, of your own accord. They're not necessary, and as I alluded to in my comment above, summarizing other people's statements is often asking for trouble. This exchange also isn't helping the DRV, and hopefully everyone can agree to it being removed once the summaries are gone. equazcion   →  23:56, 28 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * I have striked and collapsed the original text. I replaced it with a more neutrally worded summary to explain why I consider the consensus that was rendered by the admin to be incorrect. Untill such time that my opponent strikes all of his falsities and apologizes to everyone in the thread, I am politely declining to strike any further commentary as I believe their actions here, in concert with the actions at the MFD, and the Archive.is RFC demonstrate a significant pattern of throw rocks first and never back down from an untenable position. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Collapsing is not removing, and is not sufficient. Only deletion or replacement by my true quoted summary will suffice. Collapsing is a ruse, to continue to publicly lie about me and my words. --Lexein (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "summaries" are not gone. And your rewording "one editor whose conduct at the MFD was to point at other editors as the problem" still perpetuates a lie about me. It still confuses argument with opinion, by leaning on the opinion as if it were the argument. I politely decline your request that I apologize, because I was the party whom you lied about, and persist in lying about. You have the moral obligation to change your false summary of my arguments to "Keep while archive.is is in use anywhere on WP. There's no consensus to universally stop using archive.is." Or, you can delete all of your summaries, as requested.  I have struck my use of the word libel, but I'm won't be striking the quote of WP:TPOC - that's not required, as it's a quote of policy/guideline, well cited, as my argument for striking your false summary. --Lexein (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd actually like the summary of my perspective removed as well, as it's inaccurate and incomplete. But the justification for a request like that is sort of irrelevant. You could disagree and feel your assessment is accurate, but anyone would feel that way. What really matters is if the person you're summarizing feels it's accurate, and as a matter of courtesy, if they feel it's inaccurate, you should remove it. If you want to keep a summary of the arguments you feel were presented at the XfD, I would replace the user -> rationale list you have there now with a paragraph that doesn't mention specific users. Just my take. equazcion   →  20:47, 29 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with the discussion move, I'm still quite unhappy about continuing to be misrepresented in a collapsed box. I really want Hasteur's false summary of my arguments completely removed. What shall we do? There's got to be something. --Lexein (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many things that are wanted that just ain't going to happen. For example: I want you to be permanently topic banned for the, what I can only assume, undisclosed Conflict of Interest you have with the service.  Because other editors have commented on the text and used it to form their own viewpoints, the text CANT be deleted.  Your constant Copy Edits and naming repeatedly after you've expressed your viewpoint that you disagree only shows how much further your involvement with the service is.  Throw in the towel and give it up as you only make it more difficult for Archive.is to ever be accepted. Hasteur (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've repeatedly said, if you're sure that I have any COI, or any involvement whatsoever with Archive.is, other than as an independent Wikipedia editor in long good standing, just take me to any noticeboard you like to take your losses and your well-deserved WP:BOOMERANG. Until then, you're going to have to stop with the accusations. No matter what you say, you're wrong. Copyedits? Wow, there's an accusation. Pfft. --Lexein (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, the text most certainly can be deleted. It's been well-established on the main discussion page that your summaries are in question, and people have assuredly not relied on them for their own comments here. In case they have, you can provide a note in place of the removed summaries -- and even drop a note on commenters' talk pages, if this really concerns you that much. If I were so inclined I could find many, many, many instance of posters who graciously removed things from their original posts long after a multitude of replies when they realized that people took issue, and it was much appreciated by everyone involved. As for Lexein's possible COI, this is the first I'm hearing of it, and if your only evidence is how much s/he seems to care about the service, that would not be very AGF of you. equazcion   →  12:55, 31 Oct 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Lexein's support of Archive.is (At the RFC, the MFD, the "Using Archive.is", and other locations) indicates (in my mind) the same level of fanatical devotion and disregard of common sense that only a COI could engender. 2. Lexein's attempts to smear me by calling my assertions lies/bullying/bullshit when I show that their own statements are more containing of falisty proves that they are refusing to accept reality and instead inhabit a world of PoV against wikipedia. 3. My offers for removal have been declined on multiple occasions by the editor in question. Is it not a generally accepted truth that unless compelled by law, the way to get something is to compromise.  I have yet to see a compromise by Lexein, only demands, illegitimate editing of my comments, and generally poor behavior.  What benefit do I have in conceding my position when Lexein has refused to budge one iota in their own falsities (See also Obama's negotiations with the congressional Republicans a month ago)? Users are free to read my text and they can decide wether or not to agree with my summary (i.e. "We Report, You Decide"). Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My support is for all archive services which provide accurate archiving, with no clear nefarious purpose. Nothing you say about me beyond that is true. I haven't smeared anyone. You deliberately lied about my words, and about me, and you continue to do so. This is uncontroversially true. Your single offer (not "offers") for removal were lies, and burdened with a preposterous requirement for me, the injured party by your lies, to apologize to you. I compromised by striking my use of the word libel - I'm not required anywhere to alter the quote of WP:TPOC, and I don't you should think that's required. Striking through your falsehoods, per TPOC, is legitimate, because your falsehoods were beyond the pale. So, if we're counting, I've compromised more than I was willing, and that's enough. Your "offer", if you don't now honor it, was a lie at its root. --Lexein (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I asked for a full striking of every lie and smear against me and an apology to everyone in the thread. Your behind the scenes scheming and changing of my text after I objected to it demonstrates the leven of compromise you're willing to work with. But all of this is over now. The RfC closed with no, the DRV is closed because the question is now moot, the "Help Page" has been changed to reflect the broad consensus of "Using Archive.is?  Don't".Hasteur (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I specified exactly where you lied about my words, and everyone can see it. You've never specified, nor can you prove, anything I lied about or smeared you about. Nobody else asked for an apology, so your request was merely rhetorical and void: vis, a lie. Deal with it. Also, I've done nothing "behind the scenes." WTF are you talking about? I see that you continue to ignore 's very civil and polite rebuttals to your acrimonious behavior, and very correct and proper suggestions for your rather easy rehabilitation. --Lexein (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As for the removal request, you're rather describing a WP:BATTLEGROUND justification for keeping the summaries up, as if your side would be "conceding defeat unnecessarily", so to speak. This isn't a matter of law, it doesn't matter what Lexein did prior, and there does not have to be any benefit to you, in order for you to heed the removal request. There just has to be you, doing something for someone else, of your own accord.

The point of having summaries such as the ones you posted is for the express purpose of providing a shortened version of the XfD so that people don't necessarily need to examine the original. There's no reason to have them remain if you think people will just have to examine the original anyway in order to compare yours for accuracy. equazcion  →  13:53, 31 Oct 2013 (UTC)

I removed the names from your summary, which I think at least makes the whole thing slightly less provocative. The names don't seem all that essential to the point anyway. equazcion  →  14:01, 31 Oct 2013 (UTC)