| Revision as of 02:01, 14 April 2008 editPoyoyloar (talk | contribs)93 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:43, 14 April 2008 edit undoNsevs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,737 editsm typosNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| Mike, look... you are obviously new to these parts. Notice how you were admonished for your NEW personal attack against me? Yes, I'm refering to the NEW "Dwaltzwriter" account you just created. This is called sockpuppetry, which means creating phony accounts pretending to be different people when really the same person (you) are using accounts to further your own POV agenda. And the fact that somebody just happened to create the Dwaltzwriter account to jump into an argument about deleting an account pretty much proves that you are manipulating multiple accounts to create a sense that a community (of one) is actually supporting this argument. This is very childish. I can guess what your next excuse is... that it is a friend of Ms. Best or Mr. Watts. That violation falls under meatpuppetry since getting your friends to create accounts to back a POV argument with the illusion of chance is an attempt to 'game' the system to support your argument. Fair warning: I will now report all your sockpuppet accounts. Hopefully, I'm wrong since I'd rather be wrong about this. If right, then this will create a harder time for you to justify the legitimacy of your Mike Watt article since it really is starting to look like you are trying to blantantly advertise yourself. ] (]) 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | Mike, look... you are obviously new to these parts. Notice how you were admonished for your NEW personal attack against me? Yes, I'm refering to the NEW "Dwaltzwriter" account you just created. This is called sockpuppetry, which means creating phony accounts pretending to be different people when really the same person (you) are using accounts to further your own POV agenda. And the fact that somebody just happened to create the Dwaltzwriter account to jump into an argument about deleting an account pretty much proves that you are manipulating multiple accounts to create a sense that a community (of one) is actually supporting this argument. This is very childish. I can guess what your next excuse is... that it is a friend of Ms. Best or Mr. Watts. That violation falls under meatpuppetry since getting your friends to create accounts to back a POV argument with the illusion of chance is an attempt to 'game' the system to support your argument. Fair warning: I will now report all your sockpuppet accounts. Hopefully, I'm wrong since I'd rather be wrong about this. If right, then this will create a harder time for you to justify the legitimacy of your Mike Watt article since it really is starting to look like you are trying to blantantly advertise yourself. ] (]) 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Just so you know, you did not sucessfully complete the nomination process at . I have taken care of that for you. As well, I would like to remind you about ] and ]... The way to handle situations like this is to keep a ] head, present the facts at the appropriate noticeboard, and let them speak for themselves. You don't need to admonish users on their talk pages, and comments like "This is very childish" and warnings like "this will create a harder time for you to justify the legitimacy of your Mike Watt article" border on ]. There are standardized sockpuppet, AfD, and notability warning notices ], and I suggest you avail yourself of those. | |||
| :At the same time, I do want to thank you for staying with this despite all the bumps in the road. It IS important to follow up with these things, but it's MORE important to take the high road with cases like these. They come along far too often to treat them any other way. Thanks again, ] • ] 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:43, 14 April 2008
Here.
Sockpuppetry for User:ArchieHall
I noticed that you accused User:ArchieHall of sockpuppetry, a comment that which was later deleted by the user. If this is a serious allegation and you can back it up with evidence (similar editing patterns to another user using diffs), I recommend you bring it up at WP:SSP, but please ask me if you have any questions. --Nsevs • Talk 17:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"But if it helps your 'paranoia', your article was pointed out to me by an anonymous editor. If you'd like I can refer you to him/her if you truly believe you are being harrassed." - Yes, I'd like you to refer me to him/her. Appreciated, thank you.ArchieHall (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, still not Mike Watt (singular, no "S" - you might like to spell check the names of the people you persecute). I'd recommend you also google the name "Douglas Waltz" and see that he's another writer in the industry. If you want to be wrong: there it is. Now, I'm bored of fighting you. You win. I'll contact Mike and tell him I'm throwing in the towel. Delete whatever you like. Report whatever you like. Go to sleep tonight feeling righteous and justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchieHall (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mike, look... you are obviously new to these parts. Notice how you were admonished for your NEW personal attack against me? Yes, I'm refering to the NEW "Dwaltzwriter" account you just created. This is called sockpuppetry, which means creating phony accounts pretending to be different people when really the same person (you) are using accounts to further your own POV agenda. And the fact that somebody just happened to create the Dwaltzwriter account to jump into an argument about deleting an account pretty much proves that you are manipulating multiple accounts to create a sense that a community (of one) is actually supporting this argument. This is very childish. I can guess what your next excuse is... that it is a friend of Ms. Best or Mr. Watts. That violation falls under meatpuppetry since getting your friends to create accounts to back a POV argument with the illusion of chance is an attempt to 'game' the system to support your argument. Fair warning: I will now report all your sockpuppet accounts. Hopefully, I'm wrong since I'd rather be wrong about this. If right, then this will create a harder time for you to justify the legitimacy of your Mike Watt article since it really is starting to look like you are trying to blantantly advertise yourself. Poyoyloar (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just so you know, you did not sucessfully complete the nomination process at . I have taken care of that for you. As well, I would like to remind you about WP:AGF and WP:BITE... The way to handle situations like this is to keep a cool head, present the facts at the appropriate noticeboard, and let them speak for themselves. You don't need to admonish users on their talk pages, and comments like "This is very childish" and warnings like "this will create a harder time for you to justify the legitimacy of your Mike Watt article" border on WP:CIVIL. There are standardized sockpuppet, AfD, and notability warning notices available, and I suggest you avail yourself of those.
- At the same time, I do want to thank you for staying with this despite all the bumps in the road. It IS important to follow up with these things, but it's MORE important to take the high road with cases like these. They come along far too often to treat them any other way. Thanks again, Nsevs • Talk 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)