Totophi

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Nrswanson (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You and your socks have been blocked for one week for the socking and gross incivility. Edit constructively an and in an civil manner or you'll get indef blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

As per my comments in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi and User talk:KieferSkunk#In regards to Totophi, I am leaving you an official warning regarding the comments you left in Talk:C (musical note) toward User:Nrswanson. Many of your comments toward him stepped over the line with regard to Wikipedia's policies on civility, assuming good faith and not personally attacking other editors. Your comments basically made you look as though you were there to attack Nrswanson, and not so much to discuss the content.

Because this appears to me to be an aberration rather than a long-standing pattern of abuse on your part, I have declined Nrswanson's request that you be blocked from editing. However, I do want to advise you that further personal attacks against this editor or other editors will result in at least a temporary block, as these are disruptive to the project and only tend to lead to drawn-out arguments about who's right, rather than actually helping us to build an encyclopedia.

I am encouraged by your reply to me in the article talk page - while I feel you took the opportunity to snipe at Nrswanson in the process, you did also acknowledge the points that I made to both of you, and I appreciate that. I think that if you and he can work this out and agree to disagree on some points, but also agree to either work together constructively or leave each other alone, that will be all that needs to be said on the matter. Nrswanson has acknowledged that he was less than perfect in his responses as well, though I do believe he made a stronger effort to remain civil throughout the discussion.

Remember, attack the content, not the editor. If you believe there is a problem with the content, work on discussing the issues with that content and remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors. (Obviously, someone outright vandalizing the article is not acting in good faith, but otherwise, it is better to assume that they are than to say they are not.) Once you do that, you'll find these sorts of discussions will go much more smoothly. :)

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)