Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Evidence

message: Note - I added some headings (all the ====ones with four equal signs==== as placeholders for wikilinks, if these need to be altered, or have been altered, please let me know so I can fix the wikilinks.  Thanks, WLU 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

message: :Again, I'm not sure what this is for.  I was soliciting contributions regarding Mystar's behaviour in order to move forward in mediation.  All of these users have had dealings with Mystar primarily on the Terry Goodkind page, so they may have had an interest in commenting on his contributions or behaviour.  None did.  It's the exact same message in each case.  And given their history on the page, it was reasonable for other users to have comments.            , many of these also illustrate other editors having problems with Mystar, part of the reason I solicited them for comments. WLU 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, not sure what this proves.  This was a discussion between myself and Omnilord about a new section to include on the SoT page.  WLU 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: other people have problems with mystar

message: :Mystar does not admit to sockpuppeting spontaneously, he does so after I ask if it's him.
:I stand by my belief that the comment I removed is vandalism, not an honest opinion; I think it's nonsensical in the context of the page.  Also, that's not a Song of Ice and Fire page, that's the Robert Jordan page, who writes The Wheel of Time, not ASOIAF.  George R. R. Martin writes ASOIAF.  Going back a full year on the page, I only find one contribution from Mystar on the Robert Jordan talk page from August, 2006 and none on the mainspace.  This would mean that despite making no contributions to any of the Wheel of Time pages, and only one to the Robert Jordan talk page four months previously, he still regularly checks the Robert Jordan talk page, not as part of his watchlist, but actually making a point, when he's not logged in, to go to the talk page for any comments  about an author he may not read and has never edited any of the main pages, just to see what's going on.  Mystar's userid for his Mystar account (as opposed to his User:Mystar1959 account or his 68.188.151.245 or his 68.188.220.8 IP accounts) dates back to April of 2006, with no contributions to the WoT mainspace pages.  Since he doesn't know who Robert Jordan is, why is he checking his talk page?  Is it because he's still really concerned about external links as in his August 2006 statement? 
:I'd also be curious to know if the admin saw the exact statement made by the vandal (or alleged vandal if you'd prefer), and the context of the page, where the alleged vandal had added his comment: Yeah but there is a difference between H.G. Wells and this not only that but this isn't the only penname he uses there are plenty of others he's got and we should use his real name like the H.G. Wells article.   H.G. Wells was not mentioned on the RJ talk page at all, and H.G. Wells did not use a pen name.  Robert Jordan is a pen name of James Oliver Rigney jr, there was a debate on (essentially) whether to have RJ redirect to JORjr, or vice-versa.  That was the context of the discussion, and the comment about H.G.Wells makes no sense.  Also, the ip address' contributions have a history of nonsense, there are multiple warnings on the talk page, and any IP address adding nonsensical commentary on a talk page strikes me as vandalism.  Perhaps it's too stringent a standard, but if Mystar were really bothered by it, then a discussion on my talk page would have been better than a revert war. Also see comments regarding admins below.
:And I have many, many comments, and detailed commentary to offer on Mystar's 'proper editing' history regarding quality, references, facts and content.  I have discussed on talk pages many times in the past why I think his edits are poor ones and why I make the changes I do.  I'm rarely rewarded with a sensible discussion.  There is an example of this process here, the 'Lupus edits' section, and I'd happily provide more demonstrations of Mystar ignoring my commentary and choosing my edits to revert on other articles.  There's at least two more on Lupus, one on Cat's Claw, one on Barbara Hambly and one recently on the ASOIAF page.  It does require looking through and comparing mainpage contributions to talk page discussion chronologically, (which is time consuming) but I also think it's a fruitful exercise in demonstrating that Mystar is not editing for the quality of the pages but rather for my own aggravation.  Or, alternatively is  really, really bad editor who never actually reads the comments on the talk page.  If the arbitration committee would like me to put togeter similar pages where I demonstrate the sources of my frustration in a similar diff and chronological basis, I will take the time to do so.  I find his frequent claims of page ownership further aggravating, as on any edit that is contested, I provide reasons for my changes.  Which are not replied to.
:I know that calling Mystar a really, really bad editor looks like a personal attack, but I think anyone with my history of interactions with him, and my familiarity with his contributions (and I've got a lot of familiarity because of all the wikistalking and edit wars).  I think I can demonstrate it too, with diffs of main pages and talk pages.  I've had experience with bad editors, when I justify my changes to them, with the sole exception of Mystar, they stand.  THAT is why I call him a bad editor.  It is not idle, it is not a light comment on him, it's something that I am very convinced of, and again, I think I can show it.   WLU 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is also a community, and when there are five people in the community saying someone are screwing up or should moderate their actions, perhaps the community has a point.  I've recieved two civility warnings, one from Mystar, and both were in regards to incivility towards Mystar.  No-one else in wikipedia has complained about my actions.  In the section above, I have numerous other examples of users commenting on your conduct, and I can provide more.  You have been warned, rebuked or had your conduct otherwise commented on many times by many people.  With regards to me, I see it becoming more subtle and taking a different form, but I still find it harassing, personal, and detrimental to Wikipedia. WLU 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion of sockpuppeting

message: :Responding to the admin comments from Mystar's original comment, again I have no idea what the admin saw or what they said, but I doubt the admin said to bring up my 'page ownership' on a peer-review page (particularly given this comment).  I would think they would guide Mystar towards dispute resolution like mediation.  Which I tried to engage in with him, and it collapsed because he failed to respond.  Mystar claims there was no dispute and no reason to engage in mediation, but the fact that I tried mediation then and we are in arbitration now belies that statement.  Medition would have given us a chance to talk reasonably, with people who would try to phrase things neutrally, and bring the content disputes to the level of a discussion, something I still want - a substantive discussion of topics where you respond to the actual statements I make.  Since Mystar never address the teeth of my arguments, but reverts anyway, I FIND IT A LITTLE BIT FRUSTRATING.  It looks to me at least, like he realizes I have reasons for my changes, but since he can't rebut my points, Instead of discussions, I get accused of page ownership and other ad hominem attacks.  And reverting my edits because I don't like Terry Goodkind is not a reason.  And if Mystar and I had actually gone through mediation, we might not be at arbitration. Again, channelling Charlie Brown, AAARGH! 
:Incidentally, dealing with the whole admin/IRC thing.  This comes up a lot, Mystar has said at least twice now that he was talking to an admin on IRC and used the comments to guide his edits and dealings with me.  Perhaps a better way would be to tell the admin, point to the problem and page, then have them deal with it as a third party.  Use talk pages!  This way I can respond to the admin, there's a record of the events, and it's no longer myself against Mystar, it's me against policy.  I listen to admins and they've always been fair and civil in my experience.  Plus, then I can't accuse Mystar of misrepresenting me, 'cause he'll have the diff and history to prove his point.  That his most common guidance and advice for his edits is totally unverifiable makes it a question of my diffs versus his opinions.  WLU 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: admins