User talk:Damac/Archive 5

The King of Britain & Seán Russell

You edited out the quote I put in from Enno Stephan for article Seán Russell.

I quoted Stephan directly and cited it. All because you edited the piece to read "King of Britain" instead of "King of England". "King of Britain" is a phrase I have never encountered before- can you explain what you were thinking when you decided to edit the article to that state?

To my mind, your edit made no sense- thats why I corrected it by quoting the historian who brought the "Russell Case" episode to my attention. Then you edited the entire quote out and made the article read simply "king", a word which isn't specific, or in the context of the piece.

Your blunderings through this article has generated work for me. Time spent and effort wasted. If you feel that itch to edit again, please seek a 2nd opinion before making a change, or better yet, follow the wikipedia guidelines- state your objections on the discussion page of the article before making the change. This process is laid down by wikipedia to put the onus on YOU to explain a phrase like "King of Britain" before visitors get to see it live.

Fluffy999 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damac The Blunderer strikes again

You inserted inaccurate information overwriting an accurate contribution I made. The rearranging you did now makes the article factually incorrect.

The IRA army council did not issue a statement via the Wolfe Tone Weekly- Sean Russell did. Cite a source for that change because I can cite one saying the statement was signed by him, not the Army Council and not on behalf of the Army Council.

You also stripped out the entire context of what happened and link to Irish Republic claiming the people mentioned, all die hard anti-treaty, would recognise it. This was in December 1938, if they didn't recognise what was in effect a 26 county Republic in 1938. What makes you think they would recognise it in 2006?

And guess what? They transferred their authority, not "their powers" as you claim. Cite a source. And before you ask; No, "powers" in the context of Government doesn't equal "authority".

My contribution explains their motivation, and actions all in 1 sentence. Instead, as you blundered through, you replace it with longwinded TRIPE which is inaccurate, distorting, and near unreadable.

I'll change it back again tomorrow. PhD in History *LOL* (unsigned: 03:20, 1 May 2006 User:Fluffy999)

Please see Talk:S-Plan for my response.--Damac 09:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User etiquette

I've read the arguements here and on the other talk pages between yourself and Fluffy999. I would suggest that the differences in the versions you are promoting are not that great. The problem is the tone the discussion is conducted in. Fluffy999, if you're reading this, if someone changes your edits, it's not personal. Don't make personal attacks on contributors and basically keep a civil tone. Apart from anything else its the rules here on wikipedia. You'll find its far more productive to work with other editors and to explain your edits than it is to attack other contributors. Jdorney 09:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if a user like Damac launches a whole series of unfounded, unsubstantiated attacks on other users ranging from 'copyright thief', to 'plagarist' and does this in parallel to a campaign of pointless, distorting edits- that is fine?

I can be perfectly civil to people who know what they're doing. Those who pursue a personal vendetta against me, including purposely distorting and inventing information in a number of articles, shouldn't be receiving the endorsement of others. Its really a question of nuisance- if he decided not to edit articles i've worked on then there wouldn't be a problem- however, he just cannot help himself 'contributing' to articles he doesn't know the first thing about. That's not a personal attack, its fair comment- he does not know the history.

As for explaining my edits, I actually do- if not on the talk page of the article, then in response to a query such as in the case of the S-Plan. I think you will find its Damac making edits with no explanation. When he introduces a phrase like "King of Britain" into an article the onus is on him to explain it. Funnily enough, no explanation has yet been received for what he was thinking when he came up with that phrase. So forgive me if I see a connection between that bogus edit and all his other bogus edits. He is the one acting unilaterally, not me.

Fluffy999 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King issue dealt with at Talk:Seán Russell. What were you on about, Fluffy999?--Damac 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't. I would have expected you, going by past form, to show greater accuracy than Fluffy claims. A quick check of your edits shows that his accusations are baseless. The only question is: is he simply a genuine but confused newbie, or someone deliberately trying to cause rows (ie, a troll). If the former then maybe he can be convinced that he is handling things badly. If the latter, he is well on the way to being banned. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

RE: Damac's claims not to have used to phrase "King of Britain"

Lie. Check my Talk page where he actually apologises for using the phrase "King of Britain" and admits it was wrong and I was right to remove it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fluffy999

How he was able to remove the reference to that edit from the edit history is something the admins should investigate. 21:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fluffy999 has now been blocked for personal abuse. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 22:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

No problem. I left a note on WP:ANI earlier tonight asking for admin intervention. Maybe there aren't that many on right now, but no-one responded. Normally, having clashed with the user an admin doesn't do the blocking themselves but in this case he behaviour was so OTT and escalating dangerously that I thought I'd better step in. (What is it about tonight? I haven't blocked anyone in ages. Tonight I've had to block 4 people, issue 3 final warnings, and spent much of my night doing reversions of vandalism!!! I feel like friggin' Michael McDowell!!!) If when the block expires he starts any of those antics again, leave a message on the WP:ANI page and on my talk page. Whoever gets to see it first will act. Fluffy's behaviour was utterly inexplicable.

BTW - someone left this picture on the ANI page about him. It might amuse you. Image:Killer rabbit.JPG lol FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 23:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond, I was away. It seems to have sorted itself out now, anyway. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Palmiro | Talk 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goertz not Görtz

If I may be so bold as to paraphrase Jtdirl:

"If they used "Goertz" that just shows their ignorance. Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia cannot replicate just ignorance."

In light of Jtdirls previous 'ruling' on removing "King of England"- a phrase used by the people in question - because he judged it as a sign of their constitutional 'ignorance' can you explain this latest edit in Operation Seagull (Ireland)? I'm pretty sure the mans name is "Görtz" not "Goertz". Thanks ever so. Fluffy999 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed on article for "Hermann Göring" that they have devised a way to get around this. Perhaps you could rename the (incorrectly labeled) Hermann Goertz article to

Hermann Görtz

while you're over fixing the Operation Seagull (Ireland) article? I'd do it, but im busy with something else. Obliged!

Fluffy999 19:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet me to it.

The reason I changed it was because a) the existence of an article on Hermann Goertz, and b) I didn't get around to changing the name of that article.

Any German name with an umlaut can either be written with the umlaut or with the vowel in question followed by an e. Traditionally and owing to typesetting restrictions, the latter was done in English. Ever hear of Hermann Goering? Well, he's also Hermann Göring.

I suggest you move Hermann Goertz to Hermann Görtz.

Es war kein Fehler meinerseits, da ich fliessend deutsch spreche.

My pleasure, as always, --Damac 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I moved Hermann Goertz to Hermann Görtz.--Damac 19:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, no explanation necessary, I know exactly whats happening. Since its now become an issue will follow the guideline of the Hermann Göring article- birthname in German first followed with mispelling in english if applicable.

Do you think the same should apply to people like Seán Russell too? You see his name mispelt all the time. Might cause confusion and unnecessary complication though. Anyway, dont forget to revert/amend your changes in the Op Seagull article. Thanks. Fluffy999 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it. Fluffy999 23:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy

Hi. I've been speaking to Fluffy (well, typing at least!). He clearly is upset. I told him his allegations of stalking against you are wrong. That is not in any way typical of your behaviour. To calm things however it might be an idea to give him a wide birth. Things might calm down then. Sometimes in the intensity of editing WP things can get a little stressful and users misinterpret the actions of others. Having been at the receiving end of stalkers I know how traumatic it can be. His allegations are completely without justification, IMHO, but the whole thing risks spiralling out of control. I hope that is OK with you. I thought the two of you were working well together so I was surprised when this blew up. Hopefully avoiding each other might calm things down and help rebuild the relationship. Given that both of you write on similar areas it would help if a degree of trust and respect could develop over time.

If you need any more assistance, let me know.

Slán FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 01:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Fluffy999

Hi Fluffy recently asked for an advocate and I offered my help and wanted to ask you how you feel on his claims of you Wikistalking him? --Mahoga ny 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refute Fluffy999's allegations

First of all, let me introduce myself. I’ve been a contributor of just over one year’s standing on Wikipedia. I’ve a PhD in history and have never been accused of wikistalking in my time here, nor have I ever been issued with a warning or been banned by another user or an administrator.

My dealings with User:Fluffy began on 28 April 2006 when I noticed his contributions. A new user, I welcomed him to Wikipedia and politely queried an article renaming Sabotage Campaign (IRA) he had carried out without seeking the agreement of others. Of course, he was entitled to change it but as he had only started contributing to Wikipedia, I thought it was correct to point out particular renaming suggestions should be discussed before being carried out.

The King of England incident

In late April, I made a minor copy edit to the Seán Russell article, [1] removing the reference to the “king of England” and replacing it with “British king”. Fluffy reverted this change and I queried this with him. In his response to me, Fluffy maintained that I had used the expression “king of Britain”. I did not. As I showed here [source], Fluffy was the first to use the term which led me to use it once on the talk page inadvertently in response to his persistent demands to explain the change from King of England. I repeat - I never used the term "King of Britain" in the Russell article. Most of what follows comes from User talk:Fluffy999.

I'm providing a chronology with references in order to show what has happened in this case.

14:39, 27 April 2006 Damac

I change "King of England" to "British King" on the Seán Russell article

20:37, 29 April 2006 Fluffy999

Fluffy complains on my talk page that I have changed King of England to "King of Britain".

That was the first time that "King of Britain" has been mentioned anywhere in this dispute. Please note: it was Fluffy.

08:26, 30 April 2006 Damac

Fluffy having introduced the term "King of Britain" into the debate, I mistakingly referred to "King of Britain" and not "British King" on his talk page.

In relation to this minor issue, which most contributors would accept as being correct, Fluffy wrote (emphasis mine):

Damac claims … not to have used the phrase "King of Britain" in the Sean Russell article. That is easily discovered to be a lie- glance downwards to where he apologises for doing so. How he was able to remove the reference to that edit from the edit summary is a question for admins. Fluffy999 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How you expunged your edit from the edit summary I don't know yet, but I do know you made the "King of Britain" edit because I saw it and called you on it at the time. Fluffy999 21:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

“… but you also have the ability of removing evidence of edits you have made.”

As the argument continued, Fluffy made allegations that I had made gross inaccuracies in the Russell and O'Donovan articles. Without any evidence, he accused me of carrying out an “entire U-boat edit, and lets not pretend you didn't. Ok?” (there is no evidence that I did carry out the edit concerned; it was carried out anonymously and I swear it wasn't me) and “Least we forget your rudimentary knowledge of S-Plan, which nearly led to another erronous [sic] edit on your part.” Fluffy here reached new levels of abuse by accusing me of “nearly” doing something.

Fluffy’s outragreous behaviour led to him being banned for 24 hours for blocked for personal abuse on 1 May by User:Jtdirl, who pointed out to him that his “attacks on Damac are unwarranted and cross the line” Another user pointed out that he seemed “to react disproportionately to any difference of opinion”.

In my dealings with him, I was consistently abused by Fluffy999. His seething arrogance knows no limits. Fluffy clearly has a poor command of English grammar and punctuation. In his early days, he posted up masses of information in certain articles and didn’t bother to wikify or punctuate. After I tidied up many of his articles, he wrote sarcastically: “I will leave it to people of your ability to tidy up any of my mistakes there” (30 April) and “I have asked you to concentrate on spelling mistakes and typos- this is what your talent lies” (1 May).

Other terms of abuse/unfounded allegations include (emphasis mine):

“someone who doesn't know their ass from their elbow on a least 2 histoical figures”
“"Blunderer" is the name of the cap and it fits you well- it invokes the image of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about but pretends they do.”
he claims that my “Persistant attacks motivated by a desire to divert attention from examples of his/her own ignorance.”
“A user with a proven talent for cobbling together half baked information”
“The information you posted as "fact" has no credibility, therefore, by connection, you have no credibility. Please learn this basic tenant of conducting & writing about historical research.”
“Your 'work' no doubt INCREASES the volume of accusations that wikipedia is filled with inaccurate baloney.”
poster “of rubbish data”
"lack of knowledge [or] intellectual laziness". (30 April 2006)
"He hasnt been logged in for his signature to appear". (I reject this allegation outright and have never made an anonymous allegation in all my time on Wikipedia.)
“i'm just the victim of this nutter's hate campaign.” (1 May 2006)
“Your own hate & baiting campaign has brought you here Damac” (22:27, 1 May 2006)
“Wikistalker” (15:54, 19 May 2006)
“but since their listing as copyvios in the first place is the result of a malicious user doing it out of badness its sort of moot. Once the stalker is dealt with then I will reup the images with correct tags” (16:41, 25 May 2006)
“This user doesnt subject anyone else to the same scrutiny or same standards” (25 May 2006). This is twisted. I have raised the same issues with others – the crucial difference is that none have reacted so strangely as my accuser.
“As part of this behaviour he has introduced two deliberate errors into articles. One I challenged him on, generating work for myself in doing so, the other remains in the article.” Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Think_im_being_stalked. My comment: I have already dealt with this accusation, and proved it to be false.
“He had threatened me with "you'll have some editors down on your back once they pick up on it [the supposed copyright infringement](and they usually do without being told as they monitor what's uploaded" Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Think_im_being_stalked. My comment: editors were already doing this before I mentioned it. Pointing out the Wikipedia rules is not a threat.
“on at least two occasions he has edited two seperate articles just to bait me” Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Think_im_being_stalked.

Fluffy has continued to spread allegations and insinuations against me on Wikipedia. His language contravenes the rule that users remain civil to one another. His most recent accusation is a very serious one and one which I reject out of hand: On the Talk:Francis_Stuart on he wrote: “What im trying to do on wikipedia is correct a lot of the myths around Irish, ww2, nazi etc. Some people have some issues with this and I have already met with hostility from at least 1 vociferous IRA supporter on this.” (29 May 2006)

The issue of photographs

Very early on I noticed that Fluffy was busy uploading some very interesting photographs to Wikipedia, which he claimed he held copyright to. As I’ve done with other users, I queried whether this was actually the case and pointed out that he would have trouble in the future with other Wikipedians if he could not provide the a) source of the material he was uploading, and b) accurate information on the copyright status. I also pointed out to him numerous times that there are conventions for naming uploading media and the use of capital letters throughout was not allowed and that furthermore, file names were to be in understandable English. (See User_talk:Fluffy999#Naming_of_uploaded_photo_files) Fluffy choose to ignore these suggestions, and having this pointed out to him by other Wikipedia administrators and uses, has since decided to delete all the media he uploaded.

May I also point out that Fluffy does not seem other Wikipedians have the right to point out the dangers of uploading copyrighted material, and referred to the advice given to him one administrator as “a bunch of bull over a SELF MADE image”. [08:24, 25 May 2006]

Source of Fluffy’s anger

Much of Fluffy’s anger seems to stem from his impression “I think Damac took a disliking to me when I correct some of his contributions.” (1 May 2006) Or “I'm a new user but have made a lot of edits, seemingly on this persons "territory". This appears to be where the problem originated.” (25 May 2006) or “He just cannot handle that I know more about the events than he does- to him he owns the articles”. User_talk:SockPuppetFluffy999 This is at the basis of everything. Let me state that I don’t consider any article to be my property (Fluffy claim). I do, like other users, have an interested in particular articles and these are on my watch lists. I started some of the articles that Fluffy999 has contributed to. Of course I have an interest in them; I make no apology for this. I do not "own them" - this is Fluffy999's subjective opinion, not objective reality. That accusation could be levelled at anyone taking an active interest in the articles on their watch list!

Fluffy continues to present himself as a victim in all of this. He has awarded himself a Barnstar for “successfully surviving a WikiStalker”. This is a deliberate provocation.

Support from other users

A number of credible Wikipedians back my integrity. A alerted them to the behaviour of Fluffy999 and all disagreed with him that I was stalking him. Here are some examples:

User:Jtdirl: “I don't think Damac is a Wikistalker”, “Damac is a good guy. He had I have had heated arguments in the past but I don't think he is the sort of guy to stalk anyone.” “The fact that he is offering you [Fluffy999] indicative, in my opinion, of the fact that he sees you as a capable contributor who through inexperience here is making mistakes of the sort that many newbies make.” (03:58, 20 May 2006) “I've asked Damac to give you some space. Please don't presume that he was trying to stalk you or anything. He doesn't do that.” (22 May 2006)
User:Palmiro: “… do try and take it easy with Damac … Damac is not maliciously motivated, though he may have got a bit angry from time to time. He is one of the best contributors on modern Irish history, though, and I have always found him pleasant and honourable. (07:52, 21 May 2006)
User:Jdorney: “I have my problems with certain users who deliberately distort or even make up info to suit their own pov, but Damac is not one of them. What he said about phots -asking if they were copyright, is perfectly legitimate and was on no way an attack on you. I really can't see why this is such a major problem.” (20:12, 1 May 2006)

The solution

I do not believe that Fluffy999 has the right to insult me on Wikipedia. I demand that he refrain from labelling me as a Wikistalker. He has accused, tried and found me guilty of an offence and, as such, as sought to discredit me on Wikipedia. I expect that he'll be challenged over his abusive language, misrepresentation, and outlandish statements and claims. This whole experience has been very troubling and upseting for me. I treated Fluffy999 the same way as anybody else on Wikipedia. I gave him encouragement when I deemed it was deserved, and pointed out some issues when they were glaringly obvious. I has always maintained a civil tone with him and I'd ask people to be wary of his claims that I threatened him in any way (pointing out Wikipedia rules is not a threat). His insults are in black and white above - he cannot deny that he heaped insults on me over an incident that only happened in his own head. I am the one who has been wronged and villified here.

I reject downright his allegations of stalking. I stand by my record 100 percent and would argue that if anyone has been wronged, it has been me. I have been called a liar, a stalker, an idiot, a manipulator of Wikipedia edit summaries, and most seriously, he has implied that I am a fanatical IRA supporter. Nothing could be further from the truth! Unless he apologies for these outrageous and libellous outbursts (the latter being the most serious), I will proceed against him through the relevant Wikipedia channels. --Damac 14:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution

The "solution" was outlined by Jtdirl to you already Damac- give me a "wide berth". You wilfully and purposefully ignored his advice.

Your allegations (and insults) towards me I will let slide (again). Afterall, it is your actions in chasing me around the wiki that are in question, not mine. Your edits to articles in an effort to provoke and disrupt the project are in question. Not mine. Your edits and harassment of me are in question, not mine of you. Its fairly ridiculous to now make counter claim against me after I have made repeated attempts to get assistance in dealing with you but do as you see fit.

Your motive seems to be betrayed by your lack of response to my explanation of the S-Plan change- a lengthy explanation for which you had no comment. Strange given it was "your article". Instead I have found that, by way of "revenge" for me displaying knowledge on "your article", you began a campaign of stalking and harassment. A campaign which has the object of making my entire experience on wikipedia unbearable. Its reasonable for me to guess at at your motivation since despite what you claim no one else can expect the same level of scrutiny, officiousness, allegations of plagarism, copyright violations etc etc. as I do. Lets remember that you framed your "welcome" in those terms.

My comments in dealing with you, betray only a frustration and total disbelief that this can be allowed- harassment and abuse of a serious contributor (who actually KNOWS the subject matter they contribute on) that has continued unrestrained over a 2 month period. It seems this is all I can expect. Fluffy999 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign in some detail

I'm sorry I should have introduced myself as the victim of Damac's hate campaign and stalking. Some examples from April:

My (Damac's) response: I will reply to each of these allegations.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to the S-Plan article renaming it from "Sabotage Campaign (IRA)" took place on 27 April. It took place after I had left word on the talk page for the article. Damac made no response, nor registered any thoughts there prior to my edit, the article was incomplete and lacking information [2]. He didnt even register his thought (that it should not be renamed) on the talk page after the edit. Directly after this, after I had written a long justification for the renaming he was unable to respond to my argument. This all started over that single act of beating him in an argument. It goes without saying that I would happily rename the article back to whatever Damac thinks Republican Sinn Fein say it should be if only he would leave me alone.

My response: Fluffy proposed the rename at 17:16 on 27 April 2006 and renamed it at 23:06 on 27 April 2006. This did not leave any time for discussion, nor did he go through the appropriate channels to rename an article in that way. My point was that the campaign is commonly referred to the Sabotage Campaign by the IRA (which he did not seem aware of). The fact that I quoted a leading republican's view on the matter in no way suggests that I am a supporter of that individual and his party - which I am not. I did initially doubt Fluffy999's claimed expertise in the area after I saw that he was unaware of the existence of the Northern Campaign, believed the Free State existed in the 1940s, and that the British Empire did not exist in 1917.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

29 April

"Our of interest, are you the copyright holder to the Russell and O'Donovan photographs? I fear that unless you can prove this, Wikipedia will delete the images. They're very strict about that." --Damac 07:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC) User talk:Fluffy999#Photos

My response: No apologies for this. This is the case; I was warning you about it as I you were ultimately wasting your valuable time uploading copyrighted images to Wikipedia. Many others raised the same point withy you. If there was another way of informing you of this, tell me!--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He proceeded to make a change to the S-Plan article stripping the context from the piece by re-interpreting the words of American Senators. He did this by changing the label they used- "King of England" to "British King". No explanation was made for this change. This puzzled me so I changed the article to QUOTE the author Enno Stephan verbatim- leaving no doubt as to what was said. He then removed the quote entirely, wasting all my effort and left behind a puzzling explanation:

"No need to quote E Stephan verbatim in order to justify a moot point. GVI may not have been "British king" but neither was he simply "King of England". King should suffice.)" [3]

My response: So you accept that I did not change "King of England" to "King of Britain". This is crucial, as you spent days lambasting me for doing the latter. This was a minor edit, and as such, did not require a detailed explanation. "King of England" was wrong and I corrected it. You believed at the time that I changed it to "King of Britain", and on the basis of that misconception harranged and insulted me for days afterwards. --Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 April unable to contest the facts, (facts he has never even considered placing on wikipedia), he launched into accusations of "plagarism":

"..this only serves to confirm that you have plagiarised Enno Stephan. I now suspect that this applies to most of what you have posted to Wikipedia." User talk:Fluffy999#Photos

Entirely unaware of Enno Stephan or his book until this point he continued:

"..In doing so, you are infringing on copyright law and endangering Wikipedia as a consequence. This also applies to the issue of photographs."User talk:Fluffy999#Photos

My response: I am aware of Enno Stephan's book, have consulted it on ocassion and know people who have met and interviewed the man.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and on...

"While you have added some great material to a number of articles (which may be plagiarised).."User talk:Fluffy999#Photos

and on...

"..and are sloppy when it comes to punctuation."User talk:Fluffy999#Photos

My response: And I stand by the last comment.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 May When challenged over this attitude he acted innocent:

"I have always acted in good faith and you should assume that anything I have written above has in good faith.." (compare to comments immediately above)

then attempted to browbeat me with his professed qualifications, (despite being entirely ignorant of my own which I would never attempt to flaunt):

"I hold a PhD in history and have my areas of expertise"

My response: I reluctantly informed you of my qualifications after you questioned my intellectual ability.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation at the time of what Damac was doing- ignored then, but evidenced in edit after edit since then was:

"Editing through rearrangment or stripping of context from articles in a childish attempt to "trump" serious contributors familiar with the period..."

threats which reappear here on this page are then made:

"I'm reporting you for abuse of Wikipedia and harassment.--Damac 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)" User talk:Fluffy999#reconstruction of events

My response: You insulted me. You called me names. You challenged my ability to contribute to Wikipedia. You called me a liar. You claimed I manipulated edit summary pages. You claimed I had made anonymous contributions. All of this was untrue and I felt I was being harassed.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point Damac has involved users Jdorney & Jtdirl. Jtdirl blocks me, (in retrospect rightly as I was reacting quite angrily to how Damac was focusing on me). Although once the 24hr block passed I did return to edit on wikipedia, mostly because I am able to author more articles on subjects never touched on wikipedia until this time- on subjects Damac claims to have an interest. Then nine days later Damac returns for more...

My response: "mostly because I am able to author more articles on subjects never touched on wikipedia until this time" - We have all contibuted to articles never "touched on Wikipedia". Surely you can come up with something better than this national school yard argument!--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10th May Damac finds a problem with the name of Mr.Hermann Görtz in an article I created. He renames all instances of his name to the mispelling in English: "Goertz" [4]. His stated explanation for the change? "(Goertz is more commonly spelled that way in English, not Görtz.." On being alerted to why this is incorrect User_talk:Damac#Goertz_not_G.C3.B6rtz, he renames the article [5], but leaves errors he introduced into article Operation Seagull (Ireland) in place. I simply fix the errors. NOTE: Mr.Hermann Görtz's name, or the mispelling of it had not been considered by Damac in all the time of his membership- until I created the article.

My response: The reason I changed Görtz to Goertz intially was to alert you to the fact that an article on him existed. I speak fluent German, have contributed to German Wikipedia, and am fully aware of how the individual spelled his name. Goertz is not wrong per se however; an umlauted vowel can always be substituted by the same vowel + e. That's elementary.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18th May This renaming of names was to reappear in the article Northern Campaign (IRA) another article Damac claims to have an interest in yet has done no work on. Unware it was "his" article I created it from scratch. He was clearly upset and returned to "correct" some of the names listed in it. Changes which he has not cited, and with real errors remaining in the article I let it slide [6]. It is an article I am now too fearful of editing because it "belongs to" Damac, (another article I have authored to a complete Chronology but yet to publish on wikipedia is Border Campaign (IRA). Damac also believes he "owns" this article which is why I will not publish to it despite the neglected condition it is in.)

My response: Having an interest in an area does not mean I am obliged to post on it. I make no apologies for correcting particular names in the article. They were wrong; there's no two ways about it. I don't think the article "belongs" to me, that is your perception; not fact.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19th May - Damac identifies problems with images I have uploaded. At the same time, he contests details I inserted to the PIRA article. I let those slide until I can gather the proof which Damac demands. Although he does try to start a comment war, I fail to take his bait Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#The Bon Jovies??.

My response: Others challenged you on this also. The Provos were never called the Bon Jovies in any systematic manner. I do not apologise for raising this with you; you have provided no evidence that this usage had any broad currency.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By this time Damac realises what he is doing, (at least on a subconcious level), when on the same day he raises problems over issues like filenames, capitalisation of file names and again, copyright tags:

"please don't see this as harassment but..." User talk:Fluffy999#Naming of uploaded photo files

He claims the titles I have given images uploaded are "are not really suitable" yet does not elaborate on what exactly I can do to remedy this, or just why it is that he has never challenged anyone else about this.

My response: I did provide a remedy. I pointed you in the direction on guidelines for naming media files (which you requested) and everything was there in black and white for you. I have never had reason to challenge anybody about it because I've never encountered anything like it in my time on Wikipedia. For your interest, though, I have repeatedly challenged Greek nationalists over their renaming of particular articles and categories and have successfully proposed renamings. You'll find all the evidence in my "user contributions" page.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then proceeds to threaten me again:

"This is your second warning about this issue. I think you should heed it or else you'll have some editors down on your back once they pick up on it (and they usually do without being told as they monitor what's uploaded)."

My response: Others had warned you to. You were wasting your time uploading such images. You've since recognised this, albeit you claim you deleted them because of me. --Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then:

"I don't have a habit of checking out your contribs page..." (although if you compare to some of his edit history of articles I created from scratch
Example 1[7]

My response: Removed Irish Free State (no longer existed then), British Navy to Royal Navy (correct title and wiki link), removed racial categorisation ("plus a dark skinned"), etc.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2[8]

My response: Corrected people's names. Be bold!--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example 3[9]

My response: I corrected spelling mistakes in German; corrected names; wikied. Be bold!--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example 4[10])

My response: I added useful information to the article. Be bold!--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 May Entirely cowed by Damac's campaign at this point I explain to Jtdirl what I hope to receive from wikipedia:

"Hello, I really just want a quiet life Jtdirl. Just to do the articles and get the facts out there. Thats all i've been doing so im confused why im receiving this attention. Maybe if I was making a mess, causing trouble, or being a vandal I would expect it but im not, im just making some articles to the best ability and thats it. Fluffy999 06:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)"

Jtdirl then advises me that "I've asked Damac to give you some space"

My response: I did. I kept away from your talk page. However, I do not believe that Jtdirl advice was a green light fot you to upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia. As you were not prepared to accept my and others concerns about this, I went to the proper place to report it.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25 May Damac completely ignores Jtdirls advice and continues with his campaign, reporting copyright violations of images I incorrectly tagged and upload on 25 May 2006. I remove the images in protest as I fully expect Damac to carry on wilfully focusing his attention on every single image file.

My response: here are no tags for the images you uploaded as they are copyright. Most came from the BBC website and were not images captured from TV. Blaming me is an excuse for you having ignored the concerns raised by a number of contributors - it is simply inexcusable to upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia. It's not allowed, end of story.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From that point I attempt to get an advocate, I even create a sock puppet (SockPuppetFluffy999) to do this. Damac follows me again happily noting down every message by my original user ID and the sock puppet then regurgitates them here. This is from the person who doesnt stalk or follow me around the wiki.

My response: I discovered this after Mahoga ny asked me to respond to your allegations. I went to his talk page, and saw your message (and the silly heading). I can't pretend I didn't see it. It's that simple.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My specific interest is in completing some articles for wikipedia then probably leaving the project due to this harassment. I am a capable editor with no need to

threaten,
bully,
browbeat,
dominate, or
mark my territory on wikipedia.

Check my articles, they are well documented (exhaustively so), well researched, on areas entirely uncovered so far in wikipedia. This is why I have fallen foul of Damac- this is his turf, although his knowledge has been demonstrated to be lacking. That is not a personal judgement or slight, it is citable fact. His attitude is one of hostility because of this, marked by his campaign against me, and no doubt, against the next person to prove him wrong or stand up to his bullying. Fluffy999 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response: I have never had a similar experience with any other contributor on Wikipedia. That record stands for itself. Ironically, it seems to me that the characteristics you have lumped on me are actually a reflection of your own thoughts.

You react aggressively to any edits to you contributors. WP:BB - WP:AGF Users are entitled to edit "boldly and mercilessly" and users are not to "take it personally".
It is you who believes particular articles are your personal property. You make constant reference to articles that you have started, you talk of "completing articles" for Wikipedia (as an historian, I would argue no article can ever be complete). If I thought particular articles were my property, I would have deleted everything you put up on them. I didn't. My "crime" in your book is having the tenacity to correct errors. We all make mistakes and I was correcting yours. WP:BB - WP:AGF
Regarding your arrogant claims "his knowledge has been demonstrated to be lacking". For the last time, please provide "citable fact[s]" that back this ridiculous and childish claim or forever hold your peace. You are engaging in a silly game, Fluffy. A typo here and there is natural - I could provide dozens of such "errors" on your part but I would never use these to claim that this is evidence of a lack of knowledge.

Argue facts, not personalities.--Damac 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my powder dry until arbitration- Damac. Thats where it belongs, then you can throw around all the insults and accusation you like. Thanks.

Also, please revert your above changes to my post. Its your page and you can create your own to rebut the points I have made. If a separation isnt maintained then it becomes difficult to see who said what. Although it would be unkind of me to suggest that was your intention. Fluffy999 10:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points though- your "error" correcting, typos and such- I have no problem with. Nor do I have a problem with anyone else doing it in articles I created.

The errors you introduced were to two articles. I do have problem with inserting errors into articles Damac. They weren't typos, they were deliberate attempts to provoke. You have failed to address them both. The articles in question? here & here. Your changes to both articles highlights both your false sense of superiority, and lack of knowledge of the period.

How do those examples "highlights both your false sense of superiority, and lack of knowledge of the period"? Where did I insert errors? Where I corrected your Unternehman (not a German word) to the correct Unternehmen? Because I corrected Brandeburgers to Brandenburgers? Because I extended WW1 to First World War, IRA to Irish Republican Army (1922–1969)|IRA, and The mission brief provided by Abwehr II staff to the agents of, "establish contact with the IRA," to The mission brief provided by Abwehr II staff to the agents, namely to "establish contact with the IRA,"? I also pointed out that Barney Casey was not "executed" in the Curragh, as you claimed.--Damac 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is FLuffy999's evidence that I willfully "introduce errors" into his articles. His evidence is pathetetic!

Changing the name to Goertz wasnt done for my benefit Damac, you did it to annoy and harass. Since I wrote the article and am perfectly aware of the literature, unlike yourself, I realised that the English mispelling is also used. See above for the Görtz puzzler- so far the reason for the change remains unaddressed.

It's your perception that I did it to "annoy and harass". Numerous times you provided a link to the then non-existent article Hermann Görtz. I provided the link to Hermann Goertz, which has been there for ages (and no, I didn't start it). If you want to use this to substantiate your illusions of victimhood, by all means. I stand by what I said 100 percent.

You obviously dont' speak German if you think that Goertz is a "misspelling". It isn't. You will find plenty of archival and documentary primary evidence where Goertz is used. I speak German fluenty: Jörg/Joerg, Göring/Goering, Äther-Aether, etc. are the same words.--Damac 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heres another example off the top of my head. When performing your corrections to the names I put in the Northern Campaign article, you concentrated on the section about Hungerstrikers. Changed some names then chastized me in the comments again. However the name you "corrected" is for a nonexistant person Damac. There is no such person as "Sean MacNeela" or even "Sean McNeela" (at least in that context)? I wouldve corrected the mans name however the article belongs to you (at least in your head)!! No doubt if I did go now and correct his name you would rearrange or change it to something else of your invention. Can you explain where you got the name from? In my case it was a typo, whats your excuse for claiming to "correct" the mans name to "McNeela" even though the man doesnt exist? You did know that right? Fluffy999 10:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However the name you "corrected" is for a nonexistant person Damac. I'm flabbergasted at this. He did exist and he died on hungerstrike. You included his name in the article. You put his name down as Séan MacNeela. This is incorrect. Séan means old in Irish. Seán is a first name. Seán McNeela is how that person was known as, see An Phoblacht, Saoirse, and Dáil Éireann. Just what is your point here?

Please get it into your head that it is you who believes I own the article; it is not fact.--Damac 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my talk page, and I decide how it appears. There is not one insult in my reponse - if you see one, please identify it. Neither do I make any accusations - I've simply responded to your misrepresentations. I decided to respond to all your allegations/points individually in order to show how baseless your claims are. I've made it somewhat clearer. I'm really looking forward to arbitration.--Damac 11:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are "Flabbergasted" because your "research" depends entirely on dodgy Republican Sinn Fein links, the mythologising of former IRA Chief's of Staff, and incorrect debates Damac. The mans name was Jack. Check Bowyer Bell & MacEoin (his history of the hunger strikes in the 1940s is another book you are unaware of), or indeed any other history of the IRA you care to choose. I wont rub your nose in it but for someone continually bragging about his status is frankly embarrassing to "fix" Jack McNeela's name to "Sean McNeela". Objective of the "fix" since it has no grounding in the facts? annoy and harass.

You introduced the errors to the Seagull article to agitate and annoy. I'm unconvinced by the bluff about "more commonly used in English"- who cares? You introduced the errors for the same reason you left them in there- despite me asking you to fix them. By the way, when did you take care of it Damac? Yes, after I pointed it out to you, just after you focused on the article I had written. Not once before in the entire year long membership. It only became important once I mentioned it- my point entirely.

I have no ownership of the articles. If I wanted ownership I wouldnt put them on wikipedia- they're for the benefit of the many, those without access to the books, or the inclination to read them- like yourself. The points about you inserting errors into articles remain standing unchallenged.

By the way- when it gets to arbitration it wont even matter. While youre busy with your baiting and harassment campaign in here, im writing articles for people. Well researched, factually accurate articles I mean- not Republican Sinn Fein press releases Damac. Hopefully they will all be done by midweek :) Anyway, like I said- I wont rub your nose in it. Fluffy999 12:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're clutching at straws now. Jack is synonymous with the Irish name Seán. They are the same name. Most historical accounts refer to Éamon de Valera (Irish) as Eamonn de Valera (English), but on Wikipedia we use the version he used himself. I'm not a member or supporter of Republican Sinn Féin or Sinn Féin; I included references to their publications to show that the people who are still talking about McNeela call him Seán McNeela and not Jack McNeela. I'm aware of plenty of studies on the IRA which refer to him as Seán McNeela. And, if he was known by Jack McNeela, why did you concoct the version Séan MacNeela - a version used by nobody - in the first place? I can understand typing Mac for Mc, but if all your sources say Jack, how did you come up with Séan (the Irish for old)? Is you text recognition software not working?

In some of his editions, Boywer Bell refers to one individual as Rory Brady but this does not mean that we have to use that version on Wikipedia.

Yes, I'm aware of most of the works of Uinseann Mac Eoin (note correct spelling), read most of them in the early 1990s, and met the man on one ocassion.

Fluffy999, I hope you realise that you are digging yourself deeper and deeper with every response. You continue to heap abuse on me and make unfounded allegations. New ones you've come up with are that I'm engaged in "mythologising of former IRA Chief's of Staff" and that and that my research "depends entirely on dodgy Republican Sinn Fein links". This is abuse and uncivil behaviour and it will be taken very, very seriously at arbitration.--Damac 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole is what you get via Republican Sinn Fein Damac. Only die hard IRA supporters cant disseminate it from actual events and facts. Here is a result for your campaign of hatred however; as a direct result of your constant harassment, baiting, unwarranted attention on my every move over the last month, complaints, insults, threats, lies, distortions of historical fact etc etc. I will leave the project.

Luckily,(for wikipedians), I got a lot done in your "territory"- nearly populating an entire suite of articles you lack the knowledge to even start. Luckily, (for wikipedians), its all cited, so no clown claiming the title "historian" is going to come along to insert dodgy links to even dodgier articles passing them off as fact. I'm really proud of what Ive done on wikipedia, and im proud that you will learn from my work Damac :) And you do have a lot to learn, make no mistake about that. Its just a shame that wikipedia allows your bullying and harassment to take place, I know you wouldnt get away with it in real life, at least not in civilised company. Supposed you will just become someone elses problem now *shrug* Fluffy999 12:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uinseann Mac Eoin was a supporter of Republican Sinn Féin. Bowyer Bell was a personal friend of leading people in Republican Sinn Féin; they provided him with most of the information contained in his books. The University of Limerick history professor Ruan O'Donnell recently launced an biography of Ruairí Ó Brádaigh. The "50 years ago" column in Saoirse is almost entirely based on the same sources you use. It is the only section I read in an otherwise ghastly publication. I've no ideological problem where certain material comes from as long as it's reliable.

I've nothing to learn from "your work", which IMHO was simply extracted from the work of other people. Reading the original is all the more enjoyable and worthwhile.

You have contributed to Wikipedia; you've done a great deal. But all this trouble has been your own making and I hope that as you mature, you'll learn how to engage with your fellow humans without resorting to the language of the gutter. --Damac 12:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will get no more of my attention. All I have wanted is for you to focus on someone or something else. You are insistant in your campaign to harass and annoy I will leave you to it. Thank you and Good Riddance. Fluffy999 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my talk page - if you can't stick the heat, go elsewhere. I'll continue with the arbitration, however. --Damac 12:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damac a heads up, dont vandalise my talk page. You can rearrange whatever you choose on here (correct your typos etc) but not on my page. First warning. Thanks. Fluffy999 14:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typos? Cheap coming from you! Another example of your sheer arrogance.--Damac 14:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way where I just could get you to say you wouldn't leave Fluffy any messages ect. I understand that yes sometimes it is unavoidable but this controversy must stop before it escalates to a level where you two could both be banned from Wikipedia. Right now it's just very snide comments it will soon go to threats I can just tell I really need your cooperation, Cheers Mahoga ny

This is my talk page. You asked me for my views on his allegations. He has come here again and again to repeat what I see as unfounded allegations. I have attempted to show these up for what they are each and every time, as is my right on my user page. Fluffy decided to come here today with his allegations - I didn't invite him to.

I want arbitration. I want my accuser to stop insulting me. I want by accuser to stop questioning my integrity.

I have no desire to communicate with Fluffy, but if he comes on here with any more of his abuse, I'll have to deal with it here. I have a right to defend myself.--Damac 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing. Fluffy has copied this whole discussion and pasted it on his userpage. I don't believe that duplicating the discussion is helpful. The discussion was held here and I believe it should stay here. I would appreciate it if you could raise it with him.--Damac 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have what you wanted Damac- I will no longer post articles to wikipedia. I'm with Xchrisblackx, you can call it off, both here and elsewhere. Please dont vandalise or edit "my" talkpage again. Thanks. Yes its been reposted on the other Talk so I have an unedited record, as this discussion has gone on Damac has revised some of the spelling mistakes etc in his original posts which I quoted. I want a permanent record to exist. Fluffy999 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy's claim "as this discussion has gone on Damac has revised some of the spelling mistakes etc in his original posts which I quoted" is another in a long line of false accusations and subterfuge directed against me. I did not edit any mistakes since Fluffy copied and pasted the discussion from here to his talk page. This is more of his bait; I won't fall for it. --Damac 16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's over and I'd just like you'll to know your both in the wrong the way your acting. I feel that you Damac shouldn't have shown so much attention whenever Fluffy complained (and I know Fluffy will be mad but,) I feel Fluffy could use a little more maturity in this matter. Mahoga ny

I agree totally with you Damac on the matter of it being your talk page but unless any more trouble comes from this matter I will say this, Fluffy was a real good guy. As on archiving this discussion as long as it is alright with you Damac I will archive this as a case file. Mahoga ny

Your Removal of me from Irish wikipedians

Please dont do this. 2nd warning for vandalism. Fluffy999 11:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recording more of your ad hominem ad infinitum attacks here. With every post, you heap more evidence against you.

You don't own the page in question; the list is for "active" Irish Wikipedians; you have announced your departure from Wikipedia. How weeding out departed contibutors from a list of "active" Irish Wikipedians can be construed as vandalism is beyond me. As you said yourself: "Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you/Hello, sorry but I am no longer editing on wikipedia." That doesn't sound like something an active Wikipedian would say, does it? --Damac 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a 2nd strike for vandalism because you did it without my permission, you did it as an act of presumption and provocation, and you did it without thought to the many types of activities that wikipedia allows. Read my comments on my intentions above. The page states "Feel free to add or remove yourself from this list" not "Feel free to remove people you think deserve to be removed". I readded this ID to correct your vandalism. Thanks for refraining from more of the same. By the way, my remarks here are only an explanation as to why further activities of this kind will be reported, just incase it was still unclear what the problem is. Fluffy999 15:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realize this there is no "warning" for vandalism b/c he was only trying to help but please don't remove any names it just seems to be causing problems Damac, Thanks --Mahoga ny 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole nine yards....

I have recorded all disputes, discussion ect. between you and Fluffy User:Xchrisblackx/My views for historic interest, just thought you'd like to know --Mahoga ny 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'éirigh an coinín

Hmmm, I wonder who User:63.208.150.85 is? Perhaps he's related to User:JamesFintanLalor and his associated sockpuppets and other persons whose names don't deserve to be mentioned here. From Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing to this? My, my. --Damac 22:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Fluffy999? --Mahoga n y 12:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a bit unclear who I'm actually talking about, but once I figure it out I'll let you know.--Damac 12:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing Fluffy is getting a little edgy about your heading will you please change it? --Mahoga n y 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to oblige. Hope me changing it won't have him firing out accusations that I backedit discussion pages. And when you're at it tell him (aka User:82.29.228.232) that I wasn't impressed that he referred to me as an IRA/Republican Sinn Féin supporter or insulted me in left, right and centre. People in glasshouses should really learn not to throw stones!--Damac 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll relay the message to him that and also this is the last day I can delay my wikiholiday so this has to come to a conclusion soon. --Mahoga n y 12:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree with you that is weird look at Fluffy's edits for today and see that he's editing some of those same pages --Mahoga n y 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can take off the Fluffy junk if it's taking up too much space I've atchived all discussions ect. --Mahoga n y 13:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll leave it there for the time being. Judging by past experience, I'd be accused of some kind of wrongdoing by my detractor if I did delete it.--Damac 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Ignore Fluffy....

It would be appreciated from this moment forward that you no longer contact Fluffy in any way. I think this would go for the best I'll also speak with Fluffy too, but I feel that if I could just get you to do this all problems would pretty well be solved. --Mahoga n y 13:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, no problem. I will not "contact Fluffy in any way". That does not mean I will allow serious allegations made against me here or elsewhere go unanswered. For every attack or allegation made against me, I will respond. Neither will I will remove certain articles from my watchlist. Nor will I stop checking out who is behind anonymous editing. --Damac 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable and fair --Mahoga n y 13:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, Mahogony. I’ll be more than willing to confine this whole affair to my talk page archive and in my own mind if my accuser apologises to me for

having insulted me and challenged/derided my academic and intellectual ability (idiot, blunderer, etc.);
alleging that I am an IRA/RSF supporter;
alleging and maintaining that I manipulated edit summaries and "deliberately" placed errors in articles.

This is not a tall order. This will not result in any gloating on my part. He doesn't have to apologise openly either - it can be done through an intermediary.

If such an apology is not forthcoming, my undertaking not to contact my accuser stands nevertheless.--Damac 13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get him to apologize but I'm not Fluffy and I have no idea what he'll say --Mahoga n y 14:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damac, Fluffy has replied like this:

Sure no problem on condition I receive an apology for;

the harassment and stalking campaign (ongoing),
all the idle threats, insults, half baked historical "fact" from Republican Sinn Fein websites thrust in my face as "proof", etc.
vandalism of my talk page and articles Ive authored,
neverending insult to the intelligence and knowledge as author of the articles in question (those that can do),

PLUS

~~an end to his obsession with me & a promise not bother any other serious contributors like me with nonsense like this again.~~

Lets be clear on what is happening here. By the way, im happy to have the entire thing recorded here on this talk page- its important people are aware of why im no longer creating new articles. Fluffy999 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC) --Mahoga n y 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mahogany, you've done your best in very difficult circumstances. Advocacy can only work when the client has the capacity to take a step back and consider how they landed in the position they're in. I've never encountered anything like it in the past on Wikipedia. A word of warning: please inform your client that if I see one more unfounded allegation made by him/her against me here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, I'm going to the next level of dispute resolution to have the matter dealt with once and for all. This is not a threat; it's a statement that I'll defend my rights. Enjoy your Wikibreak!--Damac 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support you going to the next level of dispute. This will remain unresolved otherwise, and that will be unfair on me. Thanks. Fluffy999 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Log of Fluffy's allegations against me

As I promised Mahogany, I will no longer engage with my accuser directly. His messages here do not merit a response from me. I did say to Mahogany that I would not stand idly by while Fluffy continues to peddle misinformation and unsubtstantiated allegations on Wikipedia against me. I have dealt with all of his allegations above, without resorting to uncivil language and in the most precise detail.

Fluffy has no interest in seeing this dispute resolved, as the following comments, which he has since posted, demonstrate (emphasis mine/mistakes his):

19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC): ... Largely my complaints against him - remain unadressed in any coherent manner. Hopefully someone more senior will be able to see back from this point, through all his most recent crap, to the problems I originaly raised concerning his behaviour. (User_talk:Fluffy999#Just_Ignore_Fluffy....)--Damac 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]