Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Evidence

Note - I added some headings (all the ====ones with four equal signs==== as placeholders for wikilinks, if these need to be altered, or have been altered, please let me know so I can fix the wikilinks. Thanks, WLU 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes
Not sure where this fits, it's definitely not vandalism but is another example of stubborness. I'm not removing the external link out of spite, as I discussed on the talk page, the link duplicates information. I spent 10 minutes comparing info on the two links, I can't find anything relevant to the page that is in the second link, so I removed it as per WP:EL. When my change was reverted, I stated why on the talk page, and left it for almost a week waiting for a reply. When I got no reply, I removed the info again, citing my reason, and my change was reverted. The sole feedback to my action was an edit summary, "uhm, so? What is it to you that they are there? They say different things. Please try to stop picking a fight. again..."

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I removed it with reason, cited the policy, left lots of time for a reply. In this time, Mystar has made several other edit changes to wikipedia, yet has not replied to my comments on the talk page.

As far as evidence for the case, this would probably be a sub-heading of 'Commenting on users, not content'. Since there's no rationale, it looks like Mystar is insisting on the info staying in, not because of the content, but because of who made the edit (me). I can't see any extra info that the second link I removed adds to the page. Were I given a statement that said why he wanted it in the page aside from "They say different things" (when really it's closer to they say the same thing in different ways), I'd leave it up. This is where many of our disputes arise - even if I'm not being attacked or commented on, keeping info on the page without giving a rationale or responding to the rationale of others is not helpful. WLU 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats odd, I see where I clearly stated it was due to "content" and that it is allowable under the very policy that you listed. Again I ask you to stop trying to create drama where none exists. WP:EL clearly states that it is "ok" but to be careful not to add too much, as I addressed on the talk page. You seem to be under the impression that only your opinion has any validity. Please try not to engage in a witch hunt Mystar 02:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed what content within the link is useful to the article. From what I can see, there is nothing in the external link which adds to the article.  There is no added content and added benefit to having the link in the page, it is just taking up memory.  You say it adds content to the article, but I can't see what it is adding.  And if it is useful content, it should be integrated as a reference.  The reason I think it should be removed is because I can't see where it could go as a reference, barring a second reference for the SoT being turned into a series.  The policy says meritable links.  Because the information is already covered in the 'press release' reference, the external link has no merit, it's just duplication.  I'm copying these comments over to the TG talk page since it's also a continuation of that discussion.  WLU 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU - Mystar did reply and provide evidence, so I withdraw my comment. WLU

WLU reply to Mystar's evidence
I'll be replying to Mystar's comments currently on the main page for the arbitration case, possibly it might get moved to evidence.

''When I asked kindly and politely, WLU altered it by going further to inflame. page User:WLU''

request regarding my user page

 * This is from my user page, not a mainspace page. Mystar did point out policy regarding user pages and I modified my page accordingly the next day to say that it is my opinion and why I hold them.  It's now gone completely, though I'd love to put my opinion back up.  And again, this is my user page so there's no defamation on Terry Goodkind's biopage.  I've made no effort to place this interview or the related essay back into any of the TG or SoT pages.  Also, I don't find his comment particularly polite.  And the continued insistence that I can't modify the Terry Goodkind bio page because I don't like the series or author I find somewhat silly - there's lots of people modifying pages on wikipedia about people they don't like, and as long as it passes community review, it stands.  And further, I've removed vandalism on Goodkind's page many times, even when it's something I'd agree with.  Finally, the actual sequence would be I added the comment, Mystar posts this comment on my talk page, there's some back-and-forth, and on the 15th I modify the page.  I'm not sure how this is inflaming, as I clearly change it to state that it's my opinion.  Mystar had that comment about me being his wiki-enemy up for months and I didn't care.  WLU 19:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

''I want to see Mystar banned 'cause he's been wikistalking me, 'cause he doesn't engage in actual discussion with anyone who disagrees with him, 'cause he uses Wikipedia policies punitively (and improperly), cause he's generally a crappy editor and 'cause he's generally disruptive. You could argue the same about me, but I don't think this holds in recent months. Anyway, I'm happy enough if he just ameliorates his conduct to civil and reasonable. As for wanting TG shamed, I'd say I've downgraded to wanting at least the fact that his books involve strong and explicit violence, torture, etc. It was my main reaction to reading WFR, and the reason I stopped reading at that point''
 * This is my own comment from a discussion with User:Omnilord, here (original comments I believe were taken from Mystar's talk page but I moved it over to Omnilord's talk page since it became a discussion between him and me). I don't really see any problem with what I said there.  I would change 'banned' to something else, but the comments about wikistalking, lack of discussion, punitive policies, bad editing and disruptiveness still apply, that's what I'm trying to prove with the evidence.  I don't know the point Mystar is trying to make with this quote.  I would be happy if Mystar's conduct was civil and reasonable, which I still don't think it is.  And I think that now the Sword of Truth page does acknowledge the adult themes and violence in Terry Goodkind's novels, so I'm happy with that.  Again, I don't know what point is being made here. WLU 19:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

''More abuse and blatant attacks aimed at inflaming me to respond with attacks. == You are an idiot. == Now, I know this violates the NPA policy, but I think you're too much of a coward to do anything. ''
 * Yup, that's me, and I did it. I still think he's an idiot still consider Mystar to be a biased editor who fails to reply to my substantive points, as I have for months now.  I posted this comment after the Robert Jordan talk page vandalism incident, where I removed what I still think is vandalism, and Mystar anonymously replaced after wikistalking me to the page.  Then there was a brief revert war over if the comments were going to stay or not.  I don't think they are valid, I think they are vandalism (my rationale is incidentally in the Mystar is an Idiot post) and there was never a reply to this.  Though the policy does say 'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism", I do not consider the edit I removed to be good faith, it makes absolutely no sense in the context of the talk page discussion.  Again, Mystar never replied to this, just kept reverting back the vandalism and his irrelevant discussion which should have been on a usertalk page anyway. And I find his 'aw, shucks forgot to sign in' comment aggravating, as if he accidentally forgot to sign in, then accidentally hit the key that let's him check my contributions for the day. The specifics of the RJ vandalism can be found below.  WLU 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

''Get a clue, you suck at this, read the policies and actually justify what you are editing. WLU 12:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)”
 * Yeah, me again. I still think he's a bad editor, and this shows that my frustration at his lack of justification for edits continues back to September.  I'm kinda amazed I never lost it like the above comments more than this.  No real defence beyond saying that rational discussion never got anywhere with Mystar.  My conduct for the above comments needs to be addressed as well, I just hope that in the balance it'll be acknowledged that there's culpability at both ends.  Again, if Mystar justified his edits and engaged in an actual discussion and didn't just fall back on an 'I want it this way/you hate Terry Goodkind" rant every time I tried to change something on a page we both edit, 99% of my problems would go away.  WLU 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just being catty at this point 
 * Yup, this is one of my edit summaries. I'm surprised he didn't include the whole post. This is after he threatened to track me down, and wikistalked me to the Wars of Light and Shadow page.  WLU 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU admitting to abuse' “I think editing for content might be seen as tendentious, much like me editing a Sword of Truth article for content. ''
 * How is this admitting to abuse? I think it's surprisingly civil considering he just nominated an article I created for deletion, with no good reason.  WLU 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU Admonished for attacking me
 * This is me receiving a civility warning. Actually, this is me replying to the civility warning, this would be the actual warning.  And it's a bit ironic considering he had the same warning just before.  Again, Mystar and I have had tit-for-tat on many of these issues, neither one of us is innocent.  WLU 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU admitting to snide behavior 
 * I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. I've admitted to my own negative behaviours, heck I've got a list of them on one of my pages, but the only person on wikipedia I have issues with is Mystar.  This isn't even snide behaviour, this is admitting to it.  WLU 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU admitting to breaking his/her word' “Your point about me breaking my word is tiresome, irrelevant and frankly laughable, and won't prevent me from editing the page further. I suggest not trusting me in the future, that might be best WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)”
 * This is in regards to this rather boneheaded promise I made, and a bit of lawyering to get out of it. The whole thing was incidental to the page and any contributions, since any edits to pages should stand on their own merit, not on irrelevant promises.  This is also the point in time at which he starts accusing me of having no honour on various pages and edits.  I suppose he could have a point, but again it's irrelevant to adding to pages.  I shouldn't have made the statement, and changes to the page shouldn't be based on grade-school playground bets.
 * This does illustrate one other thing - Mystar frequently states that he undertakes discussions with admins on IRC or something related, then cites these discussions as part of the reasoning for some of his edits. Frankly, I don't trust the content of these discussions because I can't see what's actually said, and I have no idea how he is representing my contributions to the Admins.  And given other user's comments on his behaviour as well as my own experience with him, I think it's justified.  Comments regarding the admins are discussed in greater detail below.  WLU 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU's reply part II
''The latest situation, the reality is that WLU deleted a users opinion and statement on a talk page. I saw this and was in the IRC chat room at the time, we (an admin and I) discussed it. There was no reason to revert jamhaw’s question and statement. Again WLU deems the pages her/his to do with as he/she pleases. WLU went apeshit and demanded to know why. SO I kindly and politely responded, with the help offer me by said ADMIN in the IRC chat room. ''
 * This is the Robert Jordan talk, where the 'opinion' was vandalism, where Mystar wikistalked me, and never replied to my reply. I have no idea what the admin saw, what they said or how Mystar represented my contributions.  And had the admin stepped in instead of Mystar, and discussed why the commens should not be removed, things would probably be different.  Mystar's discussion with admins and their 'backing' of his actions are discussed below. WLU 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

''WLU admits to having his/her “other” IP blocked And in reply to your alter account comment, I have only one user account, the WLU one. I have access to two computers that I edit from (one of which has been blocked from anonymous editing, I assume because of the TG page. WLU 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)''
 * At that point I was going to edit the page but forgot to sign in. My userid was 5 days old, and the page was blocked from editing from anonymous IP addresses, or possibly someone using the same IP as me had already been blocked.  I don't know, I signed in after finding out it was blocked and edited as usual.  I don't see the relevance of this evidence anyway.  It does show Mystar's continued willingness to ignore my statements of gender though, with the his/her comment.  I'm male, it's on my user page, I've brought it up many times before, I fail to see what putting his/her adds to the sentence except annoy me.  WLU 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

''I have asked WLU to take a less hostile tone with me...Secondly WLU, I am going to ask politely that you take a less hostile tone with me. I stated the facts as they are. Call Tor if you wish, call Harper Collins UK and they will tell you not every publisher reports to them. If you don't like that, it is not my problem. I have source material that you are not privy to. So me I am free to make public, some I'm asked not to. I do think however that my well-known association with Goodkind' gives my points creditability. If you disagree, that's not my problem. Mystar 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)”
 * It is these sources that no-one else is privy to that Mystar attempted to use to update the Terry Goodkind biopage with. And his well-known association with Terry Goodkind erodes his credibility more than it supports it, especially given the vehemence of his contributions to the page, the multiple referrals to the reliable sources policy from other users and his statements that the information should stand because he talked to Terry Goodkind about it.  Mystar is not a reliable source, not because of who he is, but who he's not - a newspaper, a publishing house, a NYT book reviewer.  And again, this is not evidence of anything except being asked to change my tone.  And the comment he is referencing about being hostile is in reference to this edit I believe, specifically for the first of my comments, which I don't see as being particuarly hostile - Mystar's making a claim and I'm challenging it 'cause I don't think it's verifiable given the evidence I've seen on the page to date. WLU 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

''WLU Acknowledging WLU’s attacks “so I do apologies for the barbs that Mr. Willocx pointed out below. His comments are warranted and I am appropriately castigated. WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)”
 * I admitted it, I'm not sure what this is evidence for. WLU 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

''I’m greatly amused at the “alleged” Wikistalking issue WLU is raising… Untrue! Were I wikistalking WLU why am I not editing everything WLU is editing? As a matter of record WLU long ago openly stated that WLU is Wikistalking me: "I am not completely innocent, I have insulted Mystar before and regularly check his contributions to make sure they are accurateWLU 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)" ''
 * It does not have to be every single article I've ever edited to be wikistalking.
 * Admitting to checking his contributions is one thing, actually editing the pages afterwards I've not done bar once, Plaquenil (it's now a re-direct), which I waited almost three weeks before doing (one revision in between from another user). And just because I've done so on one page three weeks after it was created does not excuse the four before and five after that Mystar has done.  And I think waiting three weeks before adding content does give a reasonable cooling off time, as opposed to being there the same day.  WLU 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

22:58, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Werthead (I'm sick of Mystar); 22:54, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Paul Willocx (I'm sick of Mystar); 22:52, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Brendan Moody (I'm sick of Mystar); 22:51, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Omnilord; 22:51, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Omnilord (I'm sick of Mystar); 22:50, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Runch (I'm sick of Mystar); 22:49, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:NeoFreak (I'm sick of Mystar)

other people have problems with mystar

 * Again, I'm not sure what this is for. I was soliciting contributions regarding Mystar's behaviour in order to move forward in mediation.  All of these users have had dealings with Mystar primarily on the Terry Goodkind page, so they may have had an interest in commenting on his contributions or behaviour.  None did.  It's the exact same message in each case.  And given their history on the page, it was reasonable for other users to have comments.           , many of these also illustrate other editors having problems with Mystar, part of the reason I solicited them for comments. WLU 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

''Again, sure I've been a jackass in the past, probably ongoing, but what do you think about what's there? Can you honestly say it's worth discarding wholesale? I can still write about things I disagree with or dislike, and it's not like everyone else will let blatant vandalism or abuse will stand. Thoughts? WLU 02:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)''
 * Again, not sure what this proves. This was a discussion between myself and Omnilord about a new section to include on the SoT page.  WLU 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU reply part III
''Alleged meatpuppeting I asked for people to take an intrest in Wikipedia. Moody discussed it with me, and how it could be misconstrued, so I altered it and thanked him for helping me. Again at that time I was not aware of what Meatpuppeting was, or how it could be applied.''
 * As I said here, I didn't include it in the evidence proper once the case was opened. If Mystar wants to, he can remove it from the original page.  I've put in a strikethrough on the RFA page, hope this clarifies.  WLU 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

''And “Sockpuppeting”? Good God! I didn’t admit to it! Hell I simply reverted blatant removal of an honest opinion of a person. I regularly check ASOIAF pages and I happened to see this. I asked an admin in the IRC chat who agreed that he saw no vandalism and that it should be reverted. WLU went apeshit…asking me to provide cause and back it up. I did so, FIRST clearing it with the same admin in the Wikiperia-en chat room. Who also helped me make sure my points were valid. I would love to show this conversation, but as logging in the chat is forbidden I have no loggs to show. Suffice it to say, I did not engage in any kind of “puppeting, but rather proper editing. My edits on articles, well I stand by them. I offered up references, facts and good content.''

discussion of sockpuppeting

 * Mystar does not admit to sockpuppeting spontaneously, he does so after I ask if it's him.
 * I stand by my belief that the comment I removed is vandalism, not an honest opinion; I think it's nonsensical in the context of the page. Also, that's not a Song of Ice and Fire page, that's the Robert Jordan page, who writes The Wheel of Time, not ASOIAF.  George R. R. Martin writes ASOIAF.  Going back a full year on the page, I only find one contribution from Mystar on the Robert Jordan talk page from August, 2006 and none on the mainspace.  This would mean that despite making no contributions to any of the Wheel of Time pages, and only one to the Robert Jordan talk page four months previously, he still regularly checks the Robert Jordan talk page, not as part of his watchlist, but actually making a point, when he's not logged in, to go to the talk page for any comments  about an author he may not read and has never edited any of the main pages, just to see what's going on.  Mystar's userid for his Mystar account (as opposed to his User:Mystar1959 account or his 68.188.151.245 or his 68.188.220.8 IP accounts) dates back to April of 2006, with no contributions to the WoT mainspace pages.  Since he doesn't know who Robert Jordan is, why is he checking his talk page?  Is it because he's still really concerned about external links as in his August 2006 statement?
 * I'd also be curious to know if the admin saw the exact statement made by the vandal (or alleged vandal if you'd prefer), and the context of the page, where the alleged vandal had added his comment: Yeah but there is a difference between H.G. Wells and this not only that but this isn't the only penname he uses there are plenty of others he's got and we should use his real name like the H.G. Wells article.  H.G. Wells was not mentioned on the RJ talk page at all, and H.G. Wells did not use a pen name.  Robert Jordan is a pen name of James Oliver Rigney jr, there was a debate on (essentially) whether to have RJ redirect to JORjr, or vice-versa.  That was the context of the discussion, and the comment about H.G.Wells makes no sense.  Also, the ip address' contributions have a history of nonsense, there are multiple warnings on the talk page, and any IP address adding nonsensical commentary on a talk page strikes me as vandalism.  Perhaps it's too stringent a standard, but if Mystar were really bothered by it, then a discussion on my talk page would have been better than a revert war. Also see comments regarding admins below.
 * And I have many, many comments, and detailed commentary to offer on Mystar's 'proper editing' history regarding quality, references, facts and content. I have discussed on talk pages many times in the past why I think his edits are poor ones and why I make the changes I do.  I'm rarely rewarded with a sensible discussion.  There is an example of this process here, the 'Lupus edits' section, and I'd happily provide more demonstrations of Mystar ignoring my commentary and choosing my edits to revert on other articles.  There's at least two more on Lupus, one on Cat's Claw, one on Barbara Hambly and one recently on the ASOIAF page.  It does require looking through and comparing mainpage contributions to talk page discussion chronologically, (which is time consuming) but I also think it's a fruitful exercise in demonstrating that Mystar is not editing for the quality of the pages but rather for my own aggravation.  Or, alternatively is  really, really bad editor who never actually reads the comments on the talk page.  If the arbitration committee would like me to put togeter similar pages where I demonstrate the sources of my frustration in a similar diff and chronological basis, I will take the time to do so.  I find his frequent claims of page ownership further aggravating, as on any edit that is contested, I provide reasons for my changes.  Which are not replied to.
 * I know that calling Mystar a really, really bad editor looks like a personal attack, but I think anyone with my history of interactions with him, and my familiarity with his contributions (and I've got a lot of familiarity because of all the wikistalking and edit wars). I think I can demonstrate it too, with diffs of main pages and talk pages.  I've had experience with bad editors, when I justify my changes to them, with the sole exception of Mystar, they stand.  THAT is why I call him a bad editor.  It is not idle, it is not a light comment on him, it's something that I am very convinced of, and again, I think I can show it.   WLU 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May I add Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at Introduction), and so anyone may edit its articles.
 * Wikipedia is also a community, and when there are five people in the community saying someone are screwing up or should moderate their actions, perhaps the community has a point. I've recieved two civility warnings, one from Mystar, and both were in regards to incivility towards Mystar.  No-one else in wikipedia has complained about my actions.  In the section above, I have numerous other examples of users commenting on your conduct, and I can provide more.  You have been warned, rebuked or had your conduct otherwise commented on many times by many people.  With regards to me, I see it becoming more subtle and taking a different form, but I still find it harassing, personal, and detrimental to Wikipedia. WLU 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

''As to Uncaria tomentosa, I look at my edits and see good quality edits. My first edit was bold and as per wiki stance I added what I thought was an interesting factoid. Secondly my second edit is still mostly intact. I edited for factual content and it still stands today, though WLU has tried to change it time and time again. I finally stopped editing that page rather than seeing WLU have another hissy fit. When I was rebuffed by WLU I asked an admin to look it over and said admin agreed with my edit, that it looked ok… When I was attacked by WLU I asked according to advise from an admin on the IRC chat room for such things and asked for a peer review, as per correct wiki procedure. ''

where the i word came from

 * 1) Your first addition to Uncaria Tomentosa (aka Cat's Claw) was an irrelelvant, plagiarised paste taken word for word from a website, which contained weasel words, which I re-formatted so it wasn't violating copyright but left in the article.
 * 2) Your second edit, which you reference in your statement above, duplicated information in the next paragraph. And the information that remains stands because it's a good edit, which means when you add worthwhile content, I leave it in, which contradicts your claims of page ownership.  Although incidentally, it was also a direct, plagiarised paste from this page, which I again re-worded to remove plagiarism, left the content (thus) and posted my detailed rationale on the talk page.  Your reply was to claim false consensus, state my facts were incorrect (ignoring the reference I used, and incidentally you pasted a some truly irrelevant and triply-duplicated (in edit summary, in the middle of my link, and in your comment below) text in the middle of my reference link thus: http://www.tropilab.com/cat-clWe have a consensus; Please do not change what has been considered a better version. Your facts are incorrectaw.html), ignore my request for a definition of a term and then accuse me of page ownership.  After what I think is a pretty detailed, and reasonable reply.  It is for reasons like this that I think you are either a) a very, very bad editor or b) editing to annoy me rather than to improve the encyclopedia.  This section also demonstrates very nicely your complete failure to respond to the substance of my comments yet again, but to try to use (false) consensus to retain the (in my mind) poor-quality edits you made.  It's like arguing with a creationist, is it any wonder that after pages and pages, months and months of this, I'm upset and get to the point that I call you an idiot? (when what I should have said is I consider Mystar to be a biased editor who fails to reply to my substantive points)  You've said you believe in calling a spade a spade, well I've gotten to that point as well.

admins

 * Responding to the admin comments from Mystar's original comment, again I have no idea what the admin saw or what they said, but I doubt the admin said to bring up my 'page ownership' on a peer-review page (particularly given this comment). I would think they would guide Mystar towards dispute resolution like mediation.  Which I tried to engage in with him, and it collapsed because he failed to respond.  Mystar claims there was no dispute and no reason to engage in mediation, but the fact that I tried mediation then and we are in arbitration now belies that statement.  Medition would have given us a chance to talk reasonably, with people who would try to phrase things neutrally, and bring the content disputes to the level of a discussion, something I still want - a substantive discussion of topics where you respond to the actual statements I make.  Since Mystar never address the teeth of my arguments, but reverts anyway, I FIND IT A LITTLE BIT FRUSTRATING.  It looks to me at least, like he realizes I have reasons for my changes, but since he can't rebut my points, Instead of discussions, I get accused of page ownership and other ad hominem attacks.  And reverting my edits because I don't like Terry Goodkind is not a reason.  And if Mystar and I had actually gone through mediation, we might not be at arbitration. Again, channelling Charlie Brown, AAARGH!
 * Incidentally, dealing with the whole admin/IRC thing. This comes up a lot, Mystar has said at least twice now that he was talking to an admin on IRC and used the comments to guide his edits and dealings with me.  Perhaps a better way would be to tell the admin, point to the problem and page, then have them deal with it as a third party.  Use talk pages!  This way I can respond to the admin, there's a record of the events, and it's no longer myself against Mystar, it's me against policy.  I listen to admins and they've always been fair and civil in my experience.  Plus, then I can't accuse Mystar of misrepresenting me, 'cause he'll have the diff and history to prove his point.  That his most common guidance and advice for his edits is totally unverifiable makes it a question of my diffs versus his opinions.  WLU 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU reply IV
[Re: Barbara Hambly]''As an avid reader I am quite familiar with her and her work. I edited some incorrect information and specifically some wording that was an assumption on the part of WLU. Placing unsourced assumptions is not proper, so I edited in good faith. When placing some specific wording it was not sourced so was not applicable. I still find the internet blog of a fan rather dubious as such is not allowed on other bio pages…''


 * I have no idea what he's talking about, I searched for his mention of an assumption on the BH talk page and couldn't find it. There are no less than three references to Hambly's refutation of the tropes of the genre.  One of which is the personal webpage of a professor in Computer Science in the UK, I suppose that could be removed, and I just did so.  If I had a diff about the specific wording, I could reply, but I think Mystar is referring to not blogs of fans, but rather interviews with the author, though as there is no diff giving me something specific to discuss, I can't say.  WLU 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

''Lupus erythematosus etc. I edited in good faith and offered up my edits. As anyone is able to see however, WLU is a strict page owner, No one let along me is able to edit behind him/her.''
 * Is this a personal attack? I have at least one section in which I address the ownership issue with a chronological arrangement of diffs, I could give two more I think for Lupus alone, but it is pretty tiime consuming to build up these sections.  Also, I'M NOT A GIRL.  Which I've said many times.  What Mystar sees as page ownership, I see as justified page edits which he is unable to refute, and instead he reverts out of pique.  I don't do things idly (except my user page, it's full of idleness) so I find the whole ownership thing irritating.  As I've said above, if I'm changing something Mystar wrote in a page, I have a reason and I give it either in the edit summary, or on the talk page.  Accusations of page ownership when it's more (in my mind) correcting his mistakes or enhancing a page, is irritating.  And again, I'll provide more diffs for mainpage and talk pages if requested.  WLU 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

''The fact of the matter is WLU is incapable of interacting with me. That is not my problem. This is not a message board and I do not have to interact with any user if I choose not. And in choosing not to interact is not considered incivility. I have no problem editing with WLU. I have over looked WLU’s attacks against me. My skin is thick enough and I can ignore WLU’s barbs and taunts. I see a great deal of chafe from WLU on this whole thing. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. Every story has two sides and both are slanted to each person’s intent. However, as I’ve said, I’ve long ago made amends to users like moody, Runch and Neofreak…as for Alienus, He was the original problem, but as he is blocked, he is no longer a problem.''
 * The statement that I'm incapable of interacting with him goes both ways I think.
 * The statement about not having to interact with any user is true in one sense - he can avoid the pages I edit, one way is to stop checking my contribution history. But if we are working on the same pages, either due to wikistalking or ongoing collaboration, if he is going to revert my changes, I think it is appropriate to say why.  If I object, or give a reason to put it back, I think he should read my comments, reply to them, and reply to the substance of my comments, not wikilawyer policy to get it to stay.  Mystar is not "chosing not to interact", Mystar is ignoring my reasons for making changes.  I can ignore barbs and taunts, what I'm pissed about is the following around and the reverting without reasons.  That's what pisses me off, that's why I'm here.  Mystar's constant "You hate me/you hate Terry Goodkind, that's why you want it this way" completely ignores my statements and justifications of my changes, violating the spirit of wikipedia as a whole.  If he doesn't think my justifications are right, he should say why.
 * Mystar may think he's made amends, but at least one other person was still nervous about interacting with him. And note Neofreak's apology and Mystar's reply and Neofreak's perception of the reply.  As I've pointed out above, it's not just me.  When I was a new user on Wikipedia (and a bit of an arrogant dick, as most newbies are), NeoFreak took the time to calmly and rationally discuss his problems with my edits, and months after the fact I think that we are cordial, if not friendly, and I would like to think he respects me.  But he'd have to answer that himself, and I'm not going to drag him into this any further.  WLU 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

''In short, I’m still rather new. I’m still learning. Do I make a mistake and post in the wrong place, yeah, do I make mistakes, hell yeah. BUT they are honest mistakes and I always seek advise from the proper sources. Do I have a long way to go? Of that I’m sure! BUT being condescending is not one of my problems. I am not responsible for how WLU wishes to perceive my posts/edits or me. WLU wishes to control how I think and my opinion. When I was un sure I asked for peer review, as is proper, yet I see in WLU’s rant that my asking for peer reviews is somehow wrong? So I can’t win for loosing huh?''
 * Not proper sources, unverifiable sources. I don't want to control how Mystar thinks or his opinion, but I do want him to tell me why he wants his edits kept in, when they are contested.  And his peer reviews were wrong, in that he wasn't asking for an opinion on the articles in question, he was asking for an opinion on my edits and support in opposing my edits.  He may have done a grate [sic] deal of research on Cat's Claw, he may have read all of Barbara Hambly's books, but neither are demonstrated in the articles themselves.  Asking for a peer review for expansion, cleanup and content or neutrality are in fact improper.  thus and thus.  WLU 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

''Again I’m not the problem. By WLU’s own admission he/she simply wants me banned because WLU can’t stand Goodkind, and because Terry is a close friend, has transferred that hate to me.''

rudely

 * The 'because WLU can't stand Goodkind' comment is absurd, to the highest degree. My statement was, verbatim, "I want to see Mystar banned 'cause he's been wikistalking me, 'cause he doesn't engage in actual discussion with anyone who disagrees with him, 'cause he uses wikipedia policies punitively (and improperly), 'cause he's generally a crappy editor and 'cause he's generally disruptive.", which are exactly the points I've brought up in this arbitration case.  This is almost 3 months later, and I feel exactly the same way.  Not because I'm holding a grudge, but because of Mystar's recent actions which demonstrate to me that he has not changed, and it appears likely that without some sort of external intervention, he is unlikely to change.  I don't know Terry Goodkind, I've only read one of his books, but from what I've read in a variety of fora, I don't think I would like him.  But I can still edit his biopage just like I can edit chelation therapy (which I hate much more than I hate Terry Goodkind) without turning it into an attack page.  I invite Mystar to show me a diff in the past month where I've posted an attack on Terry Goodkind's biopage.   There is the comment on my talk page, which I altered then removed after Mystar rudely pointed out the policy.  This is discussed in greater detail above.  WLU 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

''Further, I stunned that by WLU’s own admission is and has an extensive record for being openly sarcastic with anything he/she feels is in direct conflict with his/her opinion. Though admittedly WLU has just removed several statements from his/her user page is telling indeed. I value honesty and integrity above all else. I for one will not change my values or my honor. As it seems to me, the real issue is that WLU wishes to control how "I" post or edit. Citing Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a battleground, Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals". "Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better".''
 * I don't believe I ever said I was sarcastic with anyone who is in conflict with my opinion. A diff would help.
 * Me modifying my user page, when the history and diffs are still there to be seen, is not telling. It's in response to the valid point Mystar made about no personal attacks, even on user pages.  I still think my modified version could stand, but I'm happy enough leaving the editorializing weblink in.  I suggest that if Mystar values honesty and integrity so much, he have admins comment on talk pages rather than doing all of his discussions on an IRC line then claim he's got the full backing of an admin.  He can keep his values and his honour, I just want him to get off of my back, and on those few pages where we still must interact, at least deal with my comments in a substantive way.  And please, please, please stop using 'you hate Terry Goodkind' as a reason to oppose my edits.  It's not a reason, it's an ad hominem distraction from any real reason.
 * Until Mystar posts further comments, I'm about done. I will say that Mystar's sweeping statements, without diffs to back them up, are unverifiable and I am unable to respond to them without doing the same thing - broad statements about his editing, his person, and his actions, that aren't backed up by anything other than my own feelings.  I don't want to argue with truthiness, which is why I try to back up my statements and rebuttals above with page diffs and links to further evidence.  I'm hoping page diffs and evidence matter more than opinions and statements.
 * I have four times as many edits. I have six times as many unique article edits.  I have a lot more experience with many different users on many different pages.  Mystar is the only one I have a problem with.  There are 1.6 million pages to edit on wikipedia.  I just want him to stop picking mine, and if he really, really has to, at least justify what he's doing.  WLU 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing we need to be crystal clear on here is that your "I have four times as many edits. I have six times as many unique article edits.  I have a lot more experience with many different users on many different pages", in only relevent in your eyes, it has no bearing on Wikipedia or anyone else. Mystar 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It does illustrate that despite a much greater level of involvement and contact with many other users than you, I have only one person with whom I have had any degree of conflict. You've had, despite far fewer edits, 5 people not including me.  Runch, Brendan Moody, Paul Willoxc, Werthead, NeoFreak.  But you are correct, it's circumstantial at best.  WLU 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually not really. As these fine people are not involved in this, as they haev said, the matter was settled some time ago. :) Mystar 04:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)