Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Netkinetic

I looked at the first link about Netkinetics that Cheeser1 provided, about not being a dick (it's a wiki guideline, not mere slang). It showed Netkinetics changed you to yo. Well, obviously that's being a dick. But I dug a little further. Netkinetics did that in the good faith view, perhaps even correct, that people should not change the comments of others. Some user wrote yo, Cheeser1 changed it to you (something I myself might have done), and Netkinetics changed it back to yo in the apparent honest, good faith effort to not edit the comments of others. Given that, both Cheeser1 and Netkinetics appear to me to have a point. Nevertheless, I think the dick (term of art, remember) here is Cheeser1 because he presented an apparent good faith edit by Netkinetics as a dick move. Based on that alone, and setting aside how Cheeser1 treats me in a similar non-wiki friendly fashion as he does Netkinetics, I'd have to say that casts the rest of what he claims about Netkinetics in a negative light. I won't even further look into Netkinetics claimed sock puppetry because the person who made the claim has himself acted like a dick (term of art, remember). Based on this, I support Netkinetics. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, nor is it a place to support someone's use of sockpuppets. Where is this comment coming from, exactly? Furthermore, his actions are clearly and obviously inappropriate - he was stalking my edits (after engaging in some tendentious behavior over a dispute he started), and he reverted my actions in bad faith, and on inappropriate grounds (others' comments should not be refactored, but moving them or correcting them in good faith - as I clearly did - is allowed). I'm removing this to the talk page, since it has absolutely no bearing (you said so yourself) on the SSP case. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note, for all of you who might read this, that LaEC's contact with Netkinetic was initiated by Netkinetic stalking me all the way to LaEC's talk page. The two have commiserated about how (apparently) bad of a person I am on their respective talk pages. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheeser1 was the person who raised the issue on the SSP case page. I responded.  Now he removes my comments and tucks them away out of view.  This is some of the type of behavior to which Netkinetics has been subjected.
 * Further, Cheeser1's last sentence above is yet another example of his continued unwiki-friendly behavior. It's just another reason to take what Cheeser1 says with a grain of salt. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? The talk page here is in plain sight just like any other page. I also clearly and plainly explained the obvious and unobjectionable reasons for moving your "support vote" here - this is not an AfD, it's not the place for you to lodge complaints against me, and your input is at best commentary/discussion - which belongs on the discussion page. If you are not responding to the SSP case, don't say "I responded" because you really didn't. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1, you are making up facts on the fly again and going on the attack again. As I said above, "Cheeser1 was the person who raised the issue on the SSP case page."  You then say I "really didn't" respond.  Yet these are your words on the SSP case page, the very words to which I responded, and you removed my response:


 * "This isn't the where stalking complaints get lodged, but we'll just note, for context/explanation, this lovely WP:DICK move, in spite of what my edit was and even this. Note that the user (admin) whose spelling mistake I corrected reverted Netkinetic (here) per WP:STALK (see his additional comments)."


 * With all the things to do in the world, I fail to see why you need to make up the facts than attack people for responding to your made up facts. Is there no end to your persistent unfriendly, unwiki behavior? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is his modus operandi, and that is why his attacks are transparent to most editors...aside from the admin who mysteriously shields him ...and visa versa ...and so on ad naseum at most opportune times using the exact same language and editing patterns. But then that's a bit too *meaty* a subject, so hopefully he'll just put a *sock* in it. Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the two of you have turned this discussion page, which should be limited to discussion regarding this SSP case, into a fun little chat about how horrible I am - this speaks volumes. Bravo, thank you for proving my point for me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1's claims here have been shown to be with little merit and the case is now closed. I'm not surprised.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)