User talk:Fishbert

Thanks for your sleuthing and debunking the Bert Praetorius myth. I've deleted it as a hoax. Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please respond on the talk page rather than edit warring over the content and completely ignoring my points. This is not a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, it is more akin to "LOL! A funny porn story, let's add extracts from it to Wikipedia because we're so funny like that." There is no requirement to assume good faith in these kinds of cases. Also please revert your edit warring on the article page, if you can gain consensus for the change then you may restore it, in the meantime it is a change which has not been discussed, so you should restore the status quo (I linked to BRD earlier, the same principal applies). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did respond on the talk page. I hadn't noticed that you replied until after making the edit.

In any case, as much as there is no requirement to assume good-faith, there is also no requirement to assume bad-faith or trolling. The edit must be considered on its own merits alone; not on suspicions over motive, nor nature of source material. It is clearly is an example of Syllepsis that is neither overly crude in nature nor part of some grand conspiracy to add porn to Wikipedia pages for shits and giggles.

I am also not edit warring over content. I made a single edit and explained my reasons for doing so in both the page discussion and the revision notes. I mentioned edit warring as not being vandalism because the protection of the page alleged "persistent" vandalism.

--Fishbert (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

As agreed by both BHockey10 and myself, the 100 min standard does apply (please see history). Futhermore, only ONE player on that list meets that standard, however, being civil WE AGREEED to keep the other four. Please respect both policy and the outcome that WE came to. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Was this "agreement" before or after you marked the entire page for deletion? Was it before or after you falsely accused BHockey10 of edit warring? I don't see civil agreement in the talk page; I see BHockey10 trying to be patient with you, you continuing to make unilateral decisions on who should and should not be there, and BHockey10 seemingly not wanting to fight about it. You have been warned before by another editor on your talk page about zealously mis-applying Wikipedia policy on the page with an obvious lack of understanding of what the policy actually says. It has been pointed out on the article talk page that the Wikipedia notability guideline that you're using as cover for your disruptive edits clearly states that it does not apply to page content. Despite this, you continue to press the issue with disruptive edits, un-reverting both myself and BHockey10. It is obvious when reading the edit history comments that your edits to the page are being made with a clear assumption of bad-faith on the part of other editors. Please participate in good-faith in the discussion on the talk page BEFORE continuing to make disruptive edits; as much as you like claiming everyone else is going again Wikipedia policy, there are very clear BRD Cycle guidelines and disruptive editing guidelines that have been repeatedly pointed out to you and which you continue to flagrantly ignore.Fishbert (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Try reading the entire history. The answers you seek are there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have read the entire history. Please answer the question directly.Fishbert (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I find it strange that Bhockey10 stopped editing around the same time you came back from almost a 1 year break. It seems that both you and Bhockey10 primarly edit hockey pages. Both you and Bhockey10 (no other editors) have taken a great interest in the ACHA page, with attention to adding people who are clearly not-notable according to wiki standards. Bhockey10 has not edited in almost a month. Maybe a checkuser is in order. If it looks like a duck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is an excellent example of editing with an assumption of bad faith. As has been pointed out to you (repeatedly, by at least 3 different editors), you are attempting to apply to page content a Wikipedia policy that itself explicitly states it does not apply to page content. When more than one other editors object about the same persistent edits you repeatedly push, it does not mean they are sockpuppets of each other (especially if, as you initially claimed on my talk page, you had reached a civil agreement with one of those editors ... judging by the edit history, you hadn't; just entertaining the hypothetical).Fishbert (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The duck test says it all. Then are you open to a checkuser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your tag of my talk page as a suspected sock puppet account. The Wikipedia policy on sock puppetry tagging clearly states: "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." Feel free to open an investigation through the proper channels if you must, but I'll not waste time defending myself from the baseless accusations of a nameless IP address.Fishbert (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Fishbert. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply