Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1409530-20160512053931

I would like to launch a complaint against an editor. One LuciaMoore. During a disagreement over terminology on the Xenaverse wiki, she became abusive the moment when I would not agree with her and she had either become impatient or run out of logical counterarguments on the issue.

While the initial thread was civil enough:

" God/goddess vs. deity

LuciaMoore

I've noticed you making a lot of edits where you change the standard accepted terms "god", "goddess", and "demigod" into the neutralized term "deity." The terms "god" and "goddess" (lowercase) are acceptable terms when referring to deities in the Xenaverse. The word "deity" is very, very rarely uttered in the show. There is no need for arbitrary political correctness in the scope of this wiki. "God" and "goddess", as well as the terms "demigod/demigoddess", "godhood/goddesshood", and the like are acceptable if referring to a specific deity whose gender is already defined.

Edited by LuciaMoore	17:06, April 14, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

"The terms "god" and "goddess" (lowercase) are acceptable terms when referring to deities in the Xenaverse.": When referring to an actual god (male deity) and actual goddess (female deity). "The word "deity" is very, very rarely uttered in the show.": But it is used though. That is the point. "There is no need for arbitrary political correctness in the scope of this wiki.": Less concerned with political correctness than technical correctness. After all political correctness has not always been "correct". " God and goddess, as well as the terms demigod/demigoddess, godhood/goddesshood, and the like are acceptable if referring to a specific deity whose gender is already defined.": I know that.

03:34, April 15, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

I'm not going to turn this into some debate on pedantry. This wiki isn't the place for it. I will continue correcting articles to make them more in-line with the flavor of the show.

06:31, April 15, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

"I'm not going to turn this into some debate on pedantry.": I am not trying to turn this into a debate on pedantry as well. "This wiki isn't the place for it.": True. "I will continue correcting articles to make them more in-line with the flavor of the show.": What is "the flavor of the show", according to you?

07:46, April 15, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

In this context, "The flavour of the show" refers to keeping the language on our wiki consistent with the language that was used on the shows. As an admin, I'm not in the habit of correcting the basic word use of our editors. That said, "deityhood", though in use by some other fandoms, is not technically a word and on this wiki it should not be used. Thanks, Scott

11:38, April 16, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

So you are saying that the word deity or any variation of it is wrong on this wiki?

13:00, April 16, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

You need to remember that this wiki is intended to reflect the flavor of the Xenaverse. It does not matter that, in reality, "god" is masculine and "goddess" is feminine. In the Xenaverse, the term "god" is used in the same context as the word "deity" is in real life, and "godhood" simply refers to the state of possessing god-like powers. There are many, many instances where female members of the pantheon are referred to both as "god" and "goddess." To point out an out-of-universe example, in the Slayers universe, the creator of the universe is called the "Lord of Nightmares" but is female. It doesn't matter that "Lord" is masculine. In that universe, and thus within the official wiki, she is referred to with the title "Lord." The same goes for this wiki. "God" is an acceptable term for either gender, regardless of its stricter connotations in the real world.

Edited by LuciaMoore	15:25, April 16, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

"deityhood" is not appropriate to use. There may be occasions where it is appropriate to use "deity" but for the most part, "god" or "goddess" is probably more appropriate based on their usage in the shows.

19:24, April 16, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #7

"You need to remember that this wiki is intended to reflect the flavor of the Xenaverse.": I know that. "It does not matter that, in reality, 'god' is masculine and 'goddess' is feminine.": I disagree but never mind that for the moment. " In the Xenaverse, the term 'god' is used in the same context as the word 'deity' is in real life, and 'godhood' simply refers to the state of possessing god-like powers.": But the term deity and/or variations is/are (I can't remember every instance offhand I admit) used in the mythos. Deityhood is a gender neutral term for godhood and goddesshood. "There are many, many instances where female members of the pantheon are referred to both as 'god' and 'goddess'.: True. "To point out an out-of-universe example, in the Slayers universe, the creator of the universe is called the 'Lord of Nightmares' but is female.": Sometimes women are shown to demand being addressed in a masculine manner as a form of respect e.g. Hunter J in Pokemon. Also the character could have a non-binary or fluid gender identity (being both male and female at the same time- Loki would be an example of this). "It doesn't matter that 'Lord' is masculine.": Seemingly in that instance. "In that universe, and thus within the official wiki, she is referred to with the title 'Lord'.": Isn't there a multiverse construct within the fiction? "The same goes for this wiki.": In some instances. Not all. " 'God' is an acceptable term for either gender, regardless of its stricter connotations in the real world.": Not the most accurate or precise term though. Just saying. Just to note that world is a narrow scope of the extent of the reality as there is a greater solar system, galaxy and ultimately universe if not more out there. Just pointing out.

05:20, April 17, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #8

Why is deityhood not appropriate to use?

05:24, April 17, 2015 "

But soon turned savage:

" Generic use of deity and derived terms (God/Goddess vs. Deity)

Jdogno7

Are you going to answer my last response on the subject?

20:20, April 17, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams closed this thread because:

The issue has been resolved.

10:09, May 6, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

The administrator for this wiki already did. "Deity" is to be used sparingly, in places where it's deemed canonically appropriate (such as in episodes where the word is actually spoken.) The word "god" is acceptable in most places. You've also been warned in the past about skimming through articles and just batch-replacing words. I actually found an article yesterday where you changed the word "ungodly" to "undeityly", which shows that you're not even changing it based on context, but merely using a "find and replace" search to alter the terms.

This wiki has rules. One of those rules, as has been reiterated by the admin, is that "god" is the accepted generic term for deities on this wiki. You're not required to use it, but you're not to go through other peoples' articles and replace "god" with "deity" just because you feel it's more appropriate. On this wiki, "god" and "deity" are synonyms, because they are synonyms in the Xenaverse, which this wiki is based on.

Edited by LuciaMoore	21:43, April 17, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

"The administrator for this wiki already did.": Neither of you did, for the responses I left to either of you. "'Deity' is to be used sparingly, in places where it's deemed canonically appropriate (such as in episodes where the word is actually spoken).": Why does deity (and variations of) have to be used sparingly? "The word 'god' is acceptable in most places.": But not necessarily the most correct in most places.

"You've also been warned in the past about skimming through articles and just batch-replacing words.": When? "I actually found an article yesterday where you changed the word "ungodly" to "undeityly", which shows that you're not even changing it based on context, but merely using a "find and replace" search to alter the terms.": "which shows that you're not even changing it based on context, but merely using a "find and replace" search to alter the terms.", wrong. I do change it based on context. I only use a "find" not a "find and replace search", I examine each instance to see whether it should be changed.

"This wiki has rules. One of those rules, as has been reiterated by the admin, is that "god" is the accepted generic term for deities on this wiki.": First of all, do not talk like an admin when you are not, that is very self-righteous. Second, I am perfectly aware that this wiki has rules. Third, "One of those rules, as has been reiterated by the admin, is that "god" is the accepted generic term for deities on this wiki.": Where was that stated to be a rule?

"You're not required to use it, but you're not to go through other peoples' articles and replace "god" with "deity" just because you feel it's more appropriate.": What do you mean by "other peoples' articles"?

09:09, April 18, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

Rule: "god" and "goddess" are accepted generic terms for deities on this wiki.

This discussion is over.

The point of a wiki like this is to work on a project with a community of like-minded fans and to have FUN. Petty arguments like this one are not constructive. As admin, I have now established the guidelines around this topic. For clarity, I will repeat them now:

1. "deityhood" is not a word. Do not use it. 2. "undeityly" is not a word. Do not use it. 3. "god" and "goddess" are the preferred generic terms for deities on this wiki because they are the terms most often used on the TV series.

I expect no further arguments on this topic and if this "battle" of editing and reverting edits with these words continues, I and the other admins, may have to consider blockng people.

16:26, April 18, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

"Rule: "god" and "goddess" are accepted generic terms for deities on this wiki.": Fair enough.

"The point of a wiki like this is to work on a project with a community of like-minded fans and to have FUN.": True.

"Petty arguments like this one are not constructive.": How is this petty and not constructive? It was about understanding a point of view.

"As admin, I have now established the guidelines around this topic.": You mean there were not any before this?

"For clarity, I will repeat them now:": Okay.

"1. "deityhood" is not a word.": According to whom? "Do not use it.": Why?

"2. "undeityly" is not a word.": According to whom? "Do not use it.": Why?

"3. "god" and "goddess" are the preferred generic terms for deities on this wiki because they are the terms most often used on the TV series.": "most often used" not exclusively used.

"I expect no further arguments on this topic and if this "battle" of editing and reverting edits with these words continues, I and the other admins, may have to consider blocking people.": So I can not ask questions for further understanding on this issue?

03:36, April 19, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

Personally, I can't see how there could possibly be any further question or need for further understanding on this topic, however...

"deityhood" and "undeityly" are not words in any published dictionary of the English language. It would be like taking the word "banana" and saying that now "bananahood" is a word. They just aren't. Don't use them on this wiki.

Thanks, Scott

05:11, April 19, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

"'deityhood' and 'undeityly' are not words in any published dictionary of the English language.": How can that be confirmed?

02:39, April 20, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

This is not a game. We're done with this topic.

02:56, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

"This is not a game": I know that. I am only asking you to back up your points with proof when needed. "We're done with this topic.": Nearly. Deity was not a word until it was coined by Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430: Noting that it was coined sometime in his lifetime). Deityhood is a generic term for Godhood or Goddesshood. Likewise with ungodly, you could use the term "ungoddessly". Thus undeityly is a generic term for both those aforementioned terms.

04:20, April 20, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

You seem to be under the misapprehension that this is up for debate. The topic has been discussed and the admin (me) has made a decision.

The following "words" are NOT to be used on this wiki: ◾ deityhood ◾ undeityly ◾ goddesshood ◾ ungoddessly

11:32, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

"You seem to be under the misapprehension that this is up for debate.": Actually, if not for your last response, my response before this was intended to be my final point. "The topic has been discussed and the admin (me) has made a decision.": As of my response before this one, I would have agreed it has been discussed, if not for the one that I am answering above this. On the subject, is it wrong to ask the rationale behind your decision?

"The following "words" are NOT to be used on this wiki: ◾ deityhood ◾ undeityly ◾ goddesshood ◾ ungoddessly ": Is asking why a crime?

12:31, April 20, 2015

70.211.73.194

A Wikia contributor 70.211.73.194

You've been told why, in clear and concise English. "Because the administrator said so" should be more than sufficient reasoning, but we've gone beyond that and even stated additional reasons. I see no reason for the admins to repeat themselves, nor do I want this discussion to continue taking place on MY comment wall.

17:06, April 20, 2015

82.49.68.104

A Wikia contributor 82.49.68.104

In my experience, Mr. J-7 is incapable of understanding both "clear and concise English" and instructions given in it. His history on the many wikis he's edited, and the resulting number of blocks, are frankly appalling.

17:30, April 20, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

I have done some research on Jdogno7, and have learned that he has been blocked from other wikis for hostility, spurring debates on peoples' talk walls, and getting into edit wars. He also seems to have a habit of making grammatical corrections that aren't even accurate corrections, particularly having a fondness with replacing "and" with "as well as", which he did to one of my articles less than an hour after I created it, and which is also incorrect in most instances.

Based on his actions here, and his past history on other wikis, I would like to formally request that he be blocked from editing articles on this wiki.

18:47, April 20, 2015

82.49.68.104

A Wikia contributor 82.49.68.104

This, I think, would be a wise course of action.

19:12, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #12

70.211.73.194 wrote: You've been told why, in clear and concise English. "Because the administrator said so" should be more than sufficient reasoning, but we've gone beyond that and even stated additional reasons. I see no reason for the admins to repeat themselves, nor do I want this discussion to continue taking place on MY comment wall.

"You've been told why, in clear and concise English.": Not clear and concise rationale. "'Because the administrator said so' should be more than sufficient reasoning, but we've gone beyond that and even stated additional reasons.": "Because the administrator said so", so if the administrator said the reason was "2+2=Fishes", you would accept that?! "'Because the administrator said so' should be more than sufficient reasoning,...": So authority is always right in other words? "...but we've gone beyond that and even stated additional reasons.": "We"? What do you mean by "we"? Who are YOU? "...gone beyond that and even stated additional reasons.": Not fully explained reasons. "I see no reason for the admins to repeat themselves, nor do I want this discussion to continue taking place on MY comment wall.": "I see no reason for the admins to repeat themselves,...": You mean explain themselves? "...nor do I want this discussion to continue taking place on MY comment wall": Do not worry, that will not happen. May I ask, why you have joined this discussion? This is the only edit you have made on this wiki so far. Unless you do not wish to reveal your identity (having made more edits under an official username), which in the situation I think to be cowardly. Are you either an admin or an editor with a view on this matter? Because if not, why did you even get involved?

20:17, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #13

82.49.68.104 wrote: In my experience, Mr. J-7 is incapable of understanding both "clear and concise English" and instructions given in it. His history on the many wikis he's edited, and the resulting number of blocks, are frankly appalling.

"In my experience, Mr. J-7 is incapable of understanding both "clear and concise English" and instructions given in it.": "In my experience,..", Who are you? "...Mr. J-7 is incapable of understanding both "clear and concise English" and instructions given in it.": No, just those who refuse to explain themselves from the start or at a certain point into a discussion. "His history on the many wikis he's edited, and the resulting number of blocks, are frankly appalling.": So I have ruined EVERY wiki I ever edited with EVERY edit I ever did there?! A lot of those blocks came from people who were not willing to fully explain themselves!

20:23, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #14

LuciaMoore wrote: I have done some research on Jdogno7, and have learned that he has been blocked from other wikis for hostility, spurring debates on peoples' talk walls, and getting into edit wars. He also seems to have a habit of making grammatical corrections that aren't even accurate corrections, particularly having a fondness with replacing "and" with "as well as", which he did to one of my articles less than an hour after I created it, and which is also incorrect in most instances.

Based on his actions here, and his past history on other wikis, I would like to formally request that he be blocked from editing articles on this wiki.

"I have done some research on Jdogno7, and have learned that he has been blocked from other wikis for hostility, spurring debates on peoples' talk walls, and getting into edit wars.": "I have done some research on Jdogno7,...", Have you now? "Hostility", how have I been hostile? "...spurring debates on peoples' talk walls,...", you are the one who made this into a debate not me. "...and getting into edit wars.": If I ever got into something that constituted an edit war, it was only because I was trying to understand the other editor. But apparently since asking them on their talk pages is hostility, that is another "crime" on my part.

"He also seems to have a habit of making grammatical corrections that aren't even accurate corrections, particularly having a fondness with replacing "and" with "as well as", which he did to one of my articles less than an hour after I created it, and which is also incorrect in most instances.": Why are you so certain that it was not you who made a mistake?

"Based on his actions here, and his past history on other wikis, I would like to formally request that he be blocked from editing articles on this wiki.": What "actions here"? "...his past history on other wikis,...": Amazing how it went from a debate over word choice to this. "I would like to formally request that he be blocked from editing articles on this wiki.", Maybe I should formally request that you be blocked from editing articles on this wiki but I am not that vindictive or underhand.

20:41, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #15

82.49.68.104 wrote: This, I think, would be a wise course of action.

Where does your wisdom come from?

20:44, April 20, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

Who am I? Here's a better question: Who are you to think the administrators even owe you an explanation? They have stated the rules, they run this wiki, and that's all you need to know. If the admins did decide that "2+2=Fish" on their wiki, then it does on their wiki. If you don't like that, then go find another wiki to edit. Part of joining a community includes agreeing to abide by their rules.

Do not act as if you're being oppressed by some corrupt authority. You embarrass yourself with that sort of nonsensical comparison. This is not some sort of oppressive government regime that's infringing on your natural rights, and you're not some sort of intellectual freedom fighter pushing for a noble cause. You're a petulant child throwing a tantrum because their reasoning behind the rules they set doesn't meet your own personal criteria. You display an astounding level of arrogance to insist that any rule within the community not explained to your standards is somehow invalid.

20:54, April 20, 2015

82.49.68.104

A Wikia contributor 82.49.68.104

If you haven't figured this out thus far, J7, you never will.

21:22, April 20, 2015

82.49.68.104

A Wikia contributor 82.49.68.104

reply to #17

Jdogno7 wrote:

"In my experience, Mr. J-7 is incapable of understanding both "clear and concise English" and instructions given in it.": "In my experience,..", Who are you?

Someone who knows you from Harry Potter wiki.

"...Mr. J-7 is incapable of understanding both "clear and concise English" and instructions given in it.": No, just those who refuse to explain themselves from the start or at a certain point into a discussion.

You've been explained over and over again how things work on wikia, and you haven't understood.

"His history on the many wikis he's edited, and the resulting number of blocks, are frankly appalling.": So I have ruined EVERY wiki I ever edited with EVERY edit I ever did there?!

Yep, you did.

A lot of those blocks came from people who were not willing to fully explain themselves!

You're too stupid to understand, and I am too tired to repeat it. So, go screw yourself yet again on here.

21:26, April 20, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

Everybody take a breath.

This discussion has become far too hostile for my liking.

I have explained my rationale re: "deityhood", etc. as much as I intend to. I consider this topic closed.

As for blocking members, I have done this very seldom in the past but I will if necessary. Consider this the first and only warning -- if this discussion continues in any form or there are any further "edit wars" that stem from this topic, the offending party will be blocked.

This is also NOT up for discussion. I will not clarify further and I do not expect to see any further posts in this thread. Thanks.

22:18, April 20, 2015

124.170.208.226

A Wikia contributor 124.170.208.226

reply to #20

LuciaMoore wrote: Who am I? Here's a better question: Who are you to think the administrators even owe you an explanation? They have stated the rules, they run this wiki, and that's all you need to know. If the admins did decide that "2+2=Fish" on their wiki, then it does on their wiki. If you don't like that, then go find another wiki to edit. Part of joining a community includes agreeing to abide by their rules.

Do not act as if you're being oppressed by some corrupt authority. You embarrass yourself with that sort of nonsensical comparison. This is not some sort of oppressive government regime that's infringing on your natural rights, and you're not some sort of intellectual freedom fighter pushing for a noble cause. You're a petulant child throwing a tantrum because their reasoning behind the rules they set doesn't meet your own personal criteria. You display an astounding level of arrogance to insist that any rule within the community not explained to your standards is somehow invalid.

"Who are you to think the administrators even owe you an explanation?: Everyone: admin or not, owes it to everyone else to explain their rationale when understanding is necessary on the part of someone.

"They have stated the rules, they run this wiki, and that's all you need to know.": I know they have stated the rules and run this wiki. "...and that's all you need to know.": You sound very dictorial and/or fascist in the tone of that phrase.

If the admins did decide that "2+2=Fish" on their wiki, then it does on their wiki.: You sound like someone who conforms and submits to authority without question. Very foolish.

"Part of joining a community includes agreeing to abide by their rules.": True, you abide by the rules but that does not mean you do not speak up if you disagree with them (the rules).

"Do not act as if you're being oppressed by some corrupt authority.": When did I do that?

"You embarrass yourself with that sort of nonsensical comparison.": What comparison? When did I make such a comparison?

"This is not some sort of oppressive government regime that's infringing on your natural rights, and you're not some sort of intellectual freedom fighter pushing for a noble cause.": Truthfully, I did not even begin to feel that way until after response #9 on this thread. To say from #10 onwards, it has begun to feel oppressive somewhat.

"You're a petulant child throwing a tantrum because their reasoning behind the rules they set doesn't meet your own personal criteria.": You are acting like "a petulant child throwing a tantrum" because they are being asked to explain their reasoning rather than everyone just blindly agree with them without any questions at all.

"You display an astounding level of arrogance to insist that any rule within the community not explained to your standards is somehow invalid.": When have I insisted "that any rule within the community not explained to [my] standards is somehow invalid."? I do think it is wise to question something that does not make sense.

23:40, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #20

LuciaMoore wrote: Who am I? Here's a better question: Who are you to think the administrators even owe you an explanation? They have stated the rules, they run this wiki, and that's all you need to know. If the admins did decide that "2+2=Fish" on their wiki, then it does on their wiki. If you don't like that, then go find another wiki to edit. Part of joining a community includes agreeing to abide by their rules.

Do not act as if you're being oppressed by some corrupt authority. You embarrass yourself with that sort of nonsensical comparison. This is not some sort of oppressive government regime that's infringing on your natural rights, and you're not some sort of intellectual freedom fighter pushing for a noble cause. You're a petulant child throwing a tantrum because their reasoning behind the rules they set doesn't meet your own personal criteria. You display an astounding level of arrogance to insist that any rule within the community not explained to your standards is somehow invalid.

"Who are you to think the administrators even owe you an explanation?: Everyone: admin or not, owes it to everyone else to explain their rationale when understanding is necessary on the part of someone.

"They have stated the rules, they run this wiki, and that's all you need to know.": I know they have stated the rules and run this wiki. "...and that's all you need to know.": You sound very dictorial and/or fascist in the tone of that phrase.

If the admins did decide that "2+2=Fish" on their wiki, then it does on their wiki.: You sound like someone who conforms and submits to authority without question. Very foolish.

"Part of joining a community includes agreeing to abide by their rules.": True, you abide by the rules but that does not mean you do not speak up if you disagree with them (the rules).

"Do not act as if you're being oppressed by some corrupt authority.": When did I do that?

"You embarrass yourself with that sort of nonsensical comparison.": What comparison? When did I make such a comparison?

"This is not some sort of oppressive government regime that's infringing on your natural rights, and you're not some sort of intellectual freedom fighter pushing for a noble cause.": Truthfully, I did not even begin to feel that way until after response #9 on this thread. To say from #10 onwards, it has begun to feel oppressive somewhat.

"You're a petulant child throwing a tantrum because their reasoning behind the rules they set doesn't meet your own personal criteria.": You are acting like "a petulant child throwing a tantrum" because they are being asked to explain their reasoning rather than everyone just blindly agree with them without any questions at all.

"You display an astounding level of arrogance to insist that any rule within the community not explained to your standards is somehow invalid.": When have I insisted "that any rule within the community not explained to [my] standards is somehow invalid."? I do think it is wise to question something that does not make sense.

23:47, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #21

82.49.68.104 wrote: If you haven't figured this out thus far, J7, you never will.

I probably never will because you refuse to explain yourself fully if at all.

23:52, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #22

82.49.68.104 wrote:

Jdogno7 wrote:

"In my experience, Mr. J-7 is incapable of understanding both "clear and concise English" and instructions given in it.": "In my experience,..", Who are you?

Someone who knows you from Harry Potter wiki.

"...Mr. J-7 is incapable of understanding both "clear and concise English" and instructions given in it.": No, just those who refuse to explain themselves from the start or at a certain point into a discussion.

You've been explained over and over again how things work on wikia, and you haven't understood.

"His history on the many wikis he's edited, and the resulting number of blocks, are frankly appalling.": So I have ruined EVERY wiki I ever edited with EVERY edit I ever did there?!

Yep, you did.

A lot of those blocks came from people who were not willing to fully explain themselves!

You're too stupid to understand, and I am too tired to repeat it. So, go screw yourself yet again on here.

"Someone who knows you from Harry Potter wiki.": There are many editors on Harry Potter wiki, that doesn't give me enough information to know who you are (assuming you are telling the truth).

"You've been explained over and over again how things work on wikia, and you haven't understood.": Do you mean wikia in general or any specific ones?

"Yep, you did.": Thanks for the vote of confidence.

"You're too stupid to understand, and I am too tired to repeat it. So, go screw yourself yet again on here.": "I am too tired to repeat it.": That sounds like a familiar attitude of arrogant editors who refuse to explain themselves. As for the rest, real civilized.

00:01, April 21, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #23

Scottlukaswilliams wrote: Everybody take a breath.

This discussion has become far too hostile for my liking.

I have explained my rationale re: "deityhood", etc. as much as I intend to. I consider this topic closed.

As for blocking members, I have done this very seldom in the past but I will if necessary. Consider this the first and only warning -- if this discussion continues in any form or there are any further "edit wars" that stem from this topic, the offending party will be blocked.

This is also NOT up for discussion. I will not clarify further and I do not expect to see any further posts in this thread. Thanks.

"Everybody take a breath.": Good idea.

"This discussion has become far too hostile for my liking.": I agree.

"I have explained my rationale re: "deityhood", etc. as much as I intend to.": Explaining something as much as one intends to and needs to are not the same thing.

"I consider this topic closed.": So you do.

"As for blocking members, I have done this very seldom in the past but I will if necessary. Consider this the first and only warning -- if this discussion continues in any form or there are any further "edit wars" that stem from this topic, the offending party will be blocked.": Sorry for answering the last replies sent to me before this one.

"This is also NOT up for discussion.": Is anything ever?

"I will not clarify further and I do not expect to see any further posts in this thread. Thanks.": Sorry, once again.

00:07, April 21, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

Is there any chance at all we can get this nonsense removed from my message wall somehow?

04:10, May 6, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

I think we need to keep it in case we have to refer to it in the future but I'm closing the thread now.

10:09, May 6, 2015

Even after that she and MinorStoop continued on, now plotting to have me blocked:

" Rollback?

A Wikia contributor 82.49.68.104

Greetings.

While there's still some rationality left in the deity thread (it's an unfortunate truth that Mr. J7 easily gets me in a temper tantrum), I'll take the liberty to suggest two things. The first is to recommend a block, any block, on an admin's wall. At least s/he will notice, even if s/he may not act upon it.

The second suggestion is to request rollback right; it looks like you may need it. It may not be granted, but your standing is likely higher than Mr. J7's, even if your edit count is low.

Hoping not to get involved in this detail any much more than I already have, I wish you my best.

22:10, April 20, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

If that's possible, I'd like that to be done. I don't want this ridiculous back-and-forth etched forever on my message wall.

23:57, April 20, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #1

82.49.68.104 wrote: Greetings.

While there's still some rationality left in the deity thread (it's an unfortunate truth that Mr. J7 easily gets me in a temper tantrum), I'll take the liberty to suggest two things. The first is to recommend a block, any block, on an admin's wall. At least s/he will notice, even if s/he may not act upon it.

The second suggestion is to request rollback right; it looks like you may need it. It may not be granted, but your standing is likely higher than Mr. J7's, even if your edit count is low.

Hoping not to get involved in this detail any much more than I already have, I wish you my best.

Trying to find another way to silence me. How kind of you.

00:16, April 21, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

reply to #2

LuciaMoore wrote: If that's possible, I'd like that to be done. I don't want this ridiculous back-and-forth etched forever on my message wall.

You were the one who started this argument. So do not get pissed at the consequences.

00:17, April 21, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

I'll ask you again to please stop posting on my wall. This is the last time I'm going to ask before actively seeking admin intervention. I wasn't even speaking to you.

00:38, April 21, 2015

Jdogno7

Jdogno7

You were speaking about me.

01:02, April 21, 2015

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

Unbelievable. This is done.

01:04, April 21, 2015 " Then she and MinorStoop decided to badmouth me during a time where I would not be able to respond to such criticism:

" Regarding Jdogno7

MinorStoop

Your block warning notwithstanding, I thought it worthwile to let you know about the abovementioned user. Feel free to block me for this, it will not change my life, given my edit history here.

I've had occasion to cross paths with Jdogno7 on Harry Potter Wiki, where he had occasion to show his behavior at its best. Or worst, depending on one's point of view. The debacle about his constant change of "and" to "as well as" is the least of it; he had occasion to irk a good number of people (me included) about the number of a character's family members should be included in an infobox, whether Voldemort should be addressed as Lord or not and so on ad nauseam. Other wikis where he has behaved this way are Digimon wiki, Smallwille wiki, and Disney wiki - it took the grand total of 11 edits to get him blocked for a while, there; a kind of record for him. For other wikis, and there's a number of them, the story is regularly repeated for most of those where he has a few hundreds of edits - google "Jdogno7" and "wikia"; the results are appalling.

The only way to keep him in check is to provide him with a lengthy block, six months at least, as it (hopefully) appears that he loses interest in a wiki in that span of time - or perhaps he has not yet riled up the admins in the new wiki he's found enough for them to take action. I think you are likely to find he'll start again in two weeks; if so, I'll recommend to block him again swiftly, without warning and for a lenghty period of time. You'll save yourself and the wiki a good amount of grief.

15:33, April 21, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

Based on his edit history, the nature of his arguments, and the fact that he continues to wiki-hop, I think it's safe to say that he is a wiki troll. It appears that the entire purpose of his antics are to rile people up, possibly to see just how many wikis he can be banned from. His actions are clearly not those of a rational, mature individual, and he seems to have no interest in actually contributing anything helpful or substantive to any of the wikis he visits.

How many articles has he created? How much content has he contributed? From what I've seen, his only "contribution" to any of the wikis he visits amount to pedantic corrections over terminology (which is usually incorrect) and grammar (which is also incorrect). The deity issue is one example of the former, while "as well as" is an example of the latter. He engages in mass edits of wikis by injecting incorrect terms and vandalizing pages by intentionally replacing grammatically correct statements and proper punctuation with incorrect comma use and poor grammar, and it's obvious that he's doing it to irritate people.

I understand that you have no desire to permanently remove people from this community, but I think the overwhelming mountain of evidence speaks for itself; this user is, quite definitively, a wiki troll, and should be blocked permanently.

17:41, April 21, 2015 "

She further did so May 7th of 2015:

" Scott??

TwilightReaderFan

I have to ask... Have you kinda left the LIS Wiki? I haven't seen you there in years. When you blocked Jadogno7, here - he began leaving you messages on your LIS Admin Wall. I did chastise him... but only lightly. He said that you two had a misunderstanding and he apologized to me. Honestly, he doesn't come off so bad at first.

But the LIS Wiki has been attacked by vandals several times. When you never came back - or returned messages, Merry Star gave me admin privileges. But I honestly consider you the admin... and myself just a helper.

Was just wondering, TRF

03:14, May 7, 2015

LuciaMoore

LuciaMoore

You need to read the post I created over on the Victorious wiki pertaining to Jdogno7's behavior. I'll provide a link to it here.

His behavior is atrocious. I've detailed why in my post, but if you need more evidence, take a look at my message wall.

Editing to add: It was bad enough that it was considered necessary to ban him across the whole of the Wikia network.

Edited by LuciaMoore	05:12, May 7, 2015 "

When I recently got back she ensured that I was blocked by the next day:

" Jdogno7

LuciaMoore

Scott,

Just thought I'd let you know that mere hours after his ban lifted, Jdogno7 has begun mass-editing articles on this wiki to re-implement the exact type of edits he was banned for the first time.

14:48, April 27, 2016

Scottlukaswilliams

Scottlukaswilliams

Thanks for notifying me. I've blocked them again.

18:14, April 27, 2016 ", at this point she is now lying about the nature of my edits to get me banned.

She has been very aggressive and vindictive once she became impatient that I would not agree with her and/or she ran out of logical arguments to respond with and went on a vicious character assassination when she seemingly could no longer do a logical assassination.

Can I please have some help dealing with this matter? 