User talk:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:21, 6 November 2010

looking for my archived talk pageThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic topic moved to here

Are you debating yourself Mr. Anon? IP82, IP69, and "The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous" all seem to be the same person. Arzel (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I usually agree with myself, what are you referring to besides different ID's I have used? BTW, since this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, could you offline it to my talk page at "The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous"69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon[reply]

Because you are editing in a disruptive manner by giving the impression that you are two different people. The use of multiple IP's in order to strengthen your position is not a smart course of action to take. I suggest you log in as your user name and stop trying to hide edits behind multiple IP's and/or ID's. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility / Deleting Comments

Greetings, I'm here to discuss your civility issue on Talk:Restoring Honor rally.

You've accused me (or other editors) of not reading (text or citations), at least four times: 1, 2, 3, 4
You've deleted parts of my comments twice: 1, 2

You have no clue what I, or anyone else for the matter, does behind our screens. Accusing anyone of not reading lacks civility, and needs to stop. Normally I would look past that, but since you've escalated to deleting my comments, this message became necessary. I recognize the fact that you may have removed my comments in error, but given your lack of civility and the lack of good faith the first go around, makes me wonder. Your attitude needs to change. I will not sit idle while you remove my comments. Akerans (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Honor rally

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. Thank you.

The charge has been dismissed.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please do not accuse me of being abusive when your unconstructive "challenges" have impeded this whole process. Am I not allowed to revert your edits but you're allowed to revert mine? BS24 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Rally protection

I'm sorry to have been slow responding to your request - frankly it took me some time to brace myself to look at this whole mess again. It must be near becoming a candidate for WP:Lamest edit wars, and if it were up to me I would replace the paragraph with "Estimates of crowd size varied from 80,000 to 1.6 million, depending on the political views of the estimator" but (to be serious) in my opinion protection (which would inevitably be of WP:The wrong version) would not do anything to bring resolution nearer. If you think it would help, make a request at WP:RFPP. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any interest whatsoever in ending the edit wars once and for all, please participate in the mediation. It's the only way to be fair to all parties. I am trying to work with you without having personal attacks, and formal mediation is the only way to do that. BS24 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can add any additional concerns such as with my behavior throughout the process by editing the "Additional issues" section. Just please agree to mediation. BS24 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Artist: Will you be responding to the mediation request? AGK 14:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP address

Hi Mr. Anonymous, I am just looking through the users listed in the mediation case, and am confused as to whether 82.135.29.209 (talk · contribs) is you or another user. Here you said you were not IP209 but did not say anything about IP82, so if you could let me know that would be great so we don't have any duplicates in the case. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS24, AKA already explained on the SPI case page that he was not IP 82.135.29.209 here. In addition, Hersfold, the checkuser tending to that case, also noted that it was unlikely they were the same editor. Finally, the case was closed with neither AKA nor 82.135.29.209 being blocked for socking. So why, exactly, is this closed matter being dredged up again? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just confused because he said he said both here on his talk page and at the investigation that wasn't IP209 but said nothing about IP82. I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I was just trying to get rid of duplicates at the mediation since one user not responding could cause the request to be rejected. Hope that clears it up. BS24 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP82? IP135? IP29? IP209? You guys are all talking about the same IP. This one: 82.135.29.209.

Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to cooperate, then I will have no choice but to remove you from the mediation case. That way those editors (i.e. all of them except you) who wish to reach a solution can do so unimpeded. BS24 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS24: That comment is both not in keeping with the voluntary nature of mediation and not at all helpful. AGK 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joining mediation

Hi Mr. Anonymous. I wanted to ask you if you would be willing to reconsider, and join the mediation. If I understand correctly, your primary objection to participating in mediation stems from the difficulties you and BS24 have encountered in communicating with and dealing with each other, and the antagonism that has resulted. Most of that has happened on the Restoring Honor rally Talk Page and in the edit summaries and edit warring that has taken place. Mediation, on the other hand, can be a better environment for resolving differences and getting editors to focus on resolving the edits rather than focusing on each other. It's also totally voluntary; if you participate in mediation and a given editor continues to attack you, you can always withdraw at any time if the other participants do not quickly put a stop to it.

BS24, if you are reading my comments in this section here, if you don't mind, I'd ask that you please stop asking Mr. Anonymous to join the mediation and give him more time to decide if he has changed his mind. I understand you want Mr. Anonymous to participate in the hopes we can all cooperate and resolve the issue, but the best thing you could do right now is refrain from asking anything further and provide some space... put a different way, you're simply the wrong person to ask him to join, despite any good intentions...

Mr. Anonymous, I know you want to settle the issues being contested in the crowd size controversy section just as much as we do. Personally, I'd much rather you participated in the mediation there than continue to see editors battling it out in the edit summaries and on the article talk page. During mediation, the editors involved and mediators will be on the lookout for personal attacks and keeping the comments focused on the edits rather than the editors. --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't feel pressured by my earlier requests for you to respond the mediation request. I was unaware until checking back here and noticing this post that you had already been reminded. I would say only that if your opinion is that there are difficulties between you and another editor and that those difficulties are preventing healthy discussion of the Restoring Honor rally, then mediation would be a very good option because it introduces a neutral third party to the proceedings to keep discussions tightly focussed—which discourages, usually with great success, anything but the best conduct from Wikipedians. AzureCitizen says it very well, actually, now that I re-read his post. If you have any questions or comments, I'll be watching here, and my e-mail and talk page are always open. Regards, AGK 22:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Restoring Honor Rally Crowd Size Controversy

The article Restoring Honor Rally Crowd Size Controversy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

apparent POV fork. No indication of any notability outside the context of the main article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Mediation

Just so you're aware, I wasn't offering that Newsbusters article as a source. I was just using it as an example because the normal benchmark for crowd size is not a scientific estimate. Crowd size estimates for that area are based on the MLK "I have a dream" event, which filled the reflecting pool area and was estimated at 200,000 to over 300,000. That is what people use, right or wrong, as the measuring stick. Now, if we reassessed crowd size based on these scientific estimates, then it's not a big deal, as the comparisons would be equal, but we know that doesn't and won't happen. Beck's 87,000 will be compared with someones 200,000, which is what I was pointing out. Didn't want to get into it, just wanted to explain the reasoning. There is a history to it. Morphh ^(talk) 0:08, 08 October 2010 (UTC)

AKA, You're misunderstanding me and I really don't want to get into a back and forth with you. You twist my statements, my intent, and my motives. It's like you're trying to pick a fight. In order to maintain WP:CIVIL, I think it better to just ignore you and follow the mediation. Morphh ^(talk) 1:05, 08 October 2010 (UTC)

Another completely unsubstantial reply. And posting on my talk page, that's one way to ignore me(:-?> The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP209

Which comments to you mean? To put at which place of the mediation page? 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm hm hm hm, I'm a little bit reluctant: My recent posting is already covered by the "Primary issues", and I think AKG and everyone else will see my posting anyway. So at the moment I prefer a more cautious approach. The mediator anyway has the obligation to listen to any party, and if I have the feeling my arguments are going to be ignored, then I definitely will speak out. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. I think we're waiting for a mediator, or the powers to be are waiting for the issue statements to take form. Again the whole process is a little hard to sus out. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think you, me and others have similar views, so maybe we should try to consolidate and find a common summary of our perspective. I think there would be two steps:

Find other users having similar views. If I remember correctly there are some of them (I have to look them up myself).
Maybe work together on a summary of our arguments.

If let's say four, five or more people together present their case, signed by multiple users, this might be a strong case. I'm not sure if this works, but its just an idea. All in all, I think I have a similar feeling as you, that for some editors facts and truth does not really matter, but they just want to push their agenda. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little hesitant to go that route. I've seen some editors try to quasi-offline their discussions and it kinda hits me sideways. However, when issues come up, we could use talk pages to discuss specific points amongst ourselves. But before hand, I'd rather see if the mediation process might make that unnecessary. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "quasi-offline their discussions"? (I'll be offline for an hour or so, we have to buy food for the weekend, I'll try to come back online afterwards.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case you didn't know, but BS24 actively tried to exclude you from mediation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it ain't worth my time to check into it. My sensibilities aren't that delicate: I'm cool. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:AGK

Just so you know, User:AGK is an admin from the Mediation Committee, so please stop trying to insult him as the "Boss Daddy". BS24 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when somebody call me Boss Daddy, I get so mad, I really want to find what car they drive (:-P> The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Just wondering why you made this edit. Thanks. BS24 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. BS24 (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Honor Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

Hi, Mr. Anon. I've been following your discussion about past identities, and I must agree with your theory that BS24 = NYyankees51. This list of articles in common, plus the fact that the BS24 account was created in January, 2010, right after the NYyankees51 sockpuppet case was closed that same month, raises the probability to an almost certainty. However, pushing BS24 to confirm or deny the connection probably isn't the best course of action right now, with you two sitting on opposing sides of a mediation table. It would be best if you just submit your concerns in a WP:SPI case, and let the Admins handle it from there. That should cut down on the potential for another war of words and attacks between the two of you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short note: Link [1] is broken, and [2] is not a good sample for disparaging other editors (the "you" does not stand for the other editor). 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the links. I replaced the broken link with one at least as equally inappropriate and modified the description of the links. Comments in edit summaries that are friendly are still unwanted. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2010 ( 2010 (UTC)}}

Fear

False Equivalencies Appearing Real. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in re Other editors' qualifying remarks..

In the future, please feel free to remove the SPA tags that another editor places after your comments simply because s/he doesn't agree. A month or so ago I noticed the tags on comments from IP#69, some of which signed Mr Anon so I assume it's you, at the then-current talkpage for Media Matters, now in Archive 6 and Archive 7. The editor who placed them has demonstrated a lack of sufficient NPOV and therefore is in no position to play moderator or pass judgement. btw I've posted this note at the talkpage for IP#69, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy stuff. How do I found out who did it? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You can check the edit history of the talkpage -- I think they were all added by Rapier (a.k.a SeanNovack). I was going to either remove them when the threads were still active, or at least comment on it at the talkpage, but first I asked about it at Talkpage:SPA and the only reply there was that you didn't object so it didnt seem to be an issue. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why SPAs are generally considered to be a big problem at wikipedia: "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas". So tagging someone's talkpage comments is NOT in good faith. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel and Akerans

Hi AKA, thanks for stepping in, but I think it is not necessary. It is a so obvious and stupid ad hominem abuse, visible for anyone, so that it speaks for itself. Because of Arzel I can type the link to "ad hominem abuse" while sleeping. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not stupid. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true in this case. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems that Akerans didn't or does not want to understand Arzel's statement. Seems like Akerans also would defend a comment like "this coming from a black person" by proving that the person is black... Oh well.... Just as explanation that I agree completely that Arzel's statements are unfortunate and baseless smear. Just my life doesn't change because of this accusation. How did someone say? When I get told this, I get mad and want to find out what car he drives. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They both let you hear only crickets when finally corned for being in the wrong, so I'm not that worried. In other news, have a look at this. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I opposed your new sentence there. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, indeed I am a SPA. Originally, I wasn't much interested into Wikipedia, I really just wanted to invest some few minutes to make some minor fixes to the Restoring Honor article - and now, where am I? Within edit wars, RfCs, mediations, SPIs, and block and unblock requests.... I guess the SP of my SPA will eat up all time of my life. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, getting an account, and declaring yourself to have been IP209 is worth considering. Aspersions get cast too easily around here and become major distractions. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know this latest try by Arzel and Akerans was the only - and unsuccessful - try to asperse me. And so far I don't see any distractions caused by this, in contrary, everyone seems to accept me as IP as equal peer. And even if not, I would not care. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And last but not least - now I'm used to my name. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My secret plan is to establish in Wikipedia and get the world's first IP admin. But don't tell others! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, then. Did you have a look at my link from above? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I opposed your new proposal. Too right-wing partisan. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was present those who tended to dismiss the low estimates were supporters, and those who agreed with them were progressives, their preferred way to label themselves. I think factually my suggestion is accurate and fair on that account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And very last but not least: I'm bad in finding cool account names - I envy you your username. If you have further cool account name ideas - tell me! 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would get a shorter one. I'm regretting my too cute but too long name every time I have to re log in. That's why I went with IPs until that became a hassle. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 163: / Line 163: @@
 ::: Alrighty, then. Did you have a look at my link from above? [[User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous]] ([[User talk:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous#top|talk]]) 19:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 :::: Yes. And I opposed your new proposal. Too right-wing partisan. [[Special:Contributions/82.135.29.209|82.135.29.209]] ([[User talk:82.135.29.209|talk]]) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
+::::: The idea was present those who tended to dismiss the low estimates were supporters, and those who agreed with them were progressives, their preferred way to label themselves. I think factually my suggestion is accurate and fair on that account. [[User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous]] ([[User talk:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous#top|talk]]) 19:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 :: And very last but not least: I'm bad in finding cool account names - I envy you your username. If you have further cool account name ideas - tell me! [[Special:Contributions/82.135.29.209|82.135.29.209]] ([[User talk:82.135.29.209|talk]]) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
+::: I would get a shorter one. I'm regretting my too cute but too long name every time I have to re log in. That's why I went with IPs until that became a hassle. [[User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous]] ([[User talk:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous#top|talk]]) 19:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)