User:Antaeus Feldspar/In Progress

Hate group

Z makes a personal attack upon me [1]; then, "takes it back" -- not by reverting it and saying something more civil, but by simply striking it out, so that it will still have its desired effect but he can pretend he bears no responsibility for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moral panic

I remove the example of "Scientology in mid-1990s Germany" from the article on Moral panic. [2] As my edit summary indicates, classifying Germany's reaction to Scientology as a "panic" is POV.

Z reverts my changes [3] with the edit summary of "rv - please explain resons for deletion". He gives no indication of why the reasons given in my edit summary are not satisfactory to him. Nevertheless, I explain my reasons [4]: it is not an item "about which there is no serious dispute", and while the dispute itself may deserve discussion, this article is clearly not the best place for that discussion. The article lists thirty-three other items as examples of moral panics; it clearly does not have a crying need for other examples which are far more questionable.

Z reverts the article, with the edit summary "rv. What is obvious is that the deletion is absolutely unwarranted. See talk page." [5]. His justification on the talk page for the second revert [6] does not address any of the reasons for deletion, which he demanded I explain, and which I explained. Instead, his justification focuses solely upon myself, the other editor: he states that he would have considered it coming from an editor with "no declared bias against Scientologists", but "coming from a person with a declared unsympathy for Scientology, it is unacceptable." He does not specify where or when I am purported to have declared this bias/unsympathy he is accusing me of. Nor does he explain why, contrary to what WP:NPOV states and contrary to what he himself has stated, why suddenly an editor's changes can be declared "unacceptable" and be reverted solely because that editor has a POV.

Internet terrorism/Cyber-terrorism

Z created the article "Internet terrorism" to claim that that term is argued by "some scholars" to refer to the distribution of information over the Internet, whether true or false, that some corporation or political or religious figure finds damaging to their reputation. I submit the article for VfD; the response is nearly unanimous to turn it into a redirect, describing "Internet terrorism" as described as an "imaginary topic". Not a single vote is cast to keep the material, or to merge and redirect.

After the article has been deleted, Z inserts the content into Cyber-terrorism, the article that Internet terrorism was redirected to. He puts it on RfC [7], violating just about every rule for how an RfC should be composed. The instructions clearly state:

"Don't sign it, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame."

Z's "brief neutral statement of the issue" is:

After a VfD that resulted in the deletion and redirection of Internet Terrorism, I salvaged some well referenced text that IMO is highly relevant. The initator of the Vfd does not agree and reverts the additions. Given the animosity that exists between us,I kindly request other editors to comment. --Zappaz 05:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Z indulges in ad hominem against me [8] by pretending that someone else has made me a topic of the conversation, and linking to a list of personal attacks like "bigot", "have no empathy whatsoever", "oblivious to their own mortality and their own failures as human beings" that he has admitted refers to me. [9]

---

Zappaz adds to Rick Ross[10] a link to an anonymous Geocities website [11] titling itself "Rick Ross Exposed". This site devotes an entire page to the question "Is Rick Ross a Homosexual?" and tries to draw inferences from the uncompleted sentence by Ross "I have previously ...", speculating that he might have finished that sentence in a number of ways including "I have previously addressed the issue of my homosexuality and decided that it is irrelevant because I hate everyone anyway..." This speculation on how Ross might have finished the sentence is followed by "Betrayal and bigotry are not a strong enough words if the facts stack up, Rick Ross being an avowed Jew who refuses to answer the question as to his homosexuality under oath..." The page also confuses the notion of homosexuality and misogyny by attributing Ross' cult work to the misogyny he would supposedly possess if homosexual: "If Ross is a Homosexual he has been betraying those he claims to help by acting on his own hatred of women and bigotry to all the various Christian groups he has labeled as "cults"."

Zappaz adds[12], a few edits later, a link to a Ross-critical article by "Warren A. J. Amermman, Executive Intelligence Review". Executive Intelligence Review is a publication of the LaRouche Movement.