User:LuisGomez111/response draft

When you refer to "those other ones" I assume you mean Pasta4470 and The Thin Man Who Never Leaves. Those are two openly declared, alternate accounts I've been using for several months now. I added an alternative account notification to Pasta4470 on May 27 at 10:57 UTC and then one to Thin Man on June 23 at 08:46 UTC. By the way here's the wikipedia policy that allows users to have alternate accounts in case you're not aware of it (though you should be).

Therefore, not only are you wrong about me having sock puppets but you're also wrong about the date of my recent changes. Have a look the contribs for all three accounts for today and yesterday. You'll notice I've made changes to no articles today nor have I left messages on any talk pages. The most recent change I made was yesterday with my Thin Man account before putting the "Retired" tag on all three of my accounts. However, after I left a message for you yesterday about closing my accounts, I tried to put a hash codes on my accounts thinking that that was the way to close them. However, I deleted the hash code templates once you pointed out to me that the "Retired" tag was the best I could do. Perhaps this is the flurry of activity you're referring to. But all of that was legitimate and, as I said, occurred yesterday, not today.

Moving on to another issue: Mountolive is determined to discuss civility. Therefore, I will as well. My first confrontation with Mountolive occurred earlier this month after he insisted on reverting my edits rather aggressively. To his shock, I reported for him for violating the 3RR. Here was the administrator's finding:

...no vio but Mountolive is right on the edge of a violation... Apparently, since this time, Mountolive has considered me persona non grata.

Regarding my behavior: It's true that I wrote one angry message to Mountolive both on his talk page and on the Paella talk page but I promptly apologized for my tone in both places. 

Not long after that, a few of the editors of the Paella article started arguing over several issues at once. Seeing this, I decided to initiate a dispute resolution. After spending considerable time looking through Wikipedia policy I discovered the way to start was by initiating a wp:RfC which I did here.. I then encouraged Mountolive to participate. He responded by accusing me of sock puppetry, as you can see. He then made a change to the Paella article and promptly insulted me on the article's talk page (something for wich he has never apologized). I chose not to react for the sake of not starting another argument. However user:Warrington angrily defended me (as I warned Mountolive that he/she might). I then thanked Warrangton. Apparently, my warning and Warrington's reaction convinced Mountolive that Warrington was my sock puppet. However, we all know he was wrong about that now because you checked the IP addresses.

So, I have apologized to Mountolive, encouraged him to participate in an RfC and I bit my tongue when he insulted me. Are those the actions of an uncivil man? The answer is obviously no.

In summary here are the issues of the case, each of which I have refuted:
 * 1) Mountolive accused my of sock puppetry. However, you found that accusation to be baseless after checking the IP addresses of the accounts in question.


 * 2) You accused me of sock puppetry with my two openly declared, alternative accounts. However this defies the definition of both a sock puppet and an openly declared, alternate account. Also I showed you that I declared them months before this dispute arose.


 * 3) Strangely, you also said I was socking today. However my contribs show I haven't made any changes today to any article or talk page.

I think I've proven my case.

However, there is one more issue I'd like to bring up. I put in great effort in expanding and improving the Paella article. Here's what it looked like before I began editing it.. Here's what it looks like today (Paella). This is largely due to my effort with smaller contributions from Bluee and Warrington. Thanks to us, it now includes a lengthy history section, two basic recipes, three more images (two of them contributed by Warrington) and many citations. The only person on Wikipedia who has thanked me for all this work is Warrington. However, other editors involved have done nothing but criticize me. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this has happened. I've received tremendous criticism from other editors as well after editing other articles. These conflicts led me to place the "Retired" tags on my accounts. I see no point in editing if it only leads to arguments and criticism. For that reason I will not be editing any other articles. However, if you block me then you will have clearly over stepped your authority as an administrator because I don't see how I've violated any Wikipedia policies. So if you block me, you can be certain I will appeal the decision to a higher Wikipedia authority purely for reasons of principle.