User talk:KoKingsmill

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoKingsmill for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. AinsworthAussie (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Sagaciousphil

I'll admit to being flabbergasted to find I'm being accused of being a 'sock puppet' by both User:AinsworthAussie AND User:KoKingsmill in the above sock puppet investigation. I have diligently avoided responding to remarks made by KoKingsmill on this page as I personally find his tone unnecessarily hostile/acidic. Sagaciousphil (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And how do you think I feel spending the time adding a section only to have it removed with it being described as "vandalism"? And I ask you again, why if you felt it was "inappropriate" did you not describe it as such instead of calling it vandalism? You don't like my tone but it's you who started off with the negative tone. Perhaps it's time you did start replying directly to what I say. So what out of what I've said previously specifically do you find "unnecessarily hostile/acidic"?

The reasons you found for removing the section were really poor: you quoted a sentence mentioning point-of-view problems while carefully ignoring what it said right before it in the preceding sentence, and also ignoring what else it said on that page. You described the Guardian as tabloid journalism which is simply a lie. You also didn't have a single word to say when I mentioned that there appeared to be an audio recording of what was said.

So please, Sagaciousphil, get off your high horse.

As for the sockpuppet accusation, (1) I only made it because sockpuppet accusations seemed to be going around, (2) you will note that I made it reluctantly, (3) I also said perhaps, I didn't say definitely, and (4) it is only you and Morning277 that have wanted to change the article in a way that is better for Stephen Leather. Considering that Leather has twice now been found out using sockpuppets, it is hardly unreasonable of me to suspect the one other person on here that has been positive about Leather. Just why have you been positive about Leather? Do you support cheats elsewhere in your life? KoKingsmill (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go through this following post by Sagaciousphil from the 16th September at 22:04 point by point. What he wrote is in black; my responses are in blue.

The whole attitude of the response above is exactly what I referred to as the tone you choose to use.

Yes, I know that the above is hostile and acidic - well, dur - but once again that's only in response to what you have said! Yes? My whole "hostile/acidic" attitude only started after you had removed that section that I spent a while working on, describing it as vandalism. If you don't believe me, check the history page for yourself!

To put this really simply for you, you started it! Sheesh!

I explained why I felt your original insertion was inappropriate previously and do not intend to repeat myself.

Now you're lying! You said that it was vandalism. Check the history page for yourself! And what a pompous thing to say, that you “do not intend to repeat” yourself.

While I accepted and agreed to amendments made by others to the article (User:Bbb23 for example), you seem to be unable to leave the matter alone.

Another lie! How many edits have I made to the article? Go on, how many? I made a few to start with and then one more recently - how is that a case of someone being unable to leave the matter alone?

Another precise example of what, to me, is unnecessarily hostile/acidic is your statement: "It seems that Stephen Leather really doesn't have any morals. And like Sagaciousphil who has a strange idea of what vandalism is, Leather has a strange idea of what a troll is."

Right, Sagaciousphil, so this "another precise example" is what, your second example? With the first being the very reply to your criticism that I was hostile and acidic which was naturally going to be hostile and acidic! So in actual fact you’ve so far come up with all of one example.

Anyway, what precisely is wrong with that? It does seem to be the case that Leather doesn't have any morals, and it does seem to be the case that you have a strange idea of what vandalism is. I totally stand by that.

You will note I have made edits on various articles on Wiki; it is a resource I have sometimes gratefully used when trying to research items and so have tried to give something back in return by correcting/amending inaccuracies I have come across or adding citations.

Which is exactly the same with me.

I have always sought to achieve a sense of balance/fair play.

Which is the same with me which is why I added that section in the first place! But if the above is true of you then why did you remove that section critical of Leather? Why have you only been interested in removing information about Leather which shows that he doesn't act with a sense of fair play?

I see you have more or less only made amendments to the Stephen Leather page, all of which have been in a disparaging manner.

Except that, as you know full well, I only created this user account recently - before I edited without a user account - and I have only made a small number of amendments to the Leather page, so saying that I have only made amendments to the Leather page is meaningless. And yes, the three or four edits have all been in a disparaging manner - Leather deserves that!

Perhaps it is indeed a case of your account being a 'sock puppet' created for a specific purpose and it is now taking on the appearance of a vendetta?

Where does that come from? All I've ever done is reply to what you've done! You started this! Stop trying to twist things round. I explained in my above post why I mentioned you - here is what I said again, read it this time: (1) I only made it because sockpuppet accusations seemed to be going around, (2) you will note that I made it reluctantly, (3) I also said perhaps, I didn't say definitely, and (4) it is only you and Morning277 that have wanted to change the article in a way that is better for Stephen Leather. Considering that Leather has twice now been found out using sockpuppets, it is hardly unreasonable of me to suspect the one other person on here that has been positive about Leather.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that Leather is a cheat or not? If not, why not?

One point raised by User:AinsworthAussie that I would support is about your most recent alteration. It is the fact the article you cited makes a very brief mention of Stephen Leather in the closing paragraph; the article is not in fact about Stephen Leather, which you appear to imply.

No I don't! Another lie! I said that I added a brief bit from the Telegraph, not that there was a whole article about Leather. And yes, it was brief, but it was important as it brings into suspicion the entire Wikipedia article.

Your question as to whether I support cheats elsewhere in my life is nothing short of insulting

So why, Sagaciousphil, are you supporting Leather here? Do you really disbelieve what that Guardian article said? What about that Telegraph article with its brief mention? The fact is, I've exposed you as a liar (see above), I've exposed you as someone who describes other people's work as vandalism when it is nothing of the sort, I've exposed you as someone who, after acting in a very annoying way (see the vandalism point), then moans about other people being hostile and acidic to them and tries to make out that they are to blame... You are supporting Leather, who is clearly a cheat, while acting like a cheat yourself. At the very best you are being a useful idiot to Leather here. But the fact that you've tried to support him at every stage is why I am asking why you are supporting him.

and wholly inappropriate; this whole episode leaves a bitter taste and I am quite happy to completely walk away from Wiki and leave it to be edited by experts such as yourself. Sagaciousphil (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be an expert in any way, so coming out with a sarcastic jibe, along with your various lies in this post, further suggests to me that you are no better than Leather. Feel free to walk away. If you really think it is an acceptable thing to do to remove a section that someone has created and put effort into, with the lie that it is vandalism, then Wikipedia is better off without you. I also note that this is just the sort of thing someone else said, when they had been exposed as a sockpuppet - you’re trying to make out that the people like me who are doing the exposing are at fault rather than yourself. It’s just done to try and make people like me look worse. Other people might be naive enough to fall for it but I certainly won’t.

One final thing: I do note that you haven’t replied to my point about the Guardian being tabloid journalism being a lie and about there being an audio recording of what Leather said.

I leave you with a quote, although I admit it’s a little bit pompous of me to mention it:

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing