Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tottering Blotspurs

Pasted from the CU page -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC):[reply]

Policy compliant in your opinion, which many deletion debates show is an opinion not supported by the community at large. I recommend you read the sockpuppetry policy;

If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them, or at least disclose this information in confidence.

I am not obliged to provide any such connection, especially publicly. After having various articles I worked on trolled after daring to enforce fair use policy on certain groups of articles, I choose not to incur the wrath of teenage fans of cruft. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy compliant in the opinions of the thousands of people who created, edited, read, and argued to keep the articles in question. WP:ITSCRUFT is not an acceptable reason for anything as it is really nothing more than an "I don't like it" stance. Assuming all the editors who work on these articles are "teenagers" in such a fashion suggests a disdain for teenagers and possible insult to those who are infact adults who create, work on, and argue to keep these articles. It may be recommended that alternate accounts come clean about their main account, but if you look at the category of alternate accounts, the overwhelming majority acknowledge their master account. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to where I said to delete anything because it was cruft? As well as the sockpuppetry policy, you may find Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No original research useful. I assume the editors are teenagers, I cannot imagine adults acting in such an unbecoming manner. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the post above mine you wrote, "I choose not to incur the wrath of teenage fans of cruft." The sockpuppetry policy does not allow for an alternate account that assumes bad faith and insults whole groups of editors. Instead of dwelling on what some think Wikipedia isn't, you may also want to keep in mind what Wikipedia is and help to improve the articles rather than just focus an account on trying to delete them. Saying "nobody cares about" a topic that obviously those who created, worked on, read, and argued to keep the article care about insults those people. . I don't know what the deal is against teenagers in an above comment, on your userpage, and in this edit. Claiming an article is "unsourced" when it actually is sourced is dishonest. Assuming an editor isn't going to read your post is insulting to him. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, so accusing some of engaging you in discussion of harassment is also insulting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will thank you not to add to posts after I have replied. List of Dragon Quest VIII characters is sourced? Really? Would you like me to put a {{cn}} on every single unsourced sentence? There will be well over a hundred? Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a discussion, editors reply to each other. Yes, it has several sources with editors actively working to improve it further. Wikipedia does not have a deadline and when editors have already begun and are still in the process of making significant revisions, claiming it's unsourced is not accurate. Why not help those working on it, or instead focus on building up those articles you do like? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subtle but significant difference between "is sourced" and "has sources". List of Dragon Quest VIII characters has some sources, but the content is almost entirely unsourced. My exact words in the debate were "Article is virtually all original research unless my eye's mistake me, and if it's not it's unsourced". So unless you are choosing to deliberately twist my words, I said it was "virtually all unsourced", which is an accurate comment. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally understood that the plot elements of articles are sourced by the game itself, i.e. as a primary source. If you also believe that the game itself should be used in footnotes, then by all means, please do so, but much of the out of universe stuff is sourced or is in the process of being sourced. This particular article does not have insurmountable problems and after all most articles are not polished on their first draft, but are works in progress. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the articles are cruft. But my reasons for deleting them are that they do not comply with policy. Cruft and not complying with policy go hand in hand at times, but not always. Some cruft does does comply with policy, and some articles contain no cruft yet do not comply with policy. I have written better articles than you ever will, and I choose to protect them from trolls by the use of an alternate account. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cruft" is not a helpful word to use and crystal balling about who will create better articles is also unhelpful. What articles have you created? Unless if you can compare articles you have created with ones that I have created, that claim is unsubstantiated. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know they are better. You never will, as I am not obliged to reveal my account to you. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't provide an example, no one can know whether or not that claim is true. And it is a bit presumptious to assume that any given other editor will not be able to make articles with whatever unverified quality your articles are. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you are a bit presumptious and incivil, to assume any editor that presents policy and guideline based arguments to delete some of your beloved cruft must be a sock of a banned editor, with evidence that amounts to a total of "he said delete, he must be a sock wah wah wah". Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are admittedly a sock and you keep using incivil words like "cruft" and accusing editors of writing "whiny essays". Such language is not conducive to constructve discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I've been watching this unfold. To be honest, you can't accuse someone of being a banned user because you don't like the language they use or you disagree with them. They've fully disclosed that they are an alternate account of a registered user. Who knows, you might be right, but you also might be wrong. Also, I'm pretty sure the statement that "teenagers are fans of cruft"/^{(the type of info that the word cruft implies)} could be sourced, as well as the assumption that "teenagers have acne". Btw, I'm on the verge of leaving my teens, but I didn't take offence to those comments. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of targetting specific kinds of articles and insulting editors at the same time is consistent with Eyrian, hence my suspicions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I have a bit of a history assuming too much good faith and defending people who weren't who they said they were. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for assuming good faith, but not to the point of risking being naive as when we had that whole episode and character case there was also another sock farm beyond Merridew marring the discussion. All of these accounts turned out to be the same person as confirmed by a checkuser, too:

Lord Uniscorn (talk · contribs)

Noble Sponge (talk · contribs)

AnteaterZot (talk · contribs)

Only Zuul (talk · contribs)

Aipzith (talk · contribs)

PatrickStar LaserPants (talk · contribs)

Therefore, we had the above group, the Eyrian group, the Merridew group, etc. and so I have encountered several different confirmed and idefinitely blocked sock groups on the more deletion focused side of these discussions already, which is why I am apt to be cautious. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inspired to wonder why a user made so clearly for bad faith purposes such as TB is acquiring such little scrutiny. And LGR has repeatedly been the target of hardcore deletionist sock farms, so it's perhaps understandable that he be suspicious. McJeff (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]