User:Ikip/compare

Ireneshusband's apology
Before Irenehusband retired, he made several apologies:
 * User:Ice Cold Beer‎, to User talk:Rx StrangeLove, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Workshop, on his talk page.

Ireneshusband's apology is the only apology I am aware of in this case.

Ice Cold Beer, JzG and Ireneshusband behavior compared side by side
As mentioned elsewhere, JzG and sockpuppet Ice Cold Beer "opened the door" to there own behavior by calling into question newuser Ireneshusband's own incivility. {|
 * -style="background-color: #CCCCCC" align=center|
 * width=300 valign=top|Irenehusband's incivility
 * width=300 valign=top|JzG's incivility
 * width=300 valign=top|Ice Cold Beer's incivility
 * width=300 valign=top| Listed incivility by JzG, Ice Cold Beer, and RxS
 * width=300 valign=top| Listed incivility by JzG as listed in the March 3, 2008 Request for comment
 * width=300 valign=top| Incivility during this dispute
 * width=300 valign=top|
 * Please at least try to pretend that you have been paying attention to what other people have to say.
 * width=300 valign=top|
 * Please at least try to pretend that you have been paying attention to what other people have to say.


 * Well there's a conspiracy theory for you! Wikipedia being taken over by pod people. Don't we deserve better than this?

Referring to: Eleland
 * I cannot believe that he is not intelligent enough to understand this.
 * Not only is your assertion nothing more than a personal opinion, but it is clearly nonsensical considering eleland's view on the subject.


 * Basically you want the title to endorse your own opinion on the matter.


 * Please acquaint yourself with WP:NC because that will enable us to have a more constructive discussion about the renaming issue.


 * You are an admin. It is utterly beyond belief that you could have failed to be aware of this. Now you have repeated the offense yet again. There is no excuse for this. And please don't try throwing the Incivility and No personal attacks at me again.


 * So perhaps you will forgive me if I no longer have any patience for obfuscations, red herrings, gross misrepresentations of wikipedia policy and so on.

     
 * Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion.


 * While the occasional mistake can be forgiven, flagrant and reckless misrepresentation of wikipedia policy or guidelines is not acceptable.

RxS's evidence
RxS does not copy and paste the edit differences of Ireneshusband like JzG did, but he copies many of the same edit differences that Ice Cold Beer did


 * You are not welcome on my talk. Do not troll me again. Do I make myself clear? After Ice Cold Beer told posted a message: "Final warning on trolling" and created a ANI entitled: WP:ANI
 * Considering how grossly so many editors have been willing misrepresent Naming conventions in order to push their agenda, I would be extremely surprised if the arbcom decision in question has any pertinence to this discussion whatsoever.
 * No one has shown how this reading of Naming conventions might be in error. You lot will need to change your hymnal.
 * If your argument against it is "There are lots good arguments against this, but I can't remember what they are," then that is your problem.
 * Reliable sources reliable sources reliable sources you are getting sleepy reliable sources... "reliable sources... you are getting sleepy..."
 * refuting rx strangelove's latest appeal to "policy"
 * why on earth are you here.
 * "told icecoldbeer to take his irrelevant comments elsewhere"
 * "refuting Peter Grey's reiteration of thoroughly discredited arguments"
 * accompanied by the kind of childish and arrogant attempts at character assassination that we routinely witness
 * Please sort this out between you instead of trotting out whichever half-baked definition suits the purpose of the moment.
 * Why is this so hard for so many of you?
 * their claim that "conspiracy theory" is not a derogatory term is no more than a sick joke.
 * isn't it rather strange that you feel so confident in your knowledge of the policies and politics of Wikipedia that you are able to make your threats so brazenly, even though you have only been a Wikipedia editor for 3 weeks
 * you will immediately return to your old strategy of dodging and ducking the issues while trying to derail the proceedings with personal attacks and threats
 * It is also important to understand the weaknesses of psychopaths. One is that many of them have very poor impulse control, which is one of the reasons why there are so many of them in prison. However this may not be true in all cases. Nevertheless, if you prod them the right way (or at least as far as is possible within the guidelines of Wikipedia) they might, once in a blue moon, do something to give themselves away.Please don't be so ridiculously pedantic.
 * Is it reasonable to expect someone to wade through pages of such garbage
 * you will be knowingly misrepresenting wikipedia policy
 * You, with your endless WP:this and WP:that, which are very often based on highly idiosyncratic interpretations of policy
 * Your friend Haemo seems to think very highly of Thomas Eagar's credentials as a reliable source, so no doubt you do too.
 * Please do not repeat this ridiculous claim again.
 * I was wondering when the troops would turn up
 * width=300px valign=top|


 * 1) " Fuck off back to Wikipedia Review." 07:53, 25 January 2008
 * 2) "Fuck off and never ever post here ever again, period." 25 January 2008
 * 3) Fuck off. Fuck right off. 21 May 2007
 * 4) Perhaps I was a little too subtle above. The message I was trying to convey is this: edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat. 11 July 2007
 * 5) You are not welcome here. Now fuck off   Then JzG rollback the "fuck off" edit when it was removed.
 * 6) Well screw you. I saw the deleted content, and it was shit. Pure, unmitigated, unrelieved, venomous, worthless, POV-pushing shit...Why the fuck would we want to undelete this festering heap of faeces... 14 May 2007
 * 7) And I want you to fuck off. 3 December 2006
 * 8) You have been rude, arrogant, snide, patronising, obnoxious, uncooperative and in every possible way unconstructive - and above all  stupid ...Your insistence that people treat you as a valued contributor demonstrates extreme hubris. Your value as a contributor is adequately summed up in the ArbCom ruling...You are an idiot and a time-waster and I fart in your general direction. 1 December 2006
 * 9) Fys is an idiot, and I have told him so in as many words. 1 December 2006
 * 10) ...told Jeff to fuck right off and would cheerfully have said the same to his face. 21 May 2007
 * 11) Fuck off, Bradles01
 * 12) Are you this much of a cunt in real life?  10 August 2006
 * 13) Having given this the consideration it merits, fuck off. 1 January 2007
 * 14) Thanks, but it's not just this idiocy with Baby 81, it's the whole culture...People seem to delight in process and bending over backwards to give self-evident idiots the benefit of the doubt...In short there are too many idiots and too few people prepared to tell them to fuck off. And yes, that is precisely what we should tell them, because anything less encourages endless debates and Wikilawyering...Wikipedia will be a better place when Jonathan Barber grows up, to name but one persistent offender. 25 July 2007
 * 15) If you have come here to troll, then kindly ever so nicely pretty please fuck off. 11 July 2007
 * 16) [WikiEN-l] No, I think you should shut the fuck up...Your wilful ignorance is, by this point, functionally indistinguishable from deliberate trolling. 6 Dec 2007  JzG is reprimanded by another editor


 * The user I was responding to had been trolling for ages in numerous thread son my talk, the noticeboards and other venues. 3 June 2007 To User:Fys, defending telling the editor to shut the fuck up.
 * To User:Cla68: remove trolling
 * To User:Cla68: How silly of me not to realise that only Cla68 can troll with impunity.
 * remove thread using Troll-B-Gon Professional 1.0 24 July 2007 RE: Viridae thread.
 * To User:Rfwoolf: Mistakes are forgivable, but wilfully perpetuating a falsehood after its been pointed out to you numerous times looks a great deal like trolling. 24 January 2007 |this
 * RE User:Kohs: Oh bollocks, I got trolled by a Kohs sockpuppet yet again. When will I learn? Sigh. 14 February 2008
 * User:Mckaysalisbury: Removing comment with Troll-B-Gon 1.0 Professional. 6 June 2007
 * User:Rockstar915: Removing comment with Troll-B-Gon 1.0 Professional. 28 June 2007
 * User:Viridae: Remove thread using Troll-B-Gon Professional 1.0. 24 July 2007
 * User:Anthon01 And another of the fringe pushers crawls out of the woodwork. 19 January 2008


 * valign=top width=300px|


 * On talk:9/11 conspiracy theories Deletes Xiutwel's table stated reason: removing useless table that only mucks up page
 * First post on Ireneshusband's talk page: "Final warning on trolling" The trolling involved was Ireneshusband was discussing the article on the talk page.
 * Accused Ireneshusband of being a troll. ANI
 * "Ireneshusband, quit harassing Haemo. It's evident by now that when it comes to Wikipedia policy, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about." Note:  The harassment in this case? Ireneshusband was discussing the article on the talk page.
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive382 in which Ice Cold Beer uses the first column arguments for trolling as evidence.
 * On 9/11 removes http://journalof911studies.com/ reason: "rv. pathetic "journal""
 * Ice Removed edits of Ireneshusband on his own talk page.
 * ""Should a man who makes pronouncements about things he obviously doesn't really understand be taken seriously..." I must admit, I had a chuckle at that little bit of irony."

Note: Before retiring Ireneshusband apologized on the evidence page for these comments.
 * -style="background-color: #CCCCCC" align=center|
 * Irenehusband's incivility on this evidence page
 * JZG's recent incivil remarks during this arbcom
 * valign=top width=300px|
 * valign=top width=300px|
 * valign=top width=300px|

All there is is empty assertions backed up by irrelevant diffs. This is a purely and simply a witch hunt by a gang that will do anything to get their way...If this is how the process works I might as well, as someone put it to me not too long ago, bend over, grab my ankles and let you get on with it.

There is a name that the gang that wishes to fuck me up the arse has given itself. It is called "The Consensus". The Consensus continually plugs the 9/11 debunking side of things, although some of them also work shifts on other areas, such as Allegations of state terrorism against the United States. One of user:Ice Cold Beer's wonderfully neutral contributions there was this one. Apparently it was beyond him to check whether or not Chomsky was talking to a U.S. audience or not. However this pales in comparison with Morton devonshire's gem "Chomsky is not an expert". Morton devonshire is a retired member of The Consensus...Yet for all his mockery, tendentious editing, POV pushing and lying, our Morty never encountered a whiff of disciplinary action. He even ran a very obvious sockpuppet called Rosenkreuz yet he remained the darling of The Consensus. He was particularly chummy with Aude and MONGO who never took him to task for anything he did, yet they now want to lynch me for much lesser offenses which I haven't even committed...

Here's another gem from Consensus member user:Titanium Dragon: "And, as an aside, I've had numerous professors at a top 20 university cite Wikipedia as a reference." A lie as brazenly obvious as this is almost beautiful, isn't it?...

And then there's weregerbil's history, which seems to consist largely of inserting the words "conspiracy theorist" and "conspiracy theory" wherever he can. A strange obsession indeed...

Why The Consensus wants my arse is because they lied and lied and lied about wikipedia policy, as is there habit, but I wouldn't let them get away with it. They said that what "reliable sources" were a criterion for naming articles according to WP:NC and they kept on saying it no matter how many times I pointed out their error. So that's when I left quite civil messages on their user pages. Yet even after then some of them kept using the same argument, namely user:Haemo and user:Rx StrangeLove. They are both admins. How on earth could they not be able to understand such a simple policy? They're liars. The Consensus is a bunch of liars...

There's a whole lot more lying I could talk about, but I'm tired and fucked off so I won't bother...

not that anyone of you really give a shit. So yeah... you might as well go for it. I won't stop you. Just let me ask one tiny favor: Please use a good lubricant because this whole business has been painful enough already... 
 * valign=top width=300px| JZG's recent incivil remarks during this arbcom


 * Of course you disagree, because you are on a holy crusade to protect the sacred right to link to crap. 15:33, 25 March 2008
 * To User:Mista-X The days when you could troll article subjects are long gone, if there ever were such days. 21:00, 25 March 2008
 * Quite the opposite. I am striving very hard indeed not to let Dan troll me. I have a long history of rising to the bait when trolled, especially when someone is as good at getting my goat as Dan is. 18:15, 25 March 2008
 * ...nothing was removed except the letters "http://", which is hardly an issue of such magnitude as to require you to come trolling the noticeboards, I'd have said. 13:44, 25 March 2008
 * Of course, but you don't get to do that and then accuse other people of ad-hominem, because that's hypocrisy. 19:13, 25 March 2008
 * }
 * }