User talk:Frater FiatLux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Recent editing/dispute with Golden Dawn article 2 Golden Dawn editing/dispute 3 A note 4 re copyright and public access 5 PDFs 6 Please stop 7 3 Revert Rule 8 User notice: temporary 3RR block 8.1 Regarding reversions[1] made on June 9, 2006 (UTC) to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn 9 Unblocking 10 WP:ANI 11 3RR 12 WP:RfPP 13 Personal attack warning 14 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn 15 Other users 16 Spades 17 Compromise 17.1 Mediation 18 Deleted material 19 User notice: temporary 3RR block 2 19.1 Regarding reversions[2] made on June 14, 2006 (UTC) to The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. 20 Sockpuppetry case 21 Mediation 22 HOGD Mediation 23 FM 24 Request for Mediation 25 Baba Louis 26 Breaking rules 27 Reverts 28 RfM Page 29 Discussion formatting 30 Disputing on the Mediation request page 31 Egregious sockpuppeting accusations 32 A suggestion to calm things down 33 Mediation 34 Mediation tags 35 Community Ban 36 Some of your edits 37 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frater FiatLux 38 Req for Meditation

[edit] Recent editing/dispute with Golden Dawn article

Dear J. Kelly:

The only evidence that Cicero operated a Golden Dawn temple in 1977 comes from Cicero's own book, and one reference to that same book by a friend. In fact, Cicero's only formal contact in the Occult community in 1977 was the O.T.O.'s Major Grady McMurty.

While, like tens of thousands of others, Cicero may have bought a copy of Regardie's doorstopper/black book, he did not meet Regardie until Pat Behman (a/k/a Cris Monnastre) and Regardie flew down, at Behman's insistence, to Athens, Ga. This was in the early 1980s (where Cicero, as is a matter of public record, see the attached links to the affidavit of Charles Cicero, infra to this text; Cicero operated a strip club- "The Shady Lady").

Monnastre did in fact write the introduction to Regardie’s -black book- and it is P.O.V. of J.M. to attempt to link Cicero to a work totally unrelated to him. Llewellyn in fact has largely stopped publishing Cicero's works, which H.O.G.D., Inc. now markets through Thoth Publications.

Regardie's ONLY students were Pat Behman, Larry Epperson, William Kelly and Alan Millar, and Cicero has admitted that he was never initiated into ANY grade of the Golden Dawn by Regardie (all Cicero's initiations come from Epperson). In fact, Cicero only briefly met Regardie on two or three occasions. Regardie left the bulk of his papers to Alan Miller/Gary Ford's "Isreal Reardie Foundation," and gifted his magical tools to Pat Behman, (who gifted them to David Griffin).

As to the fact that Cicero licensees deviate from Golden Dawn tradition, please see the landmarks provision of the contract between Griffin/Behman's H.O.G.D. and Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc. (and the associated sale of partnership from Behman to Griffin). The links infra to this text, to which the attached documents originate, are from public records. There is currently ongoing litigation, which seeks to invalidate these licenses. (Including those of J.M.'s group, which is heavily Thelemic in orientation).

Please note that J.M. has inappropriately, and in a very unprincipled manner, altered the H.O.G.D. entry in a manner that is not only P.O.V. but incorrect, defamatory and malicious. The correct entry should be:

"====The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian Order of the A+O====

["javascript:ol('http://www.golden-dawn.com');" Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian A+O]

is currently a sole proprietorship originally organized as a general partnership in 1992 by Patricia Behman (aka Cris Monnastre, a student of Regardie's) and David John Griffin. Behman had operated the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn temples in Los Angeles throughout the 1980s. Prompted by Regardie, Behman formed an unincorporated association with Charles Cicero and Adam Forrest. After withdrawing her endorsement from that organization in 1992 to continue the unschismed version with Griffin, she eventually sold her partnership interest to Griffin in May, 1998. Griffin's H.O.G.D. has modernized the practices of the original Order of Westcott and Mathers since it teaches all the previously published Inner Order materials and practices (notably by Regardie) in the Outer Order. It thus allows adepti to follow a structured curriculum in advanced Hermetic Alchemy. The material taught in their Outer Order is described in "The Ritual Magic Manual: A Comprehensive Course in Practical Magic", by David John Griffin. Mr. Griffin holds the European Community trademark to the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" registered with the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (O.H.I.M.), holds the trademark in Canada, and has a contractual agreement with H.O.G.D. Inc. to share the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" on a worldwide basis."

Please contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. Frater FiatLux 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the attached links to: 1.Affidavit of Charles Cicero, 2.The landmarks provision of the contract between Griffin/Behman's H.O.G.D. and Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc. 3.The associated sale of partnership from Behman to Griffin.

[edit] Golden Dawn editing/dispute

Furthermore to the supra posting:

The information in this, the present article, now under protection, is derived from “published” book sources. I’m not trying to make any new statements, the article in it’s present, protected form is the most accurate and the one that I am in agreement with. I’m merely validating the present version, under protection, with HARD, VERIFIABLE, ORIGINAL COURT AFFIDAVITS; as evidence for why the present version of the article, after it was rightly protected from the unscrupulous persons that kept trying to tamper with it, with a NON P.O.V., biased version. Is indeed, the correct and most neutral non P.O.V. version I feel is possible. My EVIDENCE and points made in the supra postings only go to confirm this.

I reiterate I’m not trying to change the article, or make any new statements; I’m trying to preserve the article in its present, correct, non P.O.V. version. Which is now, quite rightfully under protection from opportunists, with heavy motive, to deform and corrupt the article to their own biased P.O.V. and exacting needs.

Please contact me, should you have any further questions. Thank you, Frater FiatLux 14:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note

Regarding this edit, please do not write solely in capitals, and no not make comments about contributors, and make such claims about their work. I advise all your sources are supported with citations (see here) to help lower conflict, and show verifiability to your versions. However, please do not revert users, an "electric fence" is in place at 3 reverts (see here) which could lead to you or others being blocked. Please do attempt to comprimise. I hope this assists you. Ian13/talk 18:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies :) (please sign pages using 4 ~'s too). And just regarding the comment: "I will not comprise when person such as yourself want to use defamatory, libellous, biased material." it is important to try and comprimise, no matter how much the alternatives disagree with your own view. I think this is rather why people think that you are not prepared to comprimise, because you won't with this situation. If you won't work with and comprimise with people, people generally won't opt for your views and/or prefered versions... Ian13/talk 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re copyright and public access

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the public domain status of documents submitted to the court. Documents produced by the court are in the public domain, Documents produced by others for the court are publicly accessible, but the author retains copyright! You cannot claim public domain status for Chic's affidavit. -999 16:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, I do not honour your word, if there were anything wrong with those files, it would have been said so by a editor or mediator in the talk on the deletion page. There are however, only your incoherent rants and unprincipled harassment, and my corrections to your unfounded misrepresentations. -Frater FiatLux 16:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins are the ones deleting the files, based on clear WP policy with regard to negative information about living person. Reuploading them is also a clear violation of WP policy. Careful, you could get blocked. See WP:3RR for example. --999 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cicero affidavit is a factual court file and does not in any way infringe on painting Cicero in a bad light, nor is it painting a living person in a negative light. The document should be looked at more carefully. Frater FiatLux 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But, as has been explained to you multiple times, affadavits cannot be used as sources on WP. Only court transcripts can be used. Plus the fact that all the listed documents contain libel is against WP:LIVING and they must be removed per WP legal policy.

I've told you before! I'm not interested in your harassment or threats, please cease and desist with your harassment and threats.

Frater FiatLux 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've been informed that Cicero's legal representation is already aware of your activies here on WP and that they will be used against Griffin today. Good job. You may have just won the case for Cicero. -999 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've told you before! I'm not interested in your harassment or threats, please cease and desist. I do not honour your word. Do not leave me another threatening or harassing message.

Frater FiatLux 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PDFs

Hi. I'm not clear that the documents are really a WP:LIVING problem, or a copyright problem, but it really doesn't make sense for them to be hosted here. We really only have file uploading for image and sound files, not to host reference material. It doesn't make sense to continue to upload PDFs; they really are just going to be continuously deleted, which is just wasted effort for you and for the people doing the deletion. Jkelly 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please stop cutting and pasting material from the old Golden Dawn tradition article. Each order, including yours, now has its own article. See the section at the bottom of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. -999 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule

Please be aware of WP:3RR. -999 18:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion, if you self-revert now, you may avoid getting blocked from editting. -999 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

I did discuss my edits in the talk page. I have been receiving constant harassment from users: 999 and JMAX555. Please restore my access as I've adhered to Wikipedia's protocol.

Here's what I said to the talk page:

The additional “Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders” sub-section, gives the article proper depth and makes the links to the various contemporary orders, much more comprehensible to the reader. They should be included in the article as a matter of fact, to put the contemporary orders, and the developments made by certain contemporary orders, Into proper context within in the article. This is something that the links to the various contemporary orders own pages cannot do within the proper context of the article. The sub-sections addition is a valuable addition to the article as the reader can now achieve the full scope and comprehension of what roles and developments that have been made in the GD tradition, by contemporary orders, in proper context with the article and the historical facts. The links and separate pages of the various other orders pages are devoid of this value, to put the relevant contemporary orders in an accurate context within the scope of the article.

The separate links and orders own pages are furthermore open to corruption, and blatant misrepresentations such as Cicero having established a Golden Dawn temple in 1977, when he clearly did not. It wasn’t until after Patricia Behman had introduced Cicero in the early 1980’s to Regardie, until Cicero had any involvement with a Golden Dawn temple. In fact not even until 1983, let alone 1977, Cicero was an initiated Minerval in the O.T.O. in 1978! These separate links to the various orders pages are sure to be profaned in a defamatory and misleading tone by Users 999 and JMAX555, as the last article was. And I might add in the usual harassing, opportunist and unprincipled manner. The separate links give a free dispensation to all other orders to misrepresent the facts as Cicero's HOGD Inc. has seen fit to do so, and in so doing is wilfully and deliberately misleading the general public. These misrepresentations, such as the aforementioned instance surrounding Cicero’s own lies, will obviously have to be edited to represent the truth, otherwise other orders will be forced to provide contradictory evidence to correct Cicero’s lies and other misrepresentations. Here’s the compromise:

The solution to this problem is to leave the article with the sub-sections so at least there’s a modicum amount of truth left to prevail in the article. Then at least the article is represented in clear and proper context, and readers will be aware of the facts surrounding the tradition and the development of contemporary orders in their rightful and truthful manner. Then the information in the orders own pages attainable through the links will at least be more comprehensible to the reader. User 999, I do not honour your word, so please cease and desist with your threats to my talk page. If you leave any more ill judged comments and harassment I will report you.

Frater FiatLux 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please restore my access, thank you.

[edit] Unblocking

I was not aware of the three revert rule as I am a new user to Wikipedia. I have adhered with rectitude to Wikipedia's protocols throughout. I made entries in the talk page about my changes to the article.

I am a victim of misguided harassment by Users 999 and JMAX555. User 999 is maliciously and repeatedly editing the page of the Rosicrucian Order of A+O, in violation of the compromise reached by Wikipedia moderator T. Morton in the discussion of modern Golden Dawn based groups concerning the article The Golden Dawn Tradition. He has been reported for this incident to the administration of Wikipedia and is encouraged to refrain from further harassment in violation of Wikipedia moderator decision.

User 999 is attempting to silence me so that he go unchecked to change the article in a misleading and defamatory tone. Frater FiatLux 18:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I got your email asking to be unblocked. It looks like the block has expired, so you should be able to edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me, and for your comment, as it helped me out. Frater FiatLux 03:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As Th says, your block has expired. As for the reason: well you broke 3RR. There seems to be quite a nest of worms over those pages; I presume they need to be sorted out sometime but from the outside its hard to tell William M. Connolley 07:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

Put this on WP:RfPP. It's a "request for page protection" so should go on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm new here, thanks for your help :)

[edit] 3RR

I've blocked you for twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I got your email. Being right does not relieve you from the obligation to follow the rules. When your block is up, discuss your concerns on the talk page and work with the others to reach consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfPP

I have declined your request for page protection. You acknowledge there is an edit war going on at the article. You are causing this edit war by reverting. If you think something is wrong, discuss it, don't go on a crazy revert spree. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I refer to this diff. -999 (Talk) 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

Please do not return uncited material to the article without providing citation. The burden of proof is on you per WP:V. Thank you. -999 (Talk) 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users

Please do not attempt to communicate with other users on my talk page. That is what their talk page is for. I was going to decline User:999's request, but you've just annoyed me sufficiently that I am going to accept. ---Baba Louis

[edit] Spades

Let's call a spade a spade here: you're the one that is pushing propaganda. Otherwise, you'd be able to cite your sources. We've cited ours, now you do the same. Or get lost: this is a collaborative community, not a game. -999 (Talk) 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't be going any where stop leaving threats or I'll report you.

Frater FiatLux 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Then play by the rules; cite your sources. Nobody is going to object to properly sourced and cited information. We are only objecting to the fact that you are not following WP:V and that you are removing other people's properly cited information. So, are you going to start following Wikipedia standards, or not? -999 (Talk) 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

999, I was 3RR’d because I was correcting the biased political editing that you were trying to ram though every two minutes. Not only have you being playing tactical games with other users as conspirators to evade the 3RR. You’ve now been debunked for recruiting more users to your edit /revert warring gang so that your faction can evade the three revert ruling.

Not only have you aggressively attempted to promote your political bias but also you have made sure that you’ve out numbered any persons that check your revert/edit war by recruiting more users. We don’t use sock puppets and we don’t attempt to recruit other users to perpetuate an edit war. User 999 just looks more and more to me to be promoting typical frivolous HOGD Inc propaganda.

Your recruitment information should have stayed here as you violated thearticle RfCruling. It is only for other users to give a second opinion or help with build a better consensus, by helping to resolve the conflicts in the discussion pages. I quote from the article RfC "RFC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock."

User Baba Louis that was recruited by user 999 has made no effort to try and build a better consensus, help with the dispute, or alleviate the deadlock, the proof is in this discussion page. He is only perpetuating the edit war by performing reverts on the article back to 999’s biased political version.

999, quit using arbitrary Wiki links in your messages, whilst they may look impressive to newcomers, a mediator will see through your false use of them.

Frater FiatLux 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC) The citations are comprehensive, you're again being obstructive the information has been given, it's up to you if you if you want to prove this citation wrong. We stand by this citation as a verifiable source; it is up to you to contest this. Until you can say that the information is not page 12 of Bruce paper at the SRIA then please cease and desist with your obstructive misrepresentations.

Please remember 999 no personal attacks and civility

[edit] Compromise

The big question is: are you ready to discuss (in short conversation style) and compromise? If not, you're still just pissing into the wind. -999 (Talk) 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: When you approach me in a civil manner I may be willing to. Please remember 999 no personal attacks and civility

Graymarye Luminous Fluxion, excellent memory you have there. -999 (Talk) 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, there never was any agreement made with the mediator for the old G.D.trad page. It was somewhat difficult to get all the parties into the conversation, so an agreement never happened. But I suggest it would consist of something line: each Order's article must come exclusively from its own website but any editor may edit / question / request citations. Some things, like legal documents that aren't court transcripts, just can't be used. Like I proposed on one of the talk pages, we should simply describe that a dispute exists and it is about trademarks - but basicly not get into any details.

People's associations outside the membership of the Order which is the subject of the article are simply offtopic. What they say about themselves on their own site is what we can report. I simply reported the facts as presented on the website, and made sure we could find and read the sources on your article. Some of them are quite interesting, but they belong in your article, not the historical article.

I must say I find your view of HOGD and it's licensees as some sort of glob rather strange. They are all Orders that existed before they were given licenses. It's a simple license agreement, why does that make all those Orders your enemy?

I don't think we are enemies, any of us. So how about you leave HOGD, Inc. and all its affiliates alone, agree to end your article with a simple note about the dispute as recommended, and I will happily support unlocking the A+O page. When working together, everyone has different skills. The A+O page is much more superior and convincing simply because I insisted that the links point to the page where the topic could be found. Surely you realise that that has a much greater effect on the reader - it shows that your side has breadth. Quite frankly, I was having trouble sorting out the facts from the rhetoric, which is why I didn't write the article myself. That and... -999 (Talk) 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have filed for mediation in this dispute and my reasons are infra: I will be making my proposals and compromises very shortly, hopefully under full mediation, where some ground can hopefully be made

[edit] Mediation

You will all note that I have filed, and requested for mediation in this disputation; I feel the time is certainly right at this stage, seeing we’re in a deadlocked situation with no coherent consensus, and moreover, now the edit/revert wars (games), are over, as I requested the pages to be locked; to now put forward serious negociation, proposals and substantial compromises. I want to seek mediation in this highly problematic, long-standing case now, as want to propose what I think will settle the disputation by making significant compromises and proposals. I fear that if I were to proceed in executing these to the discussion page, that under current circumstances and without mediation, my proposals and compromises will be lost; and further unrest and schism will be the only result, as per tradition with this discussion. I would like to make these proposals with a mediator involved to as I feel this will put a halt to the never ending arguments, intrigues and disputes. In the hope that some immediate ground will be made on this now that the edit/revert warring is not now taking precedence over serious discussion and consensus building.

I trust you will pledge your agreement to the mediation and start the ball can start rolling and this can be sorted out properly and in a dignified manner. I will be shortly making my recommendations and proposals to the discussion page herein, very shortly.

At this juncture, and in recent days, I have been exceedingly reticent at involving myself in any of the supra postings, as it never seems to get us anywhere, thus, I have indeed, refrained from doing so. I now will now involve myself again with constructive consensus building hopefully, under the guidance of a mediator; any other effort is completely wasted otherwise in my own opinion, as it only degenerates into further argumentative schism.

I trust you will find this in order gentlemen. Frater FiatLux 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted material

You reverted my edit on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, with summary 'rv, reinstated material inappropriately deleted by HOGD, Inc POV biased editor)'

Please pay closer attention. My edit deleted no material, and your edit didn't reinstate any. Ehheh 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block 2

I have not made more than three reverts in a twenty four hour period on the HOGD Inc article. Frater FiatLux 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did. It's documented here. -999 (Talk)

Tut tut, how naughty. Imacomp 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for using sockpuppets, namely User:Opuaut, to evade a 3RR block.  Your block will expire in 72 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater_FiatLux for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familliar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. 999 (Talk) 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case proven false. My 72 hour block no longer stands, but WMC's 48 hour 3RR block still stands so your block log has been adjusted accordingly. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

When I follow the link to the requests for mediation page, I find that you have actually not submitted a mediation request. This tag is useless unless you follow the instructions and acutally file the mediation request. This is typically done first, before you tag the talk page. -999 (Talk) 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The mediation file REQUESTS that you post the tags out first to the relevent pages, as this has to be included in the final version of the submission to the mediation page. I've filled the template out, please be patient and the file will follow shortly.

Do NOT delete the tag.

Frater FiatLux 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will be patient and take a look later at the requests... -999 (Talk) 21:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to put something on your discussion page also before I can submit the mediation file. I've made a posting at the discussion board for the main GD article and said I would make the announcement there for the links to the file. Like I say, It'll probably be on your discussion page also.

Frater FiatLux 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux: I've fixed the sections on the mediation page dealing with me better. It was done wrong. You were suposed to display the confiramtion that we had been notified about the mediation in those spots. I fixed mine, so you can see how I did it. Zos 05:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment:That's not the issue, if anything is wrong with the mediation file the mediator will notify me and I will make the changes myself. You are not authorised under the rules, as per the mediation page to make any changes to the file. Or the added commentary you made and false claims that users involved in the dispute had been blocked for being a sock puppet.

The claim of sock puppets was proven a false misguided claim, and you knew this. One of your comments was a direct attempt at trying to bias the mediator from the outset. Do NOT make any changes the mediation file, I will make all changes as per the mediation rules with assistance from the mediator presently involved. You are only to state you “agree” or “disagree” ONLY.

Frater FiatLux 14:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HOGD Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, HOGD/A+O, HOGD Inc, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible..

[edit] FM

Yes its me... Imacomp 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

I've removed the commentary you added in the "Issues to be mediated" section of the "Three Articles" RFM. Per the instructions for requesting mediation, issues should be stated as bullet points that clearly lay out the actual issue to be mediated ("should this link be included", "is this properly sourced") in a neutral manner. Please resubmit the issues to be mediated in the correct format. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I will do so ASAP. Frater FiatLux 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baba Louis

If you don't include Baba Louis, without derogatory commentary, I won't sign. -999 (Talk) 15:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop editing the mediation file, you are breaking mediation rules.

If you don't sign, it shows your unwilling to compirmise under mediation and only reflects badly on you. I saw your comment in the history, I am reporting you for uncivil conduct and editing the mediation file.

Frater FiatLux 16:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking rules

I do not honour your word. If you continue to be so anal retentive, I will not sign, and there will be no mediation. -999 (Talk) 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remeber I used that phrase first...Please read the mediation page rules. You are breaking them, JMAX555 has signed as he is willing to compromise, it only reflects badly on you if you don't join us in our consesus for mediation.

Please stop breaking mediation rules and please remain civil and have good faith. If you cannot do that, then please do not leave any messages.

Frater FiatLux 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the reply in Arkell_v._Pressdram. -999 (Talk) 16:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

That's four reverts on the mediation page. See you in a week. -999 (Talk) 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your the one that has broken mediaition rules. I am trying to build a consensus and you are showing that you do not want any such thing to happen Frater FiatLux 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM Page

Hi, I've just edited your RfM in my position as a member of the Mediation Committee. User:SynergeticMaggot should be listed as such, there is currently no User:Zos registered on Wikipedia (I understand that his signature is Zos, but this is immarterial). Your objections regarding Baba Louis have been left on the page, but I've crossed them out as this sort of thing should be left to the mediation.

I've done this editing to try and stop further conflict before the mediation has even begun. I've got the page on my watchlist and will keep an eye out. If there are further changes to the Request I will contact whoever does the editing. I would advise that you do not, to try and avoid further conflict.

I hope this helps calm the situation and that you can particpate in a successful mediation in the near future. --Wisden17 16:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I need immedaite help though as 999 has put me up to be blocked ou t on 3rr because I had to keep reverting the article back to version that the mediator asked me to ad to. Can you help me? this is my reply to the 3rr. If get improperly blocked I will not be able to complete the mediation.

Comment: Users have repeatedly edited the mediation file which breaks mediation rules by adding comment other than agree or disagree. I have made many announcements about this on the all their talk pages and make copious notes and requests in the article: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion pages and an explanation of why I requested mediation.

It is myself attempting to file for mediation and myself that is trying to build a consensus. 999 and other users of his faction keep reverting the mediation against mediation rules and I have to revert the article back the version that was agreed on by myself and the mediator. If I am improperly blocked I will not be able to finish the mediation file as the mediator has requested me to. I have contacted the mediator involved in this

User 999 shows by putting me up to be blocked that he is not in favour of building a consensus or sorting this out properly and in a dignified or civil manner.

User 999 has also made non-civil and has clearly shown that he is only interested in more trouble and not building a coherent consensus by the comments he leaves on my personal discussion page. Please take note of the comments in my talk page where user 999 taunts me saying “that’s four reverts see you in a week” this only confirms he is not interested in the mediation I have filed for or sorting this out properly. Blocking me is wrong thing to do at this point, please my points made for medaition at the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion pages and an explanation of why I requested mediation.

I also requested help with 999 and other reverting the mediation file on the admin board this morning. This just goes to show that 999 carn’t help but revert articles.

Frater FiatLux 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC

I edited the 3RR page before seeing your message on my talk page. If you have any further problems on the RfM page let a member of the Committee sort them out, as this way you will stop any further conflict. For future reference other parties are actually allowed to edit the Request. Especially when they correct errors, e.g. adding User:Zos when no such user exists. I'm not sure if you had a look at this page but you may well find it helpful for future reference. If you need any help then please contact me. --Wisden17 17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion formatting

Please read WP:TALK about how to ORDER and INDENT in a discussion. It seems that you have never learned to do it properly, and it causes confusion in all the discussions of which you are a part. Number one, ALWAYS add new material AT THE END OF THE SECTION, never in the middle. Number 2, USE INDENTATION. -999 (Talk) 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that is you told then? ;) Imacomp 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Quit playing games 999, I had to get a mediator involved today to refrain you from getting me improperly blocked. Me, told, by 999; I don't think so friend.

Frater FiatLux 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater, 999 makes a very good point, and one that I meant to make. You do need to indent replies to comments, especially when there are several replies or paragraphs. I have not reviewed the history of your RfM, but sometimes take advice when it is given (whatever spirit it is given in). --Wisden17 10:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur, Wisden17. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 10:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputing on the Mediation request page

Come on, Frater, you know you aren't supposed to dispute anything on the RfM page. Why don't you go back and take out your bitching? And learn how to indent and learn how to sign at the end of the line while you are at it. You can't mix regular indentation with bullet points, you screw up the formatting. Why don't you at least make an effort to learn how to format things on WP? -999 (Talk) 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if you just left it simple instead of making commentary on certain points, I wouldn't have to make entries to would in response would I. I will look into the formatting, but at the moment I haven't a great deal of time to put in to this, as I am very busy in the real world.

Frater FiatLux 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egregious sockpuppeting accusations

<personal attack removed>My first edit was on 24 May 2005. JMax555's was on 8 January 2006 and SynergeticMaggot's first edit was on 22 April 2006. I have been on WP longer than either of them, I couldn't be their sockpuppet. <personal attack removed> -999 (Talk) 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can get away with being uncivil and cannot refrain, or control yourself from making personal insults, I will make a few simple comments back to you. I'm glad you've looked up what egregious means, although hijacking my phrase is hardly original is it? If you want me to take you at all seriously then be original, don't just copy me.

999, do not bite the "newcomers", just because you're more "seasoned", instead of making egregious, personal insults why not make constructive comment and assist me in working the Wikipedia system and helping me to find this out for myself.

Your showing yourself to be a low life 999, we're supposed to be in mediation, however, you simply cannot control yourself from making misguided and defamatory statements.

I'm not replying to any further messages of yours that are insulting and that violate Wikipedia's civil and good faith procedures. So, you can do as thou wilt, and say what you like my friend. Frater FiatLux 21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have only just noticed that the personal insults by user 999, have been removed, I will, of course, remove any of my comments if they infringe any procedure.

I do feel that we should refrain from all personal insults now as we're in mediation and should be focusing all efforts on making a coherent consensus. We cannot do that if we're frequently insulting each other. Frater FiatLux 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to help you. You discounted every one of my suggestions and started claims I was a member of HOGD, Inc., sockpuppet of JMax or Zos, refused to enter into any kind of discussion, and continue to lie about your actual motives. Your whole intent is to slander a living person in order to falsely exalt your laughing-stock of an order, and that is such low behaviour. Please note that Wikipedia is not therapy. Thanks. (P.S. I see you still haven't figured out how to indent. Bright) -999 (Talk) 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited to remove attacks. Stop it. Comment on content not on contributors. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User 999, that is another personal insult.Frater FiatLux 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion to calm things down

Hi there. I recommend that you simply avoid 999 and do not respond to any comments he makes that may be considered offensive. No progress is being made at this rate and focus should instead turn to the mediation request. I have asked him to do the same. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I've just made more suggestions to the mediation file but 999 has edited them already. Every effort I make on the mediation file gets edited by 999. He provided commentary and I had to reply, he has now struck lines through my suggestions. Frater FiatLux 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I removed your addition of your message on 999's talk page archive. Archives should be preserved, and it's best if we put the conflict between you and him behind us. Re-adding comments that he disagreed with will probably only inflame the situation, so it would be beneficial for everyone to focus on the mediation instead of eachother. Cowman109^Talk 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi, right I'm going to strike out all of the sockpuppet requests. This need to be addressed at WP:RFCU, which you may wish to do at the present time. The other comments which he has struck out do appear to be fair deletions. The ones marked as duplicates are duplicate issues. The question over a user participating is indeed valid. I wouldn't be worried about having equal numbers in the mediation. It may well be the case that the mediator asks to have only two spokespeople involved in the mediation, and so the numbers become pretty irrelevant then. I would try to avoid adding any more issues as this is become a very long RfM. If there are any more problems do contact me. --Wisden17 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation tags

Mediation tags belong only on the talk page, not on the article page. -999 (Talk) 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, for the time being stay off my discussion page, I did not appreciate your insults last night, you went way too far, and you received several warnings for your uncivil behaviour and a warning tag on you discussion page. The mediator has told you already we should avoid each other for the time being; now please stop editing my discussion page and leaving messages.

Just as note to you, I will not be making any further replies to you as the mediator has suggested this to me. Please do not delete my comments on your discussion page. I suggest if you want me to not delete your inappropriate comments off my discussion page, you shouldn't delete my comments of your own discussion page. And please do not leave misguided and uncivil notes on the edit summery such as "stay off my talk page farter Lux".

Frater FiatLux 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but have you ever thought that "farter Lux" could be a typo? It's only two letters different, which is an easy enough mistake to make. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah; I forgot. See Hanlon's razor for more info. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community Ban

This is to inform you that, based on your attrocious behavior on WP, your persistent reverting, recruiting of meatpuppets, bad faith agreement to mediation after which you have continued your revert war, that I will be asking for you to be banned based on the fact that you are intentionally disruptive. ---Baba Louis 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of your edits

Hello again. I was recently made aware of some of your edits to assorted orders of the Golden Dawn, in particularthis change. Your edits were reverted by another editor for not having a citation and apparently being considered offensive. I recommend that you avoid editing these pages while attempts are being made at mediation. Users are much more likely to assume good faith of you if you focus on getting the mediation done by avoiding editing the disputed articles.

There are always other tasks that need to be dealt with on Wikipedia if you feel that you don't have much to edit, as well. :) Cowman109^Talk 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frater FiatLux

A user-conduct Request for comment has been filed for your actions. Please read it, and write a response. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 06:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be making comment, however, you'll have to give a few days for me to get around to doing so as, I don't have a lot of time unti then. If I can get a reply out sooner, then I will do so.

Frater FiatLux 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to your RfC soon, or I will move to have you community banned based on the evidence in the RfC combined with your lack of response to the same. Thanks. ---Baba Louis 14:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will respond when I get the chance to. Frater FiatLux 01:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Req for Meditation

Look. user 999 and I got into an argument as to editing articles being concidered for mediation. He added a few more things to the mediation, and this caused me to rethink my agreement to mediate. So I apologized on the talk page on RfM, and then user 999 declined right after me. This caused the RfM to be denied. Once this happens, the tags need to be removed, since there is no longer a request. I then asked for the article to be unprotected so we can work together this time, in editing these articles. If you wish to go back to mediation, you can kindly ask 999 if he will agree to not argue anymore about this, and him and I will agree once more to mediation. Then all we have to do is relist it, and ask for it to be accepted. The only issue here is me and 999 agreeing to mediate. Then mediation can get under way. I'll agree to mediation if 999 does, so please ask him nicely. Thanks. Zos 16:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No wait. I'll ask him as well, ok? Zos 16:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked 999 if he will agree. He seems to be on wiki-break though. Zos 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be putting up some suggestions to the talk page today. My only worry is that the pages are bound to be reverted, and I do not want that to happen. Is there any way, just for now while we sort this out, that we can lock the pages again?

Frater FiatLux 17:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously do not think we need to protect it right now as there are no wars going on right now. Plus, no admin would protect it unless there was more eidt wars. As long as we discuss changes to the article without fighting, we can all work together. Zos 17:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)