User talk:Slinkyworm

Hi there - thanks for your message on my talk page. However, I can't help you out unless you follow a few basic steps first:

You need to state your complaint on the page, stating the nature of the problem in as concise a way as possible.
You need to state your real username.

There's nothing to worry about in using your own username when it comes to requesting mediation. If it's the only possible course of action then it's obviously the mature thing to do and won't be frowned upon. If you're worried about the other editors you are currently coming up against, then you shouldn't do so. These cases are treated fairly and without bias. It would be up to me or someone else to look at the actions of each party involved and decide the best way of resolving the issue so that all are satisfied.

Once you've done the two things above, I'll happily look into things. From what I've seen, there appear to be four main editors involved - Yaf, Anastrophe., Hauskalainen, and SaltyBoatr. It's a little confusing to see on which side of the argument each member is on, due to the long nature of the discussion on the talk page and also the edit summaries in the page history. If you could begin your summary of your complaint with a list of the relative parties (in an "X vs. Y" format) then that would be most helpful and would get this moving quickly.

Thanks Howie ☎ 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting meat puppets is not a nice thing to do. Yaf (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See next section--Slinkyworm (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI and that of Yaf, my actions were not canvassing or seeking a meatpuppet (I am not sure but this sounds like the same thing). That is perfectly clear because I said to him "I'd be grateful if you could take a look and without editing there' or on using my other user page (I'm sure can work out who that is) let me know here what you think I should do. I contacted Howie precisely because he IS someone who is registered at WP:EAR as someone who can assist in disputes. The reason for using a proxy id to do this was to absolutely avoid any interruptions from uses such as yourseleves. That is clear because I said "I have logged in with an alias to leave this message as for the time being I do not want the editors who I am in dispute with to trace this conversational thread." So I am getting badgered for no good reason and your comments smack of intimidation rather than anything else. I had hoped that Howie would advise whether he thought I had a case in arguing that the section is a fair edit and should stay (as I believe it should), or if it is WP:POV and WP:SYN as you argue that it is. I am of the opinion that the editor User:SaltyBoatr may not hold the views that he claims to hold and could be participating in the argument that so that he could, perhaps, undermine my case if it went to some form of dispute resolution. I believe this because the editor clearly seeks sources primarily from WIKIBOOK searches and his sources are often weak or actually contain text that also tells an alternative opinion. Also, he is often editing at the same time as Yaf, and the normal times between one editors comment and a response (which is often hours or days) is, in the case of these two editors not so, and I have even seen responses where there is almost no time for one to (a) see what the other has written, (b) think about how to reply and (c) type the text. In the case of these two editors it is more like they are chatting in real time. So, yes, I have some suspicions. For these reasons, if I made a case at WP:EAR, I would not want any other editor to argue with me. I just want to put my case and have others oppose it. But I am not sure if that is possible. Again that was another reason for laying out this matter to Howie so that he could advise me. Well, I did not get any advice from him on that specific issue. Maybe I will get some now--Slinkyworm (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-state the most important policy: Assume Good Faith. Do not ever accuse someone of sockpuppetry unless you're willing to file the WP:SSP report right then and there. I have run into a couple of the editors over the last 3 years, and I can confirm at least they are different users. Just because people disagree with you does not mean they're the same person/ (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read carefully what I said, I said I think it is UNLIKELY that they are sock-puppets. Which is why I have not filed WP:SSP. As for WP:AGF I have tried to do this. But their co-ordinated actions and speed of response to each other beacame to me to be symptomatic of co-ordinated editing. The issue with User:SaltyBoatr was only very subtly hinted at at first and only hinted at in what was intended to be a private seeking of advice from me (using an alias) from an independent advisor. That that it become more public is unfortunate. I think most people would have assumed that my passing the Mary McFate story subtley to SaltyBoatr on the talk page was just passing on a story which might be of interest to someone with an gun control agenda. That it was a direct hint to him that I suspected him of batting on the same side as the other 2 main editors seemingly opposed to him would only be picked up by him (and others involved) if he was actually involved in subterfuge. Otherwise its quite innocent. User:Anastrophe, interestingly clearly did get the message, but maybe only after seeing what were intended to be private comments. That I hold private doubts about User:SaltyBoatr and only inferred them is not really a personal attack. I am of course sorry that my suspicions have come out so openly but I think others are more to blame for that. --Slinkyworm (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Hauskalainen, what you are doing here is called "Forum Shopping" with a sockpuppet. Also, if you have doubts about those of us who help with dispute resolution, this is not the way to go about circumventing the process! I find this statement especially patently offensive;

"and also I see that you are not in the United States (which I regard as a bonus as you will see)".

In addition, you clearly are engaged in the propagation, through use of this sock, of conspiracy theory regarding editors on the English Wiki:

I feel inclined to go to formal dispute resolution on the rights and wrongs of the section, but I fear that these people are an organized group, well funded, and may well have "infiltrated" wikipedia at the highest levels."

I will tell you this, Hauskalainen. I am not a sockpuppet, I have a Centrist view on most political matters, and I have spent a great deal of time dedicated to mediating disputes in good faith. To see something like this after giving you the benefit of the doubt is simply dumbfounding.

This does constitute both sockpuppetry and borderline canvassing. I am hereby issuing you a forceful warning; any more shenanigans, and I will personally recommend that you be blocked for disruption of not only the article(s) in question, but Wikipedia on the whole!

If you suspect someone of SOCKS, then there are proper ways of addressing this. This is NOT it. Edit Centric (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]