Coomplaint procedureNo doubt there is a lot of link spam But no doubt many contributors of good articles start small and then build the piece in layers Thats completely human and completely understandable The better recourse would have been to insert that tag about possible deletion rather than deleting within such a short period of time I had just created the stub I am new to Wiki and perceived that I was up against a vandal Indeed I was How much more disturbing to learn that the destroyer has some form of administrative rightsIm new here and its not a paying job clearly Im not sure I want to learn the ropes of Wikipedia politics and egos as the obvious value of Wikipedia is compelling enough and the ugliness of personalities warped by power within a volunteer effort is unhealthy to that effort The impulse to characterize someone who stands up for their contribution as nasty or threatening  the seewhatImean response to a contributor not aware of the emotional satisfaction some may draw from arbitrary deletions from deliberately provoked confrontations to assure themselves of their own power is sad All my foregoing comments no doubt cements some of you more firmly in your smugness and selfsatisfaction Regardless of the barnacles that cling to its hull I assert that the Wiki concept is fortunately apparently more powerful than the base human dynamics it nurtures  but does not ultimately toleratei am asked to let it drop I dont claim to be a Wiki expert but I bet there is a complaint procedure Anyone care to point me in the right direction The article stub was summarily deleted three times but after that the vandal chose to insert an alert of possible deletion instead This indicates to me that the proper procedure was not followed the first three times Whats the complaint procedure My further complaint will be regarding the dynamic of portraying someone who stands up for themselves in a reasoned and civil way as having an attitude problem Thats probably the most corrosive thing to a volunteer effort

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Coomplaint procedureNo doubt there is a lot of link spam But no doubt many contributors of good articles start small and then build the piece in layers Thats completely human and completely understandable The better recourse would have been to insert that tag about possible deletion rather than deleting within such a short period of time I had just created the stub I am new to Wiki and perceived that I was up against a vandal Indeed I was How much more disturbing to learn that the destroyer has some form of administrative rightsIm new here and its not a paying job clearly Im not sure I want to learn the ropes of Wikipedia politics and egos as the obvious value of Wikipedia is compelling enough and the ugliness of personalities warped by power within a volunteer effort is unhealthy to that effort The impulse to characterize someone who stands up for their contribution as nasty or threatening  the seewhatImean response to a contributor not aware of the emotional satisfaction some may draw from arbitrary deletions from deliberately provoked confrontations to assure themselves of their own power is sad All my foregoing comments no doubt cements some of you more firmly in your smugness and selfsatisfaction Regardless of the barnacles that cling to its hull I assert that the Wiki concept is fortunately apparently more powerful than the base human dynamics it nurtures  but does not ultimately toleratei am asked to let it drop I dont claim to be a Wiki expert but I bet there is a complaint procedure Anyone care to point me in the right direction The article stub was summarily deleted three times but after that the vandal chose to insert an alert of possible deletion instead This indicates to me that the proper procedure was not followed the first three times Whats the complaint procedure My further complaint will be regarding the dynamic of portraying someone who stands up for themselves in a reasoned and civil way as having an attitude problem Thats probably the most corrosive thing to a volunteer effort

