- I assume the assumption of good faith. Unless you specifically say that your intent is to harm the encyclopedia, I will assume your actions that harm the encyclopedia are due to misunderstandings.
- I ignore incivility. If it comes to the point that I feel you are being incivil to me, I will just stop responding to you.
- I am not contactable. You cannot email me. You cannot chat with me on IRC unless it is in a public channel, and I am granted (and will) publish logs. Sunlight is the best disenfectant.
- The first stop in dispute resolution is here. Do not mention me on other websites. Do not mention me on adminstrative boards. If you have a concern with an action I have taken, ask me to retract it here, and I will do so and/or I will seek broad community input as to the appropriatness of my action.
- I have minor dislexia. Correct my spelling, I don't care. I use a spell-checker in article space, but it takes substantial time to do so and is very taxing on me.
- If I commented on your talk page, I watchlisted it. Respond there. I will assume the same of you.
Priceless phrasing award of the day
"I am asking you to stop discussing the long closed Jim62sch situation. It is doing little more than opening old wounds." I'm getting a bit tired of it too for a number of reasons. •Jim62sch•dissera! 14:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort...
...but please don't put words in my mouth: . I'm quite annoyed – legitimately so, I think – at Ullman for using the Wikipedia email facility to send me a message ("Dear Friends...you can see a free chapter at...") promoting his new book. Looking more closely at his talk page, I see he's also topic banned, which (except, perhaps, to a lawyer) puts his message even further out of bounds.
I said 'spam' and I meant 'spam'. It's unsolicited email encouraging me to check out his commercial product. Glossing over that by calling it 'unsolicited email' doesn't help anyone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you for apparent abusive sockpuppetry. Your recent "retirement" message indicates that you use multiple accounts (and the "LAWL" comment doesn't exactly suggest good faith...), and looking over your contribution history, along with that of an admitted sockpuppeteer I recently blocked, User:Uncle uncle uncle, it seems clear that you are both (two of very many) disruptive alternate accounts of DepartedUser, aka "Hipocrite." This account has been blocked indefinitely. krimpet✽ 03:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
|Two months ago in response to a minor slight, I flew massively off the handle and engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. For this I apologize, and will not repeat such behavior. However, my poor behavior has also reflected on a unrelated user, Uncle Uncle Uncle. I have no current relationship at all with UUU. I regret the harm I have caused Wikipedia, UUU, and especially everyone who put their faith in me. - PouponOnToast|
Following a checkuser (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Checkuser), there's a few accounts that are you, I believe. As they never vandalised articles, never acted abusively, etc, I am at least willing to offer the benefit of the doubt. Yes, even though we're supposed to be on different "sides", whatever that means. Would you be willing to restrict yourself to this one account (or any other one account), recognising that further socking would probably lead to a ban? Neıl 龱 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Like I said in my apology - "and will not repeat such behavior." PouponOnToast (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe keep this one since it is most familiar or a new one of your choosing and publically name it. Let us hope the WR and like minded partisans also show as much interest in banning those oft found socks that post comments that agree with them as they have shown in your case, someone that has been routinely on the opposite side of the spectrum as they.--MONGO 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We know the facts and the truths but need not always say them. You and I go way back and as you surely remember, we were almost at each others throats in the beginning. But we found common ground on a number of issues, especially the one concerning websites that sponsor harassment. Perhaps the best thing for you and I is to ignore these sites, and instead work on articles and policies calmly and intelligently so that we can make this website a better place. If others want to post "criticism" or insults offsite, that is a reflection on them, not us. We're above that. I know why you created one sock, and has been mentioned even by your adversaries, you're not a vandal, so I see no reason why you can't be unblocked provided you abide by the restriction limiting you to one account as well as a statement that you intend to do more than you have done recently...perhaps help out with vandalism patrol or copyediting....whatever you can think of that might be more constructive...and post those objectives for others to examine. I've been slowly getting my groove back lately, but my time is severely limited anymore due to long work hours and other stresses. Let us know what your proposals are so we can work towards seeing your return to active participation.--MONGO 11:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- In case Poupon missed it, an account claiming to be PouponOnToast has been posted to my talk page. If it is Poupon, it is a sock being used to evade a block. If it is not, then it is someone trolling to get Poupon in further trouble. I would not expect Poupon to be daft enough to openly use a sock whilst his "main" account is blocked, and so I am assuming it is a troll.
- Either way, the account (User:Thenewme2008) has been indefinitely blocked, either for sockery or trolling (one or the other). Neıl 龱 17:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Run CU on that account...the writing style does not appear to be him.--MONGO 17:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I have access to this account. Anything I desire to say can be said on this talk page. Any other account pretending to be me should be blocked, as they are not me.
Alison is well aware of my intentions with respect to Wikipedia, which include quietly editing articles that have no controversy at all from a clean account, and never getting involved in any drama ever again. I do not intend to disclose that account under any circumstances.
- PoT - I'm not okay with what you're suggesting here, as you're basically socking to evade responsibility/detection/whatever. Other sockmasters, as pointed out above, do not get this luxury. Please don't do that - Alison ❤ 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Furthermore, I don't like IRC deals, nor do I like people suggesting that I'm giving tacit approval to something I'm not here. Quietly editing articles, etc, is definitely the goal here and I'm great with that but you have a responsibility to the community that you abused here. Let's not kid about - Alison ❤ 21:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)