The Joe H. challenge to Goethean Options Rating

[victim of censorship]

Now I have a question for Alison?...Why is Goethean allowed to to run like a wild feral animal on Wikipedia and be the abusive jackass he is???

[...]

To bad you don't ban Goethean

For what? Being a dick? There wouldn't be many editors left if bannination was being handed out for that. What has he specifically done that requires admin action? Seriously - I've not really followed the whole Goethean thing (largely because of your own attitude, to be honest, and the fact that I'm trying to disconnect from WP) - at least point me to some *genuine* misdeeds here. Yes, he constantly cries to admins to have your many, many socks banned - and some that clearly aren't yours - I've stepped in before over other innocent editors, as well you know. Oh, and he's got some New Age bee in his bonnet

But other than that, and your personalized campaign against him - what exactly is there?? Help me out here.

WP:CIVIL... WP:AGF.... WP:HARSSMENT...and simple fair play. The simple fact is there is no governance or fair review on Wikipedia??? Just street gangs, warlords and jagoffs (like those who enable GOATHED) and who have no fear of due to the admins that protect the jagoffs like Goathed. I have some history (which was removed) and see how the much respect there was...

Read and learn. Just a little note all of this was removed from Wikipedia by the lovely jackass admins in violation of GNU Free Documentation License to hide the total abuse of me by the ackass admins. In my my attempt to see the my friend Bio was treated fairly, I was treated like subhuman and in the end was abused by a wild eyed partisan democrat in total violation of WP:COI Rob Gamaliel, and his friend Goethean.

I spit on those enablers who help make Wikipedia evil. DAM right it's personal. WIKIPEDIA IS A CESSPOOL OF EVIL and those who enable it are the scum of the earth. I will live a 100 years to see wikipedia diminished to a JOKE and repudiated for the crater of sewerage it is.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Tue 19th October 2010, 4:46am

[Alison]

Ok, so I got the gratuitous insult, etc. I was expecting that. But all I'm seeing here is some dispute back in - what - 2006? And, in fairness, it looks like you got picked on, too I wasn't even an admin back in those days.

Anyways - this is now. What exactly can I do here? You've not given me much reason to even chide the guy, let alone banhammer him! Point out where he's repeatedly breaking the rules, show me the stuff & I'll try to deal with it. From what I can see, he's got some sort of hair-trigger JoeHazelton thing going on, where he sees your socks just about *everywhere* and uses that as a justification to shut down other editors. Now *that* is not cool. I can watch our for and possibly deal with that sort of thing. But what else?

[A Horse With No Name]

Now I have a question for Alison?...Why is Goethean allowed to to run like a wild feral animal on Wikipedia and be the abusive jackass he is???

C'mon, Joe...there are better questions to ask Alison. For instance:

* What's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?
* If I told you that you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?
* Where have you been all of my life?

Turn off the Wiki-hate, Joe, and turn on the Wiki-Love.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

... and the fact that I'm trying to disconnect from WP) - at least point me to some *genuine* misdeeds here.

We are all bidding on Ebay for your admin account ...

I have MuZemike for the first Wikpedian admin to commit suicide online in real time as he finally looks up from his PC, accepts how empty his bedroom and life is, and how futile it all is fighting the tide of scum as it rolls up against Jimbo's massively bloated organ.

Ja, be nice to Alison. She cannot fix everything but she has fixed more than a few.

[victim of censorship]

Ok, so I got the gratuitous insult, etc. I was expecting that. But all I'm seeing here is some dispute back in - what - 2006? And, in fairness, it looks like you got picked on, too I wasn't even an admin back in those days.

Anyways - this is now. What exactly can I do here? You've not given me much reason to even chide the guy, let alone banhammer him! Point out where he's repeatedly breaking the rules, show me the stuff & I'll try to deal with it. From what I can see, he's got some sort of hair-trigger JoeHazelton thing going on, where he sees your socks just about *everywhere* and uses that as a justification to shut down other editors. Now *that* is not cool. I can watch our for and possibly deal with that sort of thing. But what else?

This guy is a real bad actor, and giving him access to the Google juice, which wikipedia has is like giving an addict truck full of coke.

See one small example... Goathed's history This kind of garbage alone is enough to ban him. lets include has constant bullying and edit warring as well
Edit war
More Civility warning
More warnings for being a bullyboy
more love wiki love
more personal attacks

and
one more for the road ....

... on and on and on this guy is out of control, has been for 5 years and shows no sign of letting up.

What else??? Well, you can see that Mr Goathed toes the absolute middle line as to Wikipedia policy of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISPUTE, WP:NPV, WP:GAME, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OWN etc... and for you to have the same kind of "hair trigger" as this goon has, when he steps off of the thin, narrow middle line. There is enough history. Goeathen is example of why Wikipedia is a hell hole it is.

Wake up and look... Blindness is not a very good trait to have as an admin?

[Tarc]

From what I can see, he's got some sort of hair-trigger JoeHazelton thing going on, where he sees your socks just about *everywhere* and uses that as a justification to shut down other editors. Now *that* is not cool. I can watch our for and possibly deal with that sort of thing. But what else?

Perhaps, but he doesn't block them himself that I can see, just files the sock reports. Scrolling down through the lengthy Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton (T-H-L-K-D), seems like a hell of a lot of confirmations by a variety of admins.

So Joe, this is really all about civility? You stalk a guy for 4 years because he was mean to you on teh internets? I figured it was something political or ideological, which while also retarded, would at least be understandable.

[victim of censorship]

From what I can see, he's got some sort of hair-trigger JoeHazelton thing going on, where he sees your socks just about *everywhere* and uses that as a justification to shut down other editors. Now *that* is not cool. I can watch our for and possibly deal with that sort of thing. But what else?

Perhaps, but he doesn't block them himself that I can see, just files the sock reports. Scrolling down through the lengthy Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton (T-H-L-K-D), seems like a hell of a lot of confirmations by a variety of admins.

So Joe, this is really all about civility? You stalk a guy for 4 years because he was mean to you on teh internets? I figured it was something political or ideological, which while also retarded, would at least be understandable.

It was always about "RIGHT" not about the religion of "Wiki"

Lest not forget that "WIKI" is a big failure.

and evil

as well as all the other "normal people's view of Wikipedia?

Finely, you Tac ... apparently your drunk on Grape Jimmy Juice, with out regard to any collective good for the rest of humanity.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Tue 19th October 2010, 10:30pm

[Tarc]

From what I can see, he's got some sort of hair-trigger JoeHazelton thing going on, where he sees your socks just about *everywhere* and uses that as a justification to shut down other editors. Now *that* is not cool. I can watch our for and possibly deal with that sort of thing. But what else?

Perhaps, but he doesn't block them himself that I can see, just files the sock reports. Scrolling down through the lengthy Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton (T-H-L-K-D), seems like a hell of a lot of confirmations by a variety of admins.

So Joe, this is really all about civility? You stalk a guy for 4 years because he was mean to you on teh internets? I figured it was something political or ideological, which while also retarded, would at least be understandable.

It was always about "RIGHT" not about the religion of "Wiki"

Lest not forget that "WIKI" is a big failure.

and evil

as well as all the other "normal people's view of Wikipedia?

Finely, you Tac ... apparently your drunk on Grape Jimmy Juice, with out regard to any collective good for the rest of humanity.

In spectacular JoeHazleton fashion, you didn't even address what I said.

Someone was mean to you on the internet. Big deal. You come across like a newbie that got banned from /b/.

[victim of censorship]

From what I can see, he's got some sort of hair-trigger JoeHazelton thing going on, where he sees your socks just about *everywhere* and uses that as a justification to shut down other editors. Now *that* is not cool. I can watch our for and possibly deal with that sort of thing. But what else?

Perhaps, but he doesn't block them himself that I can see, just files the sock reports. Scrolling down through the lengthy Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton (T-H-L-K-D), seems like a hell of a lot of confirmations by a variety of admins.

So Joe, this is really all about civility? You stalk a guy for 4 years because he was mean to you on teh internets? I figured it was something political or ideological, which while also retarded, would at least be understandable.

It was always about "RIGHT" not about the religion of "Wiki"

Lest not forget that "WIKI" is a big failure.

and evil

as well as all the other "normal people's view of Wikipedia?

Finely, you Tac ... apparently your drunk on Grape Jimmy Juice, with out regard to any collective good for the rest of humanity.

In spectacular JoeHazleton fashion, you didn't even address what I said.

Someone was mean to you on the internet. Big deal. You come across like a newbie that got banned from /b/.

Again, you fail to pick up what I said. I will stated in plain language.

First and foremost, I don't recognize your cult religion of wiki.

Second, Wikipedia is evil and in the long term needs to be shut down.

Third, In the short term, it's fair game to point out Hypocrisy, hate, and hurt Wikipedia and its admin do, as well I will use the rules to protect some of my friends whose (so called) bios exist on Wikipedia, in the short term, even though the wiki rules are almost nonexistent.

Fourth, To use Goethean as a "poster child" of the malfeasance on Wikipedia by pointing out Wikpedia governance, on a micro level.

Fifth, It's personal.

Ps... I did no wrong, under natural law, but me and my friends where wronged. You defend the evil by saying I deserved it... your really are drunk on Jimmy Juice. Wikipedia is wrong and that fact is proven on this web site (WR) by testimony and published fact beyond doubt. Wikipedia wrong should be blamed for the evil, hurt, lies, defamation, and enabling little religious bigots like Geothean to ply his trade on a website with such Google juice (high Google search engine placement).

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Wed 20th October 2010, 5:29pm

[The Joy]

The only way to truly get rid of someone on Wikipedia is to have the patience of an Ent (T-H-L-K-D) and the stealthiness of a ninja.

1-) Start a new account preferably with a new IP address.

2-) Edit in non-controversial areas for several months.

3-) Do several content-happy things such as "Did You Knows?", Good Articles, and Featured Articles.

4-) Work on content with a few administrator editors.

5-) Ask these administrators for help on minor and major things (content, behavioral issues, etc.)

6-) During this time, note Goethean's contributions and the articles he edits. Do not cross with him for the first few months until you are sure that you have a good rapport with the administrators you have befriended.

7-) Make edits on articles near and dear to Goethean's heart. Be sure your edits are within WP's content policy and backed by proper citations, but make sure this counters Goethean's biases on the articles. Eventually, he will confront you.

8-) Argue your case for making the changes based strictly on WP policy. Ask one or more of your administrator friends for guidance in dealing with the dispute.

9-) Back off from the subject for a while (a month or so) to show that you are humble. Revisit Goethean's articles and do Steps 7 and 8 until you and Goethean's dispute is brought up to a public noticeboard. Never initiate the proceedings yourself.

10-) These actions will inevitably reach public noticeboards like the Administrator Noticeboards. Keep calm and again argue your cause for your edits based strictly on WP policy. Ask one or more of your administrator friends that have seen or taken part in mediating between you and Goethean.

11-) At no point on Wikipedia (especially on the noticeboards) should you attack Goethean personally. Note with "diffs" his violations of WP's "CIVIL" and "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS" policies. Note also your attempts to work with him and his resistance. Your administrator friends will likely back you up and provide evidence of their own.

12-) Agree to work on Dispute Resolution (Wikiquette Alerts, Requests for Mediation, Requests for Comment, etc.) with Goethean. If he's as hot-tempered as you make him out to be, he'll refuse. If he doesn't refuse, just go along with it and focus only on Wikipedia policy and how you've adhered to it while Goethean has not. Suggest politely how Goethean could change his behavior and, humbly, admit how you may have done wrong and how you will change yourself to be a better beloved Wikipedian. Humor Goethean's suggestions to change your own behavior.

13-) After completing Dispute Resolution, repeat Step 9 and, if necessary, 10, 11, and 12.

14-) Repeat Step 13 until Goethean finally explodes and commits gross violations of CIVIL and NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Ask your administrator friends for help. They will likely tell you to take it for wider public comment. Bring this to a public noticeboard like AN/I. The Community will likely sanction or ban Goethean or tell you take it to Arbitration.

15-) By now, you've completed Dispute Resolution and had multiple witnesses, including your powerful administrator friends, to Goethean's violations. You have given him enough rope and have enough evidence to get the Arbitration Committee or the Community to ban him.

16-) Goethean may return after a time on wiki-parole or after his ban. If he still gets your goat, simply repeat this process and always take the high road of kindness and wiki-love. He'll be banned again before you know it! It's even better when he socks and you can go to Tiptoety and ask him to ban Goethean's socks! The irony!

That is how you successfully remove your enemies from Wikipedia. The downside is it takes months, a year, or more than a year to go through all the necessary steps, but that's how it is. How does a flea drain an elephant of it's blood? Little by little over a very long time. You must have patience (and maybe even be psychotic) to go through all this trouble.

What's also sad is that if this were television, you would at the end win a million dollars from Jeff Probst (T-H-L-K-D).

Anything else I missed?

[victim of censorship]

The only way to truly get rid of someone on Wikipedia is to have the patience of an Ent (T-H-L-K-D) and the stealthiness of a ninja.

1-) Start a new account preferably with a new IP address.

2-) Edit in non-controversial areas for several months.

3-) Do several content-happy things such as "Did You Knows?", Good Articles, and Featured Articles.

4-) Work on content with a few administrator editors.

5-) Ask these administrators for help on minor and major things (content, behavioral issues, etc.)

6-) During this time, note Goethean's contributions and the articles he edits. Do not cross with him for the first few months until you are sure that you have a good rapport with the administrators you have befriended.

7-) Make edits on articles near and dear to Goethean's heart. Be sure your edits are within WP's content policy and backed by proper citations, but make sure this counters Goethean's biases on the articles. Eventually, he will confront you.

8-) Argue your case for making the changes based strictly on WP policy. Ask one or more of your administrator friends for guidance in dealing with the dispute.

9-) Back off from the subject for a while (a month or so) to show that you are humble. Revisit Goethean's articles and do Steps 7 and 8 until you and Goethean's dispute is brought up to a public noticeboard. Never initiate the proceedings yourself.

10-) These actions will inevitably reach public noticeboards like the Administrator Noticeboards. Keep calm and again argue your cause for your edits based strictly on WP policy. Ask one or more of your administrator friends that have seen or taken part in mediating between you and Goethean.

11-) At no point on Wikipedia (especially on the noticeboards) should you attack Goethean personally. Note with "diffs" his violations of WP's "CIVIL" and "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS" policies. Note also your attempts to work with him and his resistance. Your administrator friends will likely back you up and provide evidence of their own.

12-) Agree to work on Dispute Resolution (Wikiquette Alerts, Requests for Mediation, Requests for Comment, etc.) with Goethean. If he's as hot-tempered as you make him out to be, he'll refuse. If he doesn't refuse, just go along with it and focus only on Wikipedia policy and how you've adhered to it while Goethean has not. Suggest politely how Goethean could change his behavior and, humbly, admit how you may have done wrong and how you will change yourself to be a better beloved Wikipedian. Humor Goethean's suggestions to change your own behavior.

13-) After completing Dispute Resolution, repeat Step 9 and, if necessary, 10, 11, and 12.

14-) Repeat Step 13 until Goethean finally explodes and commits gross violations of CIVIL and NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Ask your administrator friends for help. They will likely tell you to take it for wider public comment. Bring this to a public noticeboard like AN/I. The Community will likely sanction or ban Goethean or tell you take it to Arbitration.

15-) By now, you've completed Dispute Resolution and had multiple witnesses, including your powerful administrator friends, to Goethean's violations. You have given him enough rope and have enough evidence to get the Arbitration Committee or the Community to ban him.

16-) Goethean may return after a time on wiki-parole or after his ban. If he still gets your goat, simply repeat this process and always take the high road of kindness and wiki-love. He'll be banned again before you know it! It's even better when he socks and you can go to Tiptoety and ask him to ban Goethean's socks! The irony!

That is how you successfully remove your enemies from Wikipedia. The downside is it takes months, a year, or more than a year to go through all the necessary steps, but that's how it is. How does a flea drain an elephant of it's blood? Little by little over a very long time. You must have patience (and maybe even be psychotic) to go through all this trouble.

What's also sad is that if this were television, you would at the end win a million dollars from Jeff Probst (T-H-L-K-D).

Anything else I missed?

How do you know I'm not in process.

[Somey]

How do you know I'm not in process.

Because you wouldn't have time to post new threads about Goatbag here if you were doing all that stuff...?

I actually consider User:Goethean's most egregious offenses to be some of the more recent ones, which suggests that he's burning out and losing patience to some degree. In particular, his insistence on trying to paint Ramakrishna as some sort of sex-crazed pervert seemed like the sort of thing someone would do once he started getting less interested in the gamesmanship and more interested in just getting pissed off at anyone who disagrees with him.

Alison, you participated in that thread - were you not reading the posts about what he was actually doing? IMO people have been banned for less than that before, at least when it was Christian or Jewish religious figures being attacked in that fashion. Then again, they banned User:Ptmccain and a variety of others for trying to defend Western religious figures too... but hey, inconsistent application of rules is what Wikipedia is all about, I suppose.

[Sxeptomaniac]

The only way to truly get rid of someone on Wikipedia is to have the patience of an Ent (T-H-L-K-D) and the stealthiness of a ninja.

Patience and cunning... I'm sure everyone immediately thinks of VOC when those words come up.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: Thu 21st October 2010, 3:10pm

[victim of censorship]

How do you know I'm not in process.

Because you wouldn't have time to post new threads about Goatbag here if you were doing all that stuff...?

I actually consider User:Goethean's most egregious offenses to be some of the more recent ones, which suggests that he's burning out and losing patience to some degree. In particular, his insistence on trying to paint Ramakrishna as some sort of sex-crazed pervert seemed like the sort of thing someone would do once he started getting less interested in the gamesmanship and more interested in just getting pissed off at anyone who disagrees with him.

Alison, you participated in that thread - were you not reading the posts about what he was actually doing? IMO people have been banned for less than that before, at least when it was Christian or Jewish religious figures being attacked in that fashion. Then again, they banned User:Ptmccain and a variety of others for trying to defend Western religious figures too... but hey, inconsistent application of rules is what Wikipedia is all about, I suppose.

Actually, I have been doing a lot of walking precincts for Brady, Fortner, Hultgen and don't have that kind of time, since Real life is more important the the religion of wiki.

Maybe 3 or 4 years ago I would have taken the time, but in the present, I push in efforts to educate the local elected officials, particularity the congressmen (personally know 3) to change section 260 CDMA and the total evil and lies which wiki is all about.

Any rate Alison, by her ignoring Gothed's antics is enabling them and by her inaction, consents to them. No amount of apologetic will change that fact.

Any rate, I watch and wait.

Some more history of Goathed online to see his war with those who don't agree with his way.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Thu 21st October 2010, 8:43pm

[Sxeptomaniac]

Real life is more important the the religion of wiki.

This is a sensible, fairly wise statement.

[Subtle Bee]

Real life is more important the the religion of wiki.

This is a sensible, fairly wise statement.

well, almost.

[victim of censorship]

Looks like Goethean mans up all right

Cowards!!! I call cowards those who enable this tub of over educated shit.


==So afraid to confront the demon==

What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that, me, (an uneducated person) will show you to be worng? Whats the matter, You can't face your accuser and tell me why your so right and the world at large so wrong??? You may have friends who enable your antics here (Wikipedia) but in real life, you're just a little man, wound to tight and full of nonsense. Again show me, at Wikipedia review, why you are not an evil pimple on the ass of life.~~~~"

Update.... Looks like Goethean punks out....

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Fri 22nd October 2010, 5:55am

[Subtle Bee]

Again show me, at Wikipedia review, why you are not an evil pimple on the ass of life.~~~~"

For the love of God, please make this the next site tagline. Thx!

[TungstenCarbide]

Again show me, at Wikipedia review, why you are not an evil pimple on the ass of life.~~~~"

For the love of God, please make this the next site tagline. Thx!

+1

[Somey]

...in the present, I push in efforts to educate the local elected officials, particularity the congressmen (personally know 3) to change section 260 CDMA...

Well, no wonder we're not making more progress on this issue! You're trying to get them to change the wrong section!