"

-
-

I can cast some light on:

1. CZMarlin's contribution 

CZMarlin is a tireless promoter of AMC vehicles (he owns at least two and has a website dedicated to AMC products). As he knows, I have developed the view that he seems to use the project quite persistently as a PR medium for the defunct corporation and its products. It is, I believe, to this end that, it seems to me, he has habitually fought against sourced material that brings neutrality and balance to articles on AMC products, e.g. AMC Pacer, Gremlin etc.  

It is true that I was deeply frustrated by the apparent determination with which he misrepresented others’ contributions in order to justify their deletion, e.g. . I was also frustrated by his apparent insistence on idiosyncratic and erroneous interpretations of the English language, and also by what appeared to be deliberately erroneous interpretation of verifiable facts, e.g.   errors that cannot be permitted in an  encyclopedia.  

My sincere belief that English was not CZM’s first language arose from the manner in which he uses it and the difficulties of communicating with him. (Examples on request.) I disagree that I belittled him for it – as a non-native English speaker myself, it's not something I would do.  Indeed I offered to help him with the language (offer ignored) and told him he could seek help from WP volunteer translators, so that he could write in Polish (also ignored).  

True, I ridiculed him when his behaviour seemed so extreme as to appear ridiculous to me.  I should not have done so. But we get frustrated when we try to work with an editor who, it seems, demonstrates provocatively scant regard for factual accuracy, neutrality, balance and clarity of communication . Granted, I should not have let my frustration show. 

The 'known vandal' CZM mentions is in fact an IP address used by one or more people. The address had a history of vandalism. When I saw a constructive edit from it I tried to encourage the contributor in her/his constructive behaviour; and later suggested the sandbox for experiments:  , . My posts encouraged constructive behaviour. 

CZM's damaging claim that these posts encouraged disruptive behaviour is totally false. (This gives a flavour of the difficulties I had with him.) It also casts serious doubt on the reliability of his contribution here, and also on his good faith.

He implies that my use of the term 'AMC cuckoos' was insulting. Not so, as he well knows, because I explained it to him when he showed that he had misunderstood the idiom: I used the term in an edit summary to describe the long-winded and inappropriate descriptions of certain AMC cars that he had introduced  like cuckoos in a nest  into an article on a certain aspect of automotive aerodynamics .

My  'another sophomoric CZM error' was mischievous but (IMO) harmless retaliation for CZM’s previous sniffy dismissal of some Google research I had posted to a discussion, which he denigrated as 'sophomoric research'. He seems to have forgotten that.  

The reference to 'little fuhrer' is more serious, and I should not have used it even though it mentioned no names (so no harm done to CZM’s reputation). Why that particular metaphor? I’m afraid I regarded CZM’s approach to editing as uncollaborative and perfunctory to the point of being dictatorial; and ruthless in its uncritical promotion of AMC and its products.

2. Collect’s contribution 

Just as he could list my transgressions (""I have a list of [Writegeist's] comments""), so also could I recite a litany of his own. Meh. Tit for tat gets us nowhere.

However it is worth noting that an antagonism grew between us at the Sarah Palin pages when it became apparent to Collect that I disagreed with much of his input, whereas he had assumed from one of my earliest contributions there that I would be an ally (he left an appreciative note on my Talk). Yet despite the difficulties between us, it was with scrupulous fairne