User talk:Believe it!

Another wrongful ban by the same mod!
So here we go, Isolationistmagi abuses her moderating powers, and again it is against me. This marks the second time this has happened. As she is a repeat offender who has now demonstrated obvious prejudice against me personally, I am now requesting that this matter be reviewed by the admins and that Iso have her moderator privileges revoked. Below is a record of the chat, which proves Iso singled me out and banned me for no reason other than her own bigotry against me.

I have emphasized specific points of interest in bold.

5:56Margerard:I can see still in my window what you just denied 5:56Believe it!:what limits Iso? 5:56Isolationistmagi:Not every mind is capable of imagining the same possibilities. 5:57Dracowrath:you know what must have seemed like a really weird idea at the time? 5:57Isolationistmagi:If I asked everyone here to come up with a list of every possible use of a paper clip, almost no one would have the same number of answers. 5:57Dracowrath:that silly story of a midget going on an adventure with a group of slightly larger midgets :and some old magician :surely such a story would only be told to children :oh wait.... 5:57Believe it!:F5 ~ Welcome to the Hanged Man ~ 5:58Dracowrath:B9 5:58Isolationistmagi:Miss :and Miss 5:58Phishrir:You sunk my battleship! 5:58Margerard:F5 is when he refreshes 5:58Dracowrath:damnit 5:58Margerard:and lol 5:58Isolationistmagi:Oh, and B 5:59Believe it!:that doesn't indicate a limit Iso :just different thought processes 5:59Isolationistmagi:That's exactly my point. 5:59Believe it!:your point is you agree with me? 5:59Isolationistmagi:Because to me how you think determines what you are capable of thinking of. 5:59Dracowrath:weird people have different thought processes which leads to newer things 5:59Teyx: 5:59Dracowrath:newer ideas and concepts 6:00Believe it!: '''6:00Isolationistmagi:Actually B, you just agreed with us :So we win. :Moving on!'''

Here, Iso does what she wrongly accuses me of later on, "handwaving".

6:00Dracowrath:and with that :I go back to my book 6:00Isolationistmagi:Oh, and this is what Marge was talking about earlier B: 3:54 Believe it!:bull crap

Iso is quoting me here. Drac posed a hypothesis, which I disagreed with. I explain this clearly to Iso following this. Drac took no offense to anything I wrote.

something amazing 6:01Believe it!:I wasn't calling his opinion bull crap tho 6:01Margerard:wasn't even the first time but I don't have the earlier logs to prove that, so I must've been hallucinating 6:01Isolationistmagi:So the purpose of the Bull crap comment was what? :Spam for the sake of spam or something? 6:01Believe it!:to disagree with it 6:01Margerard:aha 6:01Isolationistmagi:By calling it Bull crap 6:01Margerard:^ 6:02Isolationistmagi:It's pretty cut and dry to me Believe. 6:02Believe it!:good. you finally see the light. 6:02Margerard:could you cut on that attitude just a bit at least? 6:02Believe it!:what attitude? 6:02Phishrir:Or learn how to debate...

This is the first of condescending comments by Phishrir that Iso doesn't bother to take issue with.

6:02Isolationistmagi:Ah, so I say you disagreed with him by calling his opinion Bull Crap I see the light? :Thank you for the admission.

Here, Iso is projecting her own interpretation on to my post, and it is clear that she was doing this on purpose. 6:03Margerard:"good. you finally see the light." however should this be taken? 6:03Isolationistmagi:Now I'll ask you to refrain from doing it again.

Marge asks how the comment should be taken, which is what a reasonable moderator does. I explain how it should be taken a moment later. Iso demands that I refrain from saying "bull crap" again. This demand is unreasonable, given my explanation, however I do not violate the demand regardless. 6:03Believe it!:I know how to debate, and win. 6:03Phishrir:All evidence to the contrary.

Second condescending comment ignored by Iso.

6:04Believe it!:your proof? 6:04Margerard:confidence is good, overconfidence is not necessarily 6:04Isolationistmagi:Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! 6:04Believe it!:you should take it as "now you understand my point".

Here I explain how "you finally see the light" should be taken.

6:04Margerard:nobody understands your point XD 6:04Isolationistmagi:I'm taking it as an admission- because that's what it is.

And here Iso clearly disregards my own words ABOUT my own words and instead applies her own meaning to my own words. This clearly proves that Iso is biased and is not fit to be a moderator. 6:04Phishrir:The very fact that you "disagree" with someone by referring to what they say is "bullcrap" 6:05Isolationistmagi:And unless someone here disagrees with me other than you, it shall remain as such- and I am not going to debate it further and the warning will stand.

This too proves bias. She is saying that what I say about my own words is not a valid opinion, but rather what OTHER people say about my own words is valid. It's also no coincidence that there was no one else in the chat who would have disagreed with her at that time.

6:05Believe it!:debate what further? 6:07Isolationistmagi:Whether or not you were calling Draco's opinion bull crap. 6:07Believe it!:yeah, I wasn't, as you admitted.

Here I am referring to this earlier post:

6:01Believe it!:to disagree with it 6:01Margerard:aha 6:01Isolationistmagi:By calling it Bull crap

I read this as her agreeing with my explanation. I guess she meant something other than what she wrote. In any case, I clearly explain that I was not calling Drac's opinion bull crap. Drac stated a possibility regarding the conversation we were having, and I disagreed with that possibility and then stated my reasons for disagreeing with it. Regardless of who misunderstood whom, Iso should have accepted this explanation, as Marge did.

6:08Isolationistmagi:You admitted you were, but as I said the warning stands. 6:08Believe it!:I wrote no such thing.

Again, as Iso stated previously, this is just how she is choosing to take the comment. It is not what I actually wrote. I reiterate that I did not admit to what she was accusing me of.

6:08Isolationistmagi:And while we are on the subject, I am going to put this very plainly and very quickly. 6:08Believe it!:I wrote that I didn't call his opinion bull crap. 6:08Margerard:would you not deny what just obviously happened? :that'd make it less outrageous, I believe 6:09Isolationistmagi:You are not seen as a constructive member of the chat, and are in fact widely regarded as a person who contributes negatively and dampens the experience of everyone here. Either find a way to correct this or do us all the favor of leaving.

This is where Iso changes the subject completely and accuses me of being some kind of nuisance to the whole community. No proof is offered, only her own opinion. 6:10Believe it!:You're singling me out because of my differing opinion. 6:10Isolationistmagi:If you are incapable of either, I shall gladly assist you. 6:10Believe it!:Please don't make threats.

Here is where Iso makes a threat against me based on a false claim; a claim if true would NOT be grounds for a ban anyway. As it is not a requirement of the chat to impress others, nor to be considered "positive" by other members, nor to somehow prevent others from being "annoyed", Iso's basis for this threat is completely unfounded in any of the Wikia rules or guidelines. She created her own standard for chat access and applied it only to me, and not to someone like Phishrir who made condescending comments to me within this same discussion. This proves that she is prejudice against me.

6:10Margerard:so is everyone singling you out? 6:10Isolationistmagi:'''I am singling you out because you are not a constructive members. :And do not mistake what this is B, it is a promise, not a threat.'''

Here, Iso admits to her own prejudice. She writes that she did single me out as an unconstructive member because I'm an unconstructive member. I disprove this circular logic later on, though such proof should not be required. The chat is free to all regardless of their contributions, and Iso has not addressed anyone who actually has posted unconstructive comments, such as Phishrir.

6:11Phishrir:It's not what your opinion is, it's how you express it. That's all. 6:11Believe it!:"everyone" according to one person. 6:11Margerard:Phishrir got it right. 6:11Isolationistmagi:'''Would everyone present who finds Believe a negative contributor please say so now?''' 6:11Believe it!:and how do I express my opinion? 6:11Phishrir:No, according to quite a few. 6:11Margerard:Believe, just because one person tells you something this plainly because she has the authority to do so 6:11Phishrir:Aye, Iso. 6:11Margerard:doesn't mean that this isn't the thought of most people here 6:11Isolationistmagi:Yes. 6:11Dracowrath:I believe so, yes :among other things I could say which I won't 6:12Believe it!:If that were true then why do most people chat with me for hours on end? 6:12Isolationistmagi:So I'll say this one last time Believe, '''find a way to get along if you wish to stay'''.

What Iso suggests is mob rule. It is not up to other members of the chat to determine if another member is positive or negative, and it is not up to the singled out member to appease the mob. This is especially true when the other members dislike the one for his or her opinion. 6:13Margerard:you mistake pleasant chats with heated arguments where everyone is pulling their hair out

On a side note, I would like to point out that everyone cherishes my opinion whenever we agree on something. Never any complaints about "the way" I express my opinion then. And that's because people know I'm a great ally in a debate. Also, there have been no complaints about how I express my opinion at all except for when Iso took issue with it. Drac did not take issue with it, and he's the one I replied to. Again, this is just a false claim made by Iso. Phishrir and Drac only agreed with her after she stirred them up against me. Proof of this is in the fact that other members of the chat regularly ask me for my opinion and discuss various issues with me. If I were such a negative non-contributor then why do others solicit my opinion so often?

6:13Believe it!:And "getting along" is defined by everyone else, is that correct? 6:14Margerard:would you like to include all the existing wiki members in that "everyone"? 6:14Isolationistmagi:'''Getting along is defined by how people are impacted by your contributions here.''' 6:14Margerard:^

Here, Iso admits that getting along is defined by others. That means I have no control over the standard with which I am held against, as I do not control the opinions of other people. If others dislike me because of my opinion, as I suggested earlier, then those others can simply accuse me of being "negative" and I'll be banned based on their claims. The Wikia rules and guidelines do not support Iso's standard.

6:15Isolationistmagi:And I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the vast majority find them negative, three have said so explicitly just in the past ten minutes and I know plenty of others who will be perfectly willing to voice their opinions on the issue. 6:15Believe it!:'''Therefore, by that rationale, if I am polite (as usual) and people simply don't like my opinion, they can say I am negative anyway and you will side with them. Is that correct?''' 6:15Isolationistmagi:As has been established B, your opinion is not the issue. :It is the way you present it.

Iso does not answer the question. She just assumes members won't be against me based on my opinion. 6:16Phishrir:No, because most people in this chat will be more respectful about disagreeing with someone. 6:16Believe it!:'''Again, what way is that? :I received no answer last time.''' 6:16Margerard:politely so or not, you still manage to annoy people to no end.

Marge admits I am polite. But wasn't the point about HOW I express my opinion?

6:16Believe it!:with politness? 6:16Margerard:'''in your own, weird way, I think. :politeness is not a factor here'''

... So being polite is not a factor in how I express myself. Well then doesn't that leave only one thing, that being my opinion itself?

6:16Isolationistmagi:Exceedingly arrogant and handwaving everything that contradicts what you think. 6:17Believe it!:'''I don't hadwave anything, I respond to it with a thoughtful opinion.''' 6:17Margerard:like bull crap. 6:17Isolationistmagi:You just did it again. 6:17Phishrir:Really? I mean....really? 6:17Believe it!:people ask me questions and I answer them. 6:17Margerard:oh dear 6:17Believe it!:that's all I do. :did what again? 6:18Isolationistmagi:Handwaved. 6:18Believe it!:okay, and what is a handwave? :I understand it as simply dismissing someone or ignoring something. 6:19Phishrir:David Gaider's signature move. 6:19Isolationistmagi:Yes, which is exactly what you just did. 6:19Believe it!:No, I disagreed and said why I disagree.

Here Iso changes the issue again and says that handwaving isn't allowed. I explain why what I do is not handwaving, and yet Iso considers me defending myself to be handwaving. Also, what rule says someone can't ignore someone else? Even if that were true about me, how is that a bannable offense?

6:19Isolationistmagi:'''Now I suggest you phrase your responses very carefully, as I have given all the warnings I am willing to.'''

Another threat, and this also shows that the ban is based on how I reply. Iso is using her moderator powers to change my opinion. This is a gross abuse of the moderator privileges. Also, Iso has shifted the warning from "don't say bull crap" to "don't annoy others" to "don't handwave".

6:20Believe it!:'''As for contributions :marge :didn't I create something for you? :for this chat?''' 6:20Phishrir:So you think that outweighs your negative influence?

This is exactly the problem I brought up before. Phishrir can disregard my contributions and focus only on what he doesn't like. This opinion could then be used against me. This is why a member's access to the chat should not be based on the opinions of other members.

6:20Isolationistmagi:Pardon my browser difficulties. 6:20Believe it!:'''I seem to remember I made something you requested. :even though I personally disagreed with it.''' 6:21Margerard:I did not request, you offered it on your own - one action won't make up for the rest, though

Again, this proves I cannot win under Iso's standard. The undeniable good I do is disregarded and only the perceived negatives are considered, which are also determined by the other members, which again I have no control over.

6:21Isolationistmagi:At any rate, you said you didn't handwave things and gave thoughtful opinions. 6:21Believe it!:the rest of what? :that's my point 6:21Margerard:and please don't try to make me feel compassion or anything similar to that with a one-time event 6:21Believe it!:I have been one of the best contributers on here :people dislike me for my opinion. :anyway, I have to go. 6:22Isolationistmagi:Almost everyone here thinks differently. 6:22Believe it!:bye all 6:22Phishrir:Run when you lose

Third condescending remark by Phishrir.

6:22Isolationistmagi:'''And you're handwaving again. :Last warning was given, so see you in a few days.''' ~ You have been banned by Isolationistmagi. ~

First, handwaving is not a bannable offense. Second, I didn't handwave. Third, apparently having to leave the chat is handwaving and a bannable offense now. Fourth, Iso's warnings covered three different issues, none of which are found in the chat rules and guidelines. So her one "warning" about handwaving was her only one, and it is one I did not violate.

So I broke no rules, and remained polite the whole time, yet I was still banned.

This is all proof that Iso abused her authority, singled me out specifically, ignored a user who truly was rude and condescending, and applied her own subjective standards only to me just so she could ban me even when I did not violate any of her made up standards.

Last time she did this I demanded she get a mere warning. This recent attack against me proves that she is a repeat offender who violates the rules of the Wikia and cannot use the moderator privileges responsibly. I demand that she be reprimanded and have her moderator privileges revoked for at least a few years and until she proves that she can be trusted with such power. Believe it! (talk) 16:45, August 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Your appeal is under review. -- 20:36, August 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Believe_it!, I've been provided a complete unedited log by Margerard of the conversation yesterday. Your posts above is heavily edited and omits a lot of the conversation that leads up to your ban. For example, you omitted


 * 1) The dismissive behavior you have towards Dracowrath and Isolationistmagi's opinion
 * 2) Which led to an argument between you and Dracowrath. This is where Isolationistmagi suggests that you take your disagreement to PM.
 * 3) This directly leads to the part where you dimiss Dracowrath's opinion as bull crap
 * 4) At this point Margerard again asks you to cut the slack on the attitude towards others. You retort that you don't have an attitude.
 * 5) You deny that you are giving anyone attitude.
 * 6) Isolationistmagi warns you to be more constructive in chat. You retort by telling her not to make threats.
 * 7) Phishrir correct points out that it is not your opinion that people are having problems with, but rather the way you express them.
 * 8) You attempt to pull favors with Margerard by pointing out past favors you've done for her.


 * The log I read differs vastly from the one you provided above. I am disappointed that you provided an edited, nuanced version of events instead of providing the original logs.


 * Based on the unedited logs, it appears that everyone present in that conversation, Isolationistmagi, Phishrir, Margerard and Dracowrath found your dismissive attitude abrasive. Plus, your insistence of your righteousness in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary seems to indicate that you do not comprehend the reason behind the frustration with your behavior.


 * In light of all that I am upholding Isolationistmagi's ban. In the future, please provide unedited logs. -- 21:07, August 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * @Believe it!, Isolationistmagi did not say your logs were edited. I did. Your logs is missing comments from other participants which were crucial in understanding the context of your exchange with Isolationistmagi. Your logs (as posted above) appears to be a disagreement between you and Isolationistmagi. In fact, based on the complete logs provided by Margerard, Isolationistmagi is trying to ask you to be less abrasive to others and was not the instigator of the entire incident. -- 21:17, August 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * You do not need to respond to the bullet points above as they will not be read. Your appeal has been taken into consideration and the ban is upheld. I strongly recommend you let it expire and consider what everyone has been trying to tell you. You may try to get a majority of the other admins to agree with your point of view including Loleil and D-day. However, if you go down that road and your ban is upheld again, we may extend your ban until you understand why your stubbornness has a negative impact on this wiki. -- 21:50, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

I would like to reply to the above concerns here as well for anyone reading this page. Please also note that the chat log I posted is 100% true. None of the content was omitted or altered. The log extends as far back as my last refresh of the chat page, which caught the tail end of the discussion and the beginning of the conflict that Iso started. The refresh was made BEFORE the conflict began, and the chat log clearly proves that a refresh took place, as Marge confirms. Please also note that the "bull crap" quote was restated within the chat log, as it was copy/pasted later on at 6:00. Hence, nothing was omitted.


 * 1) My behavior was not dismissive. I disagreed with Drac's suggestion and stated why I disagreed. That is not a dismissal, that is a retort.
 * 2) That was not an argument. That was a discussion. It was no different from the numerous discussions that take place between the various members of the chat on a daily basis. Again, Drac raised no objections to having this discussion.
 * 3) As I stated at the time and on this talk page, I did not dismiss Drac's opinion as bull crap. I said the suggested hypothesis was bull crap and said why I disagreed with it. Drac's opinion on the other hand was fully considered and responded to.
 * 4) How is attitude determined across the Internet? Her concern was that I had an attitude. I did not actually have an attitude. My post was made to alleviate her concern. How is this wrong?
 * 5) Yes, I denied that I was giving anyone an attitude. Is it wrong to deny a charge that has been mistakingly applied to me?
 * 6) Correction. She did not tell me to be more constructive. She told me that others do not find me to be a constructive member of the chat and that I must find a way to correct the opinions within these nameless members or else leave, and if I cannot do either one then she will gladly assist me. This is far different from telling someone to be more constructive. Her comment was that I must change to fit the demands of others or else leave, and if I don't leave then she will gladly make me leave. That is a direct threat with gleeful intent stated along side it. Her following promise to carry this out compounds her sin.
 * 7) Phishrir makes that suggestion, but there is no evidence that this is the case. As I pointed out above, Marge even says that this has nothing to do with politeness. Iso also proves this, as I was banned merely for disagreeing and stating my own opinion.
 * 8) Excuse me? Favors? The topic of that particular discussion was about how well or poorly I have contributed to the chat. The example I brought up was to prove that I have contributed positively to the chat. Marge and Phishrir correctly interpreted the meaning of this when they retorted by saying that one good thing didn't outweigh all the negative things I had allegedly done.


 * I have read your response. Your reply shows that none of what Isolationistmagi, other users nor what I have said have sunk in. I feel that you need to take some time out to see this from other people's perspective. As you have shown that this behavior is repetitive, your time out will expire three days from today. Please take this time as a moment for introspection. I hope that you will be able to better empathize with your fellow editors after this break and I do hope that you do return as we appreciate your enthusiasm. -- 06:41, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Naruto Wiki
Hey there, I somehow found your very old dicussions about the characer Haku. Now I have the question: Aren't you going back to correct the wiki? I mean, everybody still sees Haku as a male there.79.223.70.10 (talk) 12:52, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I've kind of lost interest in that topic. I feel that I have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. I have many other things I have to devote my time to. If I do return to that debate then it will be in a certain topic of mine somewhere that one person made a long reply to my argument. I've been to disinterested to debate the issue further. Same with the Zero Mission debate. Believe it! (talk) 21:42, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, as I recall, that wiki is controlled by an admin who disagrees with the proof I found. So there's no point. Believe it! (talk) 21:46, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Authorization
Hi, in [|this forum] you wrote that you authorize a change to the wiki. Please do not misrepresent the wiki as you did so there. You are more than welcome to support or oppose such a change, but you do not have the authority to unilaterally allow it. Because of the issues we have had with you in the past, you will be blocked from editing further on the site. However as it is the first offense of this nature, your block will only be for 24 hours. As usual, you may choose to appeal to the admins, either D-day or Loleil. -- 20:18, October 9, 2013 (UTC)