User talk:Kafziel

Note: This page is sometimes semi-protected. If you are an IP editor or have a new account, it's possible you won't be able to post a message on this talk page.
Please try this talk page first. But, if it's protected, you can leave me a message at User talk:Kafziel/Unprotected. I'll respond to good faith questions/comments as soon as I can. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble.

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message on this talk page, I will reply on this talk page. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. There is no need to post talkback templates on this page. Thanks!

Archives

Regarding that IP block

You blocked IP 184.20.209.241 (talk · contribs) yesterday, but it appears that with the block gone, he's back at my talk page with the same nonsense (see [1]). I dunno if you feel right in blocking him again, or if I should go back to AN where I initially posted for help. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was out of town yesterday. Looks like Starblind took care of it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Comment

When did it become unacceptable to compile requests for comment on other editor's tendentious behaviour? Please point to the Wikipedia policy that says that I cannot do ti. I can the find the policy that says I can. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed to it: WP:ATTACK. Specifically, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. I notice you didn't have a problem when it was that other user's page... is it not fair to apply it evenly on both sides? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another user I B Wright had already raised an ANI on that very list where its existence was upheld. Although I did contribute to the ANI, I accepted the admin's opinion that it was acceptable. What has changed? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of that, and I can't speak to other users' points of view. The page has been there for months and months, with no actual RfC to speak of. You can't just have a page where you indefinitely compile grievances against other editors for the purpose of harassing them at some point in the future. If you really feel the need to do that, you can save it on your own computer. I would be willing to email you the deleted contents, with the agreement that you not use them to create a page like that again. But it would be better just to move on. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem there was that I was just getting ready to finalise the RfC, when another user raised an ANI over the subject behaviour (which was upheld and a one week block imposed). This puts the skids on any RfC, because the ultimate aim is that Wtshymanski follows the rules and edits in accordance with concensus. I have to assume WP:AGF that Wtshymanski will respond to the censure and behave himself in future. Time had not elapsed enough for that to deliver one way or the other. The RfC was on hold, but evidence was that it was not so for long. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are messing up this poor guy's page. :) As I tried to help you with last fall? you need to mind your Ps and Qs with your flippant snarky comments about the person you are building a case against. As I indicated it could end up backfiring on you. I was trying to help you. Then your daddy figure mentor gets in there and warns you that you have been insulted and shouldn't take that behavior towards yourself and that I am protecting the person by attacking you. Next thing you know you are lodging complaints about my trying to formalize a consensus, at the request of an admin (that became invisible and hung me out to dry during the process), to stop the editwarring on an article. You throw insults around, threaten me and next thing you know we have complaints at ANI aqainst each other. It's gone from bad to worse all over a simple misunderstanding, in the first place. You and your daddy editor always have several IPs that show up to agree with you on talk pages and the first sign of content dispute with either of you, the other shows up to support arguments, always in favour and if it continues then IP editors with usually less than 10 edits jump in to stir the pot and then never edit again. Now I have tried to address this with you, brought it up at the most useless WP page going, ANI, and now I am here asking you to stop this behavior and IP hopping nonsense. Log in! Content discussions cannot be trusted, anymore, by me and obviously Wtshymanski, although he will not come forward after he was beaten into submission in the last gangwar. (yeah he is a sarcastic SOB) I don't want to hear about how you forgot to sign in ONCE or how DNS works different than North America (it doesn't). They are not excuses for sockpuppetry support in content disputes. Kafziel, sorry about this here. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is your field but could you have a look at [2] and perhaps close it or something as the whole thing has just broken down into what appears nothing less than trolling/provocation of other editors with some collapsing comments from others. It's looks fairly arrogant and gutsy to me. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC) You may have to view the history for the collapse and revert. This is fallout from the same group discussed above, Thanks (addendum) 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you may already be ignoring this, but in case you are not, 174.118.142.187 has made concerted efforts to remove anything which opposes his points of view or even casts suspicion on his activities. As previously stated there is a long history of making frivolous complaints against any other user who opposes any point of view that he is trying to hammer across. Bit in the current series.

The first attempt is when an unknown user reports that he suspects sockpuppetry at work. 174.118.142.187 hastily blanks the observation ([3]).

After a revert and further observation that I also suspected sockpuppetry (SPI case still open), a few other users added various comments. But 174.118.142.187 collapses the discussion fragment to hide his problems once again (oh yes, it's 174.118.142.187 doing the collapsing, but he forgot to mention that didn't he?) ([4]). This despite it being a very current discussion.

Guy Macon took the discussion over to the fringe theories noticeboard where 174.118.142.187 started his stance once again. But once again he is losing for the same reasons that he was losing at Talk:Power factor, he just has not provided a single reference supporting his point of view but prefers to rubbish the existing references. Since he is not winning his fight on the noticeboard, he wants you to hide it for him. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a regular contributor to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.[5] The discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Power factor is an example of why we have a Fringe Theories Noticeboard. User:174.118.142.187 is pushing a fringe electronics theory (no doubt at all about its WP:FRINGE status; there are exactly zero sources supporting it) and I wanted some uninvolved editors who are familiar with our policies on fringe theories to take a look. Please note that the Power Factor article was put under full protection after User:Wtshymanski (see block log[6]) started edit warring[7][8][9][10] over this same fringe theory. There is a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtshymanski concerning suspicions that 174.118.142.187 is a sockpuppet of Wtshymanski. I don't buy it (see my comments at the SPI) but we are still waiting for a Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Fringe" is only your assigned label regarding this matter and being used as an irritant to participants that feel peer reviewed papers published by the IEEE, considered to be authority of the EE world, and the best reference resources for WP encyclopedia. You appear to be an Engineering quality guy (no pun intended). Now I do not have access to the IEEE documents, at this time, but your constant alleging this "fringe" opinion in so many forums, about editors opposing your views, in a content dispute, is disruptive in itself and fails the spirit of WP. This (here) just appears to be another example of forum shopping for this same venue. Don't get me wrong. Your interjections in DieSwartPunkt's multiple attacks at SPI and ANI have been helpful, appreciated and has slowed down a WP:witchhunt until next content dispute. The tone of your assertion at your fringe notice board [[11]] that I was lying was not appreciated. Yes, I was incorrect in the chronological order I stated the events but the drama used to attack a point that was moot in the arguments appeared to be pointy in a further attempt at ridicule. I saw one of your last comments that you had actually read some of my edit history and I hope you can see I have only tried to edit honestly for the good of the project. The rest is only disruptive attempts IMHO to avoid honest contribution under the vast rules of WP. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)