User talk:Heatedissuepuppet

Specualtion on user identities

Please note that speculating on user identities is forbidden on Wikipedia, and may result in a block. Thank you for not doing so. Sparkzilla 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there's anything forbidden about asking politely about it. So I take it you refuse to answer the question? Heatedissuepuppet 06:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're rarely allowed to even casually or "politely" ask about it, as I've found out the hard way through my involvement with the Gary Weiss article. Unless someone openly hints as to their identity, such as saying, for example, "I'm a full-time reporter with the San Antonio Post and like to edit articles about Texas politics!", you usually can't bring up the question of who an editor is. Even then, I don't think you're allowed to ask them what their name is. It's a big Wikipedia no-no. If you don't agree with me, you can ask on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and I'm fairly sure you'll get the same answer. Cla68 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm in any position to "disagree" with you, but I do question that asking once, politely, is against any Wikipedia policy. Heatedissuepuppet 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling Metropolis-related articles

If you would like to discus the notability of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) then please do so on the talk pages of each article BEFORE you change theartcles page. The reason is that discussions on notability have been conducted on the talk pages already, and we do not need to re-hash the discussion for your benefit. Also, the article was nominated for deletion on the point of notability, but survived. If you really feel you must persue this further I suggest that you nominate the article again, and that you discuss the issues on talk pages first. Sparkzilla 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. There was nothing "trollish" about my edits, nothing at all. You suggest that a discussion on notablity has taken place on the talk page, but that's not true, where? Honestly, you seem to be having some WP:OWN issues with any article related to Metropolis. You have reverted every edit I've made, all of which have been constructive. If you think calling me a troll will be an easy way out, I'm sorry to inform you that you are misguided. Also, could you please answer the question I asked you above. If you do not want to divulge whether or not you are Mark Devlin or associated with him, could you at least please confirm that you refuse to answer that question? Heatedissuepuppet 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only edits you have made have been to Metropolis-related pages = you are trolling Metropolis pages. Read the archives and the AFD discussion. [1] Metropolis was only nominated for deletion by a single person in that discussion. If you think Metropolis is not notable then please nominate it for deletion again, but it is certainly bad faith to remove items based on notability when the magazine has been deemed notable by an overwhelming majority of editors in the AFD discussion.

Also please stop placing "this article needs multiple sources" on the Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) page. There are numerous third-party sources on the page. The age of sources is also irrelevant.

If you have issues with items on pages that have already gone through years of discussion, such as Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) then please bring them up on the talk pages first. Again, the section that you say has a single source has in fact three sources.

My identity is none of your business, as yours is none of mine. If you have a problem with what I have said, take it to an admin. If you continue with these bad faith edits, I will alert an admin. Sparkzilla 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The only edits you have made have been to Metropolis-related pages = you are trolling Metropolis pages" - that's a ridiculous copmment. If a mathematics professor is only editing mathmeatics articles, is that trolling? I'm not comparing myself to a maths professor to suggest I'm extremely knowledgeable of Metropolis, but suggesting that it's automatically trolling because I haven't edited any other articles is ridiculous. Also, you suggest I'm making "bad faith edits", but that's a complete and utter lie, and if you're going to throw around accusations like that I expect you to back them up with facts, otherwise I'll take it as personal attacks. I expect you've got me pinned down as a Nick Baker-supporter, is that it? Therefore any edit I make must be "bad-faith"? Heatedissuepuppet 18:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) Request for Comment

A RfC has been started regarding the use of sources (including Metropolis) as "exceptional claims" on the above article. As an previously interested party, your input would be most valued. Comment Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Thank you. David Lyons 05:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting an CoI in a couple of days. In the meantime you might like to leave a comment under the above RfC. Thanks. David Lyons 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that an RFC is to find independent comments about the section. I have created a space for you to comment in the "involved editors" section of the page. Sparkzilla 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behaviour

This is to inform you that you have been reported to the Administrator's noticeboard for disruptive behaviour on Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan). Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_will_not_allow_merge_discussion_to_be_closed. Sparkzilla 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your username and behaviour make it abundantly clear that this is a single-purpose account, almost certainly operated by an experienced editor, set up and operated for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have blocked this account. A sample review did not turn up a single productive edit, and your edit warring over the closure of a frivolous merger proposal was the final straw. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object! Yes, this is the alternate account of an experienced editor (one who has made many productive edits, never been blocked, and been a wikipedia editor for almost two years, at that) - but I've never tried and hide this, I even took the name "Heatedissuepuppet" to make it as clear as possible. The name further implies that my reason for creating an alternative account was "to keep heated issues in one small area" - one of the legitimate uses of multiple accounts listed on the Wikipedia sockpuppet page (Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Keeping_heated_issues_in_one_small_area). Further on, my main account has never even touched the articles this account has been involved in - so I have obviously not been using the alt "for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists". If you want me to prove this, give me an e-mail address and I'll tell you my other account's name. Yes, I have unfortunately been involved in some edit warring with this account, but this has not been done to prove a point, and not because I wanted to, but rather because of genuine concern over the quality of some Wikipedia articles User:Sparkzilla has been editing. And for the record, I have not been involved in half as many edit wars as Sparkzilla, just look at the Metropolis/Crisscross articles, he'll revert anybody.

I chose to create an alternative account to deal with those very articles - after seeing how aggressive Sparkzilla seemed, I decided to use an alternative account so that I wouldn't feel forced to pursue this matter further if things would "turn ugly", so to speak. I have not broken any Wikipedia rules and I have not been edit warring to prove a point. The problem here is Sparkzilla's edits, not mine. He did close the merger vote prematurely, and that's that. There had been a silence for 4, not 10 days, 2 editors obvoiusly against the merger, one saying "perhaps" and then me, in favour - does that sound like a "clear agreement with the proposal by consensus"? No? Well, then Sparkzilla shouldn't have archived it after only 4 days, see WP:MERGE! Then again, Sparkzilla didn't have any problems removing the "merge proposal"-template from the Crisscross article without any debate at all within the hour after I tagged it.[2]

Calling the proposal "frivolous", as you chose to do, is insulting; the "Metropolis" article has previously been up for a vote for deletion([3]), where one editor (User:Calton) said "Make no mistake, it's a very crappy magazine kept afloat by gaijin bar ads and worth every penny you pay for it, namely nothing. But it (barely) clears the bar of notability". A cabal case concerning Metropolis/Crisscross/National Union of General Workers and Sparkzilla's involvement in those articles was opened by another editor (User:Wanzhen), but ended because he failed to reply ([4]). Is it then "frivolous" to suggest that the company behind a magazine that "(barely) clears the bar of notability", whose article sources are only about the magazine, maybe should be merged into the magazine's article, or the other way around? Especially when it seems beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a serious CoI conflict lying behind Sparkzilla's behaviour (a concern SEVERAL users have voiced, [5][6])?

I ask that this account be unblocked, so that I can continute to keep this heated issue in one small area. As I said, if demanded, I'll provide the name of my main account, naturally on the premise that it will be kept a secret (otherwise, the whole idea of this alt will be ruined, but I hope you understood that without me mentioning it). Thanks in advance. Heatedissuepuppet 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why didn't you post instructions on how to contest my block? I thought that was standard procedure. I found it anyway, obviously, but still. Heatedissuepuppet 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Legitimate sockpuppet use per WP:SOCK. I have reviewed the contributions of both accounts and am satisfied that the sockpuppeting is not malicious, or designed to cause disruption. Due to the nature of the account i am not suprised that it was taken this way however. Viridae ^Talk 23:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Viridae ^Talk 23:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User behaviour

Please note: All the below accusations are completely unsustained - they are simply allegations. No link diff's whatsoever are presented to prove Sparkzilla's stances. Accordingly, I would like to ask anybody reading this to take these allegations cum grano salis. Heatedissuepuppet 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments (note that I will not waste further time debating these)...

There was no "heated discussion" regarding any of these articles before this editor came along
Editor makes it clear in the above text that he came here to attack a user, not the article
Did not declare at any point on user page that he was a sockpuppet, or why he was one.
Started with frivolous adding of notability tags to Metropolis and Crisscross articles. Continued to edit war with notability tags even though he was told 1. to discuss the issue on article talk pages, and 2. that the article had already survived AFD
User continued to edit war rather than discuss items on talk pages
No constructive edits at all on Crisscross/Metropolis pages. No attempt to add new sources or reword.
Continued to add negative material and edit war on Metropolis page even when told that the material was poorly sourced. See bottom of Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) for final rebuttal to the source.
Misrepresents the Metropolis AFD discussion. Eight editors said keep. Only the proposer said delete. Even the person who said the magazine was "crappy" said "weak keep".
Misrepresents both articles as being only sourced from the magazine itself (Metropolis article has six independent source, Crisscross has six independent sources)
Sought to uncover Sparkzilla identity
Misrepresents Mediation request above, which was closed when requestor did not respond in time. Even then the request was frivolous.
Seeks to use COI as a way of forcing POV dispute, even though the disputed text is part of an RFD Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments Shows willingness to attack Sparkzilla rather than the articles.
Opened a frivolous merge discussion, with no attempt to discuss first, or make any edits to improve article.
Misrepresents length of merge discussion on Talk:Crisscross Opened at 08:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Closed at 02:33, 13 May 2007. That's FIVE days (and even then the discussion had been dormant since 9 May).
Misrepresents number of consensus. Three editors said "no merge". One said so in the edit summary, the other two in the discussion. Proposing editor did not have a strong reason to merge.
Frivolous edit war over close merge discussion tag

Sparkzilla 23:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start this account to attack you, and unlike you I've been civil all the way (examples of Sparkzilla's incivility: [7][8], you'll be hard pressed to find something similar on my side). I once asked you if you were Mark Devlin or a close associate of his. You use the word "attack" but I've never attacked anything, not you nor the articles. I do however question the notability of Metropolis as well as Crisscross , and that's why I set up this account - does that make my account an "attack account"?? I did not misrepresent the length of the merge discussion - I said there had been a silence for 4 days. That silence should have gone on for 10 days before somebody closed the merger, according to WP:MERGE. And since you obviously want to keep the articles, don't you think it would have been a wise decision to let somebody else call the shots, for the best of the community? The "negative material" about Metropolis was not poorly sourced and included there by another editor - Sparkzilla removed it several times, arguably so because he has a CoI. I thought it was quite shady so I put it back.

Reviewing admin, I was blocked indefinately for "abusing multiple accounts". By no account is that a fair description of what has happened. This is the case of a legitimate use of an alternative account, and I have not broken any policy/guideline. Sure, I have been involved in some small-scale edit warring with Sparkzilla, but if you look at the articles, you'll notice I'm not the only one Sparkzilla is reverting. The problem here is Sparkzilla, not me. Heatedissuepuppet 08:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of Sparkzilla's reverts to other editors on the Crisscross article - he repeatedly removes any tag, immediately, without any discussion. [9][10][11] There's too much on the Metropolis page to post every single diff - just see the article history.

Unblock request

Please email me the name of your alternate account so I can verify your claims in your unblock request. Viridae ^Talk 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I mail you? Heatedissuepuppet 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"email this user link" when you go to my user page - its in the toolbox on the LHS. Viridae ^Talk 12:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Heatedissuepuppet 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the unblock request. Using a second account to edit war is not a proper use of a second account. I would like you to agree to not use this second account until there is a consensus for you to use it. Take care, FloNight 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second. Cla68 04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been using this account to edit war, that's a false allegation. Around the last days of April until approx 3 May, I was involved in some reverting, but not without posting on the appropriate talkpages (on the Nick Baker page Cla68 agreed with my edits), and it all ended with Sparkzilla finally reverting my edits, and I stepped away from it. Btw, I don't understand why inadvertently becoming involved in an edit war with your alt (which you haven't participated in with another account) should be any worse than doing it with your main account, as long as you stick to the rules? That said, I'm not going to revert Sparkzilla's edits to the articles, I'm just gonna post a CoI now, and re-insert my comments on the Nick Baker RfC (Sparkzilla removed them when I was banned). Does anybody have a problem with that? Heatedissuepuppet 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, CLa68, I'm surprised that you, who have actually been slightly involved in this but always remained seemingly neutral, should think the block should be re-instated. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why? Do you think I've been disruptive in my editing? Where, and how? Heatedissuepuppet 09:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you file your CoI report and be done with it. Further problems could very soon lead to you being reblocked, and it is unlikely that you would be unblocked a second time. Viridae ^Talk 11:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, but it's all right. Me and David Lyons are discussing the evidence via e-mail and intend to post about it later today. And even if I would end up banned, he will post whatever evidence I have, so I'm not too concerned. But really, thanks anyway. Heatedissuepuppet 11:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI posting

I've given my assesment of the evidence and at the COI noticeboard. Long story short: there is an obvious COI, but only some of the behavior you presented is really problematic. Mango juice^talk 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assessment, Mangojuice. I agree with it by large, except for the reservations I have posted beneath your post on the noticeboard. I think you've made a fair and balanced description of the situation, but I do personally think you are too lenient on Sparkzilla. That said, I'm not asking for him to be blocked/banned, I just think he should make a promise not to touch any of the disputed articles and to not write about himself/his company/his products in any article. He should of course be perfectly free to post concerns/suggestions on talk pages if he thinks a link or mention to himself/Metropolis/etc should be added, or if he thinks a poorly sourced edit should be reverted, where editors free of CoI could decide whether or not to implement them in the article. Also, I wouldn't mind if somebody could warn him for his lack of civility, he has referred to me as a troll several times now, and frankly, I don't think I have done anything to merit it. Heatedissuepuppet 11:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel his behavior on the central articles was not so problematic, because he's trying to follow policy. I really don't think the removal of negative information was inappropriate: the negative information was out of balance and not well sourced in any of the cases. Generally speaking, as long as they stick to policy, people are allowed to edit with a conflict. As for civility, how about we just drop it? You created this account to protect your main account. Fine, mission accomplished. However, this account exists to be a nemesis of Sparkzilla, so I'm not surprised he's having trouble getting along with you. Anyway, throwing around civility warnings will only re-escalate things. Mango juice^talk 12:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed merger

I proposed a merger of the metropolis crisscross articles. Give me a hand if you are up for it. よろしく。DDD DDD 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Are you planning on putting up a vote about it (because I couldn't see one on either talk page). Heatedissuepuppet 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "discuss" link doesn't really go anywhere. I've been sourcing Metropolis, and there is so little reliable left that I think it could be WP:AfD David Lyons 17:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I dunno. Initially I thought deletion was the way to go, but now I'm not so sure any longer. The articles DO have some reliable sources between them, now. Merger - definately, deletion - well, maybe. I'll let somebody else call the shots on this one. Heatedissuepuppet 18:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick then with DD's original suggestion. David Lyons 00:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your puppeting

I disagree with your puppeting. You're using this account to:

1) Single purpose account use (Metropolis-Devlin-Baker 2) You are posting abusively towards Devlin 3) You are doing so with a puppet instead of your regular account to avoid your regular account from getting blocked for such behaviour 4) You could be posting to that article with another account, and creating consensus illusion.

That's why sockpuppeting shouldn't be allowed. At all. And your puppeting is an abusive use of it. Could I give a shit? No. You're on the side of the people who seem to call the shots on this site no matter what contradictions occur. Piperdown 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you just proved to me I wasted time trying to talk to you. Your comments are ridiculous (and every single one of your statements are factually incorrect) and I apologize for mistaking you for somebody with an intellect. Heatedissuepuppet 21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]