User talk:Wildernessflyfisher

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username 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 your talk page. Again, welcome! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet report

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kww is a known vandal on wikipedia, so his allegations really don't bother me. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really should learn about our WP:NPA policy as well. Referring to me as a "known vandal" goes way over the line. The image in question is not of questionable origin: permission to use it has been registered with Wikipedia's central office. If you want to ask about that, contact anyone on this list and ask about ticket 2006113010018241. As for what it illustrates, I think it's obvious ... it illustrates the transformation the garments have undergone over time. What secular reason do you have for opposing illustration of that change?—Kww(talk) 15:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just on my vandalism watchlist, along with about 4500 other articles. Duke53 and I don't look like the same editor at all. I have over 20,000 edits, focused on pop culture. Duke53 has about 3000 edits, focused on religion and politics. I'm also quite willing to bet he lives in a different country from me as well. WP:NOT#CENSORED certainly is a policy, BTW. As for my report being unfounded, take note that it was accepted: an independent third-party reviewed the evidence, and determined that my suspicions had a rational basis.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If agreeing with someone constitutes sockpuppetry, then wonderful.. I really don't care. I contribute to society in tangible ways, rather than living solely through the Internet. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire

Hey, I'd like to try to help defuse the situation. I'm an LDS editor here and have had interactions with some of the editors you've been butting heads with. I've also tried in the past to find middle ground on the temple garment article. I invite you and your anonymous acquaintance to come over to my talk page and explain your position, without the stress and pressure of warnings, threats of sanctions, etc. But I also strongly implore both of you to stop making edits (of any kind) to Temple garment for a few days. There's no need to treat this as a crisis; there's no deadline; there's no great harm that will be done by allowing the article to remain untouched for a few days while your concerns are aired and discussed. I'm sure you regard the presence of the photo as intolerable, but you should understand how harmful it is to the encyclopedia, the community of editors who contribute to this article, and to the relationships between the LDS and non-LDS editors here, to have an edit war like this. Please stand down, and let's talk, OK? (I've posted the same to User talk:24.8.64.63 but wanted to make sure you understand that I'm trying to communicate with both of you.) alanyst ^/talk/ 23:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your civility. My issue, however, is not with content. It is with the questionable editing tactics and harrassment inflicted by Kww. I believe that inflammatory, decidedly false accusations constitute harrassment.Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to talk about that too, but could you please commit not to edit Temple garment for three or four days in the meantime? alanyst ^/talk/ 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that it's curious you didn't post a ceasefire request on Kww's or Duke53's talk pages, which makes me question your impartiality. I'll state again that the content is not a big issue for me. I'm primarily concerned by user Kww's behavior, which in my opinion clearly constitutes harrassment. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not harassed you. As I have explained, that article in on my watchlist for vandalism, along with about 4500 other articles. When you and your anonymous friend made edits in contravention of WP:NOT#CENSORED, I reverted them, and explained why. When you repeated your violations you were warned again. When I suspected that the two accounts were either controlled by one person or by two people that had agreed to work in tandem, I opened a sock-puppet report, because both activities are prohibited on Wikipedia. In your response to that sockpuppet report, you confessed to meatpuppeting, and then lied about it. When the two of you conspired together to perform excessive reverts on that article, I filed a edit warring report to get that stopped. You've accused me of having some kind of secret motive, and that simply isn't true: I think of this situation in the same way as I think of any other kind of policy violation: do you think I've removed the "Bulgarian Singles Chart" from Hot N Cold 20 times is because I harbor a secret hatred for Bulgarians? A repressed desire to hide from the world how popular Katy Perry is in ex-Iron Curtain countries? No ... it's because the "Bulgarian Singles Chart" is listed on WP:BADCHARTS, so I remove it for violating WP:RS. Similarly, when people edit articles in order to enforce a religious perspective, I'll revert them. I'm not a Mormon nor an anti-Mormon ... they're just one more religion. I won't permit Wikipedia to be censored to their point of view any more than I would permit a devout Moslem to remove all the images of unmarried women, or some sects of Baptists to remove pictures of people dancing.—Kww(talk) 00:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your accusations of meat-puppeting and lying, both accusations are false, hotheaded, and inflammatory. But I have come to expect no less from you. I edited my statement twice in order to better describe my relationship with the other user. That is not lying. Admitting that I know another user is hardly confessing to meatpuppeting. According to that definition you meatpuppet with Duke. And you ARE harassing me. Read wikipedia's article about it. In particular, note the statement that any attempt "to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely" constitutes harassment. My point remains that if you were really concerned, it would have taken you less than a minute to check the IP locations and confirm that we were separate and distinct people. Instead you filed a report. The only reason I can fathom that you would have used that approach instead of being a bit more circumspect in your accusations and doing some fact-checking first, is for the sake of intimidation. That's harrassment. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How else could I check your IP location? The only people that can see what IP you are on are the people at WP:SPI. By filing that report, "checking on your IP location" is exactly what I was doing.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google is a novel idea, isn't it? Like I said, I checked both my IP location and the other user's IP location in less than a minute, and I've never even done it before. The simple point is that you have been using intimidation tactics, not only with the sock puppet report, but with repeated threats to ban other users for making simple, well-intentioned edits. Instead of discussing things on the talk page in a civil and respectful manner, you went straight for the threats and accusations. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only check your IP location if I know your IP address. That is hidden from me, and nearly all other editors on Wikipedia. Only six users can look at your edit history and see what IP address you have edited from. The only reason the other editor's IP address shows is because he hasn't got an account. Try it on me for a moment ... what IP address am I editing from?—Kww(talk) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really irrelevent though, since my grievance with you is your pervasively threatening, accusatory, and domineering responses. I have yet to observe a single ounce of civility from you, regardless of the minor and benign nature of the edits that precipitated all of this. You proceeded to accuse me of vandalism, sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, and lying. Such overreactions clearly aren't the behavior of a balanced and impartial editor. Thankfully most people understand that in the world of Wikipedia, its the persistent and emotionally vested editors who win. Not the rational, logical, or correct ones. You can have your gold star--I'm too busy with real life to care about it that much. You can continue exercizing your stranglehold over this article for as many years as you wish. Hopefully you find it to be a worthwhile pursuit. This is my final response. Go ahead and get the last word in if it bothers you that much. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my first interactions with you were quite polite. It was when you ignored them and persisted in removing the image that I started to treat you as a problem editor. The closest I have come to incivility is to point out two contradictory statements that you made, and point out that one of them had to be an untruth.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you lured me in one more time. I did not make contradictory statements. I stated that I knew the other user, then I edited the statement to point out that the other user was "independent". These statements are not contradictory, and do not constitute lying in any way, shape, or form. By accusing me of such, you were being inflammatory at best. At worst, you were lying yourself and engaging in harrassment. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing narrowly on this issue of contradictory statements, it appears to me to be a dispute centered on how to interpret the word "independent". I'm not sure exactly what sense you meant, Wildernessflyfisher, but I think I might understand how Kww might have taken it to mean. You see, someone with a lot of Wikipedia experience runs into situations where multiple editors appear to be coordinating their edits so they can circumvent the prohibitions on edit warring. If it's one individual controlling multiple accounts (or logging out to edit anonymously to avoid identifying the edit with their normal account) then it's called sockpuppetry. If it's multiple individuals but they seem to be coordinating their efforts to win by outnumbering their opponents or evading restrictions, then it's meatpuppetry.

When you stated that the anonymous user was a friend/acquaintance of yours, Kww naturally assumed that the existence of a real-world relationship, plus the fact that both of you appeared at (roughly) the same time to make the same change to the article, were indicative of off-wiki coordination. Then you changed your comment to de-emphasize the relationship and to stress the user's independence. It may be that you were trying to clarify that you are not the same individual as the person editing anonymously; only you know for sure what you meant. But to a seasoned Wikipedian, "independent" means more than that, and that's why Kww thought you were contradicting yourself. If you were independent from Kww's perspective, either you would not know the anonymous user in real life (or at least wouldn't know that you knew them, since they were anonymous), or you would not be appearing at the same time in the same place to advocate for the same change, because the odds of it being pure coincidence are just too low to make that a believable scenario. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedians use the word "independent" to mean that you don't know somebody, then that is a notably different definition than the rest of the world uses. Webster says it means "free from outside control." Neither "deemphasizing" my relationship with the other user, nor using Webster's definition of the word "independent" in order to clarify my lack of coordination with the other user constitute lying. Regardless of our differing perceptions of the word "independent," my point is that Kww has pursued excessively rude, negative, and inflammatory tactics. I can accept that wikipedians have different jargon, but if Kww is a seasoned user he should have realized this and pursued a more civil course, rather than resorting so quickly to offensive language and accusations. We could have resolved this without Kww engaging in mudslinging on various wikipedia pages. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched the history of the dispute and have made observations at User:Alanyst/WFF. I invite you to review them, and feel free to discuss (civilly) at the talk page if you like. I do not intend to inflame the dispute but I do want to offer the perspective of an LDS editor who is familiar with the subject, fairly experienced with Wikipedia, not a participant in the conflict, and in no position to levy sanctions or take action against anyone (lest that be a concern). alanyst ^/talk/ 08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]