BullRangifer (a.k.a. Fyslee a.k.a. Paul Lee) professes being "above the law" and an asshole.

From: Dieter Ploughbitch ([email protected])


Very different situation

In relation to this, I'd like to mention that this situation has
nothing to do with personal POV (for or against altmed), but about two
RfCs. There is quite a history there and it resembles nothing like any
differences we have ever had. Please be careful. You have been doing
very valuable work that's appreciated, so keep it up and don't get
injured by getting too close to Ludwigs2's war. There is an
overwhelming majority of editors against him. He's editing against a
clear consensus. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I don't care what the situation is with you and Ludwigs2.
The pattern I see with you has nothing to do with what the disagreement
is about. The pattern is the way that you consistently try to muddy the
waters by implying that the person that you are in disagreement with is
a meatpuppet/sockpuppet or associated with someone that you've
disagreed with in the past. With Ludwigs2, it is the way you keep
implying that he is a meatpuppet/sockpuppet of Levine2112. With me, the
same thing. With Hans, it was the implication that he was a meatpuppet
of Dr.Jhingaadey. With Unomi, it was statements implying that he was a
sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Martinphi. It is a way of diverting the
discussion away from the topic and throwing bad faith accusations
against whoever you are opposing. It is especially disturbing when I
see you use this against new editors. You repeatedly have said that you
have "changed your mind now that you know us better", but this is the
problem, you target new editors, then when what you try to fling
doesn't stick, and the new editors become established editors (those
editors that don't get bullied away from Wikipedia), then you imply
that they've "proven themselves" to you. New editors do not need to
prove themselves to you. You as an established editor should not be
flinging these bad faith accusations at editors, new or old. You have
been warned about this before. If you really think someone is a
sockpuppet, then make a case, file an SPI, but keep the discussion on
an article to the issue - don't use meatpuppet/sockpuppet implications
to cloud whatever issue you are discussing and to try to smear the
character of opposing editors. It really is an dirty way of trying to
manipulate opinion. stmrlbs|talk 00:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you have the ability to recognize it as two
different issues. In this case it's a blended issue because Ludwigs2 is
using the situation to seek revenge for losing two RfCs and being
called on his refusal to abide by consensus and edit warring over it,
which means that any retaliation he makes will quickly turn into a
suicide mission. It's happened before to others who have attacked me.
The ArbCom I was involved in ended with my vindication, and the indef
banning of my opponents. Now he's trying to attack me on civility(?)
grounds as a diversion and retaliation for his numerous actual gross
violations of policy. In such a case, incivility is the lesser evil.
But your comments about my accusations is taken to heart. When I see it
from your perspective I can understand your concerns. Maybe I'm too
paranoid at times. It's likely because I often deal with socks and that
probably affects my perception, causing me to see spooks where there
are none. I follow the principles outlined at WP:DUCK and WP:MEAT and
sometimes am mistaken. That is unfortunate for those involved. It's
unfortunately pretty standard practice, but that's not always a good
enough excuse, though understandable at the time and under the given
circumstances, where socks and meatpuppetry actually rule the day. We
are often editing very touchy subjects where disruption is common.
Unfortunately innocent editors become collateral damage. I am sorry
about my early suspicions of you. They were apparently unjustified,
even if others shared them. When you arrived there was quite a bit of
behind the scenes speculation about your possible identity and how your
editing and comments raised suspicions. I should probably have just
kept the suspicions to myself, instead of voicing them. You ended up
showing me wrong, and I'm glad you did. I'd rather think highly of you
than always suspecting you. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2010

Share |