Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults/Illustrating my point

I will show below the portion Mr. Tibbs choose to note, then the edit its in response to. This is to prove Mr. Tibbs point here is not resolve a dispute and they are doing it via selective editing.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"If you cared to read the talk section you would see the concensus is filled with people who are presenting no facts. This is an encyclopedia, political bickering is not the goal. Even furthur, your problem with Rangeley does not warrant your rudeness toward me. Perhaps you should read the articles you attempt to use in your defense"

Contrary Evidence:

There is consensus you are wrong, and it is not a political opinion we are discussing but how to present things neutrally. I find it rude that people like Rangeley revert 25 times on the same issue, even after they see there is a consensus against them, and the discussion page is flooded with the same stupid stuff over and over: "The US government said so, thus it is so", and "the Cold War is an analogy". Añoranza 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) "'Perhaps you can try to debate facts instead of attempting to bully people with your political opinions. Stop attempting to personally demean me to get across your uncited, unsupported personal opinion.'" This was after she stated "'That is obviously complete nonsense, and propaganda terms obviously need to be treated with great caution, so now stop wasting our time. Añoranza 13:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)'" "'Your exact argumentation that the people who do something have the right to name it was refuted, now stop stealing our time. Añoranza 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)'" These are the comments that lead to me telling this user to stop attempting to demean me.
 * This is Anoranza classifying the beliefs of myself and Rangely as stupid. THe original comment that is also excluded it seems was me telling Anoranza to not be rude to me

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Good luck I invite you to ask for a RfC after the vote since it doesnt even meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Straw Polls in its creation. Also in case you keep forgetting, Straw Polls are not binding, they are a guideline not policy. If you feel you do not need to respond to me, then you failed here, and on the talk page. Also, well this is a message for Kevin Baas, so unless he is you? you aren't being addressed here. Good bye Mr Tibbs. I would make a sad face, but I dont think there are wikiemotes."

Contrary Evidence:

After I stated my opposition to the survey and Rangeley had as well, both the two who opposed it on the basis it did not address our concerns, both supported by an admin who commented on them, Kevin Baas had this to say to me: "Kevin BaasUser_talk:Kevin_baas 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)'" Completely rude and unnecessary, that is an example of the way I am spoken to. -- zero faults  undefined  23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Please do not place comments on my talk page. Your rude language in previous dealing show me you are not here in good faith. If you have something to discuss regarding an article, use the articles talk page. Unexplained reverts are frowned upon."

Contrary Evidence:  "'As you were already blocked once you should be more careful than reverting such a considerable part of an article based on a lame claim about a tiny fraction of the changes. '" What respect, did this user just classify my concerns as lame? The dif this user posted is here, if you look at the article now, everyone seemed to agree with me that the overview should be shorter and not contain talk of the rationales as there is a section already about it.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Your comments have been noted. Trying to find a middleground is usually better then advocating someone just discard someone elses work. Today it seems me and Anoranza came to a middleground thanks to some discussion instead of constant revert war. Diplomacy usually wins over brute tactics, you should be more open to it."

Contrary Evidence:

This doesn't even require proof, its in response to me and Anoranza coming to a middle ground regarding the intro we were working on. If you look at Mr. Tibbs statement above mine you will see him tellnig Anoranza to just revert my work and not to work with me. Luckily the user did and we came to a conclusion, the one I am thanking them for ...

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"I am not really sure what led you to my talk page, however I would like to know how much of mine and Anoranza's dealings have you looked up? Since the comment I made toward that user, was directed at them, I did not need to cite examples, I was not filnig a complaint. The user who I was in direct talk with knows their prior dealings with me. I have previously told them that I will cease any direct talk with them and hence why I replied with simple policy links. I hope you do not going around calling your colleages work "lame" and tell them their contributions may get them blocked again. Perhaps you would have replied with isntances of how they haven't been civil. I do not feel the need to justify myself on my talk page as the user is already aware of things they have said. If I was filing a complaint however I would. Also considering you seem to not have been aware of most of my dealings with that particular user I find it very odd you would then comment to state I am being rude."

Contrary Evidence:

This is in regards to a comment GotG made on my talk page telling me I should cite examples of what Anoranza did. I was explaining to them that I was not filing a complaint and so I did not have to cite examples. The emphasized portion is telling GotG what this user, Anoranza has said about me in the past. Once again showing how malicious this user has been to me.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"I think when 3 users get together to accuse everyone who opposes their view and revert their work, accuse them of being sock puppets etc, its a better indication of a smear campaign."

Contrary Evidence:

This comment was made in response to Nescio as he had added IP's to an existing RFCU. He claimed I was attempting a smear campaign by pointing this out. This is also just a bad faith effort to draw Nescio into this debate by Mr. Tibbs as Nescio has decided not to get involved. Very bad faith.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat There you are adding 2 users to the RFCU ... Good bye Nomen"

Contrary Evidence:

This relates to the above, its actually if you look up the case, proves I was right about Nescio adding the IP's. Very interesting quote as I was in fact right.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"You are not their supporting but adding IP's. You should be aware of your own actions they are documented there. You are filing two names to be added to the existing one. I don't think I need to explain this to you, the link says it all. I have proved my point. Good bye Nescio"

Contrary Evidence:

Yet another related to the above, This who situation has been resolved by me and Nescio. And its once again me proving my point that I was right ...

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"I dare you to file a real RFCU on me so I can laugh at the results. Do yo know what it will say? I am a sockpuppet of Mr. Tibbs since we are on the same ISP same city, same burough even. Another reason why RFCU is not accurate. If you come here again calling me sockpuppet I will take appropriate actions, see WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. YOu like pasting the links, how about you follow them. I have every right to support a user here, or to support a statement asking for a RFCU. Perhaps a RFCU on me is your best bet if you have accusations to make. As for misrepresenting facts, we cleared that up with the link it seems. Good bye Nomen."

Contrary Evidence:

This is very important, here is the above user calling me a sockpuppet after eluding to it numerous times in the above conversation: "'You are very good. Misrepresenting the facts, leaving out relevant information. Indeed a worhty sockpuppet.'" This is the start of the accusations, my name was then added to Merecats RFCU as the users felt since I was supporting him, I must actually be him. This is also the first step of my proof of certain users intimidation tactics.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Can you please post proof I said I was merecat? Don't think so. Good bye Nomen please follow WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. Oddly enough if you read just above you, or click the merecat link, you would see the statement on the signature. This is why people should do research before stating things. When people put "talk" links at the end of their name, they are not calling themselves "talk". Once again file the RFCU so I can laugh at the results, goodbye Nomen, not everyone you disagree with is Merecat, he isnt the bogeyman. This is all starting to seem like that Iraq page where you selectively read things. I have shown you the link where you are initiating a RFCU against 2 IP's good bye Nomen, I ask you refrain from spamming my talk page with your personal attacks in the form of accusations"

Contrary Evidence:

This is proof of itself of these users attempting to bully me and label me a sockpuppet, this is what was said before: "'First of all, after you are calling yourself Merecat and a sockpuppet I fail to see the PA when I refer to that." This is over my signature, oddly these users are the only ones who think its me calling myself a sockpuppet. If you click the link in the words it takes you to a passage explaining why its there. At this point Nescio is actually making his comment right below that statement, the "merecat" mentioning is actually inside that passage, so they had to have read it, to make the basis for their accusations. Oddly even though they read why its there, they still went forward with their accusations, quite bad faith.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Your joke is offensive, I ask you either cease posting accusations and slander on this talk page or apologize. You cannot state offensive things and then simply say "I was joking" when the environment is clearly not one where a joke was made. I will nor reiterate my point about the RFCU, you can click a link, it speaks for itself."

Contrary Evidence:

"'Smoke and mirrors Merecat.:) (In case you missed it, this is a joke)" This is why I said what I said, even after reading the sig for themselves, even after the RFCU showed I was not merecat, this user once again asserted I was. More personal attacks.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"This isnt a book, its not an article, its a statement from one user to another. It doesn't require the whole story, it requires what the user feels like saying. I will however take note of your rationale nonsense comment, its very interesting you feel that way. Nor does this user need to justify anything to you."

Contrary Evidence:

"'Can you amend this fallacious statement? You are well aware that and were votestacking the 2nd AfD, to which I responded. Leaving out the names of the principal offenders, and the crucial 'responded,' you are misleading the readers of this page.'" This was over a statement made on a talk page, so I told the user they did not have to tell "the whole story" as the user put it, and they were saying what they felt. The rationale nonsense comment was in response to Nescio's constant use of the term, it was a humerous poke. Note he is not the one complaining about it ...

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Goodbye Nescio, your constant accusations and fishing have disrupted my editing for the day, and I am choosing to not respond to you until you become civil and stop make accusatory statements, stop fishing for information to support your outlandish claims etc. You will no longer be responded to on this talk page as you have been disruptive to me and my work."

Contrary Evidence:

"'Since you object to my noting that you identify yourself with your hero, I would kindly ask you to stop following me around, and by doing so to stop commenting in discussions you are not a part of. Or, are you suggesting you did take part in the debates disrupted by your hero you feel the need to respond to?'" The comment is actually in the dif itself, You can see Nescio eluding that merecat and me are the same user, even stating he is "my hero" which is obviously mocking. Quite an odd choice for an example Mr. Tibbs.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"You have made false accusations regarding me that you now admit to being wrong. I believe an apology and a removal of my name from the RFCU is in order."

Contrary Evidence:

Do I have to defend asking someone for an apology after they accused me of being a sockpuppet and the RFCU showed otherwise? I still believe I am owed an apology.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"stop commenting in discussions you are not a part of."

Contrary Evidence:

User Nescio had followed my edit on RyanFreislings page asking the user for an apology and commented: "'I fail to see why others should comply with requests he himself chooses to ignore'" Telling a user not to apologize to me for making false statements, a conversation they were not even part of. However as you see this is more attempts by Mr. Tibbs to pull Nescio into this as he has decided not to be a part of it. Its odd that Mr. Tibbs doesn;t have many comments actually involving himself.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Hope you return one day, I appreciated your help in removing the horribly bias edits that plagued some articles and your help in fighting against accusations that eventuall spread to me. What an intimidation tactic RFCU's can be, I am still waiting on my apologies ... better not hold my breath. Hopefully you will return one day, till then."

Contrary Evidence:

Not really sure why I have to justify this, it was a goodbye message to an editor who was retiring from the Wiki ... I still do want my apology for Mr. Tibbs and other users accusations against me, except for Nescio, we each owe eachother an apology and so its moot. They negate eachother it seems.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"People would take you seriously if you had an account, unfortunatly you are just a sockpuppet of a well known user that always advances "logical fallacy.""

Contrary Evidence:

This was said in comment to User:218.149.163.158 a banned anon user because of their proxy use and all their edits being allegations against me. I am wondering why Mr. Tibbs would quote me telling a sockpuppet they are a sockpuppet...

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"There are rules against personal attacks, you can view them here WP:PA. Its also already been proven I am not a sockpuppet by the RFCU, perhaps its time to realize Merecat/Rex is not the bogeyman, and not everyone who does not agree with you is merecat. Just maybe since you have already been proven wrong you will apologize, but by your harsh tone in your completely inappropriate message on rex's page, I doubt you will."

Contrary Evidence:

"'The obvious fact that zero faults is following merecat around like standard sock puppet behavior?'" They went on to say: "'Rex, you are an ad hominem using jerk who only ever got the better end of the abuse you dished out to everybody else'" So do I have to say much to justify their personal attacks on my and others? I did however seek an apology as the RFCU was in bad faith, they actually presented no evidence, it probably would have been tossed out had I not consented and given my IP.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Do not troll on my talk page or I will remove it, some admins feel you are being over zealous." "Comments removed to prevent further trolling." "Removed more trolling comments, warnings are tags, you seem not understand what tags are. Also your warnings are not within policy. Stop posting here." "Removed more trolling attacks. Stop posting here."

Contrary Evidence:

Perhaps Mr. Tibbs did not read the complaint before certifying it, but these were all mentioned by Anoranza and addressed as such.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"As I feared, the same users who accused me of being a sockpuppet are running to the RfC and making accusations. I am allowed to even defend myself? They are saying they started a poll in violation of WP:STRAW then tell me I am giving "cockamamie wikilawyering" for telling them that. They then say I cannot be reasoned with and state the cabal I asked for [32] against me, wouldnt that be proof I try to resolve conflicts? They are even starting the rex accusations of me being a sockpuppet. Do I get to address these comments at all?"

Contrary Evidence:

This is before my first comment asking Saquatch if I could actually respond, I stand by that statement and I want an admin to review all of this.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"The User:Mr. Tibbs comments arent even certifying according to the rule "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." this is not the same dispute he is reffering to." "

Contrary Evidence:

This is noted in the RfC and spoken about, I am not sure if Mr. Tibbs is even reading it at this point, this makes 5 statements all together.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"This is not the same dispute, look at Anoranza's evidence it all relates to one incident, one dispute. Stop calling it wikilawyering when someone asks you to follow rules on wikipedia, its rude and insulting. Your Straw Poll did violate the provision of making it, and that is to get everyone to agree on questions, and now you are certifying a RfC for a situation that does not involve you after your failed RFCU against me. It says same dispute with a single user, his comments are not about that dispute."

Contrary Evidence:

Stand by this one too, also already mentioned here ...

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"This did indeed come true as User:Mr. Tibbs has gone on to comment on my RfC a user who supported the RFCU against me that resulted in me being proven to be an individual person. His comments are not about the current dispute as all the edits revolve around Anoranza's edits regarding propaganda terms, and his comments are about something completely different. Are not the comments suppose to be regarding the same dispute? Worse yet the user never went through the proper dispute resolution before even filing a RfC. The RfC is located above, before this turns into a witch hunt of people who accused me of things before, I ask you look at the foundation for the RfC to see if its even warranted and if this user can certify it, though they are not involved in the current dispute"

Contrary Evidence:

I made a previous post predicting Mr. Tibbs would attempt to make this RfC about him ... Was I wrong? Also I am asking an admin for assistance ... I am so evil for doing this apparently ...

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Mr. Tibbs actually lives in New York if you were unaware. OOL-CPE-WPGRNY-69-121-132-0-22. The WPGRNY is the designation for his area. He states the IP on his talk page. [37]. That links back to "Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems)""

Contrary Evidence:

I said this in response to Anoranza as they attempted to say I was a sockpuppet yet again, their proof was I live in NYC. The IP information is correct that it is Mr. Tibbs and is offered on his user page freely. It was to prove not all NYC users are sockpuppets. I think the point is made clearly.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Statements like "you cannot be serious to keep this up" only hurt your cause. The admin stated the person editied from a proxy so what you are asking for cannot be proved in a way. Just relax Mr. Tibbs certified your RfC, or at least stop making those kinds of remarks to admins. While you did start a RfC against me, I do not want to see you perm banned or something over this whole thing."

Contrary Evidence:

This was me telling Anoranza to calm down because I did not want her getting perm banned. She did in fact get her ban extended for these comments. I think this shows I have no hard feelings toward them as it was sound advice. I am starting to wonder if Mr. Tibbs is actually reading these before posting them.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"I was wondering if you can reffer this to an admin or take a look at it yourself. It is passed the 48 hours for the RfC and I have am disputing the current comments and the certifying user as neither has been involved in the current dispute, nor has the certifying user attempted to resolve it on my talk page or the articles page as the rules for certifying an RfC state. Furthermore the certifying user has engaged in recruiting people to comment on the RfC under false pretenses, accusing me of being a sockpuppet. The RfC also now has a sockpuppet accusing me of being a sockpuppet, and another user who I have never been on the same article with also accusing me of it. I had to get a Checkuser against myself to put this to bed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Merecat. Considering there accusations have been proven false it makes their comments even less userful to the RfC. I would just like an admin to read it over and review my statements and proof as to why the RfC should be closed. If you cannot because of your involvement, passing this info to another admin would be great. Thank you"

Contrary Evidence:

Stand by this statement as well. Still hoping an admin looks at this.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"I was hoping you would apologize for your accusations that have been proven false, however I see that will not happen. I do remind you WP:NPA."

Contrary Evidence:

"'So you changed your ISP. So what? Even if you are a different person you are just as obnoxious, just as committed to POV peddling and use exactly the same tactics including the tendentious legalistic justifications. Your approach to the RFC makes it clear that it is only a matter of time before the matter gets to Arbcon'" This is also mentioned in my comments section, once again making me wonder if Mr. Tibbs is reading these before he posts them, this user also just called me obnoxious which I point out in my comments section.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"An RfC is about fixing our differences, considering this comment it does not appear as though that is what you were hoping to do by certifying the RfC, so this comment will be noted on it."

Contrary Evidence:

I address this in my comments, but Mr. Tibbs may not have read them: "'At this point, I don't really think it makes much difference if Zer0fault's really is a sockpuppet of Rex or not. A bad editor is a bad editor. Regardless of whether or not Zero is a sockpuppet of Rex or merely copycatting Rex's tactics.'" So it doesnt matter now that I have been proven not to be merecat ... It mattered so much before, but now it doesn't because he is wrong. Furthermore he just insulted me calling me a bad editor ... I think a WP:NPA tag was in order, however I did not place one, just noted the comment in my response section.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"You violated the conditions again and it will be noted in my comments section, you placed the RfC information on articles that were not in dispute. Have a good day."

Contrary Evidence:

Stand by this statements, its addressed in my response section.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Yeah I have to agree, Mr. Tibbs even tried to get people to post by asserting I was merecat, however it failed as the person must have seen the RFCU they added me to that showed I was not. I am trying to get an admin to look at the RfC and let me know if Mr. Tibbs can even certify it as he has had a bad faith history with me before and wasn't involved in the dispute in the first place. He has even gone on to posting the RfC information on articles that are unrelated to the dispute where I have voted for or against something, another bad faith attempt. Perhaps they are starting to realize they are the only ones who think I am a bad editor, all that effort and they have only got one user to agree with them and he is saying its because I am a sockpuppet and acknowledges he will keep accusing me of it regardless of what RFCU states. I think that is a situation that may have to be taken to admins as well."

Contrary Evidence:

I stand by this, and I have provided the link, but will do it again: This is in fact in violation of the rules for RfC notifications.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"Thank you for your comments, I want to stay but I am getting increasingly frustrated with users ganging up to attack people. Its annoying to have someone make an accusation against you, then when you prove them wrong, they make up random reasons why your proof is wrong. I am hoping I can get an admin to look at it, however I have been unsuccessful, if nothing meaningful is added to it soon I will just remove my comments from it, and act as if it does not exist. It seems some people do not realize what a RfC is for and if they are not gonig to use it to settle a dispute then I will not participate in it. Also thank you for your support."

Contrary Evidence:

Stand by this, though I have decided to keep my username, I will not be intimidated.

Mr. Tibbs Selected Passage:

"If you feel violating the conditions of the RfC is in your power then so be it. I am just letting you know its been noted in the RfC itself. However much you want to make the RfC about your situation it is not. Anoranza's evidence shows its limited in scope to Operation Just Cause and Panama War article. Your attempts to extend it beyond that are failing"

Contrary Evidence:

Said in response to the above, Mr. Tibbs states that since this is a user RfC he can post on any article I have edited. I would like to point out that he selected the articles based on if I cast a vote on it. He did not post the RfC mention on Graffiti or GunBound. I would also like to state the fact that noone from the articles has come to call me a bad editor should be proof enough I am a good contributing member of the Wiki.