User talk:Frei Hans

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Frei Hans! I am Call me Bubba and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Call me Bubba (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page discussion guidelines

I like the principles Wikipedia was founded on and those apply here. Please note that this user places an emphasis on ettiquette:

Please be civil and polite on this user page.
Please be considerate.
Please be factual, logical and friendly.
Abusive language and profanities could be edited with strike tags by the user this page belongs too.

Frei Hans (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Kowal

I have restored the former article to User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal for your improvement.--Aervanath (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within an hour or so of moving the material back to Theodore Kowal it was deleted again. Is it usual to restore content to a user page? It might have been better to restore it to the main page with an admin note to avoid such a speedy second deletion. Frei Hans (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is quite normal to move material that is not yet suitable for use as an encyclopaedia article to user space so that a user can improve it. See Wikipedia:Userfication for details. The article in its previous form was deleted after a week long discussion. It cannot simply be moved back into the main encyclopaedia until all the issues have been resolved. See the speedy deletion criteria for an explanation of why it was deleted again. Papa November (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I was not the user who created the article - I only questioned the article's deletion. Now the article has been deleted again, after I moved it from my user space back to Theodore Kowal where I thought more users would be able to access and improve it. If the person exists or existed, and if he did not create the article about himself, then in my opinion the article is valid. Also, why are you and Verbal hanging around every time I login? Frei Hans (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Once an article has been deleted, then recreation isn't permitted until the issues have been addressed. Any user (not just the original author) can request a copy of the deleted content and work on it in their own user space. After the improvements have been made, then it can be moved back into the main encyclopaedia. Admins are allowed to delete recreated articles on sight unless the improvements have already been made. Papa November (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Userfying pages

Hans Frei, I am happy to userfy the page for you for further work if you like. You can then show someone that substantial improvements have been made before returning to mainspace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Frei Hans (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Bit of Advice

From some of the concerns of other users, and a quick review of some of your edits, I would like to give some advice ... otherwise, I expect an WP:RFC/U will be filed against you shortly by a number of editors.

Assume good faith is the most important tenet of Wikipedia. Failure do AGF is considered disruptive
An approved definition of vandalism has been accepted by the community. Only edits/actions that specifically meet the meanings provided in that definition can ever be called vandalism. You should note that content disputes do not fall in this category. Calling something vandalism that is not vandalism is considered disruptive.
Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is a violation of the no public attacks policy. The general rule is to either put up or shut up
Wikipedia has a clear dispute resolution process. Acting in a one-sided manner is not working collaboratively, which is contrary to the goals of this project.

If you believe that you have a failure to be able to work within these guidelines, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you...all of the above violations could result in blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BWilkins. To address some of your bullet points:

Yes indeed, assuming good faith is important. I wish more good faith had been assumed before your comment was posted on my user page.
An approved definition of Wikipedia vandalism:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."

The users that I think you refer to, have been discussing an article from which large blocks of content were removed a number of times in various ways by users Verbal and Papa November. The article was page blanked. That is vandalism.

Accusing someone of sock puppetry is not a violation of the no public attacks policy. A user was independently found in an arbitration case to be a sock puppet by other users. Please stop posting threatening messages on my user page just because I pointed out that the user who was found to be disruptively operating sock puppets also deleted an article that I contributed in good faith to Wikipedia.
I agree, acting in a one sided manner is not working collaboratively. Please, in the interests of neutrality, point this out to the users who one-sidedly have been attempting to remove valid, well referenced and encyclopedic by constantly deleting content and nominating articles for deletion. Frei Hans (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASIO File

Hi Frei Hans,

The article was redirected after the deletion debate. You can't revert it without overturning the consensus. Papa November (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Papa November. The article existed for quite some time before you began following me from page to page. It is factual, informative and written in a neutral style. You seem to have decided to redirect it in an attempt to edit war related to another article decision. The fact that you felt this particular article needed to be taken to some sort of "debate" or forum shows you know that your intent was controversial and biased and that you could not remove the article on your own with neutrality. In addition, the article was poorly redirected. In fact the article it was redirected to still linked back to the original article and contained quite different content. The article could not be deleted and so you tried to have it removed some other way. You seem to have begun following me from page to page, trying to remove content that I edit in good faith. You seem to be wiki-stalking me. Please stop being disruptive. Thank you. Frei Hans (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The place to contest the AfD is WP:DRV, and not by reverting the redirect. I would note that you are in violation of policy in your actions, and that your comments to Papa November in bringing it to your attention are inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article was not even deleted. It could not be. Papa November tried to delete it but he failed to convince other administrators, so re-directed it to another article that contained different content instead. Other users wanted to keep the article. If I had known what he was doing I would have spoken in favour of the article as well. Call me an inclusionist if you will, I mean no ill.

This is not a case of a deletion review, it is a case of somebody who seems to have gained administrative tools through having been around for a while, and who is now using those tools to delete and remove valid and informative content through supposed "redirections" and other means, and to block other users. I do not like what he is doing. He seems to be following me around from page to page and targeting content that I edit for removal. Frei Hans (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who initially redirected ASIO File, so you can hardly blame him for that. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who initially tagged ASIO File for coatracking and other concerns, Papa November had nothing to do with it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hi Frei Hans,

It seems that Wikiquette alerts are not successfully resolving our differences. I have filed a request for comment on your conduct. Please could you comment at the Response section. Papa November (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harassing me. I am not interested in being drawn into your discussions, which seem designed to be disruptive and energy draining. I do not find you a pleasant editor to work with. Frei Hans (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notification is not harassment, it is both required and polite. I strongly suggest that you comment there. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the same way the user Papa November behaved before. He disrupts articles, then tries to draw users away onto other "forum" pages. He invades user spaces with unfriendly advances. I do not like his style or his tone or the way he has worked to delete an article for no apparent reason other than that he does not personally like it. He posted a message that he titled "more sniping" on my user page last time. Hardly a welcoming or co-operative action. I don't like what he is up to, his choices for deletion show outright bias. Frei Hans (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Dougweller, you should take a look.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like harassment. I think it's time you stepped back and considered that maybe there's something wrong iwht your behavior. There's no real reason to make accusations of sockpuppetry here. Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is real cause. An article that Papa November and Verbal campaigned for the deletion of was deleted by an administrator (AMiB) found later in an arbitration case to have been engaging in disruptive sock puppetry. Frei Hans (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you adding me to the case if you think you have anything to explain to me? YOU're as much as admitting that the only reason you're having me investigated is that you don't like what I'm saying to you. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further sock puppet investigation comment Skating close to a block for disruptive editing here

Frei Hans, I strongly recommend that you courteously engage the various users who have expressed a problem with your editing behaviors at the Request for comments page, and disengage elsewhere. Reverting clerks' edits at SPI and similar pages is generally considered a Bad Thing, and will get you blocked quickly if you don't modify your behavior, regardless of the accuracy of your positions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had not finished cleaning up the request before the clerk made a decision. For a start a bot had posted asking for a code letter. I have not posted one of these before, and wanted to fix it. The clerk made a decision very quickly, without allowing time for more information. Frei Hans (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read some of Wikipedia's polices before you act again, mainly the ones listed above.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of this began I have read quite a lot of Wikipedia policy, and most of it seems centered around encouraging collaboration and good will in the creation of quality encyclopedic content - none of which I see in Papa November's or Verbal's recent behaviour. I am not impressed by editors who post threatening messages and subject titles on my user page. Consider the striken title of the heading above, written hypocritically in Papa November's style. Frei Hans (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heading was to warn you that you were editing disruptively. "SPI Comment" doesn't get the point across.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not editing disruptively. Papa November, Verbal, AMiB and others who appear connected to them are. I would never tear into and delete citation from well referenced content. I like the principles Wikipedia was founded on. I am not interested in these "edit wars" that Verbal and others seem intent on. Frei Hans (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I regret to say that you are mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I warned you. On your own head be it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Request for comments. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop adding users to your SPI report without evidence. Regardless of your intent, it merely looks like disruptive behavior. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, disruptive behaviour is creating a false account with a user name similar to the account name of another user for the purposes of disrupting content creation. That is what has happened now. I did not create an account to stalk myself with. I did not create the account named "Free Hans" My account name is spelt with an "i". The account created by the other user is spelt with two "e's". Frei Hans (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New sock puppet evidence: false account masquerading as another user

A user who did not seem to like me pointing out their disruptive actions, and who did not like me asking them to stop, has created a false account named "Free Hans" which other users have mistaken as mine. The account "Free Hans" has a similar name but I did not create it. I would never create a false account to engage in these disruptive discussions, and am appalled that other users have. Frei Hans (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - and then re-blocked for something I never did

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing, including accusations of bad faith and filing baseless WP:SPI cases.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

{{unblock|Please remove the initial 24 hour block. I was accused unjustly of making "bad faith" accusations but actually tried to work in good faith other editors who seemed intent on what they called "edit warring". I accepted their presence and tried to negotiate with them. The editors did not return the courtesy. Instead I discovered that an editor involved in the deletion of the article we were discussing had been found by a separate arbitration group to be operating sock puppets disruptively. When I pointed this out I was urged by other users to "file" a sock puppet investigation. I did, in good faith. I feel my own good faith has been taken advantage of by other users acting disruptively. The user histories of users who have alleged I filed a bad faith sock puppet investigation indicate that those users have filed many accusations themselves. Frei Hans (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Please step back from your ongoing confrontation with every editor who seeks to inform, advise, or assist you. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collegial and collaborative editing environment, and that does not stop when you get into a content dispute with someone, or even when you feel that they are contributing in bad faith or attacking or harassing you. It is more important than ever, at such times, to be polite and not to make accusations or attacks against other editors. You might find some helpful information in my short essay here or in this particular section of policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating false sock puppets with names similar to the names of other users in order to discredit other users and disrupt Wikipedia is not "collegial". Other users have been stalking me across articles, campaigning for content deletion, showing bias and non-neutrality, and have been using sock puppets to do this. I have the right to say when somebody has been disrupting content, has stalked me across articles and has amoung other actions created a sock puppet with a name similar to mine to try and discredit content I have contributed. Frei Hans (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not familiar with the whole history (or, really, any of it) I did advise Frei Hans on WT:SPI to gather what evidence he thought he could and file an SPI case (as opposed to discussing his suspicions and requesting CU on the talkpage). Nathan^T 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at the request for comments page.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your RFC/U

If you would like to make a response that would normally fall under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans#Response between now and when your block expires, you may leave one below this line, and I (or someone else) will make sure that it gets placed under that section in the RFC/U. Thank you, MuZemike 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

block reset

I have reset your block to 31 hours, owing to block evasion as User:Free Hans. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user account User:Free Hans is not mine, I did not create it. I believe another user has created it to be disruptive. Please see request below. I tried to contact you from your user page but there was no email link, or address, on your user page. Frei Hans (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False user account, with a name similar to mine, created by another user

The user account User:Free Hans was created by another user. I did not create that account. It appears to have been created to discredit my user account by using a similar name. This is very disruptive. The sock puppet was created by another user intent on disrupting Wikipedia content creation. Frei Hans (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The user account Free Hans does not belong to me. I believe it has been created to smear me. I am unable to state so on the user page of that account, or anywhere else, because of these blocks. I do not know why an administrator thinks the user account belongs to me. I was never even informed that it had been created. As for the original block. Other editors disruptively edited articles. I was advised to seek editorial assistance. I sought editorial assistance. Users suggested I file "reports" on other pages. Users attempted to provoke me, the same users following me and posting aggressive messages on my user page whenever I logged in. I began to suspect sock puppetry. I said so. I was advised to file a sock puppet report. I refrained, I did not want to become involved in these sorts of discussions, I was interested in genuine encyclopedic content creation. The behaviour from the same users continued. I was again advised to file a sock puppet report. I did so. The block was set and reset unreasonably, I believe to prevent me from providing more evidence in a sock puppet investigation. The administrator who reset the block said they did so "owing to evasion" and citing the account that I did not create. After the first block I simply logged out, dismayed at the lengths some users have gone to to prevent me from posting reasonable and well referenced content that they have taken a personal and biased dislike to. I did not create an alternative account. There was not even "an investigation" into the "Free Hans" account, to which I might have been able to reply or in which any misunderstanding might have been cleared up. I believe these blocks have been set without reason. I did not disrupt the content creation of other editors. Other editors have taken part in disruptive behaviour and what I have learned is known as "edit warring" here. Some editors seem to be trying to prevent me from representing myself as they attempt to smear my user name and destroy articles I have contributed to. They make a pretence of asking for more evidence, knowing full well I am not able to post it at the moment. I do not create alternative user accounts, as some other editors seem to, in order to take part in these disruptive discussions. Frei Hans (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An almost identically named user springs up to revert and reopen a sockpuppet investigation that you started on everybody who has tried to help you, and we are supposed to believe it is someone else trying to smear your reputation? You are doing a good enough job of that yourself. Step hen 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did not create the account. Someone else is trying to make it look as though I did. Frei Hans (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note to the above, I'd be happy to help you with a method to respond to your RFC/U while you're blocked. Just create a separate section for it, and I'll take care of the rest. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|An administrator blocked my account, stating that I had created a "sock puppet" named "Free Hans". I did not create the account. Another user tried to make it look as though I did. They chose a user name very like mine to discredit me. The false account was created after I pointed out that someone was using sock puppets as an administrator to delete content they did not like. I was advised several times to file a sock puppet investigation report, which I did. When I filed the investigation someone tried to discredit my account by creating yet another sock puppet. Frei Hans (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Please grant this request (for a CU, not an unblock). If Frei Hans created the sock, it will be revealed that he's lying. If another user created it, everyone should be notified who did it and they should be blocked and Frei Hans' block shortened, but not withdrawn. He still deserves a block for his other mischievous behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What mischievous behaviours? Name them. I did nothing wrong. I tried to work in good faith with the mischievous edits of other users trying to delete an article, at first attempting to work with those users and negotiate. It later became apparent that some users were operating sock puppets to create disruptions. I pointed this out, and another sock puppet was created to discredit me. If you want to accuse me of mischievous behaviour then please name the actions specifically that you believe are mine. I have already discovered one user mimicking my user account with a similarly named one. Please provide more information in case there is another. Frei Hans (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But right now I'm wondering if he's getting the picture. Don't assume bad faith, etc. etc.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is just the point. I did not assume bad faith when all this began. In fact I perhaps put up with too much disruptive editing from other editors who wanted to delete a new article. When I discovered that a user involved in the decision to delete the article had been found by a group of arbitrators to be operating sock puppets, and had engaged in biased action on other pages, I started to be "bolder" in following through on suggestions to file a separate sock puppet investigation. Now I have been accused of bad faith, for nothing more then pointing out the disruptive editing practices of other users. Frei Hans (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified my comment to avoid misunderstanding. A CU needs to be performed first. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "CU"? Frei Hans (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the unblockes he doesn't yet.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have reduced your block to approximately the original 24 hours and will raise a CU request. If it turns out that you did try to evade your block through a sockpuppet, expect an indefinite block. If the original Rfc is re-opened you may reply here if still blocked. I expect you to reply to the Rfc and not raise anymore SPIs or be disruptive until that is concluded

Request handled by: Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I'm in Internet hell at the moment, and posted more or less the above, I thought, about an hour ago but I think my PC crashed - in any case it it still as slow as molasses. I see some more comments since I reduced the block, but I still think that making one last effort shows the good faith we are asking for from this editor (maybe especially because he ridiculously acccused me and others of being sockpuppets). I'll try to raise the CU after I eat. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

I have requested CheckUser on the two accounts on your behalf. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frei Hans. Thank you, MuZemike 07:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Could you also check the user who created the account Free Hans. I am still blocked and unable to add the account to the SPI I created. I did not create the account, but because it is similarly named other users seem to think it belongs to me. The account is spelt with two "e's" where as mine is spelt with an "i". Last time I looked the account was attached to a page alleging that the account was a sock puppet of mine. The account is not a sock puppet of mine and I do not like being accused of something that another user did. All of this is taking up more time then it should. These user disruptions and sock puppets seem to be distracting from more productive practices. I have seen similar behaviour on other parts of the web (imposters imitating other users and trying to draw them into confrontation for example) but thought Wikipedia had a better reputation than that. I am surprised and disappointed to see those sorts of disruptions here. Revision: I see that you requested to check the account "Free Hans", which is not mine. I thought you meant you were checking Papa November's and Verbal's accounts. Could you please request a check for those as well. Frei Hans (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I agree with all the others that that SPI is completely unfounded, unbased, and not really in good faith. MuZemike 08:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is not in good faith to sit back and accept that somebody has been disruptively editing content, and has created a sock puppet with a name similar to mine to try and smear my contributions. Some users seem to think that they can roam around bullying others by creating numerous accounts, and get away with it by accusing others (who point out the truth) of "bad faith". I have even been advised to "put up" and "shut up". I do not think that good Wikipedians should sit back and allow others to do this. I am happy for people to check my account against "Free Hans" because I know that I did not create it. Why are other users so resistant to having their accounts checked? Frei Hans (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The user page history of the user account "Free Hans" appears to show only one edit - by user Peter Symonds. The edit notation simply states "sock". If that is the only edit in the user page history then it appears the page was created by user Peter Symonds. Surely when a user page is created the first edit should show the name of the user page editor? Yet the user page history of "Free Hans" does not show any log of it being created by anyone named "Free Hans". I also see through the contribution history of the user Peter Symonds a very similar pattern in the user page history of Wezzy Baby. Perhaps it might pay to add user Peter Symonds to the check of "Free Hans". Would you do that? Frei Hans (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:PeterSymonds is the administrator who blocked the User:Free Hans account!! Look Hans, you simply will not succeed in getting a checkuser on anyone's account unless you provide rock-solid evidence (preferably short bullet points, not a rambling essay), complete with diffs. If you can't do that, then you need to accept that there's no way to prove your allegations and drop them. Papa November (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papa November, I have already pointed out that I cannot provide diffs for the article Telepathy and war showing that it was vandalised before it was misrepresented at an articles for deletion page, because the page and all of its user history has been deleted. That is the whole point. Some users seem to be abusing their editorial rights and disrupting other editors, and then campaigning to delete the evidence of their actions. Frei Hans (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frei Hans, I am not a sock puppet, nor are the others you have accused of being a sock puppet. I am the one who reduced your 31 hour block back to (about) the original and justified 24 hours. Did you even look at the Rfc to see how many people are concerned about your editing? So far you have shown no awareness that your behavior is a problem. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything wrong. Another user has created the similarly named "Free Hans" as a sock puppet and I have been blamed for it. I keep trying to explain that these are the sorts of things that other users have been doing all along but few users commenting seem able to extend the good faith to believe me. Accepting abuse without trying to stop it does not seem very responsible to me. Frei Hans (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that you think you have committed no wrong, as currently, consensus is against you. Currently, the community agrees that your behavior is problematic. You can bet that if you continue it, it will lead to another block. This does not call for accusing others of wrongs, but looking back on yourself, and recognizing your own wrongs.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 09:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the user Daedalus969 has updated a previous very threatening comment, still available in user page discussion history forever and ever unless Wikipedia's deletionists succeed in removing that too. Daedalus's revisions have been linked at the end of this sentence. [1] [2] Frei Hans (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some idiot does seem to have created Free Hans, which justifies my reduction of the block to the original length. I've very sorry about this Frei Hans, but please do not start throwing accusations around again. There's no way to find out it appears as the person doing the check users reports "the evidence does not allow for assessment" and we don't do fishing expeditions on the English Wikipedia. Your best bet if you want to continue editing is to show that you acknowledge that it isn't just everyone else and that you need to change your behavior. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the whole point Doug. I would not for one minute assume that all Wikipedian users behave so badly. I could see a proliferation of related and biased comments, accompanying a push to delete reasonable content. Rather then assume that these were made by "everyone else" as you assert, I chose to believe human kind is more discerning and that the comments and users must be issuing from a smaller source instead. As the investigation of the imposter who mimicked my account proved, I was right in thinking socks were at work - and believe that account was only the "tip of the iceberg". Please allow more good faith in me, instead of trying to cast me in a role that suits the creator of the false account. Frei Hans (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worst kerfluffles on en.Wikipedia are often those which have untowards behaviour from both "sides" of a disagreement, as we seem to have here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness I take a neutral approach to most things then, otherwise I might think you were attributing me to a "side". Frei Hans (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked you at the request of another admin, in order that you might take part in the Request for Comment on your conduct. Please do at least read that, and try to take on board the views offered by other users. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: if you assume bad faith of other users in future, you are likely to be blocked again. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what follows it appears that Frei Hans is incapable of learning from the warnings, comments and advice he has received. Such a user will never fit in here and will always be a disruptive liability. It looks like he also failed to heed your warning, so a new block would be in order, preferably a very long one. I suggest 30 days. Brangifer (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow-out. Frei has been unblocked to participate in the RFC/U (and he should comment there). Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say. From the comments above I take it some users are incapable of exercising good faith in anyone who does not fit a new and narrow view that good faith means "do what we want or else we will campaign to delete your content and block your account". The comments above amount to bullying and thinly disguised threats. The block was unwarranted and barely anyone involved can apologise with good grace, let alone good faith. I have had enough of being dragged wrongfully through false trial simply because I pointed out the disruptive use of sock puppets by what appear to be "deletionists". If the new fake trial in the "request for comment" mentioned above has editors of any quality engaging in it then they can read my thoughts on good faith below. Frei Hans (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing them as being sockpuppets, if you continue to post like that, I will alert the admin who blocked you, as he did warn you against doing that any further. There are no socks, you can't just say that everyone that disagrees with you is a sock, why is it you do not understand that you may have done something wrong? As to citing things, I don't have to, there are several documents that do that already, such as the flippant WQA filing, the RFC, and the baseless sock case. The editors and admins who you accused of being sockpuppets are long time established editors. There is no conspiracy against you, please try to understand here that you are in the wrong, not the other way around.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, the first block was warranted and the second block was an unfortunate mistake. You should review the RFC/U and respond; this page is not place for it. Do pull-back from the sock allegations as you're hurting yourself there. Your second case below is off-base and you need to withdraw it; you'll get no argument from me re the first, though ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first block was unwarranted and the second block was a case of bad faith taken so far that nobody could construct even a false argument to support it. I was blocked to prevent me from defending myself in a trumped up case that I chose to disprove by filing a sock investigation of my own. Frei Hans (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue on this path, it will not end well for you. Admit that you've done something wrong, like the sock puppet report, and apologize to the others you've insulted, and that may help things, but continuing on like this is not advisable. So far several admins and users have agreed your block was warranted, that should mean something. The second block was only because of how we handle them. Sock cases, that is. When someone acts like you, breathes like you, and looks like you, it tends to be assumed that it is you. Given your behavior, there wasn't many options, and there is no way you're going to make people think otherwise. This has already been told to you, how many users are going to have to say it until you listen?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus, you are hardly one to be offering advice here while simultaneously seeking a reblock elsewhere. I suggest you leave this alone. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is assuming bad faith?

I never assumed bad faith in other users. Other users assumed bad faith, and acted in bad faith creating sock puppets. I only tried to point out that sock puppets were being used disruptively, and was advised to file a sock investigation. What is more, I took the time to deliberate for a few days before even filing the investigation. Incidentally, other users never offered me the same courtesy or thought to investigate a false account mimicking my user name before blaming me for something I never did. There was no "sock" investigation into the false account "Free Hans" when I was blocked for 31 hours.

Without a check user investigation I was declared guilty by another user and blocked - without trial so to speak. Surely the sock "Free Hans" should have been checked against my account first, before I was accused of something that I never did. Worrisomely, the user page history of "Free Hans" showed only one edit - suggesting it had been created as a sock by another user and labeled a sock of mine at the same time [3]. But did anyone even look at the user page history to see if a record of who created the account might be stored there? It would have been a simple check, easily followed up by IP checks of the user Peter Symonds (whose edit was the only one on record in the account) and any other user accounts that appeared connected with the sock (in my opinion that should have included all users present during the discussion that lead to the sock's creation).

After repeating several times that I never created the sock "Free Hans" (spelt with two "e's" instead of an "i"), another user finally investigated the sock. A "sock investigation" has now proven that the sock "Free Hans" was created by another user. Worse, the sock was created to disrupt Wikipedia and make it look like another user. I stand by my original claim that many other socks were used, and see nothing wrong in checking suspected accounts when disruptive bias is shown in any discussion. Unfortunately these discussions and "investigations" do waste time but investigating a sock should not declare a user guilty - if investigating users is assumed in good faith then investigated accounts should remain innocent until proven guilty. Frei Hans (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever created the User:Free Hans account was trolling, and they fucked you over. However, there is no solid reason to believe that the users you made sock allegations against were behind that account. So, 'Free Hans' is an obvious bit of bad faith by some dick. Your socks-claim was also a bad faith move and it likely figured into the evaluation of the one-off. Had you had clean hands, it would have gone better for you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My hands are clean. And you just showed bad faith by insinuating they are not. I know very well when I see fakeries and trouble makers trying to drum up consensus through false accounts. I knew beyond doubt that the user account "Free Hans" was not mine because I did not create it and I know that some editors have shown quite a lot of bias and have been intent on deleting content that I, more neutrally and inclusively, think should encyclopedically be documented. There was motive to create the Free Hans account, and motive to create other socks as well. I have recently seen a number of user comments trying to insinuate that "good faith" means "roll over and let us get away with muckracking behind you back". To me "good faith" means sensible reasoning and a certain degree of hope that justice can be done if only one has the patience to read through the rot. Frei Hans (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We all know you're not Free Hans. Honestly, please let that go. Whoever did it is a WP:DICK, and you should just forget about it. Likewise, we also all know I'm not AMiB, Hans Adler, Doug, etc. You have acted inappropriately, such as in your SPI report (if you'd kept it to 2 or 3 editors and given justification, fine - but adding everyone who has interacted with you is bad faith and disruptive) and as documented at the RFC/U (AIV reports, false accusations of vandalism,...). You really need to stop making accusations, and address the RFC/U if you want to be a wikipedia editor. Verbal chat 07:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal is correct, as was I; your initial block was for cause and you are lashing out far too aggressively — which makes you the problem that needs addressing. You're on thin ice and need to wise-up and focus on the large picture; nb: WP:ANI#Longer block possibly required — which will happen if you don't shift gears soon. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very reasonable in the face of others lashing out and posting threatening and provocative messages on my user discussion page and in the face of others aggressively creating sock puppets - in particular a false sock puppet mimicking my user account. If you do not like my account of what has happened, as it appears here on my own user discussion page (which appears to have become more popular than I ever intended if I am to believe that all of these comments are from individuals) then all you need to do is stop visiting my user page. This is my space to nut out ideas and at some stage I might choose to present those ideas for public editing later. In the meantime you might like to think of yourselves as my guests on my user discussion page and be more polite in my company. Frei Hans (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't your page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you want an outcome that is preferable to you, I strongly advise you to comment at the RFC/U - and to do so in a spirit of contrition and reconciliation. Continuing to ignore the RFC/U and continuing the poor behaviour is going to go very badly for you. I'm telling you this as I'm trying to help you. Take a short break, remember that wikipedia doesn't matter, and then have a look at the RFC/U with fresh eyes. Verbal chat 08:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've been quite civil here and have tried to point you in the right direction; please read my comments in that light. From what I can tell, 'Free Hans' is the only sock about (other than myself, but that's another story;). While Daedalus is technically correct about ownership, this is your page and I'll leave you be for the moment. I, too, am trying to help you here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking up about bullying is an act of good faith

It seems some users seem to think they can bully others and get away with it, by convincing their chosen targets that complaining about abuse is an act of "bad faith". Take comments by Daedalus969 for example. He used very threatening language on this user page. He was asked to tone it down but his original comments can still be read in this user page history [4]. His own user page shows that he has been asked before to consider interacting with other users in that way - but he seems to think he can get away with it because (according to his user page history) his last known target just got fed up with the abuse and chose not to return [5]. Sadly, if all users targeted in that way said nothing and just went away - then Wikipedia would become nothing but a domain controlled by bullies.

If I encounter people abusing a policy of "good faith" and using sock puppets disruptively to influence decisions and mimic other users, I most certainly will try to bring it to the attention of other Wikipedians. If I thought that the majority of Wikipedian users did not like my ethical stance, then I would never have contributed to the project. I do not like to think that a majority of people could be as silly or as poorly informed as to abuse others. When incidents occur where suddenly a proliferation of rude users exhibiting unethical behaviour occur it is wise perhaps to consider that those user accounts could be issuing from one small source - rather then tarnishing the ethical capability of the entire human race.

I think considering the possibility of sock puppetry in cases like this assumes more good faith of the population at large, then to think that all of those accounts really did belong to individual users. If I am wrong, then perhaps Wikipedia's goal of becoming a collaborative and trust worthy community producing accurate and encyclopedic content has changed and I should go and try to find where all the other reasonable users who left have gone. Frei Hans (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what assuming good faith is about. You're supposed to assume that everyone, even the people you don't like or who disagree with you, are at least attempting to do what they think will benefit the encyclopedia. Calling users sockpuppets, without solid evidence (which so far you have yet to provide), is not assuming good faith on their part, but rather is assuming bad faith. It also makes it difficult for other users to continue assuming good faith on your part when you do not assume good faith on theirs (as one of the users you labeled as a sockpuppet without any evidence, I have the same difficulty, but I am trying). So please, understand, the default is always to assume that people who disagree with you, insult you, etc. are not acting in bad faith, but are merely misguided. I can't guarantee that following this advice will make everything go smoothly for you, but I hope it'll at least help you understand where everyone else is coming from on this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of bad faith - case 1

In an example of bad faith language, the user Daedalus apparently entered a conversation without having commented in it or the case leading to it before, yet his comment infers he knows all about it. He accuses an editor in a way that seems strange for a new entrant in a discussion. He refers to past "behaviour" but cannot supply any evidence, quotes or edits and gives no reason for not supplying any of these in his threatening accusation. Whether or not the user has been part of the conversation prior - perhaps as a sock - or not, the language is extraordinarily un-wikilike and amounts to bullying. These were the original quotes of user Daedalus969:

I really hate people like you. You had several editors tell you that your behavior violates our policies, yet you deny it. Let me tell you, do you know what happens to editors like you? They don't come back for a long time after they're banned. If you are unwilling to recognize what you have done wrong, and you continue the behavior that led to this block, things will not end well for you.— Daedalus [6]

Quite simply, your behavior violates our policies on editing. If you continue to do what you did before you got blocked, you can bet damn well sure you'll get blocked again twice as fast. Here is another important tibit. It doesn't matter that you think your behavior isn't problematic. You see, it doesn't matter, because in the end, you aren't the controller of your fate. So far, several others have agreed with the block of you. Another problem with you is your continual failure to admit fault. When several people tell you you're wrong, what do you do? You make a baseless accusation that they're all the same person, instead of realizing that you yourself are the one at fault, not others. It's what I hate about people like you, the fact that you can't admit you're wrong, and the fact that you'll try to accuse any who don't agree with you as being in some sort of cabal or somesuch. But as I said, in the end, it doesn't matter what you think, what matters is what everyone else thinks, and what everyone else thinks is that if you continue to do what led to this block, things will not end well for you. If you continue on just the same path, I will push for an indefinite block, take this as a warning to recognize your own fault before it leads to your own destruction.— Daedalus [7]

Those comments are out of line. But Daedalus was counseled about them and withdrew them. You need to learn to let things go instead of dwelling on things. You're getting a lot of advice here, a little bit of it maybe a bit conflicting, but in general what you are being told by many voices is that you're being too tendentious, and not being collegial enough. Take that advice on board, or you will find it difficult to be successful here. (in case you are wondering who I am, I'm the CU that investigated the Free-Frei (lack of) connection.) ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of bad faith - case 2

In an example of bad faith administration, a user assumed an imposter to be the sock of another user without apparently even checking the user page history and noting something amiss.

The sock "Free Hans" (with two "e's") was created to appear as though it belonged to the user "Frei Hans" (with one "i"). Oddly, the user page history showed that the first user page edit was made my another editor entirely - editor Peter Symonds. [8]. A user page history should normally show the first edit belongs to the user whose page it is. Other users should not create user pages not belonging to them. An example of a new user page history should look more like the one linked at the end of this sentence, with the user name of the first edit logged matching the user page name [9]. Although of course, there are always exceptions.

Yet the administrator who apparently decided the sock belonged to "Frei Hans" looked only at the user page - with its banner that anyone could have created (anyone can create Wikipedia content) stating wrongfully that the page was a sock of "Frei Hans". There was no investigation into the page before the first sock banner (replaced with another by the time this account was written but still visible through user page history) was placed on it. A further look at the contributions history of user Peter Symonds shows another similar user page construction with an almost identical pattern in the edit history to the user page "Free Hans". Something strange appears to be going on and a reasonable user might think to file a check user request including at the very least checks on users Peter Symonds (who "socked" the page with a banner and no investigation) and Frei Hans (who wants the user name Frei Hans cleared). It is possible that a user with admininisterial tools might check the accounts without filing a request, or at least notify the user "Frei Hans" that the account "Free Hans" exists and might be an imposter. But administrator Gwen Gale did none of these things and wrongfully blocked user Frei Hans for 31 hours. What is more, after another user filed a sock investigation into the account "Free Hans" (with two "e's") and the account was proven to be created by somebody who was not "Frei Hans" (with one "i"), user Gwen Gale continued to assume bad faith instead of admitting his/her apparent mistake. Instead of apologising to the user wrongfully blocked, user Gwen Gale posted a comment on the innocent party's page that still implied bad faith in the wronged party:

The worst kerfluffles on en.Wikipedia are often those which have untowards behaviour from both "sides" of a disagreement, as we seem to have here. Gwen Gale

Innocent until proven guilty? Not in user Gwen Gale's eyes. Innocent after proven blameless? Not in Gwen Gale's eyes either! As for Peter Symonds - did he assume good faith in tagging the page as a sock before investigation? And should good faith be assumed in Peter Symonds - after all he did appear to act very quickly without checking and that did impact unjustly on another user who was blocked for 31 hours. Frei Hans (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer - anyone who takes issue with this example is welcome to submit an alternative version on their respective user page and ask me civilly to have a look at it. If anyone wants to use these examples to construct guidelines for good faith practice or to discuss good faith practice, or to build and discuss guidelines for sock puppet investigations, then I think that would be very wiki-like. Frei Hans (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Frei Hans (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re case 2, there was an SPI here, and there is a discussion at your ongoing RFC/U on the talk page about the sockpuppet. Unfortunately there is not enough evidence to work out if it was a known user, and it's unlikely to have been any of those on your SPI list. I don't think Gwen was claiming you were socking in her comment. You could ask her for clarification? Also, Peter tagged the article as a sock - which is why the first edit to that editors talk page is from him. It was clearly a disruptive account and could be blocked for numerous reasons (similar username to you), but it was likely a sock. It is unfortunately usual for some editors to create socks if they feel blocked unjustly, and it seemed whoever created this account did so to make you look guilty. It was important to block that account, and then investigate. The account is now indef blocked, and the investigation showed it wasn't you (and discussion had already reached that conclusion). If you hadn't already blocked then, I believe, you wouldn't have been blocked at the same as the "sock", but asked to comment at the SPI with a suspected sock account notification. That's what I've seen in the past, and seems to uphold "innocent until proven otherwise". I think Peter took his actions in good faith, and I think you've misunderstood Gwen's comment. Please understand I'd like to see the person behind "Free" Hans blocked. I've been accused of sockpuppetry incorrectly, and you just have to wait for the investigation to finish - and I wasn't blocked while the investigation was ongoing. I understand you're upset, but I ask and I would hope you refactor your accusations against Peter and Gwen above.

It would probably be of benefit to you to read through the RFC/U comments, and write a response as you see fit. If you could respond positively to the discussion and criticisms, show you understand the issues, and say how you intend to go forward, that might go very well for you. Yours, Verbal chat 06:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very well Verbal, but why did Peter Symonds put a banner on the account claiming it was a sock of mine before a sock investigation had even taken place? If he had administerial tools he would have been able to see at a glance via IP checks that the account fell into a very different IP range. It appears he did no such thing but created the banner anyway. The subsequent SPI investigation showed how different the IP content between the two accounts was. It was a fairly simple IP case to work out, and any user with sense or experience should have been able to smell an imposter a mile off even without an IP check. Fortunately for me, the imposter was not someone at my place of work or living in the same neighbourhood - otherwise the IP range could have looked very similar and I might have been blamed. That is why IP checks, while helpful where wrongdoing is suspected, can never be considered conclusive. In my case I knew inconclusively that the account was an imposter's because I did not create it myself. I also know that some users have been extremely aggressive in their approach to deleting content and that other agendas are at work. Why has nobody questioned user Peter Symonds? Why has nobody followed up the sock investigation I filed - I showed good judgment in convincing others to check the Free Hans account, perhaps I am right about others. Frei Hans (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding things and jumping to conclusions. You need to slow down ;) Now. Admins and Checkusers have different access; Peter is an admin and Lar is a CU.^{[10] [11]} Peter has no access to account IPs, while Lar does. Take the hint, or you'll be done here shortly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Peter's actions haven't been questioned as they were in good faith and followed normal procedure. Tagging suspected socks is normal. If you look at WP:CHECKUSER you might see why Peter (if he is a CU, not all admins can check IPs) shouldn't use CU tools how you say, that would be abuse. Your SPI was considered, and it reflected very poorly on you. If you feel others have behaved inappropriately (and I agree the "hate" language is uncivil, though the substance may be justified) then you should document this, concisely and civilly, at the RFC/U. Is there a reason why you wont comment there? Verbal chat 07:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Wikipedia's CheckUser policy page shows, through general concensus, that:

"Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing".

Frei Hans (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's not a CU, so this is moot, and he could only have checked you - not any other accounts. Note BR and I suggested it could be Macromonkey (an account hounding us), but this seems not to be the case. Verbal chat 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction; Peter has no access to IP information; not an admin right. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manually placed edit conflict tags and changing other people's user pages or comments

Please don't change other people's comments, by removing ec tags for example. These tags are important so readers realise that the reply was written before other contemporaneous replies around it were read. See WP:TALK and WP:USERTALK for relevant rules. Verbal chat 09:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comment on my talk there, thanks. Verbal chat 09:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags for readability. The user time stamps show that the user's were able to post their comments without any conflict. The tags were unnecessary in my opinion. Next time, before reverting a user's page, attempt to discuss the reason or reasons you feel content should be reverted first. In fact, discussing before reverting is probably a good idea on main space pages as well. Discussing first might even help to stop you being warned so often for doing it. Frei Hans (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: When a lot of comments are being posted a wise reader might consider that edit conflicts can occur without needing an edit tag to show it. A good reader can tell by looking at timestamps, and perhaps if they have been experiencing edit conflicts themselves when other editors are contributing at about the same time. It is natural on busy sites. Excessive markup in comments can be distracting for readers. Frei Hans (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment on Verbals talk page, *yes*, the {{ec}} are manually inserted by users; I did it deliberately and they are part of my comments.

You should listen; it's key to survival on this toxic site. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth for? To prove what? The tags don't prove anything if inserted manually. Anybody can make it look as though an edit conflict has happened and misrepresent content. Sorry, the tags go on this user page - timestamps are more reliable. Frei Hans (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to place them manually. That's the point. The tags form part of my comment. Please do not remove them. Come on Frie, why are you making this difficult for yourself? I got the edit conflict warning, reinserted my comment and added the tag. That is normal; Help:Edit conflict Verbal chat 10:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that using these tags, especially in combination with Jack Merridew's ~~reason for doing it (he states he has to too survive a toxic community)~~ statement about surviving toxic communities, displays an awful amount of bad faith. Look, I think if most of you (as you all claim to be more than one person) relaxed a little and let good sense prevail that I would never have been blocked in the first place. Frei Hans (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is not saying that he uses, or you should use {{ec}} to survive a toxic community. He is saying that listening is key to survival. pablo_hablo. 11:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable. I rephrased my comment to take in your point. I think reading in combination with numeric skills are key to survival, in any community, but particularly in web based ones. I would say "listening" in web based communities is something that people with better facilities probably do more of - having greater band width and so forth. Jack seems to be putting the tags in, in a community that he feels is toxic - I cannot completely separate his two conjoined sentences as the one thought seems to follow the other - as though the thought of edit conflict tags made him think of toxic communities. In any case, I wonder if Jack could comment for himself - unless he is speaking through another sock. Frei Hans (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"listen" in the sense of "take heed of" not (unless you are using text-to speech software) literally listen. I am sure that Jack will comment if and when he wishes to, but as he is in a time zone far, far away he may be otherwise occupied. pablo_hablo. 11:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was otherwise occupied last night with someone on a study abroad semester. Frei, listen to Pablo, if not to me. I've spit my two sentences above into two paragraphs; hope that helps. There are a great many toxic personalities on this site (for what it's worth, I don't see you as one). Also, Pablo is not a sock of mine. You are frenetically digging your own grave here; massive and persistent assumptions of bad faith will get you the boot. I've not look all the way down this page yet and would not be surprised to find a new block notice there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more reason for not manually placing edit conflict tags. Sorry to be a bore. But another good reason for posting comment without the tags runs thus: if an edit conflict occurs and Wikipedia stops you momentarily from posting because of it - that means that the software is telling you that more content has been posted since you last viewed the page live and that you might want to read it first and review your own content. Simply rushing ahead and posting anyway, with an edit conflict tag, implies a hasty user who might not be considering content produced around him or her. Stopping, reading, and then posting is a great way to make sure your comment remains in context and that the content is not misunderstood - thus removing need of an edit conflict tag at all. It can also help to stop heated discussions from going over the top (as we have seen recently in the commentary above). The tag might be useful in extremely hectic situations but I do not consider myself a hectic person and would prefer this user page contain more considered content creation from everyone. Frei Hans (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (<- the software says there is an edit conflict, but the diff was unhelpful.) If you want to change policy you have to do that elsewhere. The tags form part of my comment, are correctly placed, and should not be removed without my permission. Further accusations of bad faith are not warranted, and show you have failed to grasp the problems with your editing. Please, remove the section below and strike your accusations of bad faith and sock-puppetry above. I have wasted far too much time trying to help you. You have already been pointed to civility policy, NPA, AGF, etc. Please read them and demonstrate you understand. Verbal chat 10:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a comment with the {{ec}} or just an "(ec)" is primarily about users not losing a post they've been composing and have found themselves unable to save. You copy your post into the updated page, get it saved, and post furthur if warranted and if your patience has not worn thin. As mine has, with this inane page. You're on your own, Frie. Jack Merridew 05:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more relaxing discussion about grammar

What the fuck, Frie? Please note the that none of the following above are actually quotes of what I said, and, fwiw, I'm doing just fine surviving this toxic community (i.e. I listen to the clueful people). No cheers for you, Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet ^{Sockpuppet, First Class} 05:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced this here, do not do that again, either remove the comment or don't touch it, you are not allowed to refactor comments like that.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think. Which version below do you prefer, and why. Do you think the meaning changes in each construction?

Version 1: "Jack Merridew has to too survive a toxic community."
Version 2: "Jack Merridew has to, too survive a toxic community."
Version 3: "Jack Merridew has to to survive a toxic community."
Version 4: "Jack Merridew has to, to survive a toxic community."

Frei Hans (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No 4 is the best of the bunch. no. 1 and 2 require yet another 'to'. As far as the meaning goes I prefer

Version 5: "Jack Merridew suggests that you learn to listen to others."

which reflects what Jack posted above better. pablo_hablo. 10:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facetious. Let me rephrase your statement to take this concept into the domain of grammar instead of into another edit war.

Version 1: "Jack Merridew suggests to learn, too survive a toxic community"
Version 2: "Jack Merridew has to learn, too survive a toxic community"
Version 3: "Jack Merridew has to learn too survive a toxic community"
Version 4: "Jack Merridew has to learn, to survive a toxic community"
Version 5: "Jack Merridew has to learn to survive a toxic community"

I think there is a subtle difference in learning to survive a toxic community and learning too survive a toxic community. What do you think? Frei Hans (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v1—3 are flawed, it is difficult to glean the meaning - although "too" can be used at the beginning of a clause this is not very common (and seems clumsy to me). "Also" would fit better. The "to" in 4 means "in order to" whereas the "to" in 5 forms part of an infinitive, and the meanings are different.

4 "learn (something) in order to survive"

5 "learn to survive (by some unspecified means). pablo_hablo. 11:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Now from your statement I would say you are using the punctuation to find meaning, where as an unpunctuated version might rely on an extra letter to describe meaning. Now, if a coma can be seen to signify a pause and if a double o signifies an extended vowel emphasis as well as difference in meaning - than neither "has to, to" or "has to too" is right or wrong - they just describe different accents. Frei Hans (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. "to" and "too" are different words, not the same word in different accents. pablo_hablo. 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, they are different words but they could also be pronounced in different ways - implying a different accent as well. So, are you saying that "to, to" and "to too" mean different things to you? Frei Hans (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have to eat, and you have to, too." has a clear meaning.

"I have to eat, and you have to, to" is missing most of a clause - and it is not clear where the sentence is heading, could be (eg)

"I have to eat, and you have to, to <survive/grow fat/get rid of all this food/keep our hosts happy/impress these girls>" pablo_hablo. 12:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now let us imagine that "you have to eat to survive" and "you have to eat too survive" belong to two different cultures or classes. Could that be possible? Or, let us suppose that they belong to people who have learnt to write in two different ways - either primarily by listening and speaking or primarily by reading and writing. Is that possible as well? If it is, then perhaps neither version is right or wrong - they are just different styles developed in different environments that have found themselves on a page. Bye now, I am going to eat too. Frei Hans (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the only purpose of this thread is to criticise Jack Merridew's choice of the word "listen", because listening can introduce inaccuracies due to the existence of homophones.

Fine. Point made.

Now Hans, and I hope this form of words is acceptable to you, would you please pay some attention to those who are trying to help you? You continue to labour under several misapprehensions, even though you have been corrected on several points, and in some cases more than once. Let me try to sum them up (apologies if I missed any)...

It is astronomically unlikely that the users you listed in your SPI case are the same person. If you look at their contribution histories (via the link in the left margin of their User or User Talk pages) you will see just how ridiculous that idea was. If you're still in doubt, check out the earliest contributions of each editor.
When various users offered you advice, you added their names to the list of suspected sockpuppets, apparently for no other reason than because you didn't like what they said. This is a textbook assumption of bad faith - on the basis of no evidence, you assumed that these people were trying to harm, rather than help, Wikipedia. You were initially blocked to prevent further policy violations, since you clearly were not about to stop otherwise.
There is no need for any more rhetoric about how bad the creator of User:Free Hans is. We all agree with you on that.
You are responsible for your own conduct. Each other user is responsible for their conduct. Their conduct does not excuse your conduct.
The ongoing RfC isn't a show trial. It will not pass any sentence on you. Instead, it is a venue for discussion and input both from outsiders and those who've previously been involved with you. As such, it is a very good idea for you to take on board what's being said there.
It doesn't matter who makes the first edit to a sockpuppet's user page. That information may provide a clue as to the identity of the sockmaster, but only if the sock has not yet made an edit. In tagging the account as a suspected sock, Peter Symonds made a perfectly reasonable decision, based on the information available to him, which did not include IP information but did include the naming similarity, the contributions history of that account and yours, and the fact that your account was blocked. Block evasion using similarly named accounts is surprisingly common, considering how stupidly obvious it is.

The best way to go forward from this point would be for you to contribute quietly and productively to Wikipedia - find a reliable source covering material you're interested in, and add some information to an article that you can cite to that source. Remember to ensure that your contribution is in keeping with our three core content policies (WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral point of view). Alternatively, you could go to a random article and do some proof-reading and copy-editing. I would not recommend starting any new articles at this time. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread was posted to find out what people thought about different combinations of to and too. Please remember to assume good faith, thank you. Frei Hans (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, please mind your language on my user page. I struck out the profanities and replaced your comment to fit in chronological order, where it was less disruptive to our discussion about grammar. Please note the use of "the" in your sentence, compared to "that". Frei Hans (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted you, you are not allowed to refactor other's comments on wikipedia.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frei Hans, I endorse the above wording. Heed someone's advice, please. Jack Merridew 05:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse it; there is a lot of good advice, however after the "discussion about grammar" I feel that proof-reading and copy-editing may not be a good idea. pablo_hablo. 10:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language is continually evolving, and it is always useful to survey popular opinion on the use of words. Occasionally some grammatical choices are subjective - more than one version may be accurate. Frei Hans (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

Either remove it completely or leave it alone, by policy, you are not allowed to do that.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't realize it, but refactoring posts is a blockable offense. This is your second warning, do not do it again.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]