Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Discussion

Hostility and intimidation towards Project members and dissenting editors by User:A Man In Black. Fig.1A; Fig.2B (content in question has been removed by User:A Man In Black.)
Unilateral and destructive edits to articles with no advance discussion and ignorance of dissenting opinions and project consensus by User:A Man In Black. Fig.2A; Fig.2B
Forming "consensus" with unrelated editors in an attempt to override existing views of project members by User:A Man In Black. Fig.3A; Fig.3B
Blocking editors with dissenting opinions and other abuses of administrative privilege by User:A Man In Black.Fig.4
Destruction of images with valid fair-use rationales and significant article contribution based on questionable policy interpretation and without discussion or consensus, and recently without any policy citation or justification, by User:A Man In Black. Fig.5A; | Fig.5B (log not viewable while image still exists)
Refusal to acknowledge existing consensus viewpoints or debate with dissenting editors by User:A Man In Black.Fig.6
Tacit support of WP:POINT campaign by anonymous IPs favoring damaged revisions by User:A Man In Black. Fig.7
Providing "consensus" on project talk pages at block-point by User:A Man In Black.Fig.8A; Fig.8B

MalikCarr 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every edit I've made to a Gundam page has been reverted on sight (if they saw it) by MalikCarr and Jtrainor (and sometimes Kyaa the Catlord).

Jtrainor has been content to silently revert, limiting his responses to open hostility or just deathly silence. I have little idea what problem he has had with my edits, and I have frequently misattribued MalikCarr's stated goals and points and beliefs to him.

MalikCarr appears of the opinion that there is an "Orwellian regime" of deletionists seeking to convince everyone else that they're trying to help the encyclopedia while secretly working to destroy it, and that I am the latest member of this conspiracy of deletionists. As he sees Wikipedia as the staging ground of a "take no prisoners" conflict between inclusionists and deletionists (and only deletionists believe it isn't one, of course), he refuses to have dealings with deletionists (who never concede or compromise anyway). Most of the diffs are old, because I've pretty much given up on talking to MC, since the response is inevitably more of the same rhetoric.

Kyaa, as far as I can tell, is a reasonable person who has grown frustrated with me becoming increasingly unreasonable in my dealings with unreasonable people.

I would like to talk to Jtrainor, find out what he wants and why. I would like to be able to relax and stop biting Kyaa's head off. (Jeez, I've been a real jerk to Kyaa for no good reason.) I would like MalikCarr to lose the USENET Must-Win-The-Holy-War-At-All-Costs mentality and join us on a project where people work together to write an encyclopedia.

I would also like to call attention to the mess going on right now at MSN-02 Zeong and Talk:MSN-02 Zeong. Same situation I ended up in; someone comes along, fixes grammar and removes some silly junk, gets reverted on sight and verbally abused by MalikCarr for touching his article. Andrew c's description of that situation is similar to this one, if you replace accusations of vandalism with accusations of deletionism. Paranoia and rabid ownership (the "Don't Touch Our Shit" mentality I've mentioned elsewhere) are not appropriate on Wikipedia.

I haven't made even the slightest effort to make this neutral. Feel free to move it somewhere else appropriate; it's more of a statement than a list of issues to mediate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Having conspiratorial beliefs about heavy-handed editing and administrative processes based on existing evidence, shaky though it may be, are not against policy or guidelines. On the other hand, despite many attempted compromises, revert warring against established consensus, then trying to invent one that doesn't exist... well, I'll leave that for the mediation committee to issue a ruling on. At any rate, supporting a vandal who violates just about every policy under the sun and then accuses us of being the trolls and policy-breakers makes me cry. Deletionist or not, you're better than that. Has this confrontation really gotten so petty?

Plus, I'm unreasonable? Oh come on, I've practically bent over backwards just to keep a few relevant statistics in an infobox that's half the size of the one on the Japanese or Chinese Wikipedia, and you call us trolls and make accusations of violating copyright, a very serious allegation on Wikipedia today, given the "non-free content" hysteria that's gripping the project as of now. You might not like my motivations or conduct, but I believe I'm in the right as far as policy interpretation is concerned. MalikCarr 02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to note that I and other editors have attempted to negotiate some kind of compromise with AMIB before and he simply will not listen. I revert him silently because nothing I say will ever make any difference to anything he does. Check my talk page, WP:GUNDAM's talk page, and other places-- I have tried to work with the man, but it's like trying to argue with a glacier. Jtrainor 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: User:MalikCarr created an entirely new article well within existing standards just last night, and User:AManInBlack (along with the sockpuppet account GundamsRus) both showed up and immediately took a hacksaw to it, thus proving that User:MalikCarr's allegations of AManInBlack following his contributions page are true. Jtrainor 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that AMIB is using sockpuppets abusively, then go file a request at WP:SPP and/or WP:RFCU, don't make spurious accusations. hbdragon88 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the puppet is his, the puppet is someone else. Sorry, should have made that more clear. Jtrainor 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who I am supposed to be a sockpuppet for, but they keep calling me that.GundamsRus 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]