User:DPeterson/MyList

For information on how to file a Check user: ::Ask User:Fred Bauder,

note

To file an Rfc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

Counts
[]

Personal attacks and false accusations of sockpuppetry]]
You continue to knowlingly make false accusations of sockpuppetry, as you did [] while you were aware of []. This is unacceptable per wikipedia polcy. You must stop. ~kinda]]

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.5B.5Bkinda.5D.5D_knowling_making_false_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_Personal_attacks

kinda knowling making false accusations of sockpuppetry Personal attacks
kinda]] has made several accusations of my being a sock puppet, despite knowing that this is not true. I believe this is a Personal attack and would like it to stop. See the following diff:
 * 1) []
 * 2) []

See previous warning at: []

Previous check into sockpuppet accustion unfounded: [].

DPeterson talk 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A spade is a. Parts of User:DPeterson's user-page are copy and pasted from User:AWeidman, they have never disagreed with each other on any issue, and both make characteristic errors (eg., his inability to make proper external links, as seen above, and his inability to bold text without leaving extraneous apostrophes) ~kinda]] 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you wish to make a complaint about potential sock puppets then please use the proper forums. Do not make unproven charges of sock puppetry in article talk pages as an ad hominem attack on an editor acting in good faith. Given that the charge has already been disproven by checkuser, making the same claim over and over seems to be more like a personal attack then an attempt at problem resolution. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser can only determine whether the same IP is used by both accounts, not whether they're sockpuppets. DPeterson's IP is in close proximity to the clinic which User:AWeidman owns. ~kinda]] 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, stop repeating the charge on article talk pages. And since AWeidman doesn't edit the articles that you're engaged with it doesn't effect you significantly. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Find at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=138233709#kinda_knowling_making_false_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_Personal_attacks

Another related listing
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_kinda_is_making_another_false_accusation_of_sockpuppetry

User kinda is making another false accusation of sockpuppetry
User kinda]] is accusing me of being a sockpuppet. He has not basis for this and no proof. See diff: []

I would like him sanctioned for these repeated personal attacks. SamDavidson 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that I am the second person he has done this too. The following is a previous filing here regarding another editor. It was titled, "kinda knowling making false accusations of sockpuppetry Personal attacks"

SamDavidson 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just too much. Kinda really has to be stopped.  DPeterson talk 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you see people's IPs? I thought it was secret? How does user:kinda get access? Cornea 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed the quotation of the previous incident report - it's still on this page and even if it weren't a link would be sufficient. Kinda0 has been warned about making personal attacks, and also about making inappropriate personal comments on article talk pages. However this latest comment by him, on a user talk page, regarding possible sock puppets, does not appear to violate our WP:NPA policy. Regarding Cornea's comment, some trusted users have access to IP addresses (using the "checkuser" tool) in order to settle issues like this. Kinda0 hs no such access, but was merely commenting on a previous Checkuser report. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see my report listed anymore...maybe a link to it would be useful for other admins to see. DPeterson talk 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry
[]

[]

Father Tree Admin complaint
User:FatherTree is making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet. see diff: [] Heis  knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, while we are in a mediation ([]) Evidence of not being a sockpuppet:
 * 1) []
 * 2) []

I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations. Administrative action is required. DPeterson talk 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. Yechiel Man  03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd appreciate that.  DPeterson talk 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [] Should I file another incident here about this or can you include this here and interevene?  DPeterson talk 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See: []

Outcome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:FatherTree_Canvasing

All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, did User:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks. Shell babelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree Canvasing
This user was making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet [], which I filed previously. An administrator seemed to support my filing, "':You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. Yechiel Man 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)'"

Now he is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [] in response to an active mediation case at [] This violates the policy because it is biased and partisan

I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations and stop fishing. Administrative action is required. DPeterson talk 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection
See []

Example
Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar for an example of what these things will look like if they pass.