Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dorftrottel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:25, 24 June 2008

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC).

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · logs) (account now abandoned, sockpuppet is Everyme (talk · contribs · logs))

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Cause of concern

Civility

Applicable policies and guidelines

Desired outcome

I'd like to hear all criticism there is about me, my edits, my demeanor. I don't care whether it's just individual opinion or thoroughly backed up with diffs. Let me hear it, please.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

User:Dorftrottel (not a joke, I'm trying to be civil most of the time)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (okay.....erm, what are we trying to achieve here?...ahaa, see above)[reply]
Looks like I have to certify this one. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

Re #View by Ryan Postlethwaite: Unfortunately, it's not possible to reactivate the original account. As far as "multiple accounts" is concerned, might I add that I never used two accounts parallel. As far as creating a new account ('starting over') is concerned, I'd like to raise several points: (i) I couldn't pretend to be someone else if I tried. (ii) There is a barely, if at all, extant atmosphere of forgiveness on Wikipedia, and over time I've seen numerous comments, some by admins in good standing, actually suggesting to other users to start over with a new account. (iii) Honesty basically never pays off on Wikipedia, seeing as e.g. my good-faith disclosure note has been quoted several times in several locations to prosecute me and to dismiss the validity of reasonings of mine (which btw is the exact definition of an ad hominem attack). (iv) I do not intend to go back to full editing. (v) The new account is unambiguously linked to the old account, i.e. everyone can easily access the DT account and its block log. If it could reasonably be assumed that the average person on Wikipedia assumes good faith, I'd write a new full disclosure note with all relevant links on the new account's user page; unfortunately the average person on Wikipedia does not assume good faith. I'd love to be able to believe that, but I'm afraid I can never go back to that wonderful state of naïvety. (vi) On my request, East718 put a note in my block log regarding the blocks from before the account renamings (another good-faith effort which can only lead to trouble for me down the road, I suppose).
Speaking of sarcasm, I'm aware that sarcasm on Wikipedia is rarely, if ever, useful. But imho it's mainly a reaction to things I see and think are wrong and try to change and fail because of either suboptimal wording and general efforts to express my concerns and/or because of more or less extreme stubbornness on someone else's part. I'd say both in most cases where any conflicts occur. One problem for me is that stubbornness, incompetence and an inability to understand (or, in some cases, unwillingness to accept) what Consensus is all about are very common on Wikipedia, and I for one do regard such shortcomings as highly detrimental for the community, much more so than a healthy measure of open and honest incivility. Those things are parts of a more subtle mechanism, but that only makes it worse because it's much harder to assess and address.
Also about incivility: I like to think that this is mainly due to the fact that I'm an extreme person. Different people (although none, IIRC, of those who have chastised me for incivility) have praised comments of mine, both their phrasing and their content. I'm a bit proud of that, esp. as a non-native speaker. The plausible consequence would be to try and get rid of the incivility while retaining the useful comments. However, I'm afraid I can't do that. I'd love to, but that's not who I am. All I can do is try my best and quickly give up instead of fighting for the improvement of Wikipedia (and sometimes it just doesn't work without a fight). And I ask those who have a problem with my incivility to take a look at some other comments of mine, and at the rational component which is also often present in my comments, whether they are uncivil or not. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #View by Durova: I wouldn't say that I'm a deletionist, but as far as the 'natural advantage of deletionists' goes I cannot agree, since the output levels of fancruft are beyond incredible. Not only, so-called or self-declared, deletionists but no one has any chance against the inward pressure of total entropy. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #Addendum by Casliber: Spot on, and thanks for the input. I'm not sure how to address these things, but thanks for summarising and making it clearer. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re #Comment by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: I haven't yet figured out how to change the past. With regard to 'at least 31 IPs and accounts': I have a dynamic IP address, which means that over the past 2 years, I have probably edited Wikipedia from something like five hundred or a thousand IP addresses. As to accounts: As I had written in my disclosure note, I ran into difficulties in the beginning, in an article which is arguably owned by a user who is (not only in my opinion) rather problematic on that particular article. Not knowing anything about Wikipedia, but being the person I am and recognising the absolute non-neutrality of that editor, I resorted to idiotic actions (see, I can liberally apply that word to myself as appropriate). For a lack of true effort, I ran into the same difficulties with the first account I created (TfT). When I asked an admin for unblocking (forum shopping and asking multiple parents...), he told me to register a new account and stay away from the problem area. It worked for a short while, but I still didn't know anything about Wikipedia, and after I (naively, in hindsight) disclosed my identity to the original blocker, he very quickly blocked me again. That admin has btw a considerable conflict of interest due to his involvement and personal opinions in the article in question. Additionally, he never warned me or tried to explain or talk me down or anything whatsoever, just indef blocked me.
Kncyu38, AldeBaer and Dorftrottel are one and the same account, twice renamed on request.
Also, basically each and everything in your comment was in my disclosure note which can be restored by any admin if anyone wants to read for themselves. Please do not pretend that I tried to hide anything, and especially that I did so in bad faith. I didn't immediately reveal my identity out of fear that I would be reblocked on a hunch, seeing as it had happened before. When JzG gave me the idea for the disclosure note, and after checking it with him, I instated it ASAP. The earlier (shortened) block was for telling the now-confirmed truth (I will not go into details on this one). It was stupid at the time, but as it turned out, it was the truth. So the only block that I personally recognise as valid was my drunken block. That was admittedly stupid, and I paid for it with the block and the headache of my life. So there, that's my honest assessment. I know I can be abrasive but it still saddens me to see how any honesty is being used against me. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other problems include disruptive/sarcastic comments in RfAs and AfDs. — Don't you see anything questionable about your own behaviour at RfA and AfD? Wrt the RfA example: Sorry if it offended you, but don't be oversensitive. Yes, it was a jab at you, but wth. As to the AfD example: What makes you assume that I was being sarcastic there as opposed to honest? (For the record: I was honest there and there is nothing sarcastic about that AfD comment whatsoever.) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

View by Ryan Postlethwaite

I’m going to reuse a lot of the material I posted to the AN thread as I feel it’s still appropriate here. Dorftrottel has used a number of accounts previously – two of which received indefinite blocks – yet he’s still here creating problems both in terms of civility and now edit warring. Here is a list of some problematic accounts.

Subversive element – blocked in October 2006 for using Wikipedia to fight an ideological war.
Tit for tat – blocked in 2006 for using Wikipedia to harass.
87.158.224 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
87.78.191.156 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
84.44.172.138 8784.44.172.138 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
84.44.175.12 84.44.175.12 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
87.78.150.42 87.78.150.42 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
AldeBaer – blocked for attempting to out another editor.
Dorftrottel – blocked for incivility.
87.78.154.177 - block evasion from dorftrottel account.
87.78.155.210- block evasion from dorftrottel account.
87.78.146.190- block evasion from dorftrottel account.
87.78.155.245- block evasion from dorftrottel account.

Now, on top of all this – from the latest account we have numerous instances of incivility;

Dorftrottel scrambled his password and started using IP’s to edit followed by another new account. This needs to stop now – Dorftrottel should agree to use one account for the remainder of his wiki-career, should he choose to continue to edit constructively. We certainly shouldn’t be encouraging users who have concerns raised about them to go off in a mood and create a new account – it spreads contributions and problematic edits over a number of accounts making it hard to consider evidence when problems arise. Further, Dorftrottel needs to cut the incivility and sarcasm out completely – it’s unneeded and promotes a nasty atmosphere here. Should he choose to continue his flippant attitude towards his incivility, the community should consider placing him on a strict civility parole and limiting to one account.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ryan Postlethwaite 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Casliber

I don't actually find the language or colourful comments a problem, but it is the lack of empathy with others' feelings or points of view - the odd assumption that berating and challenging others can somehow get them to 'see' that your view is right. You seem to blur your personal view with some universal sense of what is right. This may be akin to how you get in scrapes with other editors as well in either accidentally or purposefully ignoring the inflammatory nature of interactions. The final problem is that you can turn around and take offence easily, which is somehow inconsistent with your desire for others to accept you and your colourful interactions.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup again -- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Durova

Dorftrottel says that forgiveness is in short supply. As one of the editors who has a reputation for being short on forgiveness, I'd like to remind him that I had once sitebanned a certain individual Dorftrottel has been in conflict with, and then brought that person back. We're on good terms now and sometimes we collaborate together.

Dorf, as a deletionist you have a natural advantage. If an inclusionist goes away for a while, then from the inclusionist's standpoint Wikipedia loses valuable data that would be cumbersome to rebuild. When a deletionist takes a break, all that giddy cruft remains right where you left it, waiting for your cleansing hand (unless somebody either hops up and deletes it before you return or unless somebody else references the darn stuff).

My friend, take a break. Trivia isn't worth anger. Go swimming. Take up photography. Read a novel. You're a smart guy; come back when you're at your best again.

Users who endorse this summary:

Durova^Charge! 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Please note that I was asked directly to comment here, otherwise per Durova's suggestion that we avoid each other, I would have sat this request for comment out, but regarding that suggestion, please see [1] and User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 21#Trying to play Solomon. And yet, he still saw the need to comment to or about or after me on wiki: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. In fact he made only three DRV edits on June 12, all of which happen to be in discussions after I posted:

ALL of his AfD edits on June 11 were also only in discussions after I had commented and then he ends that with giving someone a barnstar for disagreeing with me:

As many know I tend to really engage editors in these discussions, but please note that I resisted replying to him in the above AfDs and DRVs. So, that's two days in a row where his only deletion related discussions happened to be in ones after I commented in them and in some cases even to or about me? Again, he did that AFTER Durova's mediation attempt. Not to mention in effect calling someone else a liar (see [10]) in one of those discussions, or saying to ban someone he disagrees with, which by the way is also made in a discussion after I had commented in it: [11]. So, even though someone says we should avoid each other; even though I did not comment in any AfDs after him since Durova made that suggestion (I deliberately avoided his most recent AfDs for that reason), and even though I avoided commenting to or about him in the above examples, he still saw fit to do so after me. So again, friendly suggestions and warnings and what have you just aren't working.

Other problems include disruptive/sarcastic comments in RfAs and AfDs. Regarding the AfD, my suspicions is that it follows this comment, i.e. after saying, "Are you trying to say I'm stupid or too lazy to look for sources?" He then said, "Was too lazy for a thorough search for sources..." How else should one read that?

Please note as well that he stated on his Dorftrottel talk page the following: "they would have either reinstated my indef block from 2006, or they would have put me on a civility parole which I could never follow, not with so many idiots asking to be slapped in their stupid faces" and "Idiocy gets my blood cooking at any moment, it's the testosterone I suppose. Fucking for at least 3 hours straight gives me a window of about 15-20 minutes. What do men have four testicles for anyway?! Wouldn't two of those things be enough? Seriously though, it doesn't matter now. I'll stick around, but this sort of account-centered participation is increasingly, and already mainly, for dweebs." I do not think it acceptable for someone to avoid a potential block or civility patrol that they admittedly would not follow by continuing to edit with IPs calling those of us with accounts "dweebs," and then indeed using a couple different IPs to call others "assholes" among other things: [12], [13] (I didn't realize it was him at first, he edited Casliber's talk page, which I have watchlisted and I always welcome anyone who edits my watchlisted pages), [14], [15] (apparently hasn't really left, by the way), [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. Again, Dorftrottel is now using an IP for incivility: [21] (calls an editor an "asshole"), [22] (evidence that it's Dorftrottel), [23] (now says he's going to keep editing with IPs), which he is doing: [24].

I don't think it's okay to abandon an account all dramatically than immediately start using an IP for swearing and insulting others. Notice the above are from different IPs and even to an ArbCom case and that he is doing it to avoid being blocked or on civility patrol. Thus, given the fact that he had already been blocked across fifteen different accounts and IPs, twice indeffed, and for such serious things as attempting to out an editor, and after the AN thread and his dramatic closing of the Dorftrottel account, I think something decisive needs to happen to adquately address these issues. And just so it is clear who we are talking about, ALL of the following are the same person:

78.34.133.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
78.34.141.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
78.34.143.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
78.34.143.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
78.34.145.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.169.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.170.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.172.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.173.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.173.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.174.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
84.44.175.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.146.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.149.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.150.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.151.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.154.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.155.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.155.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.158.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.158.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.158.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.191.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.78.229.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.227.191.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
AldeBaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Everyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kncyu38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Subversive element (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tit for tat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, here are the facts:

Dorftrottel has used at least thirty-one (31) different IPs and accounts.
He has been blocked a total of at least twenty-two (22) times, including at least four (4) times indefinitely for having an account "created to harass an editor," being a "suspected sockpuppet of User:JakeW," his "purpose for editing Wikipedia is to fight an ideological war", evading a ban and blocks, attempting "to out an editor," violating WP:POINT, incivility, and personal attacks.
With his latest account, he has already said regarding those he disagrees with, "I think the worst of them simply have clinical emotional issues and should seek professional help."

Users who endorse this summary:

--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— CharlotteWebb 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naerii (complain) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Carter

I don't know that I've every actually butted heads with the individual under discussion. However, I have reviewed the page and these are my conclusions based on what I've seen on it.
I commend the editor involved for seeking input on what his problematic behavior might be. I would commend him even more if he were able to take these comments to heart. So far as I can see, and I acknowledge I haven't had much contact with this party that I remember, he seems to have some fairly serious problems with civility. He isn't alone in that, I'm afraid. Many of us have that problem at times. The multiple IP's, and apparently using them to engage in personal attacks, is another matter entirely. If, as seems to be the case from some of the comments above, the editor in question thinks that he would have difficulty abiding by restrictions, then I suggest to him that he do what Le Grand Roi has tried to do and avoid any conversations with editors with whom he has a history which could be seen as being problematic. The recent comments on Le Grand Roi's talk page don't give me a lot of confidence that he will be able to do so.
If the dubious conduct continues, I don't myself doubt that the civility probation the editor seems to want to avoid will become a reality. Having said that, I have to assume that this is an honest attempt to try to control the negative behavior. If he can, good. Le Grand Roi has proven to be a valuable contributor since his own reinstatement, and this editor might be as well.
However, if the editor continues to abuse and insult others, create multiple accounts for the purpose of engaging in incivil conduct, uses multiple IP's for the same purpose, and continues the type of conduct that he has gotten into trouble with before, then I think that a block, and possibly ban, will likely result. I sincerely urge the editor to seek input from neutral third-parties if he ever finds himself in a situation where he feels the urge to engage in problematic behavior, and, whether he can find such a party or not, to make every possible effort to avoid such conduct in the future. If he doesn't, I do honestly think a ban might have to be considered somewhere down the road. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (really need a mentor I think - see below)[reply]
Thank you for the kind comments as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper. I endorse this, except the part about multiple users. At no time as Dorftroteel ever used multiple accounts at the same time. He has been open and honest about his blocks and renames. I think (because he opened this RfC himself) that he knows that he needs to avoid certain areas/editors, but at the same time, he is not a sock abuser, not a meat abuser, and has unfairly been assumed to be such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I acknowledge the points made by Keeper above. I don't think I actually said he used them simultaneously, and my apologies to anyone for thinking that I did. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has used multiple IPs while using accounts, so I'm not sure how we consider that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has a dynamic IP, making it clearly impossible to "pin him down". He edits primarly wih a username, and his usernames (both blocked and renamed) have never overlapped. I've asked Dorf/Every/whatever to explicitly avoid you LGRdC, I'm hopin he heeds my advice. Thank you for your continued civility both here and on your talkpage where we've continued this discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but please keep in mind that that has already been tried at least twice before (see [25] and [26], for example). In any event, I recommend as other solutions 1) civility patrol (no more sarcasm in RfAs; try really hard not to swear at others and certainly don't call others "dweebs" or "assholes" or suggest that they are mentally ill), 2) limit to one account and avoiding IP edits altogether (I have been incredibly careful since Durova unblocked me to not accidentally edit logged out and I certainly didn't decide to just start all over with a new account sans block history), 3) finding a neutral, i.e. non-deletionist/non-inclusionist from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User to mentor him, 4) admission of all past accounts on current account's userpage, and 5) more willingness to change stances in AfDs when new sources come about a la what I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis. I don't think asking for greater civility is that hard to do and actually may foster a better understanding among editors. Even with those who have made fairly harsh comments to me, please note that I still found somewhere where I could help them out in a civil and proactive fashion, which has had a positive result. Thus, being civil and helpful even to those we disagree with can be fruitful in the end. Remember the fable about honey rather than vinegar. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Template

1)

Comment by parties:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Seriously, I am rather lost for words, but OK, I guess what would be good is starting from scratch/with a clean slate/breath of fresh air etc. OK. I suppose it is nothing if not entertaining. My advice would be to stick to article writing or improving/sourcing content and placing oneself on a looking forward rather than back. You are obviously intelligent and blessed with a sense of humour (being a fan of Bill Hicks is a plus)...so unlike Anakin Skywalker, avoid the dark side. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, you may want to ask someone calm and mellow like User:Keeper76 to be a sort of wiki-superego or conscience for 6 months or so (or longer). Like a mentoring thingy sort-of-thing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Just stop being rude

2) It's not that hard. Naerii 23:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

@@ Line 237: / Line 237: @@
 :::He has used multiple IPs while using accounts, so I'm not sure how we consider that.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::::He has a dynamic IP, making it clearly impossible to "pin him down".  He edits primarly wih a username, and his usernames (both blocked and renamed) have never overlapped.  I've asked Dorf/Every/whatever to '''''explicitly''''' avoid you LGRdC, I'm hopin he heeds my advice. Thank you for your continued civility both here and on your talkpage where we've continued this discussion. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |  [[User:Keeper76#Origins of My Username|<font color="#ff0000"><small>Disclaimer</small></font>]] 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
+:::::Thank you, but please keep in mind that that has already been tried at least twice before (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dorftrottel&diff=204787621&oldid=204787259] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dorftrottel&diff=prev&oldid=217692404], for example).  In any event, I recommend as other solutions 1) civility patrol (no more sarcasm in RfAs; try really hard not to swear at others and certainly don't call others "dweebs" or "assholes" or suggest that they are mentally ill), 2) limit to one account and avoiding IP edits altogether (I have been incredibly careful since Durova unblocked me to not accidentally edit logged out and I certainly didn't decide to just start all over with a new account sans block history), 3) finding a neutral, i.e. non-deletionist/non-inclusionist from [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User]] to mentor him, 4) admission of all past accounts on current account's userpage, and 5) more willingness to change stances in AfDs when new sources come about a la what I did at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis]].  I don't think asking for greater civility is that hard to do and actually may foster a better understanding among editors.  Even with those who have made fairly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_14&diff=219609086&oldid=219601949 harsh] comments to me, please note that I still found somewhere where I could [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sephiroth_BCR&diff=221258850&oldid=221258543 help them out] in a civil and proactive fashion, which has had a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles&diff=221259033&oldid=221257779 positive] result.  Thus, being civil and helpful even to those we disagree with can be fruitful in the end.  Remember the fable about honey rather than vinegar.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 <!-- Extras
 == Additional views ==