User talk:207.237.33.36

RFCs

I have removed a particular comment of yours, as seen here: I disagree with the idea that "Punishing him for those violations at this point is ridiculous; it is water under the bridge." 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC), as those subsections are for users who endorse the view. It is not to be used to discuss the view. If you want to discuss the view, please go to the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused...Though I moved my comment to the discussion page where you suggested, isn't this edit also a "discussion" to be moved to discussion page? Please advise. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure on the edit you noted, so I made a note requesting that they move the discussion to the discussion page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering your comments in this vein under "How Dare You" below, I am restoring my comments. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

confusion

i had to correct collect on this same point... the "newbie" you think was me was not. "newbie" is a different person. i had a separate complaint against collect that was occurring at the same time under my name. i have had a wikipedia account since way before then. i was only a 'rookie' to the process of reporting somebody. Brendan19 (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect/z

The earliest version [[1]] may be a truer reflection of intent than the current April/2009 version. Much conversation took place (not sure where) between many editors and administrators as to the validity and incendiary quality of this "humour page". The essay was altered and softened to gain reluctant support. Even in the face of many critics the author showed remarkable inflexibility. I recall claims of satire and sarcasm and irony as reasons given for its existence. I also recall President Nixons comment that he was not a crook.--Buster7 (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to close

Do not archive that again plz. If you'd posted the whole thing you'd see the last little bit: A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor. Soxwon (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow

You've became quite an active editor in the last month or so since the last time I saw edits by you. If you are still editing without an account after almost 200 edits you're likely doing so by choice, so if you ever want to do something that requires an account (such as moving an article or creating a new page, e.g. a sandbox or a discussion page), feel free to drop me a line. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

I think you need to look at the diffs again. My first contact with Jim was enquiring if a Proposal to close was indeed proper and he answered yes and said he agreed. He had already been active in the RfC previously so that was hardly canvassing. And again with Daedalus you'll notice I didn't have any contact with him until AFTER he had made his position clear (which would make sense if you read what I then posted). And finally with Lady of Shallot, I don't think I expressed myself clearly and that I wanted her to look not at the article's votes but at the content and whether the personal attacks merited the article being closed. She has, I've found, almost always been neutral. As for Barney Frank, you'd be wise not to pull that kind of stunt again since the disagreement and not solely on me. Soxwon (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Propsoal

No, you won't. In case you didn't bother to read, both me and IH opposed your proposal. If you do any such thing I shall revert you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, I read something wrong.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your userpage. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What you're trying to do is appreciated, but you do not have a consensus to remove or refactor another person's comments where there is little to nothing wrong with them in the view of others. I suggest you continue working on the talk page towards a consensus and refrain from removing it until a direct consensus is reached to remove it. Silence does not mean consent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have replied on your userpage. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And replied again - for the final time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't mean to come off with such rudeness, I'm not being as picky as I should be with my word choice tonight :(. I also shouldn't expect you to know this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_template_the_regulars. Soxwon (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. However, my point remains the same...my use of an incorrect template won't make my understanding of policy any less correct. Also, you should know that though I do not have an account and this is my first time in addressing a User-RFC, I am hardly the noob. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, however, what I was getting at was that templating the regulars creastes resentment. Perhaps a nice personal note would go over better. :) Soxwon (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could glance above to the section where he first 3RR'd me...after my second revert on an issue which was already covered in an RFC I have been following for 4 days, while he's just shown his face and can hardly be expected to have reviewed the whole situation. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour is becoming more and more of a problem; should you continue with this, you can expect to be blocked without any further warning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have diffs to provide evidence where I have not followed Wikipolicy or where I have not acted in good faith, please provide them here, although I GUARANTEE that I will be able to prove that my level of civility and willingness to come to CONSENSUS has soared above those who have reverted my edits first and shown their inability and/or unwillingness to behave civilly. Short of your providing that information to me, I cannot take your threat seriously or without motive.23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How dare you

Appalling canvass? Do all of us a favor and take the time to read all the relevant material instead of making bad faith accusations just because you're one of those who wishes to punish collect. I asked for the assistance of a non-involved admin in regards to the matter, in case you didn't bother to read WP:CANVASS, that is in regards to asking that those who are involved in some way contribute. That was hardly the case with me and Gogo, so I suggest you take back your insult, now. It is a PA as it is completely without base. By the way, you never had consensus for the move. You had two uninvolved editors agree on one thing, that is hardly consensus.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of replying to you. First this, then when you AGREE there should be no reverts when moving blatant discussions to the discussion page, you pull this shtick with an accusation that I wish to punish Collect? You need to look at ALL my comments to RFC discussion before taking your attitude to my page. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you certainly appear to be in the same boat, after all, if was you who wished to ban him from wikipedia. Do tell me how that is in accusation, when it is as clear as day what your motives are. You accused me of canvassing, again, DO BOTHER TO GO AND READ THE POLICY YOU'RE BASELESSLY ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING. Your accusations are without merit. I wished assistance from an uninvolved party, so I suggest you take back your personal attack, or stay the fuck off my page if all you're going to do is throw around baseless accusations of me breaking policy when I am clearly not.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The section is titled "Proposed Solutions": an indef ban is a proposed solution. PS-[2] 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

PPS- Stay off my talk page. Any further comments will be considered vandalism. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The section was titled indef ban. That was clearly a punishment, as he has done nothing to warrant a community ban. Community bans are for massively abusive users, such as User:DavidYork71.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Proposed_solutions PROPOSED SOLUTIONS 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I also see that you are still denying you were wrong about what you think is canvassing, do I need to spell it out for you? Or are you going to continue to personally attack me with baseless accusations?

*Yes, please spell it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvass#Campaigning CAMPAIGNING

Lastly, if you revert my edits and accuse them as vandalism, that is a personal attack, and personal attacks are not allowed.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings : "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages" 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

* Nowhere there does it say anything about you being allowed to lie about my edits, and accuse me of vandalism, when it is not the case. I suggest you read WP:VANDALISM to get an idea of what vandalism is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your edits speak for themsleves: they are copy and pasted from the diffs. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Writing "stay the fuck off my page" on MY page -as you did above- is vandalism here. And most editors would agree you're being less than civil with me...probably because I busted your campaigning. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You want me to leave you alone? Take back your baseless accusation that I was canvassing, as I was not. Gogo was completely uninvolved in the matter. You cannot keep me from posting here, you have no right to push me away after you've insulted me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

* You were campaigning and I have every last right to point it out in the relates RFC. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

* No, I was not. I was asking an uninvolved admin to close a disruptive RFC.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

*...using highly manipulative language, which has been detailed. If you think you're going to frighten me off or stop me from letting that truth be known, you're mistaken. And you know it. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for that highly manipulative language. I relayed what it looked like, and really, do not assume you know me, because you don't. Canvassing applies to multiple message, I only sent one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

it's a copy-and-paste job from your campaign. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you must continue editing my talk page, I must insist you REMAIN CIVIL. PERIOD. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• If you must continue editing my talk page, I must insist you REMAIN CIVIL. PERIOD. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• If you must continue editing my talk page, I must insist you REMAIN CIVIL. PERIOD. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Section Title

It seems pretty clear to me that the section title is indef block.

I can't believe your nerve. You tell me to stay off your page then you come to mine in a failed attempt to taunt me? Please.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Proposed_solutions PROPOSED SOLUTIONS 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Indef block. That is the section title, period. You do not call for a community ban in an RFC, which is likely only to have a small handful of editors, editors who are against the editor the RFC was called on. Therefore, calling for a community ban is completely unacceptable, as there is going to be an inherent bias with the editors who support the RFC, eg, they're all going to support it. It is not a proposed solution. It is your final solution to keep Collect off of the pages that you and yours edit. You want me to remain civil? How about you try looking in a mirror. You accused me of breaking a policy without base. Retract that and I'll leave you alone, it is that simple, or are you against admitting that you were wrong?. I asked him to close it as it was blatantly obvious it was going nowhere and wasting everyone's time. That is not campaigning.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You were campaigning. I detailed that in the section now titled "CAMPAIGNING". Now, I'm going to finish my laundry and in the AM, I'm going to take action against your highly inappropriate edits here tonight...as well as those where you were campaigning. Ta, sweetness, rest well. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have fun with that, it won't get you anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you must continue editing my talk page, I must insist you REMAIN CIVIL. PERIOD. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• If you must continue editing my talk page, I must insist you REMAIN CIVIL. PERIOD. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• If you must continue editing my talk page, I must insist you REMAIN CIVIL. PERIOD. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon guys

Same thing I told Daedelus, let's stop this and go to sleep, or if it's not that time where you are, go do something else for awhile and have time to think and reflect. Soxwon (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm behaving perfectly logically and civilly. And it's MY talk page. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not your talk page. You are not behaving civilly, you are personally attacking me and refusing to take back said personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings : "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages" 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll settle this, both of you are posting attacks on the others talk page, both of you are reverting harassing the other. Plz just stop both of you and get some air, sleep whatever. PLZ!! Soxwon (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody asked you to settle this...I'm behaving perfectly logically and civilly. But thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, the way I see it, the admin's ain't gonna be happy with what they see on the page. And at the moment yours and Daedalus' would be the most recent. All I'm saying is that it's not really worth it and I don't want to see either of you blocked. Soxwon (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Facts speak for themselves. Daed's language here along with his blatant misuse of Wikipolicy, his campaign tactics, all these things will speak for themselves. Nighty night, now. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to remain civil here,

Then you remain civil at my talk page as well. Retract your insult as to my literacy. It is still a section title, doesn't matter if it is a sub-section, as it is still a section.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See you in the morning, darling, sleep peacefully.

BTW, civility is not a trade off or something that I need to beg of other editors. It's a given. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Answers to RfD queris

Thanks for your questions, hope you dont mind me replying here as the main page is getting a little cluttered. I dont know Rod so its difficult for me to guess why he finds the page distracting, like yourself it wouldnt bother me personally. I wasnt even aware of Rod until yesterday, when I saw hed edited a page on my watchlist and clicked on his history. Cleary from what hes said on the RFS alone hes distracted by the investigation page, which is a factor in my vote without me having to understand his thinking. Its also a factor that he clearly does a huge amount of valuable work.

Moving to your third question, the user is at liberty to take as much time as he wants compiling a case, but theres alternatives to the semi public method with so much focus on a single productive editor who clearly doesnt appreciate it. The commitment thats gone into the investigation seems out of proportion. I agree the response to 82.2.217.135 was out of order. And Rod didnt respond well to editor DanielDeibler's original constructive criticism. I also dont like vulgarity, overly authorative admins, or incivility. So if Dan had just got together 5 or 6 diffs and raised a RFC, then if Id came across it Id probably have commented that Id prefer Rod make an effort to be more tolerant. Though I also of had in mind that it would be only natural for folk who spend considerable time improving the project to occasionally have an emotional reaction to perceived unconstructive edits . If the user wants to spend his entire wikki time for weeks on end conducting formal investigations, why not spread the net wider and look at more suspects? There must be dozens of editors who are occasionally incivil , so the user could campaign for greater courtesy without distracting any single editor with such intense negative attention. As it stands the article is an attack page. Im unlikely to want to debate this anymore or change my vote, but thought Id explain my thinking as possibly you feel strongly about the issue. Hope this helps! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I disagree with FeydHuxtable that "the user is at liberty to take as much time as he wants compiling a case", because consensus at WP:ANI and other venues seems to me that this sort of thing, because of the chilling effect it can have, should be crystallised as soon as reasonably practical, and with due diligence. I'm not perfect, but then I defy you to find any editor here who has not erred at least once; we are humans, with misjudgements and other failings. I note that User:DanielDeibler still hasn't committed to any particular process. You will see that he took a week's vacation whilst fully aware that the MFD was to be raised, but didn't state anywhere that he wouldn't be available to deal with his investigation. And that is fair to me, for whom it could have catastrophic consequences? No. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments, but I remain unswayed in my opinion. However, to give you some appeasement from the "chilling effect" of the "Sword of Damocles" and the "gun to your head" and the possibility of "catastrophic consequence", I will refrain from any more discussion on that article. I have made my opinion known. Civilly, 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

Your edit-warring is unacceptable. If you revert the page again, I will block you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have diffs to provide evidence where I have not followed Wikipolicy or where I have not acted in good faith, please provide them here, although I GUARANTEE that I will be able to prove that my level of civility and willingness to come to CONSENSUS has soared above those who have reverted my edits first. Short of your providing that information to me, I cannot take your threat seriously or without motive. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a note,

If you're going to stalk my contributions, read all the relevant material. Although you are allowed to remove comments from this page, you are not allowed to personally attack others in your edit summaries, such as when you called my edits vandalism.

Lastly, I discounted each of your 'reports' at the noticeboard, as each is without merit and have already been dealt with. Now leave me the fuck alone.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging with you any further unless you at least attempt civility. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wasting Time

Friendly advice in regards to this edit [3], the admins have already looked into it, and have given their reasons for not blocking anyone. It's best just to move on for everyone, as continuing to beat a dead horse won't win you any fans. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but they really haven't given any reasons, except to say they think I'm being argumentative. If they would address the reverts made bu Daedalus...and what they so obviously represent...I would be happy to step back. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The reverts I made to my own talk page don't count against anything, so I'm going to go ahead and delete them from the report. 3RR only applies to a particular version on a particular page, not unrelated reverts on different articles.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do what you like...I'm sure your making MORE reverts is going to make my report stronger. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it will get you blocked for harassment, as seen below.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Due to ongoing disruptive editing and initiating multiple pointless confrontations with other editors and administrators, this IP address is blocked from editing for 48 hrs.

This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Please do not do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

207.237.33.36 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My edits were outright civil and in accordance with reliable Wikipolicy. This block is no more than a vindictive action because of my pointing out the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring 3rr violations of Daedalus969. Further, no real valid reason for the block has been given for me to dispute...leaving my defense in a bit of a Guantanamo situation. I would only advise those reviewing my appeal to review the edits made by Daedalus969 to my userpage for a brief understanding of why I believe this is a retaliatory action. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My edits were outright civil and in accordance with reliable Wikipolicy. This block is no more than a vindictive action because of my pointing out the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring 3rr violations of Daedalus969. Further, no real valid reason for the block has been given for me to dispute...leaving my defense in a bit of a Guantanamo situation. I would only advise those reviewing my appeal to review the edits made by Daedalus969 to my userpage for a brief understanding of why I believe this is a retaliatory action. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk:207.237.33.36#top|talk]]) 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My edits were outright civil and in accordance with reliable Wikipolicy. This block is no more than a vindictive action because of my pointing out the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring 3rr violations of Daedalus969. Further, no real valid reason for the block has been given for me to dispute...leaving my defense in a bit of a Guantanamo situation. I would only advise those reviewing my appeal to review the edits made by Daedalus969 to my userpage for a brief understanding of why I believe this is a retaliatory action. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk:207.237.33.36#top|talk]]) 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My edits were outright civil and in accordance with reliable Wikipolicy. This block is no more than a vindictive action because of my pointing out the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring 3rr violations of Daedalus969. Further, no real valid reason for the block has been given for me to dispute...leaving my defense in a bit of a Guantanamo situation. I would only advise those reviewing my appeal to review the edits made by Daedalus969 to my userpage for a brief understanding of why I believe this is a retaliatory action. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk:207.237.33.36#top|talk]]) 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

How can it be a retaliatory action, if Georgewilliamherbert was uninvolved in the dispute beforehand? Unless I'm missing some prior involvement. When you have several users -- including users new to the dispute -- suggesting that you're being needlessly argumentative, it might be a good idea to at least consider the possibility. As far as I can see, the editors removing your new subsection at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect were acting in accordance with Wikipedia norms (typically threaded discussion is limited to the talk page). Facetious nods to civility and including vandalism reverts in verbose 3RR reports do not seem to indicate a desire to decrease the temperature of the dispute. I am not convinced that other users here are necessarily acting perfectly, but I would feel more comfortable considering an unblock if you seemed more ready to consider the possibility of your own error. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• The "facetious nod to civility" you point out was made only after Daedalus969 user came on the attack on my own user page. Our interaction began with the first section, where he notified me of a removal of my comment from an RFC to its discussion page it while only advising another user -whose opinion coincidentally agreed with his- to move their comment. Next, Daedalus made an abrupt comment that leaned towards vio of WP:OWN...before realizing he actually agreed with the proposal I had made. No apology was made in his next edit when he realized this.

• When I pointed out that Daedalus appeared to be in vio of WP:Canvass (detailed here) relating to an RFC, his went out of control. What I still believe were fair edits were reverted in that RFC. He opened a section titled How dare you on my talk page, accusing me of:

insulting him,

not knowing Wikipolicy,

and telling me to "stay the fuck off his talk page".

• I ignored these rudenesses, remained civil, and responded with the facts, quotes, and diffs from the edit history. PLEASE read both of those sections for an idea of his tone. In his next edits to my talk page Daedalus said:

"I can't believe your nerve",

I was told to "try looking in a mirror",

and, when I indicated that I would attempt to bring action about his behavior, that I should "Have fun with that, it won't get you anywhere".

Most appallingly, Daedalus demanded a retraction of my pointing out his Campaigning IF I wanted him to "leave me alone".

• During those interactions, I added the phrase "If you must continue editing my talk page, I must insist you REMAIN CIVIL. PERIOD" 6 times to my talk page, to no avail. My "facetious nod to civility" was not facetious at all...it was more than in line than could be expected. Perhaps I could have said nothing, that's true...but I still believe I would be in the same situation as I am now. He was "gunning" for me, (perhaps because of the RFC, perhaps because I called him out on misbehavior therein) and he made every attempt to make his mark.

• What you described as "vandalism reverts in verbose 3RR reports" were nothing more than what I believed was an expected response to his request for such information. You'll also note that with that edit, I recognized that his reverts were not all out-of-scope...only the ones I initially included were to be reviewed. I was asked for information and I provided it. I'm sorry if wasn't was I was supposed to do.

• Now, I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong. You'll note that the very first line of the 3RR report in question, I admitted that I wasn't sure if I was using the template correctly. And if, after reviewing the links I have given here, you show me where my behavior was out of line, I'll own those mistakes as well...and promise not to make them again.

• But Daedalus is not using Wikipedia fairly. I have shown here and in the 3RR report how he is using me as his target and how his edits are perceived as angry and hostile by myself - and by others. I do not know for sure why he has come after me in such a way. I do not know how -or if- he has influenced Admins...but it is odd that there has not been 1 admin to even slightly recognize my concern. I can only assume Daedalus' behavior has to do with Collect's RFC, which -with even a brief review can show- that he is attempting to manipulate in a most unfair manner. And my 3RR report shows that he has done the same in recent days with other articles as well.

• I am not as an experienced Wikipedian as Daedalus is. If anything, that should speak to the fact that he should be held MORE accountable to his actions than I. Unfortunately, this is not how things have presented: he is being let off the hook and excused for irrefutably irresponsible and haughty edits -which were presented to admins clearly when asked for- while I -who has remained completely civil throughout- am being blocked for naivete and an adherence to the most basic core of Wikistandards.

• But since this is about my behavior, point out my errors and I'll never make them again. I would hope this is the goal of all Wikieditors. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)