User talk:Walleyeone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Joehazelton. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Joe, apparently you are, for whatever reason, unwilling or unable to dispute your block through normal channels and are going to continue to create sockpuppets to evade your ban for refusing to follow Wikipedia rules. I'm willing to turn a blind eye to this as long as you are willing to behave reasonably and stay under the radar. You were right to remove the material and insist upon a better source, but you were wrong to use that as an excuse to launch attacks upon myself other editors. Your condescending faux-polite tone fools no one. If you are going to continue to stir up the same old attacks on the same people, you're going to continue to be blocked. Gamaliel 05:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is how treat people who may edit contrary to your point of view off on Peter Roskam article. You accuse them of being a sock and inploy Argumentum Baculum and then Ban them. As far as to dispute or unable to dispute your arbitrary and hateful ban, it would seem to me a waste of time by going to the kangaroo court discussing it with the Milo Minderbinder's the wisdom of selling parachutes.

First, God knows you may have skills of Karnak the magnificent who can put a sealed envelope to your head and divine the identities and truth just because you feel that every editor who challenges the shabbiness of this article may cause you to feel that their may be 1 in 100,000 chance that the editor challenging your point of view and opinion could very well be a dreaded sock puppet. But, in reality, anybody who has a different point of view and agenda than you and the two meat puppets which you help to protect will become banned and driven off this article should they tried to engage in any kind of discussion or civil debate and that does not fool anybody who takes a critical eye of what happens in the editing process on this biography.

The reality, it appears that you're the one that is abusive and disrespectful of those who may present reasonable edits just because they violate your point of view. I'm going to start with your arbitrary and disrespectful ban because I may be some one who has a point of view different from you and the two meat puppets that operate in conjunction with each other in order to protect a very shabby,flawed as well as biased biography of a Republican congressman.

What you don't like is attacks on this article which you take personally. Any time I point out the shabbiness and the flaws as well as how this article deviates terribly from the published guidelines of Wikipedia, in regards to neutral point of view and policy of biographies of living persons, you you appear to take a very personal and attack those who may challenge your opinion and point of view and considered a personal attack. This would indicate you are the problem and not me.

You're willing to turn a blind eye, you seem to be willing to do that very easily in regards again with the shabbiness and lack of neutral point of view as well as well as tolerating poorly researched biography and contrary to the published policies of Wikipedia which I accuse you of being bias because of the way your heavy hand with a "ball bat with nail" controls this article as well as to protect sympathetic editors who act as "meatpuppet" to your point of view. In the end the facts are simply that your quick to slap down anybody who should dare challenge the the articles badly written Any time I point out the shabbiness and the flaws and deviations this article has from the published guidelines of Wikipedia, in regards to neutral point of view and policy of biographies of living persons, you take it personal and you considered a personal attack on you which indicates you are the problem and not me.Walleyeone 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe, your banning is strictly the result of your behavior. It has nothing to do with my opinion of the subject of the article, of whom I know nothing about outside of this article. You accuse me of playing at telepathy, which is rich considering the main reason you were banned is that you continually have leveled insulting accusations about the motives of other users while having absolutely no accurate knowledge about those motives. In your world, everyone else is a partisan blackguard while you are pure in motive and free of bias. Until you can abandon that or at least keep it to yourself, you will continue to run into the same problems again and again.

You apparently cannot understand this has nothing to do with article content. I am willing to let you play at the sockpuppet game provided you are willing to keep your comments restricted to content. You'll note that I agreed with your removal of that material, a fact that is noticably absent from all your rants. But when you start reciting your long lists of complaints and gripes about imaginary bias, that is when you will get blocked. With your next sockpuppet, try collaborative editing instead of attacking and complaining, you might be surprised at the results. Gamaliel 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're willing to play then these will be the rules under which we will play this game.

One, I will confine my comments to the article only. I will do that if and only if the two meat puppets Mr. Propol and Mr. Goethen, remain civil and confine their discussion to the subject at hand. In this arena of ideas and debate we are not going to play" gaming the wiki rules" see point "three" for which rules I will abide by.

Two, you'll remove my ban, and restore my ability to operate on this account without interference. For that I will promise to operate under the "natural law" of mutual respect or in other words I will be polite to you and to your protégés as long as you and your protégés are polite to me, as well as, I will be respectful of them and their point of view assuming if they are respectful of mine.

Three, you will enforce equally and fairly, with regards to wikipedia policy as to "biography of living persons" which includes "neutral point of view" as well as "undue weight" as well as "balance in "tone and style of writing" as well as use "reliable and verifiable sources" especially for entries that may be negative or embarrassing. These sources shall not include "Democratic sourced web sites or links" which are bias, unblanced, and lack peer review and editorial control. We will stick with mainstream and verifiable neutral publishers and respected journalists. Also, the concept of "neutral point of view" "undue weight" and verifiable and neutral sources shall supersede consensus.

You have my word on this as long as you keep your word on this as well. This you can depend on.

Joe, I've given this some thought while I was away for the weekend. I'd like a mutually satisfactory resolution to this matter because I think that the article would be better off if you channeled your efforts into improving it instead of harrassing other editors. But I am disturbed by recent edits such as these [1] [2] I cannot in good consicence unblock a user who is currently engaged in not only blatantly evading the block, but attacking other editors and engaging in the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. If I am even going to begin to consider lifting this block, you need to demonstrate that this behavior will change. Lay off this article for a week and refrain from making any edits of any kind or any posts to the talk page or to the talk pages of other editors. If you can restrain yourself for that short period of time, it will begin show that perhaps you have the temperment to return to editing. At that point we can discuss further action. If you don't like that, find someone else to unblock you. Gamaliel 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)