User talk:Prometheuspan/ArbcomCase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] user:merecat

[edit] Involved parties

User:Prometheuspan user:merecat (and others) Merecat has been illegally deleting my comments, repeatedly, to a talk page Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have left a message for merecat on his talk page. I'm not sure what a "dif" is, or, how to "show" one, but i will look at the examples below and try. User talk:Merecat

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comment has allready been tried. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Merecat Request for mediation is apparently Voluntary, and as near as I can tell, Merecat has no intention of submitting to mediation. Further, I am informed that Mediation carries no consequences, and as far as I am concerned, this looks like grounds for banning. More importantly, it is clear to me that without real consequences, this behavior would continue, and it is extremely abusive.

[edit] Statement by party 1

User talk:prometheuspan/ArbcomCase

Merecat has repeatedly deleted my comments to a talk page, has lied and misrepresented doing so, and is gaming the system to keep the article stalled. Please just go look at the edit History, I think that more than prooves the facts, and says as much as needs to be said.

The rebutal by merecat focuses on events that transpired after the first few times that merecat deleted things illegally. I did put a lot of information up that was poorly formatted; it was copies of things he had illegally deleted. Under those circumstances, it is hardly reasonable to assume that it is fair to assume that i should go off into some closet with him. The rebutal is frankly more lies. Also, the copyright violation was alleged, i contacted the editor and have permission. And, merecat did not only delete the article, but deleted the link to the article, AND my comments. Prometheuspan 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) I hope that this is the propper way to do this, somebody told me i have to be the one to present the evidence. I wish i knew how to shrink the things down, but i am a total newbie with extreme dyslexia so you will have to forgive me. This is a partial list, I will continue to search the history when i have the time. [1]

Prometheuspan 03:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[6] [7]

[8] Christopher parham now joins Merecat in illegal deletions.

[9] my first post of the argument to write article.

[10] my post of valerie plame

[15] This may be the one time that Merecats actions were not clearly biased.

[16]

I have gone far back enough now in the edit history to show that this is a pattern of merecats. [17]

[edit] Statement by party 2

<merecat> Prometheuspan is a late comer to the ongoing difficult dialog at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Granted the dialog there has been slow lately, but the enormous amount of garbled talk page information Prometheuspan posted there has not helped.

<pan> The fact of the matter is, that information was garbled because it was retrieved from the history after merecat deleted it.

<merecat> I have been very explicit in my willinginess to talk with Prometheuspan.

<pan> Sure, after deleting materials, he insists that instead of me reposting them, that i wander off into a closet to discuss those things with him personally. Who in their right mind would agree to such a conversation?

<merecat> However, what I asked him to do was organize his bulky concerns onto a sub page which I had created (since deleted by somenone) and to which, I had posted a link on talk. Also, one of the things Prometheuspan had posted which I did delete (rather than attempt to organize) was an "ad" for an MSN broswer bar [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

<pan> That link was included to provide context that this was a message posted from the editor of Truthout authorizing me to reprint their materials except in cases where a third parties copyright issues were specifically involved. In those cases, extra copyright information is given per the page. I was prooving that i did indeed know the rules and was abiding by them. I do not object to the deletion of such a small detail provided for context, this is an easy straw man argument, and thats all it is.

<merecat> title=Talk:Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=50050047&oldid=50049988] (that deleted MSN ad originally arrived as part of a much larger posting by Prometheuspan). I am uncertain what Prometheuspan's complaint is, other than he's suffered the passing indignity of my attempt to organize his concerns so as to talk with him about them.

<pan> This is simply gaming the system and lying. Merecat knows full well that he has deleted my comments on multiple occasions without due cause, and knows full well that what i printed which was badly formatted was only retrieved from the history because he deleted it.

<merecat> As soon as it became apparent that Prometheuspan had no intention of utilizing the sub page which I created for his bulky material, I desisted from advancing that idea.

<pan> Again, i ask, who in their right mind would actually submit to being shuffled into a closet under those conditions?

<merecat> Frankly, I would not be surpised if Prometheuspan is actually a sleeper sock who has sprung into action trying to cause chaos on this article's talk page.

<pan> My name is John Mark Bassist, and I am willing to do whatever is required to proove my identity to the ArbCom. I am not a sock, and further, again, this is noise and a straw man argument.

<merecat> This article has been the focus of considerable dialog and also an RFC, which if you read the full details of, you'd see there is only limited support for those who are doing most of the complaining. I do not feel that Prometheuspan's interaction has been extensive enough to warrant this complaint.

<pan> My complaint is warranted as merecat deletes without cause fully the equivalent of several physical white paper pages of material, without cause, and for the purpose of destroying my argument, and for no other reason, realistically. Further, The extensiveness of my interaction is irrelevant if this behavior is as grevious as i say. Clearly, Merecat is used to getting away with it, and gaming the system, etc. Abuse is abuse, and this is Abuse, and I did tell merecat to quit the abuse, and the abuse did continue, and, the issue here is not how long i have been around, but only whether or not merecats actions are abusive.

<merecat> It's clear that no lasting harm has befallen either Prometheuspan or the talk dialog as a result of my attempt to address his concerns onto a sub page. Prometheuspan could easily shrug this off and post some actual questions to me (regarding the article), one at a time, on that talk page.

<pan> Again, one does not talk or chat with a person who is illegally deleting material and lying about it, who is using ad hominem and straw man arguments against his other "foil", and who has demonstrated thusly that they are acting in bad faith. Trying to talk to such a person is just feeding a troll.

<merecat> Instead, what we got was an enormous data dump by Prometheuspan and his needlessly shrill reaction to my efforts to address it.

<pan> That enormous data dump was as enormous as it is only because that is the size of the information which merecat deleted, illegally, without cause. I am sorry that the information is badly formatted, have taken steps to clean it up, and, as a side point, was in the process of cleaning it up when he deleted it AGAIN.

<merecat> If Prometheuspan is not in fact a sock or talk page vandal and has been offended by my edit summary asserting there was vandalism, then I apologize. He too though, must make efforts to actually dialog,

<pan> I am open to dialogue with persons that are not obviously and apparently abusive. I am sensibly opposed to dialogue with people who are only using that as more time and energy to fuel their obstructionist efforts. No sane person, subjected to merecats tactics, would agree to dialogue with him.

<merecat> not just post reams and reams of disorganized material.

<pan> Again, the material was recovered from the history after being illegally deleted, and this is why it was disorganized.

<merecat> This case should be remanded for dialog between Prometheuspan and myself -

<pan> I categorically exclude any solution which requires me to "dialogue" with a blatant liar and manipulator. I am willing to de-escalate to mediation, if that is the judgement of ArbCom. Again, no sane person subjected to such abuse would be willing to be subjected to more of it. Merecat has demonstrated that he is acting in bad faith, that he is lying, and that he is manipulating. "Don't feed Trolls."

aimed at specific concerns which he has about specific edits or point I've raised in regards to edits at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. As it stands right now, the whole cloth of Prometheuspan's complaint here is that he's rushed in with an enormous data dump on a talk page and has made no realistic effort to manage the consequences of that

<pan> Again, this is a blatant lie. The wholecloth of my complaint is that merecat illegally deleted materials, and is now pretending it never happened, and that i data dumped masses of material out of thin air.

<merecat> other than to extensively complain about me. One final note: when posting this RfA, Prometheuspan said "I wish i knew how to shrink the things down, but i am a total newbie with extreme dyslexia so you will have to forgive me." [18] and when posting a talk page comment elsewhere said "In fact, an interesting side point, I have asperger syndrome, and dishonesty is sort of like nearly incomprehensible to me." [19] I ask that the veracity of those two statements be measured by the extremely concise and cogent posting left by Promethusepan recently on Jimbo's talk page, here. Merecat 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

<pan> I do have extreme dyslexia and asperger syndrome, and this makes handling language a very different problem for me than it is for other people in a variety of ways that others can't appreciate. This is irrelevant. I also have very advanced coping mechanisms, and can do as well as most on a good day. The materials posted were badly formatted because they were retrieved from the history after being deleted by merecat.

[edit] Statement by Christopher Parham

Although Merecat has occasionally overstepped the bounds of appropriate behavior, his conduct regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush has generally been acceptable, though not very helpful in resolving the continuing content dispute. The RFC against Merecat was related to that content dispute, and not the evidence presented above. Regarding this dispute, the comments of Prometheuspan's that were removed by Merecat were somewhat disrupting the talk page by their poor formatting and enormous length --

<pan> Again, this only happened as a result of Merecats illegal deletions, and my recovery from the history of what was illegally deleted. Mr. Parham by now knows this, and is just participating in a con game.

<parham> Prometheuspan was initially unreceptive to suggestions that he use a subpage, rather than the main talk page, to create new drafts of the article. He has since moved his work to a subpage of his user space.

<pan> Clearly the reason why i did this is because it would be a further and deeper violation of the rules for merecat to delete materials out of my own sandbox. This is NOT a reasonable way to have to deal with the issue, it is a tactic that became neccessary because i can't trust anything i post to stay posted.

In one of the diffs Prometheuspan provides, Merecat was legitimately removing the full text of a copyrighted news article from the talk page.

<pan> That resource was known to me to be open for redistribution under the terms of its fair use contract when I did that. Further, and in any case, merecat did not only delete the article as posted, but also deleted the link to the article, and MY PERSONAL comments. I have since contacted the editor, and posted the permission granted to me to use the article as long as attributions remain intact.

<parham> In the other diffs, Merecat's action was inappropriate -- especially the edit summaries -- but this is a minor dispute that does not warrant Arbcom attention at the moment. It can probably be resolved peacefully in time if someone neutral is keeping an eye on the situation. I urge rejection. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

<pan>

Parham is far from a neutral third voice in this, and is essentially playing the same con game that Merecat is. I reject his call for rejection on the grounds that he is operating out of bias.

[edit] An analysis of Difs

[edit] Dif1

Summary; Merecat deleted two statements by Nescio, and an entire page of my comments in this dif alone. He also deleted my request to quit deleting.

[edit] Dif2

Merecat deletes two statements by Nescio, and an entire page of my comments in this dif. Note, this is the same page of comments, I had reposted from the history. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dif3

Merecat deletes an entire page of my comments. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dif4

Merecat deletes my link, My personal comments, and a relevant article which he >>may<< have had reason to beleive was copyright violation. It wasn't. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dif5

Merecat deletes the article (one of these times after i reposted it knowing full well i wasn't in copyright violation) AND AGAIN deletes my comments; mercats other deletions, nevermind the copywright issue merecat didn't just delete the alleged copywright issue information. Also deleted was MY COMMENTARY.

I have read the discussion with interest. My observation is that this looks to me to be, in my opinion, a nitpickers guide to obstructionism.

Rather than bother to show this cogently using logic, I think it is more useful and purposeful to simply begin a proof compilation. Since I belong to several groups, and have been part of the truth movement since the beginning, i could take this to mean dumping hundreds of good proofs. Today, I'd just like to focus on one. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dif6

Here, Merecat not only deletes what some might argue was a badly formatted retrieval, but also deletes above it propperly formated comments. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dif7

Here, Merecat deletes my comments which admittedly are badly formatted, Nescios comments, which i have rescued from being deleted, and another of nescios comments. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dif8

Here, Mr Parham takes the opportunity provided by moving my original comments to the bottom of the page, and apaprently uses it to delete a completely different comment, as well as one of nescios comments. (I admit that my smaller second comment may have been noisy enough in this instance to warrant deletion.) Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dif11

(Difs 9,10,11 are added for reference.)

Here, merecat deletes two signed comments, each about a small paragraph long, and a much longer post of my comments about a physical page long, explaining in edit history only "Unsigned" comments". (The third set of comments i forgot to sign. This doesn't mean it isn't obvious who i am, and the two sets of signed comments that are also deleted pretty much busts his excuse.) Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dif12

Here, merecat deletes my comments and uses the excuse that i am making a personal attack,. the opposite is true, i am defending against a personal attack. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dif13

Here, merecat deletes what he might actually reasonably argue was a personal attack. My argument would be that no, this is by this time simply a factual evaluation of whats going on. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dif14

Here, merecat deletes a page worth of personal comments. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dif15

Here, merecat deletes a page of material which is by majority the valerie plame article, but also deletes the link and my personal comments. (I reposted after being deleted.) Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dif16

Again, the valerie plame article and my personal comments, i believe for the first time, deleted. I can accept in theory the idea that merecat deleting what was thought to be copyrighted material was in good faith. I cannot except that the deletion of the link and my personal comments is an action in good faith. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dif17

I went back far enough into the history and found a great example. Merecat doesn't just delete me without cause, he probably does it to any new user he thinks he can get away with it; anybody who is a flyby or who probably won't stand up to him, or who won't pass the internal reality check. As a point of fact, the deletion excuse is either a lie or a demonstration that Merecat is factually ignorant, the comments posted by the anonymous poster are in fact those generated inside of the factual legal effort to impeach. This is a deletion of factual material deleted really for no real good reason other than that it would seriously cramp the argument against the rationale to impeach. The material is a full page or so long. Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter from truthout

From : editor@truthout.org <editor@truthout.org> Sent : Monday, April 24, 2006 12:36 AM To : prometheuspan panprometheus <prometheuspan@hotmail.com> Subject : Re: copyright???

 |  |  | Inbox

Hello prometheuspan, Thank you for writing truthout about permission to use our articles. You may reprint and use articles by Truthout authors, provided credit is given. However, many of the articles we post are from other sources. You would need to inquire about use from the original sources, links to which are provided at the top of each such article.

Hope this helps John Button Technology Manager

prometheuspan panprometheus wrote:

   please help. Am using your articles in discussions and arguments and can't find your fair

use/ copyright policy? Is it fair use to reprint on the net for you folks? (my assumption has been that acreditation is the key issue here, that as longas the copyright flags and authors names as well as truthout stays in the document, that truthout wants the truth out and is thus probably willing to allow fiar use.) Thanks for your time and energy on this. sincerely, prometheuspan ps the specific case in question is the discussion page over the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush Prometheuspan 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)