Hi DS, please, try to guess and to describe motivation to respond (i learned much — deceitful, fake, demagogy (f.e. «false information» is like «false truth», as for his Majesty? Deity? actions attitude of super problematic wikimapia user (even with huge positive input) making edit and verbal wars wars wars with others zero learning remaining for himself «right» on zero responsibility etc. etc, here is he teaching user with super dignity, who was dared to correct him:
«The act of vandalism is continuous adding of «information» that doesn't fit the object — even after two explanations received.
Deleting a false information is not a vandalism at all.
To correct false information on Persian or Italian, one should know these Persian and Italian. May be you do.»
«Nächstes Mal empfehle ich, zuerst zu denken und nur danach meine Änderungen rückgängig zu machen.
Hoffe, dass es nie wiederholt.»
This is a fascinating and complex interpersonal conflict, revealing several layers of motivation in the speaker's response. Here’s a breakdown of the likely motivations and psychological stance:
Core Motivations:
Assertion of Absolute Authority and Correctness: The primary drive is to establish themselves as the sole arbiter of truth on the platform. By defining «vandalism» and «false information» unilaterally, they place themselves above the collaborative, consensus-based model of a wiki. The phrasing is legalistic and final, meant to shut down debate.
Intellectual Superiority and Gatekeeping: The comment about knowing Persian or Italian is a classic gatekeeping maneuver. It does two things:
Invalidates the Corrector: It implies the user who dared to edit is ignorant and unqualified.
Elevates Themselves: It positions the speaker as someone possessing this specialized knowledge (or at least as the judge of who possesses it). It transforms a content dispute into a test of personal credentials.
Punishment and Humiliation: The response is not just informational; it's punitive. The tone is cold, didactic, and deliberately dismissive. The German addendum («Nächstes Mal empfehle ich...») is particularly condescending. Switching to another language can be a power move, implying a level of sophistication or a deliberate barrier, and the phrase «first think, then revert my changes» is pure reprimand.
Victimhood and Righteousness: They frame their own actions as merely «deleting false information» (a noble act) and the other's actions as «continuous vandalism» (a criminal act). This creates a stark moral drama where they are the heroic defender of truth, and the other is a malicious vandal. This justifies any hostility in their response.
Pre-emptive Defense and Warning: The entire message serves as a warning shot. It's designed to deter future challenges. By stating the «rules» so categorically and attaching a stern warning («Hoffe, dass es nie wiederholt» — «I hope this is not repeated»), they aim to establish dominance and ensure future compliance.
Psychological & Behavioral Profile (as inferred from your description and their text):
Zero-Learning Stance: They operate from a Closed Belief System. Explanations from others are not data to be processed, but attacks to be repelled. Their core identity is tied to being «right.»
Lack of Epistemic Humility: They see «false information» as an objective, obvious category they alone can identify, not as a temporary state in a collaborative process of approximation. The analogy to «false truth» is apt—they believe they have direct access to The Truth.
Weaponized Pedantry: They use the forms of rational discourse (definitions, logical conditions like «continuous adding after explanations») to mask a fundamentally emotional, territorial drive. It's demagogic because it uses a veneer of reason to enforce a personal agenda.
Toxic Ownership: They view «their» articles or areas of editing not as communal projects but as personal fiefdoms. Corrections are not collaboration but trespassing.
The «His Majesty/Deity» Attitude: This is the core. The tone is that of a sovereign issuing a decree to a foolish subject. The anger stems not just from being edited, but from the lèse-majesté—the audacity of a common user to question their royal authority.
In Summary:
The motivation is to dominate, punish, and reclaim perceived lost authority. The response is a multifaceted weapon:
Ideological Weapon: Redefines the conflict as «Truth vs. Vandalism.»
Social Weapon: Uses humiliation and credentialism to belittle the opponent.
Strategic Weapon: Issues a clear threat to prevent future challenges.
The speaker is not interested in dialogue, learning, or the project's health. They are engaged in a status war to maintain their self-image as the infallible authority, using the platform's content as the battleground. Your description of «edit and verbal wars wars wars with zero learning» perfectly captures the cyclical, energy-draining nature of interacting with such a personality. They are not a collaborator; they are a context dictator.
Simondedovsk ban details
Ban reason:
This user continues to demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior: a persistent refusal to engage in constructive dialogue, an unwillingness to learn from or collaborate with others, and a tendency to treat the platform as a battleground for personal status conflicts. This approach is detrimental to the project's health and makes productive collaboration impossible
Ban type:
PMs and forum posts
Ban length:
6 hours
Ban proofs:
Warnings sent:
Futile to warn
Started:
2 days ago by skymon