User talk:75.57.196.81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:
This IP address, 75.57.196.81, is registered to Southwestern Bell Internet. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts should be made to contact Southwestern Bell Internet to report abuse, which can be done here. Contact information can be viewed in the WHOIS report.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it is possible for the owner of the IP, Southwestern Bell Internet, to determine who was making contributions from this address at a given time.
If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log).
(This IP account is part of a dynamic range. Edits by its current user (9 April 2008) have also been made using 75.57.200.103 (talk · contribs), 75.58.34.144 (talk · contribs), 75.58.36.51 (talk · contribs), 75.58.57.10 (talk · contribs), 75.58.62.44 (talk · contribs), 75.57.200.103 (talk · contribs), 75.57.186.159 (talk · contribs) and 75.58.39.148 (talk · contribs). The collected discussion topics from those pages has been recreated here, so that editors posting here can take note if a particular topic has been discussed before. This list of IPs is by no means inclusive, but does cover the range used in the past seven days)


from User talk:75.58.62.44

Contents

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Fitna (film) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

from User talk:75.57.200.103

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS. I pointed that out a few times, but you keep failing to sign your posts. As well, you seem unwilling to put on the Politeness hat for conversations. I am going to ask you, once again, to be civil, and treat folk in the matter to which you yourself would like to be suggested. Pissing me off would be a fabulously bad idea. You want me to listen to your ideas, be polite. You want me thinking the absolute worst of you, keep up the incivility (yes, we actually have a policy that can have you blocked for being rude and/or a dick). Think carefully before responding. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
from User talk:75.58.36.51

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warning

Here is a news flash: the next time you post a personal attack like this, you will be reported for uncivil behavior. Consider this to be your final warning. Now that you have been warned, the next occurrence of it will have you reported to AN/I. I hope you finally take my repeated advice to be more polite, because your posts are abusive, and your newness to Wikipedia won't protect you after you have been warned repeatedly to be more polite. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You were warned. I wish you had ben more polite. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
from User talk:75.58.34.144

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policies

You might want to read up on WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS. It's only fair that you should know why you are about to be blocked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

from User talk:75.57.165.180

[edit] Fitna edits - last warning

Kapowow or whatever anon id you are going by today, I am afraid I am going o have to insist that you stop rushing to judgement on issues being discussed. You have consistently shown a willingness to attempt to shut out those opinions that differ from yours through the use of 'resolved' tags. You might want to stop using them, as you are using them incorrectly. Discussion is concluded when everyone says it is - not just you. Read WP:CONSENSUS, as it details that consensus does not override rules and guidelines. Ever. Your continued disruptions and snide personal remarks are growing tiresome, and repeated requests for you to lighten up or discuss your edits in a non-confrontational tone seem to fall on deaf ears. So I am saying this, as every other one of the four other warnings you've received appears to have been studiously ignored: stop being disruptive, or your tendentious behavior will be reported.
Btw, you are at your 3RR limit for the day. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is utter tripe.
75.57.165.180, I'm sorry that you, as I, had the misfortune of coming under Arcayne's headlights. How he seems to be getting away with this is a minor miracle. Kapowow (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting away with what, precisely? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic comments

I am going to have to insist that you confine your posts to the subject of the article discussion, or did you happen to miss that great yellow box at the top of the Discussion page that pointed that out. Or perhaps you forgot about WP:TALK, or how Wikipedia is not a venue for your grievances? I am going to move your post from the discussion page hstory to here:
Repeated accusations of me being a "sock" are bordering on paranoia. Kapowow (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
♠Strangely, Arcayne did not initially accuse you, he added you later as an afterthought. He accused me of being a Sock Puppet simply because I am a Public Editor - even though I continued to consistently identify and single out myself. The accusation he links to abovesock is informative, it is without merit and a flagrant abuse of the system and peoples time and resources all for the entertainment of one individual. The affair itself a sad commentary on Wikipedia and reflects poorly on Arcayne. Empty and without a single "diff" to support him.75.57.165.180 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Such actions make the new or casual editor - or indeed anyone unable or unwilling to muster considerable force in defending themselves against attack - very skeptical of contributing to Wikipedia. The most stunning aspect of all this is that Arcayne consistently refuses (or is unable) to provide proof for any claims, yet appears to have been given the power to roam freely, doing and saying as he pleases, without consequence, question or reprimand. Kapowow (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 1
If you reintroduce it to the discussion page, I will remove it again, and remove it at every introduction. In fact, if you reintroduce it, I will file a request to have you blocked as a disruptive influence who refuses to follow the rules and was recently found out as a disruptive sock-puppet.
If you are of the opinion that this is some grand battle between you and I, please put that out of your mind. This isn't a fight, its a free environment for people to edit in ; me, you, your most recent sock-puppet and Kapowow (who might be the aforementioned sock-puppet), and everyone else. The only way to excel is to edit better than someone else. Excessive cross-posting, snide remarks, personal attacks and civil behavior is only going to get you blocked or banned. You may not believe this at all, but I really don't want you to be banned. I want you to stop using sock-puppets to reinforce your point of view. I want you to learn to reat others as you would like to be treated. I want you to act like a mature adult, even if you are only a kid because this - here, now - is the forum for you to start developing a sharp mind. If you keep making your edits into a pissing contest, you are going to find yourself holding your dick all alone. No one wants a pissing match. All it leads to useless urine all over the ground.
So knock it off. The advice is free. I urge you to deeply consider it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you are new, or at least want people to think you are new, so maybe - as a newbie, you are willing to take some advice. You tend to bring entire previous posts over when you respond to simple questions. Might I suggest that you simply wikilink them to a word and allow the reader to explore the link on their own? Doing it this way makes your posts appear less long-winded.

Example:
Your recent post in Talk:Fitna could be condensed down to a simple statement.

This makes your posts easier to follow, and not subject to someone calling them wandering. This is good advice I am giving you, and I hope you aren't too stubborn to take it. It required an RfCU and an AN/I to get you to begin signing your posts. Maybe you can just try this new way of doing things without that level attention to a problem.Give it a try; it helps you enormously. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DR

So, are you ready to try this? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

IP user, as said before, your options can be found under WP:DR. Please note that it applies to content disputes as well as behavioral disputes. For example, complaints about a user's behavior can be resolved via user talk discussion, mediation, RfC/U. I would say it isn't worth it though. Simply keep your interactions with users who accuse you of untoward behavior to a minimum and on-topic and don't overreact to accusations you know to be incorrect. If you have a content dispute with anyone, please follow DR. If you need the advice of an experienced editor, you may want to register a user name and put a {{helpme}} or {{adoptme}} tag on your talk page. Avb 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, you can either keep beating a dead horse (as I've already explained why you came under sock-puppet scrutiny at least twice), or you can put down the stick and either realize that your behavior prompted my report, avoid me altogether, or keep carrying the anger around and eventually ruin your Fun Quotient. I once saw a movie about Medgar Evers, wherein I heard the most interesting truth (and I'm paraphrasing): "Hating people does you no good; half the people you hate don't know you hate them, and the other half don't care." This is pretty much true, as I am in the latter group. I am concerned only in that you will continue to disturb article discussions to take cheap shots at me, but you've already discovered that doing so only damages your reputation and whatever point you were trying to make (in regards to the article).
I am far from perfect, anon. I can be condescending at times and dismissive of people that aren't respectful and polite, and thats a bad part of my online personality. As well, your online personality can be pretty unpleasant at times, but I sense some intelligence in there as well. I don't know if you are running a game in Wikipedia with anon accounts, or if your knowledge of our policies belies a previous user who for whatever reason is hiding - it seemed that way when I filed the RfCU. However, folk there have seen fit to give you another chance, although they will likely be watching you more carefully for untoward behavior (incivility, personal attacks, failure to sign your posts, etc.), and any future reports (though I really do hope will be unnecessary) will have a lot more traction than the RfCU, where you were given the benefit of the doubt.
I am going to do that as well. I am going to give you the same footing that I give other wiki editors. You can eventually earn my respect by giving me the Assumption of Good Faith, or you can continue down this path of angry frustration and recrimination, and end up in unpleasant situations which will certainly ruin the fun you are supposed to be having here.
That choice is yours. Choose wisely. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My advice for the IP user remains to let it go. You are clearly quite intelligent and have clearly gained some experience editing Wikipedia collaborating with better editors than semi-demigods with editcountitis - why let anyone spoil your fun? Take my example - some edit patterns just ain't worth it. Wikipedia is a big place, and unless you're here to save it from idiots, you can be an asset by simply editing where the idiots don't hold sway. (If you're here to save Wikipedia from idiots, you will need more editing experience and a much thicker skin; the way you're approaching things now will give others lots of rope to hang you with). Avb 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

) Point taken.
from User talk:75.57.165.180

[edit] Please stop trolling

Please stop trolling Talk:Fitna (film). Repeating the same irrelevant comment over and over is simply disruption. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the current debate you called trolling, it speaks for itself:


♠We have no Reliable Source that the work is "prejudice[1] or discrimination[2] against Islam or Muslims". May I suggest that a simple quote of one sentence be introduced to support any assertion that a link presented contains such a finding?75.57.186.159 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into disruption. It has been explained to you several times that this is not on topic since what you are asking for has no bearing on policy or guidelines. You also refuse to show how it does. Repeating the same thing over and over despite the fact that everyone present has explained to you what its inapplicable and simply a subjective demand of yours is disruption. BTW, the last time you asked a similar question, you were finally answered with several sources at which point you simply dismissed those sources to make this claim.PelleSmith (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So I think we can conclude - Dont feed the ...... thestick (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I'm sorry that you feel the request for a single quote to support your assertion is disruptive. You do understand that I cannot read your links and demonstrate a negative. If there is nothing there to support the assertion that this Film is "prejudice[3] or discrimination[4] against Islam or Muslims" I can not show that. You however can demonstrate a positive by quoting a single sentence in support of your claim.75.57.186.159 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Only to make you stop this nonsense: Far-right Dutch MP will fix errors in 'Fitna' - except its Islamophobia. PelleSmith (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠The provocative headline was an editorial appendage from the owners of the website - the body of text from Agence France Presse (AFP) makes no such finding. This particular link is not a supporting citation.75.57.186.159 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So what do you call this, the actual text from the AFP under the headline?--"Dutch far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders, whose Islamophobic film has provoked uproar and global condemnation, will amend the movie to prevent lawsuits, the ANP news agency said Monday. The changes are mainly aimed at pre-empting legal action over possible copyright infringements but the news agency said." This is not an editorialized comment from the Star ... the news agency in the report is the ANP, and the news agency that created this blurb is the AFP.PelleSmith (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠The article was obviously not written by AFP - you will never find AFP articles that quote themselves. I've highlighted the part that indicates this:

"Dutch far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders, whose Islamophobic film has provoked uproar and global condemnation, will amend the movie to prevent lawsuits, the ANP news agency said Monday. The changes are mainly aimed at pre-empting legal action over possible copyright infringements but the news agency said."

The person who owns the website may have added an AFP byline - but it does not contain the AFP text.75.57.186.159 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper that runs the website you refer to has added a true to life AFP news blurb. To clarify the AFP, or Agence France-Presse has written a news blurb that quotes the ANP, or Netherlands national news agency. This is 100% entirely clear. The Daily Star would be violating all kinds of laws if they posted their own material claiming it was written by the AFP, not to mention the fact that it would be an absurd coincidence if they misspelled the name with an N, making it sound like it has the same name as the Netherlands national news agency. Please stop disseminating lies.PelleSmith (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop edit-warring

As the section title says, please stop edit-warring. You are at 3 reverts in the International reaction to Fitna‎ article. Use the discussion page - and ONLY the discussion page to argue your points. As well, you might want to check out WP:BRD; it offers you a method by wich you can interact with your fellow editors without getting yourself written up. There is no consensus in any of the articles, only ongoing discussion. You may not agree with the dissent to your wishes, but you are not to abruptly call a conclusion to them. Doing so is uncivil, and will end you up in hot water. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

You have been warned repeatedly about making personal attacks against users who you disagree with in Wikipedia. You have also been told repeatedly by several editors and administrators that this behavior (1, 2) is not acceptable, and is not tolerated. Because you seem unwilling to accept the advice to be more polite and friendly in your edits, you have been served with this Final Civility Warning. Any further personal attacks or incivility will have significant and unfortunate consequences for you. Please consider this warning a last attempt to encourage you to distinctly alter the way you interact with editors - any editors - as your behavior is disruptive and is corrosive to the spirit of cooperation that Wikipedia is supposed to engender. You are being offered a final opportunity to modify your own behavior before it is modified for you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
from User talk:75.58.39.148

[edit] Civility Warning - Complaint filed

You were warned - numerous times - to find a way to be more polite. Perhaps you can explain why I shouldn't file a civility complaint against you immediately for this edit? I am hoping the explanation is really, really good, since I just gave you a final civility warning a few hours ago. I will wait a few minutes, and then I will file. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(current discussion for this IP address)

[edit] DFT

Rather than call your fello editors trolls, you might wish to ponder disengaging whilst reading WP:DFT; I find it useful sometimes when dealing with disruptive folk. I had previously decided not to file a civility complaint, as my time is better spent in other articles. If you refer to me as a troll one more time, I promise you that I will reconsider that decision, and then you will more than likely to have something to really hate me for. Choose very wisely, anon. This is your last chance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please review basic policy

Dear IP. Arcayne has been adding information to this page identifying the various dynamic IPs all of which you have been using, with one user. As far as I can tell this is well within policy. Please also review the relevant langugage on Wikipedia:Username policy about using multiple accounts. I cannot see any good reason for your removal unless you are actively attempting to keep your various activities untraceable to one user, which is against the basic essence of Wikipedia policies about editing as one user only. Please do not try to game the system. I would recommend just getting a real user name and then deleting whatever you want that someone adds to your talk page (within reason and policy of course). In fact I'm even unsure if this can be considered your talk page in any capacity, since it is not connected to any user account and since your IP doesn't stay the same for long. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have violated 3RR

Please stop trying to evade essential Wikipedia policy. In doing so you have now breached 3RR. Please stop.PelleSmith (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact you breached it a long time ago.PelleSmith (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] While it may be annoying to have your error pointed out

Please do not remove content from your userpage. It allows other users to see who has contacted you and why. Also, the above user is only informing you of policy and procedures here on Wikipedia. If you don't like this, maybe you should follow the rules. Dustitalk to me 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Actually the above user is a meat-puppet of Arcayne, he and Arcayne have attacked me elsewhere. Arcayne has been following me around Wikipedia harassing me and reverting my edits.

I am no meat-puppet of anyone. We crossed paths because when you were trolling an otherwise settled discussion on Talk:Fitna (film). As you can see from the Reliable Sources noticeboard I literally don't care about your dispute with Arcayne regarding using or not using the word "Productions" in the film credits. I find the entire dispute absurd. Just because you have problems with two seperate users does not make them in any way related. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You may mean "sock puppet" and I seriously doubt that. If its true, creat an account yourself, and go to WP:SSP to file a report that these users are sockpuppets. Dustitalk to me 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(added) Also, I see that you have no real contributions to Wikipedia other than to your talk page. Dustitalk to me 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes please do. A user account would solve this whole mess right away, and I have absolutely nothing to hide so I welcome it. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


No, I meant meatpuppet, a member brought in specifically to support another members position. PelleSmith was in here 5 minutes after I reversed Arcaynes edit - and he has been brought in by Arcayne to support his position in forums as well. Here are some of my contributions:


[5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

And where are the contribs that the above users reverted? Dustitalk to me 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Here is one from today - you'll notice the user is normally editing Harry Potter, Terminator and other popular culture articles: [10]75.57.196.81 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


(edit conflict)If you have true concerns about impropriety then file them. Be my guest. How do we know which edits are your and which are not? What's wrong with getting a user account? We value that kind of transparency here. Speaking of transparency I would also welcome you posting some diffs that prove your accusation about meat puppetry (NOTE I have never edited the above page).PelleSmith (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the contribs, and Arcayne was correct in saying that if the text does not match the reference it cannot be included. I have reverted your actions. Now, do you have any others? Note: That the fact that Arcayne was there to revert your actions does not constitute a valid report of harassment. He/she has the right to review recent changes and look at any and all corrections or changes. Dustitalk to me 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand you that a civilly engaged in, supported with citation, contribution to articles that Arcayne is working on is acceptable? 75.57.196.81 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can assume this:
  • I am a neutral party, currently taking no sides
  • I have requested proof that the above users are trolling you and harrassing you, keeping you from positivley contributing to Wikipedia
  • So far, you have failed to do so

Please provide PROOF that the above users are trolling and harassing you. If you can provide proof, I will take action. Until then, I cannot do anything. Dustitalk to me 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One strong indicator from the article above, of the directed and personal targeting for harassment is made obvious by the fact that Arcayne edited out my addition but left in the unsourced parallel sentiment "This is largely a result of the substantial political and economic investments in these drugs." I will add to this list with additional diffs75.57.196.81 (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just show me the proof. That's all that I ask. Dustitalk to me 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if following someone to an article in an area completely outside their normal purview and then selectively editing a specific editors comments while leaving in unsourced and identical sentiment in the same sentence that I expanded upon is not proof, I'm not sure what is.
  • Additionally my cited reference is considered by the "Good Faith" rules of Wiki to be considered appropriate until found otherwise, that is a bedrock. I'm quite pleased with my hundreds of non-controversial edits over the years here at Wiki - I engaged in a debate over a couple of issues in the Fitna article, one with PelleSmith in which I objected to the use of a citation which could be brought up anyway one liked:[11][12] ( I withdrew my opposition and allowed the variable citation to stand, mostly due to the implied utility and the politicized nature of the desired tag) {Additionally I never made a single edit on the issue - all objections were done civilly on the talk page}.
  • I am also being engaged by Arcayne here:[13] where a simple question on policy was answered clearly several times only to have Arcayne independently attach an Unresolved tag to it(On this issue he reverted 4 editors about 7 times for identical edits. He has also fought community consensus here, reverting I believe 3 different editors:[14]. Arcayne and PelleSmith joined in a formal complaint against me, and Arcayne also filed a ludicrous charge of Sock-puppetry against me. Ludicrous because Arcayne himself acknowledged that I clearly identified myself and tied my ip's together (TO quote Arcayne himself as he accused me of sockpuppetry, "Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier." [15]
  • He also formally accused me of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" and never presented a single diff.

Wikipedia will become whatever you allow it to become. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm. I think while we are on the subject of meat-puppetry and canvassing, I should point out that the anon user is likely more familiar with the practice than s/he is letting on. In a spurious wikiquette alert against me (since concluded), the anon contacted only those editors with whom I had had disagreed with in the past 6 months and notified them of the alert (1, 2, 3, 4]), and then (somewhat disingenuously) defended them as "neutral notices". To the recipients' credit, all of them recognized it for for the civility vio it was and stayed away.
Just thought I would point that out.
I guess I should also point out that I have never called the anon user a troll, though I personally feel the behavior of that user to be somewhat repugnant. In good faith, I attempted to engage the user in WP:DR, after he was advised to pursue such by no less than three admins in each of the failed AN/I reports he filed. He chose to instead insult at least one of the admins in question and begin reverting my edits across the board whilst calling me a troll through at least two different IP addresses.
I am rather glad that a neutral party is in attendance. Please, ask any questions you wish. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP. You did not "engage in a debate over a citation," you trolled a dead and irrelevant point over and over and over, after having consensus slam down on top of you in regards to including a highly relevant category on the page Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Anyone can see your trolling here. As to the formal complaint, I did no such thing. I noted, in the ANI complaint that appears to have been filed by you or another editor against Arcayne that you were misrepresenting that very discussion by providing an edited version of it from your talk page at ANI. I only asked for someone to do something about this misrepresentation. Who would ever know, btw, how constructive your edits have been in the past, since you refuse to be identified as a continuous single user. I believe the attempt to avert such continuity is exactly what got us here in the first place. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
At this time, the discussion on all parts is more in depth than I am comfortable dealing with. I am going to call in an Administrator to review the case and take the appropriate actions he deems necessary. Please hold further discussion until your contacted by an Administrator. Dustitalk to me 20:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove the top banner and ip ident message on this page

If necessary I will semi protect the page from editing by ip and new user accounts. I realise that this will mean that the ip's using this page will not be able to edit it, so I will then create a sub-page for discussion to continue (with an explanation and link); the net result will be that this page will continue to show the header and the ip ident message - so I really suggest that these sections are not removed again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. This is old news and already covered - Arcayne is simply manipulating the system.75.57.196.81 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Unresolved"

Hi; the threads are resolved as the request made by the opening poster was dealt with. If you have further issues, please start a further thread to cover them. Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring others' comments

Do not ever alter (1, 2) the content of my posts in a discussion page again. I take significant exception. If it ever occurs again, I will have request to have you blocked so fast that your kids will get whiplash. This is your only warning in regards to this topic, so I would urge you not to test my resolve on this particular subject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is eminently satisfying to illustrate how you have managed to piss me off, it is somewhat inappropriate for me to vent as I have. I have thusly refactored my own post, striking through the offensive part of the comment. Note that striking through the portion of the text addresses the reality that the post has been responded to, and striking through it is a retraction of the offense of the comment, without attempting to remove it altogether. I will ask you to never, ever alter my posts' content or intent again, please. It is considered extremely uncivil. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

Give someone enough rope, and they'll hang themselves :)

Stay strong bro ;)

Kapowow-on-holiday (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You are disruptive and disputatious. I have blocked you from editing. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)