Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/[e-mail]

Debunking of Cheeser's Prose

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

• 1. I did not demand anything, let alone his revealing of his identity. What clever spinmeistering on his part though, if it weren't so transparent? I am merely stating that I find his demeanour in tune with others on this system who avoid answering straight questions. The first (though not exclusive) thing they all appear to have in common is that they cannot publicly stand behind what they are saying. After 3 occurrences of anything, what you have stablished is a pattern. I believe he follows this pattern. I could hardly care less who he is. Other such telltale character signs, as I see it, and I am entitled to my opinion and will gladly share what it is based upon, include random searches for whoever else tangled with his target and then picking up on those points, despite the fact they have previously been defeated on merit, but pretending otherwise. Very tedious.
• 2. He's wrong again in that I did not deny being from Ontario. The fact is that Ontario is pretty large. A lot of people live here. Wayne Gretzky was born here, for instance, but I know little or nothing, nor do I have any interest in Hockey, unless Canada plays another country, which is when I will be in favour of Canada's national team. I live nowhere near an area serviced by Persona. Cheeser assumes and states as fact something he has no way of knowing, which is that my ___location is serviced by Persona, a cable company turned ISP, just like Cogeco. He also conveniently does not respond to the fact that it would take me hours to drive there, even though he claims to know where I am, which he does not.
• 3. So he'd think he'd lend a hand... All I see is self-righteousness here on his part and it is kind of tedious. He picks up on what Fireproeng bellyached about and disregards my points, which were never addressed. Sort of convenient, isn't it?
• I don't understand this latest process being leveled at me here but if someone of authority on this system yould resolve the matter, I would sure appreciate it. I would also appreciate it if an administrator could discourage this individual from posting on my talk page.
• --Achim (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you don't understand this process, why do you go so far as to asume bad faith, make outrageous accusations about my intent or role in this process, etc?? And why do you constantly confront editors by demanding that they own up to their comments by revealing their identity. Your florid sarcasm is also not appreciated. Large sarcastic paragraphs about the geography of Ontario are not relevant. You've made your point: you insist that your service provider is not the same as the last hop on the traceroute. That's fine, but a traceroute in this process was only noted because you insisted that it traceroutes to somewhere other than your ___location. This is patently false. You live in Ontario, the traceroute goes to Ontario. The real evidence in this case is the obvious single-purpose activities of this IP - it intervenes and vandalizes things that you are in heated disputes, disputes in which you have already broken several conduct guidelines/policies. This is not the place for you to continue these disputes, accuse me of self-righteousness, or make claims about how the dispute resolution or SSP process is tedious or something you otherwise do not like. The only response you should be giving is an explanation of these suspicious circumstances, involving this IP doing vandalism on your behalf, if you have any. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you not find another hobby? --Achim (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I have reminded you since the etiquette complaint, which is the only reason I've had any contact with you, civility policy is not a suggestion: it's a policy. I just took the time to explain to you what you should (and shouldn't) be doing in response to this SSP complaint. I have asked you to be civil. This is the way Wikipedia works, and I've done my best to point you to the relevant policies and ask you to keep your contributions and your conduct within policies and guidelines. There were serious and substantive claims against you - both in terms of your civility, and in this possible sockpuppetry - I responded to both. That's what volunteers at the WQA do. I think that's a worthwhile hobby. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

And please drop the conspiracy theory stuff. After 3 occurrences of anything, what you have stablished [sic] is a pattern. Really? As a mathematician (and someone with some sense) I can tell you that this is patently untrue. You've accused virtually everyone you've encountered in the dispute resolution process of being in collusion with or otherwise siding with Fireproeng in some way or another. That's not how problems are solved. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I value the opinions of intelligent people. I do not count you among those and that is my opinion, to which I am entitled, as you are to yours. I have no respect for you and do not value your prose in the slightest. Do me a favour and bother someone else. --Achim (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is it that you don't understand about WP:CIVIL? What don't you get about Wikipedia? You're not allowed to say who can file an SSP report on you. You're not allowed to decide that you're not going to follow WP:CIVIL. You don't get to choose who's stupid and who's smart, and you don't get to add information to articles based on your personal expertise. Please keep in mind that I am not out to get you, whatever you might think, and you need to seriously shape up. Your contributions are welcome and appreciated when they comply with the community accepted standards. I'd love it if you were to contribute in this fashion. But when you attack other users, you will be reminded of WP:CIVIL. When an anonymous IP just happens to intercede to vandalize pages exactly in the fashion that agrees with your (singular) opinion, an SSP complaint is warranted. When you edit war and refuse to participate in the dispute resolution process, you will be asked to step in line. This is how Wikipedia works. No one is out to get you, and no one is here for you to evaluate their intelligence. I can't force you to keep this in mind or get with the program, but I can ask, and I've done so, and you seem to refuse. That is disappointing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe it is self-evident that you are the one who is not being civil. Whether I disappoint you or not, does not trouble me in the slightest. No matter, I am through responding to you. Write more self-indulgent, non-responsive and shrill prose if you want. This is my last response to you. --Achim (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Based on the definition of civil conduct on Wikipedia, calling other users stupid, demanding that they substantiate their complaints by revealing their identities, etc. - these things are uncivil. Responding to an etiquette alert by warning you and helping the complaining user file an (obviously valid) SSP complaint against you is the opposite of incivility. I really hope you will turn to a more positive mode of contribution, Ahering. However, becoming even more defensive, more hostile, and more uncivil is not going to help the situation. Please calm down and be mature. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply